NCAA College Basketball Talk

[VUGrad1314]

Perhaps we should consider being a part of this.

http://www.etsubucs.com/mbasketball/news/2018-19/15338/mens-hoops-to-join-scheduling-alliance-in-2019/

[VU2014]

Perhaps we should consider being a part of this.

http://www.etsubucs.com/mbasketball/news/2018-19/15338/mens-hoops-to-join-scheduling-alliance-in-2019/

If we can get guaranteed quality opponents on our schedule that helps us achieve our goals of making the touney then I'm for the idea. Any idea of who else has joined this alliance? If schools of MVC, MWC, A10, top WCC's ilk and the very top dogs from low/mid major conferences (St. Mary's, Murray, Belmont, FGCU, etc) are involved then maybe I could see the benefit. Our Athletics Dept has shown the financial commitment to pay to travel and be in these quality neutral site tournament's. Other mid-major schools haven't shown the same commitment and I could see it being beneficial of them.

[VUGrad1314]

I'm not saying this should be either\or it should be both if we can manage it. Do this instead of the non-D1s and it's a big win regardless of who has joined.

[VU2014]

I'm not saying this should be either\or it should be both if we can manage it. Do this instead of the non-D1s and it's a big win regardless of who has joined.

It depends. From a fan interest perspective, absolutely. But playing low majors/or weaker mid-majors may hurt more than they help. In the old format (RPI), it wouldn't hurt or benefit to play a non-d1. Under the NCAA's new proprietary metric it's unclear what the proper strategy should be.

It may or may not help joining this alliance. Maybe it's worth taking the risk and trying to set an example for other teams from good mid-major conferences in hopes others join.

[VUGrad1314]

I have to say that East Tennessee State joining is a great sign for the caliber of programs we could play if we joined.

[IrishDawg]

Perhaps we should consider being a part of this.

http://www.etsubucs.com/mbasketball/news/2018-19/15338/mens-hoops-to-join-scheduling-alliance-in-2019/

It's basically a bracketbuster type of event, only now they're guessing which teams will be good rather than knowing which teams are good for the pairings.

It's certainly better than non-D1 games, but this type of thing isn't going to generate more bids (which is why Gonzaga and the A-10 never took part in the bracketbusters).  One of the biggest complaints about the bracketbusters was that they were basically a play-in-game, where one of the mid-majors would be eliminated from an at-large berth simply by losing that game. 

If it's simply to get better home and aways, it's a possibility, but keep in mind that it's the mid-major Czar Mark Adams who is determining the matchups, not the coaches, and certainly not the fans, so it's definitely not a guarantee that Valpo would play a team at home that would be desirable for fans to watch.

To me, it seems like it's simply accelerating (but not as much as the P5 leagues moving to 20 games conference schedules) a scenario where we wind up with separate tournaments for the P5+2 and the rest of college basketball, which is not where I want things to wind up at.

[VU2014]

To me, it seems like it's simply accelerating (but not as much as the P5 leagues moving to 20 games conference schedules) a scenario where we wind up with separate tournaments for the P5+2 and the rest of college basketball, which is not where I want things to wind up at.

I really hope it doesn't come to that. It would ruin the whole spirit of the tournament and be bad for the sport. Mid-majors still offer value to the TV Networks, because everyone loves Cinderella's. Mid-majors can captivate the casual sports fans interest more than powerhouses. Also having mid-majors in the tournament also drive gambling, which leads to viewers.

[wh]

Perhaps we should consider being a part of this.

http://www.etsubucs.com/mbasketball/news/2018-19/15338/mens-hoops-to-join-scheduling-alliance-in-2019/

It's basically a bracketbuster type of event, only now they're guessing which teams will be good rather than knowing which teams are good for the pairings.

It's certainly better than non-D1 games, but this type of thing isn't going to generate more bids (which is why Gonzaga and the A-10 never took part in the bracketbusters).  One of the biggest complaints about the bracketbusters was that they were basically a play-in-game, where one of the mid-majors would be eliminated from an at-large berth simply by losing that game. 

