[b] I could never justify a 3-for-1[/b]
Why not? If we could lock up the chance to play one of the elite schools four years in a row I would take it in a heart beat, with the caveat that the one game in Charlotte would HAVE to be in Halton, obviously.
Edit: NinerAdvocate, I hope I have not derailed the discussion further. My apologies if I have.
[i]Originally posted by Neo[/i]@Jul 7 2004, 10:18 AM [b]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.[/b]
I think this point bears repeating. In my opinion, if you have more than 2 active 2 for 1ās, this could be a problem. Heaven help us if we ever get into a 3 for 1.
The schedule is what it is. Sure, Iād like to see more ābig timeā opponents on it. But I donāt think any particular name, at home or away, will help fill Halton.
I think Coach Lutz has put a lot of names on the schedule and a majority of the city doesnāt care. The only thing I think could work is to adding up enough Wās. Of course, the question becomes What is enough Wās?
[b]But I don't think any particular name, at home or away, will help fill Halton.[/b]
Really, you donāt think a Charlotte vs. Kentucky game would fill Halton. That is interesting. I would have to disagree.
[i]Originally posted by NinerUpNorth[/i]@Jul 7 2004, 12:50 PM [b][b]But I don't think any particular name, at home or away, will help fill Halton.[/b]Really, you donāt think a Charlotte vs. Kentucky game would fill Halton. That is interesting. I would have to disagree.[/b]
For one game, sure it will up the Arena. But Iām talking about a schedule that will increase the attendance over the course of an entire season.
The arena atmosphere, in the games following the Louisville and Cinti. games last season, left much to be desired.
We already know how to fill the arena once or twice a season for a basketball game. The issue should be how do we increase attendance over the entire season.
[b]The issue should be how do we increase attendance over the entire season.[/b]
I absolutely agree. I think big names on a consistent basis would increase the fan base increase attendance, but that is not going to fix the problem by itself.
[i]Originally posted by SilvioDante[/i]@Jul 7 2004, 12:44 PM [b] I think Coach Lutz has put a lot of names on the schedule and a majority of the city doesn't care. The only thing I think could work is to adding up enough W's. Of course, the question becomes What is enough W's? [/b]A strong start to the season (WINNING STREAK) is what it takes to get the city behind us. Media gets on board as well. Joe Average sports fan doesn't pay attention to RPI until the end of the season, if at all.
I remember the early 90ās when that happened. Our program and university has grown by leaps and bounds since then.
[i]Originally posted by NinerUpNorth[/i]@Jul 7 2004, 10:53 AM [b] 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]
Should there also be a bigger penalty for losing to UNC-A versus Syracuse.
[i]Originally posted by NinerUpNorth[/i]@Jul 7 2004, 01:32 PM [b][b] I could never justify a 3-for-1[/b]Why not? If we could lock up the chance to play one of the elite schools four years in a row I would take it in a heart beat, with the caveat that the one game in Charlotte would HAVE to be in Halton, obviously.
Edit: NinerAdvocate, I hope I have not derailed the discussion further. My apologies if I have. [/b]
About that 3 for 1: Itās hard enough to get a 2 for 1 team to return the game. A 3 for 1 could include the oher team saving the return game for year 4 and then finding some kind of BS reason to back out of their obligation (fired coach, switched conferences, RPI unacceptable, TV, etc). No thanks.
Mike P. threw out the possibility of a 2 for 1 with Duke or Chapel Hill with our home game at the Bobcatsā arena. Most of us vetoed that idea. Do the folks who are unsatisfied with our non conf schedule (still) feel that way?
Iād all for it, assuming we can get them to do a 1 for 1, for respect reasons and to avoid the situation Neo described. Thatās our only option unless the NCAA backs up their words with actions.
[i]Originally posted by NinerUpNorth[/i]@Jul 7 2004, 02:47 PM [b] Should there also be a bigger penalty for losing to UNC-A versus Syracuse. [/b]Yes.
IMO anyway.
NinerAdvocate, right back at you:
[i]Originally posted by NinerAdvocate[/i]@Jul 7 2004, 02:13 PM [b] Mike P. threw out the possibility of a 2 for 1 with Duke or Chapel Hill with our home game at the Bobcats' arena. Most of us vetoed that idea. Do the folks who are unsatisfied with our non conf schedule (still) feel that way?Iād all for it, assuming we can get them to do a 1 for 1, for respect reasons and to avoid the situation Neo described. Thatās our only option unless the NCAA backs up their words with actions. [/b]
I agree with you though that a 1-for-1, with an uptown game is a better deal and if thatās what it took to play those guys, then Iād opt for it but itās certainly not my preference. We wonāt get that game at Halton and if everyone is so hard up to play the ACC (for the record, I couldnāt care less) then play it uptown on a semi-neutral court.
