Goal #1: Become Multi-Bid Conf. Again

[MOST]

A very good MVC season. But doubt the MVC will get an NCAA at-large selection---nor probably a high NIT seed.

TOO MUCH PARITY! NO #2 or #3 standout teams to grab the selection committees' attention.

MVC a better conference with no bully WSU or Creighton. Changed my opinion---Loyola was a good add. Hope Valpo becomes the same. Murray State will be competitive. Next 1 or 2 adds ???????

Too increase MM post season play there will have to be major NCAA tournament changes: limit the number of teams from the P5+1 conferences; delete auto tickets to the bottom ranked conference tournament champs; add a D1AA tournament for the MMs; a combination of all the above! NOTE: INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TEAMS WILL NOT RESULT IN MORE MMs GETTING INVITES---THE BIGGER/MORE TEAMS JUST MEANS MORE TEAMS FROM P5+1 CONFERENCES.

Added: getting ready to watch the NCAA selection show. No I will not watch the selection show!! All ready know within 95% who already made it. Only question who is the last four in and the first four out. probably a 50/50 split among the 8 named teams. WHO cares---except those 8 teams. The selection show is nothing more than rah rah cheering show---means nothing--sells TV advertising space,

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

NOTE: INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TEAMS WILL NOT RESULT IN MORE MMs GETTING INVITES---THE BIGGER/MORE TEAMS JUST MEANS MORE TEAMS FROM P5+1 CONFERENCES.

Disagree. I think the NCAA Tournament should expand to 128. That's an extra round of revenue. The tournament could literally include every P5 and Big East teams, even the last place ones, and there would still be exactly 50 spots for mid/low majors. 26 of those go to conference winners. Still 24 at larges from mid/low majors.

[uniguy]

We need a stronger top of the conference and better scheduling. Multiple conferences with lower ratings than us are getting multiple bids. The MWC and WCC will get two each the A10 will get three in a terrible year. The MVC had a great renaissance and will still only get one. Here's what needs to happen:

Missouri State needs a better coach and more aggressive scheduling
UNI needs to act like conference play matters and not just show up to play whenever they feel like it
Valpo Bradley Loyola Southern Illinois and Evansville need to schedule better
Illinois State needs to do a better job holding on to the talent they bring in.

EVERYONE needs to keep getting better

We need to drop this defeatist "it's all about Arch Madness" attitude that I have heard WAY TOO MUCH from TOO MANY coaches and administrators who should know better.

Murray State NEEDS to be added. If there is no suitable 12th that's fine. Tell the non revenue sports to deal with it. This is a BASKETBALL conference. BASKETBALL drives the bus.

When is the last time the #8 conference was a one bid league? This shouldn't happen, and we need to work hard to make sure it never happens again.

Yeah, UNI doesn't care about conference play. That's why they finished in the top half of the league 14 years in a row before this year.

What coaches and admins (particularly admins) said "Its all about Arch Madness"? Honestly asking. I never heard that.

I do agree the league needs to schedule better. A decade ago there was a scheduling mandate and it showed in our RPIs and the # of bids the league received. That has gone away and it has hurt the league.

The quadrant system is a pretty slick way to keep mid-majors out it seems. Just looking at the number of wins from a particular conference (and ignoring the losses) can make a team like OU and Syracuse look pretty good.

[Rambler63]

I do agree the league needs to schedule better. A decade ago there was a scheduling mandate and it showed in our RPIs and the # of bids the league received. That has gone away and it has hurt the league.

The quadrant system is a pretty slick way to keep mid-majors out it seems. Just looking at the number of wins from a particular conference (and ignoring the losses) can make a team like OU and Syracuse look pretty good.

It wasn't so much the "scheduling mandate" going away as the NCAA and the selection committee beginning to ignore RPI if it was inconvenient for getting 7-8-9 major conference teams with .500 or worse records into the tournament. You had Missouri State in 2006 being left out with a 21 RPI, win over Arkansas. Also in 2006, Hofstra had a 30. Air Force had a 30 in 2007 and was left out.

Meanwhile, there is no pressure on the P5 to "schedule well" in non-conference. They can play only cupcakes if they want. They can play 240 RPI teams at home every game through the non-con (maybe a showcase game or a MTE of their choosing mixed in). They will get their multiple chances at Q1 games in conference, and never have to play a mid-major on the road, or sometimes not ANY team on the road. Syracuse's only road game this year was at Georgetown (RPI in the 150s). Oklahoma (RPI 49) got a better seed an an at large than Loyola (RPI 22) as an auto bid, and they were under .500 in conference, 5-11 away from home, and 2-8 in their last 10. You've got 14-loss at large teams in the tournament now, while 6-loss teams go to the NIT.

