http://bgdnwkublog.wordpress.com/

— On the Sun Belt Conference
“I am a little frustrated with the Sun Belt Conference. Seven of us met in Hot Springs with (SBC Commissioner Wright Waters) and when we reconvene in May we’re going to put in place some RPI policies.

“Part of my frustration right now is with our own conference. I can’t whine about it too much because we didn’t do much to contribute to it this year (in terms of RPI), but we didn’t have a team in the top 100 in the Sun Belt. If we’re going to do what we want as a program, we have to be able to improve our RPI when we get into conference play.

“So we’re going to look at some policies across the conference and the other presidents share our concerns. It hasn’t been that many years past when the conference RPI got as high as 10 or 11. And this year, we’re at No. 23 – that’s bad.

“We’ve got to get back to that point and we’re going to look at some policies and put them in place that maybe make it mandatory that you schedule teams above 150 in your non-conference games. I don’t know yet, but the commissioner is putting some things together and we’re going to study it.”

“What’s good for the league is what’s good for everybody in the league, but everybody in the league has to take ownership. Troy is really trying to build their program, they didn’t come into the Sun Belt with much of a history but they’re really working at it. Obviously Middle Tennessee is as well and will continue to, and some others, too. I’m encouraged, but I’ll say I’m cautiously optimistic that our program can be hitting on all cylinders and we can do it (in the Sun Belt) that helps us get there.

“I want the league to get four or five teams in there every year. It’s a battle now, but we’re battling teams with an RPI in the 200s who at the beginning of the year struggle in non-conference, but come February once they’ve gelled are pretty good basketball teams.

“I think we’re a better league than a No. 23 RPI, but boy, we’ve got to prove it in November and December and we’ve got to prove it in mid-March.

“(WKU has) a strong history and we want to continue to build on that and I want our conference to be a part of that strategy, I’m resovled to helping build this conference.”

“We’re going to do all we can to make sure it succeeds. There are only 11 BCS conferences, so if we’re going to go anywhere it’s going to be to one of other 10. I haven’t checked my mailbox today, but I don’t think we’ve gotten anything from the SEC or the ACC in there. There’s no dialogue going on with us and any other conference right now. Will there be movement with conferences in the future? Yeah, there probably will be. The Big 10 is in the process of identifying a 12th team, depending on what happens there it could be someone from the Big East, that might then effect Conference USA – there’s a lot of variables. The Pac 10’s probably going to have to expand their footprint. So who knows how the line of dominos will be, and I’d hate to think that we’re the seventh or eighth dominos in that line, but we’ll cross those bridges when they come. The best thing we can do is get better – as a program and as a conference. And that’s what the president’s concluded, we want to see policies that help the conference get better.

“There might be some realignment to where if we can get better as a league, some of those teams in some of those other (non-automatic qualifying leagues) want to come to the Sun Belt,” “But if a suitor comes along, we’ll listen, but we’re not searching.”

“We had a policy in place several years ago that said if you were in the conference, you cannot schedule anyone below a 150 RPI. And the AD’s whined about that, because scheduling’s hard and it’s work. So we relaxed that and then really just did away with it and here we are.

“Some of the AD’s and coaches might argue that, but the data is what it is and we may go back to that policy. … It’s important that we all grow and get better together.”

Pretty good read. MT needs to quit scheduling all of the NC A&T's, Houston Baptists, SIU-Edwardsvilles, etc. One or two is fine, but no more.

Also, we've must get some of the traditional Top 100 RPI teams in our home gyms.

We're (the SBC) at a point, now, that Top 100 Teams may not want to schedule some of us, do to a beating in RPI (even if the Belt team loses the game).

Scheduling is difficult if a lotta folks are afraid to play ya in your house.

(03-24-2010 12:52 PM)MeanGreen61 Wrote:  Scheduling is difficult if a lotta folks are afraid to play ya in your house.

True, but if we don't improve soon not sure if I can blame them. Run a chance of losing to a low-RPI program.

Thing is, we in the SBC do travel a'plenty to the 250+ RPI gyms.

Ya know, I keep hearing schools in the Sun Belt, Valley, MAC, Horizon, etc., complaining constantly about how they can't find anyone to play home/home because everyone is afraid to come to their house. Humm, how about schedule each other?

Simple suggestion. Play only schools that are top 150 in RPI or from a top 12 RPI conference. You either rise up or you don't.

Don't like that one? Then at the end of the year, the average RPI of your non-conference opponents has to be 120 or better.

I agree that our league has to do much better schedule wise. Afterall, it is in each school's best interest to help the conference. ($$$)

My only thought is you won't always be able to know for sure what a team's RPI will be from when you schedule them and when you actually play them. And what if you have a multi-year series scheduled? You don't know what might happen in a year or two.

