OOC schedules for HL teams

[wh]

At this point every HL team is either done or close to being finished putting together their OOC schedule for the 2013-14 season.  As I mentioned in another thread quality OOC scheduling is nearly as important as recruiting and coaching in terms of building a multi-bid league.  I also noted that the A-10 uses a formula that establishes minimum standards for OOC opponent scheduling. 

The A-10 formula is as follows:

Atlantic 10 non-conference scheduling rules

8.04 The following requirements must be met by all Atlantic 10 men's basketball teams. The penalty for non-compliance is outlined in the Conference Constitution and Bylaws.

A. Each men's team must maintain a 1.8 average for all non-conference games schedules. The RPI at the conclusion of the NCAA Tournament of the preceding season will be used for the pre-season analysis and the current season's pre-NCAA tournament RPI will be used for post-season analysis. The point values are as follows:

Ranked 1-50 in the RPI: 4 points
Ranked 51-100 in the RPI: 3 points
Ranked 101-125 in the RPI: 2.5 points
Ranked 126-150 in the RPI: 2 points
Ranked 151-175 in the RPI: 1 point
Ranked 176-200 in the RPI: 0.5 point
Ranked 201+ in the RPI: 0 points

B. Any Atlantic 10 institution playing a non-conference game against an opponent from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC PAC-10 or Big East will receive no less than 2 points, regardless of the team's RPI.

C. Any Atlantic 10 institution playing a non-conference game against an opponent from Conference USA or Mountain West will receive no less than 1 point, regardless of the team's RPI.

I thought it would be interesting to see how HL teams did against the A-10 point system, starting with this year's league favorite Wright State. Following are WSU OOC opponents thus far along with last year's RPI and their point value using the A-10 system:

Georgetown 15 (4)
DePaul 204 (2)
South Alabama 160 (1)
Southern Miss 27 (4)
Houston Baptist 309 (0)
Morehead State 178 (0.5)
VMI 302 (0)
Miami 257 (0)
UMKC 285 (0)
Bowling Green 275 (0)
Eastern Illinois 276 (0)
North Carolina A&T 205 (0)

11.5 total points/12 teams = 1.0

Thus, WSU's OOC schedule falls woefully short of the minimum acceptable A-10 average of 1.8.  Over half their opponents received 0 points, meaning they had RPI's of 200 or higher.

In contrast, here's Valpo's OOC schedule:

Murray State 117 (2.5)
Illinois 38 (4)
Ohio 76 (3)
Evansville 90 (3)
James Madison 169 (1)
Central Florida 101(2.5)
Mercer 118 (2.5)
Ball State 233 (0)
Saint Louis 17 (4)
Loyola Marymount 212 (0)
East Tennessee State 271 (0)

22.5 total points/11 = 2.0

Thus, Valpo's OOC schedule is comfortably above the minimum acceptable A-10 average of 1.8.  Only 3 Valpo's opponents had RPI's of 200 or higher.


As to WSU, you couldn't draw 12 names out of a hat a hundred times and come up with a schedule this bad.  It's blatantly obvious that this is a resume building schedule for Donlon.  League be damned, fans be damned, attendance be damned, preparation for conference be damned, everyone and everything be damned - except the win and loss record.  After all, at the end of the day college coaches are measured by wins and losses more than anything else. Donlon should stack up a bunch of wins with this cupcake schedule and position himself as one of next year's "young bucks" ready to move up. 

Self serving coaches like Donlon are the perfect example of why the Horizon League must institute a scheduling policy if it ever expects to be taken seriously by the rest of the college basketball world.   

[Big D]

WH,
No offense but you don't know what you are talking about. 

First, I can say with 100% certainty that Donovan would not consider this a resume building schedule.  Wright State's schedule isn't going to have any impact on his career at Florida. 

Second, I am also pretty sure Donlon doesn't consider this a resume building schedule for him at Wright State either.  If you look at it closely, almost all of those games were scheduled before last season as part of home/home contracts and one of those games is a return game from a previous bracket busters game.  Those games were scheduled at a time when Wright State was picked to be at the bottom of the HL coming off of a sub 500 season.  The only games on our schedule that are new contracts this year are Georgetown and the CBE tournament (DePaul, South Alabama, Southern Miss, and Houston Baptist).

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Touché on Donovan/Donlon, but then again, he's not the most memorable person.  Even Billy would agree :/

But other than one minor fault with his data (UCF should be counted twice, making it 25/12, or 2.1), his data are correct.  Meaning: your schedule blows. 

