(08-22-2017 01:30 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]Reported by Jon Rothstein
https://twitter.com/JonRothstein/status/...2434105346
Jon Rothstein‏Verified account @JonRothstein
Sources: Big Ten programs are preparing for a 20-game league schedule during the 18-19 season. STORY @FanRagSports:
https://www.fanragsports.com/news/rothst...-schedule/
Looks like 2018-19 season, a year ahead of the ACC which will do so in 2019-20 with the ACCN launch.
This follows up on June 12th ESPN report that it was under discussion.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...ence-slate
I wonders when the SEC will make the same move. (Doesn't make as much sense for P12 with only 12 schools)
I think you'll will see all the "power" basketball conferences go to 20 game conference slate including the A-10, American, and Big East.
I think to start off the basketball season we need more conference challenges.
ACC vs. Big Ten
SEC vs. Big 12
PAC vs Big East
American vs. A-10
Also the American probably needs to get to 14 basketball schools to help scheduling. Adding VCU and Dayton would help big time.
(08-22-2017 01:30 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ](Doesn't make as much sense for P12 with only 12 schools)
No. It makes a lot of sense. It's more difficult to get attractive non-conference opponents to visit because of distance. Also, a 20 game conference schedule would mean that each team plays all but two conference-mates twice each season, everyone gets home games with Arizona and UCLA almost every season, any conference game is better for attendance than an unattractive non-con game, etc. Doesn't mean that the Pac will do it. But it would make sense.
This section is for power and major conferences, not the wanna be called power conferences like the American or A-10, or even the WCC or MWC.
The drivers for more conference games are desire in the conference to play more of their rivals twice a year (B1G and ACC expansion pushed some games off the schedule), and digital Networks (ACCN, BTN) and primary contracts (CBS, ESPN for Basketball) that return more money for the increased content. If the Big East adds an 11th they benefit from the same scaling return from their provider (Fox/FS1) in moving to 20 games (network would see a 22% increase in content for 10% more outlay). The P12N does not provide the same level of return and the league does not suffer the rivalry losses so much since the conference naturally divides into three scheduling zones (Northwest, California, Mountain) allowing you to always host your zone and those outside 3 times every 4 years. So neither driver for additional games is present. The B12 is similar to the P12 in that they lack a conference network and like the Big East have only 10 members so play a round robin anyway. The other conference where 20 might make sense is the SEC.
For the high Mid-Majors, 20 games doesn't make a lot of sense. It makes more sense for the top 3rd of the teams to schedule better tournaments and high RPI opponents rather than add two games likely against the weakest schools in their conference. There is no monetary or TV exposure advantage, and little or no SoS value for the schools in the conversation for an at-large bid. Better for Cincy to schedule Pitt, Gonzaga to schedule Oregon, SDSU to schedule Arizona, and Davidson to schedule Virginia than to play some weaker school in conference (Duquesne, ECU, Fresno State, SCU).
For the lower Mid-Majors it likely makes sense. They are largely unable to get invites to the higher end pre-season tourneys, and if they are any good the Majors tend to shun playing them (hosting, never will visit) since no good can come for say Michigan State playing Illinois State. And further there is pretty much ZERO media revenue (measured with a couple less digits than a major conference members) and so guarantees and home gate play a bigger role in balancing the program budget. For these schools an extra home conference game can add $50K to $150K over a non-conference opponent (for many of these schools it means hosting 1 instead of 2 D-II schools), and even more if it simply adds an additional home game. The resistance so far has to do with compacting the schedule: lower Mid-Majors want to add the additional games in the same right after New Years to the first week of March conference schedule, with an early conference Tournament (they tend to run earlier than the Majors in order to get even a little media coverage). The alternative of hosting a conference game in December is problematic since those tend to average much lower attendance, negating the positive benefit. (See SBC recent experience for reference)
That is too much of a digression. But basically it says the SEC would benefit from 20, and the Big East would if they can find an 11th school. But while the MWC and AAC have 11 schools, the lack of TV money or meaningful SoS benefit, combined with schedule compacting problem makes it unprofitable to go to 20.
Better off this way given the direction of non-con scheduling. Indiana can't even get Kentucky to visit Bloomington anymore. 20 games + ACC/B1G leaves only 10 slots to fill. Much rather see 2 extra B1G games than the barrage of cupcakes on Northwestern and Illinois' schedule.
Wedge,
It would make sense for the P12 if the P12N started making more money. The extra games would have to come in December.
