(05-26-2016 12:37 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  If a school wants to improve in basketball it will not come from a directive from the conference.

And if a school doesn't want to improve in basketball and violates whatever standards are established by the conference for a set number of years in a row, at that point there should be no place for that school in Conference USA.

FRISCODAWG IS CORRECT !!!!!!!!


Time for dead weight to shape up or ship out!!

(05-29-2016 06:24 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:37 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  If a school wants to improve in basketball it will not come from a directive from the conference.

And if a school doesn't want to improve in basketball and violates whatever standards are established by the conference for a set number of years in a row, at that point there should be no place for that school in Conference USA.

My sentiments exactly!

(05-29-2016 06:24 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:37 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  If a school wants to improve in basketball it will not come from a directive from the conference.

And if a school doesn't want to improve in basketball and violates whatever standards are established by the conference for a set number of years in a row, at that point there should be no place for that school in Conference USA.

One set of rules will never fit every school in a conference

those of you that want set rules on scheduling don't have a freaking clue what that will actually do for the bottom of this conference. It's one of two thing...sounds great so lets throw it out there. Or you don't have a freaking clue on how the RPI actually works.

Forcing a school to schedule way above their talent level will do one thing...

it will make sure those bottom 5 or 6 schools enter conference play with hardly any wins. A school should schedule OOC to their talent level for that coming year, if possible. And that is to get the most wins you can get no matter who against.

Another thing the RPI is fluid and just because a school had a RPI in the 150s this season doesn't mean it won't be 250+ next year. So that is a impossible rule..that some of you want.

If the bottom 5 schools in this conference scheduled 7 out of 10 games verses the worse RPI teams you find...and they win. It will help this conference way more than if those same schools scheduled top 150 teams and loss.

I'm sure you and TOPSTRAIGHT have a few CUSA schools you want to kick out. You must have if you think they aren't up to CUSA standards. So lets see a list of those schools? Don't be scared...if you want 'standards' name the schools that's not up to your standards?

what are your standards? Goes for TOPSTRAIGHTalso

MAN, you are a great fan of WKU--but you would argue with a shrub if it got in your way.

I did not propose the specifics you set up and knocked down.I am simply saying that some type of guidelines (agreed on by a majority) need to be passed.C-USA needs to try to improve.

AND YES,before you point it out--I am NOW guilty of arguing with a shrub arguer.Sorry about that.

Agree topstraight.

(05-29-2016 08:11 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  MAN, you are a great fan of WKU--but you would argue with a shrub if it got in your way.

I did not propose the specifics you set up and knocked down.I am simply saying that some type of guidelines (agreed on by a majority) need to be passed.C-USA needs to try to improve.

AND YES,before you point it out--I am NOW guilty of arguing with a shrub arguer.Sorry about that.

(05-29-2016 07:44 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-29-2016 06:24 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 12:37 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  If a school wants to improve in basketball it will not come from a directive from the conference.

And if a school doesn't want to improve in basketball and violates whatever standards are established by the conference for a set number of years in a row, at that point there should be no place for that school in Conference USA.

One set of rules will never fit every school in a conference

those of you that want set rules on scheduling don't have a freaking clue what that will actually do for the bottom of this conference. It's one of two thing...sounds great so lets throw it out there. Or you don't have a freaking clue on how the RPI actually works.

Forcing a school to schedule way above their talent level will do one thing...

it will make sure those bottom 5 or 6 schools enter conference play with hardly any wins. A school should schedule OOC to their talent level for that coming year, if possible. And that is to get the most wins you can get no matter who against.

Another thing the RPI is fluid and just because a school had a RPI in the 150s this season doesn't mean it won't be 250+ next year. So that is a impossible rule..that some of you want.

If the bottom 5 schools in this conference scheduled 7 out of 10 games verses the worse RPI teams you find...and they win. It will help this conference way more than if those same schools scheduled top 150 teams and loss.

I'm sure you and TOPSTRAIGHT have a few CUSA schools you want to kick out. You must have if you think they aren't up to CUSA standards. So lets see a list of those schools? Don't be scared...if you want 'standards' name the schools that's not up to your standards?

what are your standards? Goes for TOPSTRAIGHTalso

Any standards set need to have different levels. As long as there is tangible improvement shown or at least a documented attempt is made to improve, the standards would not be violated.

Take OOC scheduling for example. My recommendation would be to schedule teams from a better range of conferences than were scheduled the previous season. And all teams can do is look at the last season's conference rankings when the contract is signed (for multi-year home-and-home contracts).

