I disagree. UTEP played the toughest OOC schedule that they have played in a long time. They went 23-10 and still were not even considered for the NIT.

That tells me that the Conference wins were considered weak.

(03-25-2014 03:02 PM)Tintin Wrote:  schedule games on the road and win if you can't get home games.

They still HAVE to agree to play you -

Just because LSU will play a UMASS or UAB doesn't mean they will play Tech or USM in Baton Rouge - because we recruit directly against them

We beat them in 88 and they have refused to give us another game since then -

We were told "thanks but no thanks" by everyone in the SEC and had Bama cancel a contract before the ink was dry

We scrambled to get OU, Okie St, St Mary's and St Bonaventure (in a tourney) in the OOC this year - and I doubt if OU will schedule us

We can ask everyone and their brother to play us from the P6 but they still have to agree to it

(03-25-2014 04:21 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 04:06 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:52 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I'm not going to argue the subjectivity....numbers in hoops are worthless...just not enough equal data to derive from....

I would almost rather argue boxing numbers.....pay attention to the 'almost' part and the implied meaning.....

edit: the bottom line is does it make sense to move to an 18 game conference schedule...our conversation does not apply to this....

We don't have to argue the subjectivity. But don't state that your 12-13 season's schedule was better than 13-14 and yet express that the only reason your seed is worse this year is some unknown magical formula. The better schedule correlates directly to your better seed.

The reason this discussion is relevant to increasing the number of conference games is that it takes away opportunities to schedule good OOC games. OOC games are more important for CUSA teams because that's how non power conferences build a tournament resume.

you just defined the problem of subjectivity.....in rpi and sos terms last year's schedule was better....just not the result of w/l

increasing the in-conference schedule while reducing the ooc demand makes it the smarter move going forward.....just look at this years conference wins ooc...eliminate the d2s, and it looks much better....

I didn't define the subjectivity problem, you just proved my point that it isn't subjective at all. The criteria hasn't changed for a significant period of time. The selection committee wants to see teams challenge themselves and perform well. For non-power conferences, that means strong OOCs because they have fewer opportunities in conference. There isn't much harm in losing tough games, but there's a lot of harm in losing bad games. Last year USM played a tougher schedule but didn't win as much (or enough). This year USM won more but didn't play anyone. Those things aren't subjective. If USM wants an at-large bid they need to combine the two, play a tough schedule and win a lot. That is what teams who make the NCAA's do.

I guess for certain teams (like, ODU) not scheduling D2's is already standard. We don't need additional conference games to make it happen. In scheduling I would prefer fewer conference demands so ODU has the maximum flexibility to make good OOC games work.

(03-25-2014 04:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I disagree. UTEP played the toughest OOC schedule that they have played in a long time. They went 23-10 and still were not even considered for the NIT.

That tells me that the Conference wins were considered weak.

How many of those tough games did you win? Looking at your schedule it appears just 1 (Tennessee). Just playing a lot of good teams isn't enough. You have to win many of those games as well.

Certainly, CUSA didn't help much this year. But that is partially because so few of the good teams played good schedules & performed well.

Having seven,SEVEN teams BELOW 200 RPI this year really hurt.It is easier to go from 300 to 200 than 200 to 100. Those bottom teams CAN accomplish this doable jump.Better coaches and more emphasis by the administration.If most of these teams could get below 200 next year a multiple bid year would be more likely IMHO.

(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.

I prefer 20 games with a permanent nearby rival H&H. Split the other 12 teams into two groups of six. Play one group H&H, the other (three at home, three on the road) in single games. Next season swap the two groups.

We must increase attendance. Establishing a permanent nearby rival who is played H&H every season should aid in that goal.

(03-25-2014 02:32 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:10 PM)HSV_BLAZER Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:07 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:00 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  which would be wins on the road, right? ...think that was somewhat accomplished this year....right?

how did our RPI work out this year....right?

