Unt To No Longer Schedule D-Ii Schools

[NT80]

In fact, all SBC schools are banned from scheduling D-II schools in the future. RV says we will pay if need be to get enough home games with D-I schools.

http://meangreenblog.dentonrc.com/archives/2010/10/a-few-random-basketball-notes.html

[meanJewGreen]

I thought Johnny Jones's quote in the DMN was ridiculous. "We need to schedule these people for season ticket packages". Yes, like someone is going to pay to watch UNT play Henderson State, or Northwood University. Come on Johnny. Maybe we'd win a game in the NCAA tournament if we played legit D1 opponents with more frequency.

[jdennis82]

I thought Johnny Jones's quote in the DMN was ridiculous. "We need to schedule these people for season ticket packages". Yes, like someone is going to pay to watch UNT play Henderson State, or Northwood University. Come on Johnny. Maybe we'd win a game in the NCAA tournament if we played legit D1 opponents with more frequency.

i take his quote to be in response to this:

The good news is UNT athletic director Rick Villarreal said he won't let the new standards impact how many games the Mean Green plays at home. If UNT has to pay to bring more Division I teams in it will.

playing a full home slate is what JJ means is "needed" for season ticket packages.

[Arkstfan]

No one has been more vocal in opposition to it than John Brady who said the league was fine as it was.

I happen to think that when a conference is in the top half of Division I in resources and profile and the champion goes to the NCAA tournament tabbed as one of the bottom nine teams (ie securely in the bottom third) in the tournament and the league is consistently rated in the bottom half of Division I that something is bad wrong.

Apparently not enough schools got their competive juices flowing after WKU's run so now we turn to a rule to prevent schools from causing too much harm to the one trying and expecting results.

[UNTFan23]

No one has been more vocal in opposition to it than John Brady who said the league was fine as it was.

I happen to think that when a conference is in the top half of Division I in resources and profile and the champion goes to the NCAA tournament tabbed as one of the bottom nine teams (ie securely in the bottom third) in the tournament and the league is consistently rated in the bottom half of Division I that something is bad wrong.

Apparently not enough schools got their competive juices flowing after WKU's run so now we turn to a rule to prevent schools from causing too much harm to the one trying and expecting results.

For some schools that have weaker programs, does losing to D1 schools help or hurt a team's RPI them rather than winning against a D2?

I'm sure there are plenty of SWAC schools we can pay to come to Denton.

[CMJ]

For some schools that have weaker programs, does losing to D1 schools help or hurt a team's RPI them rather than winning against a D2?

I'm sure there are plenty of SWAC schools we can pay to come to Denton.

Since half of your RPI is made up of your competition's records - weak teams in the league could have decent RPI's with an under 500 record if they loaded up on top 20 type of schools OOC.

As to your 2nd point...SWAC schools are rarely, if ever, in the top 150. While I love this move, it might get very expensive for us to round out a home schedule now. We're gonna have to get more fans at games, otherwise we're gonna be on the road a lot more in the OOC.

Edited October 26, 2010 by CMJ

[meangreenacct]

To me the new scheduling mandate seems near impossible. We just schedule out future games with Texas Tech/LSU, how do we know they will be in the top 150 by the time the games are actually played? I think it would be a much better policy to say non D2 games, and no more than 5 OOC games for teams not in the top 150...I forsee us having to play nearly 2 months on the road just to comply with these new rulings. I think we have had decent luck getting some quality schools to come play here, but imagine how hard it might be for some of our conference foes to get top 150 teams in their house?

[UNTFan23]

Since half of your RPI is made up of your competition's records - weak teams in the league could have decent RPI's with an under 500 record if they loaded up on top 20 type of schools OOC.

As to your 2nd point...SWAC schools are rarely, if ever, in the top 150. While I love this move, it might get very expensive for us to round out a home schedule now. We're gonna have to get more fans at games, otherwise we're gonna be on the road a lot more in the OOC.

I was suggesting SWAC schools in the place of D2 schools. The scheduling RPI average rule I think will end up hurting many Belt schools.

