22 conference games would be absurd.

I'm okay with 18-19 if we get rid of all non d-1's. Otherwise, what's the point? I wish all these teams that keep bitching about having nobody to play would just put their names in a hat and draw opponents. There are plenty of reasonable opponents in the country(that have the same complaints about getting games that we do) that all of us should be able to get a home and home with.

(03-03-2014 12:05 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Doesn't affect me anymore, but I thought the basketball got a lot more interesting to me once we switched to scheduling based on football divisions. It really strengthened the divisional rivalries IMO. However, it worked better with 12 teams, because everyone played the same number of home and road games. If you tried with with 14 teams, half of the teams would have 10 home games and other half just 9.

It was a joke that made the overall standings and tourney seeds worthless. There were some years where all the top teams would be in one divison. In Lebo's first year infact all 6 teams in the east had top 100 RPI's and played each other twice while 4 teams in the west had almost 200+ or RPI's. Last year was just about as bad as well.

It's annoying an not apples to apples when some UTEP fan would say something like you only finished 8-8 in CUSA and tied for 9th place or whatver we were, we'll let us play in the crappy west division. You can't have any kind of seed for a conference tourny be fair like that.

2010-2011
East
28 Memphis
31 UAB
54 Marshall
63 Southern Miss
69 UCF
96 East Carolina


West
59 UTEP
81 Tulsa
187 Rice
207 South. Methodist
236 Tulane
239 Houston

We had the 41st ranked schedule in the nation, SMU had the 191st ranked one and in large parts because we had to play everyone 2 games with in our division. You can't open it up for that crap again IMO. We'd have probably won 11 or 12 games that year in the west if we had Tulsa's schedule.

(03-03-2014 02:54 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  22 conference games would be absurd.

I'm okay with 18-19 if we get rid of all non d-1's. Otherwise, what's the point? I wish all these teams that keep bitching about having nobody to play would just put their names in a hat and draw opponents. There are plenty of reasonable opponents in the country(that have the same complaints about getting games that we do) that all of us should be able to get a home and home with.

I think its most likely 20. wont be decided until the meetings in may.
The issue is more of travel than getting games. They want whoever plays at fau and fiu to be able to get both games on one trip. Same for utep and utsa. char odu etc.

(03-03-2014 02:57 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  It was a joke that made the overall standings and tourney seeds worthless. There were some years where all the top teams would be in one divison. In Lebo's first year infact all 6 teams in the east had top 100 RPI's and played each other twice while 4 teams in the west had almost 200+ or RPI's. Last year was just about as bad as well.

It's annoying an not apples to apples when some UTEP fan would say something like you only finished 8-8 in CUSA and tied for 9th place or whatver we were, we'll let us play in the crappy west division. You can't have any kind of seed for a conference tourny be fair like that.

2010-2011
East
28 Memphis
31 UAB
54 Marshall
63 Southern Miss
69 UCF
96 East Carolina


West
59 UTEP
81 Tulsa
187 Rice
207 South. Methodist
236 Tulane
239 Houston

We had the 41st ranked schedule in the nation, SMU had the 191st ranked one and in large parts because we had to play everyone 2 games with in our division. You can't open it up for that crap again IMO. We'd have probably won 11 or 12 games that year in the west if we had Tulsa's schedule.

It's no more of a joke than trying to guess who the best teams are going to be each season. Remember not getting Memphis in Minges because the league thought we'd be a drain on their RPI? I'd rather be guaranteed a home and home with Memphis/UAB/USM/UCF/Marshall than have the league office trying to balance out schedules based on who they think is going to be good and who they think is going to suck.

With an 18 game schedule, you could play 5 teams home/home and the other 8 teams once each, 4 of them at home and 4 away. Each team would likely have 2-4 teams that make sense to play home/home each season (for MT, WKU and UAB should 100% be home/away each season) ,it might vary by team, and the others would rotate each season . You could make it work, but not everyone is going to get their perfect pairings outside of 2-3 teams each season. It would be better than just the one home/away opponent we currently have.

Given our trouble getting teams to come to the Glass House, this proposal makes sense. You'll still have teams ending up with tougher schedules than others, but that's just how it's going to be.

(03-03-2014 03:36 PM)MTowho Wrote:  With an 18 game schedule, you could play 5 teams home/home and the other 8 teams once each, 4 of them at home and 4 away. Each team would likely have 2-4 teams that make sense to play home/home each season (for MT, WKU and UAB should 100% be home/away each season) ,it might vary by team, and the others would rotate each season . You could make it work, but not everyone is going to get their perfect pairings outside of 2-3 teams each season. It would be better than just the one home/away opponent we currently have.

