Adams jokes that the job was as exciting as it sounds, but it also was an outlet for his strategic and competitive sides. Working for a small company, Adams formed a sales alliance to take on much-larger competitors. Sales doubled and market share grew.

Adams thinks a similar approach could work for mid-majors. C-USA and the Sun Belt believe he’s on to something, too. They’ve hired him as a consultant.

Last week, Adams made a presentation at Old Dominion. It was big on numbers and chocked with outside-the-box proposals that ODU coach Jeff Jones called “thought-provoking and innovative.”

https://pilotonline.com/sports/college/o...b7327.html

(10-24-2017 03:07 PM)GreenSteve Wrote:  Adams jokes that the job was as exciting as it sounds, but it also was an outlet for his strategic and competitive sides. Working for a small company, Adams formed a sales alliance to take on much-larger competitors. Sales doubled and market share grew.

Adams thinks a similar approach could work for mid-majors. C-USA and the Sun Belt believe he’s on to something, too. They’ve hired him as a consultant.

Last week, Adams made a presentation at Old Dominion. It was big on numbers and chocked with outside-the-box proposals that ODU coach Jeff Jones called “thought-provoking and innovative.”

https://pilotonline.com/sports/college/o...b7327.html

Dearest Alma mater, I too have a presentation that is thought provoking and innovative.

Win your damn games

Should be interesting to see how the league and different schools respond during those meetings.

The article suggests having the top teams play late in the season.Schedule that way. I agree this would help some.

Then go ahead and add the other in-conference suggestion also.Leave the last(or next to last) game as TBA or call it a "wild card" game.Match up teams to improve RPI.Leave teams on their designated home or away slot.It will not be perfect matches but will be an improvement over random scheduling.After the ninth game(around Feb.1st) announce the wild card match ups.

If a particular match up has already been played twice then go to the next most helpful pairing.

The guy is exactly right. Half this league cares a lot about basketball, so let that half play each other more later in the season to build up an RPI the NCAA won't ignore. It would help the schools that don't care, don't invest, and schedule crap teams too, because the more bids we get, the more money each school gets.

Fortune favors the bold. I say go for it

(10-24-2017 05:48 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  The article suggests having the top teams play late in the season.Schedule that way. I agree this would help some.

Then go ahead and add the other in-conference suggestion also.Leave the last(or next to last) game as TBA or call it a "wild card" game.Match up teams to improve RPI.Leave teams on their designated home or away slot.It will not be perfect matches but will be an improvement over random scheduling.After the ninth game(around Feb.1st) announce the wild card match ups.

If a particular match up has already been played twice then go to the next most helpful pairing.

Please explain how when you play makes a difference to your RPI?

Does it really matter if you get that RPI boost early march if you go into those games with a RPI hanging around 80?

The only reason a Middle was on the bubble and getting talked about a at large was their RPI was decent along with their record. The only thing playing a RPI killer early rather than later does....

keeps you off the bubble talk in the first place because of a RPI that is not at large bid worthy.

If Middle had loss in the conference tourney and did not get a at large bit.....

when they played FIU and FAU (last 2 games of the season) would have played no part in them not getting the bid. Losing homes games to Tenn St & Ga. St would have.

The way I understand the article games late in the season would be played so that the top rpi team (MT last year #34) would NOT play a team like FIU(#337) a second time but rather a conference team with a much better rpi.

The reason for late in the season would be so the most advantageous pairing could be scheduled.

DII games do not count towards RPI right? Having bad teams in CUSA play a couple DII games fills home dates and pads win totals. This sounds good to me. Am I missing something? I know some of you are well informed on RPI.

(10-24-2017 11:29 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  The way I understand the article games late in the season would be played so that the top rpi team (MT last year #34) would NOT play a team like FIU(#337) a second time but rather a conference team with a much better rpi.

The reason for late in the season would be so the most advantageous pairing could be scheduled.

If that's the case then I totally misread the article...

possible because I did not read it all.

But if that's the case no coach in this conference is going to be fore something like that. For the coaches there's more on the line than just a at large bid. Like a job. So no coach is going to give up a couple games against schools that are most likely wins to play a school they already played twice for a third game and maybe even on the road. Giving up a home game.

Not only that it makes even less sense because of scheduling and season ticket holders. To be honest if its the way you are thinking it's probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard "to boost" a teams RPI. So at what point do you make the schedule? What schedule each team once then at mid season coaches and ADs have a meeting to decide the 2nd half scheduling? Based off won and loss records?

