North vs South

[Gator]

Taking a DEEEEP breath and deciding to finally ask a question I am almost afraid to bring up.

1) The North will rise again (that was FUN to type :) but you probably don't really appreciate it unless you were born and raised south of the Mason Dixon). Although I am probably thinking about it because of OU's position this year, it might be any one of us in the future.

2) When one division is significantly stronger than the other, is that a detriment for teams headed for the dance? (I'm thinking that it could lower the seeding of really good teams meaning that they have to play higher quality opponents earlier than would otherwise happen.)

3) If it is a problem, is there a logical "solution"?

[mgood1]

There is an arguement that if one North team can really dominate the North and win just a few games in the South, they could finish near the top of the conference. They could finish say 12-4 or 13-3 ahead of some South teams that beat them but got beat up by the competition in the South.

How this might affect NCAA seeding, I don't know. I doubt that they say, "Well, this B12 team has a record of such and such but they're in the B12 North and this team has this record but they're in the B12 South." I don't know if they dig into issues like that. Although I think strength of schedule does come into play and playing the South teams twice rather than once may improve SOS. (I'm weak on the nuts and bolts of all this, so someone feel free to correct me.)

I don't know if it's a problem. And if it is, the solution is for those teams to get better. Playing against better competition often makes you better. When I was a 10-12 year old, I played basketball with the kid next door just about every day. He was a better athlete than me. But he made me better because I had to work harder to keep up with him.
Look through the history of the Big 12. There are some teams who have spent time at both the top and at the bottom, OU for instance has finished last and they've finished first, so has A&M, so has Kansas, so has Baylor. OSU went from an 0-16 team to a 8-8 team with an NCAA Tournament berth in one season. (Although many of us said OSU was the best 0-16 team we'd ever seen. :) )

[ChipperF1]

1. The "divisions" in the Big XII are in place for travel purposes within the league. The divisions are not competitive entities they way they are in football. The league table is a single table and the postseason is based on that single table.

2. Officially such things don't affect NCAA tournament seeding, but the committee is made up with human beings and are subject to being affected by such things or investigating them. At the same time, remember.. conferences do not make the NCAA tournament. Individual teams make the NCAA tournament. You tournament profile is built on what you did in the games and those results. The conference coattails thing doesn't carry the weight many think it does.

"There is an arguement that if one North team can really dominate the North and win just a few games in the South, they could finish near the top of the conference.

3. Its an arguement, but what really happens in the Big 12 is that objects can often be closer than they appear. Consider how totally competitive Kansas State was when they had the Farm Five...yet they could be pipped by Iowa State or Nebraska in division while beating OU, BU and TTU outside of it. Or consider Baylor, this is a team that could beat the powers of the south division...but have lost two of the last three to rather proletarian Nebraska outfits. And Oklahoma fans know too well of how long it took them forge a split with Iowa State.

The whole division argument to me is some sound and fury signifying nothing. I see my team as one of a twelve-team league..and our goal is beat the other eleven teams.

[Noah121]

1. The "divisions" in the Big XII are in place for travel purposes within the league. The divisions are not competitive entities they way they are in football. The league table is a single table and the postseason is based on that single table.


By this, do you mean the "divisions" are simply for which teams are played home-and-home and which teams are only played once a year?

[tx4OU]

1. The "divisions" in the Big XII are in place for travel purposes within the league. The divisions are not competitive entities they way they are in football. The league table is a single table and the postseason is based on that single table.


Yes, but I think what Gator was asking is since B12N teams only play B12S teams once, they are free from having to play those south teams one more time which could/does affect their 'single' standing in the conf., b/c of greater potential for higher totals in the L column.

[ChipperF1]

"Yes, but I think what Gator was asking is since B12N teams only play B12S teams once, they are free from having to play those south teams one more time which could/does affect their 'single' standing in the conf.

But the reverse can be true. Lets say you play a full round robin and you southies don't win those games.