If I had the time or the inclination, it would be interesting to score everybody's non-con last year and this year, and then rescore last year based not on the previous year (2011-12) but on the year itself (2012-13) to compare the difference.

I have a suspicion this isn't just a WSU problem, anyway.

[wh]

WH,
No offense but you don't know what you are talking about. 

First, I can say with 100% certainty that Donovan would not consider this a resume building schedule.  Wright State's schedule isn't going to have any impact on his career at Florida. 

Second, I am also pretty sure Donlon doesn't consider this a resume building schedule for him at Wright State either.  If you look at it closely, almost all of those games were scheduled before last season as part of home/home contracts and one of those games is a return game from a previous bracket busters game.  Those games were scheduled at a time when Wright State was picked to be at the bottom of the HL coming off of a sub 500 season.  The only games on our schedule that are new contracts this year are Georgetown and the CBE tournament (DePaul, South Alabama, Southern Miss, and Houston Baptist).

I corrected the Donlon/Donovan miscue.  Notice the time of my post.   

As to the point of the thread - I remember last year some fans on your board we're complaining about your weak OOC schedule, how difficult that makes it to attract fans to the games, etc.  Other posters noted that it wasn't such a bad thing to put together a weak schedule in what was supposed to be a rebuilding year.  Now you're saying this year is a carryover from last year. If this kind of scheduling isn't designed to rack up some easy W's in a good year and minimize L's in a bad one, maybe you can better explain what the purpose is.  If this year's schedule (and last's) was truly someone's best attempt to put together a challenging OOC schedule, that person might want to find other another line of work.

As to my larger point, this conference desperately needs a scheduling accountability mechanism to force its programs to assemble better OOC schedules.  We're never going to elevate the conference profile without it. Fans are always hoping for some white horse to come riding in and make us a multi-bid league, but the fact is league members are not doing enough to help themselves in a lot of areas - including scheduling.  Hey, if Oakland can consistently put together tough OOC schedules at this level, so can everyone else. They're just not motivated (or forced) to do it.   

[LaPorteAveApostle]

True--while BigD may be right that this schedule is largely the result of last year's, that doesn't get them off any hook--rather, it compounds last year's mistakes.

[covufan]

As to my larger point, this conference desperately needs a scheduling accountability mechanism to force its programs to assemble better OOC schedules.  We're never going to elevate the conference profile without it. Fans are always hoping for some white horse to come riding in and make us a multi-bid league, but the fact is league members are not doing enough to help themselves in a lot of areas - including scheduling.  Hey, if Oakland can consistently put together tough OOC schedules at this level, so can everyone else. They're just not motivated (or forced) to do it. 

I agree.  I also think that the HL needs to help schedule some of these matchups as well.  Some friendly games with similar conferences - MWC, A-10, MVC, West Coast, Conf USA, WAC, MAC, Metro.  Three to five games with a conference using similar RPIs from the previous year, with the away team getting a game the following year - the follow-on game might not be against the same team, but the RPI will be similar.  A YSU or Clev. St might have trouble calling a WAC or Conf. USA team for a home-and-home, but with the HL helping schedule, it could be a win-win for all conferences involved. 

[VULB#62]

As to my larger point, this conference desperately needs a scheduling accountability mechanism to force its programs to assemble better OOC schedules.  We're never going to elevate the conference profile without it. Fans are always hoping for some white horse to come riding in and make us a multi-bid league, but the fact is league members are not doing enough to help themselves in a lot of areas - including scheduling.  Hey, if Oakland can consistently put together tough OOC schedules at this level, so can everyone else. They're just not motivated (or forced) to do it. 

I agree.  I also think that the HL needs to help schedule some of these matchups as well.  Some friendly games with similar conferences - MWC, A-10, MVC, West Coast, Conf USA, WAC, MAC, Metro.  Three to five games with a conference using similar RPIs from the previous year, with the away team getting a game the following year - the follow-on game might not be against the same team, but the RPI will be similar.  A YSU or Clev. St might have trouble calling a WAC or Conf. USA team for a home-and-home, but with the HL helping schedule, it could be a win-win for all conferences involved.

Very good point.  Shouldn't put in a scheduling accountability mechanism without having the HL office participate and promote. One of the unsaid points here is that the HL appears to be reactive rather than proactive.  This is an opportunity for proactivism.

