With the addition of TCU, I decided to go back and look at how the league's top to bottom strength would look like based upon the BCS criteria if we were able to use their computer numbers since 2004.

Also, I added another row with TCU and BYU just for fun.

Here is what the data shows for top to bottom strength:

2004

With TCU - 53.11
With TCU & BYU - 52.50
Without - 50.50

2005

With TCU - 54.00
With TCU & BYU - 54.40
Without - 58.25

2006

With TCU - 37.33
With TCU & BYU - 35.90
Without - 37.75

2007

With TCU - 42.33
With TCU & BYU - 40.00
Without - 40.12

2008

With TCU - 41.11
With TCU & BYU - 38.6
Without - 45.00

2009

With TCU - 36.44
With TCU & BYU - 34.30
Without - 40.38

2010

With TCU - 58.11
With TCU & BYU - 58.30
Without - 65.00

Adding TCU's numbers improves the league's standings in 5 of the 7 years, while adding in both TCU's and BYU's numbers in 6 of the 7.

However, would TCU's and BYU's numbers have been the same had they played a Big East schedule instead of a MW schedule? Probably not. So it's hard to say what the numbers really tell us other than I'm glad we have TCU's numbers for 2010 regardless.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, since you've done that much, do you think you could expand that to show those numbers for ECU and UCF? JOOC

(06-10-2011 10:04 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  However, would TCU's and BYU's numbers have been the same had they played a Big East schedule instead of a MW schedule? Probably not.

The answer is flat out no. It would be impossible. Or at least, if their numbers were the same, then someone else's would be lower. I like the positivity, but it is an unfair a comparison as when the Big East was judged without Miami and Virginia Tech, because you remove all of their wins from the league, but leave all of the losses they laid on other teams. I did this once before using exact numbers, but just estimating for the moment, if the 8 Big East teams had a conference record of 140-140 over a five year period, if Miami and Va. Tech avg'd a 5-1 record against the remaining six teams, then by removing them, the reamaining teams have a 90 - 130 conference record. That is going to make you look bad. And likewise over that same period, instead of the 9 team ACC having a 180-180 conference record, they now had a 230 - 190 conference record, which artificially inflated their stats.


With TCU, it is the opposite case, where you are adding their wins, but more or less getting to ignore the losses they delivered in conference, since their losses were to teams who are not in this conference. So instead of the conference having a 140-140 record the past five years, if TCU averaged a 6-1 conference record, your numbers above now show a 170- 145 Big East conference record. Plus, for example, there is no way TCU and Cincy could have finished 3 and 4 if both had to play each other. Again, while helping us this time, they are not fair numbers to use. This is true for the Big Ten with Nebraska as well. It is somewhat true with the Pac XII, but they added teams that probably more or less balanced out record-wise, so it is a little more accurate, but not much (for example, Utah's undefeated seasons, would have meant they had to beat their BCS representative every year.)

Any time you add or remove teams like this, if the overall conference record of every team involved does not equal 0.500, the equation is wrong.

(06-11-2011 08:32 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Neil, since you've done that much, do you think you could expand that to show those numbers for ECU and UCF? JOOC

Not quite sure how you want it, but I'm going to give the numbers first adding in just ECU, or just UCF, or just Houston to the current 8 members, which show why adding any one of these institutions as number 9 wouldn't have helped much.

Current 8 plus ECU:

56.89, 61.67, 40.67, 43.22, 44.55, 39.89, 64.89

In the last three years, 2008, 2009, and 2010, having ECU's numbers would have helped the Big East slightly.

Current 8 plus Central Florida:

57.89, 58.22, 44.22, 39.78, 51.44, 41.78, 62.33

In 2005, 2007, and 2010, having UCF's numbers would have helped the Big East slightly.

Current 8 plus Houston

54.89, 61.00, 38.11, 44.00, 47.44, 40.11, 66.89

In zero years would Houston's computer numbers have helped the Big East. Their best computer number years all coincided with the Big East's best.

However, please note that in 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2009 Houston's computer numbers were better for the Big East than UCF's.