If it's simply to get better home and aways, it's a possibility, but keep in mind that it's the mid-major Czar Mark Adams who is determining the matchups, not the coaches, and certainly not the fans, so it's definitely not a guarantee that Valpo would play a team at home that would be desirable for fans to watch.

To me, it seems like it's simply accelerating (but not as much as the P5 leagues moving to 20 games conference schedules) a scenario where we wind up with separate tournaments for the P5+2 and the rest of college basketball, which is not where I want things to wind up at.

I think you could be unduly focusing on "process flaws" and missing the larger point. Everyone who follows mid major basketball recognizes that good mid major programs need to do something to bridge the gap created by major programs adding conference games, only agreeing to buy games against clearly inferior opponents, refusing to play 2-for-1's, etc. The Adams' thing is a workaround for that. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. To the point that his system might have some match-up challenges, so what? Unlike Bracket Busters, these are Nov. games, not Feb, so pairing up teams is more theoretical, and thus more challenging. It's still far better to be guaranteed 2 games against a an evenly matched opponent than everyone continuing to flounder around on their own and not getting the job done.

[bbtds]

In the end it only matters who the almighty Mark Adams picks for Valpo to play and even if he uses some math formula for matching teams if lower D1 teams join after Valpo despite there being only good D1 teams when Valpo joins the alliance then the chances of playing lower D1 teams is greater.

Also based on last year Adams would have to rate Valpo at best as being a lower to medium D1 team.

[wh]

In the end it only matters who the almighty Mark Adams picks for Valpo to play and even if he uses some math formula for matching teams if lower D1 teams join after Valpo despite there being only good D1 teams when Valpo joins the alliance then the chances of playing lower D1 teams is greater.

Also based on last year Adams would have to rate Valpo at best as being a lower to medium D1 team.

If that's all he took into account, you would be right. You might try rereading the article.

[bbtds]

In the end it only matters who the almighty Mark Adams picks for Valpo to play and even if he uses some math formula for matching teams if lower D1 teams join after Valpo despite there being only good D1 teams when Valpo joins the alliance then the chances of playing lower D1 teams is greater.

Also based on last year Adams would have to rate Valpo at best as being a lower to medium D1 team.

If that's all he took into account, you would be right. You might try rereading the article.

Where does it say Valpo wouldn't have a greater chance of being scheduled against lower D1 teams because they finished with a losing record last season.

A benefit I see would be better home games like the game against Utah State instead of a game against Concordia Chicago. It doesn't mean we wouldn't be playing the SIUE or UC Riverside games.

Benefits of the Alliance:

The Alliance projects that at least four of the top spending conferences will go to 20 conference games, which eliminates 110 non-conference games from their scheduling portfolios in the next few years. These two alliance games will help build guaranteed inventory based on the shrinking number of non-conference games available.
During the 2017-18 season, many lesser funded programs played only 40 percent or less of all non-conference games at home compared to the top spenders playing 64 percent of all non-conference games at home. This 50/50 split of the initial alliance challenge games helps that dynamic.

Future Vision:

The Alliance will transition from the two-game format in 2019 to a comprehensive MTE (Multiple Team Events/Non-Conference Tournament) strategy for multiple aligned conferences/teams in 2020.
The Alliance's goal is to create cost effective challenge games and MTE's with oversight by The Alliance's teams and participating conference leaders.
These MTE's will be designed to bring the best mid-level spending conferences/teams together to create great match ups and add value to NCAA resumes.
The goal is to save money while leveraging the collective value of participating top teams from our conferences and teams.

[VU2014]

In theory this Alliance is a great idea but for it to add value to us it would need to guarantee us meaningful games against top mid-major opponents. Do they have a list of who is on board yet? etsu is a solid program. If it ends up being a collection of low majors/weaker mid-majors it won't make a difference for anyone who joins. This Alliance needs to get the MWC, A10, and MVC schools on board.

[wh]

Where does it say Valpo wouldn't have a greater chance of being scheduled against lower D1 teams because they finished with a losing record last season.

