Conference Realignment- WHAT IF....

by **shock** » October 4th, 2011, 10:23 am

...Mid-Majors, particularly non-football schools, didn't realign, but formed something like a pact. The idea behind it is that the conferences would stay pretty much the same, but teams like Gonzaga, Butler, WSU, CU, ect. with solid basketball would band together for scheduling. One thing that big BCS schools don't want to do is play each other. If the "pact" refused to schedule BCS unless all teams within said pact got BCS games AND home and home to boot, they could potentially:
A) Get all schools within said pact good schedules which in turn means higher RPI and greater chance of Dancing
B) Lead BCS schools to refuse to go along and play each other, resulting in more losses among high major teams and greater chances for pact teams to dance
I know what you are wondering. Who would we play in scenario B and what would stop BCS from playing crap cupcakes? We would play each other because we really have nothing to lose when these power conferences hit the ground. The BCS teams could schedule cupcakes, but it could cause them berths in the tournament. They could play each other, but they don't want to impact their chances of a berth if they don't win their conference. So they schedule the lower end scum BCS schools... unless they themselves pact. So BCS noncon would consist of cupcakes, which even cupcakes don't want to be winless so they schedule each other some too, leaving some BCS schools out in the rain, forcing them to schedule the pact teams.

Lots of holes, so i look fwd to seeing this ripped apart, but i hope it plants some ideas. Let me know what you think.

**Sponsor**

by **bigdawg** » October 4th, 2011, 10:39 am

Sounds a bit like collusion, but we'd probably be better off. However if the BCS teams need more buy games that would drive up our cost as well.

by **Ali** » October 4th, 2011, 11:17 am

We can't get Illinois State to schedule right the way it is. How can we fix that first?

by **Aargh** » October 4th, 2011, 11:51 am

If Gonzaga, Butler, WSU, and CU were willing to play each other, you'd think they'd already be doing it.

It would take some major arm-twisting to get the various AD's and coaches to agree to this. There would always be the fear that a loss against one of the "pact" teams might end up being an elimination game to keep a team OUT of the tourney - sort of like what happens with the upper end of the Bracket Busters games now.

by **RoyalShock** » October 4th, 2011, 11:56 am

I think any such pact would be viewed as too restrictive and not give programs the flexibility they need should opportunities arise.

And though I could be wrong, I think the reason the Butler, Gonzaga, WSU, CU, Xavier games don't happen is their concern the NCAA selection committee will view them as virtual elimination games, much like it seems Bracket Busters has turned into. If Xavier loses that game to Butler, will the committee look at that as a reason to take one and not another? No one knows, but no one wants to chance it, either.

by **BirdmanBB** » October 4th, 2011, 12:03 pm

a) NCAA tourney commissioner has stated the last few years that RPI is no longer a major factor come selection day. It's becoming more about who you play.
b) Because of what I mentioned in A you will just see more BCS teams with ridiculous amounts of losses get in because their SOS's will be much stronger than all mid majors.

by **Bluejay09Bear06** » October 4th, 2011, 4:24 pm

BirdmanBB wrote:NCAA tourney commissioner has stated the last few years that RPI is no longer a major factor come selection day. It's becoming more about who you play.

You are right that this has been the new spin from the NCAA Selection Committee, but it doesn't change the fact that it makes absolutely no sense. I interpret this as meaning, "We are eliminating the one objective criteria we use to select the NCAA field (RPI) and replacing it with something unverifiable, vague, and nontransparent."

The RPI *is* who you play. The Selection Committee is becoming more and more of a joke.

by **friendlyzag** » October 5th, 2011, 8:13 am

Aargh wrote:If Gonzaga, Butler, WSU, and CU were willing to play each other, you'd think they'd already be doing it.

FWIW, Gonzaga, Butler, and Xavier all play each other this season. It would be nice to get some of the MVC teams into that mix.

A lot of Gonzaga fans will be watching the Mo Valley. We'll be cheering for Grant Gibbs at Creighton and hoping that Manny Arop settles in well during this redshirt year.

Enjoy the season. Almost game-time!

by **unipanther99** » October 5th, 2011, 8:45 am

Hi friendlyzag! What do you think have been the key contributing factors which have allowed Gonzaga to put together a strong non-conference schedule year in and year out? (Winning! Duh. --- But what else?)

by **TylerDurden** » October 5th, 2011, 1:43 pm

unipanther99 wrote:Hi friendlyzag! What do you think have been the key contributing factors which have allowed Gonzaga to put together a strong non-conference schedule year in and year out? (Winning! Duh. --- But what else?)

IMO, there are a few things that contribute to a good non-conference schedule:

Coaches willing to put it on the line and not demanding home games. Gonzaga plays many of its marquee games at neutral sites or on the road.

You mentioned another other key: winning consistently.

Another element (Butler has this element, too) is that the WCC isn't a deep league. So Gonzaga knows it can lose the marquee non-conference games and still be the best team in its league and win the auto bid.

Gonzaga and Butler have generally been head and shoulders above their conference opponents. There are a few exceptions, but they generally feel confident that they're going to get an auto bid.

Xavier, on the other hand, does play in a strong league and IMO, is the model MVC teams should look at for scheduling.