Not sure if this was already known with certainty, but our AD and coach confirmed this on the radio last night.

Not sure how they'll do it. Do they do H&H's with everyone in your division and then not play one team in the other division or do they do H&H's with all but one team in your division and then one game against every team in the other?

I think it should be done to maximize RPI ranking potential. I don't know how you can forsee how good a team will or won't be; educated guess each year I guess.

...is why I wanted 19....

I don't see how our RPI would improve by playing that many CUSA teams. If we want to improve RPI we need to play as many OOC games as possible against Big 6 teams.

(03-25-2014 09:25 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  ...is why I wanted 19....

19 probably would have been better. You play six teams twice and everyone else once.

(03-25-2014 09:31 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't see how our RPI would improve by playing that many CUSA teams. If we want to improve RPI we need to play as many OOC games as possible against Big 6 teams.

You can't get everyone to do that. Some (including us) have just scheduled 2-3 non D1 games. This forces them to eliminate that.

(03-25-2014 09:31 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't see how our RPI would improve by playing that many CUSA teams. If we want to improve RPI we need to play as many OOC games as possible against Big 6 teams.

This is going to place more emphasis on winning more games OOC and performing better as a group.

If we go .500 in our OOC games as a league then our conference schedule is going to kill the top team's chances in the league of getting at-large bids.

Any change to an 18-game schedule should be accompanied by a plan to address the RPI as well in the non-conference scheduling.

(03-25-2014 09:32 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 09:25 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  ...is why I wanted 19....

19 probably would have been better. You play six teams twice and everyone else once.

XACLY!

I don't want divisions if there are going to be 18 games. With 19 it would have made sense.

(03-25-2014 09:58 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  I don't want divisions if there are going to be 18 games. With 19 it would have made sense.

that part of it too.....

What the fk are they doing with the 18....it's so unbelievably stupid....

(03-25-2014 09:43 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 09:31 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't see how our RPI would improve by playing that many CUSA teams. If we want to improve RPI we need to play as many OOC games as possible against Big 6 teams.

This is going to place more emphasis on winning more games OOC and performing better as a group.

If we go .500 in our OOC games as a league then our conference schedule is going to kill the top team's chances in the league of getting at-large bids.

Any change to an 18-game schedule should be accompanied by a plan to address the RPI as well in the non-conference scheduling.

I really hope so.

RPI, SHMARPI. Who cares? North Carolina, for example, will always have an advantage over any C-USA team for selection to the Tournament without regard to record, RPI, strength of schedule, or any other metric you can devise. It's just a reality.

(03-25-2014 10:18 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  RPI, SHMARPI. Who cares? North Carolina, for example, will always have an advantage over any C-USA team for selection to the Tournament without regard to record, RPI, strength of schedule, or any other metric you can devise. It's just a reality.

We're not competing with North Carolina or the ACC. We're competing with the A10, MWC, WCC, and Big East for multiple bids. Those conferences all do a better job than we do with scheduling.

USM with one big name win OOC or hell, one more win like NDSU may have gotten them in.

(03-25-2014 10:18 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  RPI, SHMARPI. Who cares? North Carolina, for example, will always have an advantage over any C-USA team for selection to the Tournament without regard to record, RPI, strength of schedule, or any other metric you can devise. It's just a reality.

Totally agree....look at how the shmaRPI has help us the last two years....

It's an irrelevant metric for the lower tier schools.....

The selection committee is looking pretty foolish right now......and I'm laughing my arse off....

yeah, I'm still pissed about our omission.....

(03-25-2014 10:26 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 10:18 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  RPI, SHMARPI. Who cares? North Carolina, for example, will always have an advantage over any C-USA team for selection to the Tournament without regard to record, RPI, strength of schedule, or any other metric you can devise. It's just a reality.

We're not competing with North Carolina or the ACC. We're competing with the A10, MWC, WCC, and Big East for multiple bids. Those conferences all do a better job than we do with scheduling.

