(01-15-2014 04:06 PM)demiveeman Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 12:39 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 12:36 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  Why should you eliminate the big 5 conferences? Especially with the team USM was expected to have this year--even a loss wouldn't have been looked at negatively.

Because they DON"T want to come to our campuses. They "think" it's a step down. Again, just watch, how many times will Memphis be willing to come to Hattiesburg in the future, because "it's not worth it to them", when we all know that the Yurt was regularly filled to the rafters when Memphis showed up...

What does this have to do with scheduling Non-D1 teams?

Memphis is a Top 25 team. I'm talking about scheduling Norfolk State instead of the Hokey Pokey Community Technical College Institute "Raging Beanstalks".

If you've got a game to give (again, if you're under your 4 game limit for NAIA games), then it's LESS dangerous to play an NAIA game (Because wins/losses won't affect your RPI) than it is to play a 250+ RPI team.

(01-15-2014 04:06 PM)demiveeman Wrote:  What does this have to do with scheduling Non-D1 teams?

Memphis is a Top 25 team. I'm talking about scheduling Norfolk State instead of the Hokey Pokey Community Technical College Institute "Raging Beanstalks".

Supposedly, these teams are scheduling like crap because they literally can get no one else to play them at home.

I agree that there is no reason to play a regular season game against a non-div. 1 school. People act like playing 2-3 bad teams (RPI 250+) is going to prevent them from gaining an at-large. This is incorrect. The problem is that teams are scheduling 3-4 non-div. 1 school then 3-4 RPI 200+ teams and wondering why CUSA is a one bid league. If you want an at-large bid you have to schedule like it.

(01-15-2014 04:29 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 09:26 PM)demiveeman Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 08:57 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 08:40 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  how about nobody schedule non-D1 schools from now on

Should be a limit but hard to eliminate them. Southern Miss has trouble scheduling decent D1 teams at home out of conference. No one wants to come to Hattiesburg and more so now that we're winning. Our options are to schedule one or two NAIA teams or some RPI killing SWAC teams.

Bullcrap. Total bullcrap.

There are over 340 Division 1 basketball teams, and you are saying you can't find any outside of the SWAC to come play you at home?

Bull. But that's an excuse many schools would like to make, probably including UAB. But it's a load.

You guys just don't want to admit that you are scared to schedule a low-tier Division 1 school because they might beat you and it actually count.

Did you even read what he said? He said RPIkillingSWAC teams. Any NAIA or DII win or loss is not calculated into the RPI. However, a DI team that is 200 in RPI or greater will kill a team with an RPI in the 30s (where USM's has been all year). Ideally you want OC teams in the top 100 RPI, but they won't come to Hattiesburg. So you fill in the blanks with teams that won't hurt your RPI....NAIA and DII teams.

You can say whatever you want about not hurting your RPI...but the second you guys drop to the 50+ RPI range due to conference losses, your at large bid is toast because of meaningless non-conference games. "The eye test".

You mean to tell me you can't get Cleveland State, Canusius, Depaul, Boston University, San Francisco, or UC Santa Barbara to come to Hattiesburg?

We have.. we've gotten H&H's with NMSU, Depaul, Denver, Morehead St, etc. (at least I think we get Depaul at home next season?)

But let's not forget that usually (not alway) you'd like to be able to get a school to manage at least a 2 game-minimum road trip when going cross country. So it's not like these things are easy as you'd think. It's not like football scheduling, where you go, play, come back and get a full week to prep for you next game.

For instance when USM did the NMSU , Arizona, La Tech road trip... it just happened to fit in that we were able to get the Arizona game as the bridge between NMSU/La Tech game.

(01-15-2014 04:12 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 10:40 AM)UNTFan23 Wrote:  The best part in this whole saga is that we had a Div 1 school on the schedule (UTA) but dropped them because coach wanted to have more home games than away games. This whole mess was preventable had we just kept the UTA game, which is a game the fan base likes because UTA is such a close opponent.

Karma.

+1

I can't believe it took five pages to get to this. Can't feel bad for the UNT program. Of all the away games to cancel, the one closest and least costly and more likely to be a benefit to the fans is the one chosen. Our AD stuck to the guns, forced a buyout if UNT wasn't going to honor the contract, they paid a non-DI to come in and now they have to forfeit a game? I'd be super POed were I a Green fan.

Hopefully Mavs fans hold no ill will towards NT. Many fans in Green would like to see the series continue.

