(07-13-2016 01:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 10:40 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 11:20 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 11:09 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

If it was a package deal with Wichita State, which is what I was referring to, then yes, it absolutely is. Unless you think 11 teams is beneficial.

I don't think a package deal with Wichita State would ever happen.

They're not lowering their basketball to the Sun Belt in exchange for a home for an FBS start up in football. We aren't going to add a football only member either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm late to the party on this board, but I do think Wichita would consider the Belt in order to get to FBS. The Belt appears to be trending up in basketball and if you take Wichita out of the RPI numbers for the Valley, it takes a hit and isn't really any stronger as a whole than the Belt. We absolutely have to get to FBS if we ever hope on getting an AAC or MWC invite and everybody knows that's essentially what our ultimate objective is. Would it ever happen? Who knows. But odds are better if we're playing FBS level football.

CUSA is the one that I'd really question Wichita leaving for if it were an option as it's been pretty bad in basketball as the last round of movement hurt basketball there.

I don't remember what the undergrad numbers were posted, but we have a total enrollment of around 15k and one of the reasons our president wants to bring football back is to help grow that number. He has a target somewhere between 20k and 25k ultimately. Enrollment was around 18k back when we last had football so there's reason to believe we can grow.

As far as some of the expenditures go, that report was comparing Wichita without football to conferences and schools with it. The report talks about a starting point of 6M but Bardo has talked about getting to a 15M yearly budget for football. If we bring it back, we're going to fund it properly and do what we can. I'd expect the overall athletic budget to end up between 40M-50M in short time.

I'm not saying if we'd be worthy or not but I do think our addition in basketball could help offset our football while it grows. But that's for others to decide if it's worth it or not. But I do think we would absolutely consider a Belt invite if one came. On top of the improving basketball strength of the conference, the Belt would give us more visible access to areas we recruit for students and athletes alike. Texas. And basketball recruits the southeast pretty hard.

Wait what? I'm not saying we're not bad as a whole but we're still better than the Sun Belt.

I see it more of CUSA Not being willing to take the risk to bring in another football start up and a 15th piece of the Playoff money pie more than anything.

Wichita State may have great basketball, but they carry a ton of risks.

(07-13-2016 03:15 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 02:09 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'd like to see those numbers if you can share. We collectively **** the bed last season as a conference ooc and it made for a dreadful conference rpi. Hopefully last year was an anomoly. The two years before that we weren't great either but had a better RPI than the Belt.

Haven't you only had the current configuration for 2 years? Probably not wise to include schools that are no longer part of the conference in justifying current strength. 4 years ago CUSA was a top 10 RPI conference but 3 of the top 4 schools are now in the AAC.

If I can find them, I will present them. I know they were posted on WheatShockers at some point in the last 7 months.

If my memory is right, I did not include teams that had left the conference and I typically go back at least 5 years and usually 10 whenever I run RPI numbers for teams/conferences to analyze. With all of the movement, that's not as easy as it used to be. And I believe that I didn't include numbers of new members that were earned in other conferences as it gets hard to judge those when schools typically move from lesser conferences in terms of strength. That may or may not be fair, but it's how I did it.

(07-13-2016 03:15 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 02:09 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'd like to see those numbers if you can share. We collectively **** the bed last season as a conference ooc and it made for a dreadful conference rpi. Hopefully last year was an anomoly. The two years before that we weren't great either but had a better RPI than the Belt.

Haven't you only had the current configuration for 2 years? Probably not wise to include schools that are no longer part of the conference. 4 years ago CUSA was a top 10 RPI conference but 3 of the top 4 schools are now in the AAC.

Meh, 3 years ago Tulsa, Tulane and ECU were still in the conference and WKU was not . That's trading up in bb in my eyes. 4 years ago it was completely different with Memphis and everyone else but if you want to go back to that version of CUSA and look at the 2012-13 #'s 2 & 3 are actually USM and UTEP.

If you want to drop the 2013-14 season and just look at the last two years fine with me.

(07-13-2016 03:25 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I see it more of CUSA Not being willing to take the risk to bring in another football start up and a 15th piece of the Playoff money pie more than anything.

Wichita State may have great basketball, but they carry a ton of risks.

I'd take 'em but I doubt CUSA would without losing at least three members. 15 or 16 member CUSA ain't happening unless it's a part of an organized plan to later tear itself apart but that's unlikely as well.

(07-13-2016 03:25 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 01:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 10:40 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 11:20 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 11:09 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  If it was a package deal with Wichita State, which is what I was referring to, then yes, it absolutely is. Unless you think 11 teams is beneficial.