[bbtds]

I corrected the Donlon/Donovan miscue.

Shoot! I thought maybe Florida was coming to the ARC.   

[EddieCabot]

A few comments on scheduling and RPI:
1.  Valpo appears to have done a good job of avoiding the 250+ RPI teams they've had in the past (Northern Illinois/IUPUI/Chicago State) by replacing them with non D-I games (North Park/Cincinnati Christian/Southeastern) that don't hurt the RPI. 
2.  Scheduling is obviously important, but so is winning games.  For example, last year the Horizon had the #29 OOC SOS, but because they won games at a decent clip, they were the #12 ranked RPI conference.
3.  Basing a schedule on last year's RPI is a start, but its not always perfect.  It's not unusual for teams to drop or jump 50+ RPI spots from year to year.

[Big D]

As to the point of the thread - I remember last year some fans on your board we're complaining about your weak OOC schedule, how difficult that makes it to attract fans to the games, etc.  Other posters noted that it wasn't such a bad thing to put together a weak schedule in what was supposed to be a rebuilding year.  Now you're saying this year is a carryover from last year. If this kind of scheduling isn't designed to rack up some easy W's in a good year and minimize L's in a bad one, maybe you can better explain what the purpose is. 

Donlon put together a weak schedule last year because pretty much everyone thought we were going to be a rebuilding team.  We got stuck with the return trips for most of those games this year.   If you look at it from a conference stand point, we helped the conference because we scheduled teams we could compete against and we won most of those games.  I don't know if you know the difference between a team's RPI and a conference's RPI.   A team's RPI is based in large part on SOS.  Conference RPI is based mostly on W/L record vs D1 teams.  The HL finished ranked #12 overall last year because we had a 53% winning percentage even though the HL had an OOC SOS ranked 29th.   If everyone in the HL that played a non-D1 game would have played an entire D1 schedule and won those extra games, the HL could have finished ranked 10th or 11th.

As to my larger point, this conference desperately needs a scheduling accountability mechanism to force its programs to assemble better OOC schedules.  We're never going to elevate the conference profile without it. Fans are always hoping for some white horse to come riding in and make us a multi-bid league, but the fact is league members are not doing enough to help themselves in a lot of areas - including scheduling.  Hey, if Oakland can consistently put together tough OOC schedules at this level, so can everyone else. They're just not motivated (or forced) to do it.   

WH,
You copied one of my posts from Raider Nations and posted it here earlier this summer:
http://www.valpofanzone.com/forum/index.php?topic=1443.0
If you read it again, you will remember that I am one of the HL fans that has been advocating for the HL to put together their own scheduling guidelines for years.

Now that I got that out of the way, I also want to point out that if everyone starts scheduling like Oakland did this year, the HL will be the 29th ranked conference over night.  We need to put together better schedules, but we also need to put together schedules we can have success against.  As I pointed out above, Conference RPI is based mostly on W/L percentage.  Oakland is going to take some serious lumps against that OOC schedule.  That is going to hurt the HL's RPI this year. 

[wh]

WH,
You copied one of my posts from Raider Nations and posted it here earlier this summer:
http://www.valpofanzone.com/forum/index.php?topic=1443.0
If you read it again, you will remember that I am one of the HL fans that has been advocating for the HL to put together their own scheduling guidelines for years.

I forgot all about your well thought out set of ideas for raising the profile of the league.  I enjoyed reading through them again and refreshing my memory.  For those who may not have seen them or forgot like I did, here they are:

1. Re-brand the HL and it's schools:
Over the past 6-8 years, LeCrone made the mistake of pushing Butler as the HL. With their post season success, he spent the conference's money on full page ads in USA Today congratulating them on their success and even spent money on a TV commercial. The problem with the money he spent on that was it only gave Butler more exposure. He has never done enough to try to gain exposure for all of our teams.

Well, he has a chance to do that soon. We are getting ready to announce the addition of Oakland to the HL in the next few weeks. I hope we are also announcing the addition of another school at the same time, but I don't know if that will happen this year or not. Either way, we are going to get a lot of free press with this. He needs to use that free press to sell the teams that we do have in the conference now.

He needs to spend some of the money Butler left behind to do some advertising for the HL throughout the basketball season. We should run an ad in some of the major papers ever night we are going to have one of our members playing on national TV to help build an audience for them.

