Scheduling up

[Shocker Rocker]

I know this topic has been discussed quite a bit recently, but it seems that Elgin will have some serious ammo to use for reimplementing OOC scheduling requirements if MSU doesn't get into the NCAA. If your outright regular-season conference champ gets to the tourney finals and still doesn't get in, there's a problem that seriously needs to be addressed.

Assuming that MSU is NIT bound, what does everyone think the actual prospects are of getting some sort of scheduling mandate from the top in the near future? Are there so many pansy schedulers out there who are afraid of losing their jobs (i.e Jankovich) or are in "rebuilding" mode (Jankovich again) that it still won't happen?

[SubGod22]

Its not going to happen. Elgin doesn't have the support of the ADs to do such a thing at this point. It's a shame really, because ever since the mandate was terminated, the Valley has moved farther and farther down the ladder. We need to have 5 or so teams in the RPI 100 and on a consistent basis to have more room for slip ups and getting multiple teams in. Scheduling up and winning games is the only way to do that.

Schedule "better" cupcakes. Stop getting so many 300+. Look for 200-250 types.

Schedule some home and homes with quality 150 type teams even if they don't have a "sexy" name.

Bite the bullet and go on the road from time to time against some BcS teams. Good ones.

I've listed elsewhere a list of schools who are fairly consistent in being in the 50 to 150 range. Some better than that. Certainly Valley teams could arrange some deals with a few of those to help everyone out.

[RoyalShock]

The previous standard was having a non-conf SOS of 150 or better. Here are this year's OOC SOS among MVC teams:

87 - WSU
120 - UE
148 - UNI
151 - ISU-Blue
162 - MSU
222 - SIU
235 - CU
271 - BU
278 - DU
331 - ISU-Red

That is and average of 200.5 and positively abysmal.

I think if Elgin were to institute a minimum 200 OOC SOS requirement it would get most of the teams (names CU, BU, DU and ISU - at least SIU was close) to improve and maybe get the average up to around 150 - which happens to be the average of the CAA, the 10th rated conference. The CAA had three teams above the 200 mark (217, 240 and 333).

10th should be the lowest acceptable conference RPI rating, IMO.

[SubGod22]

The previous standard was having a non-conf SOS of 150 or better. Here are this year's OOC SOS among MVC teams:

87 - WSU
120 - UE
148 - UNI
151 - ISU-Blue
162 - MSU
222 - SIU
235 - CU
271 - BU
278 - DU
331 - ISU-Red

That is and average of 200.5 and positively abysmal.

I think if Elgin were to institute a minimum 200 OOC SOS requirement it would get most of the teams (names CU, BU, DU and ISU - at least SIU was close) to improve and maybe get the average up to around 150 - which happens to be the average of the CAA, the 10th rated conference. The CAA had three teams above the 200 mark (217, 240 and 333).

10th should be the lowest acceptable conference RPI rating, IMO.

Those numbers are worse than I thought. Totally unacceptable as a conference. I could accept a 200 rule if that's the best that could be done. Maybe 150 is too much pressure for some teams, especially the ones that are rebuilding or whatever. But over 200 is brutal.

[shox1989]

The previous standard was having a non-conf SOS of 150 or better. Here are this year's OOC SOS among MVC teams:

87 - WSU
120 - UE
148 - UNI
151 - ISU-Blue
162 - MSU
222 - SIU
235 - CU
271 - BU
278 - DU
331 - ISU-Red

That is and average of 200.5 and positively abysmal.

I think if Elgin were to institute a minimum 200 OOC SOS requirement it would get most of the teams (names CU, BU, DU and ISU - at least SIU was close) to improve and maybe get the average up to around 150 - which happens to be the average of the CAA, the 10th rated conference. The CAA had three teams above the 200 mark (217, 240 and 333).

10th should be the lowest acceptable conference RPI rating, IMO.

I like the idea of a 200 rule. It seems like a reasonable compromise.

[jdmee]

Maybe even have a three year average minimum SOS. This will give the teams a break if you schedule but it doesn't pan out or a 1 year break for a rebuilding year.

[Ta town]

We all know scheduling up is impossible. I've been told several times that a mid major CAN NOT schedule anybody descent without bracket busters. Sorry

[tropicalshox]

I think Elgin as already done what he is going to do about this. He's encouraged schools to schedule up by getting into exempt tournaments. Don't expect anything else to happen.