One thing that I've learned about RPI....it doesn't matter when the name is attached.

get a clue.....

it's the evaluation system that has to change.....

The only way that happens is if people press the issue(pun intended)

...as long as the masses allow the media to steer the car.....it's a busload of crash for the 'undesirables'.....

The name attached to your RPI had nothing to do with it. You are just the most recent team to experience what happens with a shiny record and/or RPI and no substance.(this happened to SMU, Va Tech, Alabama, Utah State, Missouri State, etc. in recent years) Once again, the media does not select tournament teams.

It happened to Syracuse a few years ago when they didn't leave the state of New York during the non-conference schedule. And Syracuse is definitely a "name" team.

you really guys really believe that....nobody likes boeheim....you really think the media stir throughout the year doesn't have an impact???? ummmmkay....

almost everyone on this board claimed cusa was a one bid league.....I wonder why....super sigh

What evaluation system would you rather use?

An objective one. Any objective one.

(03-25-2014 03:12 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:51 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:49 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:42 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:38 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  So it is two divisions of 7 teams each. You play everybody in your division 2 times and everybody in the other division once. So that is 12 games in the division and 6 games in the other division to arrive at 18? If so a game isn't a game missing, because shouldn't it be 19 games?

Are you lost?

Not until July 1st.

there are only a handful that care about baseball.....so, bye

At 11:59:59 on June 30, 2014, I will breathe my last.

Sorry. Condolences to your family.

(03-25-2014 03:47 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:30 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:03 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:48 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  btw, our OOC schedule last year was pretty fkn stout......all on the road also....

Are you referring to 2012-2013 or 2013-2014?

Your 12-13 OOC schedule was better, but you didn't win many of the games that would have helped your tournament chances.

USM played 5 top 100 games OOC in 12-13 but went 1-4.

12-13 all on the road....which helped the rpi.....and should've beat two of them, but we let go of the rope in the end....see how it works when you just look at numbers....

we were a one seed last year in the NIT.....you figuring out the subjective nature of it yet?

The numbers tell your whole story. You didn't beat enough teams so you didn't make the tournament. It doesn't matter at selection time if a few of your losses were close. What matters is what you accomplished. If you didn't play a strong schedule then your wins don't matter as much. That is why top 50 or top 100 wins are examined. This year USM didn't even schedule enough good teams to assemble a tournament quality resume.

USM was a 1 seed in the NIT last year because their resume was better last season (likely because of a better schedule), what is subjective about any of that?

Well, we had four more wins this season against a slightly weaker schedule. That's a push. But we had more Top 50 and Top 100 wins this season. That should've been enough to push us higher, not drop us lower. Unless you include the subjective criteria like conference evaluation (which is too subjective at this point, they must create a more objective way to evaluate conference strength) and counting some Top 50 wins as stronger than others. NDSU was a Top 50 win, period.

Well as a fan of one of the bottom feeders, I can guarantee Rice will be considerably better in 2014-15 than 2013-14. That is unless we lose 3-4 more players during the offseason to transfers like we have the past couple of seasons (which I don't believe will happen with the announcement of our new coach today).

(03-25-2014 06:00 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:47 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:30 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:03 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:48 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  btw, our OOC schedule last year was pretty fkn stout......all on the road also....

Are you referring to 2012-2013 or 2013-2014?

Your 12-13 OOC schedule was better, but you didn't win many of the games that would have helped your tournament chances.

USM played 5 top 100 games OOC in 12-13 but went 1-4.

12-13 all on the road....which helped the rpi.....and should've beat two of them, but we let go of the rope in the end....see how it works when you just look at numbers....

we were a one seed last year in the NIT.....you figuring out the subjective nature of it yet?

The numbers tell your whole story. You didn't beat enough teams so you didn't make the tournament. It doesn't matter at selection time if a few of your losses were close. What matters is what you accomplished. If you didn't play a strong schedule then your wins don't matter as much. That is why top 50 or top 100 wins are examined. This year USM didn't even schedule enough good teams to assemble a tournament quality resume.