We should also help re-brand some of our member schools that need to establish their own identity. Milwaukee fans have long been struggling with their name. They have been dealing with the problem of being a hyphenated college. Sometimes they are called UWM. Sometimes they are called UW-Milwaukee. They would like to be known as just Milwaukee. When the HL works on it's re-branding this year, they should also help get the word out that Milwaukee is the name our friends from Wisconsin want to go by. I think the same should be said for Green Bay and Detroit. Detroit is sometimes called Detroit and sometimes called Detroit Mercy. They need to pick one name and we need to help they sell that one name.


2. Scheduling guidelines:
I have been advocating a scheduling guideline for the HL for years. The A-10 and MVC have guidelines for scheduling that you have to have a certain SOS average for the prior 3 seasons in order to get your share of their conference's NCAA tournament money and TV contract money. I would take it a step further and reward the schools that are doing it right in the HL and punish the teams that are not helping the conference. The 2 things the HL has to offer it's members right now is NCAA tournament money and TV games on ESPN that are part of our contract with ESPN. Currently, each HL team is guaranteed 1 game a year on an ESPN network as part of that contract.

I think the HL should enforce a simple scheduling guideline where all HL schools play a full D1 schedule and have an average SOS of 175 or lower. That is roughly the top 1/2 of college basketball, so it shouldn't be that hard to obtain. If you achieve that you should get your basic share of our NCAA money and be allowed to play a game on ESPN as part of our contract.

I think the teams that are not achieving that should forfeit their NCAA money and not get their TV game on ESPN.

I think we should use that extra money and TV games as a reward for teams that exceed expectations. The teams that are scheduling right and winning should get to split the money forfeited by the underachieving teams and get the extra TV games they also forfeited.

Let's face it, we lost our identity as a conference when we lost Butler. We need to sell our conference to the basketball world at large. We shouldn't be wasting potential exposure on major networks on teams that aren't trying to elevate their game. I would much rather put our best teams on TV and try to build our brand that way.


3. Make he HLN a pay site:
I know this isn't a popular subject with most HL fans because we have all gotten used to seeing all of our games for free. I don't think there is one single major conference that lets you watch their games for free. All top 10 conferences charge to watch games on-line. Most of the crappy mid-majors also charge you to watch games on-line and the quality of their service is nothing compared to the HD picture you get on the HLN.

The HL made the decision to stop paying to have game broadcasted on Fox-sports years ago and used that money to start up and run the HLN. It is about time that we make the HLN a pay site that can sustain itself and maybe even make a little money for each conference member.


4. Buy more TV games for the conference:
We need to get back to the practice of paying to get games on Fox-sports or another sports channel besides the games we get on ESPN. We need to sell our brand and the best way to do that is to get extra TV exposure. Having more games on TV will also help our member schools schedule better OOC games too. It is much easier to schedule a good mid-major to a home/home series if you can promise them their game against you will be on TV. If we stop putting money into the HLN and force it to be a self sustaining entity, we can spend that money on a new TV contract.


5. Start a conference challenge:
Many major conferences have yearly challenge game. The ACC/Big 10 challenge is the most popular. With the ending of Bracket Busters, the HL should push to start a challenge weekend with another mid-major conference and get it sponsored by Fox-sports or ESPN. Ideally we would want to play the MVC or A-10, but I would even be happy with a series against the OVC or MAC if we could get it on TV. We really need to be doing anything we can to get more games on TV, especially games we have a chance to win.


6. Finish out expansion:
As I mentioned above, the HL is expected to announce the addition of Oakland in the next few weeks. If we are only adding Oakland, we need to start putting the full court press on team #10. If we already have #10 committed to joining the HL, we need to start working on #11 and 12. The best way to keep the HL together and to get us into the top 1 is to have a strong HL that no one wants to leave.


Still not sure about #3, but overall a great set of suggestions!

[bbtds]

When does a higher conference RPI ranking help an individual team?

[Big D]

When does a higher conference RPI ranking help an individual team?

1.  NCAA tournament seeding.  Teams from higher rated conferences almost always get better tournament seeds than teams from lower rated conferences even if they have similar resumes (RPI, SOS, W/L records). 
2.  Higher rated conferences are able to get better TV contracts with ESPN, CBS, Foxsports, etc.  If the HL is able to consistently become a top 10 conference, we will have more TV options and more TV games available for each individual member.
3.  Scheduling.  Go to Oakland's message board and take a look at their discussion about how much better their home schedule is this year.  Everyone wants to play games against teams from higher rated conferences.  No one wants to plays low majors.  The higher the HL is ranked, the easier it is for every team in the league to schedule games against higher rated conferences.  If the HL is able to become a consistent top 10 conference, there is also the potential for the conference to sign an ACC/Big 10 type conference challenge with another conference. 
4.  Future membership.  The better the HL is ranked over the next few year, the better chance we have at adding 1-3 more quality members to the conference.  That indirectly helps every individual team in the HL.

