(07-22-2016 11:59 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 12:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  ESPN held the rights to the ACC/Big Ten challenge because they owned the rights to both the ACC and Big Ten. That's not the case now. Big Ten's tv of Fox and ESPN will get the Big Ten home games.

ESPN may get 300 ACC games- but ESPN has about 260-270 ACC controlled games.

This is the reason I expect The ACC Big Ten Challenge to be replaced with an ACC SEC Challenge. ESPN full control

You'll start seeing ACC & SEC teams pop up on each other's OOC schedules in all sports more often for the same reason
CJ

The one thing COULD be that it's said that ESPN gets all of the ACC/Big Ten Challenge, while Fox gets all of the Big Ten/Big East challenge. Fox would get 46 other games while ESPN would get 43 other games.

You would have coaches howling if they changed to a ACC/SEC challenge.. Yeah whoever got Kentucky is fine- but that would be about it.

(07-22-2016 11:09 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1st off- ESPN isn't crying about losing at most 30 what will almost be all dreg OOC games. But you better believe they are happy as anything getting 15 quality conference games. 30 ESPN3 games vs 15 games that will have at least 3-4 real fun games.

Just looking at Duke as an example. They would get to add 2 games from this group for this year-
BC, Clemson, Ga Tech, NC State, Pittsburgh
Syracuse, Notre Dame, Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech

yeah ESPN wouldn't be crying about that at all. Duke/NC State and Duke/any of the teams on the 2nd list are huge winners.
UNC could add a game with one of FSU, Va Tech, Louisville, Syracuse, or Notre Dame.

Now with SOS- There isn't much of a difference at all in SOS of a team who loses to a top 50 team or a team who beats a sub 300 team.

the parts in bold above are how you take your conference down a path results you did not expect and end up not being happy with

again there is more to the number of conference games than just "ESPN is happy happy happy"

in addition to the strength of schedule issue that is real there is the issue of what the longer term consequences are

using general numbers of a team plays 30 games per season and you have 15 teams in that conference playing those games lets look at winning % possibilities

first we will look at 30 games with 18 conference games and 12 OOC games

again we are talking about total POSSIBLE winning % for the conference

15 teams X 30 games = 450 games

12 OOC X 15 teams = 180

18 conference X 15 = 270

a conference has the POSSIBILITY to go 180-0 in those OOC games....is that PROBABLE no of course not, but it is still relevant

the ONLY thing a conference can do in conference games is go 1-1 or .500 because every win is a loss

so with 15 teams playing 30 games with 18 conference and 12 OOC the best POSSIBLE winning % is 135 conference wins and 180 OOC wins for a total of 315 wins out of 450 games and 315/450 is a total POSSIBLE conference winning % of 70%

now lets look at that same setup with 20 conference games and 10 OOC games

you have 300 conference and 150 OOC and the best POSSIBLE number of wins is not 300/450 or a best possible winning % of 67%

so playing those extra two conference games to make ESPN happy happy happy has cost the conference the POSSIBILITY of one additional win per team in the conference because you went from a POSSIBLE 315 wins to a POSSIBLE 300 wins

now the first thing someone will say is "well you do not win all your conference games so "don't matter"

well the first thing YOU said was "getting rid of dreg OOC games" and getting "great conference games"

so right off YOU were the one that makes the assumption that a "dreg" OOC game will be given up and I think it is fair to say that a "dreg" game should be a WIN correct?

so you are saying to give up an OOC game that might not be "exciting" especially for the all important 'what makes ESPN happy happy happy" and the probably WIN that should come with a "dreg" game and instead make sure that one conference team wins and also guarantee that another conference team loses

and really when it comes down to it when you start doing the math and you start trying to say "well we would only win X % of those OOC games anyway" well again when you are giving up "dreg" OOC games as you move towards "tough exciting conference games" wouldn't that mean that you are still keeping the exciting tougher OOC games as well and thus it would be expected that the overall winning % of OOC games might decline with fewer OOC games and fewer "dreg" OOC games that should be wins

and even if you hold the OOC winning % the same for the change in conference games Vs non conference games holding that OOC winning % the same still means you have cost the conference a chance to win 15 more games per season or on average 1 win per conference member

the only way you can pretend that you have not cost the conference possible wins if you somehow make the assumption that by moving to more conference games and thus cutting down on the total POSSIBLE number of wins by 15 you will somehow make up for that reduction in POSSIBLE wins by getting rid of "dreg" OOC games that should be wins and playing tougher conference games and then somehow with the fewer remaining OOC games win a higher overall % of those "not as much of a dreg" OOC games (which should be tougher to win) and thus you somehow come out with a higher overall OOC winning % than if you were playing more OOC "dreg" games

