Almost immediately after the College Football Playoff was introduced, all of the Power 5 conferences except for the SEC announced that they would be adding a ninth conference game to their schedules. By eliminating one guarantee game against an inferior opponent, they boosted their individual strength of schedule, which, in turn, raised the conference's strength of schedule. Both of which are key factors in determining who ends up in the College Football Playoff.
College basketball has found its own version of the nine-game football schedule. This year, the ACC and Big Ten began playing 20-game conference schedules. The Pac-12 and Big East are set to add a 20th game next season, leaving the SEC as the only outlier (the Big 12 can't go beyond 18 unless they expand by at least one member).
While the idea of 20 conference games seems like a lot, it's actually a smart move. Because it has helped the power conferences consolidate their power. And, as a result, they're going to continue dominating the NCAA Tournament at-large selections, leaving few, if any bids available for the mid-majors (San Diego State, the Gonzaga-BYU loser and either Cincinnati or Houston might be it). Which, I think, is the entire point.
Take the Big Ten. They're likely going to get at least 10 teams into the Tournament this year, with Indiana having a shot at making it 11. If they do get 11, it'll tie the record set by the then-16-team Big East in 2011. Purdue is probably NIT-bound, but if the Boilermakers make a run in the Big Ten Tournament, they could conceivably make it a record-setting 12. Which is made even more absurd when you consider there are 14 teams in the Big Ten, meaning 85.7 percent of the conference would have made the NCAA Tournament.
The Big Ten put eight teams in the Tournament last year, which was its first with the 20-game conference schedule. So, of the 28 individual seasons for Big Ten teams over the past two years, 20 have resulted in an NCAA Tournament berth. I'd say that's a pretty good percentage. And the 20-game conference schedule is a big reason why.
By adding two conference games, it meant each team had to drop two non-conference games. Which, more likely than not, means they had to drop at least one guarantee game. The trade-off is that those guaranteed wins against lesser opponents were replaced by two games against quality teams, with one of those games on the road. And, no offense to Youngstown State, but losing by four at Iowa looks a hell of a lot better than beating Youngstown State by 25 at home.
What we've seen from the Selection Committee in recent years is that they value road wins. Coaches know this, so the opportunity to add a quality road win to your tournament resume seems far preferable to a guaranteed blowout win that they won't view very favorably. Likewise, they're big on strength of schedule. And two games against stronger opponents, one of which is on the road, will only help your strength of schedule.
I lamented about this a few years ago when Syracuse got an at-large bid over Monmouth and strength of schedule was a big reason why (of course, Syracuse had to make the committee look smart and me look dumb by going all the way to the Final Four). Monmouth had two bottom-200 losses in conference games, while Syracuse finished ninth in the ACC that season.
You can't have it both ways, I argued. You can't control who's in your conference, and teams in major conferences have a built-in strength of schedule advantage. So, you can't hold losses in conference games against mid-majors while at the same time rewarding major-conference teams for simply playing them. Yet that's exactly what the committee has shown a propensity to do over the past several years, so why not take advantage of it if you're a power conference?
And those two extra conference games have proven to be a boon in more ways than one. For starters, a .500 or even a losing conference record are no longer the kiss of death when it comes to the Tournament. Again, there are 10 likely Tournament teams in the Big Ten, including six that are ranked! If you go .500 (or one game under) against so many quality teams, you're probably a pretty good team yourself! (And if they went undefeated in non-conference, you're still talking about a 19- or 20-win team.)
It also makes the entire conference better. Rutgers and Penn State are perfect examples. They were completely irrelevant for years. This season, they're both tournament locks. Why? Because if you can't compete in your conference, the NCAA Tournament's out of the question. And if two-thirds of your schedule is conference games, you'd better be competitive in your conference!
Then there's the rivalry element. That's the number one reason UConn is going back to the Big East next year. Their fans want to see them play their familiar opponents that the know and love to hate. You can only get so amped up for a game against Tennessee-Martin on a Tuesday night in December. You replace them on the schedule with Michigan State, though...that's a different story!
Every conference having its own TV network likely had some impact on the decision to go to 20 games, too. After all, they need content, and people are more likely to watch a conference game than some random non-conference matchup.
Likewise, there are two fewer opportunities for marquee non-conference games between two teams from power conferences. So, almost out of necessity, the other leagues have had to follow suit to make up for those two lost non-conference games. And the options are the guaranteed home blowout (which they know the committee doesn't like) or replacing them with two conference games. Seems like an easy decision to me!
Granted two years in the Big Ten and one in the ACC is a small sample size. But so far, the 20-game conference schedule seems to have accomplished all of its goals. If not, we wouldn't see the other major conferences adopting it. So, I think it's safe to say this isn't a trend. It will soon become the norm. Especially if it results in more NCAA Tournament bids.
Is that good for college basketball? That's debatable. Certainly it isn't good for the mid-majors, who'll find at-large bids that much harder to come by. But it's also going to make the better teams better, and it will result in those tournament bids going to them instead. And I don't think you'll find too many people complaining about that.
No comments:
Post a Comment