[a3uge]

When does a higher conference RPI ranking help an individual team?

1.  NCAA tournament seeding.  Teams from higher rated conferences almost always get better tournament seeds than teams from lower rated conferences even if they have similar resumes (RPI, SOS, W/L records). 

Your other points are valid, but this is completely false. Ask Montana, Belmont, Oregon... ect. SOS, RPI, and proximity to host site are much better indicators of predicating seeds.

[Big D]

When does a higher conference RPI ranking help an individual team?

1.  NCAA tournament seeding.  Teams from higher rated conferences almost always get better tournament seeds than teams from lower rated conferences even if they have similar resumes (RPI, SOS, W/L records). 

Your other points are valid, but this is completely false. Ask Montana, Belmont, Oregon... ect. SOS, RPI, and proximity to host site are much better indicators of predicating seeds.

I'm going to disagree.   I think if you spend some real time researching ALL of the seeds each year you will see that what I wrote above holds true the vast majority of the time.   In fact, one of YOUR above examples proves my point.  Last year Belmont was an 11 seed in the NCAA tournament.  They had an RPI of 19, record of 24-6, and OOC SOS of 2.  All you need to do is look at the 10 seeds to see how Belmont got screwed by their conference affiliation.  Iowa State was a 10 seed with an RPI of  41, record of 22-11, and OOC SOS of 137.   UC was a 10 seed with an RPI of 50, record of 22-11, and OOC SOS of 168.  Oklahoma was a 10 seed with an RPI of 39, record of 20-11, and OOC SOS of 24.  The final 10 seed was Colorado.  They had an RPI of 38, record of 21-11, and OOC SOS of 37.  Belmont was seeded lower than all 4 of those schools even though they had a better RPI than all of them, a better record than all of them, and a better OOC SOS than all of them.   

I don't really have time to research it now but I bet if you do the same comparison for your other mid-major example above (Montana) you will find that they should have been seeded higher too but were overlooked for teams from higher rated conferences.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

I don't really have time to research it now but I bet if you do the same comparison for your other mid-major example above (Montana) you will find that they should have been seeded higher too but were overlooked for teams from higher rated conferences.

Since you don't have the time to research it, just take our word for it.  They sucked.  a3 is right.  They were overseeded.

Fact is, the NCAA doesn't care to seed mid- and low-majors correctly.  Conference rank doesn't really matter.  Travel does.

[a3uge]

When does a higher conference RPI ranking help an individual team?

1.  NCAA tournament seeding.  Teams from higher rated conferences almost always get better tournament seeds than teams from lower rated conferences even if they have similar resumes (RPI, SOS, W/L records). 

Your other points are valid, but this is completely false. Ask Montana, Belmont, Oregon... ect. SOS, RPI, and proximity to host site are much better indicators of predicating seeds.

I'm going to disagree.   I think if you spend some real time researching ALL of the seeds each year you will see that what I wrote above holds true the vast majority of the time.   In fact, one of YOUR above examples proves my point.  Last year Belmont was an 11 seed in the NCAA tournament.  They had an RPI of 19, record of 24-6, and OOC SOS of 2.  All you need to do is look at the 10 seeds to see how Belmont got screwed by their conference affiliation.  Iowa State was a 10 seed with an RPI of  41, record of 22-11, and OOC SOS of 137.   UC was a 10 seed with an RPI of 50, record of 22-11, and OOC SOS of 168.  Oklahoma was a 10 seed with an RPI of 39, record of 20-11, and OOC SOS of 24.  The final 10 seed was Colorado.  They had an RPI of 38, record of 21-11, and OOC SOS of 37.  Belmont was seeded lower than all 4 of those schools even though they had a better RPI than all of them, a better record than all of them, and a better OOC SOS than all of them.   

I don't really have time to research it now but I bet if you do the same comparison for your other mid-major example above (Montana) you will find that they should have been seeded higher too but were overlooked for teams from higher rated conferences.

