2020-21 Men’s Basketball Schedule & Opponents

With the season abruptly over now begins the time to start looking at next year’s schedule (if there will be a next season).

12/16: @ Valparaiso

Unconfirmed Status:
12/22: @ George Washington
DATE TBD: @ Davidson

Tentative 2020-21 Schedule
11/25: @ Tennessee
11/26: vc. VCU (Knoxville, TN)
1/8: @ Marshall
1/9: @ Marshall
1/15: UAB
1/16: UAB
1/22: @ Florida Atlantic
1/23: @ Florida Atlantic
1/29: FIU
1/30: FIU
2/5: @ Middle Tennessee
2/6: @ Middle Tennessee
2/13: @ Old Dominion
2/19: UTSA
2/20: UTSA
2/26: @ UTEP
2/27: @ UTEP

As a participant of an MTE under the new rules we may now have a total of 27 games, regardless of whether or not the MTE is 3 or 4 games.

With C-USA sticking to an 18-Game schedule that allows us a maximum of 9 non-conference games, five of which have been confirmed with dates, and one (Davidson) confirmed without a date. That leaves Charlotte with three openings to fill, two of which will likely be filled by UNC Wilmington and George Washington, leaving us with one opponent to find if we wish. We could also leave the opening and hedge on a regional foe needing an opponent on short notice.

I think this would normally be the year we could travel abroad during the summer for games but that obviously will not happen this year due to the virus situation.

Playing the Hornets Nest game at the Spectrum Center is a head scratcher but I will be there.

Hopefully the league will ditch the Bonus Play fiasco and implement new guidelines for OOC scheduling in order to improve what so far have been pathetic NET rankings. Moving to a 20 game conference schedule will only make sense if the non-con is strong.

clt expects travel to be normal by late may

You keep saying this in different threads. What is so bad about the Bonus Play?

Because it didn’t work - except for the consultant who pocketed $50,000 for the idea. Not surprised the Sun Belt quietly abandoned the plan after announcing in 2018 they would follow suit with a variation of pod play this season. And after hearing the stories about scheduling travel etc for the Bonus Play away games on such short notice, I understand why the league coaches don’t like it either.

Bonus Play was sold as additional NCAA tournament entrants and improved seeding. Didn’t happen last season and wouldn’t have this year either.

1 Like

The fact that it hasn’t resulted in additional real or hypothetical bids is because the conference got worse. In 2018 C-USA had two teams (Middle Tennessee and Western Kentucky) snubbed as at-large candidates. No matter what measures the conference took two years ago they would all look like failures today because the top of the conference got worse. You can only polish a turd so much. You seem to have had a vendetta against flex-scheduling unfounded by any statistical evidence.

This season Bonus Play allowed us to finish our season going 2-2 against the top teams in our conference, including a win against the Conference Champions. That sure beats playing games that would probably have been balanced across the pods. Had the C-USA tournament continued, I have no doubt that Sanchez would have reminded our team that we can beat anyone in this conference, because we just did. I like Bonus Play.

P.S.: Teams in Pod 3 should like Bonus Play because it gives them a shot to finish strong against teams at their level. It sucks to be bad (we sure know), but wins are wins. Pod 2 probably hates Bonus Play because they are effectively barred for a late season miracle run towards the top. Pod 1 gets games their fans should care about. I don’t like the Wednesday and Sunday games though, we need to keep them on Thursday and Saturday.

Bonus Play was worth a shot (and MT should have made the tournament the year that prompted this) but the NET ranking of Pod 1 teams did not improve this year. No point in continuing if that’s the case.

I kind of liked it though I have to admit.

It was an experiment. So far it’s been a failure in that it hasn’t achieved its stated goal.

Forget the original goal. Just from this forum, the majority of fans of those teams that matter (pod 1) find it more exciting . Call it an unexpected outcome, but a “bonus” none the less.

Playing 3/4 of the season, then letting the conference leaders battle it out round robin style for the conf tourney’s best seeds is enough excitement to make it worth it.

And still, IF the conf gets better, it’s a way for a team to squeeze out some quality wins and improve their NET. Even if the best team loses to the second best team, it is still better for NET than winning against the worst team.

It’s exciting, which can be the main reason to keep it going, and if it ever helps a team on the bubble get in the dance, well then it will have always been worth it.

Tell me you didn’t find it more exciting this season and that’s fine, but calling it a failed experiment based on the original goal and this should be canned is a bit narrow sighted.

Calling Bonus Play a failure is like saying the new soft toilet paper you bought is a failure because you’ve been constipated for 2 weeks.

1 Like

I didn’t like it because it screwed up the viewing schedule. The games were on ESPN + and then got pushed to Facebook and CUSATV. The Facebook stuff was good but I am not paying $7 for one game given the quality of that platform.

clt says no one has toilet paper

Ya’ll are reading more into what I said than is there.
The stated goal, as I understand it, was to have a second team participate in the NCAA tournament. This has not happened and would not have happened this season. Thus the experiment SO FAR has not succeeded in its goal.
This is an empirical fact. The words “thus should be canned” did not appear in my original post.
That has no necessary relationship to fan enjoyment or toilet paper usage, although the TP simile was amazing.

Wife bought some yesterday, but said there was not much. On the good side expect some good deals on TP soon as most will be stocked with no one left to buy.

How the hell does it ever work? For it to help another team to get in, you’d really need multiple teams worthy of an at large. Most likely you might end up losing some bids because they beat each other up.

Add to that it makes those last two home games worse in attendance because of the scheduling confusion and also hard to get in front of eyes from a tv/streaming perspective.

I see no reason to continue this. It will never work in this league. You need multiple possible at large teams to have a shot and then it’s a gamble still.

Yeah if the pod number is 4 then you need 4 at large teams not to lose ground in the net ranking. Do they move to a 2 pod system and have a best out of 5 playoff series style pod?

My problem with this gimmick is it’s set up to fail from the outset. By the time C-USA play begins and, more specifically, 14 games into league competition, the respective NET rankings of teams are pretty much static and beyond the threshold of serious at-large consideration.

NET rankings thru first 14 C-USA games:
90 North Texas
93 LA Tech
117 WKU
157 ODU
172 FIU
179 Marshall
192 UTSA
201 UTEP
204 FAU
209 UAB
214 Rice
257 Southern Miss
303 Middle Tennessee

Final NET rankings (thru 3-11-20):
87 LA Tech
95 North Texas
123 WKU
170 FIU
172 Marshall
173 ODU
193 FAU
195 UTEP
204 UTSA
205 UAB
214 Rice
290 Southern Miss
296 Middle Tennessee

I’m not against more games vs the league’s best but those second contests with LA Tech and WKU were, like the first meetings, in Ruston and Bowling Green, not Halton.

And to learn that the team couldn’t travel together as a whole for the Bonus Play game vs WKU is crazy. Since they were unable to fly charter on that trip, had to take two different flights to Nashville and then bussed the reminder of the journey to Bowling Green.

What I want to see from the folks in Dallas is a recognition that OOC scheduling needs to be seriously upgraded in order improve NET rankings, not a de facto mini-tournament just before the actual conference championship.

clt is hearing stores will not allow returns of tp. Haha to the people who purchased it for profit motives.