One possible goal would be for every team to have the previous year's average conference ranking of its upcoming OOC opponents to be at or better than 15 and certainly no worse than 20. Six of Tech's 11 Division I OOC games were against teams from conferences that were ranked 27-32 (bottom six) in 2015-2016. The conferences of those six teams were ranked 28-32 (bottom five) in 2014-2015, so it was totally predictable that Tech's OOC conference RPI average would not be good (21.5) last season with that many low conference RPI games.

More than one non-Division I game should not be scheduled in a season without conference office approval. Tech had two last year. And I wouldn't be opposed to allowing a non-Division I game only for teams that play in an exempt multi-team event to help pad out a home schedule.

The important thing to strengthen the conference RPI is Division 1 wins.



There is a strong correlation between OOC Winning % Rank and RPI Rank, not so much with OOC SOS. If every team gives themselves 8 cupcakes at home, enter conference play 10-3 we'll find that while our Conference RPI will be high, none of the teams will get at-large consideration.

In order to strike balance between depth and individual team potential different teams need different standards. The easiest way to do this is to divide C-USA into tiers.

Top 4: Goal is to play in a tournament with as many P5 teams as possible, seek out H/Hs or money games on the road, no more than three home guarantee games, ZERO non-D1 games.

Middle 4: Can't pretty much do whatever they want, need at least half of their D1 games to be at home. No more than 1 non-D1 game, no exceptions.

Bottom 6: Need more than half their schedule to be against teams from the lowest third of conferences, and two thirds of those to be at home. No more than 3 road guarantee games. No more than 1 Non-D1 game, unless it's part of exempt event. Seek inclusion in early season tournaments with non P5 teams

The goal being to finish with a record better than .500 in November and December, that will pretty much lock up a spot as a top 15 conference. This also allows for the favorites to make their claim for an at-large and their RPI won't fall 15 places with a home win against the 14th place team.

You don't even need a .500+ non-conference record to get an at-large (see Temple, 2008).

The tiers would be determined by a coaches vote at the conference tournament the year before.

Other measures that could help build resumes would be to use these tiers to determine conference schedules. But that usually leads to cannibalization and weaker teams near the top of the standings. Also, the inclusion of consolation rounds would allow teams to build resumes during championship week. Let's say, teams that play in the consolation play until they lose two games.

UAB v. Louisiana Tech and Charlotte v. UTEP would have been added to the Friday schedule, and those two winners would have been the opening act for the CUSA championship. This would also help keep attendance up should the host team lose their first game.

(06-01-2016 03:42 PM)itsbraille49 Wrote:  Bottom 6: Need more than half their schedule to be against teams from the lowest third of conferences, and two thirds of those to be at home. No more than 3 road guarantee games. No more than 1 Non-D1 game, unless it's part of exempt event. Seek inclusion in early season tournaments with non P5 teams

Better to lose on the road (0.6 losses) than at home (1.4 losses). Part of why our conference sucked is because our bottom teams lost more than half of their home games. You can literally lose 2 road games and it doesn't hurt you as much as losing 1 home game. A directive to schedule more ****** home games is fine but it doesn't solve the problem unless you win them.

But don't mind the math.

(06-01-2016 03:49 PM)MTowho Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 03:42 PM)itsbraille49 Wrote:  Bottom 6: Need more than half their schedule to be against teams from the lowest third of conferences, and two thirds of those to be at home. No more than 3 road guarantee games. No more than 1 Non-D1 game, unless it's part of exempt event. Seek inclusion in early season tournaments with non P5 teams

Better to lose on the road (0.6 losses) than at home (1.4 losses). Part of why our conference sucked is because our bottom teams lost more than half of their home games. You can literally lose 2 road games and it doesn't hurt you as much as losing 1 home game. A directive to schedule more ****** home games is fine but it doesn't solve the problem unless you win them.

But don't mind the math.

Yes, the winnability of the games is crucial. But as far as the conference's rank goes, the weighting of the game doesn't count as much as it should. Let's say Western Kentucky goes 6-1 at home in non-conf, 1-2 on the road and 1-2 on a neutral court. The weighted contributing to Rice's RPI would be 6-4.6 (.566). But there are also contributing to the SOS of other C-USA teams at least 19 times, and that contribution would be 8-5 (.615). If all fourteen teams have a similar profile, the SOS of every team would snowball rather quickly.

SEC has announced several reforms including limiting playing teams below 175 rpi this year(3?) and 150 rpi the year after. Their formula is designed so that their OOC RPI average is in the 150-175 range or lower.These are scheduling MANDATES.All this in an attempt to raise RPI. I probably have some of this details wrong since there has been no official release.

Three conclusions to this news :

1. C-USA needs to act promptly to improve RPI

2.This news may give more impetus and ideas for immediate ACTION.