I apologize for my lazy post. I didn't really state my argument. I also screwed up with Belmont. I actually meant Davidson. I responded via my phone instead of a laptop where I had my handy spreadsheets (the ones that prove I have no life).

My actual point: for mid majors, it doesn't matter how well your conference is doing in terms of seeding. A conference having an up/down year won't affect a seed as much as geography, RPI, and overall SOS. Sure , the better the entire conference does, the better your overall SOS is going to be, and the better your RPI is going to be. These effects are negligible between conferences. Okay let's look at last year.

Take the mid majors that made the tournament...

6 worst team, 6 worst RPIs. Makes sense.
* Liberty
* North Carolina A&T
* James Madison
* Southern
* Long Island
* Western Kentucky

15 seeds - all the next 4 RPIS. Also makes sense.
* Albany
* Iona
* Pacific
* Florida Gulf Coast

14 seeds
* Harvard (93 RPI)
* Northwestern St. (78 RPI)
* Davidson (61 RPI)
* Valparaiso (58 RPI)

Here's where we start getting a little crazy. While Harvard and NW St were the next-worse RPIs, Davidson and Valpo both got 14 seeds, despite having a better RPI than two teams listed next:

13 seeds
* Montana (66 RPI)
* South Dakota St (62 RPI)
* New Mexico St. (55 RPI)
* La Salle (46 RPI)
* Boise St. (45 RPI)

12 seeds
* California (54 RPI)
* Oregon (48 RPI)
* Ole Miss (47 RPI)
* Akron (43 RPI)

Okay so in our 14 seeds, in terms of RPI (and all other rating systems ever made on the internet) Davidson and Valpo were both seeded BELOW Montana. Horizon League vs Big Sky? Please. Conference affiliation/conference SOS - no dice. This seed was based on location. Davidson was moved close to home (Lexington), and Valpo played in Michigan. Montana is in the middle of nowhere anyways, so San Jose is where they ended up. South Dakota State had Nate Wolters, the greatest white basketball player since Lary Bird, so of course they made a 13 seed. But if we were ranking on conferences... Summit League < Horizon. Also Davidson in the Southern is still better than the Big Sky.

So lets look at our 12 and 13 seeds. Akron at a 12? But they're in the MAC!? The 13 seeds are rated below from the A10 (when it was good), MVC, and WAC (when it wasn't a joke).

But I accidentally referenced a OVC team - Belmont, which at a 19 RPI were given an 11 seed. Unless you've had proven NCAA success, there's a ceiling you can go if you're a mid major. It's not a significant difference from year to year... the rest of your conference scheduling better OOC games isn't going to make a significant difference. Power conferences are given seeding preferences because the overall SOS is better than a mid major conference. It's not something a mid major conference can reasonably fix. So this is why I say "Teams from higher rated conferences almost always get better tournament seeds than teams from lower rated conferences even if they have similar resumes" is false... not because a power conference Big East team is going to get rated higher than an OVC team, but because the Horizon League's top team isn't going to get a better seed than the OVC or ASUN simply because the conference is better. The better predictor is looking at where the host sites are, look at each team's RPI, and start placing teams in sites compared to proximity while giving teams with a high SOS/top 50 RPI wins the benefit of the doubt.

[wh]

At this point every HL team is either done or close to being finished putting together their OOC schedule for the 2013-14 season.  As I mentioned in another thread quality OOC scheduling is nearly as important as recruiting and coaching in terms of building a multi-bid league.  I also noted that the A-10 uses a formula that establishes minimum standards for OOC opponent scheduling. 

The A-10 formula is as follows:

Atlantic 10 non-conference scheduling rules

8.04 The following requirements must be met by all Atlantic 10 men's basketball teams. The penalty for non-compliance is outlined in the Conference Constitution and Bylaws.

A. Each men's team must maintain a 1.8 average for all non-conference games schedules. The RPI at the conclusion of the NCAA Tournament of the preceding season will be used for the pre-season analysis and the current season's pre-NCAA tournament RPI will be used for post-season analysis. The point values are as follows:

Ranked 1-50 in the RPI: 4 points
Ranked 51-100 in the RPI: 3 points
Ranked 101-125 in the RPI: 2.5 points
Ranked 126-150 in the RPI: 2 points
Ranked 151-175 in the RPI: 1 point
Ranked 176-200 in the RPI: 0.5 point
Ranked 201+ in the RPI: 0 points

B. Any Atlantic 10 institution playing a non-conference game against an opponent from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC PAC-10 or Big East will receive no less than 2 points, regardless of the team's RPI.

