I have read you guys talking about our home schedule next year is going to be great…but I don’t get it. Let me know if I’m wrong but the only non-conf. game we have that is decent will be Alabama. Am I missing someone?
I agree, did someone think that it was strong, that it’s ever been strong?
It’s not because we don’t try. Now print this and put it up where you can see it and won’t have to keep wondering about this:
SCHOOLS/COACHES ARE CHICKENSH** TO PLAY US IN HALTON AND ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO DO SO.
Spread the word. It’s not a secret, folks.
This year’s schedule was strong before everyone started backing out from playing us.
I wouldn’t call it weak, just winable, Rutgers won’t be a pushover.
Based on LAST YEAR’S results which may or may not hold somewhat true for the 2004-05 season…
Alabama - 17-12, 26 RPI, T4th in Southeastern Conference
Georgia State – 18-9, 113 RPI, 4th in Atlantic Sun Conference
Long Beach State – 5-21, 300 RPI, 10th in Big West Conference
Rutgers – 15-12, 56 RPI, 8th in Big East Conference
UNC Asheville – 7-20, 272 RPI, 7th in Big South Conference
Cincinnati – 24-6, 11 RPI, 1st in Conference USA
DePaul – 21-9, 37 RPI, T1st in Conference USA
East Carolina – 12-14, 151 RPI, 11th in Conference USA
Houston – 9-18, 187 RPI, 13th in Conference USA
Memphis – 21-7, 32 RPI, T1st in Conference USA
Saint Louis – 18-12, 64 RPI, 7th in Conference USA
Southern Mississippi – 12-15, 123 RPI, 10th in Conference USA
Texas Christian – 12-17, 120 RPI, 9th in Conference USA
Davidson – 14-12, 118 RPI, T2nd in Southern Conference
Indiana – 14-15, 88 RPI, T7th in Big 10 Conference
Santa Clara (possible) – 15-16, 138 RPI, 5th in West Coast Conference
Valparaiso – 17-12, 139 RPI, 1st in Mid-Continent Conference
Alabama Birmingham – 20-9, 33 RPI, T1st in Conference USA
Cincinnati - 24-6, 11 RPI, T1st in Conference USA
East Carolina - 12-14, 151 RPI, 11th in Conference USA
Louisville – 20-9, 24 RPI, 6th in Conference USA
Marquette – 16-11, 83 RPI, 8th in Conference USA
Saint Louis - 18-12, 64 RPI, 7th in Conference USA
South Florida – 7-20, 222 RPI, 14th in Conference USA
Tulane – 10-17, 181 RPI, 12th in Conference USA
Note: Charlotte - 21–8, 34 RPI, T1st in Conference USA
Arizona shafted us. The deal was done until the AD “forgot” to sign the deal and then mysteriously they had scheduled “another” game. Mississippi State was also done (between the AD’s), but Stan$bury thought he was losing Lawrence Roberts and got cold feet and told Bobby “we can’t make it work this year”.
It is flat out unbeleivably hard to schedule good teams in Halton. And if you are a great team in a poor league (ETSU for example), it is even worse. No one wants to play the Bucs in Johnson City. Probably not a lot lining up to go to Rock Hill a few years ago when Gregg Marshall had the Eagles rolling. We’re just higher profile in the same situation.
[i]Originally posted by TheProvider[/i]@Jul 6 2004, 07:26 PM [b]Arizona shafted us. The deal was done until the AD "forgot" to sign the deal and then mysteriously they had scheduled "another" game. Mississippi State was also done (between the AD's), but Stan$bury thought he was losing Lawrence Roberts and got cold feet and told Bobby "we can't make it work this year". [/b]Speaking of Arizona and Mississippi State, here's a little tidbit from Andy Katz's "Daily Word" column at ESPN.com:
Mississippi State looks like it will play Arizona in the Wooden Classic in Anaheim as the headline game in December.
Link: ESPN.com
They should rename it the Coward Classic.
If the NCAA will hurry up and reward teams more for road victories, more big teams will be apt to leave their friendly confines to try to help their (revised) RPI. The NCAA keeps talking about it, but nothing has happened yet. As long as the Syracuse’s and Duke’s can get decent teams to come play them at their place each season, why should/would they venture away from home to risk, gulp, losing? :huh: It makes me angry to watch these teams play virtually all of their non-conference games at home each year with no risks, and still get rewarded for it come Selection Sunday. I hope that this “away game reward” that the NCAA has talked about will take into account not only road wins, but also the strength of the road team you defeated (i.e. winning at Syracuse should be worth more in an RPI formula than winning at UNC-Asheville).
[b]winning at Syracuse should be worth more in an RPI formula than winning at UNC-Asheville).[/b]
It does. The formula takes into account only 25% of your record (a win is a wiin), 50% of your opponents record, and 25% of your opponent’s opponent’s record. So if we beat Syracuse or UNC-A the first 25% is the same. But by the end of the season Syracuse should have a much better record than UNC-A for the second part, and Syracuse plays much better opponent’s so Pitt, UConn, etc. factor into our RPI when we play Syracuse versus the scrubs UNC-A plays.
