Imagine a conference where...

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I've come across many, many posts recently claiming that the NCAA selection process is flawed simply because the Big East might receive 10 or 11 teams this year. Many of these comments have provided no other reasoning, as if 10 or 11 teams is inherently stupid in and of itself.

With that said, please follow me with a hypothetical situation. All I ask is that you stay on topic. I would like to see where we really agree / disagree.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Say that 11 of the top 50 teams in the country were placed into a 16 team conference. This is a magical world where we instinctually know exactly who is #1, #2, #3, etc. These 11 are all top 50, and there is no disputing that.

Now, assume that 4 of the other 5 teams in the conference are average, say 100-150 range, and the last place team is the only really bad team in the conference.

Would the following be very likely?

1st: 10-6
2nd: 10-6
3rd: 10-6
4th: 10-6
5th: 10-6
6th: 10-6
7th: 10-6
8th: 9-7
9th: 9-7
10th: 9-7
11th: 9-7
12th: 5-11
13th: 5-11
14th: 5-11
15th: 5-11
16th: 2-14

Obviously, the above records are about what would be expected, but experience tells us that things almost never work out to an exactly average result. It is very likely that someone is going to win more than 10 games. It is also very likely that 11th place won't actually win 9 games. What we could actually end up with could very easily look like this:

1st: 12-4
2nd: 12-4
3rd: 11-5
4th: 10-6
5th: 10-6
6th: 9-7
7th: 9-7
8th: 8-8
9th: 8-8
10th: 8-8
11th: 7-9
12th: 7-9
13th: 6-10
14th: 5-11
15th: 4-12
16th: 2-14

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OK, let's stop right there. Does anyone disagree with anything so far? I would hope not, but I want to establish common ground before moving on.

Thoughts?

[Ashockalypse]

10 or 11 teams is inherently stupid in and of itself!

[19SHOCKER76]

The world you are referring to is kept magical by lots and lots TV revenue.

[RoyalShock]

No disagreement here.

[Kung Wu]

Minor point but there should be one less game, if each team plays each other once -- 16 teams means there are 15 opponents.

[Kung Wu]

Also there would be zero wins for your cellar dweller, if the other teams are truly that dominant. Also there would necessarily be a bigger gap between 11th and 12th place.

[Cdizzle]

Minor point but there should be one less game, if each team plays each other once -- 16 teams means there are 15 opponents.

Bingo. The Big East gave up on being a "conference" when they went to 16 teams. The imbalance in the "conference" portion of the schedule is something that goes entirely under-scrutinized. Turns out, teams learn and adapt, and it's a lot harder to beat a team twice in the same season than once. Especially when one of those games is on their court.

[XManCometh]

I agree, but no matter how logical your statement is, people will try to rationalize it so it tips in their favor. No matter how ridiculous their excuse/reason is. It's basically human nature.

[ShockTalk]

JH4P - I think there's a lot more to your magical world than meets the eye. First, you assume that 11 of these teams are really top 50 teams. Are they? How many are really top 20 like they are touted? Were they really tested in the non-con?

Most, but not all or as bad, are like Syracuse. They stayed in their friendly confines or play 3 "neutral" games, one in NY, the other 2 in NJ. Their best non-con win was Mich St who may not even make the dance. All 3 of their BCS opponents have losing records in their conferences. Nevertheless, like many of their brethren with these untested non-con schedules, they come into conference play with these blown up records, high rankings, and high RPIs due to few, if any, losses. Now when they lose or play barely .500 ball they can point to the strength of the conference and teams like Syracuse are still in the top 20.

Don't get me wrong. The Big East IS a strong conference. However, we went through this exercise last year. They got a lot of teams in the dance and it blew up in their face. Had it not been for WVU, it would have been a total disaster.

Until the NCAA requires teams like these to have a minimum of true road games and have a combination of road/neutral games equivilant to 40% of your non-con, many of these teams get away with being untested in the non-con. Take a look at Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati, Marquette and other's non-con and tell me they were really tested.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Minor point but there should be one less game, if each team plays each other once -- 16 teams means there are 15 opponents.

Actually, there is already 1 "real world" example of a 16 team league playing a 16 game schedule. As strange as it is, the Big East currently operates this way.

