MVCfans.com

Ali wrote: And I don't think WSU runs the table again.

Well that is hardly going out on a limb there. What WSU did this year was very, very remarkable. The reality is by shear probability their final record should have been 32-4 They should have lost a non-conference game and 2 MVC games along with their NCAA game. But this WSU team played with amazing consistency night after night that probably won't be seen ever again by WSU fans (or probably MVC fans). Also this WSU team was also didn't have any significant injuries.

What happens next year for WSU will be dependent on how their 2 redshirts have progressed, how injury free they stays. But with BAker, Van Vleet, Cotton and Carter you got to think that is a pretty good nucleus and they just need some of the incoming guys to accept and embrace their roles.

achrist70 wrote:

rlh04d wrote:Who will challenge WSU will really come down to who can split a series with WSU and beat the teams they should beat.

UNI and Missouri State both have teams that could make the NCAA tournament if they schedule and play well in the nonconference season. I feel like every team in the league other than Indiana State has a good opportunity to be better than they were this year, though.

My guess is MoSt if they can stay healthy.

More than likely UNI will schedule well but have a couple of hiccups that will look bad on their resume and MoSt. will have a non-conference SOS of 250+

If you are going to complain about Non-Con SOS you should probably pick on someone other than the bears. Having a top 50 RPI does no good when you lose all the meaningful games.

agrinut wrote:

achrist70 wrote:

rlh04d wrote:Who will challenge WSU will really come down to who can split a series with WSU and beat the teams they should beat.

UNI and Missouri State both have teams that could make the NCAA tournament if they schedule and play well in the nonconference season. I feel like every team in the league other than Indiana State has a good opportunity to be better than they were this year, though.

My guess is MoSt if they can stay healthy.

More than likely UNI will schedule well but have a couple of hiccups that will look bad on their resume and MoSt. will have a non-conference SOS of 250+

If you are going to complain about Non-Con SOS you should probably pick on someone other than the bears. Having a top 50 RPI does no good when you lose all the meaningful games.

It might not be good for your resume but it helps every other team in the conference.

AndShock wrote:

agrinut wrote:

achrist70 wrote: More than likely UNI will schedule well but have a couple of hiccups that will look bad on their resume and MoSt. will have a non-conference SOS of 250+

If you are going to complain about Non-Con SOS you should probably pick on someone other than the bears. Having a top 50 RPI does no good when you lose all the meaningful games.

It might not be good for your resume but it helps every other team in the conference.

Sure, it's easy to lose your way out of a bid if you schedule up and lose some games that you were expected to win or don't beat those teams for a "signature win". But at least you freaking tried and attempted to prepare your team for a competitive season. Why in the world would you want to be a team who goes 25-5 but had a 200+ SOS and just sits there on Sunday scratching their heads and complaining about why the committee didn't give them a bid for beating Eastern Tennessee Christian Tech and the Carolina College for Blind Scientologists? That's not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, just a really oversimplified example.

If you won't schedule good teams, to show you can beat good teams and give yourself a fighting chance of earning a bid to the tournament, then it's pretty silly to assume you actually belong in any conversation regarding the NCAA's.

Losing all meaningful games and not playing meaningful games both won't get you in the tournament but at least with the former you helped improve the standing of the Valley and gave yourself a shot at success. But, as evidenced by a majority of the conference, it's better to have a crap schedule and kid yourself as to how mediocre you are, rather than play good competition, have middling success and then come to grips with that reality on your own. Hooray for fluff and cupcakes, right? Hooray for 11th place in the conference RPI (or lower)!

agrinut wrote:

achrist70 wrote:

rlh04d wrote:Who will challenge WSU will really come down to who can split a series with WSU and beat the teams they should beat.

UNI and Missouri State both have teams that could make the NCAA tournament if they schedule and play well in the nonconference season. I feel like every team in the league other than Indiana State has a good opportunity to be better than they were this year, though.

My guess is MoSt if they can stay healthy.

More than likely UNI will schedule well but have a couple of hiccups that will look bad on their resume and MoSt. will have a non-conference SOS of 250+

If you are going to complain about Non-Con SOS you should probably pick on someone other than the bears. Having a top 50 RPI does no good when you lose all the meaningful games.

#198 non-con SOS this year. #215 last year. #72, #83, #261, #296. Five year average of #187. Not good.

Having 25 wins does no good when you lose all the meaningful games, either. You can't win meaningful games if you don't play any.

You can't get an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament with a top 45 RPI and no good wins -- you've already proven that. Which means the only way to make the tournament is to win the conference guaranteed bid. Is a team less likely to win the auto-bid if the nonconference schedule is tough? Either schedule weak and have one shot at the tournament, or schedule strong and have multiple shots at the tournament. Seems like a simple choice to me.