USM was a 1 seed in the NIT last year because their resume was better last season (likely because of a better schedule), what is subjective about any of that?

Well, we had four more wins this season against a slightly weaker schedule. That's a push. But we had more Top 50 and Top 100 wins this season. That should've been enough to push us higher, not drop us lower. Unless you include the subjective criteria like conference evaluation (which is too subjective at this point, they must create a more objective way to evaluate conference strength) and counting some Top 50 wins as stronger than others. NDSU was a Top 50 win, period.

According to Basketball State:
USM had 3 top 100 wins (ND State (top 50), La Tech & Georgia State) this season and a Non Con. SOS of 109.

Last year, USM also had 3 top 100 wins (Denver and UTEP twice) and a Non Con. SOS of 60.

I disagree that more wins against a weaker schedule is a push--this is what the selection committee has been telling bubble teams for years. A gaudy win total doesn't mean much if you didn't play good teams. I think last year's resume was better because you played tougher opponents even if you didn't defeat them. You won the same amount of games against the top 100, one of those wins was better this season than last. If you want to say a few more wins and a one better win give you a better profile I'm not going to argue. Because the point is that neither resume is NCAA tourney worthy.

You can't blame subjectivity, conference perception or the commissioner for that; it was your lack of success against top teams in 12-13 and a lack of opportunity in 13-14 (who knows if you would have achieved better results).

(03-25-2014 07:13 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 06:00 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:47 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:30 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:03 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  Are you referring to 2012-2013 or 2013-2014?

Your 12-13 OOC schedule was better, but you didn't win many of the games that would have helped your tournament chances.

USM played 5 top 100 games OOC in 12-13 but went 1-4.

12-13 all on the road....which helped the rpi.....and should've beat two of them, but we let go of the rope in the end....see how it works when you just look at numbers....

we were a one seed last year in the NIT.....you figuring out the subjective nature of it yet?

The numbers tell your whole story. You didn't beat enough teams so you didn't make the tournament. It doesn't matter at selection time if a few of your losses were close. What matters is what you accomplished. If you didn't play a strong schedule then your wins don't matter as much. That is why top 50 or top 100 wins are examined. This year USM didn't even schedule enough good teams to assemble a tournament quality resume.

USM was a 1 seed in the NIT last year because their resume was better last season (likely because of a better schedule), what is subjective about any of that?

Well, we had four more wins this season against a slightly weaker schedule. That's a push. But we had more Top 50 and Top 100 wins this season. That should've been enough to push us higher, not drop us lower. Unless you include the subjective criteria like conference evaluation (which is too subjective at this point, they must create a more objective way to evaluate conference strength) and counting some Top 50 wins as stronger than others. NDSU was a Top 50 win, period.

According to Basketball State:
USM had 3 top 100 wins (ND State (top 50), La Tech & Georgia State) this season and a Non Con. SOS of 109.

Last year, USM also had 3 top 100 wins (Denver and UTEP twice) and a Non Con. SOS of 60.

I disagree that more wins against a weaker schedule is a push--this is what the selection committee has been telling bubble teams for years. A gaudy win total doesn't mean much if you didn't play good teams. I think last year's resume was better because you played tougher opponents even if you didn't defeat them. You won the same amount of games against the top 100, one of those wins was better this season than last. If you want to say a few more wins and a one better win give you a better profile I'm not going to argue. Because the point is that neither resume is NCAA tourney worthy.

You can't blame subjectivity, conference perception or the commissioner for that; it was your lack of success against top teams in 12-13 and a lack of opportunity in 13-14 (who knows if you would have achieved better results).

I agree with everything you are saying. One other thing to note is the bubble isn't static from year to year. Some years there are stronger teams than others.

