Southern Miss (18-3) RPI #36
La Tech (17-5) RPI #74
UTEP (15-6) RPI #85
MTSU (14-7) RPI #95


*just* outside Top-100:

UAB (14-6) RPI #119
Charlotte (13-7) RPI #122
Tulsa (9-11) RPI #127

Something to build on, we really need better non conference wins as a whole next year.

(01-31-2014 01:27 PM)stc Wrote:  Something to build on, we really need better non conference wins as a whole next year.

And better non-conference scheduling.

I'm hoping UNT's scheduling debacle this year will make this an area of focus for next season.

Top four teams just need to keep winning.

4 in the top 100 is slightly respectable. No reason CUSA shouldn't deliver 4 in the top 50 yearly

RPI Predictions right now has as the final expected RPI

33.0 - USM
60.2 - La Tech
85.5 - UTEP
95.3 - MTSU

Charlotte and UAB at 112 and 117 respectively.

This what happens when you aren't allowed to schedule non-D1 games:

http://www.rpiforecast.com/confs/A10.html


It takes time but the league gets better as a whole.

(01-31-2014 01:31 PM)gcp_mineros Wrote:  4 in the top 100 is slightly respectable. No reason CUSA shouldn't deliver 4 in the top 50 yearly

Top 50 is a bit of a stretch. I'd say the top 75 is more within reach. We should have 7 teams in the top 100 most years though.

(01-31-2014 01:53 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 01:31 PM)gcp_mineros Wrote:  4 in the top 100 is slightly respectable. No reason CUSA shouldn't deliver 4 in the top 50 yearly

Top 50 is a bit of a stretch. I'd say the top 75 is more within reach. We should have 7 teams in the top 100 most years though.

nobody would have said that last year....

(01-31-2014 01:40 PM)wh49er Wrote:  This what happens when you aren't allowed to schedule non-D1 games:

http://www.rpiforecast.com/confs/A10.html


It takes time but the league gets better as a whole.

Uh? That has nothing to do with it. The A10 is where it is because they have four teams with a winning percentage of .600 or better and perhaps more importantly 11 are above .500 on the season.

Not scheduling a DII game isn't what got their RPI to where it is. In fact, whether they scheduled a DII game or not is pretty much irrelevant to their RPI. The only way scheduling a DII game hurts you is if you intentionally replace a guaranteed Top 50 opponent with a DII program. But if you replace a 300 RPI team with a DII program you're doing yourself and the league a favor. If you can promise me you're not going to schedule someone like Presbyterian who almost always finishes in the bottom 10% then I'm all for dropping non-DI games, but C-USA schedules are littered with 300+ RPI programs that have only two or three wins this year - programs that almost annually never have winning seasons. Our RPI has been drug down dramatically by schools like Presbyterian, App State, Houston Baptist, Maine, etc. - all of whom are on C-USA schedules this year and that's just to mention a few.

(01-31-2014 02:58 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 01:40 PM)wh49er Wrote:  This what happens when you aren't allowed to schedule non-D1 games:

http://www.rpiforecast.com/confs/A10.html


It takes time but the league gets better as a whole.

Uh? That has nothing to do with it. The A10 is where it is because they have four teams with a winning percentage of .600 or better and perhaps more importantly 11 are above .500 on the season.

Not scheduling a DII game isn't what got their RPI to where it is. In fact, whether they scheduled a DII game or not is pretty much irrelevant to their RPI. The only way scheduling a DII game hurts you is if you intentionally replace a guaranteed Top 50 opponent with a DII program. But if you replace a 300 RPI team with a DII program you're doing yourself and the league a favor. If you can promise me you're not going to schedule someone like Presbyterian who almost always finishes in the bottom 10% then I'm all for dropping non-DI games, but C-USA schedules are littered with 300+ RPI programs that have only two or three wins this year - programs that almost annually never have winning seasons. Our RPI has been drug down dramatically with schools like Presbyterian, App State, Houston Baptist, Maine, etc.

You may be doing yourself a favor, but you are NOT doing the league a favor.

75% of your RPI is based on your opponent and their opponents. That means every time your team plays a DII, you are hurting your fellow conference mates.

Going into conference play, ECU and NT had winning records on paper, but not for RPI calculations. They had losing records or .500 as far as RPI calculations were concerned. If they instead played 200+ RPI teams and won (a reasonable expectation) instead of DII teams, then other teams in the conference would see a BOOST from that. Their own personal RPI might suffer, but with 50% of your RPI being affected directly by THEIR winning percentage against D1 opponents, you want them to only play D1 opponents. If they lose, then yes, it screws both them and the conference, but CUSA teams should ALL have a winning record against 200+ RPI teams and especially against 250+ RPI teams.

