(03-17-2014 10:52 AM)CKMcDan Wrote:  I'm curious if any of our former C-USA conference mates would agree to a "buy-game"? I'd love to see us play USM & UAB again, but I don't think we need to play in Hattiesburg or Birmingham, though. I doubt that those guys will agree to come here without a return trip.

I'm pretty sure that we asked MTSU, and they wanted a return game. Heck, I think that Arkansas State wanted a return basketball game.

Given that USM switched their home Nebraska FB game to Nebraska for revenue reasons, I think they'd love to have the revenue & they would provide an increased level of fan interest versus the buy games we have had. Also think we could find a good home & home with a perennial top 25 & while it would mean one less home game in every 2nd year, it should provide enough national interest to provide more TV revenue to offset the buy game against a cupcake. I understand MTSU wanting a return game, given their aspirations versus an in-state school but I think we could find some with better RPIs than those we have played recently. But we can't just ignore the fact that we have 5 light-weights to face 2X in our conference every year & then add 6 cupcakes OOC. We have improved our situation compared to CUSA but we are not yet at a power BB conference level as the powers that be see things (not saying they are right, just facing facts).

(03-17-2014 11:18 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 10:52 AM)CKMcDan Wrote:  I'm curious if any of our former C-USA conference mates would agree to a "buy-game"? I'd love to see us play USM & UAB again, but I don't think we need to play in Hattiesburg or Birmingham, though. I doubt that those guys will agree to come here without a return trip.

I'm pretty sure that we asked MTSU, and they wanted a return game. Heck, I think that Arkansas State wanted a return basketball game.

Given that USM switched their home Nebraska FB game to Nebraska for revenue reasons, I think they'd love to have the revenue & they would provide an increased level of fan interest versus the buy games we have had. Also think we could find a good home & home with a perennial top 25 & while it would mean one less home game in every 2nd year, it should provide enough national interest to provide more TV revenue to offset the buy game against a cupcake. I understand MTSU wanting a return game, given their aspirations versus an in-state school but I think we could find some with better RPIs than those we have played recently. But we can't just ignore the fact that we have 5 light-weights to face 2X in our conference every year & then add 6 cupcakes OOC. We have improved our situation compared to CUSA but we are not yet at a power BB conference level as the powers that be see things (not saying they are right, just facing facts).

My guess is that we won't get a "buy game" from any of our former CUSA mates for a couple of years. The thought of home & homes with us is still fresh in their minds. Plus, they pushed us around in football for so many years.

Now, if we get the football team going, then that should help more quickly change that perception. If I was MTSU, I wouldn't want to give up a home basketball game to a team that I'd beaten in football for 3-4 years straight.

(03-17-2014 09:39 AM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 08:32 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 08:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:37 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 06:22 PM)NJ1 Wrote:  I think you somehow forgot OK State (twice), Gonzaga, overall #1 seed Florida, LSU, and several others.

I don't know how that could've happened. Certainly you weren't cherry-picking information to paint the most unfavorable possible picture of YOUR favorite team's and their conference's scheduling. Because why would anyone do that?

Didn't forget them, we had some quality wins but our SOS kept us from getting a better seed. Same for the other AAC teams & kept SMU out of the tourney. The thread contends the AAC got screwed, my opinion is the conference got what our collective AAC schedules produced. The chairman of the selection committee just said as much. The bottom 5 teams in the conference were relative light-weights & combine that with the scheduled OOC cupcakes & it produced low seeds. And those low seeds will likely produce early outs given the match ups.

The shame of it is not that the AAC got screwed, it's that the poor seeds could have been much higher if the AAC schools had scheduled top 150 schools rather than the collective cupcakes that made up a large percentage of the collective AAC OOC schedules - notwithstanding that there were some quality wins.

Hogwash.

What the committee just said is that it's better to schedule crappy rpi 80-150 teams that most decent teams will beat more than 90% of the time, rather than schedule top 25 powerhouses that you can easily lose to. It makes your manipulated computer number look better, and that's all they care about. It's not about actually playing good teams. You have to fill your schedule with crappy teams you can beat that have a good win loss record.

We had started seeing some really good OOC matchups. That's about to go the way of the dodo bird. And no one needs to ***** at Pastner when the marquee OOC games disappear from our schedule. The committee has said that we need to fill our schedule with UAB's and Southern Misses. Not Ok St. twice Not Florida. Not Gonzaga.

33% of our schedule this year was filled with top 25 teams. 50% of our conference games were filled with top 25 teams. But that doesn't matter. It's what the crappy rpi says. The committee president is full of sh*t, and is about to destroy the really good OOC ball we've been seeing.

Wrong. The only two scheduled top 25 OOC teams were Gonzaga & OKSt. The others were from tournaments. Gonzaga was the only OOC top 25 team we scheduled at home, the rest were awful cupcakes to go with the bottom half of our league that is also light-weight. So yes, I say we should schedule top 100 teams OOC rather than Austin Peay, Nichols St, UALR, SEMO, Jackson ST, & LO. Including the lower 5 in conference, that is 16 light-weights on the schedule, over 1/2 of the total schedule. That won't get it done even with 3-4 top 25 wins. Doesn't have to be UAB or SMiss. It can be lower half schools from the B10, SEC or one of the other preferred conferences, even the A10. I don't agree with the election committee, but we need to understand their process & take away any excuses for giving us less than we deserve.