Like I said no coach is going to give up sure wins to go on the road to play a team a 3rd time...2 of those on the road. Then play them a 4th time in the conference tourney.

If it's the RPI they are worried about it would be a lot easier...not scheduling the RPI teams we all play OOC. Or giving the #1 and #2 seed byes to the semi finials instead of making them play a RPI killer game in round 2.

Lets clear one other thing up.....the RPI # means nothing unless that team is a top 100 or top 50 team. The NCAA supposedly looks at top 100 and top 50 wins. But other than that the number of wins a team you play is the only important factor. The benefit of not playing #264 UTSA with a 12-19 record and replacing that game with #136 ODU with a 19-12 record is maybe the difference in 5 spots in the RPI

And like I said at what date to you decide to switch who you are playing? If it was something like 8 games remaining...UTSA was 9-13 and ODU was 14-10. So trying to pick who's going to get hot or go cold...might just back fire.

(edit) I just went back and read the whole article and it makes even less sense because this guy has no clue on how the RPI actually works.

He suggests that teams play at least 6 home OOC D1 games which sounds good because it should equal more OOC wins. But to get those 6 home games you have to find teams willing to take a pay check for at least 2. Now which schools are more than likely going to be in that class? The same schools he thinks we should try to avoid late in conference play...RPI killing schools.

Not only that you get .6 for a home win and 1.4 for a road win. So it's actually better to play that RPI killer on the road for both games. If you can't beat those 2 schools...you shouldn't be in the run for a at large bid. So if you play them at home the 2 games are worth 1.2 wins and if you play them on the road they are worth 3.2 wins

So if you win 24 games with 16 coming at home and 8 on the road...the 8 road wins are worth the same as the 16 home wins

Let me do the math in the RPI

16 Home W = 9.6
8 road W = 11.2
Total W 20.8

A team has 4 losses 1 at home and 3 road games
1.4
.6
.6
.6

Total L 3.2

Total games played 20.8 +3.2 =24 games played a w% of 0.8666 which = 0.2166 points for the winning % part of your RPI

Now lets do this with 14 home wins and 10 road I'm not going to do all the math like above but you now earned 0.2187 points for your total season for winning%

A gain of 0.0021

Might not sound like a lot but just winning 2 more road games would have moved the 51st RPI team to 49th ...now a top 50 win. It would have moved 101 Penn St. to a 99th now a top 100 win. And it would have moved Illinois St. (did not get a bid) from 33rd to 30th a spot above Rhode Island a at large team.

Not huge jump but a lot easier than trying to move 3 to 5 spots by rearranging a conference schedule..mid season and then hoping a team doesn't start losing.

(10-25-2017 12:41 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 11:29 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  The way I understand the article games late in the season would be played so that the top rpi team (MT last year #34) would NOT play a team like FIU(#337) a second time but rather a conference team with a much better rpi.

The reason for late in the season would be so the most advantageous pairing could be scheduled.

If that's the case then I totally misread the article...

possible because I did not read it all.

But if that's the case no coach in this conference is going to be fore something like that. For the coaches there's more on the line than just a at large bid. Like a job. So no coach is going to give up a couple games against schools that are most likely wins to play a school they already played twice for a third game and maybe even on the road. Giving up a home game.

Not only that it makes even less sense because of scheduling and season ticket holders. To be honest if its the way you are thinking it's probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard "to boost" a teams RPI. So at what point do you make the schedule? What schedule each team once then at mid season coaches and ADs have a meeting to decide the 2nd half scheduling? Based off won and loss records?

Like I said no coach is going to give up sure wins to go on the road to play a team a 3rd time...2 of those on the road. Then play them a 4th time in the conference tourney.

If it's the RPI they are worried about it would be a lot easier...not scheduling the RPI teams we all play OOC. Or giving the #1 and #2 seed byes to the semi finials instead of making them play a RPI killer game in round 2.

Lets clear one other thing up.....the RPI # means nothing unless that team is a top 100 or top 50 team. The NCAA supposedly looks at top 100 and top 50 wins. But other than that the number of wins a team you play is the only important factor. The benefit of not playing #264 UTSA with a 12-19 record and replacing that game with #136 ODU with a 19-12 record is maybe the difference in 5 spots in the RPI

And like I said at what date to you decide to switch who you are playing? If it was something like 8 games remaining...UTSA was 9-13 and ODU was 14-10. So trying to pick who's going to get hot or go cold...might just back fire.

