| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CalwbbFan
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 655
Location: Berkeley
Back to top |
|
dfineguy
Joined: 05 Oct 2008
Posts: 76
Location: Bay Area Califonia
Back to top |
 Posted: 07/25/10 12:26 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Perhaps having Cal schools(Cal, Stanford, USC and UCLA) play each other twice each year and formula out the other 10 games between the remaining 8 teams. The Northwest schools could keep a home and home and the INLAND state schools could do the same. Might work and it will preserve traditional Pac8/Pac10 rivalries.
_________________
From the Desk of the Cat in the Hat
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 3756
Back to top |
|
FS02
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 4409
Location: Husky (west coast) Country
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/26/10 3:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Since it sounds like OOC games are getting harder to set up anyway, I actually like Tara's suggestion. A lot of the Pac 10 teams play OOC games against pretty weak opponents.
_________________
@dtmears2
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 4524
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/26/10 3:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| FS02 wrote: |
| Since it sounds like OOC games are getting harder to set up anyway, I actually like Tara's suggestion. A lot of the Pac 10 teams play OOC games against pretty weak opponents. |
Honestly, it's a terrible idea if the conference wants to get more bids and better seeds in the NCAAs. What the Pac-12 needs is more OOC games, not fewer.
|
|
FS02
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 4409
Location: Husky (west coast) Country
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/26/10 6:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| FS02 wrote: |
| Since it sounds like OOC games are getting harder to set up anyway, I actually like Tara's suggestion. A lot of the Pac 10 teams play OOC games against pretty weak opponents. |
Honestly, it's a terrible idea if the conference wants to get more bids and better seeds in the NCAAs. What the Pac-12 needs is more OOC games, not fewer. |
Stanford could replace the Pepperdine's and UC Davises with Pac 10 teams. The people hurt by it would be the mid-majors out here.
_________________
@dtmears2
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 4524
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/26/10 8:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| FS02 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| FS02 wrote: |
| Since it sounds like OOC games are getting harder to set up anyway, I actually like Tara's suggestion. A lot of the Pac 10 teams play OOC games against pretty weak opponents. |
Honestly, it's a terrible idea if the conference wants to get more bids and better seeds in the NCAAs. What the Pac-12 needs is more OOC games, not fewer. |
Stanford could replace the Pepperdine's and UC Davises with Pac 10 teams. The people hurt by it would be the mid-majors out here. |
Stanford's problem is not its OOC schedule. Its problem is that it plays more conference games than any other top team and is in a conference that for the last five years or so has had a much worse bottom half than any other major conference. Increasing the number of conference games would magnify both issues.
It's possible that taking away games against teams like Pepperdine and UC Davis would make up for that, but I'm not certain. However, teams like UCLA, USC and Arizona State would be unlikely to benefit from a full double round-robin.
|
|
mekanos
Joined: 21 Mar 2009
Posts: 753
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/26/10 9:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Don't see how anyone can argue the current formula (with OCC) worked for the Pac-10 in basketball (women got 2 teams into the NCAA tourney).
That fact alone leaves them free to make any strategic change they want. Can't get much worse than what it is.
|
|
FS02
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 4409
Location: Husky (west coast) Country
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/26/10 11:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| FS02 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| FS02 wrote: |
| Since it sounds like OOC games are getting harder to set up anyway, I actually like Tara's suggestion. A lot of the Pac 10 teams play OOC games against pretty weak opponents. |
Honestly, it's a terrible idea if the conference wants to get more bids and better seeds in the NCAAs. What the Pac-12 needs is more OOC games, not fewer. |
Stanford could replace the Pepperdine's and UC Davises with Pac 10 teams. The people hurt by it would be the mid-majors out here. |
Stanford's problem is not its OOC schedule. Its problem is that it plays more conference games than any other top team and is in a conference that for the last five years or so has had a much worse bottom half than any other major conference. Increasing the number of conference games would magnify both issues. |
I don't think so. The only games you're adding are against the new teams. Utah is easily better than the bottom half of the current Pac 10 Conference, and hopefully Colorado will be as well under their new coach. The disaster would be to split the California teams up when you go to divisions, putting Stanford and Cal at a further disadvantage.
If anything, I think they should do away with the stupid tournament which no one goes to. But I love the double-round-robin schedule, I think it's the most fair type of schedule you can have.
_________________
@dtmears2
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 1772
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/27/10 10:44 am ::: |
Reply |
|
OK, here's the plan for basketball:
Divide the Pac-12 into three four-team divisions:
Northwest: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
California: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford
Southwest: Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado.
Each team plays home-and-home within its four-team division: six games.