Leadership in the P12 is dreadful. Scott has failed to land a challenge (e.g., P12 vs SEC or P12 vs B12) to help schools land an opponent. So schools pretty much only have the pre-season tournaments, which they are on their own to schedule. But this is not as big a problem as you make out.
Here are schools UCLA is playing in OOC neutral site games:
vs Georgia Tech (Nov 9, Shanghai China)
vs Creighton (Nov 20), vs Baylor or Wisconsin (Nov 21) (in Kansas City)
at Michigan (Dec 9; this is a true road game)
vs Kentucky (Dec 23, CBS Sports Classic in New Orleans)
They also host high Mid-Major Cincinnati (Dec 16), and six other (lower) Mid-Majors in Pauley Pavilion.
Arizona will play in the Battle 4 Atlantis tournament in the Bahamas (NC State, Villanova, Purdue, Tennessee in the field)
-> vs NC State (Nov 22)
-> vs TBA (Nov 23)
-> vs TBA (Nov 24)
vs Texas A&M (Dec 5, in Phoenix)
vs Alabama (Dec 9, Home game at McKale Center)
They are also at UNLV (Dec 2), at New Mexico (Dec 16) and host UConn (Dec 21) from the higher Mid-Majors. They also host 6 lower Mid-Majors at the McKale Center.
As you can see (and it's similar for other P12 schools), they will face 4 or 5 other Major schools and host an upper Mid-Major. SoS is not a big issue here (something Tom Izzo said in the article by ESPN, and sentiment shared by John Calipari among others) rather it is revenue. For the P12 that revenue bump is not really there due to the failure of the P12N to deliver at a level anywhere near the BTN or SECN. (IMO it's 50% market, 50% distribution problem due to P12N lack of major media partner to parley content into revenue -- that may change as media delivery changes, but for now it's a major drag).
(08-22-2017 03:32 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]This section is for power and major conferences, not the wanna be called power conferences like the American or A-10, or even the WCC or MWC.
This sentiment right here is what I and many were upset with when GTS said he was going to create a P5 Discussion forum. I understood his logic that there was demand for a board where P5 fans can go to where they can read only P5 focused threads, but I think it was never intended to exclude other fan bases from chiming in. I assume that since you hold this belief, you are now going to refrain from contributing to threads on the other forum that are about G5 programs?
And for the record, I still don't buy that the P5 has any legitimacy when it comes to CBB. UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis, Gonzaga, Temple and Wichita State have decades of excellence in basketball. There's nothing about their basketball budgets that are Mid-Major. There's nothing about attendance that is Mid-Major. Don't give me this crap about them being Mid-Major and then try and convince me they are lesser programs than more than half of teams in power conferences-- in some cases 75-80% of the schools in power conferences.
(08-23-2017 09:24 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2017 03:32 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]This section is for power and major conferences, not the wanna be called power conferences like the American or A-10, or even the WCC or MWC.
This sentiment right here is what I and many were upset with when GTS said he was going to create a P5 Discussion forum. I understood his logic that there was demand for a board where P5 fans can go to where they can read only P5 focused threads, but I think it was never intended to exclude other fan bases from chiming in. I assume that since you hold this belief, you are now going to refrain from contributing to threads on the other forum that are about G5 programs?
And for the record, I still don't buy that the P5 has any legitimacy when it comes to CBB. UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis, Gonzaga, Temple and Wichita State have decades of excellence in basketball. There's nothing about their basketball budgets that are Mid-Major. There's nothing about attendance that is Mid-Major. Don't give me this crap about them being Mid-Major and then try and convince me they are lesser programs than more than half of teams in power conferences-- in some cases 75-80% of the schools in power conferences.
Why dont we just put in who we pull for a P5 team. That way we will be represented. Most of the P5 posters here do not have a degree from those schools like we have a degree from ours. Also the American, Big East, and A-10 are all power basketball conferences.
The SEC is in a tough spot when it comes college basketball. More league games is not necessarily a good thing for The SEC. That will eliminate an out of conference contest that SEC schools use to boost their RPI. Calipari has said as much when he talks about his team's scheduling philosophy.
What may happen is ESPN may find some creative ways to help boost SEC tournament profiles by encouraging more cross scheduling between The ACC and SEC conferences and sharing those games on both networks.
Just as College Football's Rivalry Week has helped boost football in The ACC, College Basketball Rivalry Week could do the same thing for The SEC. That's why I expect The Big Ten ACC Challenge to come to abrupt end once The ACC Network is up and running. I would expect an SEC ACC Challenge to replace it.