[GrayEagle]

I do think that this is a step forward for the conference. We don't do it in football so why should we in basketball?

Playing in your same classification can improve both attendance and RPI and thus the seeding in the NCAA Tournament. I'm too old to drive a 100 mile trip, half of it through rush hour traffic to see us beat Langston or Henderson State. But for Division 1 teams within a 500 mile or so radius who come to Denton I will make a concerted effort. But, unless you can get Denton County residents and most of all students involved, the 5,000 attendance average is going to be hard to do. It's not impossible. It was done under Blakeley who did not have the MVC for glamour home games.

This brings me another gripe with Division 1 basketball. It is simply too big. If we can divide football then why not basketball? We have Division 1 teams whose home arenas are smaller than many Texas high school gyms. I haven't studied how it could best be divided but I'd like to see two 160 team divisions with 16 conferences in each. Sorry, I needed to get that off of my chest.

[Censored by Laurie]

. This brings me another gripe with Division 1 basketball. It is simply too big. If we can divide football then why not basketball? We have Division 1 teams whose home arenas are smaller than many Texas high school gyms. I haven't studied how it could best be divided but I'd like to see two 160 team divisions with 16 conferences in each. Sorry, I needed to get that off of my chest.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Arkstfan]

150 is a rolling average of three years. When you look at schools that average 150 over three years, that stays relatively static.

Texas Tech was 72 last year. Let's say their three year average is 75. You can play them and either UNC-Ashville or Mercer or SC State and hit 150. Now the downside is LSU is in the toliet so you need a Nevada or Illinois to balance them (actually Sam Houston would come close to balancing them).

If you play Kansas you can balance them with Florida Gulf Coast and your pick of Southern Miss or Northern Colorado.

Play two top teams and you can play three or four real dogs in non-conference. If you want to play one win Bryant, you have to play two teams who average around 52.

[meangreenacct]

150 is a rolling average of three years. When you look at schools that average 150 over three years, that stays relatively static.

Texas Tech was 72 last year. Let's say their three year average is 75. You can play them and either UNC-Ashville or Mercer or SC State and hit 150. Now the downside is LSU is in the toliet so you need a Nevada or Illinois to balance them (actually Sam Houston would come close to balancing them).

If you play Kansas you can balance them with Florida Gulf Coast and your pick of Southern Miss or Northern Colorado.

Play two top teams and you can play three or four real dogs in non-conference. If you want to play one win Bryant, you have to play two teams who average around 52.

I guess I interpreted the ESPN article different, the way I read it was each team on your schedule had to be top 150 (or top 150 3 year average)...maybe I am mistaken.

[CMJ]

I guess I interpreted the ESPN article different, the way I read it was each team on your schedule had to be top 150 (or top 150 3 year average)...maybe I am mistaken.

That's how I read it as well. That WOULD be damn near impossible for us.

[MCMLXXX]

We need to schedule more MVC and C-USA Schools. Also home and home with UTA each year would reduce travel costs and generate more interest and ticket sales locally.

[UNTFan23]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one to read the article as each OOC team needed to be a RPI 150 averaged over three years.

[CMJ]

Also home and home with UTA each year would reduce travel costs and generate more interest and ticket sales locally.

Considering UTA's recent RPI's that would be a lousy idea.

If we're going on that 3 year rolling average UTA would be a 185. So, automatically we'd be down 70 spots to make up in the RPI if we scheduled them twice in a season.

[TheTastyGreek]

We need to schedule more MVC and C-USA Schools. Also home and home with UTA each year would reduce travel costs and generate more interest and ticket sales locally.

MVC games are tough because they aren't "bus games". You've gotta fly to get to most of them (and many C-USA schools). We've done a good job of getting series with C-USA teams that are within driving distance and keeping travel expenses as low as possible.

We generally have 2 non-D1 games per year. If I had my wishes in replacing those, I'd add another Southland opponent (or a bus trip C-USA school, if we can get them to keep scheduling us) and one flight to a perennially lower tier (but still roughly 150 RPI range) MVC or WAC school like Idaho or Wyoming.

