CSNbbs

Collective 43-46. No doubt Monroe the biggest surprise so far.

below .500 as a league.....

I've said it before and I will say it again, they need to seed the conference tournament based on overall win% and not just conference wins. We reward teams for beating other Sunbelt teams. We should reward them for beating teams from other conferences. I really think that would make a huge difference.

(12-16-2013 04:08 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote: [ -> ]I've said it before and I will say it again, they need to seed the conference tournament based on overall win% and not just conference wins. We reward teams for beating other Sunbelt teams. We should reward them for beating teams from other conferences. I really think that would make a huge difference.

Sort of hard because teams play a wide variation of out of conference schools. Like UALR this year. We played one of the toughest non conference schedules in the country. Florida, Oklahoma and Memphis alone is a killer. In theory I think your idea would be good, but in the real world it might not be practical.

(12-16-2013 05:40 PM)outsideualr Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2013 04:08 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote: [ -> ]I've said it before and I will say it again, they need to seed the conference tournament based on overall win% and not just conference wins. We reward teams for beating other Sunbelt teams. We should reward them for beating teams from other conferences. I really think that would make a huge difference.

Sort of hard because teams play a wide variation of out of conference schools. Like UALR this year. We played one of the toughest non conference schedules in the country. Florida, Oklahoma and Memphis alone is a killer. In theory I think your idea would be good, but in the real world it might not be practical.

Half of RPI is your opponents' win %. Two thirds of your opponents are in conference. Only 1/4rth of your RPI is your win%.

I'm all in favor of deciding seeding to the conference tournament based on the formula 2/3 your overall winning % and 1/3 your opponents' winning % (because that is the portion of your RPI that affects your conference and in the correct proportion).

You can boost your RPI by playing tough opponents that will win a lot of games. But if you lose those games then you hurt your conference mates (because losses count more towards their RPI than yours). Why shouldn't the conference hurt you back?

Don't take that the wrong way... I am not dogging UALR. Every coach schedules in such a way as to best help his team. And under the current set up you can understand why a coach would schedule that way.

But RPI is like a closed feedback loop. 2/3 of your schedule is your conference members and 2/3 of their schedules are those same conference members.

Look at most of the American Conference, ACC, SEC. For the most part they don't schedule tough nonconference games. And yet their top teams are among the best in the country in RPI at the end of the year. They beat a bunch of cupcakes at home and then whoever rises to the top has great RPI because all the teams in conference have winning records.

I say schedule whoever you want. But there should be teeth if you lose those games. The more you help the conference, the better you will be seeded. Doing so would create the incentive to do what is needed get multiple bids.

(12-16-2013 06:11 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2013 05:40 PM)outsideualr Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2013 04:08 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote: [ -> ]I've said it before and I will say it again, they need to seed the conference tournament based on overall win% and not just conference wins. We reward teams for beating other Sunbelt teams. We should reward them for beating teams from other conferences. I really think that would make a huge difference.

Sort of hard because teams play a wide variation of out of conference schools. Like UALR this year. We played one of the toughest non conference schedules in the country. Florida, Oklahoma and Memphis alone is a killer. In theory I think your idea would be good, but in the real world it might not be practical.

Half of RPI is your opponents' win %. Two thirds of your opponents are in conference. Only 1/4rth of your RPI is your win%.

I'm all in favor of deciding seeding to the conference tournament based on the formula 2/3 your overall winning % and 1/3 your opponents' winning % (because that is the portion of your RPI that affects your conference and in the correct proportion).

You can boost your RPI by playing tough opponents that will win a lot of games. But if you lose those games then you hurt your conference mates (because losses count more towards their RPI than yours). Why shouldn't the conference hurt you back?

Don't take that the wrong way... I am not dogging UALR. Every coach schedules in such a way as to best help his team. And under the current set up you can understand why a coach would schedule that way.

But RPI is like a closed feedback loop. 2/3 of your schedule is your conference members and 2/3 of their schedules are those same conference members.

Look at most of the American Conference, ACC, SEC. For the most part they don't schedule tough nonconference games. And yet their top teams are among the best in the country in RPI at the end of the year. They beat a bunch of cupcakes at home and then whoever rises to the top has great RPI because all the teams in conference have winning records.

I say schedule whoever you want. But there should be teeth if you lose those games. The more you help the conference, the better you will be seeded. Doing so would create the incentive to do what is needed get multiple bids.

I think the problem is that some programs have to have the money they get from scheduling body bag games for their teams. Obviously if money was no object, we'd schedule anyone we wanted to at home and would have a better record. I believe money was our problem this year. That's probably why we scheduled those teams we did. Didn't have much of a choice.

(12-16-2013 07:43 PM)outsideualr Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2013 06:11 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2013 05:40 PM)outsideualr Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2013 04:08 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote: [ -> ]I've said it before and I will say it again, they need to seed the conference tournament based on overall win% and not just conference wins. We reward teams for beating other Sunbelt teams. We should reward them for beating teams from other conferences. I really think that would make a huge difference.

Sort of hard because teams play a wide variation of out of conference schools. Like UALR this year. We played one of the toughest non conference schedules in the country. Florida, Oklahoma and Memphis alone is a killer. In theory I think your idea would be good, but in the real world it might not be practical.

Half of RPI is your opponents' win %. Two thirds of your opponents are in conference. Only 1/4rth of your RPI is your win%.

I'm all in favor of deciding seeding to the conference tournament based on the formula 2/3 your overall winning % and 1/3 your opponents' winning % (because that is the portion of your RPI that affects your conference and in the correct proportion).

You can boost your RPI by playing tough opponents that will win a lot of games. But if you lose those games then you hurt your conference mates (because losses count more towards their RPI than yours). Why shouldn't the conference hurt you back?

Don't take that the wrong way... I am not dogging UALR. Every coach schedules in such a way as to best help his team. And under the current set up you can understand why a coach would schedule that way.

But RPI is like a closed feedback loop. 2/3 of your schedule is your conference members and 2/3 of their schedules are those same conference members.

Look at most of the American Conference, ACC, SEC. For the most part they don't schedule tough nonconference games. And yet their top teams are among the best in the country in RPI at the end of the year. They beat a bunch of cupcakes at home and then whoever rises to the top has great RPI because all the teams in conference have winning records.

I say schedule whoever you want. But there should be teeth if you lose those games. The more you help the conference, the better you will be seeded. Doing so would create the incentive to do what is needed get multiple bids.

I think the problem is that some programs have to have the money they get from scheduling body bag games for their teams. Obviously if money was no object, we'd schedule anyone we wanted to at home and would have a better record. I believe money was our problem this year. That's probably why we scheduled those teams we did. Didn't have much of a choice.

Florida was part of a tournament that just helped us cover our Canada expenses. OU was obviously a money game. So was Memphis, but we should play them every year. Maybe we could even get them to come back to NLR once in awhile.