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

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/ma...user-share

I’m a fan of this. We really need our top teams to show out all year to have a shot at two teams in the tournament, but this will help our cause. At the very least i wonder how much it will improve the RPI of our top schools. We know our bottom feeders are terrible, and playing them multiple times helps no team with postseason hopes. Something had to be done, I’m glad we are giving it a go.

I personally don’t think this will work. At the end of the day, the P5 schools get their teams in the tournament and everyone else is left out.

I hate this plan. Sounds like lipstick on a pig. I hate the idea of the regular season schedule not being set at the beginning of the season. Literally. Hate it fcompletely.

You want to improve the conference. Reduce the number of teams to 8-10. Those bad teams no one wants to play. Get rid of them.

This does not go far enough. Behold the 58-56 Plan, based on NCAA Bylaw 31.3.4.1 subparagraph c (down below):

Note that the regs do not require that each member play every other member.

So.

Divide into two seven-team divisions based on last year's finish. Play triple round-robin for 18 games.

Tournament is for 8 teams, the 7 from the Upper Division and first-place finisher of the **** Division.

For next season, #7 in Upper Division is relegated and champion of **** Division is elevated. Rewards long-term success over one-year wonders.

This effectively ejects seven teams from the conference, without the legal pain of ejecting seven teams from the conference.

© In sports other than championship subdivision football, a conference may establish subdivisions and conduct competition within each subdivision to determine a conference champion, as long as each subdivision consists of at least four members. Conferences with subdivisions of four members must conduct double round-robin competition within each subdivision, plus a postseason tournament, to determine their champion. Conferences with subdivisions of five or more members may conduct either single or double round-robin competition within each subdivision, plus a postseason tournament to determine their champion. (Note: This regulation does not apply to Division I men's or women's basketball. In those sports, a conference may conduct either double round-robin, in-season competition, or a minimum of 14 conference games in order to determine its champion.)

I would like to see CUSA vs some other mid-major challenge or even a same season OOC home-and-home.
..

CUSA basketball jumps the shark.

(05-27-2018 12:26 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  CUSA basketball jumps the shark.

That happened a couple seasons ago. We're into Joanie Loves Chachi territory now.

Gene formed the Great Midwest because he had become disgusted with the deadweight programs in the old Sun Belt that refused to invest and pursue greatness. That option doesn't exist in this age, so we have to do something else innovative and radical.

The F-U's etc. don't care. Shove them into a separate division and they might not even notice. A league with UAB, ODU, WKU, Tech, Marshall, MTSU and pick one is no GMC but it's better than we're going to form with an airport meeting.

Conference USA is a league built on consultants who were actually paid real US dollars to chant "potential" and "markets" because they read those words in some column online. "Potential" and "markets" got us UTSA and UNT.

And Fire Ray Watts.

(05-27-2018 09:58 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  I’m a fan of this. We really need our top teams to show out all year to have a shot at two teams in the tournament, but this will help our cause. At the very least i wonder how much it will improve the RPI of our top schools. We know our bottom feeders are terrible, and playing them multiple times helps no team with postseason hopes. Something had to be done, I’m glad we are giving it a go.

+1. Don’t knowing much it will help but it is a damn sight better than knowing you have that end of the year RPi drag playing teams with a bad RPI but just good enough to beat you if u have a bad day. In the end it may not help at all as the deck is stacked almost as bad as football. At least they tried.

Want out of this league? Get your ass to Bartow for all the games and stop
Making excuses not to go. UAB basketball needs to become an attractive addition like football.

Is there any long term impact to FAU playing in the C-USA championship games in two major men's sports (FAU vs NTS in FB and FAU vs USM in baseball today) this 2017-2018 school year?

Be careful about sentiment to "kick out" schools who have weak teams in a couple of sports since that might be used against our own programs.

Exactly.

Outside of football, bowling, & women's soccer all of our other programs are either weak or not progressing as we should expect.

