Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="jncuse, post: 4220443, member: 1969"]
[B]Didn't address this earlier, but this will have not have the impact you think.  It would actually have the exact opposite impact. It would have hurt the ACC more (no Wake and likely no Notre Dame) and boosted the BIG, B12, BE and SEC even more.  [/B]

Why?  Remember that since the BIG, B12, BE, SEC did really well OOC, a majority of its Jan/Feb conference game result in a Q1 win opportunity.    Since conferences like the ACC, MWC, P12 did more poorly than those 4, instead of getting Q1 win chances they get many more Q2 win chances instead.

If we are going to value January + February games more who do you think will get more rewarded?   This year would have just been an even bigger positive multiplier for the BIG, B12, BE and SEC who are getting many more Q1 wins opportunities.   Its possible they get more bids -- your proposal may have impacted the mix of who gets in within those 4 conferences.  It would have certainly helped Texas A&M and on objections to that.

But your proposal would not have helped the ACC.   It would have only hurt Wake's chances more.  And Notre Dame probably does not get in either.

[B]The only way the ACC could have avoided the impact of its brutal out of conference play was if the committee made one of the following changes:
1) if they created a NET formula that started to weigh prior years conference performance to partially offset what happened OOC this year.    This would create less Q1 opportunities for those conferences that did better than normal in OOC, and more Q1 win opportunities for conferences that did worse than normal.  
2) Create conference seed quotas based on prior year performance (which may be OOC or tournament based) [/B]

And I don't think that is fair either.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?