I used KenPom's advanced SOS ratings (https://kenpom.com/index.php?s=RankSOS) since you were saying KenPom would more likely be used than NET.

Wichita State was definitely an interesting case. As a #1 seed, they lost in the Round of 32. For adjusted SOS in KenPom, they were #125 that year. The following year, when they won 30 games again, they only got a #7 seed (again over #100 in adjusted SOS). In 2017, again when they won 30 games, they were now a #10 seed. In each instance, they had an adjusted SOS over over 100. Strength of scheduling was a big factor in WSU pursuing membership in the AAC, and why Gonzaga flirted with the MWC too.

SOS matters (as does a variety of other factors) in determining resumes, bids and seeds. I think one of the factors (OOC power conference matchups for non-power conferences) will be a big key to look at moving forward. There is absolutely a trend there (Big Ten, PAC, ACC, Big East and the SEC), and one that nearly all of the power conferences are making unilaterally (Big 12 can't, since they only have 10 members).

the NET is going to be closer to the Ken Pom for the actual rating. HOWEVER, the SOS isn't changing at all....

Like I said- the impact on everything will hinge on the NCAA committee. Do we see 17-15 teams getting in the tourney? Lets just say I have my doubts.

I have mixed emotions about this subject.

Would I want my Vanderbilt Commodores in the Big Dance at 17-15? Of course. But at the exclusion of, for example, a 27-5 team (and, let's say, C-USA runner-up) from Middle Tennessee State (my alma mater and for which I cheer)? It would depend on many, many factors.

One thing lost in the round-robin debate for the Big East, S20: Even if it means, for example, that one year the BE gets five instead of six, I still like how the round-robin can build rivalries, fan interest, player/coach interest. In other words, the potential benefits go beyond considerations involving the number of possible tourney bids.

Additionally, the Big East is no longer in "Prove It" mode, as they clearly were from 2013-2018. There was tremendous urgency to show that a non-football conference could still be an elite basketball conference and identify that it could still belong at the highest levels of college basketball. Between keeping the BE name, MSG as a tournament site, Villanova winning two national championships, having 9 of 10 teams make the dance, Xavier making an Elite Eight, Nova/Xavier both getting #1 bids in a year, the Gavitt Games Challenge (w/ Big Ten), the Battle (w/ Big 12), UConn returning to the league and, now, a new Coast-to-Coast Challenge (w/ the PAC), there remains zero doubt as to where the Big East stands within the college basketball hierarchy. Perhaps most importantly, the Big East has now expanded from a position of strength, rather than a reactionary move of despair (which arguably was one of many reasons the league was on a collision course to breakup).

Maybe the 20-game conference schedule doesn't work long-term, maybe the round-robin outlives its usefulness and maybe both get discarded in efforts to protect bids/seeds; however, every move the Big East has made to this point has been in conjunction with the other power conferences, and it would be a tremendously high hill to climb to argue that the league's leadership has done anything short of a fabulous job when it comes to ensuring the Big East remains an elite basketball conference.

Time will reveal everything. However, the league's future and ability to continue to compete at the highest levels is incredibly secure.

(05-26-2020 09:50 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Additionally, the Big East is no longer in "Prove It" mode, as they clearly were from 2013-2018. There was tremendous urgency to show that a non-football conference could still be an elite basketball conference and identify that it could still belong at the highest levels of college basketball. Between keeping the BE name, MSG as a tournament site, Villanova winning two national championships, having 9 of 10 teams make the dance, Xavier making an Elite Eight, Nova/Xavier both getting #1 bids in a year, the Gavitt Games Challenge (w/ Big Ten), the Battle (w/ Big 12), UConn returning to the league and, now, a new Coast-to-Coast Challenge (w/ the PAC), there remains zero doubt as to where the Big East stands within the college basketball hierarchy. Perhaps most importantly, the Big East has now expanded from a position of strength, rather than a reactionary move of despair (which arguably was one of many reasons the league was on a collision course to breakup).

Maybe the 20-game conference schedule doesn't work long-term, maybe the round-robin outlives its usefulness and maybe both get discarded in efforts to protect bids/seeds; however, every move the Big East has made to this point has been in conjunction with the other power conferences, and it would be a tremendously high hill to climb to argue that the league's leadership has done anything short of a fabulous job when it comes to ensuring the Big East remains an elite basketball conference.

Time will reveal everything. However, the league's future and ability to continue to compete at the highest levels is incredibly secure.

Back in 2013/15, I never felt the "then-new Big East" would need to prove anything related to it being a power league. I strongly felt it would be from Day 1. I seem to recall many other reasonable and fair-minded folks felt like I did (but my memory is bad, admittedly). I started reading this board in 2012-13 and maybe there was some "prove it" skepticism from some posters (but it seems most of them would have been biased against the Big East so their views were skewed). But I never had any doubt, which is noteworthy because I would be the first to be skeptical given my "journalists' desire to ask questions and be skeptical." The Catholic 7 could have added three NAIA programs and it would still have been a power league (a stretch but you get my point).

Now, true, there are folks (and I have posted this many times and will not rehash in detail) who look at Big East hoops differently than they do men's basketball in the comprehensive P5. That has been the case since 2013 and won't change. I don't agree with them. But I don't take their views as insulting. They are hard-core fans and followers of P5 programs who define "power" in a very restrictive manner.