DII opponents do nothing for us as their conference mates. It ultimately hurts us. Coaches do it to protect themselves by making their records look better than they actually are to the naked eye. It's a selfish thing to do.

DII games don't get you to the NCAA tournament and they hurt your conference mates and lessen their chances as well.

ECU in OOC play was plenty capable of beating 4 200+ RPI teams in place of those DII's, but they didn't, so instead of having something like a .750 winning percentage coming into CUSA play, they came in with .500 and are now well below .500 against D1 opponents. Their DII opponents' winning percentage (25% of the RPI formula) is also removed.

At least if you play a 200+ RPI school and lose, there is a chance they go on to finish with a winning record in their conference. That HELPS other conference mates, even if the poor RPI loss (or win) hurts the RPI of the school that actually played the game.

CUSA needs to encourage and incentivize teams that do not realistically have a good shot at the NCAA tournament to schedule 200+ RPI teams to build a good winning % against D1 opponents. Those teams weren't going to make the tournament anyway, so it doesn't really matter if their RPI is great. When the top teams in the conference play the teams that are struggling or rebuilding, they'll get a boost because they'll play a team that (should) have a winning record against bad D1 teams.

Nearly 2/3 of the season is played in conference, so when you dozens of games against non-D1 teams as a conference, it can have a tremendous impact.

(01-31-2014 03:11 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:58 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 01:40 PM)wh49er Wrote:  This what happens when you aren't allowed to schedule non-D1 games:

http://www.rpiforecast.com/confs/A10.html


It takes time but the league gets better as a whole.

Uh? That has nothing to do with it. The A10 is where it is because they have four teams with a winning percentage of .600 or better and perhaps more importantly 11 are above .500 on the season.

Not scheduling a DII game isn't what got their RPI to where it is. In fact, whether they scheduled a DII game or not is pretty much irrelevant to their RPI. The only way scheduling a DII game hurts you is if you intentionally replace a guaranteed Top 50 opponent with a DII program. But if you replace a 300 RPI team with a DII program you're doing yourself and the league a favor. If you can promise me you're not going to schedule someone like Presbyterian who almost always finishes in the bottom 10% then I'm all for dropping non-DI games, but C-USA schedules are littered with 300+ RPI programs that have only two or three wins this year - programs that almost annually never have winning seasons. Our RPI has been drug down dramatically with schools like Presbyterian, App State, Houston Baptist, Maine, etc.

You may be doing yourself a favor, but you are NOT doing the league a favor.

75% of your RPI is based on your opponent and their opponents. That means every time your team plays a DII, you are hurting your fellow conference mates.

Going into conference play, ECU and NT had winning records on paper, but not for RPI calculations. They had losing records or .500 as far as RPI calculations were concerned. If they instead played 200+ RPI teams and won (a reasonable expectation) instead of DII teams, then other teams in the conference would see a BOOST from that. Their own personal RPI might suffer, but with 50% of your RPI being affected directly by THEIR winning percentage against D1 opponents, you want them to only play D1 opponents. If they lose, then yes, it screws both them and the conference, but CUSA teams should ALL have a winning record against 200+ RPI teams and especially against 250+ RPI teams.

DII opponents do nothing for us as their conference mates. It ultimately hurts us. Coaches do it to protect themselves by making their records look better than they actually are to the naked eye. It's a selfish thing to do.

DII games don't get you to the NCAA tournament and they hurt your conference mates and lessen their chances as well.

ECU in OOC play was plenty capable of beating 4 200+ RPI teams in place of those DII's, but they didn't, so instead of having something like a .750 winning percentage coming into CUSA play, they came in with .500 and are now well below .500 against D1 opponents. Their DII opponents' winning percentage (25% of the RPI formula) is also removed.

At least if you play a 200+ RPI school and lose, there is a chance they go on to finish with a winning record in their conference. That HELPS other conference mates, even if the poor RPI loss (or win) hurts the RPI of the school that actually played the game.

CUSA needs to encourage and incentivize teams that do not realistically have a good shot at the NCAA tournament to schedule 200+ RPI teams to build a good winning % against D1 opponents. Those teams weren't going to make the tournament anyway, so it doesn't really matter if their RPI is great. When the top teams in the conference play the teams that are struggling or rebuilding, they'll get a boost because they'll play a team that (should) have a winning record against bad D1 teams.

Nearly 2/3 of the season is played in conference, so when you dozens of games against non-D1 teams as a conference, it can have a tremendous impact.