The only way a mid-major will regularly get home and homes with power conference teams is by dominating your conference. Memphis and Gonzaga wrote the blueprint. No team is going to take a chance on losing to a mid major on their home court unless it's almost certain that team will win their league and be considered a "good" loss. That doesn't mean going 11-5 or 12-4, it means going 15-1 or 16-0. Gonzaga and Memphis got home and homes with power conference teams because everyone knew those weren't risky games.

In the meantime UAB, Charlotte, and USM should be playing top programs on the road. Helps with recruiting, exposure, and quality wins. This is why I don't get why UAB and USM fans think their programs are too good for 2-1 games. Take the 2-1's, grab some quality wins, dominate the conference, and get in the only tournament that matters. Do those things and power teams will be more willing to play at your place.

Memphis is not like any of those schools. These other schools you mentioned draw from a third to a fith of what you do. You play in an NBA arena and draw 16k. It's a dumb comparison. It wouldn't matter if you sucked with a foundation like that, you will be able to attract, pay, and play pretty much whatever schedule you want.

(01-16-2014 05:20 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  Memphis is not like any of those schools. These other schools you mentioned draw from a third to a fith of what you do. You play in an NBA arena and draw 16k. It's a dumb comparison. It wouldn't matter if you sucked with a foundation like that, you will be able to attract, pay, and play pretty much whatever schedule you want.

I agree with you. Memphis is unique, but what about Gonzaga? Wouldn't that be comparable?

(01-15-2014 04:12 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 10:40 AM)UNTFan23 Wrote:  The best part in this whole saga is that we had a Div 1 school on the schedule (UTA) but dropped them because coach wanted to have more home games than away games. This whole mess was preventable had we just kept the UTA game, which is a game the fan base likes because UTA is such a close opponent.

Karma.

+1

I can't believe it took five pages to get to this. Can't feel bad for the UNT program. Of all the away games to cancel, the one closest and least costly and more likely to be a benefit to the fans is the one chosen. Our AD stuck to the guns, forced a buyout if UNT wasn't going to honor the contract, they paid a non-DI to come in and now they have to forfeit a game? I'd be super POed were I a Green fan.

I personally don't know any Mean Green fans that are happy about cancelling the UTA series. Not only was it a good rivalry. But, it gave those of us NT fans living near Arlington a good chance to attend the games.

Plus, NT cancelled the series after being walloped by your school, which is even more embarrassing and reeks of being chicken$hit.

Our men's BB team performance last year was the worst underachieving collapse that I have seen in my 25 years as an NT alum (any sport). Johnny Jones probably can't believe what happened to his former program. In just over a year we went from being "called" one of the top mid-major programs to a really poor coached, underachieving lower level D1 program.

I am making this post withOUT reading all 7 pages but scanning through a couple of them so this might be something that was said already.

IN MY OPINION part of the reason many of the teams play multiple non D1 schools is the fact the head coach has a clause in his contract the a winning record gets him another year on his contract which creates job security. As well, there is probably a bonus in many/most coaches contract with so many wins. So they way I see it a coach will schedule as many non D1 teams as possible to pad his record/pocketbook but especially his record if he feels he is on the hotseat. I feel like that is the reason Eustachy scheduled so he would have the best chance of keeping the state allowed 4 year contract each year.

(01-16-2014 10:03 PM)usm99 Wrote:  I am making this post withOUT reading all 7 pages but scanning through a couple of them so this might be something that was said already.

IN MY OPINION part of the reason many of the teams play multiple non D1 schools is the fact the head coach has a clause in his contract the a winning record gets him another year on his contract which creates job security. As well, there is probably a bonus in many/most coaches contract with so many wins. So they way I see it a coach will schedule as many non D1 teams as possible to pad his record/pocketbook but especially his record if he feels he is on the hotseat. I feel like that is the reason Eustachy scheduled so he would have the best chance of keeping the state allowed 4 year contract each year.

That was not as much of the problem as the ad at the time totally ignored basketball once the locker room and office renovation was complete. LE did not have the amount of money he needed to pay decent guarantees that would get better teams in. Also the lack of marketing helped keep ticket sales lower than necessary.

(01-16-2014 05:03 PM)Tampa Bay Tiger Wrote:  The only way a mid-major will regularly get home and homes with power conference teams is by dominating your conference. Memphis and Gonzaga wrote the blueprint. No team is going to take a chance on losing to a mid major on their home court unless it's almost certain that team will win their league and be considered a "good" loss. That doesn't mean going 11-5 or 12-4, it means going 15-1 or 16-0. Gonzaga and Memphis got home and homes with power conference teams because everyone knew those weren't risky games.

