(02-07-2017 07:47 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 07:20 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 02:54 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 08:54 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 11:28 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  That loss at Tulsa is hurting less every week as they win games. They're now just outside the top 100 RPI. A few more wins for them and they're top 100. Then it's a loss on the road in the 51-100 range. Pretty common. What's killing us is the SOS. Those first 4 games of the year put us in a hole that we just won't get out of. Just not many good chances to get big wins to catch the attention of the committee. We have South Carolina. SMU at home was the next big chance. Now the 2 big games left are on the road. Makes it doubly tough. Great for the resume if you win. But tough.

I've been saying SOS has been a problem for 5 yrs+. Folks talk about the need for buy games but the economics don't support it. Last big OOC home game I remember was Gonzaga & it sold out (OK maybe OU too). When was it, 2013 maybe? Aside from that game it's been cupcake after cupcake for the last 7-8 yrs that don't draw & which kill our SOS. Maybe when seats were virtually sold out thru season tickets, there was some logic but certainly not when seats can't be given away & the SOS keeps us out of the tourney, even winning 20+ games. IMO, we need 10 big games/yr. Let's say 6 of those are conference (Cincy, UConn & SMU most yrs), so 4 need to be scheduled OOC. And we are nowhere close, so we need miracles like a win at SMU or Cincy. And even one of those might not be enough.

Don't Lose to Monmouth, Ole Miss and Providence OOC conference and it doesn't matter as we would pretty much be solidly in right now.

I agree with you but if we had 10 big games this year that would raise our SOS but it would also lower our number of wins.

Catch 22 when your team isn't very good.

I'd hate to assume losses, but there is certainly evidence of a number of schools in past years receiving NCAA bids with fewer wins due to SOS over other schools with more wins that had weaker SOS. Also, there is a logic that says a team can grow & potentially reach a higher potential of play having played a diet of tough competition. And it would serve our university to have a higher attending crowd which a better schedule would encourage.

A couple of other examples of this logic are the difficulty JP had in getting wins against top 25 schools her but the primary reason was that he played virtually none, maybe 1-2 per season....until Memphis began competing in the AAC where we had more opportunity for quality wins & we did win a couple of those due to great opportunity. The next example is JP's school now, GT. GT plays in a tough ACC & has many more opportunities to beat top programs/get good wins & as such GT has achieved some good wins while GT has also lost some against weak programs. I attribute the wins to having more opportunity & yet Memphis has continued to make the same scheduling mistakes year after year by scheduling the multiple cupcakes to get wins. And the tougher opponents & the tourney committee see though it year after year.

The big boys don't want to play us home and home...Gonzaga couldn't wait to drop us after Cal left. The Middling teams in the power 5 schedule down to get wins and the big boys are going to play Elite teams or cupcakes. Tough to get games with that in place.

We can upgrade our schedule but it likely wont be against NAME teams until our name is worth more again.

We have to be marketable enough again for TV to arrange for marquis games. And, until then [if in fact the administration really wants to play the "big boys"] we may have to suck it up with something like a 2 and 1 to get them on the schedule.

Its up to us to pay the price to get a seat at the big boy table.

I like both Randall and Clergeot. Different types of players but both contribute and both will get better.

(02-08-2017 01:36 PM)450bench Wrote:  I like both Randall and Clergeot. Different types of players but both contribute and both will get better.

Clergeot seems like he can be a good scorer...Still deferring right now though.

(02-08-2017 01:41 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 01:36 PM)450bench Wrote:  I like both Randall and Clergeot. Different types of players but both contribute and both will get better.

Clergeot seems like he can be a good scorer...Still deferring right now though.

Agreed. Youth will do that, IMO. Tough, athletic, good ball handler and shooter. Serious quickness.