What difference does it make? You play who is on your schedule and you play to win.

[tx4OU]

But the reverse can be true. Lets say you play a full round robin and you southies don't win those games.

What difference does it make? You play who is on your schedule and you play to win.

IMO, the difference is in having to go into hostile environments more often against teams that are ranked in the top 25. Almost every south team is ranked right now. I know, to me, it just seems more formidable. Not that having to walk into any north arena isn't the same, I just think it would be interesting to see every B12 team have to play on everyone's court. But that's never going to happen b/c of game scheduling numbers.

Edit to add: And this effect can easily be switched in perspective. Who knows what the balance will be in another 4 to 8 years (graduating classes).

[Noah121]

I just think it would be interesting to see every B12 team have to play on everyone's court. But that's never going to happen b/c of game scheduling numbers.


Does the Big Twelve mandate the 16-game conference schedule? How difficult would it be to even just have 19 conference games (play home-and-home against your own divisional foes, home-and-home against three from the other division, and three single games against the rest of the other division?)

[Gator]

Debbie and Beth in this week's ShootAround have some VERY interesting things to say about the problems of conferences with uneven competition such as the Big 12 where one Division's teams play each other twice and the other Division's teams once. (They also have a very good interview with Coach G)

http://www.wbca.org/

[Gator]

Based on Debbie and Beth's comments about the Big 12 and other conferences which don't have their teams playing each other an equal amount of times, and their suggestion that a conference RPI (given equal games in conference?) might be more accurate for the NCAA to use as the basis for the S curve ..... (if you haven't listened to the pod cast, the link is in the following post)

I calculated the current CONFERENCE RPI for our teams and then ran the average current conference RPI for the teams remaining to be played. The first "ranking" below is current RPI and the second one is a rough approximation of the difficulty of the remaining conference schedule.

I'm not sure what it says yet, but .....
W L RPI **
** Average RPI of teams to be played
CURRENT RPI RANK


Kansas State 7 0 0.703 0.528
Baylor 7 0 0.672 0.579
Nebraska 4 3 0.651 0.517
Oklahoma 4 2 0.646 0.584
Texas A&M 3 4 0.642 0.594
Oklahoma State 4 2 0.625 0.596
Texas 3 4 0.562 0.597
Texas Tech 2 4 0.546 0.608
Iowa State 2 4 0.545 0.560
Colorado 2 5 0.477 0.599
Kansas 1 6 0.474 0.571
Missouri 1 6 0.405 0.599

RANKED BY DIFFICULTY OF REST OF SCHEDULE
W L RPI **
** Average RPI of teams to be played
Texas Tech 2 4 0.546 0.608
Missouri 1 6 0.405 0.599
Colorado 2 5 0.477 0.599
Texas 3 4 0.562 0.597
Oklahoma State 4 2 0.625 0.596
Texas A&M 3 4 0.642 0.594
Oklahoma 4 2 0.646 0.584
Baylor 7 0 0.672 0.579
Kansas 1 6 0.474 0.571
Iowa State 2 4 0.545 0.560
Kansas State 7 0 0.703 0.528
Nebraska 4 3 0.651 0.517

[YCN]

Debbie and Beth in this week's ShootAround have some VERY interesting things to say about the problems of conferences with uneven competition such as the Big 12 where one Division's teams play each other twice and the other Division's teams once. (They also have a very good interview with Coach G)

http://www.wbca.org/

I think that Debbie and Beth have a valid concept about having a conference RPI to equalize the difficulty of unbalanced conference schedules, but I don't see any way in the world that you can have a "one size fits all" solution for all the larger conferences when there are so many different scheduling situations.

They used the example of Duke having to play both North Carolina and Maryland twice, and how since Maryland and North Carolina only play each other once, maybe if Duke finishes with one more loss that they might deserve a higher seeding than one or both of Maryland or North Carolina if either or both of them finish with one less loss. But what about Maryland? They had to play their only game with North Carolina in Chapel Hill, and only lost that game in two overtimes. It seems to me that the outcome indicates that Maryland would have been more likely to win if the game had been in College Park. At least Duke gets to play home-and-home with both teams.