In the meantime UAB, Charlotte, and USM should be playing top programs on the road. Helps with recruiting, exposure, and quality wins. This is why I don't get why UAB and USM fans think their programs are too good for 2-1 games. Take the 2-1's, grab some quality wins, dominate the conference, and get in the only tournament that matters. Do those things and power teams will be more willing to play at your place.

No one ever said we were too good for 2 for 1's. But Peter Brady wont schedule us even with a 5 or 6 to 1.

(01-14-2014 08:40 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  how about nobody schedule non-D1 schools from now on

USM already plays more road games than home games. That disparity would be even greater with that restriction as we have a hard time getting D1 teams to play us in Reed Green Coliseum. We got North Dakota State, Drexel and Rhode Island at the last minute this season. We had to promise a return game to Drexel and traveled to Rhode Island and NDSU this season. At least we get two home games from NDSU.

We've talked a lot about the impact of OOC scheduling on RPI. How about the affect on fans? I don't want to watch, or pay to see, half of the OOC home games against sub-Div I teams. Yeah, playing against a 250+ Div I team sucks too, but at least I have probably heard of them. There is nothing about beating an NAIA team that makes me feel successful.

(01-16-2014 03:33 PM)UNTFan23 Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 04:12 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 10:40 AM)UNTFan23 Wrote:  The best part in this whole saga is that we had a Div 1 school on the schedule (UTA) but dropped them because coach wanted to have more home games than away games. This whole mess was preventable had we just kept the UTA game, which is a game the fan base likes because UTA is such a close opponent.

Karma.

+1

I can't believe it took five pages to get to this. Can't feel bad for the UNT program. Of all the away games to cancel, the one closest and least costly and more likely to be a benefit to the fans is the one chosen. Our AD stuck to the guns, forced a buyout if UNT wasn't going to honor the contract, they paid a non-DI to come in and now they have to forfeit a game? I'd be super POed were I a Green fan.

Hopefully Mavs fans hold no ill will towards NT. Many fans in Green would like to see the series continue.

I hold no more or less ill will then a normal rivalry situation towards the UNT fans. That said, i think I side a lot with the UNTers on ill toward the basketball coach and AD. I think that was a really crappy way to do business and from what I understand, our coach and AD aren't happy with how they did it either.

(01-16-2014 05:58 PM)ClaudeFunston Wrote:  I personally don't know any Mean Green fans that are happy about cancelling the UTA series. Not only was it a good rivalry. But, it gave those of us NT fans living near Arlington a good chance to attend the games.

Plus, NT cancelled the series after being walloped by your school, which is even more embarrassing and reeks of being chicken$hit.

Our men's BB team performance last year was the worst underachieving collapse that I have seen in my 25 years as an NT alum (any sport). Johnny Jones probably can't believe what happened to his former program. In just over a year we went from being "called" one of the top mid-major programs to a really poor coached, underachieving lower level D1 program.

That's why I don't begrudge anyone but the admin higher-ups. It really hurt UTA because this was going to be our big non-conference game, likely equaling the turnout for the Oklahoma game last year. That was going to our biggest revenue game and a chance to showcase our new arena to the metroplex.

A few UNT fans I know were disappointed because they weren't going to get to see CPC. I don't think they will take me up on my suggestion to see a game without UNT playing though.

(01-17-2014 12:50 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 08:40 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  how about nobody schedule non-D1 schools from now on

USM already plays more road games than home games. That disparity would be even greater with that restriction as we have a hard time getting D1 teams to play us in Reed Green Coliseum. We got North Dakota State, Drexel and Rhode Island at the last minute this season. We had to promise a return game to Drexel and traveled to Rhode Island and NDSU this season. At least we get two home games from NDSU.

UTA would schedule a home-and-home with you guys. We used to play quite frequently in football before I was alive, so there is some history between the two schools.

(01-17-2014 08:35 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 03:33 PM)UNTFan23 Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 04:12 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 10:40 AM)UNTFan23 Wrote:  The best part in this whole saga is that we had a Div 1 school on the schedule (UTA) but dropped them because coach wanted to have more home games than away games. This whole mess was preventable had we just kept the UTA game, which is a game the fan base likes because UTA is such a close opponent.

Karma.

+1

I can't believe it took five pages to get to this. Can't feel bad for the UNT program. Of all the away games to cancel, the one closest and least costly and more likely to be a benefit to the fans is the one chosen. Our AD stuck to the guns, forced a buyout if UNT wasn't going to honor the contract, they paid a non-DI to come in and now they have to forfeit a game? I'd be super POed were I a Green fan.

