New scheduling approach (Conference USA)

[vick]

Conference USA announced an intriguing approach (https://www.dnj.com/story/sports/college/mtsu/2018/05/30/conference-usa-mtsu-middle-tennessee-mens-basketball-schedule-format-2018/655005002/) to giving its teams a better chance at tourney bids:


In the new format, each of the 14 Conference USA teams will play one another once and their travel partner twice in the first seven weeks of conference play (MTSU’s travel partner is UAB). From there, teams will be seeded and placed in one of three groups — 1-5, 6-10, and 11-14 — based on conference standings. During the final three weeks of the season, teams will play within their respective grouping for the last four games of league play.

The basic idea of scheduling designed to more frequently match similar teams has a fair bit of precedent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament). I'd prefer conferences be small enough for a double-round-robin, but in the absence of that, this seems like an appealing approach.

[pfrduke]

Conference USA announced an intriguing approach (https://www.dnj.com/story/sports/college/mtsu/2018/05/30/conference-usa-mtsu-middle-tennessee-mens-basketball-schedule-format-2018/655005002/) to giving its teams a better chance at tourney bids:



The basic idea of scheduling designed to more frequently match similar teams has a fair bit of precedent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament). I'd prefer conferences be small enough for a double-round-robin, but in the absence of that, this seems like an appealing approach.

Will this really give the teams a better chance at tourney bids? It seems like it mostly gives the 1-5 teams a better chance to all get 2-3 more losses in the last three weeks of the season than they otherwise might. I guess it will improve the resume for the regular season champion if that team doesn't also win the conference tournament, but otherwise I'm not sure it will really improve the chances for the teams that finish 3-5 within that group of 5 teams. And if, say, the team in the 6 spot going into this pod approach finishes the season on a big winning streak, there's a built-in excuse to diminish it - they were intentionally playing second-tier opponents - that would not otherwise exist.

[vick]

Will this really give the teams a better chance at tourney bids? It seems like it mostly gives the 1-5 teams a better chance to all get 2-3 more losses in the last three weeks of the season than they otherwise might. I guess it will improve the resume for the regular season champion if that team doesn't also win the conference tournament, but otherwise I'm not sure it will really improve the chances for the teams that finish 3-5 within that group of 5 teams. And if, say, the team in the 6 spot going into this pod approach finishes the season on a big winning streak, there's a built-in excuse to diminish it - they were intentionally playing second-tier opponents - that would not otherwise exist.

Maybe, but teams worse than 3rd almost certainly have zero chance today (how frequently does a non-top 6 conference get 4 bids?). So I think realistically you're going to maximize your odds by giving your #2 and #3 teams legit chances at reasonably-high-quality wins.

[Troublemaker]

Will this really give the teams a better chance at tourney bids? It seems like it mostly gives the 1-5 teams a better chance to all get 2-3 more losses in the last three weeks of the season than they otherwise might. I guess it will improve the resume for the regular season champion if that team doesn't also win the conference tournament, but otherwise I'm not sure it will really improve the chances for the teams that finish 3-5 within that group of 5 teams. And if, say, the team in the 6 spot going into this pod approach finishes the season on a big winning streak, there's a built-in excuse to diminish it - they were intentionally playing second-tier opponents - that would not otherwise exist.

They've been a 1-bid league the past 6 seasons, so it's really more about getting a second team (or optimistically sometimes a third team) into the Big Dance. For example, CUSA probably believes Middle Tennessee (#45 kenpom, first place at 16-2, but lost in the conference tourney) would've received an at-large bid this past season using this new schedule format.

[JasonEvans]

This kind of thing could, I guess, work for a mid-major but for a conference like the ACC, I think it would actually hurt our ability to get bids.

[Kedsy]

Conference USA announced an intriguing approach (https://www.dnj.com/story/sports/college/mtsu/2018/05/30/conference-usa-mtsu-middle-tennessee-mens-basketball-schedule-format-2018/655005002/) to giving its teams a better chance at tourney bids:



The basic idea of scheduling designed to more frequently match similar teams has a fair bit of precedent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament). I'd prefer conferences be small enough for a double-round-robin, but in the absence of that, this seems like an appealing approach.

It might be OK for Conference USA, but I wouldn't like it for the ACC. You could end up playing teams twice on the road and zero times at home. You could end up playing your "travel partner" three times but nine (or ten in the ACC) teams only once. Playing better teams at the end of the season might be an advantage in Conference USA, because the top teams could help their RPI and they're trying to get a second NCAA bid for the conference, but in the ACC the, e.g., 4th and 5th place teams would end up at a big disadvantage vis-a-vis the 6th and 7th place teams, and possibly lose their NCAAT bids because of it.

And the advantage is, what exactly? A better fan experience? Preventing the complaint that the top three teams don't have unequal schedules, while forcing unequal schedules on the 4th-through-7th and 9th-through-12th teams? Except the schedules would still be unequal because of home-and-away issues.