There is no penalty for P5 schools refusing collectively to schedule mid-majors. In fact, the downsides are so clear that they don't do it anymore. NC State paid $175k to not play Loyola in Chicago, after Loyola lived up to their part of the bargain. Florida was one of the few teams to agree to play Loyola, and they probably won't take any more similar deals.

So "scheduling mandates" are meaningless until the selection committee starts counting Q1/Q2 LOSSES as carefully as wins. Why are teams that lose 60-70% of their Q1/Q2 games held in higher regard than 4-3 or 3-3 teams? And the RPI was adjusted to take road games into account, and the Q1/Q2 system basically tosses the RPI in the garbage. Finally, they have to stop giving at-large bids to teams with under-.500 conference records.

[MOST]

NOTE: INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TEAMS WILL NOT RESULT IN MORE MMs GETTING INVITES---THE BIGGER/MORE TEAMS JUST MEANS MORE TEAMS FROM P5+1 CONFERENCES.

Disagree. I think the NCAA Tournament should expand to 128. That's an extra round of revenue. The tournament could literally include every P5 and Big East teams, even the last place ones, and there would still be exactly 50 spots for mid/low majors. 26 of those go to conference winners. Still 24 at larges from mid/low majors.

CRAZY!! If you expand to 128 why have conferences or conference tournaments. Open play and open selection not realistic. But, it is laffable.

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

NOTE: INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TEAMS WILL NOT RESULT IN MORE MMs GETTING INVITES---THE BIGGER/MORE TEAMS JUST MEANS MORE TEAMS FROM P5+1 CONFERENCES.

Disagree. I think the NCAA Tournament should expand to 128. That's an extra round of revenue. The tournament could literally include every P5 and Big East teams, even the last place ones, and there would still be exactly 50 spots for mid/low majors. 26 of those go to conference winners. Still 24 at larges from mid/low majors.

CRAZY!! If you expand to 128 why have conferences or conference tournaments. Open play and open selection not realistic. But, it is laffable.

I'd be happy with no conference tournament if that means more mid-majors get in. That could be your team.

[MissouriValleyUnite]

MVC finishes 8th and sends 1 team to the NCAA/NIT.

A10 finishes outside the top 10 between the MAC and CAA and sends 3 to the NCAA.

Comes down to non-con scheduling. Rhode Island (3) and Saint Bonaventure (59) scheduled for at-larges, providing a bunker from the A10's landmines.

Loyola enters tournament with 22 RPI and 40 KenPom. Excellent.

[uniguy]

.........So "scheduling mandates" are meaningless until the selection committee starts counting Q1/Q2 LOSSES as carefully as wins. Why are teams that lose 60-70% of their Q1/Q2 games held in higher regard than 4-3 or 3-3 teams? And the RPI was adjusted to take road games into account, and the Q1/Q2 system basically tosses the RPI in the garbage. Finally, they have to stop giving at-large bids to teams with under-.500 conference records.

I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree when you say scheduling mandates are meaningless. If it worked like it did in 2006 and 2007 (when we got 4 and 3 bids), then it isn't so much about having high RPIs as it is about sort of beating them at their own game. That year it was all about the record against the top 50. That year we ended up with six teams in the top 50 of RPI. Because of that, each team had 10 RPI top 50 games built into their schedule. It wasn't because we played an overwhelming amount of power 5 teams. We just played a lot of very good teams, kept that RPI high, and when EVERYONE did it, it just sort of fed on itself.

So this year for example (and I am just using this as an example), had perhaps SIU, MSU and Bradley scheduled a little better and ended up in the top 75, that is three more Q1 games for everyone and we don't even have to get a power 5 team to schedule us. If there was a mandate and EVERYONE had to schedule a little better, there would be a cumulative effect, and we would beat them at their own game. It isn't so much about the RPI itself as a metric, but finding our own way into the quadrant game. Sure, they'd probably move the goalposts again, but that is how we did it then.

Taking into account wins AND losses would also make a huge difference for sure. I think USC's coach put it best today when he said "If you are only going to look at your one or two best wins then why are we even playing?" But the whole idea of, "who are your best wins against" stacks the deck against mid-majors so insanely much it just isn't even worth it anymore. But we can do our best to play the game by their rules, and frustrate them to the point that they have to change the rules again.

[uniguy]

Good stuff right here....

https://twitter.com/andyglockner/status ... 8713508865

[BCPanther]

Until the rest of the Valley starts scheduling like UNI, Illinois State and, to an extent, Loyola, this is where we're going to be. Quit buying 300+ RPI teams, quit taking buy games at lower end P5s, quit going to MTEs where you play in high schools gyms against 1 other mid-major and 6 low majors.

UNI fans get frustrated at times with Jake because he's probably too aggressive in scheduling most years which causes a lack of home games and more losses in the non-con than we'd like but he realizes correctly that that is the only way to even be in the discussion come March.