(edit) I just went back and read the whole article and it makes even less sense because this guy has no clue on how the RPI actually works.

He suggests that teams play at least 6 home OOC D1 games which sounds good because it should equal more OOC wins. But to get those 6 home games you have to find teams willing to take a pay check for at least 2. Now which schools are more than likely going to be in that class? The same schools he thinks we should try to avoid late in conference play...RPI killing schools.

Not only that you get .6 for a home win and 1.4 for a road win. So it's actually better to play that RPI killer on the road for both games. If you can't beat those 2 schools...you shouldn't be in the run for a at large bid. So if you play them at home the 2 games are worth 1.2 wins and if you play them on the road they are worth 3.2 wins

So if you win 24 games with 16 coming at home and 8 on the road...the 8 road wins are worth the same as the 16 home wins

Let me do the math in the RPI

16 Home W = 9.6
8 road W = 11.2
Total W 20.8

A team has 4 losses 1 at home and 3 road games
1.4
.6
.6
.6

Total L 3.2

Total games played 20.8 +3.2 =24 games played a w% of 0.8666 which = 0.2166 points for the winning % part of your RPI

Now lets do this with 14 home wins and 10 road I'm not going to do all the math like above but you now earned 0.2187 points for your total season for winning%

A gain of 0.0021

Might not sound like a lot but just winning 2 more road games would have moved the 51st RPI team to 49th ...now a top 50 win. It would have moved 101 Penn St. to a 99th now a top 100 win. And it would have moved Illinois St. (did not get a bid) from 33rd to 30th a spot above Rhode Island a at large team.

Not huge jump but a lot easier than trying to move 3 to 5 spots by rearranging a conference schedule..mid season and then hoping a team doesn't start losing.

I will admit I didn’t read any further than when you said he doesn’t know how RPI works, because well, he is getting paid for his consulting and you aren’t. Not that you don’t know any better, it’s possible you could, but it’s unlikely.

I have already demonstrated mathematically how to improve the RPI and get at large bids in these very forums. And I could have charged them a lot less than whatever they are paying this guy.

In summary, hoops schedules are finalized much later than football. We know who the better teams are going to be. Those teams need to schedule a more difficult non-conference schedule. The teams not expected to have as good of a team need to schedule more wins. The non-compliant teams need to get their **** together and at least put something together respectable. They are the ones dragging down the whole league and there are too many in this conference. Lastly, as I have advocated before do away with the conference tournament and take the top four to six teams and let them do a round robin at the end of the year.

The problem with any of this is - beginning in the 2017-18 season - the NCAA is moving away from the RPI and is going to start looking more at other sabermetric/statistics-based models which are again going to favor power conferences. I don't have an answer for that yet. Need to see how those are going to influence the committees decision in this first year.

I follow Mark on Twitter and the guy gets it! I would love if we fired Judy tomorrow and hired Mark as commish, we would see improvement in our league Day 1 and he truly cares about our league, you can tell he does...

(10-25-2017 07:08 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I have already demonstrated mathematically how to improve the RPI and get at large bids in these very forums. And I could have charged them a lot less than whatever they are paying this guy.

In summary, hoops schedules are finalized much later than football. We know who the better teams are going to be. Those teams need to schedule a more difficult non-conference schedule. The teams not expected to have as good of a team need to schedule more wins. The non-compliant teams need to get their **** together and at least put something together respectable. They are the ones dragging down the whole league and there are too many in this conference. Lastly, as I have advocated before do away with the conference tournament and take the top four to six teams and let them do a round robin at the end of the year.

The problem with any of this is - beginning in the 2017-18 season - the NCAA is moving away from the RPI and is going to start looking more at other sabermetric/statistics-based models which are again going to favor power conferences. I don't have an answer for that yet. Need to see how those are going to influence the committees decision in this first year.

The NCAA Moves the goal posts every season to snub whoever they want to snub as long as they are not in a Power Conf.....They will favor Power Conference teams, doesn't matter what formula they use...Its skewed to favor the major conferences who don't leave their state until Jan. and then can lose 10 or 11 games and still be in, which our teams do not have the luxury to do..