The committee has told southern miss this much: you have to beat good teams, we don't care about your record or rpi. They basically told all our programs that same thing. It is what it is, we as a conference have to work to better our own situation

(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.

it means if you want to improve your RPI, you have fewer games, so you have to schedule tougher...

(03-25-2014 07:54 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 07:13 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 06:00 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:47 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:30 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  12-13 all on the road....which helped the rpi.....and should've beat two of them, but we let go of the rope in the end....see how it works when you just look at numbers....

we were a one seed last year in the NIT.....you figuring out the subjective nature of it yet?

The numbers tell your whole story. You didn't beat enough teams so you didn't make the tournament. It doesn't matter at selection time if a few of your losses were close. What matters is what you accomplished. If you didn't play a strong schedule then your wins don't matter as much. That is why top 50 or top 100 wins are examined. This year USM didn't even schedule enough good teams to assemble a tournament quality resume.

USM was a 1 seed in the NIT last year because their resume was better last season (likely because of a better schedule), what is subjective about any of that?

Well, we had four more wins this season against a slightly weaker schedule. That's a push. But we had more Top 50 and Top 100 wins this season. That should've been enough to push us higher, not drop us lower. Unless you include the subjective criteria like conference evaluation (which is too subjective at this point, they must create a more objective way to evaluate conference strength) and counting some Top 50 wins as stronger than others. NDSU was a Top 50 win, period.

According to Basketball State:
USM had 3 top 100 wins (ND State (top 50), La Tech & Georgia State) this season and a Non Con. SOS of 109.

Last year, USM also had 3 top 100 wins (Denver and UTEP twice) and a Non Con. SOS of 60.

I disagree that more wins against a weaker schedule is a push--this is what the selection committee has been telling bubble teams for years. A gaudy win total doesn't mean much if you didn't play good teams. I think last year's resume was better because you played tougher opponents even if you didn't defeat them. You won the same amount of games against the top 100, one of those wins was better this season than last. If you want to say a few more wins and a one better win give you a better profile I'm not going to argue. Because the point is that neither resume is NCAA tourney worthy.

You can't blame subjectivity, conference perception or the commissioner for that; it was your lack of success against top teams in 12-13 and a lack of opportunity in 13-14 (who knows if you would have achieved better results).

I agree with everything you are saying. One other thing to note is the bubble isn't static from year to year. Some years there are stronger teams than others.

The committee has told southern miss this much: you have to beat good teams, we don't care about your record or rpi. They basically told all our programs that same thing. It is what it is, we as a conference have to work to better our own situation

Our RPI (33) didn't matter but Iowa's (59) was a factor in their bid. The RPI should be scrapped or tweaked to be more accurate. I'd start with computing a more accurate SOS by using teams' AWP rather than actual record. It's easier to build up a better SOS by playing teams that play a majority of games at home (such as almost all P5 teams). Also needed is an objective way to factor in conference strength so that the committee doesn't have to subjectively factor it in.

(03-25-2014 03:24 PM)Nugget49er Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 12:56 PM)papa_dawg Wrote:  

(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 only thing you are proving to me is that traditional power teams in the Midwest and Northeast are willing to play teams like us (just not us) and everyone below the Mason Dixon and out west are not.

I'm sure Oklahoma won't schedule us again, OK State might think about it. After this run in the NIT it's not going to get easier. I got 5 that no one in CUSA finishing 8 or better gets a game against an SEC team next season.

Keep your wallet out, Charlotte is talking to Georgia and Missouri, and South Carolina is also playing in the Charleston Classic.

Oh my bad. So the 8th placed team will play against an SEC opponent. That should do us a world of good. Totally worth the 5 spot.

(03-25-2014 04:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I disagree. UTEP played the toughest OOC schedule that they have played in a long time. They went 23-10 and still were not even considered for the NIT.

That tells me that the Conference wins were considered weak.

Our schedule wasn't strong this year. Last year, we had a much, much tougher schedule

FWIW, I feel confident that the AAC will be doing the same.

