(07-16-2017 08:12 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: Only one conference at the D1 level played a 20 game conference schedule last season and they are switching to an 18 game season:
http://blog.timesunion.com/collegesports...ule/22227/
Playing 20 conference games is a bad idea. The Sun Belt played a 20
game conference schedule until recently and it was not working. Playing more games against mediocre conference competition was not
helping the conference RPI. The non-conference wins help, especially against decent competition. There were also times when schools were playing five conference games in ten days.
But moreover, once the league decided to invite all teams to the post-season tournament, there was no point in a 20 game regular season schedule. The Conference RPI ranking improved from 17th to 13th in the first year of the 18 game schedule and hopefully the improvements will continue.
Last year the Big Sky RPI was 28th. You are not protecting anything. And the Big Sky simply cannot schedule high end opponents, nor do they win when they do. Different circumstances.
As for the SBC, that one year jump is mostly due to Texas Arlington's excellent performance, nothing more. Actually 11th to 19th is covered by just .0206, which is nothing. None of those conferences got a 2nd bid, nor did the ones a couple higher up the list. If UTA had not turned in a 40 instead of say 100, the SBC would have been 19th. On the flip side ULM and App St turned in 294 and 295 (yikes!). The jump is statistically meaningless. "Hoping it continues to improve" can be put in the category of "I wish I had a million dollars in cash." There is a big gap to the multi-bid conferences, and that requires two schools with top 50 RPI.
20 games makes sense for a major conference with a scaled TV contract (e.g., Big East, ACC, some others), which have higher RPI. It can aslo make sense for lower mid majors who need the revenue from an extra home game or who have issue with cohesion. The Big Sky has concerns about both of those things.
The SBC situation is different, and
as you point out they added a round to the Conference Tournament, thus offsetting the loss of a home game. Also the SBC went from 11 schools to 12 with CCU joining; so 20 no longer worked as a full double round robin, so didn't make sense anymore.
Note: Fitting 20 games into the traditional January 2nd to March 6th time frame can be difficult as that is exact;y 10 weeks. An 18 game schedule allows two "bye" dates. But usually it's possible to schedule an extra game on the first Tuesday after January 1st, also on MLK day (Monday) and during the President's day Week (school break). But it takes some work from the league office to avoid those 5 in 10 days you mentioned. (Such things always seem to happen with Karl Benson leagues). So it's a challenge to do it well, and takes some effort and planning. (Note AD's are not passive in scheduling, it is their job to fit the dates for their school; so much blame belongs there)
Note: The Big Sky invites all schools to it's tournament, so this is not part of the equation. (Last year 11 participated as Northern Colorado had a school-imposed postseason ban on the program for 2016-17 for NCAA violations under B.J. Hill.)
Not every conference does it makes sense. For a 28th in RPI conference with 11 schools, concerned about reestablishing rivalries and cohesion, as well as needing a 10th home game (gate more important than $0 TV deal), it probably makes sense. For a conference that is chasing a 2nd at-large and where 20 fails to add big TV money (unlike say the B1G, ACC or Big East) or make a full round robin, it doesn't make sense. Depends on the situation.