The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

I know the issue has been addressed before but I think this season demonstrates the need to change our scheduling philosophy. I would rather us play 2-4 more away games at traditionally strong programs than get home games against easy RPI killers. I want to see our team play at home sure but I'd rather see our brand and stature of the program grow. That doesn't come from winning a bunch of home games against cupcakes. It comes from wins over Power 5 type teams on the road and from NCAA tournament appearances. Otherwise we leave our chances to fate in many respects having to win our conference tournament. Any team can get hot and beat you in a conference tournament.

As long as we are in this clown conference, chances of an at-large bid are small without us playing more road games. We aren't going to get many Power 5 teams playing us here. That's the bottom line like it or not.

Done. Our schedule will be different next year.

(03-11-2016 11:42 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Done. Our schedule will be different next year.

Haase said as much at some point yesterday. Then we'll get to listen to how the extremely tough non-conference road slate makes season tickets useless and how our team was beaten up by the time C-USA play started.

Scheduling four power conference teams with high Rpis on the road is not the answer either. You better win them or you are still outside looking in.

Scheduling will be better next year. We are close to announcing a nice H&H and look for more home and homes against some of the better non-power teams.

I'm all about scheduling tough, but I also accept the very real possibility that we can end up limping into conference play with some beatdowns on the resume and that we'd miss a few home games. I much prefer that over teams I've honestly never heard of before playing here.

We don't need to try the Monmouth strategy, but I don't think you hurt the value of season tickets by replacing two cupcake home games with away games against power programs. It doesn't even need to be Duke or UNC, just P5 teams that should finish in the top 5 of their league. This year, for instance, if we replaced Hiwasse and Seattle with road games against Iowa and WVU that would be dividends in the RPI even if we lost both games.

Actually Hiwassii doesn't hurt us. It just pisses sone folks off we play a non DI school. I'd rather play them than. 300+rpi team. But no more than one.

Just replace our four worst DI teams with projected 20+ win teams from-non power leagues and we are that will be a nice jump. Couple that with what we are projecting to play next season and we are fine. Go after teams that are locked to win their conferences. Rpi bases a lot of weight on opponent winning %.

Of course the league need to improve and Haase talked about it at length in his presser. Not sure how much of it was reported.

(03-11-2016 12:20 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Actually Hiwassii doesn't hurt us. It just pisses sone folks off we play a non DI school. I'd rather play them than. 300+rpi team. But no more than one.

Just replace our four worst DI teams with projected 20+ win teams from-non power leagues and we are that will be a nice jump.

That's true. So replace USC Upstate.

(03-11-2016 12:14 PM)hooverblazer Wrote:  We don't need to try the Monmouth strategy, but I don't think you hurt the value of season tickets by replacing two cupcake home games with away games against power programs. This year, for instance, if we replaced Hiwasse and Seattle with road games against Iowa and Baylor that would be dividends in the RPI even if we lost both games.

Yep and the thing is those are winnable type games against quality power 5 opponents for a talented and seasoned team, which we will be next year. Next year we will have a team that is capable of earning an at large, if we are able to play a schedule that gives us an opportunity to do it. I don't think we should go on the road 15 times or whatever like Monmouth, but we do need to challenge ourselves on the road. It's up to the team whether they rise up to the challenge. It doesn't matter how good this team is and how good the record is next year if they don't have some quality wins to show for it. The only way to get an at large in this league is to play and beat good teams out of conference. If we lose we will be in the same situation that we will be in if we didn't play them at all, win the tournament to get in.

(03-11-2016 11:53 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Scheduling four power conference teams with high Rpis on the road is not the answer either. You better win them or you are still outside looking in.

Scheduling will be better next year. We are close to announcing a nice H&H and look for more home and homes against some of the better non-power teams.

+1

The league is bad especially at the bottom FIU and FAU have over 80,000 students combined and avg about 2000 fans combined. Even if the bottom teams schedule better FAU UTSA FIU UNT they still will lose those games. The top half of UAB WKU ODU utep mtsu and Marshall need to carry us. It's a long process of getting better players and all that comes with building a program.

Cusa has a long way to go to get 2-3 teams in the tournament. That being said the sec will get 4 teams in maybe 3 since vandy lost.