that does not really seem like a distinct possibility that seems like a long shot at best especially since at least in my opinion "winning" is contagious and thus when you get on a roll with some "dreg" OOC wins you can carry that to win some "non-dreg" OOC games especially if you are a better overall basketball program

and some might also say "well 15 wins out of 450 total games is meaningless" or "reducing the number of POSSIBLE wins by one per team really does not matter", but in basketball where getting into the NCAAs can hinge on a single win difference making it less likely or more difficult for all the teams in the conference to win 1 additional game can make a big difference to those on the cusp

and then of course will come the argument about "well more conference games will be a better overall conference strength than those OOC dreg wins"

but that gets back to what has already been proven at least for the PC 12 and football.....the strength of YOUR schedule is much more related to the actual number of WINS of those teams you play Vs the strength of their schedule especially if they are losing more

the first thing that matters to strength of schedule is WINS it is not about who you lost to or how tough the teams you lost to were and that is even kore so the case when you are talking about your conference mate that you play helping YOUR strength of schedule....there is little to no transitive effect to "wow they are 10-20 but look at all those good teams they lost to" there is much more benefit to YOU from "the were 20-10 even if against some "dregs" "

but ESPN is happy so

RPI takes more into account than just a win or a loss. your opponents record counts 50% towards your RPI and opponents opponents record counts 25%

Also, lets take a team in the middle of the pack from the ACC. Lets say Va Tech. They are a bubble team. Now, they get as 1 of the other 2 conference games a date with Duke at home. A win there, and that basically gets them in the tournament. A loss really doesn't hurt them much.

(07-22-2016 01:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:  RPI takes more into account than just a win or a loss. your opponents record counts 50% towards your RPI and opponents opponents record counts 25%

Also, lets take a team in the middle of the pack from the ACC. Lets say Va Tech. They are a bubble team. Now, they get as 1 of the other 2 conference games a date with Duke at home. A win there, and that basically gets them in the tournament. A loss really doesn't hurt them much.

there are SOME arguments to both sides

and I will say that football and basketball are not exactly the same comparison

but I will say this....there is a reason that the SEC SEC SEC flat out will not play 9 conference games.....and there is a reason that until recently the ACC has decided to do the same.....and there is a major reason for the ACC being hesitant to go to 9 conference football games

and while the study that was done on the PAC 12 was not by the PAC 12 or for the PAC 12 it was a statistically and mathematically proper study

and as of late the PAC 12 has actually discussed going to 8 conference games for just the reasons I am saying

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../76011964/

http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/...n-stanford

at least some of their coaches are talking about it....and lets be clear her UTAH is not the program that is going to push for parity and get the SEC SEC SEC to play 9 conference games period

and of course larry scott does not want to talk about it because his concern is "content" (even though content does not change with home and home OOC games) and making the PAC12n look better than it does and moving to 8 conference games does not help that "optic"

and mark my words the Big 10 will highly regret going to 9 conference games

and the Big 12 has discussed fewer conference BASKETBALL games as well

and while football is not the same as basketball basketball still has the factor of where a win or two can make a difference....and to be clear those 15 fewer win OPPORTUNITIES do not have to be spread equally among the teams of course some teams might take a loss in both of the additional conference games instead of two wins in the OOC and the teams that beat them might not really need both of those wins to make the NCAAs while the team that losses might need one of both of those wins to have a chance

the statistics are real and how they play out in the real world depends on a lot of factors, but it is not just me that sees it coaches and conferences see it as well and talk about it especially recently

(07-22-2016 01:07 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the parts in bold above are how you take your conference down a path results you did not expect and end up not being happy with

again there is more to the number of conference games than just "ESPN is happy happy happy"

in addition to the strength of schedule issue that is real there is the issue of what the longer term consequences are

using general numbers of a team plays 30 games per season and you have 15 teams in that conference playing those games lets look at winning % possibilities

first we will look at 30 games with 18 conference games and 12 OOC games

again we are talking about total POSSIBLE winning % for the conference

15 teams X 30 games = 450 games

12 OOC X 15 teams = 180

18 conference X 15 = 270

a conference has the POSSIBILITY to go 180-0 in those OOC games....is that PROBABLE no of course not, but it is still relevant