C. Any Atlantic 10 institution playing a non-conference game against an opponent from Conference USA or Mountain West will receive no less than 1 point, regardless of the team's RPI.

I thought it would be interesting to see how HL teams did against the A-10 point system, starting with this year's league favorite Wright State. Following are WSU OOC opponents thus far along with last year's RPI and their point value using the A-10 system:

Georgetown 15 (4)
DePaul 204 (2)
South Alabama 160 (1)
Southern Miss 27 (4)
Houston Baptist 309 (0)
Morehead State 178 (0.5)
VMI 302 (0)
Miami 257 (0)
UMKC 285 (0)
Bowling Green 275 (0)
Eastern Illinois 276 (0)
North Carolina A&T 205 (0)

11.5 total points/12 teams = 1.0

Thus, WSU's OOC schedule falls woefully short of the minimum acceptable A-10 average of 1.8.  Over half their opponents received 0 points, meaning they had RPI's of 200 or higher.

In contrast, here's Valpo's OOC schedule:

Murray State 117 (2.5)
Illinois 38 (4)
Ohio 76 (3)
Evansville 90 (3)
James Madison 169 (1)
Central Florida 101(2.5)
Mercer 118 (2.5)
Ball State 233 (0)
Saint Louis 17 (4)
Loyola Marymount 212 (0)
East Tennessee State 271 (0)

22.5 total points/11 = 2.0

Thus, Valpo's OOC schedule is comfortably above the minimum acceptable A-10 average of 1.8.  Only 3 Valpo's opponents had RPI's of 200 or higher.


As to WSU, you couldn't draw 12 names out of a hat a hundred times and come up with a schedule this bad.  It's blatantly obvious that this is a resume building schedule for Donlon.  League be damned, fans be damned, attendance be damned, preparation for conference be damned, everyone and everything be damned - except the win and loss record.  After all, at the end of the day college coaches are measured by wins and losses more than anything else. Donlon should stack up a bunch of wins with this cupcake schedule and position himself as one of next year's "young bucks" ready to move up. 

Self serving coaches like Donlon are the perfect example of why the Horizon League must institute a scheduling policy if it ever expects to be taken seriously by the rest of the college basketball world.   

Following is how HL team schedules fared against the A-10 OOC scheduling rules (above) that require a minimum average of 1.8:

Meet or exceed A-10 min. requirement:
3.0 Oakland
2.0 Valpo
1.8 Youngstown State
1.8 Cleveland State

Below min. A-10 requirement:
1.5 Detroit
1.3 UIC
1.2 Green Bay
1.2 Milwaukee
1.0 Wright State

Note: Based on available scheduling information (mostly complete or nearly complete)

Detroit's schedule isn't half bad, but the other 4 - UIC, GB, Milw and WSU - range from sad to pathetic.  They have definitely dropped the ball.

[Pathfinder]

Last year's numbers:
Detroit - 2.4
Cleveland State - 1.7
Green Bay - 1.4
Milwaukee - 1.4
Valparaiso - 1.3
Illinois-Chicago - 1.3
Youngstown State - 1.1
Loyola- 1.1
Wright State - 0.7

[wh]

I thought I had seen it all relative to bad scheduling until I just calculated Loyola's - 0.3!  9 of their 11 OOC opponents had RPI's higher than 200.  Believe it or not, their .3 could have been even worse (.1), had one of their 9 "no counters" (Mississippi State) not been from the SEC (automatically awarded 2 points regardless of RPI).  This literally could be the worst OOC schedule in the country. 

Thank God they "dumped" us in favor of a better conference.   

[wh]

I thought I had seen it all relative to bad scheduling until I just calculated Loyola's - 0.3!  9 of their 11 OOC opponents had RPI's higher than 200.  Believe it or not, their .3 could have been even worse (.1), had one of their 9 "no counters" (Mississippi State) not been from the SEC (automatically awarded 2 points regardless of RPI).  This literally could be the worst OOC schedule in the country. 

Thank God they "dumped" us in favor of a better conference.   

To further emphasize how bad their schedule is, 4 of their 11 opponents have RPI's above 300, and a 5th is 288.

[VULB#62]

That'll skyrocket the MVC in the ratings and validate their careful selection of a truly competitive team to fill their void.