They want them because, until now the penalty for them (lower SOS) wasn't as punitive. Just remember another word, "Ohlmeyer".

(06-18-2021 03:13 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  No, I'd much rather increase the chances of another UMBC over Virginia or Oral Roberts run even if it means we have to miss out on a half dozen extra 17-15 power conference teams in the tournament.

The single elimination, win-or-go-home, structure is entertaining. UMBC absolutely killed Virginia. The game is memorable because it was so unexpected and decisive…an outstanding season ended quickly for UVa. When teams have to play 6 rounds, upsets are a huge part of the entertainment.

If fairness (greater probability that the best team wins the tournament) is the objective, then the college baseball format would be much better. Some form of double elimination would mitigate the consequences of a flukish game. Unfortunately, TV viewership would take a huge hit.

(06-20-2021 05:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-18-2021 03:13 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  No, I'd much rather increase the chances of another UMBC over Virginia or Oral Roberts run even if it means we have to miss out on a half dozen extra 17-15 power conference teams in the tournament.

The single elimination, win-or-go-home, structure is entertaining. UMBC absolutely killed Virginia. The game is memorable because it was so unexpected and decisive…an outstanding season ended quickly for UVa. When teams have to play 6 rounds, upsets are a huge part of the entertainment.

If fairness (greater probability that the best team wins the tournament) is the objective, then the college baseball format would be much better. Some form of double elimination would mitigate the consequences of a flukish game. Unfortunately, TV viewership would take a huge hit.

I wonder if the NCAA would ever consider making the finals (and only the finals) double elimination.

(06-20-2021 01:07 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  They want them because, until now the penalty for them (lower SOS) wasn't as punitive. Just remember another word, "Ohlmeyer".

The evidence that something has changed in how badly they want them will be when they cancel those games in favor of P5 Home and Home contracts.

Until then, it is a belief that flies in the face of the evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

(06-21-2021 12:19 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 01:07 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  They want them because, until now the penalty for them (lower SOS) wasn't as punitive. Just remember another word, "Ohlmeyer".

The evidence that something has changed in how badly they want them will be when they cancel those games in favor of P5 Home and Home contracts.

Until then, it is a belief that flies in the face of the evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

I can't speak as much since they went to NET because I don't understand it as well as the old RPI. The old RPI formula definitely rewarded SOS, it was written into the formula. If you look at many of the top basketball teams (men's and women's), they often play each other in non conference play. In the ACC/Big Ten Challenge or the SEC/Big 12, the top teams play each other and the bottom feeders play each other. How about the Champion's Classic between Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, and Michigan State? Even in the COVID-19 schedule, they tried to get Baylor and Gonzaga to play each other and Baylor and #1 seed Illinois did play each other and Gonzaga played plenty of good teams as well. Yes the Power 6 schools will still play a lot of body bag games but there are plenty of good non conference games to balance them out. That happens in many other sports as well. The one sport it doesn't happen? Football.

(06-21-2021 05:51 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 12:19 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 01:07 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  They want them because, until now the penalty for them (lower SOS) wasn't as punitive. Just remember another word, "Ohlmeyer".

The evidence that something has changed in how badly they want them will be when they cancel those games in favor of P5 Home and Home contracts.

Until then, it is a belief that flies in the face of the evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

I can't speak as much since they went to NET because I don't understand it as well as the old RPI. ... The one sport it doesn't happen? Football.

So, what does NET and RPI have to do with football games?

If we are talking about a breakaway benefiting or hurting existing conference media rights value by reducing the opportunity for body bag games, we obviously have to focus on the body bag games for football. If something hurts football value and helps basketball value in equal proportion, it is a big net loss for a conference, since the regular season football is over twice the media value as the regular season basketball.

(06-21-2021 07:03 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 05:51 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 12:19 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 01:07 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  They want them because, until now the penalty for them (lower SOS) wasn't as punitive. Just remember another word, "Ohlmeyer".

The evidence that something has changed in how badly they want them will be when they cancel those games in favor of P5 Home and Home contracts.

Until then, it is a belief that flies in the face of the evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

I can't speak as much since they went to NET because I don't understand it as well as the old RPI. ... The one sport it doesn't happen? Football.

So, what does NET and RPI have to do with football games?

If we are talking about a breakaway benefiting or hurting existing conference media rights value by reducing the opportunity for body bag games, we obviously have to focus on the body bag games for football. If something hurts football value and helps basketball value in equal proportion, it is a big net loss for a conference, since the regular season football is over twice the media value as the regular season basketball.

Well they don't use NET/RPI in football so nothing. Maybe they should. If the CFP Committee establishes an official criteria that takes into account SOS than the schools might actually take it seriously. Might. They supposedly said SOS would matter. Then in 2017 Ohio State was punished for scheduling Oklahoma and Alabama was rewarded for scheduling an FCS team in November. So much for SOS. I'm surprised Ohio State still wants to play Oregon this year. They should just schedule cupcakes every year like Alabama does. Why risk losing non conference games and missing the Playoff? In seven seasons of the CFP, there were 28 teams, 17 that made it with one loss (none with 2 or more). Only one team made it with a non conference loss (2014 Ohio State).

(06-21-2021 07:13 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Well they don't use NET/RPI in football so nothing. Maybe they should. If the CFP Committee establishes an official criteria that takes into account SOS than the schools might actually take it seriously. Might. They supposedly said SOS would matter. Then in 2017 Ohio State was punished for scheduling Oklahoma and Alabama was rewarded for scheduling an FCS team in November. So much for SOS. I'm surprised Ohio State still wants to play Oregon this year. They should just schedule cupcakes every year like Alabama does. ...

Well, the Big Ten set up a rule that they had to play a P5 school OOC, so given 9 conference games, they can only play two body bag games, which for OSU is normally two Go5 games since OSU rarely plays FCS schools.

Of course, even if OSU wanted to, they no longer have the option to play an FCS school every year like the SEC schools do, since after flirting with a rule forbidding FCS schools, the Big Ten ended up with a rule that an FCS school can be scheduled in the year a Big Ten team has four Big Ten home games.

It would seem both rules are to satisfy the media partner, since there is a set of non-Contract-Bowl conference teams that get to be treated as "P5 for the sake of the P5 rule", and it seems like it is pretty much those that the media partner don't mind slotting into that role ... BYU, UC, etc.