Thank you, somebody gets it.

That's a fair point, and I understand what you're saying, but I'm referring to those schools that you know with a level of certainty are going to finish in the bottom 10%. A 200 RPI program is very different than one that's 320 from an individual school perspective. However, from a league perspective, you can pretty much be assured that if you are scheduling one of those opponents that in many cases even the opponents of that program aren't going to be very good either, because they come from a similar type league that isn't going to produce wins for the most part. For example, take the SWAC. Several of us played SWAC schools. Nine out of the 10 SWAC schools have losing records, so you're theory on this begins to fall apart there, because if you have 75% of RPI coming from opponents and their schedules you are indeed hurting not only yourself but the league as well. Let's say you play Miss Valley St. You're going to get saddled with a school currently ranked 333 and that other half of the equation (opponents opponents) equals a win percentage of .423. That's an RPI killer not only for the school individually for scheduling a bottom 10% program but also an RPI killer to the league, because this opponent hurts the league on several orders of magnitude, particularly because we scheduled like this as a league way too much this year. So, if you think playing a SWAC school this year was better than playing a DII school you would be flat out wrong.

We have hashed this issue over and over again. Perhaps the answer here is to only schedule programs in certain leagues that you know are going to finish in the top of the final RPI standings - like some games against A10 schools (regardless of their RPI) instead of SWAC schools??

(01-31-2014 03:25 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  That's a fair point, and I understand what you're saying, but I'm referring to those schools that you know with a level of certainty are going to finish in the bottom 10%. A 200 RPI program is very different than one that's 320 from an individual school perspective. However, from a league perspective, you can pretty much be assured that if you are scheduling one of those opponents that in many cases even the opponents of that program aren't going to be very good either, because they come from a similar type league that isn't going to produce wins for the most part. For example, take the SWAC. Several of us played SWAC schools. Nine out of the 10 SWAC schools have losing records, so you're theory on this begins to fall apart there, because if you have 75% of RPI coming from opponents and their schedules you are indeed hurting not only yourself but the league as well. Let's say you play Miss Valley St. You're going to get saddled with a school currently ranked 333 and that other half of the equation (opponents opponents) equals a win percentage of .423. That's an RPI killer not only for the school individually for scheduling a bottom 10% program but also an RPI killer to the league, because this opponent hurts the league on several orders of magnitude, particularly because we scheduled like this as a league way too much this year. So, if you think playing a SWAC school this year was better than playing a DII school you would be flat out wrong.

We have hashed this issue over and over again. Perhaps the answer here is to only schedule programs in certain leagues that you know are going to finish in the top of the final RPI standings - like some games against A10 schools (regardless of their RPI) instead of SWAC schools??

I get that, but I think that realistically, every team, or at least 90% of the teams in CUSA have the resources to not be completely terrible like SWAC schools.

You incentivize schools to schedule in a way that almost guarantees they finish with a winning record against D1. If you are playing a team with a winning record, even if their RPI is 200+, you get a boost from winning that game (25% of formula) and from beating a team with a winning record (50%). Their opponents' record (likely below .500) will generally be a negative (25%), but the 25% for the win and the 50% for your opponent having a .500 record or better more than cancel that out.

The A10 and MVC have perfected manipulating RPI through scheduling. CUSA should replicate what they have done in the past.

Some years when we have several exceptionally bad teams it may bite us in the ass, but it is really the only way to build towards a better conference. Keeping the same policies we have now doesn't help us get to a better place.

If schools in the A10 can win with limited resources and relatively little support, there is no reason why CUSA can't do the same if a concerted effort is made. It will take years, but you have to start somewhere.

(01-31-2014 03:11 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:58 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 01:40 PM)wh49er Wrote:  This what happens when you aren't allowed to schedule non-D1 games:

http://www.rpiforecast.com/confs/A10.html


It takes time but the league gets better as a whole.

Uh? That has nothing to do with it. The A10 is where it is because they have four teams with a winning percentage of .600 or better and perhaps more importantly 11 are above .500 on the season.

Not scheduling a DII game isn't what got their RPI to where it is. In fact, whether they scheduled a DII game or not is pretty much irrelevant to their RPI. The only way scheduling a DII game hurts you is if you intentionally replace a guaranteed Top 50 opponent with a DII program. But if you replace a 300 RPI team with a DII program you're doing yourself and the league a favor. If you can promise me you're not going to schedule someone like Presbyterian who almost always finishes in the bottom 10% then I'm all for dropping non-DI games, but C-USA schedules are littered with 300+ RPI programs that have only two or three wins this year - programs that almost annually never have winning seasons. Our RPI has been drug down dramatically with schools like Presbyterian, App State, Houston Baptist, Maine, etc.