I understand the power-5 get preference, JP & our AD should realize it too & schedule appropriately. And it might help motivate players who take games off, and help the coaches find the players who want to bring it every night.

Florida was scheduled. It was just scheduled as a game in NYC. We didn't have to beat or lose to someone to get to them.

Just an FYI on who you are debating. Atlanta can't seem to grasp the concept that the school gets around $4 million per year in tv money, and every other major conference gets over $18 million per year; so we need to play all of our buy games.

Atlanta also thinks that we were a buy game in Stillwater with no return game planned in Memphis. I know it sounds impossible that a human being could believe this, but if you think I'm stretching the truth; just ask him.

(03-17-2014 11:53 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 09:39 AM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 08:32 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 08:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:37 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Didn't forget them, we had some quality wins but our SOS kept us from getting a better seed. Same for the other AAC teams & kept SMU out of the tourney. The thread contends the AAC got screwed, my opinion is the conference got what our collective AAC schedules produced. The chairman of the selection committee just said as much. The bottom 5 teams in the conference were relative light-weights & combine that with the scheduled OOC cupcakes & it produced low seeds. And those low seeds will likely produce early outs given the match ups.

The shame of it is not that the AAC got screwed, it's that the poor seeds could have been much higher if the AAC schools had scheduled top 150 schools rather than the collective cupcakes that made up a large percentage of the collective AAC OOC schedules - notwithstanding that there were some quality wins.

Hogwash.

What the committee just said is that it's better to schedule crappy rpi 80-150 teams that most decent teams will beat more than 90% of the time, rather than schedule top 25 powerhouses that you can easily lose to. It makes your manipulated computer number look better, and that's all they care about. It's not about actually playing good teams. You have to fill your schedule with crappy teams you can beat that have a good win loss record.

We had started seeing some really good OOC matchups. That's about to go the way of the dodo bird. And no one needs to ***** at Pastner when the marquee OOC games disappear from our schedule. The committee has said that we need to fill our schedule with UAB's and Southern Misses. Not Ok St. twice Not Florida. Not Gonzaga.

33% of our schedule this year was filled with top 25 teams. 50% of our conference games were filled with top 25 teams. But that doesn't matter. It's what the crappy rpi says. The committee president is full of sh*t, and is about to destroy the really good OOC ball we've been seeing.

Wrong. The only two scheduled top 25 OOC teams were Gonzaga & OKSt. The others were from tournaments. Gonzaga was the only OOC top 25 team we scheduled at home, the rest were awful cupcakes to go with the bottom half of our league that is also light-weight. So yes, I say we should schedule top 100 teams OOC rather than Austin Peay, Nichols St, UALR, SEMO, Jackson ST, & LO. Including the lower 5 in conference, that is 16 light-weights on the schedule, over 1/2 of the total schedule. That won't get it done even with 3-4 top 25 wins. Doesn't have to be UAB or SMiss. It can be lower half schools from the B10, SEC or one of the other preferred conferences, even the A10. I don't agree with the election committee, but we need to understand their process & take away any excuses for giving us less than we deserve.

I understand the power-5 get preference, JP & our AD should realize it too & schedule appropriately. And it might help motivate players who take games off, and help the coaches find the players who want to bring it every night.

Florida was scheduled. It was just scheduled as a game in NYC. We didn't have to beat or lose to someone to get to them.

Just an FYI on who you are debating. Atlanta can't seem to grasp the concept that the school gets around $4 million per year in tv money, and every other major conference gets over $18 million per year; so we need to play all of our buy games.

Atlanta also thinks that we were a buy game in Stillwater with no return game planned in Memphis. I know it sounds impossible that a human being could believe this, but if you think I'm stretching the truth; just ask him.

You twist the truth like a veteran politician. To say I considered or called the Ok St game in Stillwater a buy game is a complete fabrication, like much of your BS. My point on the OKSt game in Stillwater was that it was contracted as a prelim round Old Spice game, as the OK St promo confirmed just like the Purdue-Siena game at Purdue, also confirmed from their promo - and both confirmed from the OLd Spice promos. The fact that the rules of pre-season tourney play enable teams to play extra games served as the technical reason to make the game part of the Old Spice & not count against the scheduled season total. Whether OK St comes to Memphis is a separate issue but it does prove my point that we could schedule a perennial top 25 home & home and not be affected financially (might even be a financial boost compared to a buy game given the TV interest) - because we did just that with OK St.

More importantly Stammers can't seem to grasp that there is little interest (note the reduced fans at the games or nationally among the media) in playing the home OOC cupcakes we played this year & in comparison a game against a top 25 may well offset the cost of not playing one more cupcake home game every 2nd yr. Maybe even more important is that when it came to tourney selections, the AAC in general just like Memphis paid for the weak OOC schedules. Right or wrong, the selection committee noted the weak OOC schedules of the AAC teams along with 5 weak sisters in-conference played 2x each.