Given our trouble getting teams to come to the Glass House, this proposal makes sense. You'll still have teams ending up with tougher schedules than others, but that's just how it's going to be.

If they keep the setup with travel partners this would work. You play your travel partner twice, 8 teams once and a rotation where you'd get 4 different teams home and home.
Edit: Not sure how the travel partners would work since you'd have an odd number of groups.

(03-03-2014 04:32 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 03:36 PM)MTowho Wrote:  With an 18 game schedule, you could play 5 teams home/home and the other 8 teams once each, 4 of them at home and 4 away. Each team would likely have 2-4 teams that make sense to play home/home each season (for MT, WKU and UAB should 100% be home/away each season) ,it might vary by team, and the others would rotate each season . You could make it work, but not everyone is going to get their perfect pairings outside of 2-3 teams each season. It would be better than just the one home/away opponent we currently have.

Given our trouble getting teams to come to the Glass House, this proposal makes sense. You'll still have teams ending up with tougher schedules than others, but that's just how it's going to be.

If they keep the setup with travel partners this would work. You play your travel partner twice, 8 teams once and a rotation where you'd get 4 different teams home and home.
Edit: Not sure how the travel partners would work since you'd have an odd number of groups.

Its already been decided that it will be 2 7 team divisions, you will play everyone in your league twice and a set number from the other div twice, the others once. The only thing that hasn't been nailed down is the number of teams you play twice. We will play either a 20 or 22 game league schedule. that is coming straight from a head coach

(03-03-2014 01:10 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Charlotte
Florida Atlantic
FIU
Marshall
Old Dominion

Louisiana Tech
Middle Tennessee
Southern Miss
UAB
Western Kentucky

North Texas
Rice
UTEP
UTSA
X

What could be very helpful is a 15th member of C-USA that would fit into a western division with the other 4 Texas-based members. Then the basketball schedule could be: 2 games against the other 4 teams in your division (8 games), plus 1 game against the other 10 teams in the other two divisions. Total of 18 games.

If #15 is a non-football add, then the football divisions could be left as-is. If #15 is an all-sports member, then the above-alignment could be used for football, too, playing each member of your own division once (4 games), and playing 4 or 5 teams combined from the other two divisions on a rotating basis. Total of 8 or 9 games.

we did the red, white, blue divisions before.. didn't work out so well for anyone.

(03-03-2014 04:56 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 04:32 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 03:36 PM)MTowho Wrote:  With an 18 game schedule, you could play 5 teams home/home and the other 8 teams once each, 4 of them at home and 4 away. Each team would likely have 2-4 teams that make sense to play home/home each season (for MT, WKU and UAB should 100% be home/away each season) ,it might vary by team, and the others would rotate each season . You could make it work, but not everyone is going to get their perfect pairings outside of 2-3 teams each season. It would be better than just the one home/away opponent we currently have.

Given our trouble getting teams to come to the Glass House, this proposal makes sense. You'll still have teams ending up with tougher schedules than others, but that's just how it's going to be.

If they keep the setup with travel partners this would work. You play your travel partner twice, 8 teams once and a rotation where you'd get 4 different teams home and home.
Edit: Not sure how the travel partners would work since you'd have an odd number of groups.

Its already been decided that it will be 2 7 team divisions, you will play everyone in your league twice and a set number from the other div twice, the others once. The only thing that hasn't been nailed down is the number of teams you play twice. We will play either a 20 or 22 game league schedule. that is coming straight from a head coach

22 doesn't leave a lot of time in the non-conference to build a resume.

(03-03-2014 09:06 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 12:12 AM)MU42 Wrote:  It would help fill 2 more games for everyone and maybe keep some schools from scheduling crap games like my own school did with Alice Lloyd and another one I can't seem to remember. I think it would also help build some much needed familiarity with the conference. We would have to play 10 schools once and 4 schools twice. For my Herd ideally it would be ODU, Charlotte, WKU, and MTSU. For let's say Rice it would be UTEP, UTSA, North Texas, and La. Tech. I think trying to keep the home and home matches as regional as possible would help build rivalries. But the biggest issue would be getting rid of those crap games, that needs to be a top priority and this would help fix that, imo.

Your math is a little fuzzy here. You don't play yourself, so there are only 13 schools you worry about. I am all for a 19 game schedule. Divide the league into divisions, then you play every team in the opposite division once(7 games) and every team in your division twice.(12 games) If the conference doesn't want to go to a 19 game schedule, I would be in favor of playing every team once, and then using the finish in last year's standings to group the teams together to help build our top team's RPI's.

I think it would be better to use a combination of last season's standings and this season's projections. This prevents having a team that loses a lot of talent and doesn't have much new coming in from being near the top.

