Seems there might be some future ideas on penalties for scheduling NET killers.

https://nitter.net/Shane_DNRSports/statu...99090437#m

This is FANTASTIC.

This is exactly what we've needed. I'm glad the league office, Gill, and AD's have gotten more serious about scheduling.

In addition to this, I wouldn't mind seeing the SBC do what CUSA used to do...the final couple weeks of the regular season, only the top quad of teams would play each other.

So like the top 5-6 teams would play each other, the middle 5-6 would play each other, and the bottom 5-6 would play each other. All of this done in order to preserve the NET for our top teams, so you don't have really bad NET killers later in the season.

Hey, why is everyone staring at us??

I have a feeling that Cliff Ellis is NOT a fan of this.

(05-24-2023 11:23 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  I have a feeling that Cliff Ellis is NOT a fan of this.

Mayble if the league would change the rules and count postseason CIT games as part of the scheduling requirements.

About damn time. Coaches in this league won't do this on their own.

I asked Shane what the guidelines were and got this response back:

link: https://twitter.com/Shane_DNRSports/stat...45760?s=20

Well, knowing what kind of home games we typically get at TXST ( and I assume most of the conference schedules similarly) is it realistic for us to want more home games AND expect an increase in the quality of opponents?

If the goal is more home games and an OOC win percentage of .6 then won't most coaches schedule even weaker than we already do?

It seems the biggest impact on NET rankings are wins/losses.

So playing more home games should in theory, be a big help, as long as it results in more wins.

(05-24-2023 11:54 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  Well, knowing what kind of home games we typically get at TXST ( and I assume most of the conference schedules similarly) is it realistic for us to want more home games AND expect an increase in the quality of opponents?

If the goal is more home games and an OOC win percentage of .6 then won't most coaches schedule even weaker than we already do?

I haven’t looked at your schedule from last year but I asked a follow up. The guidelines are apparently based on NET ratings which don't include non-D1 games. The hope is more home games and fewer buy games will result in a better D1 OOC record, boosting the leagues' NET and get us a shot at a second bid.

And those that don't reduce the amount of buy games and non-D1 games would result in losing some of that buy game revenue in fines paid to the league.

The MAC-SBC Challenge should help too. I'm really excited for that.

(05-24-2023 11:17 AM)TTT Wrote:  In addition to this, I wouldn't mind seeing the SBC do what CUSA used to do...the final couple weeks of the regular season, only the top quad of teams would play each other.

So like the top 5-6 teams would play each other, the middle 5-6 would play each other, and the bottom 5-6 would play each other. All of this done in order to preserve the NET for our top teams, so you don't have really bad NET killers later in the season.

Like most ideas out of the CUSA office, it just made things more difficult for everybody and never actually accomplished anything.

Until everybody gets better across the board, playing the the 6th team instead of the 10th team isn’t going to swing anybody’s NET far enough to make or break their at-large chances.

(05-24-2023 12:27 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  The MAC-SBC Challenge should help too. I'm really excited for that.

Do we know the matchups for this yet? the early games I know the later games will be decided later in the season.

(05-24-2023 12:27 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  The MAC-SBC Challenge should help too. I'm really excited for that.

Aside from one or two teams, the MAC is pretty bad (ranked 20th in RPI). Not sure how exciting or helpful most matchups will be for the Sun Belt but it's a step in the right direction.

(05-24-2023 11:17 AM)TTT Wrote:  In addition to this, I wouldn't mind seeing the SBC do what CUSA used to do...the final couple weeks of the regular season, only the top quad of teams would play each other.

So like the top 5-6 teams would play each other, the middle 5-6 would play each other, and the bottom 5-6 would play each other. All of this done in order to preserve the NET for our top teams, so you don't have really bad NET killers later in the season.

CUSA and the SBC announced that strategy simultaneously a few years back, when RPI was the law of the land. When the NCAA announced a short time later they were going to start using NET, the conference scrapped as they saw that it would virtually no effect on the rating most years. CUSA stuck with it.

(05-24-2023 12:27 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  The MAC-SBC Challenge should help too. I'm really excited for that.

Absolutely, this is great for both conferences!

(05-24-2023 12:53 PM)MobileBama1 Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 12:27 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  The MAC-SBC Challenge should help too. I'm really excited for that.

Aside from one or two teams, the MAC is pretty bad (ranked 20th in RPI). Not sure how exciting or helpful most matchups will be for the Sun Belt but it's a step in the right direction.

It will be better than filling the schedule up with SWAC, MEAC, MAAC, and Big South teams.

You mean no more Carver Bible College?? Say it ain't so

(05-24-2023 11:29 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 11:23 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  I have a feeling that Cliff Ellis is NOT a fan of this.

Mayble if the league would change the rules and count postseason CIT games as part of the scheduling requirements.

Ya'll just got 2 really good recruits. I'm expecting much improvement.