**if this thread needs to be combined with another one feel free**

So with all the talk about many of the teams not being able to schedule quality OOC teams each year and with CUSA having 14 teams next year (instead of 16 like now) what do YOU think about playing an 18 game conference schedule instead of the 16 we are doing this year? I looked and most, if not all, 10 team conferences play an 18 game schedule now. It would eliminate having to find 2 more OOC opponents which "could" drag each team's and CUSA's RPI down. Each team would play 8 teams once and the other 5 teams twice (home and home). Granted you don't know whose going to be on top each year but you could play your closet rival home and home and the other 4 could be based on regional or projected same RPI range to help out. Not going into full detail but this would allow teams like UAB to possibly play WKU, MTSU, USM, ODU and someone else twice. USM could play La Tech, UAB, and 3 others twice. I feel that this would also build some rivalries as you would play these teams home and home instead of just one time each year. Thoughts?

(02-04-2014 09:26 PM)usm99 Wrote:  **if this thread needs to be combined with another one feel free**

So with all the talk about many of the teams not being able to schedule quality OOC teams each year and with CUSA having 14 teams next year (instead of 16 like now) what do YOU think about playing an 18 game conference schedule instead of the 16 we are doing this year? I looked and most, if not all, 10 team conferences play an 18 game schedule now. It would eliminate having to find 2 more OOC opponents which "could" drag each team's and CUSA's RPI down. Each team would play 8 teams once and the other 5 teams twice (home and home). Granted you don't know whose going to be on top each year but you could play your closet rival home and home and the other 4 could be based on regional or projected same RPI range to help out. Not going into full detail but this would allow teams like UAB to possibly play WKU, MTSU, USM, ODU and someone else twice. USM could play La Tech, UAB, and 3 others twice. I feel that this would also build some rivalries as you would play these teams home and home instead of just one time each year. Thoughts?

I like the idea of that. More than likely it will be 19 conference games though with 14 schools. Two against each division foe (home and home) and then one game across the division. Rotate the "home and away" on a yearly basis for cross division play.

(02-04-2014 09:38 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 09:26 PM)usm99 Wrote:  **if this thread needs to be combined with another one feel free**

So with all the talk about many of the teams not being able to schedule quality OOC teams each year and with CUSA having 14 teams next year (instead of 16 like now) what do YOU think about playing an 18 game conference schedule instead of the 16 we are doing this year? I looked and most, if not all, 10 team conferences play an 18 game schedule now. It would eliminate having to find 2 more OOC opponents which "could" drag each team's and CUSA's RPI down. Each team would play 8 teams once and the other 5 teams twice (home and home). Granted you don't know whose going to be on top each year but you could play your closet rival home and home and the other 4 could be based on regional or projected same RPI range to help out. Not going into full detail but this would allow teams like UAB to possibly play WKU, MTSU, USM, ODU and someone else twice. USM could play La Tech, UAB, and 3 others twice. I feel that this would also build some rivalries as you would play these teams home and home instead of just one time each year. Thoughts?

I like the idea of that. More than likely it will be 19 conference games though with 14 schools. Two against each division foe (home and home) and then one game across the division. Rotate the "home and away" on a yearly basis for cross division play.

While looking at some other conference, the SEC which has 14 teams is playing an 18 conference schedule. Not sure if I would do 19 since basketball doesn't have divisions but if it would eliminate teams playing non D1 games as it would give them another home game I would be all for it

I don't really mind an 18 game conference schedule because we normally have a couple crap games on the schedule anyway that I wouldn't mind replacing. Would rather play two other teams H&H than some 250+ RPI games.

Would be great as a Charlotte fan if we could play Marshall, ODU, WKU, UAB, and MT home and home. We have a history with ODU, WKY, UAB. Marshall has a lot of alums in the area and MT is relatively closeby, a respectable program, and near a city that would be a fun road trip for our fans.

(02-04-2014 10:43 PM)Niner National Wrote:  I don't really mind an 18 game conference schedule because we normally have a couple crap games on the schedule anyway that I wouldn't mind replacing. Would rather play two other teams H&H than some 250+ RPI games.