I think we should re-phrase it to say that we should be scheduling consistent top 150 teams and avoiding consistent 150+ teams.

the best solution is like arkstfan said to load up with teams from like the Missouri and Ohio Valley conferences. teams with conferences thats RPI's are higher then our but not so high that they wont give us a home game

We also need to quit scheduling non D1 teams. ASU is bad about this as well because our administration still requests we play some guarantee games

admittedly UNO and UALR killed the leagues RPI this year.

It's not news, but our own conference teams really suxed this year. Only THREE teams with an RPI better than the 150 or less being talked about. A total of FIVE members with RPI's better than 200. Playing within our own conference drags RPI's down

It's really easy to say "let's only schedule teams with 150 or better RPI's". It ain't exactly easy to accomplish that goal.

Good for him . . . somebody needs to drive that bus !!!

(03-24-2010 12:05 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  http://bgdnwkublog.wordpress.com/

— On the Sun Belt Conference
“I am a little frustrated with the Sun Belt Conference. Seven of us met in Hot Springs with (SBC Commissioner Wright Waters) and when we reconvene in May we’re going to put in place some RPI policies.

“Part of my frustration right now is with our own conference. I can’t whine about it too much because we didn’t do much to contribute to it this year (in terms of RPI), but we didn’t have a team in the top 100 in the Sun Belt. If we’re going to do what we want as a program, we have to be able to improve our RPI when we get into conference play.

“So we’re going to look at some policies across the conference and the other presidents share our concerns. It hasn’t been that many years past when the conference RPI got as high as 10 or 11. And this year, we’re at No. 23 – that’s bad.

“We’ve got to get back to that point and we’re going to look at some policies and put them in place that maybe make it mandatory that you schedule teams above 150 in your non-conference games. I don’t know yet, but the commissioner is putting some things together and we’re going to study it.”

“What’s good for the league is what’s good for everybody in the league, but everybody in the league has to take ownership. Troy is really trying to build their program, they didn’t come into the Sun Belt with much of a history but they’re really working at it. Obviously Middle Tennessee is as well and will continue to, and some others, too. I’m encouraged, but I’ll say I’m cautiously optimistic that our program can be hitting on all cylinders and we can do it (in the Sun Belt) that helps us get there.

“I want the league to get four or five teams in there every year. It’s a battle now, but we’re battling teams with an RPI in the 200s who at the beginning of the year struggle in non-conference, but come February once they’ve gelled are pretty good basketball teams.

“I think we’re a better league than a No. 23 RPI, but boy, we’ve got to prove it in November and December and we’ve got to prove it in mid-March.

“(WKU has) a strong history and we want to continue to build on that and I want our conference to be a part of that strategy, I’m resovled to helping build this conference.”

“We’re going to do all we can to make sure it succeeds. There are only 11 BCS conferences, so if we’re going to go anywhere it’s going to be to one of other 10. I haven’t checked my mailbox today, but I don’t think we’ve gotten anything from the SEC or the ACC in there. There’s no dialogue going on with us and any other conference right now. Will there be movement with conferences in the future? Yeah, there probably will be. The Big 10 is in the process of identifying a 12th team, depending on what happens there it could be someone from the Big East, that might then effect Conference USA – there’s a lot of variables. The Pac 10’s probably going to have to expand their footprint. So who knows how the line of dominos will be, and I’d hate to think that we’re the seventh or eighth dominos in that line, but we’ll cross those bridges when they come. The best thing we can do is get better – as a program and as a conference. And that’s what the president’s concluded, we want to see policies that help the conference get better.

“There might be some realignment to where if we can get better as a league, some of those teams in some of those other (non-automatic qualifying leagues) want to come to the Sun Belt,” “But if a suitor comes along, we’ll listen, but we’re not searching.”

“We had a policy in place several years ago that said if you were in the conference, you cannot schedule anyone below a 150 RPI. And the AD’s whined about that, because scheduling’s hard and it’s work. So we relaxed that and then really just did away with it and here we are.

“Some of the AD’s and coaches might argue that, but the data is what it is and we may go back to that policy. … It’s important that we all grow and get better together.”

I'd say make it anyone with a three year average RPI of 150.

You can't know in advance and you are often surprised at the end of the year.

Or if you don't want the 150 cut off then make it average of 120. If you want to play some school that has an RPI of 200 then have to play someone with a 60 and someone at 100 to balance it out. In fact an average of 120 might be a tad too high.

Here's the rub though.

You can post a decent RPI playing some bad teams BUT YOU HAVE TO WIN. In the past two years, ASU is the only one who hasn't lost to a team with a worse RPI but you couple that with a basically weak schedule and bad RPI across the league and you get a bad RPI rating.

A mandated schedule is basically a declaration that if you aren't going to win the games you are supposed to win, we will make sure you only schedule teams that are as good or better than you are so you quit hurting the league so much.

(03-24-2010 03:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'd say make it anyone with a three year average RPI of 150.

You can't know in advance and you are often surprised at the end of the year.
.