the ONLY thing a conference can do in conference games is go 1-1 or .500 because every win is a loss

so with 15 teams playing 30 games with 18 conference and 12 OOC the best POSSIBLE winning % is 135 conference wins and 180 OOC wins for a total of 315 wins out of 450 games and 315/450 is a total POSSIBLE conference winning % of 70%

now lets look at that same setup with 20 conference games and 10 OOC games

you have 300 conference and 150 OOC and the best POSSIBLE number of wins is not 300/450 or a best possible winning % of 67%

so playing those extra two conference games to make ESPN happy happy happy has cost the conference the POSSIBILITY of one additional win per team in the conference because you went from a POSSIBLE 315 wins to a POSSIBLE 300 wins

now the first thing someone will say is "well you do not win all your conference games so "don't matter"

well the first thing YOU said was "getting rid of dreg OOC games" and getting "great conference games"

so right off YOU were the one that makes the assumption that a "dreg" OOC game will be given up and I think it is fair to say that a "dreg" game should be a WIN correct?

so you are saying to give up an OOC game that might not be "exciting" especially for the all important 'what makes ESPN happy happy happy" and the probably WIN that should come with a "dreg" game and instead make sure that one conference team wins and also guarantee that another conference team loses

and really when it comes down to it when you start doing the math and you start trying to say "well we would only win X % of those OOC games anyway" well again when you are giving up "dreg" OOC games as you move towards "tough exciting conference games" wouldn't that mean that you are still keeping the exciting tougher OOC games as well and thus it would be expected that the overall winning % of OOC games might decline with fewer OOC games and fewer "dreg" OOC games that should be wins

and even if you hold the OOC winning % the same for the change in conference games Vs non conference games holding that OOC winning % the same still means you have cost the conference a chance to win 15 more games per season or on average 1 win per conference member

the only way you can pretend that you have not cost the conference possible wins if you somehow make the assumption that by moving to more conference games and thus cutting down on the total POSSIBLE number of wins by 15 you will somehow make up for that reduction in POSSIBLE wins by getting rid of "dreg" OOC games that should be wins and playing tougher conference games and then somehow with the fewer remaining OOC games win a higher overall % of those "not as much of a dreg" OOC games (which should be tougher to win) and thus you somehow come out with a higher overall OOC winning % than if you were playing more OOC "dreg" games

that does not really seem like a distinct possibility that seems like a long shot at best especially since at least in my opinion "winning" is contagious and thus when you get on a roll with some "dreg" OOC wins you can carry that to win some "non-dreg" OOC games especially if you are a better overall basketball program

and some might also say "well 15 wins out of 450 total games is meaningless" or "reducing the number of POSSIBLE wins by one per team really does not matter", but in basketball where getting into the NCAAs can hinge on a single win difference making it less likely or more difficult for all the teams in the conference to win 1 additional game can make a big difference to those on the cusp

and then of course will come the argument about "well more conference games will be a better overall conference strength than those OOC dreg wins"

but that gets back to what has already been proven at least for the PC 12 and football.....the strength of YOUR schedule is much more related to the actual number of WINS of those teams you play Vs the strength of their schedule especially if they are losing more

the first thing that matters to strength of schedule is WINS it is not about who you lost to or how tough the teams you lost to were and that is even kore so the case when you are talking about your conference mate that you play helping YOUR strength of schedule....there is little to no transitive effect to "wow they are 10-20 but look at all those good teams they lost to" there is much more benefit to YOU from "the were 20-10 even if against some "dregs" "

but ESPN is happy so

I guess we could sit around with fantasies of another, more stable conference falling apart so we could invite a few coveted programs from another region of the country to prop us up instead of inviting deserving, competitive programs within or closer to the geographic center of our conference.

We could vacillate between expanding and not expanding while trying to decide to hold a championship game or not. Or after declaring One True Champion, we could finish the season with two teams tie and then try to convince the CFP that both teams are indeed champions.