Would be great as a Charlotte fan if we could play Marshall, ODU, WKU, UAB, and MT home and home. We have a history with ODU, WKY, UAB. Marshall has a lot of alums in the area and MT is relatively closeby, a respectable program, and near a city that would be a fun road trip for our fans.

Home and home would definitely be a better set up for each division, at the very least. La Tech had the misfortune of having to play both USM and UTEP on the road, while UTEP got Tech at home and USM away, and USM got both at home. I do realize the balance of power shifts year to year, usually. It would be great for the conference, and especially Tech, if we knew we had another shot at each in the TAC. This last half teh season would be a bit more speculative if that was the case this year.

(02-05-2014 07:36 AM)nuke dawg Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 10:43 PM)Niner National Wrote:  I don't really mind an 18 game conference schedule because we normally have a couple crap games on the schedule anyway that I wouldn't mind replacing. Would rather play two other teams H&H than some 250+ RPI games.

Would be great as a Charlotte fan if we could play Marshall, ODU, WKU, UAB, and MT home and home. We have a history with ODU, WKY, UAB. Marshall has a lot of alums in the area and MT is relatively closeby, a respectable program, and near a city that would be a fun road trip for our fans.

Home and home would definitely be a better set up for each division, at the very least. La Tech had the misfortune of having to play both USM and UTEP on the road, while UTEP got Tech at home and USM away, and USM got both at home. I do realize the balance of power shifts year to year, usually. It would be great for the conference, and especially Tech, if we knew we had another shot at each in the TAC. This last half teh season would be a bit more speculative if that was the case this year.

While Charlotte has had the misfortune of playing all three on the road.

I would only favor an increase in CUSA games if the additional games were used to boost the strength of the schedule for the projected top teams.

I think even staying at 16 games, two of each school's home-home's should be chosen for the strength of match-up.

ODU's non conference basketball schedule should include the following next year:
Vs. VCU (RPI: 15)
Vs. Richmond (RPI: 69)
Vs. Georgia State (RPI: 81)
Vs. William & Mary (RPI: 119)
at George Mason (RPI: 170)
Vs. UNC-Wilmington (RPI: 279)
3 of Clemson (75), Gardner Webb (244), Illinois State (126), LSU (74), Nevada (137), Seton Hall (122), and Weber State (151) in the Virgin Islands.

Dropping the D2 games to play extra conference games would be good.
Keeping the D2s and dropping quality OOC opponents would be bad.

(02-04-2014 09:26 PM)usm99 Wrote:  **if this thread needs to be combined with another one feel free**

So with all the talk about many of the teams not being able to schedule quality OOC teams each year and with CUSA having 14 teams next year (instead of 16 like now) what do YOU think about playing an 18 game conference schedule instead of the 16 we are doing this year? I looked and most, if not all, 10 team conferences play an 18 game schedule now. It would eliminate having to find 2 more OOC opponents which "could" drag each team's and CUSA's RPI down. Each team would play 8 teams once and the other 5 teams twice (home and home). Granted you don't know whose going to be on top each year but you could play your closet rival home and home and the other 4 could be based on regional or projected same RPI range to help out. Not going into full detail but this would allow teams like UAB to possibly play WKU, MTSU, USM, ODU and someone else twice. USM could play La Tech, UAB, and 3 others twice. I feel that this would also build some rivalries as you would play these teams home and home instead of just one time each year. Thoughts?

I don't necessarily mind it but given how weak the bottom half of the conference traditionally is, I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make for most teams.

(02-05-2014 08:48 AM)itsbraille49 Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 07:36 AM)nuke dawg Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 10:43 PM)Niner National Wrote:  I don't really mind an 18 game conference schedule because we normally have a couple crap games on the schedule anyway that I wouldn't mind replacing. Would rather play two other teams H&H than some 250+ RPI games.

Would be great as a Charlotte fan if we could play Marshall, ODU, WKU, UAB, and MT home and home. We have a history with ODU, WKY, UAB. Marshall has a lot of alums in the area and MT is relatively closeby, a respectable program, and near a city that would be a fun road trip for our fans.