If we ever do make a strong regular season run, ie 15-2, 14-1, people will complain we didn’t play anyone. :o
Excluding Santa Clara (which won’t help either), that’s an average OOC RPI of 139 which isn’t impressive to say the least. Playing Long Beach State hurts because beating a 300 RPI team is a waste of time, regardless of any obligations to play them. Those are the types of games we really have no business ever scheduling. If we lose, it’s a devastating blow to our RPI and if we win, it benefits us in now way other than another number in the win column.
But as it was said, you play who will agree to come play you. And I certainly wouldn’t compromise by agreeing to give a 2-for-1 to someone that we’re above doing that with. There are a couple interesting OOC home games but for the most part, it’s a very bland schedule.
I don’t understand the harm in giving a 2 for 1. Certainly we shouldn’t have to do it but the facts are what they are. Why not give Oklahoma, Purdue, Michigan St., or even the Washington, Mississippi, Arizona St. a 2 for 1. It helps our recognition, our schedule, our team, our fan base. Why not a 3 for 1 with Arizona, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. What is the harm?
I realize we would have fewer home dates but I think that if we played two fewer home games each year, but played these kinds of teams on the road and at home once in a while, our home attendence would increase substantially. We would get more people to a home Davidson or App St. or any other game if we were coming off the road from playing in Tucson or Lexington.
Please educate me if I am missing something.
Are we not playing Southern Illinois this year? I thought we would have them at home this year.
The problem is limiting the 2 for 1’s (and I would never propose a 3-1, unless it was elite, elite and they would play in HALTON). Once you get too many of these 2 for 1’s, you end up “upside down” in your schedule and some years you may only be able to play about 3 non-conference games (11 total), which just crushes your ability to win. The perfect schedule, IMO, is 15 home games, 12 road games.
You get 8/8 (home/away) in conference
You get into eight home and home series where four are at your place, four are at theirs (this would just alternate over a two or four year period)
You get 3 “buy” games (bad/mediocre RPI but home wins)
That gets you the 15/12 split every year. The challenge is getting those 8 home and home series synched up so that you aren’t getting 16/17 homes one year and 13/14 another year.
We are starting a 2 for 1 with Indiana this year, but there are no other series like this on the schedule (where we are on the short end).
[i]Originally posted by NinerUpNorth[/i]@Jul 7 2004, 09:38 AM [b][b]winning at Syracuse should be worth more in an RPI formula than winning at UNC-Asheville).[/b]It does. The formula takes into account only 25% of your record (a win is a wiin), 50% of your opponents record, and 25% of your opponent’s opponent’s record. So if we beat Syracuse or UNC-A the first 25% is the same. But by the end of the season Syracuse should have a much better record than UNC-A for the second part, and Syracuse plays much better opponent’s so Pitt, UConn, etc. factor into our RPI when we play Syracuse versus the scrubs UNC-A plays. [/b]
NUN,
The current formula does not take into account whom you beat and where you beat them. It does reward you for playing them. The last 2 parts of the RPI would be the same regardless if you win or lose a particular game (except for the change in your opponets record). Both Syracuse’s and UNC-A’s W-L record and their opponets’ records add up virtually the same in the current formula when figuring our RPI (again, except for the 1 game difference when they played us). I think what X is getting at is that a win over Syracuse (RPI-14) should somehow be weighted heavier than a win over UNC-A (RPI-272).
I never said the location mattered.
It does into account who you play and what your record is. If you play quality teams your RPI will be better than if you play poor teams. True, if we beat UNC-A and lose to Syracuse or if we beat Syracuse and lose to UNC-A our RPI is virtually the same.
[b]Both Syracuse's and UNC-A's W-L record and their opponets' records add up virtually the same in the current formula when figuring our RPI (again, except for the 1 game difference when they played us). [/b]
This can’t possibly be true. If this was the case then Syracuse and UNC-A would have the same RPI as each other. Their records might be the exact same but Syracuse plays teams with much higher winning percentages than UNC-A. That is why it is som important for Duke that Clemson go 11-1 against a crap schedule as the bottom dweller but the bottom of UNC-A’s conference might go 1-11.
And that has what to do with X’s excellent point about the NCAA giving credit for playing and winning road games?
You’re missing the point guys. NUN derailed the train.
My apologies o’ wise one.
[i]Originally posted by NinerUpNorth[/i]@Jul 7 2004, 09:52 AM [b] Why not a 3 for 1 with Arizona, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. What is the harm? [/b]I could never justify a 3-for-1, regardless of the opposition. I have a hard enough time accepting 2-for-1's but it's usally fair considering the competition. As a team that is usually an at-large team each year, even agreeing to a 3-for-1 seems like we're admitting that we're miles behind those teams. I'll admit, we're not on the same page as Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, etc. yet, but we've established ourselves enough to offer nothing more than a 2-for-1 to those schools. And there's not many schools in that category in my opinion. I feel that we should be getting home-and-home with the majority of the top programs but I'm also realistic enough to know that's not going to happen. I take it as a compliment though.