[another shocker]

The previous standard was having a non-conf SOS of 150 or better. Here are this year's OOC SOS among MVC teams:

87 - WSU
120 - UE
148 - UNI
151 - ISU-Blue
162 - MSU
222 - SIU
235 - CU
271 - BU
278 - DU
331 - ISU-Red

That is and average of 200.5 and positively abysmal.

.

That is ugly. I don't expect it to change much anytime soon either.

[ShockTalk]

Since money is usually the driving force for a school to do something or not, the reluctance of school ADs and Presidents not wanting to agree with an SOS/RPI minimum mandate is somewhat puzzling. They are apparently quite happy to take their share of of the pot for the automatic qualifier, but feel it would cost more than monies from potential multiple bids could bring in. Not worth the risk.

If this is the case, I would propose that more creative ways of dividing the pot be considered. Example: Everyone shares in the NCAA automatic bid monies, just as before. However, for any school who did not meet the SOS/RPI mandate, unless they got an at-large bid, a negative sliding scale would be in place to reduce those schools' take depending on how far off they were. This sliding scale would also be in effect for any other monies, normally divided up, that are collected from other post-season tournaments as well, regardless of whether they participated in the tourney or not. If they did participate in another tourney, but didn't meet the mandate, they would fall under an improved scale form those that did neither.

This way, those schools that felt the risk was too great to spend the money would still get their monies from the auto NCAA bid, however, those schools who did take the risk, would receive monies produced from all other NCAA at-large and other post-season tourneys that was left on the table from the sliding scale imposed on those schools who were unwilling to meet the mandate.

[RoyalShock]

We all know scheduling up is impossible. I've been told several times that a mid major CAN NOT schedule anybody descent without bracket busters. Sorry

I think what you've actually been told is that it's virtually impossible when you expect home-and-homes with power-conference teams. It can be done easily if you submit to a buy game or go for an unbalanced schedule like a 2-for-1 or 3-for-2.

[Shox21]

We all know scheduling up is impossible. I've been told several times that a mid major CAN NOT schedule anybody descent without bracket busters. Sorry

I think what you've actually been told is that it's virtually impossible when you expect home-and-homes with power-conference teams. It can be done easily if you submit to a buy game or go for an unbalanced schedule like a 2-for-1 or 3-for-2.

I've said it before -- I would not mind giving up several of the boring cupcake home games we endure at the beginning of each season. I would like to see the Shocks go on the road and take the Gonzaga path with "We'll play anyone, anytime, anywhere" attitude. Five years down the road that will start to pay off.

[GoShockers89]

I recall at the start of the year how taboo it was to critique scheduling. It was aggressively stated by most that such criticism was a de facto questioning of the staff's capabilities in that area, and any shortcomings were unequivocally not the fault of HCGM or assistants.

Basically, we have no control whatsoever to improve our schedule. If it were possible, we would have done it, because there is no way that we achieved anything less than the perfect schedule available under the circumstances. This is how the logic went.

[WuDrWu]

We all know scheduling up is impossible. I've been told several times that a mid major CAN NOT schedule anybody descent without bracket busters. Sorry

I think what you've actually been told is that it's virtually impossible when you expect home-and-homes with power-conference teams. It can be done easily if you submit to a buy game or go for an unbalanced schedule like a 2-for-1 or 3-for-2.

I've said it before -- I would not mind giving up several of the boring cupcake home games we endure at the beginning of each season. I would like to see the Shocks go on the road and take the Gonzaga path with "We'll play anyone, anytime, anywhere" attitude. Five years down the road that will start to pay off.

Imagine where we would be if we would have started that 5 years ago....



You don't have to imagine, I'll tell you. Wondering what our ****ing seed would be in the NCAA and not the flipping NIT.

[capnkirk]

I have been content with WSU staying in the MVC until now. But if this is the mind set of the mvc commissioner & schools to let the conference slide into basketball obscurity, then we need to abandon ship now and find a new conference(unless the WSU administration is also content with a 1 bid league).

If WSU beats UConn, then plays Michigan state(I will even say lose to MSU) then loses to Washington, that would have probably been enough of an rpi boost from WSU to propel Missouri St into the ncaa tourney with two top 50 wins on their resume.

And just think if this weak crappy conference we call the mvc would have laid off the over 300 rpi teams.......