(05-24-2023 01:18 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 12:53 PM)MobileBama1 Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 12:27 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  The MAC-SBC Challenge should help too. I'm really excited for that.

Aside from one or two teams, the MAC is pretty bad (ranked 20th in RPI). Not sure how exciting or helpful most matchups will be for the Sun Belt but it's a step in the right direction.

It will be better than filling the schedule up with SWAC, MEAC, MAAC, and Big South teams.

For sure. We need to get an AAC-SBC challenge going.

Getting more home games will require investment from the Sun Belt schools to buy single home games without a return. Are the programs willing to spend more money ? Getting a mid-major opponent is going to cost around $40,000 to $45,000

I hope JMU does it, but I’m not confident because the Dukes are not getting their share of the conference revenue distribution for a 2nd straight year. The home OOC schedule last year was the worst in about 50 years, yet they haven’t built many return games for this year either. Lose Lose

(05-24-2023 12:53 PM)MobileBama1 Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 12:27 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  The MAC-SBC Challenge should help too. I'm really excited for that.

Aside from one or two teams, the MAC is pretty bad (ranked 20th in RPI). Not sure how exciting or helpful most matchups will be for the Sun Belt but it's a step in the right direction.

Actually, the MAC is a tough league, very balanced. Yes, a few teams are down right now, including CMU, but the top five programs (Akron, Kent State, Buffalo, Ohio and Toledo) are very competitive. In most years the MAC rep. is a solid #12 or #13 seed in the NCAA Tourney.

Yes, the MAC has been better in hoops and certainly can be again. This MAC-SBC Challenge is going to be a win-win for both conferences. I'm quite sure ESPN will do a good job of marketing its two properties.

(05-24-2023 01:31 PM)BlueBird10 Wrote:  You mean no more Carver Bible College?? Say it ain't so

Hold on, we aren't the only one playing them?

Scheduling less NET killers and scheduling more home games seems like it will be really tough to do both at the same time but I hope a good chunk of our teams can pull it off. Byington also mentioned a while back that the conference doesn't want teams playing pay games at top 20 P6's anymore and I gotta disagree with that idea just like Byington does.

(05-24-2023 03:17 PM)KickItToScotty Wrote:  Scheduling less NET killers and scheduling more home games seems like it will be really tough to do both at the same time but I hope a good chunk of our teams can pull it off. Byington also mentioned a while back that the conference doesn't want teams playing pay games at top 20 P6's anymore and I gotta disagree with that idea just like Byington does.

Is this including football or just basketball regarding the pay games?

(05-24-2023 02:15 PM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  Getting more home games will require investment from the Sun Belt schools to buy single home games without a return. Are the programs willing to spend more money? Getting a mid-major opponent is going to cost around $40,000 to $45,000

I believe Gill's expectation for the schools was to raise their basketball budgets? I thought I remember that being said not long after he became commish, or am I mistaken?

That would make sense if he is trying to get the SBC teams to schedule more home games. It would undoubtedly require more money to make that happen.

(05-24-2023 03:17 PM)KickItToScotty Wrote:  Scheduling less NET killers and scheduling more home games seems like it will be really tough to do both at the same time but I hope a good chunk of our teams can pull it off. Byington also mentioned a while back that the conference doesn't want teams playing pay games at top 20 P6's anymore and I gotta disagree with that idea just like Byington does.

What is a "P6"?

(05-24-2023 12:36 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 11:17 AM)TTT Wrote:  In addition to this, I wouldn't mind seeing the SBC do what CUSA used to do...the final couple weeks of the regular season, only the top quad of teams would play each other.

So like the top 5-6 teams would play each other, the middle 5-6 would play each other, and the bottom 5-6 would play each other. All of this done in order to preserve the NET for our top teams, so you don't have really bad NET killers later in the season.

Like most ideas out of the CUSA office, it just made things more difficult for everybody and never actually accomplished anything.

Until everybody gets better across the board, playing the the 6th team instead of the 10th team isn’t going to swing anybody’s NET far enough to make or break their at-large chances.

Here the thing though...if you're #1 or #1 team is on the bubble or close to the bubble conversation, playing a sandbag 250+ net team vs a 50-100 net team is HUGE.

