but one thing division titles do is to let us know we are keeping "in the hunt." They mean little, and are not nearly as satisfying as the NIT or NCAA berths, but they do tell us we are in the upper two or three of the conference; and if we stay there regularly, good things inevitably will happen.

(02-27-2012 09:30 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  but one thing division titles do is to let us know we are keeping "in the hunt." They mean little, and are not nearly as satisfying as the NIT or NCAA berths, but they do tell us we are in the upper two or there of the conference; and if we stay there regularly, good things inevitably will happen.

With the departure of Denver to the WAC next year, there will be 11 teams in the SBC. My guess is that divisions are done away at the spring meeting, at least until there is a balance of teams to make divisions again. And even then, maybe not.

Just win the league and/or the tournament every year and we won't have to worry about those things.

I think the plan is for divisions to go away. Of course since it sounds like we may be adding teams soon, maybe not.

(02-28-2012 11:30 AM)CMJ Wrote:  I think the plan is for divisions to go away. Of course since it sounds like we may be adding teams soon, maybe not.

11 may be a bad number for divisions, but I think it's crazy to have one league of 11, 12, 13,etc teams. Every professional league divides their teams into divisions. No one wants to finish in 11th place. Gives you something to play for and lets, at least, 2 teams say they won something.

(02-28-2012 12:50 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 11:30 AM)CMJ Wrote:  I think the plan is for divisions to go away. Of course since it sounds like we may be adding teams soon, maybe not.

11 may be a bad number for divisions, but I think it's crazy to have one league of 11, 12, 13,etc teams. Every professional league divides their teams into divisions. No one wants to finish in 11th place. Gives you something to play for and lets, at least, 2 teams say they won something.

Actually, if we play everyone twice I don't have a problem with an 11 team league. But it's unfair how the SEC is doing it this year. One league with a divisional schedule. How is it fair to compare Tennessee's record to Arkansas' record, when UT has to play Kentucky, Florida, and Vandy twice, while the Chickenhawgs play them once?

(02-28-2012 12:54 PM)mjs Wrote:  How is it fair to compare Tennessee's record to Arkansas' record, when UT has to play Kentucky, Florida, and Vandy twice, while the Chickenhawgs play them once?

Right. Either have divisions, or don't. I understand divisions for travel management purposes, but I just think divisions water down the accomplishment. Unless they change something in college basketball, the regular season means nothing, anyway, so what difference does it make?

(02-28-2012 12:58 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:54 PM)mjs Wrote:  How is it fair to compare Tennessee's record to Arkansas' record, when UT has to play Kentucky, Florida, and Vandy twice, while the Chickenhawgs play them once?

Right. Either have divisions, or don't. I understand divisions for travel management purposes, but I just think divisions water down the accomplishment. Unless they change something in college basketball, the regular season means nothing, anyway, so what difference does it make?

I know some don't, but I still believe winning a 6 team division means "something". We beat out 5 other teams on our level. I guess I still remember when the typical conference only had 8 members. When you start having 12 or 14 members that's a lot of teams to beat out.

Don't get me wrong: if we win the division, then by all means put up the banner!

(02-28-2012 01:06 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:58 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:54 PM)mjs Wrote:  How is it fair to compare Tennessee's record to Arkansas' record, when UT has to play Kentucky, Florida, and Vandy twice, while the Chickenhawgs play them once?

Right. Either have divisions, or don't. I understand divisions for travel management purposes, but I just think divisions water down the accomplishment. Unless they change something in college basketball, the regular season means nothing, anyway, so what difference does it make?

I know some don't, but I still believe winning a 6 team division means "something". We beat out 5 other teams on our level. I guess I still remember when the typical conference only had 8 members. When you start having 12 or 14 members that's a lot of teams to beat out.

