The Bonnies Bandwagon II - CNNSI article on Conference Realignment

The Bonnies Bandwagon II
« CNNSI article on Conference Realignment »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
May 24, 2013, 5:28am

The Bonnies Bandwagon II :: General :: General Board :: CNNSI article on Conference Realignment

Author

Topic: CNNSI article on Conference Realignment (Read 2,389 times)

u518370
Full Member

member is offline

Joined: Nov 2005
Gender: Male

Posts: 133

CNNSI article on Conference Realignment
« Thread Started on May 22, 2012, 3:01pm »

Interesting article by Luke Winn...

http://www.cnnsi.com/2012/writers/luke_w....hp&sct=hp_wr_a1

Looks like the upcoming changes might actually raise the A-10's standing among hoops conferences. That said, I would expect that we're going to see more shifting in the coming years.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

jh
HOF Member

member is online

Joined: Apr 2005
Gender: Male

Posts: 932

Re: CNNSI article on Conference Realignment
« Reply #1 on May 22, 2012, 9:07pm »

May 22, 2012, 3:01pm, u518370 wrote:

Lets hope it translates all into a new TV deal

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

bbb
HOF Member

member is offline

Joined: Jul 2006
Gender: Male

Posts: 509

Re: CNNSI article on Conference Realignment
« Reply #2 on May 23, 2012, 1:54am »

That seems to be saying that we are behind the Missouri Valley and Mountain West. I don't think they are ahead of us.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

adolphlottin
HOF Member

member is offline

Joined: Jan 2009
Gender: Male

Posts: 1,216

Re: CNNSI article on Conference Realignment
« Reply #3 on May 23, 2012, 10:40am »

May 23, 2012, 1:54am, bbb wrote:

That seems to be saying that we are behind the Missouri Valley and Mountain West. I don't think they are ahead of us.

They were.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

5and23
Full Member

member is offline

Joined: Apr 2012
Gender: Male

Posts: 181

Re: CNNSI article on Conference Realignment
« Reply #4 on May 23, 2012, 2:31pm »

Damn, that article made my head hurt. (Graph much?)

My takeaway is that the A10 has gotten quite a bit better, and the Big East has gotten a whole lot worse. Or, if I'm reading it right, the ACC is outpacing the S&P but is being hurt by the euro, and the Missouri Valley's GDP is only two-thirds what it was three years ago on the Kelvin scale, but only if you factor in the prevailing winds.

That how you guys read it, too?

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

jpschmack
Full Member

member is offline

Joined: Jan 2009
Gender: Male

Posts: 214

Re: CNNSI article on Conference Realignment
« Reply #5 on May 28, 2012, 2:54am »

We should see the biggest mathematical gains in men's basketball.

What it doesn't take into enough though, is that how many people this round of realignment hurts. The MWC, CUSA, CAA and Horizon took HUGE hits.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

jpschmack
Full Member

member is offline

Joined: Jan 2009
Gender: Male

Posts: 214

Re: CNNSI article on Conference Realignment
« Reply #6 on Jun 10, 2012, 11:07pm »

The problem with any methodology for something like this is that it's all schedule dependent.

The stats they used (efficiency) came against their scheduled opponents. Are they going to be more efficient or less efficient against different teams? Yes. Replace Youngstown State with Richmond, and Butler's efficiency numbers will change.

The A-10's numbers suffered greatly in the 2002-2007 range of "toughest OOC SOS possible" for us.

And efficiency doesn't equal NCAA bids.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

res
HOF Member

member is offline

Joined: Sept 2005
Posts: 1,307

Re: CNNSI article on Conference Realignment
« Reply #7 on Jun 11, 2012, 8:33am »

kenpom's efficiencies are adjusted for strength of schedule.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

jpschmack
Full Member

member is offline

Joined: Jan 2009
Gender: Male

Posts: 214

Re: CNNSI article on Conference Realignment
« Reply #8 on Jun 11, 2012, 3:21pm »

Jun 11, 2012, 8:33am, res wrote:

kenpom's efficiencies are adjusted for strength of schedule.