(03-03-2014 04:56 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 04:32 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 03:36 PM)MTowho Wrote:  With an 18 game schedule, you could play 5 teams home/home and the other 8 teams once each, 4 of them at home and 4 away. Each team would likely have 2-4 teams that make sense to play home/home each season (for MT, WKU and UAB should 100% be home/away each season) ,it might vary by team, and the others would rotate each season . You could make it work, but not everyone is going to get their perfect pairings outside of 2-3 teams each season. It would be better than just the one home/away opponent we currently have.

Given our trouble getting teams to come to the Glass House, this proposal makes sense. You'll still have teams ending up with tougher schedules than others, but that's just how it's going to be.

If they keep the setup with travel partners this would work. You play your travel partner twice, 8 teams once and a rotation where you'd get 4 different teams home and home.
Edit: Not sure how the travel partners would work since you'd have an odd number of groups.

Its already been decided that it will be 2 7 team divisions, you will play everyone in your league twice and a set number from the other div twice, the others once. The only thing that hasn't been nailed down is the number of teams you play twice. We will play either a 20 or 22 game league schedule. that is coming straight from a head coach

You are the only person I've heard say we will have a 20 or 22 game conference schedule. I'm not calling you a liar, but I am questioning your source's accuracy. Why would anybody want a 22 game conference schedule?

(03-03-2014 12:21 PM)DwayneW1 Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 11:39 AM)Niner National Wrote:  I like this idea.

It helps build some new geographic rivalries and tries to pair teams expected to finish near the top of the conference to maximize top 100 matchups.

14 teams makes it awkward

An argument could be made that if your playing 19 why not 20? to even up the schedule but I personally think that is two games too many - I like 18 games

Why? 20 conference games would still allow for ten or 11 non-conference games. I'm sure that every C-USA team this season would have had better schedules by replacing their bottom four opponents with league games. It would help Southern Miss drop their two annual NAIA games.

(03-03-2014 01:19 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 01:10 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Charlotte
Florida Atlantic
FIU
Marshall
Old Dominion

Louisiana Tech
Middle Tennessee
Southern Miss
UAB
Western Kentucky

North Texas
Rice
UTEP
UTSA
X

What could be very helpful is a 15th member of C-USA that would fit into a western division with the other 4 Texas-based members. Then the basketball schedule could be: 2 games against the other 4 teams in your division (8 games), plus 1 game against the other 10 teams in the other two divisions. Total of 18 games.

If #15 is a non-football add, then the football divisions could be left as-is. If #15 is an all-sports member, then the above-alignment could be used for football, too, playing each member of your own division once (4 games), and playing 4 or 5 teams combined from the other two divisions on a rotating basis. Total of 8 or 9 games.

No way those divisions get passed.

Why not? Especially if we can entice Wichita State to fill that spot.

Twenty years from now the power teams could be completely different than they are now.

(03-03-2014 02:25 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 12:36 AM)MU42 Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 12:28 AM)techdawg88 Wrote:  to be fair nobody made Marshall schedule Alice Lloyd and I never heard of that school until y'all played them

That is my point, Herrion's excuse every year is that we can't get anyone from an above average conference to come to Huntington. Maybe he is telling the truth because they usually lose even if we suck.

However we are not the only school that does this. Almost everyone does, but they shouldn't and this would help.

As bad as some of the RPI's is in this conference, I don't think an 18-game conference schedule is advisable. Just have to schedule a better OOC schedule.

With a flexible schedule that attempts to match up the better teams twice, it could be a boost. Simply drop your weaker non-conference games. We all have a few weak ones.

(03-03-2014 04:56 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 04:32 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 03:36 PM)MTowho Wrote:  With an 18 game schedule, you could play 5 teams home/home and the other 8 teams once each, 4 of them at home and 4 away. Each team would likely have 2-4 teams that make sense to play home/home each season (for MT, WKU and UAB should 100% be home/away each season) ,it might vary by team, and the others would rotate each season . You could make it work, but not everyone is going to get their perfect pairings outside of 2-3 teams each season. It would be better than just the one home/away opponent we currently have.

Given our trouble getting teams to come to the Glass House, this proposal makes sense. You'll still have teams ending up with tougher schedules than others, but that's just how it's going to be.

If they keep the setup with travel partners this would work. You play your travel partner twice, 8 teams once and a rotation where you'd get 4 different teams home and home.
Edit: Not sure how the travel partners would work since you'd have an odd number of groups.