[meangreenacct]

I am hoping that either the ESPN article was poorly worded or just got the point wrong about the scheduling. I don't think I have a problem with an average 150 RPI over the whole OOC, but the other interpretation could cause some many problems. What about longstanding rivalries or local matchups with teams outside the 150? I would hate not to be able to play UTA, or other local schools due to restrictions on scheduling. I think they add way too much excitement to get overly hung up on RPI.

[SUMG]

Playing only Division I schools is no problem. And as to the RPI average....it's a suggestion. What are they gonna do if you don't meet that requirement? Nothing. After all this is the same league where ULM versus Arkansas in Little Rock, FAU versus Michigan State in Detroit, and Arkansas State versus Mizzou in Kansas City......were all counted as SBC team HOME football games.

[GrandGreen]

I am not sure how much this helps anything. Almost all teams play a bunch of patsies in the oc, for a number of reasons. It allows cheap home games, pads player statistics, allows bench players more action and obviously builds up the record. Playing against lower division teams is RPI neutral, while playing against a bad D1 can lower your rpi even it is a big win. As far as having to play an oc schedule that averages 150 rpi that will be expensive and it will be impossible to monitor. What is the league going to do if a team falls far short of these standards?

I assume the obvious intent of these standards is to eventually raise the likelihood of being a multiple NCAA conference by raising the RPI of the conference. The problem is that just playing better competition does no good if you don't also win your share. With most upper tier conference teams playing few away oc games, this mandate will be very difficult to obtain as the number of home games could go down. I don't have a lot of faith in the conference help with scheduling. The problem is that you greatly limit regional teams as less than probably a third of the so called mid majors will have a rating above 150 while the majority of the schools with higher ratings will be in the so called high major category. Not many of the upper league conferences such as the Big 12, or SEC are going to play home and home against a Belt team.

This would be a good thing for the serious fan because the games should be better against better competition. However, how many fans are going to be lost when those 20 win seasons are much more difficult to come by. There are a lot of 20 win team these days that include a lot of victories over non-division 1 teams and very poor D1 competition. Is it really going to help the Belt's perception even if the rpi does rise if the win percentage goes significantly down?

As far as averaging 5000 a game that seems unrealistic for most of the Belt. NT should average that and more but has not been close in decades. I have no idea of how the league is going to help at all with this.

[SUMG]

I am not sure how much this helps anything. Almost all teams play a bunch of patsies in the oc, for a number of reasons. It allows cheap home games, pads player statistics, allows bench players more action and obviously builds up the record. Playing against lower division teams is RPI neutral, while playing against a bad D1 can lower your rpi even it is a big win. As far as having to play an oc schedule that averages 150 rpi that will be expensive and it will be impossible to monitor. What is the league going to do if a team falls far short of these standards?

I assume the obvious intent of these standards is to eventually raise the likelihood of being a multiple NCAA conference by raising the RPI of the conference. The problem is that just playing better competition does no good if you don't also win your share. With most upper tier conference teams playing few away oc games, this mandate will be very difficult to obtain as the number of home games could go down. I don't have a lot of faith in the conference help with scheduling. The problem is that you greatly limit regional teams as less than probably a third of the so called mid majors will have a rating above 150 while the majority of the schools with higher ratings will be in the so called high major category. Not many of the upper league conferences such as the Big 12, or SEC are going to play home and home against a Belt team.

This would be a good thing for the serious fan because the games should be better against better competition. However, how many fans are going to be lost when those 20 win seasons are much more difficult to come by. There are a lot of 20 win team these days that include a lot of victories over non-division 1 teams and very poor D1 competition. Is it really going to help the Belt's perception even if the rpi does rise if the win percentage goes significantly down?

As far as averaging 5000 a game that seems unrealistic for most of the Belt. NT should average that and more but has not been close in decades. I have no idea of how the league is going to help at all with this.

Correct me if I'm wrong....but aren't there several teams in the league.....whose gyms don't even hold 5,000? May be wrong....but FAU, FIU and Troy come to mind. (I did hear Troy is building a new colesium though. I think Commissioner Waters told me that).