CJ
(08-23-2017 08:50 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]The SEC is in a tough spot when it comes college basketball. More league games is not necessarily a good thing for The SEC. That will eliminate an out of conference contest that SEC schools use to boost their RPI. Calipari has said as much when he talks about his team's scheduling philosophy.
What may happen is ESPN may find some creative ways to help boost SEC tournament profiles by encouraging more cross scheduling between The ACC and SEC conferences and sharing those games on both networks.
Just as College Football's Rivalry Week has helped boost football in The ACC, College Basketball Rivalry Week could do the same thing for The SEC. That's why I expect The Big Ten ACC Challenge to come to abrupt end once The ACC Network is up and running. I would expect an SEC ACC Challenge to replace it.
CJ
The SEC is spending a lot more now on basketball, and by conference emphasis. Still the next go around of realignment it might be beneficial if any additions boosted that RPI in hoops.
(08-23-2017 09:11 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (08-23-2017 08:50 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]The SEC is in a tough spot when it comes college basketball. More league games is not necessarily a good thing for The SEC. That will eliminate an out of conference contest that SEC schools use to boost their RPI. Calipari has said as much when he talks about his team's scheduling philosophy.
What may happen is ESPN may find some creative ways to help boost SEC tournament profiles by encouraging more cross scheduling between The ACC and SEC conferences and sharing those games on both networks.
Just as College Football's Rivalry Week has helped boost football in The ACC, College Basketball Rivalry Week could do the same thing for The SEC. That's why I expect The Big Ten ACC Challenge to come to abrupt end once The ACC Network is up and running. I would expect an SEC ACC Challenge to replace it.
CJ
The SEC is spending a lot more now on basketball, and by conference emphasis. Still the next go around of realignment it might be beneficial if any additions boosted that RPI in hoops.
Agreed....
That would mean Kansas and Oklahoma in 2026....
I believe that was ESPN's plan backing both conferences like they have. Use their collective strengths to improve both conferences.
As a side note can you imagine what an ACC / SEC Challenge could do for college baseball just before the tournaments start?
Lots of opportunities for both conferences to thrive.
CJ
(08-23-2017 09:11 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (08-23-2017 08:50 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]The SEC is in a tough spot when it comes college basketball. More league games is not necessarily a good thing for The SEC. That will eliminate an out of conference contest that SEC schools use to boost their RPI. Calipari has said as much when he talks about his team's scheduling philosophy.
What may happen is ESPN may find some creative ways to help boost SEC tournament profiles by encouraging more cross scheduling between The ACC and SEC conferences and sharing those games on both networks.
Just as College Football's Rivalry Week has helped boost football in The ACC, College Basketball Rivalry Week could do the same thing for The SEC. That's why I expect The Big Ten ACC Challenge to come to abrupt end once The ACC Network is up and running. I would expect an SEC ACC Challenge to replace it.
CJ
The SEC is spending a lot more now on basketball, and by conference emphasis. Still the next go around of realignment it might be beneficial if any additions boosted that RPI in hoops.
That's true. The SEC also has impressive attendance numbers.
But that doesn't change the fact that Calipari is correct. The SEC benefits more than the Big 10/ACC from having OOC cupcakes. And the SEC doesn't have dozens of die-hard in-conference basketball rivalries that require a home-and-home like the Big 10/ACC does, so the SEC wouldn't really benefit from a 20-game schedule.
(08-22-2017 03:04 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2017 01:30 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ](Doesn't make as much sense for P12 with only 12 schools)
No. It makes a lot of sense. It's more difficult to get attractive non-conference opponents to visit because of distance. Also, a 20 game conference schedule would mean that each team plays all but two conference-mates twice each season, everyone gets home games with Arizona and UCLA almost every season, any conference game is better for attendance than an unattractive non-con game, etc. Doesn't mean that the Pac will do it. But it would make sense.
In football, I agree with your sentiment.
But in basketball, the top MWC and WCC schools are equal to the PAC in fanbase/prestige (other than UCLA).
After you factor in the preseason tourneys, each PAC school only needs 1-2 big OOC opponents who are willing to visit. But SDSU, BYU, etc want 5 or more big OOC opponents to make up for their weaker conference schedules.
