Conference standings should have higher weight

[jay santos]

Looking at how the tourney is or ought to be seeded, I'm thinking conference standings should have more weight.

OOC games usually happen in November and December. That's ancient history by now. Total RPI (and computer rankings) should be used, but conference standings should be given as much or higher weight, thus a UNLV shouldn't get seeded higher than a BYU.

[SeattleUte]

Noncon sked/outcome should rule because some conferences are weak.

[SeattleUte]

Case in point. Nevada is going nowhere.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Noncon sked/outcome should rule because some conferences are weak.

This is true. So RPI's and computer rankings should be used. But conference standings deserve a more imortant place at the table.

Teams play more games in their conference than out of conference, they're played later in the year, they're more meaningful, they have equal mix of home and away, and the SOS equality allows for better intra-conference comparisons.

This is kind of how I see it. Use computer rankings (toss out RPI) to seed teams. Adjust up or down based on conference play.

e.g. Duke starts out #3 and Virginia starts out a #10. UNLV a #6, AFA a #7, and BYU a #8 based on computer polls.

The conference standing adjustment might move Duke down to a #5 and Virgina up to a #4, and the MWC shuffles to BYU #6, UNLV #7, AFA #8.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Looking at how the tourney is or ought to be seeded, I'm thinking conference standings should have more weight.

OOC games usually happen in November and December. That's ancient history by now. Total RPI (and computer rankings) should be used, but conference standings should be given as much or higher weight, thus a UNLV shouldn't get seeded higher than a BYU.

I think conference standings would have more weight if there were none of these ridiculous conference tournaments. BYU has won the conference. But that matters not to the NCAA. I think BYU is in the tournament if they don't win the conference tourney in Vegas, but if they have a bad game the first night and lose, it does two things: it will hurt the RPI a bit and it will be a loss that would be the last game played.

As I said, I think BYU is in regardless what happens in Vegas, but the tournament doesn't do the Cougars any favors.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I think conference standings would have more weight if there were none of these ridiculous conference tournaments. BYU has won the conference. But that matters not to the NCAA. I think BYU is in the tournament if they don't win the conference tourney in Vegas, but if they have a bad game the first night and lose, it does two things: it will hurt the RPI a bit and it will be a loss that would be the last game played.

As I said, I think BYU is in regardless what happens in Vegas, but the tournament doesn't do the Cougars any favors.

I'm with you in favor of the conference tourney being on the home floor of the team that won the regular season. I don't buy the arguments against it. $ is the only reason, and I highly doubt it would be more than $100K per team once you divided it up. That's not worth the unfairness.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I think conference standings would have more weight if there were none of these ridiculous conference tournaments. BYU has won the conference. But that matters not to the NCAA. I think BYU is in the tournament if they don't win the conference tourney in Vegas, but if they have a bad game the first night and lose, it does two things: it will hurt the RPI a bit and it will be a loss that would be the last game played.

As I said, I think BYU is in regardless what happens in Vegas, but the tournament doesn't do the Cougars any favors.

Majerus hated the conference tournament and I agree with him, they are terrible for the season winner but help get some bubble teams in.

Although some BYU fans may complain, given how far we sunk, I'm just glad the team has a chance to make the dance with a reasonable chance to win its first Tourney game in a millenium.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I'm with you in favor of the conference tourney being on the home floor of the team that won the regular season. I don't buy the arguments against it. $ is the only reason, and I highly doubt it would be more than $100K per team once you divided it up. That's not worth the unfairness.

Logistically it would be hard, if not impossible, to handle:

-- Wouldn't be able to know how many seats could be sold until possibly a week before the tourney. Wouldn't be able to even print tickets or distribute them in time before the tourney.
-- Wouldn't be able to make travel plans ahead of time (I know that my old man and I had to coordinate back in October in order to make sure his teaching schedule and my work schedule would allow us to make the trip to Vegas next week) Fan attendance would suffer except for the host team's crowd (maybe you consider that a good thing in that it could virtually guarantee a NCAA berth for the host team).
-- Wouldn't be able to know for sure in advance if the host city had some type of big event scheduled during that time frame thus sending hotel, airfare, and rental car rates through the roof (oops, the MWC already screwed that up with NASCAR/Vegas and they had tons of time to plan).
-- Wouldn't be able to reserve team hotels, press facilities, etc. ahead of time

I don't know what other arguments are against it but I think the logistical arguments alone are sufficient.

I know the NIT does things "on they fly" but they are only involving two schools at a time in a single arena until the final four. It's not a "get all the teams together in the same location at the same time" type of event.

Now, if you wanted to do a NIT style conference tourney where the game is always played on the higher-seeded school's home floor then you might have something there; however, the tourney in that format would last significantly longer than just 5 calendar days (counting men and women).

[Indy Coug]

One more reason conference standings should have more weight:

The vast majority of games against quality nonconference opponents occur on the road or at neutral sites, making it very difficult to have a good OOC record against OOC opponents.

The RPI top 50 has won over 90% of their home games this year. Why do you think a middling program like BYU can manage to put together a 44 and 30 game home winning streak over the past few years?

If the NCAA could ever leverage their RPI formula or enact some other legislation to force more balanced OOC home/road scheduling, then maybe there would be more reason to put stock in OOC games that take place two to three months before the NCAA Tournament.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

One more reason conference standings should have more weight:

The vast majority of games against quality nonconference opponents occur on the road or at neutral sites, making it very difficult to have a good OOC record against OOC opponents.

The RPI top 50 has won over 90% of their home games this year. Why do you think a middling program like BYU can manage to put together a 44 and 30 game home winning streak over the past few years?

If the NCAA could ever leverage their RPI formula or enact some other legislation to force more balanced OOC home/road scheduling, then maybe there would be more reason to put stock in OOC games that take place two to three months before the NCAA Tournament.

This is a great point. Some adjustment should be considered in rewarding teams for playing good teams on the road, even when they lose, and for penalizing good teams that refuse to go on the road against other good teams.

Remember the days of Denny Crum when Louisville took on all comers, often having a mediocre record, but a well-prepared team?