I don't think a package deal with Wichita State would ever happen.

They're not lowering their basketball to the Sun Belt in exchange for a home for an FBS start up in football. We aren't going to add a football only member either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm late to the party on this board, but I do think Wichita would consider the Belt in order to get to FBS. The Belt appears to be trending up in basketball and if you take Wichita out of the RPI numbers for the Valley, it takes a hit and isn't really any stronger as a whole than the Belt. We absolutely have to get to FBS if we ever hope on getting an AAC or MWC invite and everybody knows that's essentially what our ultimate objective is. Would it ever happen? Who knows. But odds are better if we're playing FBS level football.

CUSA is the one that I'd really question Wichita leaving for if it were an option as it's been pretty bad in basketball as the last round of movement hurt basketball there.

I don't remember what the undergrad numbers were posted, but we have a total enrollment of around 15k and one of the reasons our president wants to bring football back is to help grow that number. He has a target somewhere between 20k and 25k ultimately. Enrollment was around 18k back when we last had football so there's reason to believe we can grow.

As far as some of the expenditures go, that report was comparing Wichita without football to conferences and schools with it. The report talks about a starting point of 6M but Bardo has talked about getting to a 15M yearly budget for football. If we bring it back, we're going to fund it properly and do what we can. I'd expect the overall athletic budget to end up between 40M-50M in short time.

I'm not saying if we'd be worthy or not but I do think our addition in basketball could help offset our football while it grows. But that's for others to decide if it's worth it or not. But I do think we would absolutely consider a Belt invite if one came. On top of the improving basketball strength of the conference, the Belt would give us more visible access to areas we recruit for students and athletes alike. Texas. And basketball recruits the southeast pretty hard.

Wait what? I'm not saying we're not bad as a whole but we're still better than the Sun Belt.

I see it more of CUSA Not being willing to take the risk to bring in another football start up and a 15th piece of the Playoff money pie more than anything.

Wichita State may have great basketball, but they carry a ton of risks.

I don't deny that there are risks with taking Wichita for any conference. You are talking about what would be a startup program that would take some time to develop. And nobody knows what kind of ceiling we may or may not have there. The question is do you take that risk in order to associate with what we're bringing in basketball? Fan support and money are not big issues there.

We do have access to a stadium that currently seats a little over 31k. Will we fill that? Nobody knows at this point, but it's been sold out before during some lean football years and football is a much bigger deal now than it was then. Still, no guarantees.

I honestly think a CUSA split would be the only way Wichita would be included due to their current size of membership. If that happened, I'd have to see how the split worked and who would be a part of the group they may give us a shot. But that's all hypothetical.

I'm not here to say any conference would be lucky to have us or anything like that. I do think we have a lot to offer. I do know we have our sites set on being the best possible program we can be and playing at the highest level possible. We have resources and some wealthy donors. Not all of them have the last name Koch. A growing metro area and campus doesn't hurt our prospects of continuing to improve in both athletics and academics. Especially research.

But it all depends on what conferences are wanting, needing, or willing to risk.

(07-13-2016 03:27 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 03:15 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 02:09 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'd like to see those numbers if you can share. We collectively **** the bed last season as a conference ooc and it made for a dreadful conference rpi. Hopefully last year was an anomoly. The two years before that we weren't great either but had a better RPI than the Belt.

Haven't you only had the current configuration for 2 years? Probably not wise to include schools that are no longer part of the conference in justifying current strength. 4 years ago CUSA was a top 10 RPI conference but 3 of the top 4 schools are now in the AAC.

If I can find them, I will present them. I know they were posted on WheatShockers at some point in the last 7 months.

If my memory is right, I did not include teams that had left the conference and I typically go back at least 5 years and usually 10 whenever I run RPI numbers for teams/conferences to analyze. With all of the movement, that's not as easy as it used to be. And I believe that I didn't include numbers of new members that were earned in other conferences as it gets hard to judge those when schools typically move from lesser conferences in terms of strength. That may or may not be fair, but it's how I did it.

Hmmm, yeah I'm not sure about your methodology. Like you said comparisons are hard with so much moving around. As one poster pointed out we've only had these configurations for two years so it's hard to say, as another poster did, that we are or are going to be a perennial one bid league. It's true technically but in the past two years we've had one team being selected in the last four out thus earning a number one seed in the NIT, four teams total playing in the NIT the last to years compared to the Sun Belt's zero including one team making it to the NIT Final Four. So we're a lot closer than the Sun Belt in being more than a one-bid league. I didn't bother with the CIT or CBI but I will note that we've got the inaugural Vegas 16 err 8 championship as well (for whatever that is worth).