Its already been decided that it will be 2 7 team divisions, you will play everyone in your league twice and a set number from the other div twice, the others once. The only thing that hasn't been nailed down is the number of teams you play twice. We will play either a 20 or 22 game league schedule. that is coming straight from a head coach

If that's the case, I opt for 20 games. 12 home and home within the division and equally seeded teams from each division the previous season home and home and the other 6 once.

So, #1 seeds from each division the previous season would play:
In their division: Seeds #2-#7 home and home
From the other division: Seed #1 home and home and seeds #2-#7 once (three home; three away)

Or go with no divisions with 7 home and home and 6 once. With one permanent home and home and the other six switching between two groups of six.

For example: Southern Miss could be paired with UAB as the permanent home and home partner so that one season Southern Miss would play six of the other 12 teams twice and six once, swapping this the following season.

(03-03-2014 04:56 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 04:32 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 03:36 PM)MTowho Wrote:  With an 18 game schedule, you could play 5 teams home/home and the other 8 teams once each, 4 of them at home and 4 away. Each team would likely have 2-4 teams that make sense to play home/home each season (for MT, WKU and UAB should 100% be home/away each season) ,it might vary by team, and the others would rotate each season . You could make it work, but not everyone is going to get their perfect pairings outside of 2-3 teams each season. It would be better than just the one home/away opponent we currently have.

Given our trouble getting teams to come to the Glass House, this proposal makes sense. You'll still have teams ending up with tougher schedules than others, but that's just how it's going to be.

If they keep the setup with travel partners this would work. You play your travel partner twice, 8 teams once and a rotation where you'd get 4 different teams home and home.
Edit: Not sure how the travel partners would work since you'd have an odd number of groups.

Its already been decided that it will be 2 7 team divisions, you will play everyone in your league twice and a set number from the other div twice, the others once. The only thing that hasn't been nailed down is the number of teams you play twice. We will play either a 20 or 22 game league schedule. that is coming straight from a head coach

If true, I'm not sure I like this since we are a conference that already doesn't get an ounce of respect.

I like an increase to 19 tops... (2 within and 1 each against the opposing group) to help with the OOC problems, but 22 is off the charts too high.

I realize the odd number contradicts the travel situation (which I like)....so as a conference we eat that cost of the single travel day....

We need to win more OOC games to get respect (which still may not matter to the media).....I actually think we did a decent job as a whole this year....

(03-03-2014 10:46 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 12:21 PM)DwayneW1 Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 11:39 AM)Niner National Wrote:  I like this idea.

It helps build some new geographic rivalries and tries to pair teams expected to finish near the top of the conference to maximize top 100 matchups.

14 teams makes it awkward

An argument could be made that if your playing 19 why not 20? to even up the schedule but I personally think that is two games too many - I like 18 games

Why? 20 conference games would still allow for ten or 11 non-conference games. I'm sure that every C-USA team this season would have had better schedules by replacing their bottom four opponents with league games. It would help Southern Miss drop their two annual NAIA games.

If we go to 20, and if we add a stipulation(with penalties) of what the rest of the schedule can and cannot contain, I might be able to get on board with this. But, losing 1-2 OOC games could hurt the perception of the league if we don't put any rules in place and teams simply replace decent games with more of the same crap. I really, really want the league to ban non D-1 games this offseason.

Non div 1 games don't hurt or help RPI. The real problem is playing 300+ RPI teams. Even a win can lower RPI, and those should be banned OOC before non div 1 games. Non div 1 should be limited to no more then 1 or 2.

(03-04-2014 08:48 AM)surlycanon Wrote:  Non div 1 games don't hurt or help RPI. The real problem is playing 300+ RPI teams. Even a win can lower RPI, and those should be banned OOC before non div 1 games. Non div 1 should be limited to no more then 1 or 2.

They don't help or hurt your RPI. They can hurt everybody else though. I don't get why this is such a complicated issue on this board. Your opponents record is 50%(basically) of your RPI calculation. If your opponent plays non D-1 games, it would be better for the conference for them to have played a crappy team 300+. If you are worried about beating a team like this, then who cares about your RPI? A couple of other people and I have broken down the difference in winning %'s for several teams if they had played weak D-1's rather than non D-1's, and it is enough to significantly hurt the entire conference. I get that MTSU, USM, La Tech, UTEP, etc. don't want to play numerous 200+ games,(it killed us this year) but it hurts the entire conference when every freaking team does it.

Why not play 12 games in your division, play 6 teams from the other side once and play one team from the other side twice. Make it your permanant cross-division rival.


UAB-MTSU obvious
USM-Charlotte old CUSA rivals
LA Tech-WKU old SB rivals
UTEP-FIU
UTSA-FAU
Rice-Old Dominion
UNT-Marshall the green guys

The last 4 at least have a major airport involved, if not two, in order to make travel a little easier.