(12-24-2015 02:32 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 11:30 AM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote:  Paging Buffalo/UMass to AAC haha

I still think it's Cincy/Memphis that gets the Big 12 invite

the UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK at buffalo
is going to the BIG! We all talked about this months ago!

The Big 10 simply has no interest in SUNY Buffalo.

(12-24-2015 03:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:45 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  All three conferences had three teams with a realistic chance to make the playoff, at some point during the last half of the season.

That proves the numbers were even to start with.

No. You use the phrase you always use, and never use correctly, "you are wrong." Wanna know why? The Big XII teams eliminated each other prior to the last week, one by one, leaving no one with a chance to get back in. Aand had the ball bounced differently, could have actually eliminated each other. The other conferences eliminated one player, and a new one arose. They also had teams who were absolutely not in contention, Iowa, UNC, Ole Miss, and Florida, for example, become viable contenders later in the year after Michigan, Ohio St, LSU, and FSU were eliminated, precisely because of the number of teams in the conference and their schedule. Ole Miss and Florida later eliminated themselves after getting back in it, but having 14 teams specifically allowed them back in, in a way that is impossible in the backloaded Big 12 schedules.

See *that* is how you prove a point.

You haven't proven anything.

Iowa, Mich St and Ohio St ended up being the three B1G teams with a realistic chance at the playoff. Oklahoma, TCU and Baylor ended up being the three XII teams with a realistic chance at the playoff.

That the B1G has 11 non-realistic playoff programs and the XII only has seven, doesn't result in the XII having fewer realistic playoff teams.


Thus, each P5 has the same numbers to start with.


Therefore, if the XII gets into the playoff fewer times than the other P5, it proves there's something else inherently wrong with their model.


QED

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. You said there were only three teams per conference, and more teams doesn't increase their chances. Yet we just showed that 5, not three, 5 teams in the second half had a chance, precisely because they had 4 more teams AND, don't play a round robin. The size of the conference gave them more chances. Same with the ACC. That spells P-R-O-O-F.

Here is another nugget. I looked this up the last year of the BCS. From 2003 to 2013, during the SECs run, they had 25 or 26 teams who were in contention for a BCS berth the last 4 weeks of the season. Of those 25 or 26 teams, a grand total of THREE played a team cross division who had a winning conference record: two of them were 5-3, and all three invovled LSU and Florida. . It is the primary reason why no team won the conference two years in a row until Alabama did: it is no coincidence that during that time. Tennessee, their cross division rival, was the worst they have been in decades. It is because when the SEC had 12 teams, your schedule alternated from easy to hard (cross division) every year, and made it hard to compete. Then when they expanded to 14, you will notice the SC started getting even MORE teams ranked high, despite most believing the SEC has dropped of a tad.

This is not an accident, and is a byproduct of the size of the conference, and number of conference games. this is PRECISELY what the OP was talking about. And it is unequivocally true.

This is your opinion, you have not proven it to be the truth of the matter.

It doesn't have to be three exactly, every year. The actual point is that each P5, averaged over time, has the same number of realistic playoff programs. Thus, adding non-realistic playoff programs to their membership doesn't increase their chances of getting into the playoff.

No it was proven, that was why everyone is agreeing. Whether you see it or not. But one thing is clear: you can say I didn;t prove my point (even though everyone else sees it), but we KNOW you didn't remotely prove yours, not even a little bit. And in fact what little you did present, hurt your case.