"This approach is designed to insure member programs of at least one road and one home non-conference game against another member of The Alliance. Match-ups will be determined by Adams, who will use NCAA Tournament Selection metrics and an analysis of returning players/recruiting classes to develop those pairings. These "challenge games" as they are being called, will be played on Nov. 26 and Nov. 30 of 2019."

http://www.etsubucs.com/mbasketball/news/2018-19/15338/mens-hoops-to-join-scheduling-alliance-in-2019/

Same article, different source:

"This approach is designed to insure member programs of at least one road and one home non-conference game against another member of The Alliance. Match-ups will be determined by Adams, who will use NCAA Tournament Selection metrics and an analysis of returning players/recruiting classes to develop those pairings. These "challenge games" as they are being called, will be played on Nov. 26 and Nov. 30 of 2019."

https://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Basketball/2018/09/19/ETSU-basketball-team-to-join-scheduling-alliance.html?ci=stream&lp=1&p=1

[bbtds]

I think you are giving too much credit to Adams for seeing that an unproven group of Valpo transfers and recruits will  be talented enough to push Valpo into the upper half of the D1 teams. But I do appreciate your fandom of VUMBB and hope with all my heart that your vision about this alliance is better than mine.

[wh]

I think you are giving too much credit to Adams for seeing that an unproven group of Valpo transfers and recruits will  be talented enough to push Valpo into the upper half of the D1 teams. But I do appreciate your fandom of VUMBB and hope with all my heart that your vision about this alliance is better than mine.

I don't know Adams from Adam. What I do know is there's nothing to lose by joining this Alliance. You said that you're concerned we're going to get matched up against the SIUE's and UC Riverside's of the mid major world. Who do you think we bring into the ARC now, for heaven's sakes?  Heck, I would consider anyone in the top 200 to be a major win over the garbage teams coming into the ARC this year. To repeat, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by participating in a coordinated scheduling improvement initiative with other mid-major programs dealing with the same problem we are.

[EddieCabot]

I think you are giving too much credit to Adams for seeing that an unproven group of Valpo transfers and recruits will  be talented enough to push Valpo into the upper half of the D1 teams. But I do appreciate your fandom of VUMBB and hope with all my heart that your vision about this alliance is better than mine.

I don't know Adams from Adam. What I do know is there's nothing to lose by joining this Alliance. You said that you're concerned we're going to get matched up against the SIUE's and UC Riverside's of the mid major world. Who do you think we bring into the ARC now, for heaven's sakes?  Heck, I would consider anyone in the top 200 to be a major win over the garbage teams coming into the ARC this year. To repeat, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by participating in a coordinated scheduling improvement initiative with other mid-major programs dealing with the same problem we are.

Really good points.  The timing would be good since the MVC-MWC challenge going away next year. 

You would think that since every mid-major seems to complain about how hard it is to schedule that the schools/coaches could just pick up the phone and schedule these game on their own, but I guess I'm naive and don't understand.  If it takes Adams getting involved to make these matchups happen, then so be it.

[vu72]

I think you are giving too much credit to Adams for seeing that an unproven group of Valpo transfers and recruits will  be talented enough to push Valpo into the upper half of the D1 teams. But I do appreciate your fandom of VUMBB and hope with all my heart that your vision about this alliance is better than mine.

I don't know Adams from Adam. What I do know is there's nothing to lose by joining this Alliance. You said that you're concerned we're going to get matched up against the SIUE's and UC Riverside's of the mid major world. Who do you think we bring into the ARC now, for heaven's sakes?  Heck, I would consider anyone in the top 200 to be a major win over the garbage teams coming into the ARC this year. To repeat, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by participating in a coordinated scheduling improvement initiative with other mid-major programs dealing with the same problem we are.

Really good points.  The timing would be good since the MVC-MWC challenge going away next year. 

You would think that since every mid-major seems to complain about how hard it is to schedule that the schools/coaches could just pick up the phone and schedule these game on their own, but I guess I'm naive and don't understand.  If it takes Adams getting involved to make these matchups happen, then so be it.

I thought I read somewhere where this is a one year break then back at it.  If that is true then Valpo would be a home team in the next round.  We are bringing in GW next year and perhaps we can start a good home and home at our place next season as well. Having said that, I see no reason why we shouldn't join.  It can't hurt.