Home and home would definitely be a better set up for each division, at the very least. La Tech had the misfortune of having to play both USM and UTEP on the road, while UTEP got Tech at home and USM away, and USM got both at home. I do realize the balance of power shifts year to year, usually. It would be great for the conference, and especially Tech, if we knew we had another shot at each in the TAC. This last half teh season would be a bit more speculative if that was the case this year.

While Charlotte has had the misfortune of playing all three on the road.

I would only favor an increase in CUSA games if the additional games were used to boost the strength of the schedule for the projected top teams.

I think even staying at 16 games, two of each school's home-home's should be chosen for the strength of match-up.

At the beginning of the season, the top 7 teams were expected to be UTEP, La Tech, USM, MTSU, UAB, Charlotte, and Tulsa. I haven't verified it, but I think everyone in that group of 7 got the other 6 split with 3 home and 3 away. It's about as fair a distribution as could be made. Charlotte gets MTSU, UAB, and Tulsa at home which are all solid home games against teams at the top of the conference.

With 14 teams, each team could have 3 home/away partners and play the other 10 teams each once home and away to make a 16 game schedule. The traditionally better teams could have better partners while the traditionally worse teams could have worse partners. It doesn't necessarily work very well with the travel partner program that we are using now. It's hard to figure out sometimes which teams will be good. It also doesn't do much to help build programs for the lower grouped teams. It would help the upper tier teams have better RPIs if the groupings are done correctly.

(02-05-2014 09:37 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Dropping the D2 games to play extra conference games would be good.
Keeping the D2s and dropping quality OOC opponents would be bad.

This.

(02-05-2014 12:54 PM)eaglenjxn Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 09:26 PM)usm99 Wrote:  **if this thread needs to be combined with another one feel free**

So with all the talk about many of the teams not being able to schedule quality OOC teams each year and with CUSA having 14 teams next year (instead of 16 like now) what do YOU think about playing an 18 game conference schedule instead of the 16 we are doing this year? I looked and most, if not all, 10 team conferences play an 18 game schedule now. It would eliminate having to find 2 more OOC opponents which "could" drag each team's and CUSA's RPI down. Each team would play 8 teams once and the other 5 teams twice (home and home). Granted you don't know whose going to be on top each year but you could play your closet rival home and home and the other 4 could be based on regional or projected same RPI range to help out. Not going into full detail but this would allow teams like UAB to possibly play WKU, MTSU, USM, ODU and someone else twice. USM could play La Tech, UAB, and 3 others twice. I feel that this would also build some rivalries as you would play these teams home and home instead of just one time each year. Thoughts?

I don't necessarily mind it but given how weak the bottom half of the conference traditionally is, I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make for most teams.

let's look at it from this perspective....if we can schedule a couple extra home/home in conference based on predictive values (home/home for upper projected group), this should only help with perceived value

JMO

edit: hate it for the bottom projected teams, but this is business

(02-05-2014 01:23 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 12:54 PM)eaglenjxn Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 09:26 PM)usm99 Wrote:  **if this thread needs to be combined with another one feel free**

So with all the talk about many of the teams not being able to schedule quality OOC teams each year and with CUSA having 14 teams next year (instead of 16 like now) what do YOU think about playing an 18 game conference schedule instead of the 16 we are doing this year? I looked and most, if not all, 10 team conferences play an 18 game schedule now. It would eliminate having to find 2 more OOC opponents which "could" drag each team's and CUSA's RPI down. Each team would play 8 teams once and the other 5 teams twice (home and home). Granted you don't know whose going to be on top each year but you could play your closet rival home and home and the other 4 could be based on regional or projected same RPI range to help out. Not going into full detail but this would allow teams like UAB to possibly play WKU, MTSU, USM, ODU and someone else twice. USM could play La Tech, UAB, and 3 others twice. I feel that this would also build some rivalries as you would play these teams home and home instead of just one time each year. Thoughts?

