It was our 5th home game of the season. Any of you have that problem?

FYI, that picture of the Dillard Panthers is of a high school in Florida.
Dillard U is the Bleu Devils.

As for the allusion to playing Alcorn and Southeastern in football, the big diff is Dillard has no scholarship players.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. Needless to say, Tulane fans can't talk to anyone about schedules.

(01-04-2013 02:46 PM)KevMo4UAB Wrote:  

(01-04-2013 01:20 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(01-04-2013 10:35 AM)nastybunch Wrote:  

(01-04-2013 09:29 AM)KevMo4UAB Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 11:50 PM)GCEagle Wrote:  It's embarrassing really. I understand the need for bodybag games but an NAIA team shouldn't be on anyones regular season schedule. Play them in exhibition.

It's an embarrassment for the entire conference.

So, now 94 point wins are an embarrassment....gotcha! No more embarrassing than Young Harris College.

Young Harris was scheduled at the very last minute because of a unavoidable last minute scheduling issue. It was so late that Young Harris counted it as an exhibition game because their schedule was already full. Otherwise UAB does not play non D1 teams. USM schedules 2 or 3 a year. There is no comparison in the scheduling philosophies.

+1

UAB had no choice this season. Southern Miss chooses these teams every year, or at least for the last several years.

Hypocritical to say the least. So you are saying Young Harris made you play them. Gotcha

Division 1 schools should not play non-Division 1 schools during the regular season. Preseason sure, but during the season, no.

(01-04-2013 03:55 PM)monarchman Wrote:  Division 1 schools should not play non-Division 1 schools during the regular season. Preseason sure, but during the season, no.

Well, a buttload of schools do it. This win does nothing for our RPI or final record so I cannot understand why in the hell people keep complaining about our scheduling (not you specifically). We've played them before and they weren't THIS bad. They're just THIS bad this year.

(01-04-2013 03:42 PM)nastybunch Wrote:  

(01-04-2013 02:46 PM)KevMo4UAB Wrote:  

(01-04-2013 01:20 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(01-04-2013 10:35 AM)nastybunch Wrote:  

(01-04-2013 09:29 AM)KevMo4UAB Wrote:  It's an embarrassment for the entire conference.

So, now 94 point wins are an embarrassment....gotcha! No more embarrassing than Young Harris College.

Young Harris was scheduled at the very last minute because of a unavoidable last minute scheduling issue. It was so late that Young Harris counted it as an exhibition game because their schedule was already full. Otherwise UAB does not play non D1 teams. USM schedules 2 or 3 a year. There is no comparison in the scheduling philosophies.

+1

UAB had no choice this season. Southern Miss chooses these teams every year, or at least for the last several years.

Hypocriticall to say the least. So you are saying Young Harris made you play them. Gotcha

How is it hypocritical? UAB has done it once in a last minute emergency when they could not get anyone else when another scheduled game fell apart at the last minute USM schedules two or three a year and has been doing it for years.

(01-04-2013 10:56 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  It is strange how some here are so "upset" about the lopsided win against this lesser team, but I read other threads here and see some C-USA teams losing to small schools and of course people are concerned, but USM wins more than expected and it is horrible. I see this every year in every sport and never get over how much phoney outrage is expressed and yet who is looking to see the terms of the game. I certainly don't know why Dillard played USM but I bet it has to do largely with a payday at a small school that is historically a black school and I bet such funds are welcomed to them. USM played all players it appears from what I read, and once you play your whole bench what do you do? I bet those griping really aren't that upset, but they would probably not be upset it was their favorite team.

I'm not upset or criticizing beyond just saying "wow, what a mismatch."

(01-04-2013 11:16 AM)EaglehasLanded Wrote:  Southern Miss plays NAIA teams for 2 reasons:
1) They are cheap home games. We have major budget issues right now and can't afford to pay someone a ton of money to come play us. We are also having trouble scheduling home games because not many teams are willing to play us at home either.
2) NAIA games have no effect on the RPI. Therefore, us playing these games doesn't help or hurt the conf, as opposed to us playing some small Div. 1 team with an RPI in the 300 range which would negatively effect everyone's RPI regardless if we win or not.

IIRC, the NCAA has a special penalty for non-D-1 games.

EABOD & DIAF Dillard, WE OWN YOUR A$$!!!

(01-04-2013 12:21 AM)Caltex2 Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 11:50 PM)GCEagle Wrote:  It's embarrassing really. I understand the need for bodybag games but an NAIA team shouldn't be on anyones regular season schedule. Play them in exhibition.