(05-27-2018 03:40 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  Outside of football, bowling, & women's soccer all of our other programs are either weak or not progressing as we should expect.

Which of Alabama's FBS schools have uniformly strong sports programs across the board? Some have more than others -- usually the ones with the greatest financial backing have the most.

I don’t care for the plan. Keep the present format. Play well in your division, tournaments and OOC. Recognize that the deck is stacked.

Of course you can add women's basketball to those who are doing well.

Just throwing it out there from memory.

(05-27-2018 05:13 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 03:40 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  Outside of football, bowling, & women's soccer all of our other programs are either weak or not progressing as we should expect.

Which of Alabama's FBS schools have uniformly strong sports programs across the board? Some have more than others -- usually the ones with the greatest financial backing have the most.

I believe UAB should do well in all sports in CUSA. Sure you aren't going to finish #1 every year but you should be pretty darn close to top 4 in each.

(05-27-2018 03:35 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Exactly.

If UAB basketball (which is what this thread is about) is ever consistently in the bottom four, they should be kicked out, as any other team who consistently sucks.

(05-27-2018 11:45 AM)58-56 Wrote:  This does not go far enough. Behold the 58-56 Plan, based on NCAA Bylaw 31.3.4.1 subparagraph c (down below):

Note that the regs do not require that each member play every other member.

So.

Divide into two seven-team divisions based on last year's finish. Play triple round-robin for 18 games.

Tournament is for 8 teams, the 7 from the Upper Division and first-place finisher of the **** Division.

For next season, #7 in Upper Division is relegated and champion of **** Division is elevated. Rewards long-term success over one-year wonders.

This effectively ejects seven teams from the conference, without the legal pain of ejecting seven teams from the conference.

© In sports other than championship subdivision football, a conference may establish subdivisions and conduct competition within each subdivision to determine a conference champion, as long as each subdivision consists of at least four members. Conferences with subdivisions of four members must conduct double round-robin competition within each subdivision, plus a postseason tournament, to determine their champion. Conferences with subdivisions of five or more members may conduct either single or double round-robin competition within each subdivision, plus a postseason tournament to determine their champion. (Note: This regulation does not apply to Division I men's or women's basketball. In those sports, a conference may conduct either double round-robin, in-season competition, or a minimum of 14 conference games in order to determine its champion.)

I like this idea. Relegation, like European soccer.

I like the idea, thanks coach Cal.

(05-28-2018 08:28 AM)BlazerFromMD Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 11:45 AM)58-56 Wrote:  This does not go far enough. Behold the 58-56 Plan, based on NCAA Bylaw 31.3.4.1 subparagraph c (down below):

Note that the regs do not require that each member play every other member.

So.

Divide into two seven-team divisions based on last year's finish. Play triple round-robin for 18 games.

Tournament is for 8 teams, the 7 from the Upper Division and first-place finisher of the **** Division.

For next season, #7 in Upper Division is relegated and champion of **** Division is elevated. Rewards long-term success over one-year wonders.

This effectively ejects seven teams from the conference, without the legal pain of ejecting seven teams from the conference.

© In sports other than championship subdivision football, a conference may establish subdivisions and conduct competition within each subdivision to determine a conference champion, as long as each subdivision consists of at least four members. Conferences with subdivisions of four members must conduct double round-robin competition within each subdivision, plus a postseason tournament, to determine their champion. Conferences with subdivisions of five or more members may conduct either single or double round-robin competition within each subdivision, plus a postseason tournament to determine their champion. (Note: This regulation does not apply to Division I men's or women's basketball. In those sports, a conference may conduct either double round-robin, in-season competition, or a minimum of 14 conference games in order to determine its champion.)

I like this idea. Relegation, like European soccer.

That would keep the RPI higher for those in the top half of the conference.

If you could factor in RPI out of conference in determining the top half as well then that might give teams extra incentive to build up the non conference RPI.