Forum Replies Created
I’m going to have to retract my ND conclusion. Here’s a year-old article that says that ND’s total athletic revenue exceeds all of the ACC schools….by a fair margin.
The ACC numbers discussed in the original post only cover the money that the schools receive from the ACC (media rights plus football bowl money).
The ACC won’t be splitting with ESPN anytime soon.
Commissioner John Swofford said Thursday the ACC Network will launch in August 2019 as part of an extended media deal with ESPN that now runs through the 2035-36 season.
– It would stand to reason that if the ACC added ND and another school, then that would effectively render the current deal with ESPN as invalid and open up another round of negotiation. Of course that crazy future viewing rights thing may cover ESPN, but I doubt that would stand up in court.
I don’t think that this is true. The past ACC expansions have resulted in new media deals, but the reports I saw made it sound like the possibility of expansion was always included in the existing contract.
– The key for the ACC would be to get the per member payout up. I’m not convinced these mega-leagues have been great for per school revenue. That would have to be the focus.
Every new deal that I’ve read about has increased the per-school payout. While it’s obvious that this is what schools would want, it also makes sense for the networks. More power schools in “your” conference increases the odds of having a national “power” team under contract (as long as you’re sure that the conference isn’t going to add an ECU to the conference.)
Notre Dame, who was paid $4 million by the ACC last year, was given a distribution of $5.8 million due to its affiliation with the ACC in other sports outside of football.
With $15M from NBC (plus bowl money), it seems like ND athletics is lagging behind the other P5 schools.
George Orwell may not have uttered the line that ended the post, even though it is frequently attributed to him:
Syracuse made it in a couple of years ago with an RPI 70+ RPI. That I believe was the highest ever.
When I first built the RPI ranges that I use for a quick and dirty test, there was one team that had something like #75. So SYR was the second team >70 since I’ve began tracking in the days of the Herbble.
Earlier on in the season, there was a quote from the Selection Committee chairman that there had only been one team with an RPI >75 to get a bid. He didn’t mention the team or the year.
I thought that Syracuse got lucky. With a losing conference record against one of the easiest ACC schedules, I would have left them at home.
I saw one report that the Orange was the last team in…much like NC State with TJ Warren. I thought that State needed one more big win that year as well. I guess it’s better to be pleasantly surprised than pissed off.
Along with OK St, here’s a little table illustrating the effect of RPI on NCAAT seeding.
If you based seeding only on big wins, the three 8/9 seeds should be seeded higher than Miami. However, a better OOC schedule gave the Canes a much better RPI ranking and a much better chance of progressing to the Sweet 16.
Anyone who thinks that OOC schedule doesn’t matter, simply isn’t paying attention.
Vitale’s big complaint was Okie St. With an RPI of 90, I doubt that they even got serious consideration. Another team done in by a miserable OOC schedule (and a losing conference record couldn’t have helped).
NCAA had them at 34 but still to your point bet there are some ill feelings in SoCal this morning!
When your best wins are Mid Tenn and N. Mexico St, you’re not likely to impress anyone. Finishing second in a bad power conference is not going to carry much weight without some big wins along the way.
I thought Louisville was more deserving than Syracuse
How so? They were 0-11 vs the RPI Top 50. That is not likely to ever get a bid.
Lunardi just said he has Notre Dame in with wins over Pitt and Va Tech.
Maybe, but I wouldn’t bet a huge sum of money on it.
is there a rubric for like the “last 6 games of the regular season” or something? Sort of a late season fade/momentum thing.
I think that in the past, that finishing strong against good competition was a plus and stumbling down the stretch was an issue. However several years ago, the Selection chair specifically said that all wins were treated the same no matter when they occurred. I have also documented several times where stumbling down the stretch clearly wasn’t used to give out bids.
However, if the stumbling was caused by the loss of a key player that was not going to be available for the NCAAT….then the Selection Committee would include that in their deliberation. I specifically remember a mid-major that did not get a bid because their best player was lost late in the season.
So Vawolf – what are your thoughts on what we need to do, if anything in the tournament to secure a bid?
I think that State’s good. Obviously I don’t want to lose to BC, but I think that State has done enough.
I also think that the miserable OOC schedule has degraded State’s RPI ranking so much that a poor seed is nearly assured almost no matter what State does in the ACCT. But for this year, just making the NCAAT should be a great calling card to use when KK goes recruiting for ’19 freshman.
What say you?
For every team you put in the field that didn’t earn it, you have to take one out that did. ->
“I think they would have won” can’t over ride “did win”.