(10-25-2017 12:41 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 11:29 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  The way I understand the article games late in the season would be played so that the top rpi team (MT last year #34) would NOT play a team like FIU(#337) a second time but rather a conference team with a much better rpi.

The reason for late in the season would be so the most advantageous pairing could be scheduled.

If that's the case then I totally misread the article...

possible because I did not read it all.

You lost me here. Read it and then come back with another diatribe.

(10-25-2017 06:24 AM)MU42 Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 12:41 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 11:29 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  The way I understand the article games late in the season would be played so that the top rpi team (MT last year #34) would NOT play a team like FIU(#337) a second time but rather a conference team with a much better rpi.

The reason for late in the season would be so the most advantageous pairing could be scheduled.

If that's the case then I totally misread the article...

possible because I did not read it all.

But if that's the case no coach in this conference is going to be fore something like that. For the coaches there's more on the line than just a at large bid. Like a job. So no coach is going to give up a couple games against schools that are most likely wins to play a school they already played twice for a third game and maybe even on the road. Giving up a home game.

Not only that it makes even less sense because of scheduling and season ticket holders. To be honest if its the way you are thinking it's probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard "to boost" a teams RPI. So at what point do you make the schedule? What schedule each team once then at mid season coaches and ADs have a meeting to decide the 2nd half scheduling? Based off won and loss records?

Like I said no coach is going to give up sure wins to go on the road to play a team a 3rd time...2 of those on the road. Then play them a 4th time in the conference tourney.

If it's the RPI they are worried about it would be a lot easier...not scheduling the RPI teams we all play OOC. Or giving the #1 and #2 seed byes to the semi finials instead of making them play a RPI killer game in round 2.

Lets clear one other thing up.....the RPI # means nothing unless that team is a top 100 or top 50 team. The NCAA supposedly looks at top 100 and top 50 wins. But other than that the number of wins a team you play is the only important factor. The benefit of not playing #264 UTSA with a 12-19 record and replacing that game with #136 ODU with a 19-12 record is maybe the difference in 5 spots in the RPI

And like I said at what date to you decide to switch who you are playing? If it was something like 8 games remaining...UTSA was 9-13 and ODU was 14-10. So trying to pick who's going to get hot or go cold...might just back fire.

(edit) I just went back and read the whole article and it makes even less sense because this guy has no clue on how the RPI actually works.

He suggests that teams play at least 6 home OOC D1 games which sounds good because it should equal more OOC wins. But to get those 6 home games you have to find teams willing to take a pay check for at least 2. Now which schools are more than likely going to be in that class? The same schools he thinks we should try to avoid late in conference play...RPI killing schools.

Not only that you get .6 for a home win and 1.4 for a road win. So it's actually better to play that RPI killer on the road for both games. If you can't beat those 2 schools...you shouldn't be in the run for a at large bid. So if you play them at home the 2 games are worth 1.2 wins and if you play them on the road they are worth 3.2 wins

So if you win 24 games with 16 coming at home and 8 on the road...the 8 road wins are worth the same as the 16 home wins

Let me do the math in the RPI

16 Home W = 9.6
8 road W = 11.2
Total W 20.8

A team has 4 losses 1 at home and 3 road games
1.4
.6
.6
.6

Total L 3.2

Total games played 20.8 +3.2 =24 games played a w% of 0.8666 which = 0.2166 points for the winning % part of your RPI

Now lets do this with 14 home wins and 10 road I'm not going to do all the math like above but you now earned 0.2187 points for your total season for winning%

A gain of 0.0021

Might not sound like a lot but just winning 2 more road games would have moved the 51st RPI team to 49th ...now a top 50 win. It would have moved 101 Penn St. to a 99th now a top 100 win. And it would have moved Illinois St. (did not get a bid) from 33rd to 30th a spot above Rhode Island a at large team.

Not huge jump but a lot easier than trying to move 3 to 5 spots by rearranging a conference schedule..mid season and then hoping a team doesn't start losing.

I will admit I didn’t read any further than when you said he doesn’t know how RPI works, because well, he is getting paid for his consulting and you aren’t. Not that you don’t know any better, it’s possible you could, but it’s unlikely.

Considering I ran my own RPI back in 2000-2003 when there were only 2 maybe 3 others doing a RPI. Back then the NCAA did not release one other than to list the teams in order and that was weekly

CBS was listing one but they were not removing the game you played vs that team from the RPI. So it was always wrong.