Also there would be zero wins for your cellar dweller, if the other teams are truly that dominant. Also there would necessarily be a bigger gap between 11th and 12th place.

I don't think it is crazy to think a cellar dweller could pull out 2 home wins, especially when they had several mediocre teams in their conference. (teams 12-15)

As for the bigger gap between 11th and 12th, I disagree. Look at "real world" conference standings and you will see plenty of conferences where teams of very different abilities finish with the same record in conference. Especially in cases like this one where the schedule is unbalanced with each team playing most teams only once. Of the 11 good teams, it isn't crazy think 1 would go 7-9. Of the 4 mediocre teams, it wouldn't be crazy to think 1 would go 7-9 as well.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Minor point but there should be one less game, if each team plays each other once -- 16 teams means there are 15 opponents.

Bingo. The Big East gave up on being a "conference" when they went to 16 teams. The imbalance in the "conference" portion of the schedule is something that goes entirely under-scrutinized. Turns out, teams learn and adapt, and it's a lot harder to beat a team twice in the same season than once. Especially when one of those games is on their court.

Stick with the hypothetical for now please. Do you have any problems with it?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

JH4P - I think there's a lot more to your magical world than meets the eye. First, you assume that 11 of these teams are really top 50 teams. Are they? How many are really top 20 like they are touted? Were they really tested in the non-con?

Most, but not all or as bad, are like Syracuse. They stayed in their friendly confines or play 3 "neutral" games, one in NY, the other 2 in NJ. Their best non-con win was Mich St who may not even make the dance. All 3 of their BCS opponents have losing records in their conferences. Nevertheless, like many of their brethren with these untested non-con schedules, they come into conference play with these blown up records, high rankings, and high RPIs due to few, if any, losses. Now when they lose or play barely .500 ball they can point to the strength of the conference and teams like Syracuse are still in the top 20.

Don't get me wrong. The Big East IS a strong conference. However, we went through this exercise last year. They got a lot of teams in the dance and it blew up in their face. Had it not been for WVU, it would have been a total disaster.

Until the NCAA requires teams like these to have a minimum of true road games and have a combination of road/neutral games equivilant to 40% of your non-con, many of these teams get away with being untested in the non-con. Take a look at Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati, Marquette and other's non-con and tell me they were really tested.

Seriously, do you not understand how a hypothetical situation works?

I'll ask once again. If these ARE INDEED 11 top 50 teams placed in a 16 team conference, is it reasonable to believe that my final standings is a possible outcome?

[XManCometh]

Take a look at Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati, Marquette and other's non-con and tell me they were really tested.

That's just the thing. The major conference schools don't need to be "tested" outside of conference because they're already "tested" inside of it. They prove their worth INSIDE conference play. Conversely, mid major schools need to be tested outside of conference because they usually aren't in conference. The reason why the Valley got 4 teams in a few years ago was because the conference was so great top to bottom. Not because of non-con scheduling. Also, why in the world would Syracuse go out there and play 10 non-con games against top 50 teams, when they have to play 12 inside of conference already?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Take a look at Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati, Marquette and other's non-con and tell me they were really tested.

That's just the thing. The major conference schools don't need to be "tested" outside of conference because they're already "tested" inside of it. They prove their worth INSIDE conference play. Conversely, mid major schools need to be tested outside of conference because they usually aren't in conference. The reason why the Valley got 4 teams in a few years ago was because the conference was so great top to bottom. Not because of non-con scheduling. Also, why in the world would Syracuse go out there and play 10 non-con games against top 50 teams, when they have to play 12 inside of conference already?

I totally agree, but let's try to not get debates started over side issues.

All I want right now is to know if anything is wrong with my original proposal.

[Shocker Rocker]

Until the NCAA requires teams like these to have a minimum of true road games and have a combination of road/neutral games equivilant to 40% of your non-con, many of these teams get away with being untested in the non-con. Take a look at Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati, Marquette and other's non-con and tell me they were really tested.

So what would happen if this proposal ever came up for a vote (of course, this is all hypothetical since we all know that it would never see the light of day due to the influence and money of the powers-that-be.)? If each D-1 school had one vote, would it pass? Obviously the BCS schools would be against it, but I wonder if too many of the bottom-feeders would oppose it since they rely on the buy games for their departmental budgets.