Each team plays the other two divisions once each: eight games.
That gives you 14 games, and obviously you alternate home-and-away outside the division. The schedule could be devised so that every team gets a visit to L.A. each year.
Travel costs are cut, regional rivalries are preserved and the league maintains integrity because everyone plays everyone else at least once.
_________________
Clay Kallam
Last edited by ClayK on 07/27/10 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
dfineguy
Joined: 05 Oct 2008
Posts: 76
Location: Bay Area Califonia
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/27/10 10:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Clay, when you say "here's the plan", do you mean this is what they intend to do at this time? And that's 3 divisions by the way.
_________________
From the Desk of the Cat in the Hat
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 4524
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/27/10 2:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| FS02 wrote: |
I don't think so. The only games you're adding are against the new teams. Utah is easily better than the bottom half of the current Pac 10 Conference, and hopefully Colorado will be as well under their new coach. The disaster would be to split the California teams up when you go to divisions, putting Stanford and Cal at a further disadvantage.
If anything, I think they should do away with the stupid tournament which no one goes to. But I love the double-round-robin schedule, I think it's the most fair type of schedule you can have. |
Kill the tournament and you add one OOC game to the schedule, which wouldn't be so bad.
Here's the thing about more conference games: The more you have, the more the RPIs of the teams in the conference get pulled towards .5000. That's good news if you're in a very weak conference, but bad news if you're in a major conference. It means that a team like Stanford, UCLA, USC or Arizona State will get fewer games against RPI top 25 and top 50 teams than otherwise, and therefore will not look as good to the tournament committee. The Pac-10 already gets hurt by this because they play 18 conference games. It would be much worse if they played 22.
Also, reducing the number of OOC games reduces the number of opportunities to get big OOC wins, and that also hurts teams that are borderline for the tournament. All in all, it just isn't helpful.
As for the specifics of Utah and Colorado's impact, it's hard to know this far out. If you look at last year, though, Utah would have been 6th in the new Pac-12 in RPI and Colorado would have been 8th. That wouldn't have affected the overall conference RPI much at all, and neither one finished in the RPI top 50. Colorado probably would have done better against Pac-10 opponents, but the Buffs were at 120, so they weren't leaping into the top 50 no matter what. It's hard to say how Utah would have done. My conclusion is that last year the upside from adding these two teams would have been minimal. Maybe in two years, especially with the recruiting advantage this gives Utah, things will be different, but even if Utah and Colorado both improve the average quality of the conference, you're almost certainly better off with a shorter conference schedule.
(And, personally, I think Clay's suggestion is about right here - three divisions, home-and-home against your division and one game against each other team. You can give the division winners and the team with the best record that doesn't win a division byes in the tournament.)
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 1772
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/27/10 4:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| The plan was my plan, not the Pac-12's plan. And given my track record, I'm guessing this has just about as good a chance as coming to pass as Oregon State does of winning the conference title.
_________________
Clay Kallam
|
|
FS02
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 4409
Location: Husky (west coast) Country
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/27/10 4:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I understand all the arguments about RPI, I just don't think it's that big of a deal to me. If you're good, you will get a bid in the NCAA tournament, but I want an entertaining regular season too.
_________________
@dtmears2
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 75
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/05/10 8:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| FS02 wrote: |
| I understand all the arguments about RPI, I just don't think it's that big of a deal to me. |
Doesn't seem to be a big deal to the Tournament Committee, either. UCLA's RPI last season heading into the tourney pencilled out to a 4-seed. But the friggin' Tournament Committee stuck us with an 8 (which, of course, meant a 2nd-round game against a 1-seed). $C got jobbed out of a tourney bid despite having a higher RPI than several other teams that did get at-large bids (including North Carolina, Iowa and Mississippi St.).
So, no, I don't really see the point in tweaking our conference's schedule structure for the purpose of improving an RPI number that the Tournament Committee will just go ahead and ignore anyway.
Double round-robin. It's the fairest, simplest way.
Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 28533
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/05/10 8:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
UCLA had an RPI of 22 last season, which is a #6 seed. They were the only major conference team in the top 30 to be winless against top 25 RPI opponents, something that usually drops a team in the bracket._________________ If you want a revolution, the only solution's evolve
My WNBA Fan Site |
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 4524
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/06/10 6:41 am ::: |
Reply |
|
To follow up on pilight's post, you can't just look at RPI and say the seed should match. The committee looks at top 25, top 50 and top 100 RPI wins and losses (and losses against sub-100 teams) much more than it considers the RPI rank.
My point was that a double round robin would hurt teams in those categories, not in raw RPI.
|
|
|
|
Glad I'm not the one trying to make that decision.