On second thought never mind, it won't work...
CJ

(07-22-2016 02:19 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 01:07 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the parts in bold above are how you take your conference down a path results you did not expect and end up not being happy with

again there is more to the number of conference games than just "ESPN is happy happy happy"

in addition to the strength of schedule issue that is real there is the issue of what the longer term consequences are

using general numbers of a team plays 30 games per season and you have 15 teams in that conference playing those games lets look at winning % possibilities

first we will look at 30 games with 18 conference games and 12 OOC games

again we are talking about total POSSIBLE winning % for the conference

15 teams X 30 games = 450 games

12 OOC X 15 teams = 180

18 conference X 15 = 270

a conference has the POSSIBILITY to go 180-0 in those OOC games....is that PROBABLE no of course not, but it is still relevant

the ONLY thing a conference can do in conference games is go 1-1 or .500 because every win is a loss

so with 15 teams playing 30 games with 18 conference and 12 OOC the best POSSIBLE winning % is 135 conference wins and 180 OOC wins for a total of 315 wins out of 450 games and 315/450 is a total POSSIBLE conference winning % of 70%

now lets look at that same setup with 20 conference games and 10 OOC games

you have 300 conference and 150 OOC and the best POSSIBLE number of wins is not 300/450 or a best possible winning % of 67%

so playing those extra two conference games to make ESPN happy happy happy has cost the conference the POSSIBILITY of one additional win per team in the conference because you went from a POSSIBLE 315 wins to a POSSIBLE 300 wins

now the first thing someone will say is "well you do not win all your conference games so "don't matter"

well the first thing YOU said was "getting rid of dreg OOC games" and getting "great conference games"

so right off YOU were the one that makes the assumption that a "dreg" OOC game will be given up and I think it is fair to say that a "dreg" game should be a WIN correct?

so you are saying to give up an OOC game that might not be "exciting" especially for the all important 'what makes ESPN happy happy happy" and the probably WIN that should come with a "dreg" game and instead make sure that one conference team wins and also guarantee that another conference team loses

and really when it comes down to it when you start doing the math and you start trying to say "well we would only win X % of those OOC games anyway" well again when you are giving up "dreg" OOC games as you move towards "tough exciting conference games" wouldn't that mean that you are still keeping the exciting tougher OOC games as well and thus it would be expected that the overall winning % of OOC games might decline with fewer OOC games and fewer "dreg" OOC games that should be wins

and even if you hold the OOC winning % the same for the change in conference games Vs non conference games holding that OOC winning % the same still means you have cost the conference a chance to win 15 more games per season or on average 1 win per conference member

the only way you can pretend that you have not cost the conference possible wins if you somehow make the assumption that by moving to more conference games and thus cutting down on the total POSSIBLE number of wins by 15 you will somehow make up for that reduction in POSSIBLE wins by getting rid of "dreg" OOC games that should be wins and playing tougher conference games and then somehow with the fewer remaining OOC games win a higher overall % of those "not as much of a dreg" OOC games (which should be tougher to win) and thus you somehow come out with a higher overall OOC winning % than if you were playing more OOC "dreg" games

that does not really seem like a distinct possibility that seems like a long shot at best especially since at least in my opinion "winning" is contagious and thus when you get on a roll with some "dreg" OOC wins you can carry that to win some "non-dreg" OOC games especially if you are a better overall basketball program

and some might also say "well 15 wins out of 450 total games is meaningless" or "reducing the number of POSSIBLE wins by one per team really does not matter", but in basketball where getting into the NCAAs can hinge on a single win difference making it less likely or more difficult for all the teams in the conference to win 1 additional game can make a big difference to those on the cusp

and then of course will come the argument about "well more conference games will be a better overall conference strength than those OOC dreg wins"

but that gets back to what has already been proven at least for the PC 12 and football.....the strength of YOUR schedule is much more related to the actual number of WINS of those teams you play Vs the strength of their schedule especially if they are losing more

the first thing that matters to strength of schedule is WINS it is not about who you lost to or how tough the teams you lost to were and that is even kore so the case when you are talking about your conference mate that you play helping YOUR strength of schedule....there is little to no transitive effect to "wow they are 10-20 but look at all those good teams they lost to" there is much more benefit to YOU from "the were 20-10 even if against some "dregs" "

but ESPN is happy so

I guess we could sit around with fantasies of another, more stable conference falling apart so we could invite a few coveted programs from another region of the country to prop us up instead of inviting deserving, competitive programs within or closer to the geographic center of our conference.

We could vacillate between expanding and not expanding while trying to decide to hold a championship game or not. Or after declaring One True Champion, we could finish the season with two teams tie and then try to convince the CFP that both teams are indeed champions.

On second thought never mind, it won't work...
CJ

the Big 12 should not be concerning themselves with expansion at all they should be concerning themselves with the schools already in the conference and with not making similar mistakes to those above just because it is what other conferences are doing or what the media partners want

they need to show leadership for their CURRENT members and they need to show the media partners the long term foolishness and damage of their short term wishes