Now, I'll add to the previous numbers my 11-team concept plus 2 12-team scenarios, rank them from best to worse:

2004

Current 8 - 50.50
With TCU & BYU - 52.50
With TCU - 53.11
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 57.54
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 60.25
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 62.50


2005

With TCU - 54.00
With TCU & BYU - 54.40
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 57.08
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 57.27
Current 8 - 58.25
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 59.17


2006

With TCU & BYU - 35.90
With TCU - 37.33
Current 8 - 37.75
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 38.45
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 38.67
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 43.25


2007

With TCU & BYU - 40.00
Current 8 - 40.12
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 42.08
With TCU - 42.33
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 42.54
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 45.25


2008

With TCU & BYU - 38.60
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 38.81
With TCU - 41.11
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 41.17
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 44.17
Current 8 - 45.00


2009

With TCU & BYU - 34.30
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 34.45
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 34.75
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 36.00
With TCU - 36.44
Current 8 - 40.38


2010

With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 57.33
With TCU - 58.11
With TCU & BYU - 58.30
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 58.81
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 60.75
Current 8 - 65.00


What immediately jumps out to me is the fact that the current 8 team model was last in each of the past three years, which shows why expansion is clearly necessary.

Anyway, based upon the above for all 7 years from most desirable to least they rank as follows:

TCU & BYU - 44.86
TCU - 46.06
TCU, BYU, & ECU - 46.84
Current 8 - 48.14
TCU, BYU, ECU, & UH - 48.57
TCU, BYU, ECU, & UCF - 48.92

And over the past three years:

TCU & BYU - 43.73
TCU, BYU, & ECU - 44.02
TCU - 45.22
TCU, BYU, ECU, & UH - 45.56
TCU, BYU, ECU, & UCF - 45.83
Current 8 - 50.13

Looks like the Big East should add at least BYU and probably both BYU and ECU and then wait to see if #12 should be Houston, Central Florida, or *gasp* Villanova.

Cheers,
Neil

Excellent analysis, dude. Thanks. I agree with your conclusions as well...

(06-11-2011 11:40 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-10-2011 10:04 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  However, would TCU's and BYU's numbers have been the same had they played a Big East schedule instead of a MW schedule? Probably not.

The answer is flat out no. It would be impossible. Or at least, if their numbers were the same, then someone else's would be lower. I like the positivity, but it is an unfair a comparison as when the Big East was judged without Miami and Virginia Tech, because you remove all of their wins from the league, but leave all of the losses they laid on other teams. I did this once before using exact numbers, but just estimating for the moment, if the 8 Big East teams had a conference record of 140-140 over a five year period, if Miami and Va. Tech avg'd a 5-1 record against the remaining six teams, then by removing them, the reamaining teams have a 90 - 130 conference record. That is going to make you look bad. And likewise over that same period, instead of the 9 team ACC having a 180-180 conference record, they now had a 230 - 190 conference record, which artificially inflated their stats.


With TCU, it is the opposite case, where you are adding their wins, but more or less getting to ignore the losses they delivered in conference, since their losses were to teams who are not in this conference. So instead of the conference having a 140-140 record the past five years, if TCU averaged a 6-1 conference record, your numbers above now show a 170- 145 Big East conference record. Plus, for example, there is no way TCU and Cincy could have finished 3 and 4 if both had to play each other. Again, while helping us this time, they are not fair numbers to use. This is true for the Big Ten with Nebraska as well. It is somewhat true with the Pac XII, but they added teams that probably more or less balanced out record-wise, so it is a little more accurate, but not much (for example, Utah's undefeated seasons, would have meant they had to beat their BCS representative every year.)

Any time you add or remove teams like this, if the overall conference record of every team involved does not equal 0.500, the equation is wrong.

Agreed about wins/losses, but computers are not just about wins/losses.

So I decided to go check out the ACC's BCS computer numbers from 2000-2003 prior to expansion, add in Miami/VT/BC numbers, and then look at the ACC numbers from 2004-2007 the next four years.