(03-25-2014 05:47 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:32 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:10 PM)HSV_BLAZER Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:07 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  The name attached to your RPI had nothing to do with it. You are just the most recent team to experience what happens with a shiny record and/or RPI and no substance.(this happened to SMU, Va Tech, Alabama, Utah State, Missouri State, etc. in recent years) Once again, the media does not select tournament teams.

It happened to Syracuse a few years ago when they didn't leave the state of New York during the non-conference schedule. And Syracuse is definitely a "name" team.

you really guys really believe that....nobody likes boeheim....you really think the media stir throughout the year doesn't have an impact???? ummmmkay....

almost everyone on this board claimed cusa was a one bid league.....I wonder why....super sigh

What evaluation system would you rather use?

An objective one. Any objective one.

XACLY! toss us a bone....we'll bite....just toss it....

(03-25-2014 09:11 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 07:54 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 07:13 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 06:00 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:47 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  The numbers tell your whole story. You didn't beat enough teams so you didn't make the tournament. It doesn't matter at selection time if a few of your losses were close. What matters is what you accomplished. If you didn't play a strong schedule then your wins don't matter as much. That is why top 50 or top 100 wins are examined. This year USM didn't even schedule enough good teams to assemble a tournament quality resume.

USM was a 1 seed in the NIT last year because their resume was better last season (likely because of a better schedule), what is subjective about any of that?

Well, we had four more wins this season against a slightly weaker schedule. That's a push. But we had more Top 50 and Top 100 wins this season. That should've been enough to push us higher, not drop us lower. Unless you include the subjective criteria like conference evaluation (which is too subjective at this point, they must create a more objective way to evaluate conference strength) and counting some Top 50 wins as stronger than others. NDSU was a Top 50 win, period.

According to Basketball State:
USM had 3 top 100 wins (ND State (top 50), La Tech & Georgia State) this season and a Non Con. SOS of 109.

Last year, USM also had 3 top 100 wins (Denver and UTEP twice) and a Non Con. SOS of 60.

I disagree that more wins against a weaker schedule is a push--this is what the selection committee has been telling bubble teams for years. A gaudy win total doesn't mean much if you didn't play good teams. I think last year's resume was better because you played tougher opponents even if you didn't defeat them. You won the same amount of games against the top 100, one of those wins was better this season than last. If you want to say a few more wins and a one better win give you a better profile I'm not going to argue. Because the point is that neither resume is NCAA tourney worthy.

You can't blame subjectivity, conference perception or the commissioner for that; it was your lack of success against top teams in 12-13 and a lack of opportunity in 13-14 (who knows if you would have achieved better results).

I agree with everything you are saying. One other thing to note is the bubble isn't static from year to year. Some years there are stronger teams than others.

The committee has told southern miss this much: you have to beat good teams, we don't care about your record or rpi. They basically told all our programs that same thing. It is what it is, we as a conference have to work to better our own situation

Our RPI (33) didn't matter but Iowa's (59) was a factor in their bid. The RPI should be scrapped or tweaked to be more accurate. I'd start with computing a more accurate SOS by using teams' AWP rather than actual record. It's easier to build up a better SOS by playing teams that play a majority of games at home (such as almost all P5 teams). Also needed is an objective way to factor in conference strength so that the committee doesn't have to subjectively factor it in.

which defines subjective....I really don't get how people suck the media off....they must follow skip bayless' tweets. print, then stare in wonder, and then wipe with single ply

(03-25-2014 10:47 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 04:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I disagree. UTEP played the toughest OOC schedule that they have played in a long time. They went 23-10 and still were not even considered for the NIT.

That tells me that the Conference wins were considered weak.

Our schedule wasn't strong this year. Last year, we had a much, much tougher schedule

Exactly. Might have looked decent on paper, but it really wasn't. All of our big games were played before Thanksgiving. We spent most of December playing a bunch of cupcakes in El Paso, which is probably something we can't afford to do next year.