3. These changes by the SEC may be to our advantage if we act strategically.

a.)This may loosen up the scheduling to a point.A few games may free up where our teams will get more offers.Chances at H-H,neutral sites or the less preferred 2 for 1 or money games will be a little more available.These are also GOOD RPI games for most of us and better attended events if at home.SEC schools will be required to play some games like this so we have more leverage to hold out for a better deal-if we hold fast and stay united.The days of South Carolina (and others) loading up on home dates against MEAC,SWAC,A-SUN type schools will still happen--just in smaller amounts.

b.) A secondary effect could help schools near the bottom of C-USA by simple supply and demand.Schools in the lower portion of our conference need HOME WINS.Some of these lower conferences will now be looking for games anywhere.They will also be willing to accept smaller money guarantees since they will have fewer alternatives.

C-USA teams with RPI's of 175 or less will be under increased demand--hopefully we can take FULL advantage of these opportunities.If you look at last year's RPI it is easy to see there are NOT that many teams in the southeast under 175.

(05-27-2016 06:00 PM)GoBigGold Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:46 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Temple got booted once from a conference for not performing. Why not do the same in CUSA?

That's the answer. Two birds with one stone. The expansion to 14 has been a disaster.

USM's football team going 4-32 in a three year period and their basketball program being on probation certainly hasn't helped the conference.

(06-01-2016 10:01 PM)demiveeman Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 06:00 PM)GoBigGold Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:46 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Temple got booted once from a conference for not performing. Why not do the same in CUSA?

That's the answer. Two birds with one stone. The expansion to 14 has been a disaster.

USM's football team going 4-32 in a three year period and their basketball program being on probation certainly hasn't helped the conference.

Neither has your instability in financially supporting a football program.

The conference tournament is fine. All schools hosted by a city.

(05-29-2016 08:11 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  MAN, you are a great fan of WKU--but you would argue with a shrub if it got in your way.

I did not propose the specifics you set up and knocked down.I am simply saying that some type of guidelines (agreed on by a majority) need to be passed.C-USA needs to try to improve.

AND YES,before you point it out--I am NOW guilty of arguing with a shrub arguer.Sorry about that.

But you keep harping on SCHEDULING mandates that the conference should come up with. There is a NO ONE FIT ALL mandate the conference can do unless it leads to more OOC losses.

The only thing that;s going to help this conference is OOC WINS!

The RPI is to fluid from year to year to use it as a mandate and it should never be used that way.

So I ask you again...what plan would you like to see put in place?

Honestly shouldn't be a hard question for someone that started this topic and the first line in is...

We need: Scheduling mandates

You're wrong I'm not arguing just to arguing with you I asked you a question because this is like the 10th time (just a guess) you brought this topic on scheduling up. If you didn't want someone to ask you this question...why start a topic on it? A message board is for debating. Right?

Before a conference runs they need to walk and OOC wins is the only thing that will do that. I don't care if they are wins over the bottom 300 RPI teams. If a conference has schools down there...that's who they need to be playing.

50% of your RPI is AVERAGE winning % of the teams you play. And 65% of the games the two teams that make it to the conference finals will be conference games.

a conference as a whole will be .500 at the end of conference play but we don't play a round robin so it will vary some what. OOC WINS MATTERS

A team should schedule to the talent level they expect to have. With the top 5 or so teams scheduling enough good OOC games for a at large bid

(edit) just saw your post on the SEC....

The sec will play most of these games AT HOME without a return and the ones they don't will be mostly against other "P5" schools. We are talking about a conference that wants to move up to the top 3 or 4 not one fighting to get two teams in the NCAA tourney. RPI mandates for CUSA will only lead to schools playing more road games against teams they have little chance of winning.

See post #32 this thread.

(06-02-2016 12:34 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  See post #32 this thread.

I did then edited the post above this one.

But I left off one point...while we need more wins at home. What this conference really needs is ROAD wins.

a home win counts as .6
a road win counts as 1.4

but on the other side a home loss counts as 1.4....so we just need more wins period.

(05-28-2016 12:23 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:46 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Temple got booted once from a conference for not performing. Why not do the same in CUSA?

We got booted for not investing. Performance was part of it, but not the main part.

If it makes you feel better.

(06-01-2016 10:54 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 10:01 PM)demiveeman Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 06:00 PM)GoBigGold Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:46 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Temple got booted once from a conference for not performing. Why not do the same in CUSA?

That's the answer. Two birds with one stone. The expansion to 14 has been a disaster.

USM's football team going 4-32 in a three year period and their basketball program being on probation certainly hasn't helped the conference.

Neither has your instability in financially supporting a football program.

It certainly helped USM football get to the C-USA Championship last season.