This is what I found:

2000

9-Team ACC - 45.11
With Miami, VT, & BC - 38.5

2001

9-Team ACC - 45.33
With Miami, VT, & BC - 39.33

2002

9-Team ACC - 46.78
With Miami, VT, & BC - 40.08

2003

9-Team ACC - 46.78
With Miami, VT, & BC - 42.92

2004

12-Team ACC - 38.08

2005

12-Team ACC - 36.33

2006

12-Team ACC - 53.25

2007

12-Team ACC - 41.25

In each case, the ACC actually did better in 3 of the 4 years as one grouping rather than the exercise of adding 9 under 1 group and 3 under another group.

The only blip was the year in which Wake Forest was ACC champ and a year in which everyone agrees that league was down, which shows the methodology I was employing is a much better predictor than I originally believed. Although this is probably truer in an 11 or 12-team type set-up than the 9 or 10 team set-ups since everyone is not playing everyone else.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-11-2011 12:52 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(06-11-2011 08:32 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Neil, since you've done that much, do you think you could expand that to show those numbers for ECU and UCF? JOOC

Not quite sure how you want it, but I'm going to give the numbers first adding in just ECU, or just UCF, or just Houston to the current 8 members, which show why adding any one of these institutions as number 9 wouldn't have helped much.

Current 8 plus ECU:

56.89, 61.67, 40.67, 43.22, 44.55, 39.89, 64.89

In the last three years, 2008, 2009, and 2010, having ECU's numbers would have helped the Big East slightly.

Current 8 plus Central Florida:

57.89, 58.22, 44.22, 39.78, 51.44, 41.78, 62.33

In 2005, 2007, and 2010, having UCF's numbers would have helped the Big East slightly.

Current 8 plus Houston

54.89, 61.00, 38.11, 44.00, 47.44, 40.11, 66.89

In zero years would Houston's computer numbers have helped the Big East. Their best computer number years all coincided with the Big East's best.

However, please note that in 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2009 Houston's computer numbers were better for the Big East than UCF's.


Now, I'll add to the previous numbers my 11-team concept plus 2 12-team scenarios, rank them from best to worse:

2004

Current 8 - 50.50
With TCU & BYU - 52.50
With TCU - 53.11
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 57.54
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 60.25
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 62.50


2005

With TCU - 54.00
With TCU & BYU - 54.40
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 57.08
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 57.27
Current 8 - 58.25
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 59.17


2006

With TCU & BYU - 35.90
With TCU - 37.33
Current 8 - 37.75
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 38.45
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 38.67
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 43.25


2007

With TCU & BYU - 40.00
Current 8 - 40.12
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 42.08
With TCU - 42.33
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 42.54
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 45.25


2008

With TCU & BYU - 38.60
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 38.81
With TCU - 41.11
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 41.17
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 44.17
Current 8 - 45.00


2009

With TCU & BYU - 34.30
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 34.45
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 34.75
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 36.00
With TCU - 36.44
Current 8 - 40.38


2010

With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 57.33
With TCU - 58.11
With TCU & BYU - 58.30
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 58.81
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 60.75
Current 8 - 65.00


What immediately jumps out to me is the fact that the current 8 team model was last in each of the past three years, which shows why expansion is clearly necessary.

Anyway, based upon the above for all 7 years from most desirable to least they rank as follows:

TCU & BYU - 44.86
TCU - 46.06
TCU, BYU, & ECU - 46.84
Current 8 - 48.14
TCU, BYU, ECU, & UH - 48.57
TCU, BYU, ECU, & UCF - 48.92

And over the past three years:

TCU & BYU - 43.73
TCU, BYU, & ECU - 44.02
TCU - 45.22
TCU, BYU, ECU, & UH - 45.56
TCU, BYU, ECU, & UCF - 45.83
Current 8 - 50.13

Looks like the Big East should add at least BYU and probably both BYU and ECU and then wait to see if #12 should be Houston, Central Florida, or *gasp* Villanova.

Cheers,
Neil

+3
Your comment is "spot on"!