Yeah, but SOS is a number. It doesn't know the difference between a 20-10 small conference runner up with smaller bodies and softer defense; compared to a 20-10 bruising defensive team (like Purdue or Florida State).

And of course, you don't get bids based off KenPom.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

res
HOF Member

member is offline

Joined: Sept 2005
Posts: 1,307

Re: CNNSI article on Conference Realignment
« Reply #9 on Jun 11, 2012, 5:46pm »

Jun 11, 2012, 3:21pm, jpschmack wrote:

Jun 11, 2012, 8:33am, res wrote:

kenpom's efficiencies are adjusted for strength of schedule.

SOS is not just a "number" in kenpom. It is a calculation based on opponent's offensive and defensive efficiencies, not records.

Whatever, what is it that you are arguing? That one should evaluate relative conference strength by the number of bids? As the committee already knows, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy that will always maintain the status quo.

The A10's numbers "suffered greatly" in 2002-2007 because it had a relatively high number of truly bad teams.

« Last Edit: Jun 11, 2012, 5:52pm by res »

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

stoversghost
Senior Member

member is offline

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 254
Location: Midwest

Re: CNNSI article on Conference Realignment
« Reply #10 on Jun 12, 2012, 3:33pm »

Johnny Bronx almost left Bonas after failing Stats twice. But he was ice from three.
Soooooo-weeeet!

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

jpschmack
Full Member

member is offline

Joined: Jan 2009
Gender: Male

Posts: 214

Re: CNNSI article on Conference Realignment
« Reply #11 on Jun 12, 2012, 4:52pm »

Jun 11, 2012, 5:46pm, res wrote:

Jun 11, 2012, 3:21pm, jpschmack wrote:

I'd disagree about the number of bad teams in the A-10 from 2002-2007.

Were our teams BAD? I don't think they were any different than they usually are.

Bonaventure went 4-3 vs NCAA teams (Beat beat #8 UConn, Xavier, Davidson and Siena; lost in OT to an Elite Eight team #25 Kent State, lost by six to #5 Oklahoma). And we were sixth in the league.

Our non-conference SOS in 2002 was .5552. Only one other conference was over .5300. We bit off more than we could chew OOC (under the Bruno schedule policy). And as a result, we were 72-66 OOC. Our conference schedule was rendered worthless because our second place teams were 15-14 Temple vs 19-13 Richmond. That's not getting quality wins vs each other.

The bottom of our league schedule the same as the top, and were RPI killers in league play. What the heck are LaSalle and Fordham playing 7 Top 100 teams a year OOC from 2002-2007, when they were picked in the top half twice?

If I had the time, I'd go through and look up year-by-year:

OOC SOS, OOC W-L, OOC Top 50 record, OOC top 100 record, Number of bids.

The results would probably show that we got roughly the same number of good wins (if not more) in the lean NCAA bid years. With #1 OOC SOS, our OOC W-L was lower, our conference slate was devalued and we got fewer teams in.

"Easier" OOC SOS = better OOC W-L = more bids.

The efficiency of our teams didn't matter. Were we less efficient in the lean years? Yes. Because we were playing very good teams all the time.

The key to getting bids is to make your SOS NUMBER look good, while maximizing the number of winable games.

We get this now. Fordham scheduled great last season.

They played NINE TEAMS with win percentages under .4100 (and lost three of 'em!)
But their OOC SOS was .4649 because they offset it with #1 Syracuse, #35 Harvard and #91 Lehigh and #149 Manhattan.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

I say, "Hello, hello, hello"

XAVIER SMITH 6-7 FR. Combo Forward Plano, TX

ANDELL CUMBERBATCH 6-4 JR. Wing, East Orange, NJ

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free