Having lunch with smart people always pays dividends. Its biggest benefit is usually the unexpected tidbit that sticks with you the rest of the day. That happened again yesterday for CAAHoops and I highly recommend you make “lunch with smart people” a to-do.

Smart Guy throws out an internal debate to chew: what is the best way for the CAA season to play out? We bandied three scenarios:

1. Butler Scenario: one team dominates the league, and national headlines, all season. The result is one team winning NCAA games, but the rest of the college basketball world struggles to name two other teams in your conference.
2. Pete Rozelle Scenario: The 2009-10 CAA season was reminiscent of the old NFC Central days. Every night was a full scale tussle and you never really knew who would win. It was great night in and night out, but nationally you were a one-bid league. Everybody appreciated the wars and feared your champion, but really there wasn’t the oomph. You may or may not win an NCAA game but show well.
3. Piano Legs Scenario: The last two seasons the CAA gained an at large bid, the conference took on a shape that was very conducive to earning that coveted spot–a pack of teams separated themselves at the top, the middle was the middle, and the bottom of the league was wretched. That gave everyone the opportunity to talk about more than one team and the league being good. Detractors lamented the lack of depth. You may or may not win an NCAA game, but two teams show well (and you get to talk about a third being shafted).

What do you think it is?

Give me a piano any day (preferably with Billie Holliday belting out a tune, but I digress…) Here’s my case:

The number one goal on my list, and number two is a distant second, is the national respect of a second bid. The money matters, and the opportunity for two good teams to win a game or more exists.

That eliminates the Butler scenario.

Parity is all well and good but boring to the rest of the world. We’re going to enjoy CAA basketball no matter what. If we want teevee games, and NCAA tournament bids, and flowery columns from Andy Katz and Jeff Goodman and Gary Parrish, then the conference has to win games on a national level. We know we have it better–everybody needs to see it. (Plus, the money matters.)

That eliminates the Pete Rozelle Scenario.

So what does this top heavy, Piano Leg Scenario look like? What has to happen?

First, I get to say it: the conference benefits from having four terrible teams. They don’t impact the conference RPI as much as you think. The conference RPI was 8 in 2005-06, mostly because of Mason and ODU’s postseason runs. (I think the CAA was ranked #10 going into the postseason.)

Otherwise, the conference RPI has been consistent whether strong at the top/weak at the bottom or balanced top/bottom.

• 2006-07 – 13
• 2007-08 – 13
• 2008-09 – 12
• 2009-10 – 13
• In fact, other than 2005-06 the highest the conference RPI since 1991-92 has been 12. In six of the last 13 years the CAA has been ranked #13.

So I looked at 2005-06 and 2006-07, the last two seasons with at large bids:

2005-06

Four really good teams: UNCW, Hofstra, Mason, and ODU were a combined 57-15 in conference. Those teams were 16-17 vs. top 50 RPI.

Four middle teams: VCU, Drexel, Towson, and Northeastern were combined 39-33 in conference. Those teams were a combined 26-20 nonconference and 3-23 vs. top 50 RPI.

Four really bad teams: JMU, GSU, W&M, and Delaware were a combined 12-60 in conference. However they were a combined 17-26 in nonconference play.

2006-07

Four really good teams: VCU, ODU, Drexel, and Hofstra were a combined 58-14 in conference. These teams were 14-15 vs. top 50 RPI.

Four middle teams: Mason, W&M, Towson, and Northeastern were a combined 34-38 in conference. These teams were a combined 27-28 noncon and 2-30 vs. top 50 RPI.

Four really bad teams: JMU, GSU, W&M, and Delaware were a combined 16-56 in conference. They were 14-35 in noncon action.

The implication?

The top teams have to be good in November and get better. They must get those signature wins in nonconference and dominate the league. I’m talking the champion is 16-2 and the next three have at least 14 wins.

The middle teams have to remain as close to themselves as possible. They need to beat everybody worse than they are, but not defeat the teams better than them. It’s nice to pick up a top 50 win or three, but the numbers show it isn’t necessary.

The bottom teams have to be decent in November and get worse. Odd thought, I know. They need to hold steady in the nonconference season and get pummeled in January and February. Those four teams are 2-16, 3-15, 4-14, and none of the wins are over a team with a record better than 8-10.

***

This all came about because I’m seeing some clear dividing lines for this upcoming season. We’ll deal with that later.