LOL...man do you have to come our board to pimp your conf. We really don't care about coooosa.

(07-13-2016 04:11 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  LOL...man do you have to come our board to pimp your conf. We really don't care about coooosa.

The number of posts over here about them says otherwise.

(07-13-2016 07:59 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 04:11 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  LOL...man do you have to come our board to pimp your conf. We really don't care about coooosa.

The number of posts over here about them says otherwise.

There wouldn't be nearly so many if the cooosa fans would stay away.

Neither conference was very good last year in basketball, but the Sun Belt was 17th in conference RPI vs. 22nd for CUSA.

(07-13-2016 03:31 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 03:15 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 02:09 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'd like to see those numbers if you can share. We collectively **** the bed last season as a conference ooc and it made for a dreadful conference rpi. Hopefully last year was an anomoly. The two years before that we weren't great either but had a better RPI than the Belt.

Haven't you only had the current configuration for 2 years? Probably not wise to include schools that are no longer part of the conference. 4 years ago CUSA was a top 10 RPI conference but 3 of the top 4 schools are now in the AAC.

Meh, 3 years ago Tulsa, Tulane and ECU were still in the conference and WKU was not . That's trading up in bb in my eyes. 4 years ago it was completely different with Memphis and everyone else but if you want to go back to that version of CUSA and look at the 2012-13 #'s 2 & 3 are actually USM and UTEP.

If you want to drop the 2013-14 season and just look at the last two years fine with me.

The reason that is flawed is even if you exclude Memphis, their RPI boosts everyone else. UTEP (which UTA, the third place SBC team, beat on their him floor) and USM slide further. WKU helps, but is it offset be FIU, FAU and UTSA?

(07-17-2016 10:14 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 03:31 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 03:15 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 02:09 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'd like to see those numbers if you can share. We collectively **** the bed last season as a conference ooc and it made for a dreadful conference rpi. Hopefully last year was an anomoly. The two years before that we weren't great either but had a better RPI than the Belt.

Haven't you only had the current configuration for 2 years? Probably not wise to include schools that are no longer part of the conference. 4 years ago CUSA was a top 10 RPI conference but 3 of the top 4 schools are now in the AAC.

Meh, 3 years ago Tulsa, Tulane and ECU were still in the conference and WKU was not . That's trading up in bb in my eyes. 4 years ago it was completely different with Memphis and everyone else but if you want to go back to that version of CUSA and look at the 2012-13 #'s 2 & 3 are actually USM and UTEP.

If you want to drop the 2013-14 season and just look at the last two years fine with me.

The reason that is flawed is even if you exclude Memphis, their RPI boosts everyone else. UTEP (which UTA, the third place SBC team, beat on their him floor) and USM slide further. WKU helps, but is it offset be FIU, FAU and UTSA?

It's not flawed, CUSA with Memphis was a completely different animal. The conference RPI was higher, nobody's arguing otherwise. I never tried to compare that version to the Sun Belt or the current version. I did originally include three years back which was all the current teams minus WKU plus ECU, Tulane & Tulsa. Tulsa actually won the league that year and weren't bad. Good enough to float the other two as opposed to dropping all three for WKU? I don't know but the FL schools and UTSA were included and I felt that version was close enough to compare. But like I said if you want to argue just the last two years that's fine by me. The only reason I brought up USM and UTEPs performance from 12-13 was because rokamortis said that 3 of the top 4 moved on and I was just pointing out that wasn't so. The UTEP team you beat last year ended sixth in CUSA.

(07-17-2016 10:00 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  The only reason I brought up USM and UTEPs performance from 12-13 was because rokamortis said that 3 of the top 4 moved on and I was just pointing out that wasn't so. The UTEP team you beat last year ended sixth in CUSA.

I said 4 years ago, meaning 4 years from the most recent year or the 2011-12 season (2016-4 = 2012). I can see why you thought I meant the 2012-13 season though.

(07-18-2016 09:46 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(07-17-2016 10:00 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  The only reason I brought up USM and UTEPs performance from 12-13 was because rokamortis said that 3 of the top 4 moved on and I was just pointing out that wasn't so. The UTEP team you beat last year ended sixth in CUSA.