Every program schedule with winning in mind, UAB is no different, if we had won at Auburn, Illinois and VTech, we may have been in a better position, having won 28 games.
We may have had a better chance of getting in, but the Conference would have still been considered a bad conference.
The conference was perceived a little better when Memphis was running over the conference, but only because Memphis played a national schedule and was considered a national power.
But, CUSA WAS STILL A ONE BID CONFERENCE and considered bad. We have said it, I believe other fan base are calling for it. Schedule up, improve the schedule conference wide.
CUSA need to get better, if UAB, LATECH. WKENT, OD, MTSU, Charlotte UTEP and Marshall SCHEDULED AND WON big games, if the same had strength OF SCHEDULE in 150 range , IF OUR CONFERENCE WAS A TOP 10 CONFERENCE, UAB, LATECH AND MIDDLE TENN would be a lock for NCAA now.
So CUSA need to penalize anyone who schedule is not top 150 and I mean anyone, that means traveling or 2-1 or neutral sites.
If UAB or any other conference team wants to consistently be considered a top team, then first we must schedule better and win, but more importantly the Conference must schedule better and win.

I'm sick of this argument. WE LOST TO 6 BAD TEAMS.
You can't do that and get an at large, regardless of who you play.

(03-11-2016 12:42 PM)Rebounder2u Wrote:  Every program schedule with winning in mind, UAB is no different, if we had won at Auburn, Illinois and VTech, we may have been in a better position, having won 28 games.
We may have had a better chance of getting in, but the Conference would have still been considered a bad conference.
The conference was perceived a little better when Memphis was running over the conference, but only because Memphis played a national schedule and was considered a national power.
But, CUSA WAS STILL A ONE BID CONFERENCE and considered bad. We have said it, I believe other fan base are calling for it. Schedule up, improve the schedule conference wide.
CUSA need to get better, if UAB, LATECH. WKENT, OD, MTSU, Charlotte UTEP and Marshall SCHEDULED AND WON big games, if the same had strength OF SCHEDULE in 150 range , IF OUR CONFERENCE WAS A TOP 10 CONFERENCE, UAB, LATECH AND MIDDLE TENN would be a lock for NCAA now.
So CUSA need to penalize anyone who schedule is not top 150 and I mean anyone, that means traveling or 2-1 or neutral sites.
If UAB or any other conference team wants to consistently be considered a top team, then first we must schedule better and win, but more importantly the Conference must schedule better and win.

I don't agree with that part necessarily. Someone on the main board basically wrote a dissertation about how scheduling up doesn't mean anything if all you do is lose. This is true. The reason the top teams in this league should schedule up is because they should have an expectation that they can win those games. The bottom teams in this league don't need to schedule up because they will just get slaughtered. The bottom needs to schedule other bottom tier teams and win. The problem is they often do that and still lose.

The point I made on the other board, which I think is correct, is that teams need to schedule according to the talent they have coming in or returning that year and what their realistic expectations are for that season. If they think they can be an at large contender, i.e. UAB, they should have an at large type schedule. If a team is going to suck, i.e. UTSA, they should schedule a bunch of other crappy low tier D1 teams and win some damn games.

(03-11-2016 11:53 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Scheduling four power conference teams with high Rpis on the road is not the answer either. You better win them or you are still outside looking in.

Unfortunately we were already on the outside looking in before conference play. Sadly, I would rather we had been road warriors this year.

(03-11-2016 12:48 PM)LairDweller Wrote:  I'm sick of this argument. WE LOST TO 6 BAD TEAMS.
You can't do that and get an at large, regardless of who you play.

I don't consider La Tech a bad team. Va Tech finished 10-8 in the ACC and has a top 100 rpi, so they're not bad either. WKU was average, but beat us twice, and 6 of their conference losses were by 4 points or less

Auburn and Illinois were bad.