Then they talked about how maybe the South teams are in aggregate tougher than the North teams in the Big 12, which would seem to give a greater chance to the best team from the North winning the Big 12 because of an easier schedule. That's all fine and good, but what implementation could you possibly have that creates an equal solution for difference conferences? Unless you factor in wins on the road as more valuable, and losses at home as more damaging, AND factor in some sort of schedule strength adjustment as well, I don't know how you could do it.

I think in short, regardless of what the schedules are, they are what they are. In the SEC, you play three of your five divisional opponents twice, and every other team once. How do you deal with that? Or the Big Ten, where you play eight teams twice and two teams once? Or the Big East, where you play fourteen teams once and one team twice?

And that doesn't even begin to factor in TRUE home court advantage, where in the Big 12 you face a lot of very large and enthusiastic crowds on the road, and maybe have huge and boisterous crowds for your home games. Or in a league like the MEAC or SWAC, where there might only be a couple hundred people in the stands in the little gyms so common in those leagues.

There's no way to do it. Unless the Big 12 was to go to a 22 game schedule and the Big Ten to 20, and so forth, there will always be unbalanced schedules. How about the Big East? A 30 game conference schedule isn't even doable. The power leagues of course have the advantage of being able to "buy" home wins to gerrymander the team's overall record to make them look better than they really are. That's not fair either, but I don't know how you stop it.

One thing that I think could be done, and which wouldn't be an ideal situation either, would be to divide a conference into two separate competitive entities in terms of competition, and seed each half top to bottom. I think the MAC does that already. It doesn't fix the unbalanced schedule issue, but if it's about seeding for a conference tournament it might be more fair. So the best team in one division plays the worst in the other division in the first round, and so forth. But you'll never put total fairness into the equation.


I've been thinking also about the decision to return to sixteen first and second round sites for the NCAA tournament. It bothers me from a competitive viewpoint that some teams would be hosting on their own floors with HUGE advantages in first and second round play, especially the one and two seeds.

Here's what I'd like to see for this format, not only to greatly diminish home court advantage, but also to increase interest and attendance at those sixteen sites.

We know that if the sixteen sites are predetermined that most of the sites will end up with a host team, while a few will not because the team failed to make the NCAA tournament. Why not instead go to the sites hosted by the sixteen teams seeded one through four, and instead of the current assignment regime where 1 plays 16, 2 plays 15, 3 plays 14 and 4 plays 13, we create a much more challenging situation for those host teams? Here's one way you could limit the home court advantage to a minimum:

For each region, put the 1, 5, 9 and 13 seeds at the top seed's site.
Put the 2, 6, 10 and 14 seeds at the second seed's site.
Put the 3, 7, 11 and 15 seeds at the third seed's site.
And put the 4, 8, 12, and 16 seeds at the fourth seed's site.

Make 1 play 9 and 5 play 13 in the first round, with the winners advancing.
Make 2 pay 10 and 6 play 14.
Make 3 play 11 and 7 play 15.
Make 4 play 12 and 8 play 16.

In the current setup 1 plays 16 and if they win play the 8-9 winner, 2 plays 15 then the 7-10 winner, 3 plays 14 then the 6-11 winnner, and 4 plays 13 then the 5-12 winner. This means that the 1 seeds have nearly automatic routes into the Sweet Sixteen, not playing anyone within 25 spots of their overall tournament ranking through the first two rounds. In the meantime, besides getting a much more challenging first round opponent, one of the 4 seeds will actually play the team ranked immediately below them in the second round. There's a terrible gap in seeding advantage created that way for the top seeds, way too much for what they deserve. Because they deserve not to have a cakewalk for two rounds, no matter who they are.