[b]That's what I was getting at. X was saying that their should be some weight given to winning at Syracuse over winning at UNC-A. [/b]
Exactly. Yes, your RPI will be rewarded in the long run for beating a good team at their place because they will likely boost your RPI if they go on to have a succesful season. But, itās no more of a reward to beat them on the road than it would be to beat them in Halton. You say, no duh, whatās that got to do with us? Back to my original thought, in that if itās no more of a reward to win on the road than it is at home, none of the big schools are going to travel if there is no incentive/reward for them to do so. I think that you should be given more points for beating better teams on the road, and figure that based on how the normal RPI works out at yearās end (i.e. let the RPI work per normal, then add-in the points for the non-conference road wins based on the year-end RPI). If the reward is the same for beating UNCA in Asheville as it is for beating Syracuse at the Carrier Dome, then the opposite of the current trend will be occurring. All of the big schools will be heading to the worst opponent they can find to pick up some easy RPI points. If the RPI formula remains the same, 2-for-1ās with the big boys or home-and-homeās with the Big Conference, 2nd tier teams is the best we can hope for in getting non-conference home games. Getting a 1-for-1 with Alabama was a blessing. I hope we can continue to get this lucky.
[b]Should there also be a bigger penalty for losing to UNC-A versus Syracuse. [/b]
Iām assuming that you meant losing @UNCA versus losing @Syracuse. It could be part of the formula, but I donāt think itās necessary or wanted. The only reason you need to put someting in the formula for winning on the road is to entice teams to play road games, and thusly be rewarded for it if they win. If you throw in a penalty for losing at, say UNC-A, you would be defeating the purpose. Those big schools would still just stay at their place and get their easy money and RPI boost without risking anything.
As for the home-and-home with UNC or Dook at the Bobcat Arena, I still donāt want it. No, Iām not afraid of the challenge, but we would still be giving them two home games. We will be out-fanned by a 2-1 margin at least at the Bobcat Arena against either team. Itās just not in Charlotteās best interest, IMO, to do this. I wouldnāt even give them the satisfaction of a 2-for-1 if they came to Halton. I know each program is as heralded as Indiana, but when theyāre in-state the rules change because the recruiting implications could weigh heavy with the outcome of the games.
I think if we would just start taking care of business in the NCAA Tournyā¦other teams would be forced to recognize us, and therefore would schedule more games with us. Were not going to see good schedules until we dominate the schedules we have now, and start making sweet 16/ elitite 8/ final 4ās
When we gain the respect of the entire college basketball world then we will get the schedule that we want
NUN - hey man, I donāt begrudge you returning fire, but I donāt get that one. Oh well.
niner007 - ā¦and itās kinda hard to make consistent Sweet 16ās, etc when you are constantly playing a road heavy schedule in the regular season. Those schedules tend to lead to the 8/9 game, or so it seems. We need those games so we can finish with a better winning % and RPI and you (and others) are saying that we canāt get those games til we win consistently in the postseason.
Itās quite a dilemna, isnāt it?
NA- I agreeā¦but we also canāt lose to teams like GW on our floorā¦and had we not, we may have been a 7 seed this year and not the 8/9ā¦and even with the 8/9 if you are a legit team your should at least make it past the first roundā¦as did UAB
you are right thoughā¦we are kind of stuck in a hard situationā¦the only way we are going to get out of it though is by showing up on the court.
[i]Originally posted by Smoothieking+Jul 7 2004, 10:36 AM-->
[b]QUOTE[/b] (Smoothieking @ Jul 7 2004, 10:36 AM)
[b]The committee has admitted that the location of certain games are in fact a part of the equation.[/b]
I donāt doubt that they take this into account to SOME degree, but how much so? Evidently itās not enough so that Syracuse and the other schools find it to their benefit to pass up a home game gate against a patsy to try to instead try to help their RPI on the road. Some of the RPI formula may need to remain a secret, at least as far as the ābonus pointsā, but if the NCAA doesnāt make non-conference road wins part of the known formula (and enough of a part to make a difference) the current stay-at-home trend will continue. To me that is sad, because the most exciting non-conference games to watch are when the big boys travel to the mid-major/underdog places. It would be even better if there were more non-neutral-site games amongst the contenders each year, also.
To me, that bonus system sounds hollow, like so much lip service. After the schedule we played, to be seeded exactly what number our rpi divided by 4 gave, is a slap in the face and is evidence against the veracity of the committeeās stated intentions. We played a killer road schedule last year and by all appearances got absolutely zero credit for it. So in theory, youāre right PI, but in practiceā¦ donāt you feel burned too after being fed that line? I find it hard not to feel that way and to second guess that supposed policy. Like X, Iād like to see something more concrete and specifically engineered to really compel āeliteā teams to play true road games.
Bump.