I don't necessarily mind it but given how weak the bottom half of the conference traditionally is, I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make for most teams.

let's look at it from this perspective....if we can schedule a couple extra home/home in conference based on predictive values (home/home for upper projected group), this should only help with perceived value

JMO

edit: hate it for the bottom projected teams, but this is business

This will actually help teams climb out of the bottom. If team with a schedule heavy with lower-tier teams can assert dominance over the lower-tier teams they could find themselves sitting at 9-9, 10-8 or 11-7 where in the current system they may have only been able to finish 6-10 or 7-9 at best. It happened the year the A10 had a tiered opponent structure (2007-08), Charlotte, Temple & Richmond were all predicted in the lower/mid-tiers; Temple finished 3rd at 10-6 while Richmond & Charlotte finished in a 3-way tie for 4th at 9-7 with NCAA at-large Saint Joseph's.

The downside is one team will become the whipping dog of the top tier.

(02-05-2014 02:45 PM)itsbraille49 Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 01:23 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 12:54 PM)eaglenjxn Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 09:26 PM)usm99 Wrote:  **if this thread needs to be combined with another one feel free**

So with all the talk about many of the teams not being able to schedule quality OOC teams each year and with CUSA having 14 teams next year (instead of 16 like now) what do YOU think about playing an 18 game conference schedule instead of the 16 we are doing this year? I looked and most, if not all, 10 team conferences play an 18 game schedule now. It would eliminate having to find 2 more OOC opponents which "could" drag each team's and CUSA's RPI down. Each team would play 8 teams once and the other 5 teams twice (home and home). Granted you don't know whose going to be on top each year but you could play your closet rival home and home and the other 4 could be based on regional or projected same RPI range to help out. Not going into full detail but this would allow teams like UAB to possibly play WKU, MTSU, USM, ODU and someone else twice. USM could play La Tech, UAB, and 3 others twice. I feel that this would also build some rivalries as you would play these teams home and home instead of just one time each year. Thoughts?

I don't necessarily mind it but given how weak the bottom half of the conference traditionally is, I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make for most teams.

let's look at it from this perspective....if we can schedule a couple extra home/home in conference based on predictive values (home/home for upper projected group), this should only help with perceived value

JMO

edit: hate it for the bottom projected teams, but this is business

This will actually help teams climb out of the bottom. If team with a schedule heavy with lower-tier teams can assert dominance over the lower-tier teams they could find themselves sitting at 9-9, 10-8 or 11-7 where in the current system they may have only been able to finish 6-10 or 7-9 at best. It happened the year the A10 had a tiered opponent structure (2007-08), Charlotte, Temple & Richmond were all predicted in the lower/mid-tiers; Temple finished 3rd at 10-6 while Richmond & Charlotte finished in a 3-way tie for 4th at 9-7 with NCAA at-large Saint Joseph's.

The downside is one team will become the whipping dog of the top tier.

that's a good point....didn't think about that

I would love to see us adopt a 20 game tiered conference schedule with one protected rivalry. That gives as balanced a schedule as is possible with 14 teams while protecting existing and developing rivalries. Southern miss would have la tech as a protected rival, and, if we finished first, would play the teams seeded 2-8 (assuming la tech is one of them) home and home next season. That would help this system would help preserve rpi numbers at the top while allowing the bottom teams more opportunities for wins.

As someone mentioned it will be tricky with the travel partners next year but here's my suggestion:

UTEP-UTSA (approx 7 1/2 hours apart)
Rice-UNT (approx 4 hours apart)
La Tech-USM (approx 3 1/2 hours apart)
FIU-FAU (approx 1 hr apart)
Charlotte-Marshall (approx 4 hr 45 min)
WKU-MTSU (approx 90 minutes)
UAB-ODU (approx 10 1/2 hrs apart)

For the most part all travel partners are the same with a few changes. With there being ODU, Marshall and Charlotte in the "northeast" part of the conference that leaves it uneven. I have seen some UAB and ODU fans mention that there was a rivalry with them so this would rekindle that rivalry. There would be 2 travel partners where you would have to fly to each location but the other 5 are all bus trips from one to the other. As others have mentioned the only tricky part would be trying to get as many as possible top rpi travel partners playing each other to maximize the effect.

I favor an 18 game balanced schedule -

Using divisions and/or travel partners, something you can build rivalries on geographically as well as competitively

USM travels well to us and we travel well to them, I' sure we will do the same at Rice & UAB in a few weeks