Neil, your starting to get my hopes up with these BYU/ECU posts. Here's to hoping that you have some super secret info

Jackson

(06-11-2011 07:36 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  Neil, your starting to get my hopes up with these BYU/ECU posts. Here's to hoping that you have some super secret info

Jackson

Unfortunately, no I don't. I wish I did.

I think the league overall and particularly the football schools are struggling with "identity" issues - in terms of geography, markets, and academics.

Cheers,
Neil

What are the numbers with TCU, ECU, Houston, and UCF, or TCU and ECU?

(06-11-2011 09:09 PM)Joey_Niklas Wrote:  What are the numbers with TCU, ECU, Houston, and UCF, or TCU and ECU?

Okay, this is getting out of hand.

Anyway, here are the options this time - Stay at 9 with TCU, add one other for 10, add BYU and ECU for 11, add 3 more for 12.

Last three years only and since TCU is already coming, they become the new baseline of the league (highlighted in orange) and new additions of ECU as #10, UCF as #10, UH as #10 and TCU, ECU, UCF, and UH as the 12 (highlighted in blue)

2008

With TCU & BYU - 38.60
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 38.81
With TCU & ECU - 41.10
With TCU only - 41.11
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 41.17
With TCU & UH - 43.7
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 44.17
With TCU & UCF - 47.3
With TCU, ECU, UCF, UH - 48.42


2009

With TCU & BYU - 34.30
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 34.45
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 34.75
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 36.00
With TCU & ECU - 36.4
With TCU only - 36.44
With TCU & UH - 36.60
With TCU, ECU, UCF, UH - 37.92
With TCU & UCF - 38.10


2010

With TCU & UCF - 56.40
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UCF - 57.33
With TCU only - 58.11
With TCU & BYU - 58.30
With TCU & ECU - 58.70
With TCU, BYU, & ECU - 58.81
With TCU, ECU, UCF, UH - 59.17
With TCU & UH - 60.50
With TCU, BYU, ECU, UH - 60.75

Adding ECU as #10 is the second best option after BYU but both add value or do not detract from 9. Adding UH or UCF as #10 is about the same, two years favor UH while last year favors UCF, but remaining at 9 is better than either of these options.

Expansion to 12 with ECU, UH, and UCF is not as good as remaining at 9 or expanding to 10 with either BYU or ECU.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil,
Great work. I can't help but think that these are exactly the type numbers that the folks in Providence are looking at everyday.
(At least I hope they are.) Again great work and thanks
CJ

Neil,

Great work man.

I only asked because I'm totally not sure if BYU is really being considered or not.

This did convince me all the more that ECU should be the #10 school if we decide to go to 10.

Save that spreadsheet, dude. It may come in handy in the future...

Great thread Neil Confirms the general feeling that BYU is the lone "no-brainer" remaining, with ECU a solid second.

The question is can we get BYU with all-sports membership?

(06-12-2011 01:08 AM)Joey_Niklas Wrote:  Neil,

Great work man.

I only asked because I'm totally not sure if BYU is really being considered or not.

This did convince me all the more that ECU should be the #10 school if we decide to go to 10.

Agreed on BYU. Still can't quite wrap my head around a team from Utah possibly being courted by the Big East. But it is the one league that will support BYU in its Sunday policy.

And I wish ECU's numbers were so good that the league presidents would view them as a "have to have" type candidate. But in reality they were basically equal to just having TCU.

Cheers,
Neil

Probably. That would put BYU on equal footing with Utah. Although I'm not sure if they'd fit in with the rest of us comfortably. That remains to be seen...

Why would BYU turn down BCS inclusion, if all sports membership is extended?

(06-12-2011 12:57 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Why would BYU turn down BCS inclusion, if all sports membership is extended?

Ego? Mostly it would be perceived as an admission that independence wasn't going as well as they have portrayed. On a smaller scale they would hear no end of the taunts from Utes fans and Pac-12 fans how they had to "settle" for a Big Least invite, a patchwork conference totally out of their geographical location. Etc.

Of course, if the $$$ is right...

Cheers,
Neil