If you don't think your team has a shot at an at-large bid, by all means, I understand a desire to schedule weak to pad the win total. MoSt isn't in that boat, though. That's a legit at-large team next year. Give the team the opportunity to win the tough games to earn it. Otherwise it just really doesn't matter what your win total or RPI will be -- the entire season will come down to the Arch, against another great WSU team.

MoSt didn't get an at-large bid the year you won the regular season despite having a 40-ish RPI because your schedule was due to the SOS being #125, 0-3 against RPI top 100 out of conference, 2-6 against the top 100 overall, and 0-1 against the top 50. Learning from history and all that jazz.

rlh04d wrote:

More than likely UNI will schedule well but have a couple of hiccups that will look bad on their resume and MoSt. will have a non-conference SOS of 250+

If you are going to complain about Non-Con SOS you should probably pick on someone other than the bears. Having a top 50 RPI does no good when you lose all the meaningful games.[/quote]
#198 non-con SOS this year. #215 last year. #72, #83, #261, #296. Five year average of #187. Not good.

Having 25 wins does no good when you lose all the meaningful games, either. You can't win meaningful games if you don't play any.

You can't get an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament with a top 45 RPI and no good wins -- you've already proven that. Which means the only way to make the tournament is to win the conference guaranteed bid. Is a team less likely to win the auto-bid if the nonconference schedule is tough? Either schedule weak and have one shot at the tournament, or schedule strong and have multiple shots at the tournament. Seems like a simple choice to me.

If you don't think your team has a shot at an at-large bid, by all means, I understand a desire to schedule weak to pad the win total. MoSt isn't in that boat, though. That's a legit at-large team next year. Give the team the opportunity to win the tough games to earn it. Otherwise it just really doesn't matter what your win total or RPI will be -- the entire season will come down to the Arch, against another great WSU team.

MoSt didn't get an at-large bid the year you won the regular season despite having a 40-ish RPI because your schedule was due to the SOS being #125, 0-3 against RPI top 100 out of conference, 2-6 against the top 100 overall, and 0-1 against the top 50. Learning from history and all that jazz.[/quote]


The bears had the 3rd highest SOS in the league last year behind only UNI & WSU if the league wants to get better they put the scheduling mandate back in.

PantherSigEp wrote:Sure, it's easy to lose your way out of a bid if you schedule up and lose some games that you were expected to win or don't beat those teams for a "signature win". But at least you freaking tried and attempted to prepare your team for a competitive season. Why in the world would you want to be a team who goes 25-5 but had a 200+ SOS and just sits there on Sunday scratching their heads and complaining about why the committee didn't give them a bid for beating Eastern Tennessee Christian Tech and the Carolina College for Blind Scientologists? That's not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, just a really oversimplified example.

If you won't schedule good teams, to show you can beat good teams and give yourself a fighting chance of earning a bid to the tournament, then it's pretty silly to assume you actually belong in any conversation regarding the NCAA's.

Losing all meaningful games and not playing meaningful games both won't get you in the tournament but at least with the former you helped improve the standing of the Valley and gave yourself a shot at success. But, as evidenced by a majority of the conference, it's better to have a crap schedule and kid yourself as to how mediocre you are, rather than play good competition, have middling success and then come to grips with that reality on your own. Hooray for fluff and cupcakes, right? Hooray for 11th place in the conference RPI (or lower)!

agrinut wrote:
if the league wants to get better they put the scheduling mandate back in.

The reason why there is no scheduling mandate is because there is enough schools in the league who voted it down because they are content with not competing and/or expending the resources required to have a decent schedule due to travel and buying quality opponent that are not RPI killers.

Since we are talking about what really needs to do - lets be honest: What really needs to happen is to get rid of schools who are NOT willing to invest resources into their programs. If you do that, then you don't need some artificial mandate.

Snaggletooth wrote:Since we are talking about what really needs to do - lets be honest: What really needs to happen is to get rid of schools who are NOT willing to invest resources into their programs. If you do that, then you don't need some artificial mandate.

Agreed. We need a commitment to invest in the future of the program from all member schools.

Per RealTimeRPI.com: SOS rank and Avg SOS
Wichita St. 98 0.5351
Indiana St. 123 0.5158
Missouri State 107 0.5257
Northern Iowa 97 0.5363
Illinois St. 110 0.5238
Drake 148 0.5037
Southern Ill. 140 0.5066
Evansville 126 0.5145
Bradley 191 0.4885
Loyola (IL) 209 0.4816