.
.
Good point. Some teams have bad years that are normally pretty decent. For example LSU ended up 220+ this season. I still can't believe we lost to them.

(03-24-2010 12:11 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  Pretty good read. MT needs to quit scheduling all of the NC A&T's, Houston Baptists, SIU-Edwardsvilles, etc. One or two is fine, but no more.

Also, we've must get some of the traditional Top 100 RPI teams in our home gyms.

We're (the SBC) at a point, now, that Top 100 Teams may not want to schedule some of us, do to a beating in RPI (even if the Belt team loses the game).

But Kajun if MT quits scheduling those crappy teams then how will Kermit keep his job? He needs those games to make his overall record look artifically good

(03-24-2010 01:49 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  the best solution is like arkstfan said to load up with teams from like the Missouri and Ohio Valley conferences. teams with conferences thats RPI's are higher then our but not so high that they wont give us a home game

We also need to quit scheduling non D1 teams. ASU is bad about this as well because our administration still requests we play some guarantee games

admittedly UNO and UALR killed the leagues RPI this year.

I agree with scheduling more MVC teams, but OVC? Naaaa...Murray State is about the only one worthwhile (sometimes--but not all the time). Austin Peay every once in awhile. The rest of the conference--you might as well stick with Houston Baptist.

(03-27-2010 12:14 AM)WKUSledgeHammer Wrote:  

(03-24-2010 01:49 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  the best solution is like arkstfan said to load up with teams from like the Missouri and Ohio Valley conferences. teams with conferences thats RPI's are higher then our but not so high that they wont give us a home game

We also need to quit scheduling non D1 teams. ASU is bad about this as well because our administration still requests we play some guarantee games

admittedly UNO and UALR killed the leagues RPI this year.

I agree with scheduling more MVC teams, but OVC? Naaaa...Murray State is about the only one worthwhile (sometimes--but not all the time). Austin Peay every once in awhile. The rest of the conference--you might as well stick with Houston Baptist.

Just keep it simple - make it required that OOC opponents have an RPI better than 150 from their most recent season when the contract is signed (for multiple game deals). Even if some have bad years and aren't as tough as thought, the trend will be upwards. I'd also suggest keeping the coaches happy by letting each school have two slots each year not subject to this rule. Fans do enjoy having a near-guaranteed blowout win or two to watch.

WKU's president basically wants to put into the rule that Doug Elgin used to have in the MVC.

(03-27-2010 11:25 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  WKU's president basically wants to put into the rule that Doug Elgin used to have in the MVC.

we adopted it years ago but didn't last long.

(03-27-2010 03:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-27-2010 11:25 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  WKU's president basically wants to put into the rule that Doug Elgin used to have in the MVC.

we adopted it years ago but didn't last long.

below is what wood selig said on the subject in an email reply to one of the hh posters asking him about it. i've listened to wood on the radio many times and he's extremely sharp about scheduling both football and hoops. i hate to see him go.

wood said:

Quote:"Thanks Mike. You are on target. However so many sbc teams lose at home and road that they are better off losing to "good" rpi teams than 300 - 355 rpi teams that they typically try and schedule and of which we have had our share. Thus, we are actually better to schedule stiffer comp and pull our league rpi UP by playing better teams AND losing than playing weaker teams and losing. If you look back at sbc best league rpi years --- it was when we had a 150 rule in place meaning teams had to play up more than play down. No one in our league is buying games. Until they start we should have scheduling plan like a 150 avg or better for non conf games. Hard to explain over phone email but would be happy to discuss at any time. Thanks ws
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T"

i honestly don't see that as talking smack...just reality.

(03-27-2010 06:47 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  

(03-27-2010 03:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-27-2010 11:25 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  WKU's president basically wants to put into the rule that Doug Elgin used to have in the MVC.

we adopted it years ago but didn't last long.

below is what wood selig said on the subject in an email reply to one of the hh posters asking him about it. i've listened to wood on the radio many times and he's extremely sharp about scheduling both football and hoops. i hate to see him go.

wood said:

Quote:"Thanks Mike. You are on target. However so many sbc teams lose at home and road that they are better off losing to "good" rpi teams than 300 - 355 rpi teams that they typically try and schedule and of which we have had our share. Thus, we are actually better to schedule stiffer comp and pull our league rpi UP by playing better teams AND losing than playing weaker teams and losing. If you look back at sbc best league rpi years --- it was when we had a 150 rule in place meaning teams had to play up more than play down. No one in our league is buying games. Until they start we should have scheduling plan like a 150 avg or better for non conf games. Hard to explain over phone email but would be happy to discuss at any time. Thanks ws
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T"

i honestly don't see that as talking smack...just reality.

No smack . . . just straight talk . . .

(03-27-2010 03:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-27-2010 11:25 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  WKU's president basically wants to put into the rule that Doug Elgin used to have in the MVC.

we adopted it years ago but didn't last long.

Elgin enforced by threating to pull money.