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

http://www.joxfm.com/podcasts/

Talks about league possibly going to 20 conference games and B-Ham Jam.

You can scroll down to listen to interviews with Kermit Davis, Donnie Marsh, (Love that guy), and Knight Eady abut the B-ham Jam.

Oh and Bill Clark!

(12-14-2017 04:12 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  http://www.joxfm.com/podcasts/

Talks about league possibly going to 20 conference games and B-Ham Jam.

The part about splitting the league in half for the latter part of the conference schedule and having the top teams play each other is interesting. I wonder how that would affect conference tournament seeding? Does the better teams beating up on each other result in a potentially lower CUSA tournament seed thus making the path to the auto-bid more difficult?

Also mentioned being part of pre-season tourney next year:

Advocate Invitational at Disney in Orlando during Thanksgiving. Field includes LSU, FSU, Oklahoma State, Villanova, Memphis, College of Charleston, and another unnamed team...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloggin...anksgiving

20 conference games severely weakens our ability to manipulate our schedule strength and RPI. Not that we are doing that well at it anyway. But being forced to watch more conference games is not good for the fan.

(12-14-2017 05:12 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  20 conference games severely weakens our ability to manipulate our schedule strength and RPI. Not that we are doing that well at it anyway. But being forced to watch more conference games is not good for the fan.

The conference extra games combined with the top half of the conference playing each other again will be better than leaving it to our coaches to schedule teams with a 300+ RPI.

(12-14-2017 05:19 PM)UABfan1 Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:12 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  20 conference games severely weakens our ability to manipulate our schedule strength and RPI. Not that we are doing that well at it anyway. But being forced to watch more conference games is not good for the fan.

The conference extra games combined with the top half of the conference playing each other again will be better than leaving it to our coaches to schedule teams with a 300+ RPI.

What about the conference teams with 300+ RPI that we will have to play twice. Or the multiple 200+ teams that we will be dipping into twice

20 games is a huge mistake.

The discussion is having the higher RPI teams play each other more. The top teams should not have to play the pond scum twice.

My only question for Rob is does he decide to only bring back three guys he brought to UAB as an assistant next year?

(12-14-2017 05:34 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  The discussion is having the higher RPI teams play each other more. The top teams should not have to play the pond scum twice.

The top half of CUSA is a little better as a whole this year. We haven’t done our part. If we can get half the conference inside the top 150 at least this is a good plan.

Oh come on. That's not the only question you have for him. You question every move he makes.

(12-14-2017 04:31 PM)WesternBlazer Wrote:  Also mentioned being part of pre-season tourney next year:

Advocate Invitational at Disney in Orlando during Thanksgiving. Field includes LSU, FSU, Oklahoma State, Villanova, Memphis, College of Charleston, and another unnamed team...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloggin...anksgiving

That unnamed team is the Manhattan Jaspers

(12-14-2017 07:40 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Oh come on. That's not the only question you have for him. You question every move he makes.

OK you got me lol



Why we didnt form a cohesive second unit led by Norton and Sullivan.

I’d rather play 20 league games as opposed to playing exhibition games as regular season games. Our current scheduling philosophy is woeful.

Id rather play so and eliminate the two non DI games.. The two extra games should match the higher RPI projected RPI teams together on down the list to the two worst teams playing.

(12-15-2017 05:43 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Id rather play so and eliminate the two non DI games.. The two extra games should match the higher RPI projected RPI teams together on down the list to the two worst teams playing.

They 2 ideas are not mutually exclusive. They could match up the top teams more without adding conference games.

But how will it affect the cusa tournament seedings is the question.
It seems like it would unfairly benefit the best of the worst while harming the worst of the best. Unless they could somehow use RPI to make adjustments for seeding purposes.

Early season each team plays every other team once: 13 games per team
Late season: top 8 teams play other top eight teams: 7 games per team(20 total)
Late season: bottom 8 teams play other bottom eight teams: 7 games per team(20 total)

Also allows fringe bottom eight teams opportunity to pad their record and improve their conference tourney seeding. You could even have a fringe bottom feeder get hot(like win all 7 games) and sneak in to a higher conference tourney seeding. That would screw thing whole thing up...

(12-15-2017 10:32 AM)WesternBlazer Wrote:  Early season each team plays every other team once: 13 games per team
Late season: top 8 teams play other top eight teams 7 games per team(20 total)
Late season: bottom 8 teams play other bottom eight teams 7 games per team(20 total)

Also provides fringe bottom eight teams to pad their record and improve their conference tourney seeding. You could even have a fringe bottom feeder get hot(like win all 7 games) and sneak in to a higher conference tourney seeding. That would screw thing whole thing up...

It would be difficult to make sure each team got 10 home games and not 11 or 9. Because home games are huge and easier to win than road games.
But something like this is needed really for the top 4 teams to have a chance to separate themselves, increase their RPI and possibly get a 2nd NCAA bid. But not if coaches like Rob continue to schedule so many bottom feeder buy games.

It might hurt MTSU though because they schedule like we should.

Here is Mark Adams' plan for C-USA scheduling: http://www.dailypress.com/sports/dp-spt-...story.html

He's done the math, it makes sense. We'll see if we go with it.

My point was kind of what Mark adams is suggesting

(12-15-2017 12:01 PM)UABslant Wrote:  Here is Mark Adams' plan for C-USA scheduling: http://www.dailypress.com/sports/dp-spt-...story.html

He's done the math, it makes sense. We'll see if we go with it.

Another bad idea that will not accomplish what they want. You want your best teams in the top 4 seeds in the tournament. By the end of the regular season, there are usually not many games separating teams. If the top teams are hastily matched up against each other in February, someone has to lose. Most likely, everyone picks up a couple of losses and drops in the standings. Then some team, ranked 6th or 7th, and not categorized as a "top team" vaults into a top 4 seed by playing weaker opponents in February.