You may be doing yourself a favor, but you are NOT doing the league a favor.

75% of your RPI is based on your opponent and their opponents. That means every time your team plays a DII, you are hurting your fellow conference mates.

Going into conference play, ECU and NT had winning records on paper, but not for RPI calculations. They had losing records or .500 as far as RPI calculations were concerned. If they instead played 200+ RPI teams and won (a reasonable expectation) instead of DII teams, then other teams in the conference would see a BOOST from that. Their own personal RPI might suffer, but with 50% of your RPI being affected directly by THEIR winning percentage against D1 opponents, you want them to only play D1 opponents. If they lose, then yes, it screws both them and the conference, but CUSA teams should ALL have a winning record against 200+ RPI teams and especially against 250+ RPI teams.

DII opponents do nothing for us as their conference mates. It ultimately hurts us. Coaches do it to protect themselves by making their records look better than they actually are to the naked eye. It's a selfish thing to do.

DII games don't get you to the NCAA tournament and they hurt your conference mates and lessen their chances as well.

ECU in OOC play was plenty capable of beating 4 200+ RPI teams in place of those DII's, but they didn't, so instead of having something like a .750 winning percentage coming into CUSA play, they came in with .500 and are now well below .500 against D1 opponents. Their DII opponents' winning percentage (25% of the RPI formula) is also removed.

At least if you play a 200+ RPI school and lose, there is a chance they go on to finish with a winning record in their conference. That HELPS other conference mates, even if the poor RPI loss (or win) hurts the RPI of the school that actually played the game.

CUSA needs to encourage and incentivize teams that do not realistically have a good shot at the NCAA tournament to schedule 200+ RPI teams to build a good winning % against D1 opponents. Those teams weren't going to make the tournament anyway, so it doesn't really matter if their RPI is great. When the top teams in the conference play the teams that are struggling or rebuilding, they'll get a boost because they'll play a team that (should) have a winning record against bad D1 teams.

Nearly 2/3 of the season is played in conference, so when you dozens of games against non-D1 teams as a conference, it can have a tremendous impact.

-I think you should change your verbiage. Playing D2 teams does not "hurt" the conference. It does not help the conference either. You know that and I get what you are trying to say. It is just misleading.

-You are suggesting that coaches should schedule based on the assumption that they will not be contending for an NCAA tournament spot and therefore, should play some bad D1 teams in order to help (assuming they would even win those games) their conference mates. Laissez faire. You schedule to put yourself in the best position for the tournament. (FYI, if any fanbase can tell you the flaws of "thinking about what is best for the conference" it is our's and ECU's.)

-East Carolina lost multiple games to RPI 200+ teams. An extra game or two may have very well hurt their record.

-"but CUSA teams should ALL have a winning record against 200+ RPI teams and especially against 250+ RPI teams." ... You realize almost half of our conference IS 200+ RPI and all of those have the potential to land 250+. You have entirely too much confidence in our conference mates.

-As a USM fan, the last thing I would be complaining about with C-USA in regard to RPI is how our lower level teams are scheduling. Our conference schedule should be destroying our RPI when you look at where the other teams are. But ODU, FIU, ECU, and Tulane all played horrendous schedules so that they have acceptable overall records.

Taking a quick look at the A10 they don't have many games against teams from bottom third leagues. So, while they may be manipulating the RPI they aren't exactly scheduling a ton of SWAC and MEAC schools meaning they are winning games against decent competition. Seems like there is a happy balance somewhere between playing winnable games but doing so against teams from legitimatley competitive conferences.

(01-31-2014 03:40 PM)eaglenjxn Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:11 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:58 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 01:40 PM)wh49er Wrote:  This what happens when you aren't allowed to schedule non-D1 games:

http://www.rpiforecast.com/confs/A10.html


It takes time but the league gets better as a whole.

Uh? That has nothing to do with it. The A10 is where it is because they have four teams with a winning percentage of .600 or better and perhaps more importantly 11 are above .500 on the season.

Not scheduling a DII game isn't what got their RPI to where it is. In fact, whether they scheduled a DII game or not is pretty much irrelevant to their RPI. The only way scheduling a DII game hurts you is if you intentionally replace a guaranteed Top 50 opponent with a DII program. But if you replace a 300 RPI team with a DII program you're doing yourself and the league a favor. If you can promise me you're not going to schedule someone like Presbyterian who almost always finishes in the bottom 10% then I'm all for dropping non-DI games, but C-USA schedules are littered with 300+ RPI programs that have only two or three wins this year - programs that almost annually never have winning seasons. Our RPI has been drug down dramatically with schools like Presbyterian, App State, Houston Baptist, Maine, etc.

