American Athletic Conference

[jdshock]

The interesting thing about the potential conference schedule is a double round-robin is 22 games, and a two division setup in its most obvious format is 16 games. Neither are really in the sweet spot for a conference schedule, so one would assume something creative might in the works.

@Kung Wu:, what are your thoughts on this relegation system? 16 games via the typical two division split (5 home and homes in your division for 10 total games, 6 home or away games against the opposite division). To get an extra two conference games, you play two extra games against the teams finishing in your "pod" in the opposite conference. If you finish first or second last year in your division, you play first and second of the opposite division. Three and four play three and four, and five and six play five and six.

[WuDrWu]

I realize I don't need to say this, but I am removing myself from this topic for reasons in no way related to this topic. I don't want anyone to read anything one way or the other into my lack of commenting.

I do look forward to the resolution of the conference moves for everyone involved, most importantly the student athletes, coaches and admins that have worked so hard to get this point. They all deserve it.

#GoShocks

[ShockerPrez]

Chances of Marshall scheduling a program that does pretty much everything the wrong way? Seems low. I doubt we see ISUr on the schedule any time soon.

Pulling fire alarms and showing up to walk-through is short-sighted behavior.

Agree. All the bullshit...

[1972Shocker]

@Kung Wu, what are your thoughts on this relegation system? 16 games via the typical two division split (5 home and homes in your division for 10 total games, 6 home or away games against the opposite division). To get an extra two conference games, you play two extra games against the teams finishing in your "pod" in the opposite conference. If you finish first or second last year in your division, you play first and second of the opposite division. Three and four play three and four, and five and six play five and six.

I realize you addressed this specifically to @Kung Wu: but I will throw my 2 cents in. I'm not wild about systems that use prior year performances to determine current year scheduling. Seems to me that can pretty hit or miss on whether you will get the desired results.

[ShockingButTrue]

Chances of Marshall scheduling a program that does pretty much everything the wrong way? Seems low. I doubt we see ISUr on the schedule any time soon.

Pulling fire alarms and showing up to walk-through is short-sighted behavior.

Burned some bridges didn't they?

#ChokingChickens

[ShoxRoxMySox]

http://www.cincinnativseveryone.com/wichita-state-aac/

Anybody else seeing this confirmed?

[Kung Wu]

@Kung Wu, what are your thoughts on this relegation system? 16 games via the typical two division split (5 home and homes in your division for 10 total games, 6 home or away games against the opposite division). To get an extra two conference games, you play two extra games against the teams finishing in your "pod" in the opposite conference. If you finish first or second last year in your division, you play first and second of the opposite division. Three and four play three and four, and five and six play five and six.

Absolutely. You might get creative and tweak the pod like this:

1 plays 7 at home.
2 plays 8 at home.
3 plays 9 at home.
4 plays 10 away.
5 plays 11 away.
6 plays 12 away.

This gives you more incentive to crack the top 3 of the division 1 pod, to get that extra home game, and gives the very bottom of division 2 a fighting chance for some upset victories to put pressure on the top division 2 teams trying to get promoted. I haven't thought this through very well, but seems like it might be a creative way to add a little drama.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I realize you addressed this specifically to @Kung Wu but I will throw my 2 cents in. I'm not wild about systems that use prior year performances to determine current year scheduling. Seems to me that can pretty hit or miss on whether you will get the desired results.

Absolutely. The frequent roster turnover in college sports makes relegation based on prior year performance a crap shoot.

Instead, perhaps open dates can be added to each team's schedule at the end of the season, with match ups being decided immediately after noncon and based on noncon results (RPI, SOS, something like that).

[1972Shocker]

http://www.cincinnativseveryone.com/wichita-state-aac/

Anybody else seeing this confirmed?

See what confirmed? That the AAC is a dysfunctional conference, at least in this blogger's opinion.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

http://www.cincinnativseveryone.com/wichita-state-aac/

Anybody else seeing this confirmed?

That's just some guy's sports blog. Official confirmation will come directly from the AAC.

[Kung Wu]

I realize you addressed this specifically to @Kung Wu but I will throw my 2 cents in. I'm not wild about systems that use prior year performances to determine current year scheduling. Seems to me that can pretty hit or miss on whether you will get the desired results.

It's true that losing a group of 4 or 5 seniors can lead to a team that's out of place, but it truly incentivizes and rewards a program that reloads more than rebuilds (and punishes a those that completely fail to rebuild year-after-year).

I think a single team mismatched here or there each season is well worth the upside -- 4 or 5 super solid teams getting excellent NCAA tourney seeds each year.

Actually, I truly believe the MVC might have been saved, had it gone to this system.

[SHOCKvalue]

http://www.cincinnativseveryone.com/wichita-state-aac/

Anybody else seeing this confirmed?

The article is predicated on the KAKE report from last night. Nothing to see here.

[ShoxRoxMySox]

Gotcha, thanks, I'm behind on the news and getting caught up.

[Kung Wu]

Absolutely. The frequent roster turnover in college sports makes relegation based on prior year performance a crap shoot.

Instead, perhaps open dates can be added to each team's schedule at the end of the season, with match ups being decided immediately after noncon and based on noncon results (RPI, SOS, something like that).

I'd like to see someone run the RPI results on an annual basis for the AAC and MVC for, say, the past 10 years. It's certainly not perfect, but it only breaks every once in a while, and when it's broken it's not tragic because it is self correcting.

The absolute most important point is this: _It's entirely objective_. There is no vote or jockeying for a decent schedule. If you want in division 1, you know exactly what you must do. If you want to stay in division 1, you know what you must do. If you are going to lose 4 seniors two years from now, you know what you must do NOW to stay in division 1.

[1972Shocker]

It's true that losing a group of 4 or 5 seniors can lead to a team with out of place, but it truly incentivizes and rewards a program that reloads more than rebuilds (or completely fails to rebuild year-after-year).

I think a single team mismatched here or there each season is well worth the upside -- 4 or 5 super solid teams getting excellent NCAA tourney seeds each year.

Actually, I truly believe the MVC might have been saved, had it gone to this system.

Look at what happened to the Shocks non-conference schedule this year. 3G thought he had put toghether a real gem. Then Long Beach State, Tulsa, LSU, St. Louis and Oklahoma had down years and Okie State poinded us then got off to a terrible start in Big 12 play.

If you must add a couple of games to a schedule do it based on forward looking perceptions of what the teams will be like. Use Kenpom or some other ranking metric. Or just play a full double round robin. So WSU plays 22 conference games instead of 18. I think we can drop teams like South Carolina State, Maryland Eastern Shore, South Dakota State and Long Beach State from our schedule and give up a couple of home games without too much damage.