I've come around to the 20-game conference schedule (was slightly concerned at first) and feel it will work long-term. But your overall point is strong: league leadership vision and flexibility is impressive and will continue to be (we would think).

I'm not even a true "fan of the BE" (or any league) but I'm tremendously impressed with the "chess moves" of league leaders.

(05-26-2020 12:22 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(05-26-2020 09:50 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Additionally, the Big East is no longer in "Prove It" mode, as they clearly were from 2013-2018. There was tremendous urgency to show that a non-football conference could still be an elite basketball conference and identify that it could still belong at the highest levels of college basketball. Between keeping the BE name, MSG as a tournament site, Villanova winning two national championships, having 9 of 10 teams make the dance, Xavier making an Elite Eight, Nova/Xavier both getting #1 bids in a year, the Gavitt Games Challenge (w/ Big Ten), the Battle (w/ Big 12), UConn returning to the league and, now, a new Coast-to-Coast Challenge (w/ the PAC), there remains zero doubt as to where the Big East stands within the college basketball hierarchy. Perhaps most importantly, the Big East has now expanded from a position of strength, rather than a reactionary move of despair (which arguably was one of many reasons the league was on a collision course to breakup).

Maybe the 20-game conference schedule doesn't work long-term, maybe the round-robin outlives its usefulness and maybe both get discarded in efforts to protect bids/seeds; however, every move the Big East has made to this point has been in conjunction with the other power conferences, and it would be a tremendously high hill to climb to argue that the league's leadership has done anything short of a fabulous job when it comes to ensuring the Big East remains an elite basketball conference.

Time will reveal everything. However, the league's future and ability to continue to compete at the highest levels is incredibly secure.

Back in 2013/15, I never felt the "then-new Big East" would need to prove anything related to it being a power league. I strongly felt it would be from Day 1. I seem to recall many other reasonable and fair-minded folks felt like I did (but my memory is bad, admittedly). I started reading this board in 2012-13 and maybe there was some "prove it" skepticism from some posters (but it seems most of them would have been biased against the Big East so their views were skewed). But I never had any doubt, which is noteworthy because I would be the first to be skeptical given my "journalists' desire to ask questions and be skeptical." The Catholic 7 could have added three NAIA programs and it would still have been a power league (a stretch but you get my point).

Now, true, there are folks (and I have posted this many times and will not rehash in detail) who look at Big East hoops differently than they do men's basketball in the comprehensive P5. That has been the case since 2013 and won't change. I don't agree with them. But I don't take their views as insulting. They are hard-core fans and followers of P5 programs who define "power" in a very restrictive manner.

I've come around to the 20-game conference schedule (was slightly concerned at first) and feel it will work long-term. But your overall point is strong: league leadership vision and flexibility is impressive and will continue to be (we would think).

I'm not even a true "fan of the BE" (or any league) but I'm tremendously impressed with the "chess moves" of league leaders.

Nice reflections, Bill. As a BE fan, I would unequivocally argue that the reformed Big East was in a "Prove It" mode. Entering the very first year, Providence, St. John's, Seton Hall and DePaul all finished in the bottom third of the league the prior season; DePaul hadn't made the NCAA Tournament as a member of the Big East, Providence hadn't made one since 2004; St. John's had one appearance in ten years; Seton Hall was going several years without an appearance; the last national champions were in the 80's (Georgetown/Villanova); Georgetown, Villanova and Marquette were expected to be at the top of the new league. Most of the previous years elite-level success had come from the collection of Louisville, Syracuse and UConn, along with a few of the C7. However, from chaos there is always opportunity, and the C7 seized it in a historical way.

It was clear from the get-go, with a unified message from coaches, ADs and Presidents, the reformed league was all in it together (which undoubtedly helped the league survive and thrive). They all bought into the mission, supported one another and achieved success together.

For non-P5 leagues, what the Big East accomplished in reformation should be the blueprint for smaller, like-minded, leagues moving forward. No non-P5 conference can reap the revenues, exposure and successes that they can; the long-term goal should be smaller, more compact, leagues with similar athletic missions to maximize revenues and limit costs.

You were clearly following the split much more closely than I was, GW11, and, as such, you know the history and might have even encountered some posters on this board (and others) who were dismissive of what the C7 were trying to do back then. I probably read some of those posts but can't remember. Based on what you say, there clearly were more doubters than I recall.

Agree with you about how non-P leagues need to be as unified and "like-missioned" as possible. I always thought it was rather odd that the OVC invited Belmont given 1. Belmont is private (the only such school in the OVC) and 2. the league already had TSU in Nashville. But as a Belmont fan, it's been a good home for the Bruins. The West Coast Conference is a fairly strong example of the "blueprint" you reference.

Here in Nashville, I encounter fewer college sports fans today than I did, say, five years ago who don't understand what the Big East is about or how successful it has been. And that's good in that 1. most fans have been educating themselves; 2. the BE has done a fine job generating much-deserved positive attention (winning does that) and 3. I don't have to argue as frequently now as I once did with, say, a University of Tennessee Vols homer who thinks DePaul men's hoops is "mid-major." That same fan today would more likely note that DePaul is a high-major in a power league. Progress has been made.

As a member of the media, I sometimes take it upon myself to try to "enlighten" these folks and most are receptive. I'm probably a bit condescending about it at times. But I'm working on it.