(05-24-2023 04:00 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 03:17 PM)KickItToScotty Wrote:  Scheduling less NET killers and scheduling more home games seems like it will be really tough to do both at the same time but I hope a good chunk of our teams can pull it off. Byington also mentioned a while back that the conference doesn't want teams playing pay games at top 20 P6's anymore and I gotta disagree with that idea just like Byington does.

What is a "P6"?

I think he is probably talking about:

SEC
Big 10
ACC
Pac-12
Big 12
Big East

(05-24-2023 04:00 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  What is a "P6"?

Most everybody includes the Big East as a power conference in basketball.

They should call this the “Balado Rule”

https://twitter.com/low_madness/status/1...E0_xipAVQw

(05-24-2023 01:59 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 11:29 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 11:23 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  I have a feeling that Cliff Ellis is NOT a fan of this.

Mayble if the league would change the rules and count postseason CIT games as part of the scheduling requirements.

Ya'll just got 2 really good recruits. I'm expecting much improvement.

Lol. Cliff? That you?

Been hearing that forever.

(05-24-2023 02:15 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 12:53 PM)MobileBama1 Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 12:27 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  The MAC-SBC Challenge should help too. I'm really excited for that.

Aside from one or two teams, the MAC is pretty bad (ranked 20th in RPI). Not sure how exciting or helpful most matchups will be for the Sun Belt but it's a step in the right direction.

Actually, the MAC is a tough league, very balanced. Yes, a few teams are down right now, including CMU, but the top five programs (Akron, Kent State, Buffalo, Ohio and Toledo) are very competitive. In most years the MAC rep. is a solid #12 or #13 seed in the NCAA Tourney.

Yes, the MAC has been better in hoops and certainly can be again. This MAC-SBC Challenge is going to be a win-win for both conferences. I'm quite sure ESPN will do a good job of marketing its two properties.

Agree . . it will be good for both Conferences.

(05-24-2023 04:12 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 12:36 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 11:17 AM)TTT Wrote:  In addition to this, I wouldn't mind seeing the SBC do what CUSA used to do...the final couple weeks of the regular season, only the top quad of teams would play each other.

So like the top 5-6 teams would play each other, the middle 5-6 would play each other, and the bottom 5-6 would play each other. All of this done in order to preserve the NET for our top teams, so you don't have really bad NET killers later in the season.

Like most ideas out of the CUSA office, it just made things more difficult for everybody and never actually accomplished anything.

Until everybody gets better across the board, playing the the 6th team instead of the 10th team isn’t going to swing anybody’s NET far enough to make or break their at-large chances.

Here the thing though...if you're #1 or #1 team is on the bubble or close to the bubble conversation, playing a sandbag 250+ net team vs a 50-100 net team is HUGE.

Under a very particular set of circumstances, it could indeed help, but practically speaking, those circumstances aren’t going to come around nearly often enough to make the effort worthwhile. The best NET in the league this year was in the low 80s. We gotta fix that to even get a bubble team before worrying about who they play the last 2 weeks in-conference.

Plus, do you really want to go out of your way to make a bubble team play a tougher game? As other posters have alluded to, NET’s not RPI. You don’t get credit for losing to a good team. It’s all about who you beat, who they beat, and who those teams in turn beat. Sure, you get a little more credit for beating #90 vs. beating #250, but a loss to anybody could end your chances entirely.

The real solution here is to not have 200+ NET teams in the conference at all, which is at what the new directives are aimed.

Didn't see the full article posted here yet. Has some additional details

https://www.dnronline.com/sun_belt_extra...a97e2.html

(05-24-2023 11:23 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  I have a feeling that Cliff Ellis is NOT a fan of this.

Cliff will be testing how serious these guys are from the jump LOL

(05-24-2023 10:13 PM)TealNation Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 11:23 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  I have a feeling that Cliff Ellis is NOT a fan of this.

Cliff will be testing how serious these guys are from the jump LOL

Bob will no doubt be doing the same.

Matt Brown’s thoughts…

https://twitter.com/mattbrownep/status/1...E0_xipAVQw