But doing it the way I suggest makes it significantly more challenging for 1 and 2 seeds to advance from their own sites, makes it somewhat easier for 3 and 4 seeds to advance from their own sites, and makes a much more balanced competitive situation all around. Sixteen seeds aren't automatic outs (well, almost automatic) like they are now. And I don't see how a 15 playing a 7 in the first round isn't a lot fairer than how it is now. In 26 NCAA tournaments 15 and 16 seeds have combined for 1 win and 207 losses. That's fair?

Anyway, I wanted to bring that in to show that it's not necessary to give 1 seeds an obscenely easier path the the third round than 4 seeds, and at the same time create 32 first round and 16 second round games that are far more attractive and exciting overall than in the current system.

I believe it would work extremely well. And maybe instead of predetermined sites where certain teams would have huge advantages and other sites where nobody would show for the games, we could put a total wild card in the site selection process. Instead of having the top 16 teams host, how about the team WITH THE BEST AVERAGE HOME ATTENDANCE has first right to host, should they choose to do so? So what if they are a 5 seed or a 13 or whatever? The regions would already be set up for much more competitiveness than there is now, so how much fun would it be to see, say a top seeded Rutgers have to play at ninth seeded Wyoming in the the first round?

I'd love that!

[mred]

Make 1 play 9 and 5 play 13 in the first round, with the winners advancing.
Make 2 pay 10 and 6 play 14.
Make 3 play 11 and 7 play 15.
Make 4 play 12 and 8 play 16.


The big flaw in this is that the 8 seed gets the benefit of playing the 16 seed while the 9 seed is stuck playing the 1 seed. There's a huge difference between getting the 8 seed and getting the 9 seed, even though there is very little difference between the quality of the 8 and 9 seeds.

[YCN]

The big flaw in this is that the 8 seed gets the benefit of playing the 16 seed while the 9 seed is stuck playing the 1 seed. There's a huge difference between getting the 8 seed and getting the 9 seed, even though there is very little difference between the quality of the 8 and 9 seeds.

Each team plays a team seeded either 8 seeds higher or lower in the first round. How is that less fair than a one walking over a sixteen, while an eight plays a nine? It seems even worse in the second round, when a one usually plays an eight or nine, while a four usually plays a five. There's way too much advantage given to one seeds compared to four seeds. An eight or nine would have to play a one seed in the second round anyway. The point is to reduce the hosting advantage while creating as many attractive games as possible. There's no perfect system, but the way it's set up now combined with some hosting the first rounds is terribly unfair to most of the other teams. At most sites where the host institution doesn't have a tournament team, attendance will be poor, most especially when the three games are 1-16, 8-9, and then almost surely 1-8 or 1-9.

For a 12 seed to win two games, they have to upset a 5 and then a 4. But if you are an 8 seed you need to beat a 9 and then a 1, a far more difficult task. That's not fair to the 8 seed, but that's the way it is now.

[mgood1]

South 14 wins against North teams
North 7 wins against South teams

South: 6 Road Wins against North teams minus 3 Home Losses to North teams = 3
North: 3 Road Wins against South teams minus 6 Home Losses to South teams = -3
Up through and including the BU-KSU game.

Note that all three of the North's victories on Southern courts come from one team.

[BearLady]

Thanks for posting the link, Gator. I enjoyed listening to Deb and Beth. How often do they update their show?

I also found their comments re officiating in the various conferences very interesting . . . especially the statement that who got to work in which conference was very, very political.

[breid]

They usually update their podcast each Wednesday. I really enjoy listening to them..........my pre-game ritual each Wednesday evening!:D

[Gator]

Based on Conference RPIs - KState now had the easiest remainder of the schedule - at least that is my projection based on the Baylor win. I'll update the Conference RPIs and average RPIs of remaining conference opponents after the weekend games are done.

[mgood1]

Yeah, KSU is looking like they could finish 15-1.
Baylor could very well wind up second at 14-2 or 13-3.
Just speculation based on who looks to have the tougher road ahead.