I don't know. It was only 5 years ago or so that Georgetown nearly won at Pittsburgh. Georgetown, KY that is.

The gulf between Georgetown (KY) and Dillard is massive. You're comparing a perennial NAIA power to a non-scholarship school. Over the last few years Georgetown (KY) has had transfers from FSU, Maryland, Villanova, South Florida, San Diego St, Charleston, Marshall, & Miami (OH).

You can say they are both NAIA, but you might as well be comparing Duke to Grambling because they are both Division 1. I understand the reason USM schedules these schools, but they could at least play NAIA schools with a pulse. They probably could get a better scrimmage in from USM rec league guys.

I think USM plays the best non-conference home teams it can. We just weren't able to lure anybody better. Our home schedule, IIRC, is CUSA plus some lightweights plus WKU. The WKU date was probably part of an overall package deal that they agreed to because we gave them a home game in football. I seriously doubt anyone at USM is thrilled about Dillard. If we could have had, say, Arizona, we would have. It's difficult luring teams like that to Hattiesburg, though. We're not a pushover; we're not in a hotbed of basketball recruiting ; and we don't take in that much money at the gate, by those teams' standards.

If I'm wrong, someone please set me straight.

I seriously doubt that USM can't get even SWAC or ASun teams to come play. No one is saying you should have Duke or Arizona come to Hattiesburg

(01-04-2013 06:44 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  I think USM plays the best non-conference home teams it can. We just weren't able to lure anybody better. Our home schedule, IIRC, is CUSA plus some lightweights plus WKU. The WKU date was probably part of an overall package deal that they agreed to because we gave them a home game in football. I seriously doubt anyone at USM is thrilled about Dillard. If we could have had, say, Arizona, we would have. It's difficult luring teams like that to Hattiesburg, though. We're not a pushover; we're not in a hotbed of basketball recruiting ; and we don't take in that much money at the gate, by those teams' standards.

If I'm wrong, someone please set me straight.

This, USM has gotten home games against Auburn, OleMiss, and USF recently but we won all those games so those types of teams don't want to come back.

(01-04-2013 06:53 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  I seriously doubt that USM can't get even SWAC or ASun teams to come play. No one is saying you should have Duke or Arizona come to Hattiesburg

Somebody on USM's Rivals pay site said we have to pay a much larger chunk of cash to play lower tier D1 teams than an NAIA school. USM simply can't afford to play an all D1 schedule

We're getting better at scheduling though. Few years ago we had 4 nonD1 teams on our OOC schedule, now we're down to 2.

Did Dillard bring the whole department store, or just the employees who played basketball in high school PE?

I watched the game on FirstRow. Sounded like they brought a few fans

(01-04-2013 01:26 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(01-04-2013 11:16 AM)EaglehasLanded Wrote:  Southern Miss plays NAIA teams for 2 reasons:
1) They are cheap home games. We have major budget issues right now and can't afford to pay someone a ton of money to come play us. We are also having trouble scheduling home games because not many teams are willing to play us at home either.
2) NAIA games have no effect on the RPI. Therefore, us playing these games doesn't help or hurt the conf, as opposed to us playing some small Div. 1 team with an RPI in the 300 range which would negatively effect everyone's RPI regardless if we win or not.

It does have an indirect effect on your RPI. Because the games don't count, it reduces the number of games used to calculate your RPI, and is the reason for your 49 RPI ranking. This could be used against you in March is USM is on the bubble and the committee is evaluating how you got the high RPI

The lack of additional D1 games does not affect the RPI. RPI is based on winning percentage of D1 games (regardless of number of games played, winnng 60% of your games is equally hard to accomplish), opponents' winnng percentage and oppenents' opponents' winning percentage.

I think what he's saying is if we played a SWAC school instead of Carey or Dillard it would hurt our RPI. Thus, it indirectly affects our rating

(01-04-2013 08:11 PM)Beagleagle23 Wrote:  I think what he's saying is if we played a SWAC school instead of Carey or Dillard it would hurt our RPI. Thus, it indirectly affects our rating

Exactly. And the Selection committee (if it came to that) would take it into account.

(01-04-2013 08:03 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  The lack of additional D1 games does not affect the RPI. RPI is based on winning percentage of D1 games (regardless of number of games played, winnng 60% of your games is equally hard to accomplish), opponents' winnng percentage and oppenents' opponents' winning percentage.

But the NCAA has a special RPI penalty for non D-1 games.

Also, as for the Georgetown KY comment from earlier, I was just pointing out that not all NAIA teams are created equal and teams shouldn't be barred from scheduling them.