Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

61 - 80 of 96 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
long time lurker, first time poster (i think)

just want to say that that scheduling system from the C-USA is genius and that the A10 should consider the same proposal
The plan could work, but calling it genius already is a bit premature. The postseason implications of such a schedule are more complicated than they appear. I am not convinced that this will help teams get postseason bids, and even if it works well for a conference like C-USA, that does not mean it will work for the A10. If it does work I would be all for it.
 

·
Piker
Joined
·
8,601 Posts
If it did happen in the A10 I would vote for a Top 6 scenario. The idea is not all that bad because losing to teams at the bottom of the conference kills non-P5 schools especially when it happens down the stretch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
Everyone gets to play everyone else one time, plus a 2nd game for a travel partner.

I am immediately left to wonder how the selection committee and the Px conferences will negate this.

After a while, I also wonder if this will have a long term benefit if a significant number of conferences adopt the same approach. If everyone is doing it, no one will have an advantage from it, I think. Then it will be back to how did you do in those chances you had to play a Px team in the non-conference schedule.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
The plan could work, but calling it genius already is a bit premature. The postseason implications of such a schedule are more complicated then they appear. I am not convinced that this will help teams get postseasons bids, and even if it works well for a conference like C-USA, that does not mean it will work for the A10. If it does work I would be all for it.
I think its a genius proposal not just because of the postseason ramifications which were well documented but because of television.

You would promise ESPN, for example, a top 4 league matchup, regardless of the teams. It would help with getting more nationally televised games at a time in the season where your bubble teams could use the exposure. "flex scheduling" to our benefit and theirs

plus, in our league anyway, it gives the top 4 teams the chance at a resume building win without a crippling loss at a very key point in the season.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,655 Posts
I think it is all well and good but the NCAA will still find ways to screw the non power schools. MTSU didnt get in because they lost in their conference tournament and this approach doesnt solve that. I thought MTSU, WKU and Marshall were all worthy NCAAT teams but the reality is the CUSA will never get multiple bids as long as the NCAA keeps up with their current trend. All the schedule manipulation in the world wont change that because the NCAA doesnt respect CUSA. I do think the CUSA is doing a good job here and commend them for trying.


The A10 already has their version of this with the yearly adjustments of who teams play twice vs once. I do like how this waits until we actually know who is good or not but there are pitfalls like say if a team starts off 7-1 because they played the bottom part of the league first?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,092 Posts
Everyone gets to play everyone else one time, plus a 2nd game for a travel partner.

I am immediately left to wonder how the selection committee and the Px conferences will negate this.

After a while, I also wonder if this will have a long term benefit if a significant number of conferences adopt the same approach. If everyone is doing it, no one will have an advantage from it, I think. Then it will be back to how did you do in those chances you had to play a Px team in the non-conference schedule.

They'll say C-USA is trying to "game the system"

Which is what you say when the system works for you without having to stray from convention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,092 Posts
I think it is all well and good but the NCAA will still find ways to screw the non power schools. MTSU didnt get in because they lost in their conference tournament and this approach doesnt solve that. I thought MTSU, WKU and Marshall were all worthy NCAAT teams but the reality is the CUSA will never get multiple bids as long as the NCAA keeps up with their current trend. All the schedule manipulation in the world wont change that. I do think the CUSA is doing a good job here and commend them for trying.

No approach solves the problem. “They didn’t get in because they lost their conference tournament” is a self-fulfilling prophecy: No team that wins their tourney is left out. You can’t have multiple teams win your conference tourney and get your league multiple NCAA bids that way.

C-USA had four good teams last year:
33 MTSU
39 WKU
79 ODU
87 Marshall (AQ)

This new plan is a single-round-robin vs the other 13 teams, your travel partner, then four games from your “tier” after 14 games.


That guarantees the top five teams in the standings play AT LEAST 8 games against the top five of the league. Last year…

MTSU played seven last year (ODU only once)
WKU played seven last year (UAB only once)
ODU played six last year (MTSU, UAB only once)
MAR played eight last year
UAB played six last year (WKU, ODU only once)

So this creates SIX more Group 1 or Group 2 opportunities for the top five of C-USA that didn’t exist last year.




Now, obviously, it’s a little funky to look at this from a “what last year would have looked like with this model” because the standings of C-USa (or the A-10) are what they are because of the schedule. When you change the schedule, you change what the standings look like.

Especially in leagues like ours where “Who you play twice” has a massive effect on where you finish. Although, it’s crazy for Bona, who played URI, DC, SJU, SLU and DUQ twice last year. That’s 1, 3, 4, T-5.

Even with a four-way tie for fifth..

URI & SJU played six vs Top 5
DC played seven
None of our fifth place teams played 8.


I’m NOT advocating the A-10 take this method. I don’t like it for us for one simple reason:

C-USA is never going to have six NCAA candidates in the same year, and we’ve had 6 to 9 teams in the top 90 of the RPI seven of the last eight seasons. For example, in 2014, we had six teams in the top 43 of the RPI, and 9 of the top 98. Why limit teams 5-10 to only four marquee games? The idea is to MAXIMIZE the number of marquee games on the schedule.


The other reason for C-USA to try this... what's the worst that can happen? They KEEP getting screwed by the NCAA committee, despite playing better games? They lose nothing.
 