UVa was predicted to finish 6th. He won 17 league games. That’s crazy stuff.
And from unranked to #1. Bennett will be one of the front-runners for national COY.
This award has been Bennett’s to lose since about the third week in Jan (if not sooner).
I’m not going to disagree, but the Committee made a conscious decision not to use performance down the stretch as a deciding factor.
OU is an interesting case. I hadn’t looked at their resume until you mentioned them. They are 3 games under .500 in the #1 conference and have 5 Top 25 wins. It will be interesting to see how they finish and what the Selection Committee does with them.
Just my opinion but I think this is where the new formula is wrong.
Then you’ll be relieved that the professors behind the Dance Card found that at-large bids correlated better with the old RPI formula (all wins and losses = 1) than the new,
My theory is that the new formula devalues the home upsets where the Selection Committee values big wins when they sort through the bubble. Likewise the road wins by mid-majors that elevate their RPI relative to teams in the middle of power conferences don’t really mean much.
If that early/late season weighing makes sense for a 12 game season, it seems to me it makes even more sense when trying to quantify a team’s body of work over a 30 game season.
Several years ago, the Selection Committee specifically said that it doesn’t matter when in the season a victory happened…they’re all treated the same.
Late-season injuries are a key exception to the above rule. The loss of a key player late in the season is one of the things that the Selection Committee will consider.
My question is (and has been) why does it matter if we played teams that are in the high 200’s/low 300’s or teams in the low or middle 200’s? In either case we would be expected to win, maybe by 12 instead of 20+ but still expected.
The UNC-G and UNI losses would appear to disprove this theory.
In the article I linked in the Misc Bracketology section, the Selection chairman talked about wanting teams to challenge themselves with their OOC schedule. The more meaningful games a team plays, the better read the committee can get when evaluating them. And ultimately that’s the committee’s job….select and seed the best teams in college basketball.
I don’t knock KK for this OOC schedule. No one could have predicted the improvement in MJ and Y7 and how all of the various pieces of a flung-together team would work out. If you go back and read my first entry before the conference schedule got in full swing, I said that State’s OOC schedule wouldn’t matter this year. I’m certainly glad to have been proven wrong.
Back to the cupcakes….nearly everyone plays some of these. The problem is that State played way too many.
overall our record is 20-9 theirs 19-9 by all statistical criteria l
You included one statistic that is meaningless (point spread) and left out one statistical category that is extremely important. The team’s record is adjusted by applying a weighting factor based on where the games are played.
Home wins count for 0.7 wins and home losses count as 1.4 losses.
Road wins count for 1.4 wins and road losses count as 0.7 losses.
Neutral wins/losses count as 1.0 wins/losses.
The weekly ACC update won’t be up until sometime late Mon night. I hate it when real life interferes with the on-line one.
Two former N.C. State basketball coaches, including Mark Gottfried, were in contact with the associate of an NBA agent who had been disassociated from N.C. State…
If this surprises anyone, they clearly weren’t paying attention.
Not only were the DSJ rumors rampant last year, the rumored payoff amount turned out to be frightfully close to the amount mentioned in the news articles. If the damage can be limited to Gott’s tenure, then it is probably no big deal.
people getting palms greased to showcase the wares of certain players, and some of those palms are likely on the committee.
We’re talking about vast amounts of money…which could always affect the brackets. But I don’t think the any such conspiracy is involved for the following reasons:
1) The committee members rotate on for a few years and then may never be involved again. Thus the shear numbers of people that would have to be bought off and then remain quiet for all time grows quickly.
2) AD’s don’t on their own team. Conference commissioners don’t vote on anyone in their conference. So you would have to buy off members from other conferences to conspire and possibly hurt their own conference members.
3) Statistical analysis (Dance Card) shows that the teams selected can be predicted based on that season’s results.
4) Those that have gone through a mock selection event have concluded that such conspiracies are not possible:
Some people come in with preconceived notions of how it works,” Worlock said. “Then they find out about some matchup conspiracies … even if the committee wanted to put on a mad scientist hat and create these juicy matchups, there’s just no time for it because of the bracketing principles.”
In other words, if the real bracket contains a matchup between West Virginia and Cincinnati, it’s not because committee members are trying to tweak Bob Huggins.
Dave Revsine, lead studio host for the Big Ten Network, did the mock selection a few years back. As he says of the exercise: “It debunks all the myths.”
VT hanging on for dear life – hosting Clemson tonight
L’ville falls out – They’re at Duke tonight
SYR moves ahead of State (I suspect that’s a function of the difference in RPI ranking.) – They host UNC tonight