(08-24-2017 12:44 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2017 03:04 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2017 01:30 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ](Doesn't make as much sense for P12 with only 12 schools)
No. It makes a lot of sense. It's more difficult to get attractive non-conference opponents to visit because of distance. Also, a 20 game conference schedule would mean that each team plays all but two conference-mates twice each season, everyone gets home games with Arizona and UCLA almost every season, any conference game is better for attendance than an unattractive non-con game, etc. Doesn't mean that the Pac will do it. But it would make sense.
In football, I agree with your sentiment.
But in basketball, the top MWC and WCC schools are equal to the PAC in fanbase/prestige (other than UCLA).
After you factor in the preseason tourneys, each PAC school only needs 1-2 big OOC opponents who are willing to visit. But SDSU, BYU, etc want 5 or more big OOC opponents to make up for their weaker conference schedules.
Gonzaga would be a good draw in any Pac-12 home arena, but none of the other WCC or MWC teams would be even close to as good of a draw in a Pac-12 arena as the Zags.
Bottom line is that conference games sell more tickets than non-conference games unless the opponent is a marquee team. Look at Oregon's game-by-game attendance for last season as one example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016%E2%80...tball_team
(08-24-2017 12:44 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2017 03:04 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2017 01:30 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ](Doesn't make as much sense for P12 with only 12 schools)
No. It makes a lot of sense. It's more difficult to get attractive non-conference opponents to visit because of distance. Also, a 20 game conference schedule would mean that each team plays all but two conference-mates twice each season, everyone gets home games with Arizona and UCLA almost every season, any conference game is better for attendance than an unattractive non-con game, etc. Doesn't mean that the Pac will do it. But it would make sense.
In football, I agree with your sentiment.
But in basketball, the top MWC and WCC schools are equal to the PAC in fanbase/prestige (other than UCLA).
After you factor in the preseason tourneys, each PAC school only needs 1-2 big OOC opponents who are willing to visit. But SDSU, BYU, etc want 5 or more big OOC opponents to make up for their weaker conference schedules.
Id have to throw Arizona in there too. I dont think even Gonzaga has the prestige that Arizona has.
(08-24-2017 12:44 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2017 03:04 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2017 01:30 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ](Doesn't make as much sense for P12 with only 12 schools)
No. It makes a lot of sense. It's more difficult to get attractive non-conference opponents to visit because of distance. Also, a 20 game conference schedule would mean that each team plays all but two conference-mates twice each season, everyone gets home games with Arizona and UCLA almost every season, any conference game is better for attendance than an unattractive non-con game, etc. Doesn't mean that the Pac will do it. But it would make sense.
In football, I agree with your sentiment.
But in basketball, the top MWC and WCC schools are equal to the PAC in fanbase/prestige (other than UCLA).
After you factor in the preseason tourneys, each PAC school only needs 1-2 big OOC opponents who are willing to visit. But SDSU, BYU, etc want 5 or more big OOC opponents to make up for their weaker conference schedules.
Really? Have you looked at NBA rosters and not noticed the large number of P12 players? Washington, Arizona and UCLA are in the top 12 of all colleges with players in the NBA, the Conference (and every school has active NBA players) has 52 players under contract (of 404). You may have heard of some, like James Harden, Russel Westbrook, Klay Thompson, Kevin Love, and a bunch more. Only the ACC has more top players coming through it.
UNLV had a run some years back, New Mexico has been good, SDSU had Fisher, but is back in the pack now. The rest of the MWC hasn't done much for a good while -- they do produce a fair number players who do some pro overseas. WCC it's Gonzaga and a bunch of smurfs.
The Pac-12 is by far the premier conference in the West. the MWC is as distant a 2nd as the American is to say the B1G or ACC.
(08-24-2017 12:54 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2017 12:44 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2017 03:04 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2017 01:30 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ](Doesn't make as much sense for P12 with only 12 schools)
No. It makes a lot of sense. It's more difficult to get attractive non-conference opponents to visit because of distance. Also, a 20 game conference schedule would mean that each team plays all but two conference-mates twice each season, everyone gets home games with Arizona and UCLA almost every season, any conference game is better for attendance than an unattractive non-con game, etc. Doesn't mean that the Pac will do it. But it would make sense.
In football, I agree with your sentiment.
But in basketball, the top MWC and WCC schools are equal to the PAC in fanbase/prestige (other than UCLA).
After you factor in the preseason tourneys, each PAC school only needs 1-2 big OOC opponents who are willing to visit. But SDSU, BYU, etc want 5 or more big OOC opponents to make up for their weaker conference schedules.