Sometimes winning a Division means you accomplished something, and sometimes it doesn't. In recent history, a team winning the SEC Western Division in basketball hasn't accomplished much since most of the teams were very weak. But this year, Little Rock winning the Western Division actually was quite an accomplishment since 4 out of the 5 strongest teams in the conference were in the West- UALR, Denver, ULL, and UNT.

But I do hope they do away with divisions. If we stay at 11, I would like to see a round robin schedule of 20 conference games. The top 4 teams in the standings should get the tournament byes according to conference record. How is that not fair to all concerned?

(02-28-2012 01:16 PM)PTJR Wrote:  Sometimes winning a Division means you accomplished something, and sometimes it doesn't. In recent history, a team winning the SEC Western Division in basketball hasn't accomplished much since most of the teams were very weak. But this year, Little Rock winning the Western Division actually was quite an accomplishment since 4 out of the 5 strongest teams in the conference were in the West- UALR, Denver, ULL, and UNT.

But I do hope they do away with divisions. If we stay at 11, I would like to see a round robin schedule of 20 conference games. The top 4 teams in the standings should get the tournament byes according to conference record. How is that not fair to all concerned?

I totally agree with everything you've said.

(02-28-2012 01:16 PM)PTJR Wrote:  But I do hope they do away with divisions. If we stay at 11, I would like to see a round robin schedule of 20 conference games. The top 4 teams in the standings should get the tournament byes according to conference record. How is that not fair to all concerned?

It'd have to be top 5, or the math wouldn't work out.

(02-28-2012 03:46 PM)CMJ Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 01:16 PM)PTJR Wrote:  But I do hope they do away with divisions. If we stay at 11, I would like to see a round robin schedule of 20 conference games. The top 4 teams in the standings should get the tournament byes according to conference record. How is that not fair to all concerned?

It'd have to be top 5, or the math wouldn't work out.

You are right about that, but still fair to all.

I would love to have a 20 game conference schedule. That means 10 conference road games where we'll be able to see both the women & men play more games on the road. Plus I would love to have all teams have to play in the Jack. And Mr & Mrs Mjs & Mr & Mrs RBL get to go back to Florida.

I don't want to add to the conference schedule, if it means doing away with some non-conference games (which it would). I like non-conference because it gives you a chance to see UALR against some teams you normally don't see. Any Trojan game is a good Trojan game in my book, but I like the variety the non-conference season brings to the table. I know this is purely aesthetic on my part, but there you have it.

(02-28-2012 07:20 PM)eh9198 Wrote:  Any Trojan game is a good Trojan game in my book, but I like the variety the non-conference season brings to the table.

Agree.

(02-28-2012 09:41 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 07:20 PM)eh9198 Wrote:  Any Trojan game is a good Trojan game in my book, but I like the variety the non-conference season brings to the table.

Agree.

Agree to this so long as the OOC teams are reasonable quality Division I teams. With all of the exempt tournaments, with a 20 game conference schedule, there still would be 11 non conference games that could be played. Don't play any non Division I teams, and we arguably get the best of both worlds.

I've long advocating not playing non D1 teams. If going to a 20 game conference schedule, I'd be all for it. Plus scheduling would be easier. You wouldn't have to scrounge around for as many opponents.

(02-29-2012 09:26 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  I've long advocating not playing non D1 teams. If going to a 20 game conference schedule, I'd be all for it. Plus scheduling would be easier. You wouldn't have to scrounge around for as many opponents.

It's getting old talking about this, but we will play a nonDI team as long as we are allowed to do so. It's cheap and it doesn't hurt our RPI. I read an article somewhere recently where many teams do this for those 2 reasons. In fact, they mentioned a team (I believe Utah) who got into the NCAA tournament despite a loss to a nonDI team. They pointed out that if they had lost to bottom feeder DI team (i.e. UCA) it might have hurt their RPI enought that they wouldn't have gotten a bid. The nonDI loss simply "never happened".

Which means that if they powers that be want to stop it, they will have to start counting non-D1 teams in the RPI.