I did it for Western fans and myself because back then you had to wait at least a day before Jerry (College RPI) published his and he had went to a pay site. I did it to just learn how it was done....

a lot of work plugging everything in by hand back then. Now you can subscribe to sites and it uploads all the scores for you.

So believe what you want...I know how the RPI works and the difference of winning certain games. The P5s gets away from buying home games because first off as a conference they win about 90% of those bought games. They also can buy a home game from schools that's not RPI killers....

Marshall, Western, ODU...CUSA is not going to buy games like that. As a conference we are going to get teams in the 200-300+ range of the RPI. Most of the time.

Now if each of us won 90% of those games it's still going to pay off over the course of a season. Each win and each loss is compounded into the last 2/3 of the RPI (SOS). But lets get real over 50% of this conference loses to 200+ RPI schools every year.

So believe what you want...his suggestion of playing a few more home games in OOC and getting .6 wins vs 1.4 wins for a road game is just stupid. Considering the type of schools we can buy. And redoing the conference schedule halfway through is also stupid...

teams gets hot from the middle down and move up and teams get cold and start losing.... so there's no guarantee and no way most coaches is going to want this.

(10-25-2017 07:08 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I have already demonstrated mathematically how to improve the RPI and get at large bids in these very forums. And I could have charged them a lot less than whatever they are paying this guy.

In summary, hoops schedules are finalized much later than football. We know who the better teams are going to be. Those teams need to schedule a more difficult non-conference schedule. The teams not expected to have as good of a team need to schedule more wins. The non-compliant teams need to get their **** together and at least put something together respectable. They are the ones dragging down the whole league and there are too many in this conference. Lastly, as I have advocated before do away with the conference tournament and take the top four to six teams and let them do a round robin at the end of the year.

The problem with any of this is - beginning in the 2017-18 season - the NCAA is moving away from the RPI and is going to start looking more at other sabermetric/statistics-based models which are again going to favor power conferences. I don't have an answer for that yet. Need to see how those are going to influence the committees decision in this first year.

We can agree on something....

schedule to your talent....for the most wins if you are on the bottom.

The schools expected to compete for a conference championship build the best OOC schedule you can get. Even if you must play a extra road game or two. Try to get those games vs middle of the pack schools that will win 15+ games, that you have a good shot at beating. DO NOT play a couple RPI killer schools just because you need home games. Let those on the bottom do that...they need the wins so they wont be as damaging when the top teams play them.

The MVC did this as a conference years ago...they didn't play the top schools, at least not for a check. They schedule those middle of the pack .500 P5(bcs) schools. They also bought home games, like this guy suggested. The difference was... a win counted as 1 , not .6

What I would like to see more of is neutral site games that will bring a decent name opponent. Loved when Western would play in Nashville and play Auburn, UT, Vandy, etc......I wish we could do that again, not sure we are not and I am sure WKU's admin. wish we could do that too, my guess is none of these SEC opponents will agree to do that anymore....We know these schools are rarely going to our gyms, but if we could somehow have 1 or 2 good matchups for TV on neutral site, that would help a lot...

The part of the formula in the RPI that counts a home win as .6 and a road win as 1.4 isn't that big of a deal. If it were the Duke's and the Carolina's of the world wouldn't play 98% of their non-conf games at home. Over the course of 10,000 basketball games being played it all kind of washes out. When it comes to the RPI, it really boils down to a pretty simple basic fact which is you have to look at RPI in two different ways. One is the RPI of a conference as a whole and the other is building an RPI-worthy resume for the few teams who are going to be in the postseason conversation.

1. For a conference as a whole, the win percentage is the most important factor. Higher win pct of the conference raises all aspects of the RPI for individual teams within the conference. That's because 75% of the RPI comes from you opponents record and your opponents/opponents records. Therefore, for any single team in a league, that team's RPI is going to be heavily predicated on it's own conference's results against everyone else.

2. For individual teams who expect to be in a position for an at-large they must schedule and win against tougher opponents. The reason isn't necessarily because of the RPI though obviously beating teams with very good records (especially from conferences that also have very good records) is going to be a bounce to your individual RPI. It's because of how the committee is going to view your schedule.

Rocket science this is not. You just have to understand the premise and the math of the RPI. The outcomes are extremely predictable.

If a coach isn't going to the NCAA every 4 orn5 years minimally he should be looking for a job anyway. If this helps them get in the tourney, increases bids; money and exposure I believe coaches will support it.