You may be doing yourself a favor, but you are NOT doing the league a favor.

75% of your RPI is based on your opponent and their opponents. That means every time your team plays a DII, you are hurting your fellow conference mates.

Going into conference play, ECU and NT had winning records on paper, but not for RPI calculations. They had losing records or .500 as far as RPI calculations were concerned. If they instead played 200+ RPI teams and won (a reasonable expectation) instead of DII teams, then other teams in the conference would see a BOOST from that. Their own personal RPI might suffer, but with 50% of your RPI being affected directly by THEIR winning percentage against D1 opponents, you want them to only play D1 opponents. If they lose, then yes, it screws both them and the conference, but CUSA teams should ALL have a winning record against 200+ RPI teams and especially against 250+ RPI teams.

DII opponents do nothing for us as their conference mates. It ultimately hurts us. Coaches do it to protect themselves by making their records look better than they actually are to the naked eye. It's a selfish thing to do.

DII games don't get you to the NCAA tournament and they hurt your conference mates and lessen their chances as well.

ECU in OOC play was plenty capable of beating 4 200+ RPI teams in place of those DII's, but they didn't, so instead of having something like a .750 winning percentage coming into CUSA play, they came in with .500 and are now well below .500 against D1 opponents. Their DII opponents' winning percentage (25% of the RPI formula) is also removed.

At least if you play a 200+ RPI school and lose, there is a chance they go on to finish with a winning record in their conference. That HELPS other conference mates, even if the poor RPI loss (or win) hurts the RPI of the school that actually played the game.

CUSA needs to encourage and incentivize teams that do not realistically have a good shot at the NCAA tournament to schedule 200+ RPI teams to build a good winning % against D1 opponents. Those teams weren't going to make the tournament anyway, so it doesn't really matter if their RPI is great. When the top teams in the conference play the teams that are struggling or rebuilding, they'll get a boost because they'll play a team that (should) have a winning record against bad D1 teams.

Nearly 2/3 of the season is played in conference, so when you dozens of games against non-D1 teams as a conference, it can have a tremendous impact.

-You are suggesting that coaches should schedule based on the assumption that they will not be contending for an NCAA tournament spot and therefore, should play some bad D1 teams in order to help (assuming they would even win those games) their conference mates. Laissez faire. You schedule to put yourself in the best position for the tournament. (FYI, if any fanbase can tell you the flaws of "thinking about what is best for the conference" it is our's and ECU's.)

Scheduling DII's does nothing to put you in a good position for the tournament. You'd be better off simply playing less games than playing multiple DII/NAIA games. You don't HAVE to play 30 games, so if you're throwing on extra DII games just to get to 30, you're not doing yourself any favors.

Sure DII games don't directly hurt the conference, they do indirectly hurt the conference.

In OOC play, before injuries, ECU lost to only 1 team that currently has an RPI over 100. That was UNCW. The next worst loss they had was Georgia State coming in at 83.

They've **** the bed since starting conference play, but they were playing better earlier in the season. I feel pretty confident in saying if they played 4 200+ RPI teams instead of 4 DII teams, they would have won at least 3 of them.

(01-31-2014 03:44 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Taking a quick look at the A10 they don't have many games against teams from bottom third leagues. So, while they may be manipulating the RPI they aren't exactly scheduling a ton of SWAC and MEAC schools meaning they are winning games against decent competition. Seems like there is a happy balance somewhere between playing winnable games but doing so against teams from legitimatley competitive conferences.

but they do and are more geographically positioned.....

ODU played a horrendous schedule? Might want to check that out again.

(01-31-2014 03:44 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Taking a quick look at the A10 they don't have many games against teams from bottom third leagues. So, while they may be manipulating the RPI they aren't exactly scheduling a ton of SWAC and MEAC schools meaning they are winning games against decent competition. Seems like there is a happy balance somewhere between playing winnable games but doing so against teams from legitimatley competitive conferences.

Do you think teams in the top half of CUSA could realistically schedule middle tier teams from the A10? I think we could. Hell, I'd love to see an A10/CUSA challenge. I think there are some interesting and even a few historical matchups we could make happen. Doubt the A10 would be interested though unless we become a top 10 conference.

I don't see any reason why teams in CUSA couldn't sign home and homes with teams from the A10, MVC, Horizon, MAC, Colonial and even some of the AAC schools.