·
Piker
Joined
·
8,601 Posts
Last season was a smack in the face to the C-USA. Western Kentucky, ODU and Middle Tennessee fought it out for first place. Marshall got hot and won the tournament. Marshall went to the dance while every other team was snubbed. In the A10 Davidson got hot and won the tournament yet they handed out two at-large bids. That is respect for the A10 and hopefully that respect continues to be earned by the conference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,897 Posts
Last season was a smack in the face to the C-USA. Western Kentucky, ODU and Middle Tennessee fought it out for first place. Marshall got hot and won the tournament. Marshall went to the dance while every other team was snubbed. In the A10 Davidson got hot and won the tournament yet they handed out two at-large bids. That is respect for the A10 and hopefully that respect continues to be earned by the conference.
MTSU had a very suspect record and losses they just could not have. Their RPI, for what it's [not] worth anymore, was inflated for "good losses". If we complain about the P5's getting credit for their "good losses" then we need to complain about mid-majors getting credit for them too - and they weren't given credit for them. Tough schedule, sure, but win something. I didn't shed a tear for MTSU being left out. C-USA is not terrible, but they aren't close to A10.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,655 Posts
MTSU had a very suspect record and losses they just could not have. Their RPI, for what it's [not] worth anymore, was inflated for "good losses". If we complain about the P5's getting credit for their "good losses" then we need to complain about mid-majors getting credit for them too - and they weren't given credit for them. Tough schedule, sure, but win something. I didn't shed a tear for MTSU being left out. C-USA is not terrible, but they aren't close to A10.

I disagree. I watched MTSU and there is no doubt they could have won a game or even made a Loyola type run. Sometimes it has to come down to can they play? They had 8 losses, 4 of them were "good losses". 3 of them were in Q3 and 4 (same as Bona) with 1 of those 3 in the conference tournament. They had to schedule a H-H with FGCU just to round out their schedule because nobody will play them. The bottom of CUSA was god awful but the top 4 were all very good.


Staying on the topic of CUSA, I was tweeting with Mark Adams about it and he said the primary goal was to get better seeding for their champion and give a 2-4 teams a better chance at an at large bid. Based on that, I think what they are doing is a great idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,897 Posts
I disagree. I watched MTSU and there is no doubt they could have won a game or even made a Loyola type run. Sometimes it has to come down to can they play? They had 8 losses, 4 of them were "good losses". 3 of them were in Q3 and 4 (same as Bona) with 1 of those 3 in the conference tournament. They had to schedule a H-H with FGCU just to round out their schedule because nobody will play them. The bottom of CUSA was god awful but the top 4 were all very good.
Their OOC was average and the only P5 wins they got were Ole Miss and Vandy - who both were terrible. The committee has shown in-conference "marquee" wins aren't going to matter if you aren't in a power conference. And I don't believe they beat a single tournament team. They lost to Marshall twice. I thought their RPI screamed paper tiger all season.

As far as not getting opponents, well, hard to feel sorry for them but we can empathize.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,530 Posts
At first glance there seem to be a lot of tie breaker possibilities with all that.
Also, teams 11 and 12 aren't even invited to the conference tournament.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
So the Sun Belt's plan to get more bids is to play more games against Sun Belt teams??? I'm all for the concept of a flexible schedule to try to boost your record, but do they really think that another win or against Georgia Southern suddenly gets Louisiana in the At Large conversation? If anything they should cut the league games down to get more opportunities for quality non-conference games. Thats the only way one of their league members will get on the radar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,092 Posts
So the Sun Belt's plan to get more bids is to play more games against Sun Belt teams??? I'm all for the concept of a flexible schedule to try to boost your record, but do they really think that another win or against Georgia Southern suddenly gets Louisiana in the At Large conversation? If anything they should cut the league games down to get more opportunities for quality non-conference games. Thats the only way one of their league members will get on the radar.
Right... the C-USA plan is better because their top three teams are going to get more Q1/Q2 wins over C-USA 4th and 5th teams. The third place team is probably not getting an at-large.

The Sun Belt plan is going to give 1st a better a resume, 2nd more quality losses and a win that isn't that impressive (over 3) and the third place team is basically toast.

Which is no different than before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Right... the C-USA plan is better because their top three teams are going to get more Q1/Q2 wins over C-USA 4th and 5th teams. The third place team is probably not getting an at-large.

The Sun Belt plan is going to give 1st a better a resume, 2nd more quality losses and a win that isn't that impressive (over 3) and the third place team is basically toast.

Which is no different than before.
I honestly feel that these one bid conferences would be much better served by sending their regular season conference champ to the tournament. You're only getting 1 bid anyway, so why not send your best team in the hopes that they win a game or two and earn some more money for the league? Plus, if that team makes a run, now you have a program with some cache that perhaps you can build upon. Loyola Chicago could be a preseason top 25 next year because of the run they had, which now raises the profile of the entire conference. I think in the long run this benefits conferences more than the money they make off a conference tourney and having the championship game on ESPN.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,655 Posts
I honestly feel that these one bid conferences would be much better served by sending their regular season conference champ to the tournament. You're only getting 1 bid anyway, so why not send your best team in the hopes that they win a game or two and earn some more money for the league? Plus, if that team makes a run, now you have a program with some cache that perhaps you can build upon. Loyola Chicago could be a preseason top 25 next year because of the run they had, which now raises the profile of the entire conference. I think in the long run this benefits conferences more than the money they make off a conference tourney and having the championship game on ESPN.

I agree with this but it will never happen. The leagues are definitely best served to send their best team but when you look at CUSA last year, they had 3-4 teams that were all within a couple games and any could have done what Marshall did. Loyola was definitely an outlier as they were legit good and I am glad they made it and made the most of their opportunity.



Going back to my thought, a good friend of mine used to work for the Patriot league and we recently discussed this very thing. I asked why hold a conference tournament and risk your best team not going? I also asked if they make any money off it and he said not much. He did say that the reason they have it is because of tv. Getting your title game on ESPN or CBS is worth it as they do make money off of that. So we will not see the lower conferences ditch their tournaments anytime soon.
 
61 - 80 of 96 Posts
Top