I said 4 years ago, meaning 4 years from the most recent year or the 2011-12 season (2016-4 = 2012). I can see why you thought I meant the 2012-13 season though.

OK, I gotcha. Then you'd be correct.

(07-17-2016 10:00 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-17-2016 10:14 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 03:31 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 03:15 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 02:09 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'd like to see those numbers if you can share. We collectively **** the bed last season as a conference ooc and it made for a dreadful conference rpi. Hopefully last year was an anomoly. The two years before that we weren't great either but had a better RPI than the Belt.

Haven't you only had the current configuration for 2 years? Probably not wise to include schools that are no longer part of the conference. 4 years ago CUSA was a top 10 RPI conference but 3 of the top 4 schools are now in the AAC.

Meh, 3 years ago Tulsa, Tulane and ECU were still in the conference and WKU was not . That's trading up in bb in my eyes. 4 years ago it was completely different with Memphis and everyone else but if you want to go back to that version of CUSA and look at the 2012-13 #'s 2 & 3 are actually USM and UTEP.

If you want to drop the 2013-14 season and just look at the last two years fine with me.

The reason that is flawed is even if you exclude Memphis, their RPI boosts everyone else. UTEP (which UTA, the third place SBC team, beat on their him floor) and USM slide further. WKU helps, but is it offset be FIU, FAU and UTSA?

It's not flawed, CUSA with Memphis was a completely different animal. The conference RPI was higher, nobody's arguing otherwise. I never tried to compare that version to the Sun Belt or the current version. I did originally include three years back which was all the current teams minus WKU plus ECU, Tulane & Tulsa. Tulsa actually won the league that year and weren't bad. Good enough to float the other two as opposed to dropping all three for WKU? I don't know but the FL schools and UTSA were included and I felt that version was close enough to compare. But like I said if you want to argue just the last two years that's fine by me. The only reason I brought up USM and UTEPs performance from 12-13 was because rokamortis said that 3 of the top 4 moved on and I was just pointing out that wasn't so. The UTEP team you beat last year ended sixth in CUSA.

You're still missing the point. If Memphis played USM, regardless of the outcome, that game raises the RPI. So even if you exclude Memphis, which I agree that you did, Memphis still raises USM's RPI.

USM could have the exact same team, same OOC record and the same conference winning percentage, but be dozens or more RPI slots lower due to the loss of the top CUSA teams.

The only true comparison is the last two years. And in that regard, the SBC has held up well against CUSA.

(07-18-2016 08:22 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(07-17-2016 10:00 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-17-2016 10:14 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 03:31 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 03:15 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  Haven't you only had the current configuration for 2 years? Probably not wise to include schools that are no longer part of the conference. 4 years ago CUSA was a top 10 RPI conference but 3 of the top 4 schools are now in the AAC.

Meh, 3 years ago Tulsa, Tulane and ECU were still in the conference and WKU was not . That's trading up in bb in my eyes. 4 years ago it was completely different with Memphis and everyone else but if you want to go back to that version of CUSA and look at the 2012-13 #'s 2 & 3 are actually USM and UTEP.

If you want to drop the 2013-14 season and just look at the last two years fine with me.

The reason that is flawed is even if you exclude Memphis, their RPI boosts everyone else. UTEP (which UTA, the third place SBC team, beat on their him floor) and USM slide further. WKU helps, but is it offset be FIU, FAU and UTSA?

It's not flawed, CUSA with Memphis was a completely different animal. The conference RPI was higher, nobody's arguing otherwise. I never tried to compare that version to the Sun Belt or the current version. I did originally include three years back which was all the current teams minus WKU plus ECU, Tulane & Tulsa. Tulsa actually won the league that year and weren't bad. Good enough to float the other two as opposed to dropping all three for WKU? I don't know but the FL schools and UTSA were included and I felt that version was close enough to compare. But like I said if you want to argue just the last two years that's fine by me. The only reason I brought up USM and UTEPs performance from 12-13 was because rokamortis said that 3 of the top 4 moved on and I was just pointing out that wasn't so. The UTEP team you beat last year ended sixth in CUSA.

You're still missing the point. If Memphis played USM, regardless of the outcome, that game raises the RPI. So even if you exclude Memphis, which I agree that you did, Memphis still raises USM's RPI.

USM could have the exact same team, same OOC record and the same conference winning percentage, but be dozens or more RPI slots lower due to the loss of the top CUSA teams.

The only true comparison is the last two years. And in that regard, the SBC has held up well against CUSA.

uta beat memphis on their home court and also ohio state so how much did that raise their RPI