(03-11-2016 12:53 PM)BlazintheATL Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 12:42 PM)Rebounder2u Wrote:  Every program schedule with winning in mind, UAB is no different, if we had won at Auburn, Illinois and VTech, we may have been in a better position, having won 28 games.
We may have had a better chance of getting in, but the Conference would have still been considered a bad conference.
The conference was perceived a little better when Memphis was running over the conference, but only because Memphis played a national schedule and was considered a national power.
But, CUSA WAS STILL A ONE BID CONFERENCE and considered bad. We have said it, I believe other fan base are calling for it. Schedule up, improve the schedule conference wide.
CUSA need to get better, if UAB, LATECH. WKENT, OD, MTSU, Charlotte UTEP and Marshall SCHEDULED AND WON big games, if the same had strength OF SCHEDULE in 150 range , IF OUR CONFERENCE WAS A TOP 10 CONFERENCE, UAB, LATECH AND MIDDLE TENN would be a lock for NCAA now.
So CUSA need to penalize anyone who schedule is not top 150 and I mean anyone, that means traveling or 2-1 or neutral sites.
If UAB or any other conference team wants to consistently be considered a top team, then first we must schedule better and win, but more importantly the Conference must schedule better and win.

I don't agree with that part necessarily. Someone on the main board basically wrote a dissertation about how scheduling up doesn't mean anything if all you do is lose. This is true. The reason the top teams in this league should schedule up is because they should have an expectation that they can win those games. The bottom teams in this league don't need to schedule up because they will just get slaughtered. The bottom needs to schedule other bottom tier teams and win. The problem is they often do that and still lose.

The point I made on the other board, which I think is correct, is that teams need to schedule according to the talent they have coming in or returning that year and what their realistic expectations are for that season. If they think they can be an at large contender, i.e. UAB, they should have an at large type schedule. If a team is going to suck, i.e. UTSA, they should schedule a bunch of other crappy low tier D1 teams and win some damn games.

I see your point, and it is a good point, but I disagree in regards to scheduling to your suckage potential. Instead I rather schedule within 50 percentage of your potential, for example, top 150 schedule is doable to all, even if your team lost, the conference still gets to consider your strength of schedule as so far as the conference over all strength is concerned. 100-150 conference wide scheduling brings the conference strength up.
The bottom feeders may not get in, but nothing changes they are not getting in now, but what does change is the Conference getting more teams in based on the perception of the conference scheduling strength
See SEC for the best example...The pundits are still saying 4-5 SEC teams gets in..because of perception of conference strength and I just dont see it.

(03-11-2016 01:55 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 12:48 PM)LairDweller Wrote:  I'm sick of this argument. WE LOST TO 6 BAD TEAMS.
You can't do that and get an at large, regardless of who you play.

I don't consider La Tech a bad team. Va Tech finished 10-8 in the ACC and has a top 100 rpi, so they're not bad either. WKU was average, but beat us twice, and 6 of their conference losses were by 4 points or less

Auburn and Illinois were bad.

From an RPI/tournament committee standpoint, all bad losses.
I'm not down on this team, bc they cut out the sub 200 losses from last year, and won way more games than I anticipated.

Now, let's take another step forward and cut out more bad losses next year

Were going to lose to teams in conference, teams that may not be as good as us. That's just how it goes. The key is to not lose to any of the really bad teams in conference and win all of our conference home games. We did all of that this year so I have no complaints at all there.

We just have to beat some decent teams out of coffence next year. SFA on the road and Auburn at home should be good RPI games. If we get George Washington? and UGA in the OOC tourney, those should be good RPI games. Kansas won't hurt even if we lose. Hopefully we can add a couple of other quality games that we can actually win. I like what Little Rock and UT Arlington did with their OOC schedules this year. Both played quality but winnable games, which they did win, and going into conference play looked like at large contenders. If they can do it, we can.

My point as others state is not to pull a Monmouth strategy. It is to say that I would rather play high RPI teams on the road even if it isn't a home and home or whatever rather than play some cupcakes. I understand that our staff probably learned their lesson and will likely make changes. I'm glad and hope the fans support it.

Getting to play (and win) more games in front of the home crowd is fun but does little for the overall brand and health of the program if they're against cupcakes. Attendance won't be what it should playing cupcakes anyway. I would rather take our chances with 2-4 more hard quality opponents that will help the RPI, win or lose. Obviously you need to beat some good teams in the process, but at least with a better RPI you are more a part of the conversation and put pressure on the committee. If you win against a bunch of no-name schools and have an RPI in the 80s, you have essentially removed yourself from the at-large conversation.

One thing is certain. You can't count on getting any quality wins against CUSA teams. I hope the league improves, but we can't control that. We can control who our OOC opponents are and what strategy we take in scheduling. Pride be danged. If we can get some good home and homes I'm all for it. But the most important issue is building up the schedule. If that means having to go on the road more, I'm for it.