USM with one big name win OOC or hell, one more win like NDSU may have gotten them in.

Yep. There are some bids to be stolen from the A10 in particular.

I would put our top five against their top five any day of the week. These programs from both leagues are all very close in stature yet we got one and they got six.

(03-25-2014 10:48 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 10:26 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 10:18 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  RPI, SHMARPI. Who cares? North Carolina, for example, will always have an advantage over any C-USA team for selection to the Tournament without regard to record, RPI, strength of schedule, or any other metric you can devise. It's just a reality.

We're not competing with North Carolina or the ACC. We're competing with the A10, MWC, WCC, and Big East for multiple bids. Those conferences all do a better job than we do with scheduling.

USM with one big name win OOC or hell, one more win like NDSU may have gotten them in.

Yep. There are some bids to be stolen from the A10 in particular.

I would put our top five against their top five any day of the week. These programs from both leagues are all very close in stature yet we got one and they got six.

I made that comment not long ago....we all know it's all bs bias....

I would kill to see an OOC December top tier match-up with those bastards.....their's a reason they wouldn't do it....."exposed" is the word that comes to mind.

You might be willing to match our top teams, but OOC is the difference between us and them.

Dayton beat Gonzaga, Cal, Iona and Mississippi
VCU beat Virginia, Belmont, and Eastern Kentucky
UMass beat LSU, Nebraska, New Mexico, Clemson, Eastern Michigan, BYU, Ohio, and Providence
George Washington beat Manhattan, Creighton, Maryland, Boston, and Georgia
St Louis beat Indiana State. They definitely benefited from the rest of the conference.
St Josephs beat Boston. They also won their tournament, so that's that.

If our top 5 or 6 teams had anything close to resembling those wins OOC, we would have been set too. The problem is we didn't. Southern Miss had 2 top 100's, so did La Tech, MTSU had 1, along with a loss to Maine, Tulsa had one along with 3 WTF losses, and UTEP had 1, along with that New Orleans loss. It's fun to sit here and say we are better than them because of _______ but the reality is they proved **** on the court and we didn't.

I didn't say we are better than them. I said our top five are close to their top five in stature and I think we would match up well.

If you would like I could provide a link to comprehension 101.

The point to that was that there is opportunitity to schedule smarter and develop more top 50 and 100 wins inside the conference and thus put ourselves in better position to earn some of those bids from a league like the A10. We have the talent to do it. Just need the right scheduling strategy in place.

(03-25-2014 11:20 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  You might be willing to match our top teams, but OOC is the difference between us and them.

Dayton beat Gonzaga, Cal, Iona and Mississippi
VCU beat Virginia, Belmont, and Eastern Kentucky
UMass beat LSU, Nebraska, New Mexico, Clemson, Eastern Michigan, BYU, Ohio, and Providence
George Washington beat Manhattan, Creighton, Maryland, Boston, and Georgia
St Louis beat Indiana State. They definitely benefited from the rest of the conference.
St Josephs beat Boston. They also won their tournament, so that's that.

If our top 5 or 6 teams had anything close to resembling those wins OOC, we would have been set too. The problem is we didn't. Southern Miss had 2 top 100's, so did La Tech, MTSU had 1, along with a loss to Maine, Tulsa had one along with 3 WTF losses, and UTEP had 1, along with that New Orleans loss. It's fun to sit here and say we are better than them because of _______ but the reality is they proved **** on the court and we didn't.

the reality is they were able to schedule that and we cannot....

any way you slice it, it's all bs....rpi is used subjectively as is scheduling....

they will do whatever it takes to protect their turf.....is the bottom line....

I don't know what the answer is but I know that teams like Middle Tennessee and UTEP should have gotten into the NIT.

If these teams aren't even considered for the NIT with records like 23-10 or better, what does that say for our conference?

If something doesn't change, then we are not going to be a multiple bid conference.