[VULB#62]

What if............

The the top 5 Mid-major conferences got together and created a much larger preconference round robin challenge with 4 games (2 home and 2 away) matching teams by previous season regular season finish 1-10 (i.e., 1 plays 1, 2 plays 2, >>>>>>  10 plays 10).  That would guarantee 4 competitive games  and 2 good home games for all teams involved.  It could span 2 weeks in November or December.

The top 5 RPI conferences below #7 American Athletic are:
8 MVC
9 MWC
10 CAA
11 A-10
12 MAC

Using 2017-18
Loyola would play: 1- Nevada (MWC), 1-Charleston (CAA), 1-URI (A-10), 1-Buffalo (MAC)

Valpo would play: 10-Colorado State (MWC), 10-James Madison (CAA), 10 Duquesne (A-10), 10-Bowling Green

If this expanded to 7 conferences (and 6 guaranteed games with 3 home / 3 away) the next two in would be the WCC and the WAC

Or is this too simplistic? 

[bbtds]

Valpo would play: 10-Colorado State (MWC), 10-James Madison (CAA), 10 Duquesne (A-10), 10-Bowling Green

To me that isn't much better than playing SIUE & UC Riverside. We would have to get lucky and one of those teams would win a lot more games than they did in 17-18. If we had to travel to Ft. Collins, CO & Harrisonburg, VA and play low D1s we aren't gaining anything and could lose.

I really hope it doesn't come to that. It would ruin the whole spirit of the tournament and be bad for the sport. Mid-majors still offer value to the TV Networks, because everyone loves Cinderella's. Mid-majors can captivate the casual sports fans interest more than powerhouses. Also having mid-majors in the tournament also drive gambling, which leads to viewers.

This why I proposed all the mid-majors boycotting the NCAA tournament for 2 years to see where the ratings go--hopefully way south--and then renegotiating a deal that guarantees mid-majors more places in the tournament.

[FieldGoodie05]

Perhaps we should consider being a part of this.

http://www.etsubucs.com/mbasketball/news/2018-19/15338/mens-hoops-to-join-scheduling-alliance-in-2019/

It's certainly better than non-D1 games, but this type of thing isn't going to generate more bids (which is why Gonzaga and the A-10 never took part in the bracketbusters).  One of the biggest complaints about the bracketbusters was that they were basically a play-in-game, where one of the mid-majors would be eliminated from an at-large berth simply by losing that game. 

Just a personal opinion here, but I completely disagree.  99.9% of Mid-Majors simply had no chance to begin with during the bracket busters of years ago.  The simply fact of the matter for the vast majority of those teams playing was no at large bid was forthcoming but if they played a road game against a highly thought of mid-major and won, well then they are finally not losing ground in RPI.

I strongly welcome such tournaments but I think they must be played in the month of December when nearly no invitational tournaments are played.  Prefer to see games for 10-days after thanksgiving because most students are still in school.  Leave the "get healthy" games against inferior D1 competition for the last 10-days of December.

But again, bracket busters (as a whole) do not eliminate Mid-Majors from contention.  Simply put, they take two mediocre chances for an at-large bid and produce 1-better chance for an at-large bid.

If a game like Murray State vs Loyola happened last year, you cannot convince me that either team would get a large benefit in the eyes of the selection committee (for example).  Forget the stupid RPI and other numbers, those are only used to eliminate mid-majors.  Start thinking big picture, IMO all these categories that the selection committee and NCAA put forth are only meant to disqualify more mid-majors.

TAKE THE BATTLE TO THEM AND FORCE THEM TO CONTINUALLY CHANGE THE FIELD OF BATTLE.  WE ARE UP FOR THE CHALLENGE YOU FAT OLD ENTITLED CHEATING WHITE MEN!!!!

[VUGrad1314]

We could have had TWO Murray State-Loyola matchups if the MVC would have just gone to 11 and 20 games... I bet that would have pushed Loyola over the goal line and been a significant boon for the Racers as well. I think we could have gotten 2 bids last year if we had done it.