(03-17-2014 12:20 PM)NJ1 Wrote:  Before this turns ugly (and personal)-- I'll remind all that back-and-forth by posters (in the form of one-on-one arguments) is expressly forbidden by the rules.

Two people disagree. Two people might have a different memory of or interpretation of the facts.

Almost everyone on the board is smart enough to look at the information and decide with whom they wish to agree. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

Does that mean I can't argue with myself?

I don't have a problem with our scheduling. It's pretty simple. When you play in a one bid conference. You schedule a tough ooc schedule. When you play in a league where five teams are ranked for the majority of the year, and you play in some marquee tournaments. You don't have to schedule an insanely hard ooc schedule. Syracuse plays nobody until they absolutely have too. It never hurts their seeding.

We had some great wins this year, and some terrible losses. Yes terrible losses. I know UConn and Cincy were both ranked, But we were too, and we lost at home to them. IMO, this is what hurt us most.

The biggest impact, however, is that the AAC clearly got the shaft from the committee. Three ranked teams from the same Conference, in the same bracket. When you only allow four bids from that league. SMU left out after having been ranked a large part of the year. The defending National Champions, ranked in the top five, just won the regular season, conf. tourney, in the fashion that they won it. Its hard to argue there wasn't something more at work here than just bad scheduling.

Louisville is fixin to run through this tournament like a buzz saw.

Anybody notice where Duke gets to play? Again.

(03-17-2014 02:18 PM)bobby jo Wrote:  I don't have a problem with our scheduling. It's pretty simple. When you play in a one bid conference. You schedule a tough ooc schedule. When you play in a league where five teams are ranked for the majority of the year, and you play in some marquee tournaments. You don't have to schedule an insanely hard ooc schedule. Syracuse plays nobody until they absolutely have too. It never hurts their seeding.

We had some great wins this year, and some terrible losses. Yes terrible losses. I know UConn and Cincy were both ranked, But we were too, and we lost at home to them. IMO, this is what hurt us most.

The biggest impact, however, is that the AAC clearly got the shaft from the committee. Three ranked teams from the same Conference, in the same bracket. When you only allow four bids from that league. SMU left out after having been ranked a large part of the year. The defending National Champions, ranked in the top five, just won the regular season, conf. tourney, in the fashion that they won it. Its hard to argue there wasn't something more at work here than just bad scheduling.

Louisville is fixin to run through this tournament like a buzz saw.

Personally, I'd prefer a higher level of OOC opposition at home rather than Austin Peay, Nichols St, NW St, UALR, SEMO, Jackson St & LO just for the interest level.. And it is that kind of OOC scheduling across the AAC that is reflected in the seeding. You mentioned Syracuse, the ACC is relatively strong throughout the conference & doesn't require them to schedule strong OOC. Same for when they were in the BE that on occasion went 7-10 deep receiving bids. We don't have a situation that is equivalent to either the old BE or the current ACC. The AAC is much deeper than the CUSA but still has 5 relatively weak schools that also don't schedule strongly outside the conference. And because of the low OOC SOS for the AAC schools, SMU got left out & UL, Cincy, UConn & Memphis got lower seeds than they otherwise likely should have. I don't agree with the committee logic, but we had better learn to schedule so that the committee doesn't have that excuse to continue to "screw" us & the AAC. This is especially true considering we are trading UL for Tulane, ECU & Tulsa. Fact is we are looking at a slightly stronger CUSA equivalent next year & had better schedule much stronger teams or we will continue to have a very rough path in the tourney.

Louisville should have been a 3 seed and smu should have gotten that last bid but cincy,uconn and us were seeded right but where we got screwed was were all in the same bracket which is dumb.

(03-17-2014 05:31 PM)tigerderek Wrote:  Louisville should have been a 3 seed and smu should have gotten that last bid but cincy,uconn and us were seeded right but where we got screwed was were all in the same bracket which is dumb.

Agree. For a committee that supposedly spent so much energy analyzing the out of conference strength of schedule for assessing seeding and who gets in, etc., it really doesn't make much sense to put 3 out of 4 teams from within the same conference into the same bracket so that they can potentially play themselves again.

(03-17-2014 05:34 PM)I_LUV_MEMPHISTIGERS Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 05:31 PM)tigerderek Wrote:  Louisville should have been a 3 seed and smu should have gotten that last bid but cincy,uconn and us were seeded right but where we got screwed was were all in the same bracket which is dumb.

Agree. For a committee that supposedly spent so much energy analyzing the out of conference strength of schedule for assessing seeding and who gets in, etc., it really doesn't make much sense to put 3 out of 4 teams from within the same conference into the same bracket so that they can potentially play themselves again.

Yeah,I could've understood if we have gotten 7-8 teams in but we didn't....epic fail on the committee this year which I hardly ever have complained about over the years.