Gonzaga would be a good draw in any Pac-12 home arena, but none of the other WCC or MWC teams would be even close to as good of a draw in a Pac-12 arena as the Zags.
Bottom line is that conference games sell more tickets than non-conference games unless the opponent is a marquee team. Look at Oregon's game-by-game attendance for last season as one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016%E2%80...tball_team
That's interesting. But Oregon was the exception last year (probably because they weren't expected to be a top-10 team after they started 2-2). Even for Oregon, their highest nonconference attendance was UNLV (which outdrew Alabama)
Here's the other PAC teams that scheduled BYU, Gonzaga, St. Mary's, SDSU, UNLV, New Mexico, or Colorado State last year:
For
Arizona State, UNLV outdrew 5/9 home PAC games and #9 Creighton.
For
Stanford, St. Mary's (4,079) had higher attendance than 5/8 home PAC games and Colorado State (4,661) had higher attendance than 6/8 home PAC games.
For
Colorado, Colorado State outdrew 7/9 home PAC games and #13 Xavier.
For
USC, BYU outdrew 7/9 home PAC games.
For
Cal, SDSU outdrew 6/9 home PAC games.
For Arizona, the New Mexico game nearly sold out despite being played on December 20th.
(08-24-2017 06:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2017 12:54 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2017 12:44 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2017 03:04 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2017 01:30 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ](Doesn't make as much sense for P12 with only 12 schools)
No. It makes a lot of sense. It's more difficult to get attractive non-conference opponents to visit because of distance. Also, a 20 game conference schedule would mean that each team plays all but two conference-mates twice each season, everyone gets home games with Arizona and UCLA almost every season, any conference game is better for attendance than an unattractive non-con game, etc. Doesn't mean that the Pac will do it. But it would make sense.
In football, I agree with your sentiment.
But in basketball, the top MWC and WCC schools are equal to the PAC in fanbase/prestige (other than UCLA).
After you factor in the preseason tourneys, each PAC school only needs 1-2 big OOC opponents who are willing to visit. But SDSU, BYU, etc want 5 or more big OOC opponents to make up for their weaker conference schedules.
Gonzaga would be a good draw in any Pac-12 home arena, but none of the other WCC or MWC teams would be even close to as good of a draw in a Pac-12 arena as the Zags.
Bottom line is that conference games sell more tickets than non-conference games unless the opponent is a marquee team. Look at Oregon's game-by-game attendance for last season as one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016%E2%80...tball_team
That's interesting. But Oregon was the exception last year (probably because they weren't expected to be a top-10 team after they started 2-2). Even for Oregon, their highest nonconference attendance was UNLV (which outdrew Alabama)
Here's the other PAC teams that scheduled BYU, Gonzaga, St. Mary's, SDSU, UNLV, New Mexico, or Colorado State last year:
For Arizona State, UNLV outdrew 5/9 home PAC games and #9 Creighton.
For Stanford, St. Mary's (4,079) had higher attendance than 5/8 home PAC games and Colorado State (4,661) had higher attendance than 6/8 home PAC games.
For Colorado, Colorado State outdrew 7/9 home PAC games and #13 Xavier.
For USC, BYU outdrew 7/9 home PAC games.
For Cal, SDSU outdrew 6/9 home PAC games.
For Arizona, the New Mexico game nearly sold out despite being played on December 20th.
Cal and SDSU didn't play in Berkeley last season. Every Cal non-con home game in Berkeley other than Virginia (and, for some reason, Cal Poly) had lower attendance than any conference home game.
Any Pac-12 team could replace one of its non-conference games with another conference home game and sell more tickets. Cal, last year, could have replaced (among others) Wyoming, SE Louisiana, or La Tech with another conference home game and sold another 1,000 or so tickets.
TV is likely to be better as well -- the only Cal non-con home game last season not on PTN was an ESPN2 game vs. Virginia, whereas all but 3 conference home games were on an ESPN channel or FS1.
I understand where you're coming from; you're trying to argue that games against certain WCC or MWC teams don't belong in the "unattractive" opponent category. But you are not disproving my point (see above in the comment that you originally replied to) that "any conference game is better for attendance than an unattractive non-con game". In fact, the stats that you linked support my assertion.
(08-24-2017 12:40 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-23-2017 09:11 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (08-23-2017 08:50 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]The SEC is in a tough spot when it comes college basketball. More league games is not necessarily a good thing for The SEC. That will eliminate an out of conference contest that SEC schools use to boost their RPI. Calipari has said as much when he talks about his team's scheduling philosophy.