Hopefully Mavs fans hold no ill will towards NT. Many fans in Green would like to see the series continue.

I hold no more or less ill will then a normal rivalry situation towards the UNT fans. That said, i think I side a lot with the UNTers on ill toward the basketball coach and AD. I think that was a really crappy way to do business and from what I understand, our coach and AD aren't happy with how they did it either.

(01-16-2014 05:58 PM)ClaudeFunston Wrote:  I personally don't know any Mean Green fans that are happy about cancelling the UTA series. Not only was it a good rivalry. But, it gave those of us NT fans living near Arlington a good chance to attend the games.

Plus, NT cancelled the series after being walloped by your school, which is even more embarrassing and reeks of being chicken$hit.

Our men's BB team performance last year was the worst underachieving collapse that I have seen in my 25 years as an NT alum (any sport). Johnny Jones probably can't believe what happened to his former program. In just over a year we went from being "called" one of the top mid-major programs to a really poor coached, underachieving lower level D1 program.

That's why I don't begrudge anyone but the admin higher-ups. It really hurt UTA because this was going to be our big non-conference game, likely equaling the turnout for the Oklahoma game last year. That was going to our biggest revenue game and a chance to showcase our new arena to the metroplex.

A few UNT fans I know were disappointed because they weren't going to get to see CPC. I don't think they will take me up on my suggestion to see a game without UNT playing though.

The UTA game was the last game that anyone thought would or should be cancelled or moved back.

Here's one of the big issues with non D-1 teams that isn't really being looked at, OOC records with and without non D-1 teams:

UAB
11-3(.786)
9-3(.750)

USM
13-2(.867)
11-2(.846)

La Tech
12-3(.800)
11-3(.786)

UTEP
8-5(.615)
6-5(.545)

MTSU
8-5(.615)
6-5(.545)

UNT
9-5(.642)
6-5(.545)

ECU
11-4(.733)
7-4(.636)

That's a large enough sample size to prove the issue.(I did this quickly, so hopefully my numbers aren't off) We are all getting killed in the RPI because of teams across the board doing this. Even if we all scheduled 300+ RPI teams, our records with D-1 wins would be significantly better than they currently are. Since this is what the RPI is calculated off of, we have left .314 combined(quick math, hopefully it's right) from these teams off the calculation because of playing non D-1 programs. Individually it doesn't look like an issue, but when you add it all up, it becomes one.

C-USA really needs to step in and limit these games to 1, or I wouldn't even mind none. Since basically half of the RPI(I know the home and away thing, but for arguments sake it's close enough) is made up of your opponents winning %, and over half of our games our against conference teams, this becomes a huge problem.

Quote: We are all getting killed in the RPI because of teams across the board doing this. Even if we all scheduled 300+ RPI teams, our records with D-1 wins would be significantly better than they currently are.

Not true.. again, look at LA Tech.. they're only at 91, because they have 10 games against teams with a 200 or worse RPI record. Their record with USM is otherwise identical

If you schedule a sub-300 team, you better have some 1-50's to balance it out.

La Tech vs.
1-50 1 - 1 1 - 1
51-100 1 - 1 1 - 1
101-200 2 - 1 1 - 1
201+ 10 - 0 11 - 0

USM Vs.
1-50 1 - 1 0 - 1
51-100 2 - 0 2 - 0
101-200 5 - 2 6 - 2
201+ 5 - 0 5 - 0

So the difference between USM and La Tech is that USM has 11 games against 200 or better, 5 against sub-200
La Tech has 7 games against 200 or better, 10 against sub-200

That's the current 50 point difference in RPI.

I'm in favor of a limit of 1 NAIA game per season if possible, but do not just say "it's better to schedule some low RPI teams"...

Now look at BYU (RPI - 39)

1-50 1 - 4 0 - 4
51-100 2 - 0 3 - 1
101-200 6 - 3 6 - 2
201+ 2 - 0 2 - 0

A grand total of 2 games against sub-200 schools... despite only being 11-7, their RPI is still better than both our schools because they at least played 5 top 50 schools, so not to knock UTA (cause they're in the sub-200 group), I'd rather take on a South Dakota State or arkansas pine-bluff (at least at the moment).

While I don't necessarily like that teams play non-D1 games it really isn't as big a deal for the conference as the poor quality of OOC scheduling.

If La Tech, and other teams picked to finish near the top of the conference, had scheduled 10 games against the RPI top 100 then CUSA wouldn't be having RPI issues. Of course that is assuming those teams performed well against a much more difficult schedule.