Chaos By Design-A shakeup of of D1 basketball scheduling

[justducky]

I was thinking along these lines in conjunction with some of our earlier discussions about bracket buster revisions. Anyway----

Lets divide all D1 schools into two permanent number categories of odd and even. Conference members must be split as close to 50-50 as possible. So our starting point would be 175 odd number and 175 even number schools. Temporarily forget team 351 because this can be resolved.

Each year after the plan is instituted the period from Dec 26 thru Jan2 will be left open by everyone for the inclusion of 2 additional games. Year 1 the odd teams will be home and year 2 the even and the home vs road designation can not be either bought out or bartered.

Year 1 the odd number teams (year 2 the even) will have a lottery on November 15th (arbitrarily chosen) to determine a 1 -175 order of selection. Lottery pick one can choose any two teams from the opposite category (in year one it would be teams with an even number). These 2  teams will receive a checkmark for each time chosen  and will be crossed off the list with the second checkmark. Lottery pick #2 then makes his choices then #3, #4 and so on down the line.

Deals can be cut (subject to "Scheduling Czar" approval) up until Dec 3rd when destinations will be written into stone.

Are there any fatal flaws with this system other than it would have to be sold to all as something that would be long term good for college basketball?

I am going to take cover before you folks start shooting holes in it. I'll get my white flag  out and ready ahead of time.

[bbtds]

One huge problem. College athletics really is only about the money and where the money goes is not under control of the bigger schools. 

OTOH, I like your thinking and it does make perfectly good sense to schedule as evenly as the pro leagues schedule.

[VULB#62]

I want the TV rights to the lottery selection show.   

To fit into the 1 hour slot, I would have to invent a random lottery number selection generator.  Devil is in the details but it should work.  It'll be like transporting college basketball fans to Las Vegas for an hour.

Speaking of which, I'd like to run the book in LV on who plays who, too.  It's like a sport within a sport.  Think of the publicity!

[vu84v2]

I really like the idea posed by "Justducky", though I also agree that it would likely never fly due to the money.

Let me attempt to build on the idea by offering a few modifications.

1. You need to group the good, average and weaker teams using some method.  This prevents schools like Valparaiso, Harvard, Murray State, etc. from getting matched with Chicago State, any SWAC team, etc. However, the method needs to prevent big conference teams from just getting matched up with other big conference teams.  I am not exactly sure what the methodology would be, but you could leverage the desires of the big conferences to have all of their teams playing reasonably tough non-conference schedules.
2. I think that you would need to also break teams down regionally in some way. We live in a really big country and expecting teams (especially from smaller schools) to travel 3000 miles is unrealistic. Grouping the country into 5-8 regions could solve this problem pretty well.

[SanityLost17]

Something needs to happen, because right now the high majors have all the power.   I bet if we were to call up IU and offer them a 4-1 deal, they would not take it.  That would mean 5 years in a row of IU playing a team that usually has a good RPI, and that 1 year they would have to come to our gym, and because of that, they would refuse.       

[vu84v2]

Many big conference teams want to play high RPI mid-major teams (look at Kansas' schedule which results in a #1 RPI despite 5 losses). But, of course, they want to play them at home. One way to solve the problem might be for all mid-majors (or certainly those in the better conferences) to ban together and demand 2-1 deals or they will just play each other in non-conference. Teams like Valpo should take 2-1 deals.

[bbtds]

Many big conference teams want to play high RPI mid-major teams (look at Kansas' schedule which results in a #1 RPI despite 5 losses). But, of course, they want to play them at home. One way to solve the problem might be for all mid-majors (or certainly those in the better conferences) to ban together and demand 2-1 deals or they will just play each other in non-conference. Teams like Valpo should take 2-1 deals.

It would be tough to get coaches like Greg Kampe to agree to this. He already goes to 6 big conference schools. Getting him to shut it down to zero to show the big conferences that the mid-majors are going to have some solidarity would be virtually impossible. In places such as Oakland County, MI getting paid is the name of the game.

[a3uge]

IU wouldn't accept a 0 for 1, let alone a 4 for 1. Power conference teams have the power and schedule the same way. There's no incentive for them to play a decent 50-150 RPI mid major on the road. The only non-neural road games these schools schedule are top 25 programs where their SOS and RPI will decrease after scheduling them. Even playing a quality mid major at home is risky since a home loss to a 50-100 rpi team would be detrimental. They want losses to only the top teams and it's far easier to project how power conference teams will finish vs mid majors.

[crusaderjoe]

Forgetting money for a second, just for argument's sake another issue is who would actually serve as the enforcing entity in a scenario like this?  Who governs contractual disputes when games have to be canceled or rearranged to accommodate?  The NCAA?  I doubt it as an entity has the authority to compel or commander member institutions to contractually obligate one another through game scheduling in the first place. 

As an alternative, you'd probably have a better chance at trying to improve scheduling by attempting to get the Indiana state legislature to "compel" games with some of the big boys, at least for the public school "high mid-majors" or "lower mid-majors", if you're looking to get schools like IU on the schedule rather than the wholesale mandating of games (see:  http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/feb/05/statehouse-live-bill-would-require-ku-play-wichita/ as an example). 

For VU, I suppose there is always the possibility of using the United Center as the carrot to lure the big boys as has been done in the past.  Good discussion though.

[StlVUFan]

One huge problem. College athletics really is only about the money and where the money goes is not under control of the bigger schools. 

Whose control is it under if not the bigger schools?

[historyman]

One huge problem. College athletics really is only about the money and where the money goes is not under control of the bigger schools.

Whose control is it under if not the bigger schools?

How about an even distribution based on size of attendance? The mid-majors should have some power and not be the doormats of the big schools.

[justducky]

Let me attempt to build on the idea by offering a few modifications.

1. You need to group the good, average and weaker teams using some method.  This prevents schools like Valparaiso, Harvard, Murray State, etc. from getting matched with Chicago State, any SWAC team, etc. However, the method needs to prevent big conference teams from just getting matched up with other big conference teams.  I am not exactly sure what the methodology would be, but you could leverage the desires of the big conferences to have all of their teams playing reasonably tough non-conference schedules.

I think the more complex you try to design it the more unworkable it would become so the simpler the better. Yes I know that we do not want to go to Chicago St but neither does Duke. As was stated in my initial thoughts the home team, subject to scheduling czar approval could trade the right to host VU or Duke to another home team for a more suitable opponent and future scheduling "considerations". This is as free market as it gets and adds an element of evenly felt unpredictability that would be good for the game.

2. I think that you would need to also break teams down regionally in some way.

The free market approach might be able to resolve this as well but I can see A.D.'s earning their money after the lottery draw. 

Forgetting money for a second, just for argument's sake another issue is who would actually serve as the enforcing entity in a scenario like this?  Who governs contractual disputes when games have to be canceled or rearranged to accommodate?  The NCAA?  I doubt it as an entity has the authority to compel or commander member institutions to contractually obligate one another through game scheduling in the first place. 

Great questions. If the BIGS could be persuaded of the need to concede something in order to stave off revolt then I believe that answers could be found.

How about an even distribution based on size of attendance? The mid-majors should have some power and not be the doormats of the big schools.

I don't have the answers and that is why I threw this subject out for debate. I do believe that mid majors can either swim together or sink separately so we have to be ready to use any and all of our available leverage. So what did or will the BIGS give up for the "stipends" semi-pro status?