What may happen is ESPN may find some creative ways to help boost SEC tournament profiles by encouraging more cross scheduling between The ACC and SEC conferences and sharing those games on both networks.
Just as College Football's Rivalry Week has helped boost football in The ACC, College Basketball Rivalry Week could do the same thing for The SEC. That's why I expect The Big Ten ACC Challenge to come to abrupt end once The ACC Network is up and running. I would expect an SEC ACC Challenge to replace it.
CJ
The SEC is spending a lot more now on basketball, and by conference emphasis. Still the next go around of realignment it might be beneficial if any additions boosted that RPI in hoops.
That's true. The SEC also has impressive attendance numbers.
But that doesn't change the fact that Calipari is correct. The SEC benefits more than the Big 10/ACC from having OOC cupcakes. And the SEC doesn't have dozens of die-hard in-conference basketball rivalries that require a home-and-home like the Big 10/ACC does, so the SEC wouldn't really benefit from a 20-game schedule.
Cupcakes don't help your RPI though. The only thing that can do that is wins against quality teams.
With that said, I do somewhat agree with you that the SEC scheduling more conference games may actually hurt our RPI. It's what Calipari was actually referring to...most of Kentucky's best games and best wins are non-conference games. For a program like Kentucky, they need to be able to schedule nationally whereas games against other SEC schools don't help their rep as much.
As far as attendance and revenue goes though, the SEC should absolutely schedule more conference games because it will increase both. For that alone, I'm for more conference games.
We've improved a lot in bball the last couple of years thanks to a conference led initiative as JR mentioned. What we need though is fewer cupcakes and more decent non-conference opponents. Even if we lose those games, we're better off on a lot of different fronts playing those games. But adding 2 conference games to the schedule wouldn't really hurt as the bball schedule is pretty long.
(08-24-2017 09:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2017 12:40 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-23-2017 09:11 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (08-23-2017 08:50 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]The SEC is in a tough spot when it comes college basketball. More league games is not necessarily a good thing for The SEC. That will eliminate an out of conference contest that SEC schools use to boost their RPI. Calipari has said as much when he talks about his team's scheduling philosophy.
What may happen is ESPN may find some creative ways to help boost SEC tournament profiles by encouraging more cross scheduling between The ACC and SEC conferences and sharing those games on both networks.
Just as College Football's Rivalry Week has helped boost football in The ACC, College Basketball Rivalry Week could do the same thing for The SEC. That's why I expect The Big Ten ACC Challenge to come to abrupt end once The ACC Network is up and running. I would expect an SEC ACC Challenge to replace it.
CJ
The SEC is spending a lot more now on basketball, and by conference emphasis. Still the next go around of realignment it might be beneficial if any additions boosted that RPI in hoops.
That's true. The SEC also has impressive attendance numbers.
But that doesn't change the fact that Calipari is correct. The SEC benefits more than the Big 10/ACC from having OOC cupcakes. And the SEC doesn't have dozens of die-hard in-conference basketball rivalries that require a home-and-home like the Big 10/ACC does, so the SEC wouldn't really benefit from a 20-game schedule.
Cupcakes don't help your RPI though. The only thing that can do that is wins against quality teams.
With that said, I do somewhat agree with you that the SEC scheduling more conference games may actually hurt our RPI. It's what Calipari was actually referring to...most of Kentucky's best games and best wins are non-conference games. For a program like Kentucky, they need to be able to schedule nationally whereas games against other SEC schools don't help their rep as much.
As far as attendance and revenue goes though, the SEC should absolutely schedule more conference games because it will increase both. For that alone, I'm for more conference games.
We've improved a lot in bball the last couple of years thanks to a conference led initiative as JR mentioned. What we need though is fewer cupcakes and more decent non-conference opponents. Even if we lose those games, we're better off on a lot of different fronts playing those games. But adding 2 conference games to the schedule wouldn't really hurt as the bball schedule is pretty long.
We play 18 conference games now. If we moved to 20 then cross divisional rivals like Auburn / Georgia or Auburn / Tennessee could schedule home and homes and those two games would raise the RPI as compared to playing Jacksonville State, Alabama State, or Troy. Games against UAB are helpful. And I wouldn't dis Mercer either. But yeah, we've had too many cupcakes. The SEC / Big 12 challenge has helped though.