[SanityLost17]

Scheduling going forward will not only continue to be a nightmare but will get worse.   I realize going to 11 and 20 makes it that much harder to make the NCAA tourney.  However, we have to understand at best our program is only going to be a 1 out of every 4 year tourney team anyway.  So if we have an opportunity to make the regular season more enjoyable we should do it.  Add Murray State please!   Even if that drops us to 1/6 years but when we do make it we win a game or 2 every time by being good enough to survive a better MVC than so be it.   

In the meantime at least we have that much more to look forward too during the regular season.   

[FieldGoodie05]

Scheduling going forward will not only continue to be a nightmare but will get worse.   I realize going to 11 and 20 makes it that much harder to make the NCAA tourney.  However, we have to understand at best our program is only going to be a 1 out of every 4 year tourney team anyway.  So if we have an opportunity to make the regular season more enjoyable we should do it.  Add Murray State please!   Even if that drops us to 1/6 years but when we do make it we win a game or 2 every time by being good enough to survive a better MVC than so be it.   

In the meantime at least we have that much more to look forward too during the regular season.

I carry the same logic regarding 1 out of 4 years in the MVC (qualifying for NCAA tournament).  And you make a solid point that scheduling is already a nightmare and will likely continue to get worse.  I am just not sure if adding (2) teams will be a long term success story, financially.  In my view all it does is decrease our share derived from NCAA and TV deals (limited as they are).

In my (far from connected) view, we already have difficulty in spending on athletics to begin with.  If adding (2) teams causes even more of a strain on our annual athletics budget then I do not advocate for adding teams. 

One way I could get behind adding (2) teams is to ward off conference collapse syndrome.  If a couple powerful teams leave for greener pastures in the future, we'd still have a stable of 10 teams with quality mid-major chops to buoy the league.  So if we are arguing for conference viability, then I could see casting a vote for expansion.  Just not sure at this time that it brings added financial value or doing it to make scheduling less of a headache gets my vote today.

[VULB#62]

Valpo would play: 10-Colorado State (MWC), 10-James Madison (CAA), 10 Duquesne (A-10), 10-Bowling Green

To me that isn't much better than playing SIUE & UC Riverside. We would have to get lucky and one of those teams would win a lot more games than they did in 17-18. If we had to travel to Ft. Collins, CO & Harrisonburg, VA and play low D1s we aren't gaining anything and could lose.

Agreed.  Heck, we were a 10th place team.  But the Valpo example was predicated on our finish LAST YEAR.  I believe we will finish much higher this season and that would be the basis for a Fall 2019 Mid-Major Challenge.  Going back to the 2017-18 basis, if we had wound up 5th (Bradley's position), we would have had the following schedule:

Valpo RPI 106 (postulated using Bradley's RPI) plays: 5-Fresno State RPI 103 (MWC), 5-Towson State RPI 157 (CAA), VCU RPI 135 (A-10), 5-Kent State RPI 154 (MAC). [Average RPI ~ 137]

       vs.

Valpo RPI 174 (actual) plays: 10-Colorado State RPI 235 (MWC), 10-James Madison RPI 273 (CAA), 10 Duquesne RPI 259 (A-10), 10-Bowling Green RPI 195 (MAC). [Average RPI ~ 240]

This kind of challenge setup provides great incentive both inside and outside a conference:  Inside - the higher a team rises within the conference standings, the better the OOC becomes.  Outside - the more improved an entire conference's aggregate results are, the better the opponents for it's participating teams.

But, hey, this type of out-of-the-box thinking would require very many stars to alig, and, sadly,  Mid Majors have demonstrated a lack of cohesiveness except for complaining a lot.

[EddieCabot]

This why I proposed all the mid-majors boycotting the NCAA tournament for 2 years to see where the ratings go--hopefully way south--and then renegotiating a deal that guarantees mid-majors more places in the tournament.

This would totally work, but it won't happen because it would be difficult for mid-majors to pass on tournament revenue for two years. 

Mids should at least threaten this and see what happens.  The NCAA certainly doesn't want another disaster like 2015 where the Final Four had Kentucky, Wisconsin, Michigan State and Duke.  Boring.