The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(05-27-2014 03:42 PM)BlazerGold09 Wrote:  This is just like Rutgers last year. We're playing a power conference team that if we win, we we're suppose to. It we lose, it could be a big blemish on our resume come March. A very bleh schedule spot.

I think you are overestimating the perceived expectations of UAB nationwide. I suspect we will be favored at home, but they will be favored in Tampa.

(05-27-2014 04:06 PM)slinkie Wrote:  lets hope we can get some MVC schools on the schedule....I bet we see a more regional approach to scheduling as well.

In addition to MVC schools - I'd like to see some of the better teams from the A-10 on our schedule also

Yeah, and so would every other mid-major who is trying to bolster their RPI.

It's not that easy. Then throw in that they have to want to or be willing to play you. It takes two to make the deal.

Even if you find a team that wants to play you, (that's pretty tough in itself), you have to find workable dates. It's not as easy as calling a team and saying let's play. There are deals that get delayed or even dropped because of this. It's a constant work in progress. Sometimes you end up with a not so great schedule because that's how it works out. Not saying that is why we ended up with what we did last year but just saying it isn't easy for a team such as us. Ask USM. Ask MTSU. Ask UTEP.

Southern Miss has a whole different set of problems. We all understand that it isn't easy to create a schedule, but in my opinion we can be less demanding if that's what it takes. If Saint Louis wants a 2 for 1, take it. VCU, sure. Creighton, Wichita, sign me up.

I'd rather see us play 10 road games than have another home slate of: Rutgers, Troy, FAMU, Georgia Southern, UNC, Chattanooga, Alabama A&M, and two non D-1 teams. Take out UNC, and our home slate consisted of teams all 197+ in the final RPI.

Things do look better this year(@Chattanooga and @Troy at least help in the RPI calculation if we win), and I hope last year was simply a learning experience for the staff. I have a feeling we are probably going to see a pretty mediocre home slate again though.

I would hope to sweet Baby Jesus we don't accept two for ones for Saint Louis, VCU, Wichita, and teams of that elk. If that is the case let's just move to the Belt or Big South and assume the fetal position. I would rather play who we did last year than go that route. Haase is trying to build us back to respectability, not send us backwards.


BTW VCU (for example) has shown us a willingness to play us home and home. I trust Haase to make the correct decisions regarding scheduling.

Yes, why accept 2 for 1's with top 50 teams? What a ridiculous concept that would be when we can play 2 non D-1's and FAMU and Alabama A&M instead. I understand that Haase is trying to build us back toward respectability. Beating good teams, any place, any time, is how you do that. This shouldn't need to be said, but we were RPI 153 last year, 145 the year before that, and 111 the year before that. I don't know what some of you think we are at this point, but we definitely aren't seen as the team in the 2000's under Anderson, or one of the middle Davis year squads.

We have had good RPIs without having to give in to Saint Louis and VCU for a two for one. Reality is had we won the games we were supposed to win our RPI would have been fine and we would have at least been in the NIT. Do I want a better schedule? Yes but not by giving teams equal to us two for ones. You simply don't do that. Again I trust Haase.

VCU and Saint Louis are not our peers right now. Again, we can try to act like we are some program we aren't right now, but it's simply not the case. We need to get good games, and play them wherever we need to.

And our RPI would have sucked regardless last year. The RPI Wizard pretty much proved that. We needed to go about 14-2 in conference to even have a shot at an at large, and even at that point it would have been dicey.

We have already agreed to play at Wichita State, with no return game, and that was before they were as good as they are now.

(05-28-2014 10:15 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  We have already agreed to play at Wichita State, with no return game, and that was before they were as good as they are now.

That one game included a substantial amount of money. A 2 for 1 that included a bit of money would be much more palatable.

(05-28-2014 09:35 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  We have had good RPIs without having to give in to Saint Louis and VCU for a two for one. Reality is had we won the games we were supposed to win our RPI would have been fine and we would have at least been in the NIT. Do I want a better schedule? Yes but not by giving teams equal to us two for ones. You simply don't do that. Again I trust Haase.

Do you really think Wichita St, VCU, and SLU are equal to us at this point. I wish I lived in your reality. UAB has sucked the past 3 years. I agree with blazers, we need to lower our standards a big if that's what it takes to get better games.

I think we could line up and beat any of those team. We also could get beat.

Hell that said maybe we should see if Belmont could give us a two for one? Maybe Samford. Two at Samford and one at the BJCC. Maybe we can get South Alabama to pay is to play once in Mobile as a warm up to Sun belt play for them?

Let's not get silly.

And MB, I do know we played Wichita recently. We also did that with Dayton. I'm really saying we need to have multiple games like these, and that we need to do what it takes to get them on the schedule.

Our schedule has potential as it is right now, but if our options are 2 for 1's with top 50 teams or 7 more 250+ games, I'm going to choose the former. If we can't get 2 for 1's or better with those teams, then I think we need to try and get as many home and homes at possible with teams in the 51-150 range. I know it's not easy, but it's not rocket science either. Hell, give Georgia State a call at this point.

(05-28-2014 10:45 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  I think we could line up and beat any of those team. We also could get beat.

Hell that said maybe we should see if Belmont could give us a two for one? Maybe Samford. Two at Samford and one at the BJCC. Maybe we can get South Alabama to pay is to play once in Mobile as a warm up to Sun belt play for them?

Let's not get silly.

You go from VCU and St Louis to Samford and USA? Seriously? Belmont is a quality opponent, and I would love them on our schedule every year, but I think they are about at the line where I would no longer want to give a school a 2 for 1.(Borderline top 50 program)

Again, I will trust Haase. If he feels we should go two for one with Saint Louis and VCU, then I'll buy in. That said that isn't happening. We played Wichita State on a "neutral" site for a nice payout. While it was supposedly neutral there may have been 20 UAB fans there. We didn't play in their home arena. We also bought out a return game to Murray State.

I merely said those teams to illustrate how silly this is getting. Just let them make the schedule and you guys can ***** about it later.

cheer?

LOL yea cheer.

(05-28-2014 10:45 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  I think we could line up and beat any of those team. We also could get beat.

Hell that said maybe we should see if Belmont could give us a two for one? Maybe Samford. Two at Samford and one at the BJCC. Maybe we can get South Alabama to pay is to play once in Mobile as a warm up to Sun belt play for them?

Let's not get silly.

Standard AttallaBlaze debate device. Overreact in the other direction.

As a general rule, I would say we shouldn't do 2 for 1's with former conference members, but some of you do need to recognize where the program is right now.