Jump to content

2016-17 Schedule


GoZips

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, clarkwgriswold said:

If anyone legitimately believes that our university has any chance of joining the ACC, I want what they're having.  If anyone in the athletic department is wasting time on it, I think I want my money back.

 

As for the attitude that we're too damn proud to take $60K for a game, you might want to look into a lifetime NIT pass as the Bethune Cookman's of the world and 21 wins over patsies will get you no respect nationally or from any selection committee. 

 

WE ARE NOT GETTING AN AT LARGE BID.  PLEASE, LET IT GO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, UAZip0510 said:

 

WE ARE NOT GETTING AN AT LARGE BID.  PLEASE, LET IT GO.

How did Middle Tennessee get one in 2013? In a year when the Zips beat them?

 

I'll buy the fact that the Zips will not get at-large consideration if they don't merit it (like this season). They shouldn't.

 

But it is impossible to deny they would receive at-large consideration, and possibly a bid, if they did merit it. MTSU is the proof. It is indisputable. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had Akron had a Monmouth type OOC year this season, I feel the Zips would have been sitting in a really good position to receive an at-large. The MAAC outside of a couple teams is very bad. The MAC despite not really providing the opportunity to pick up marquee wins, isn't a bad conference. Do I think Akron gets an at-large anytime soon?...No, but I don't feel it is impossible for a MAC team to get one if they schedule aggressive OOC and pick up 2-3 signature wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Captain Kangaroo said:

How did Middle Tennessee get one in 2013? In a year when the Zips beat them?

 

I'll buy the fact that the Zips will not get at-large consideration if they don't merit it (like this season). They shouldn't.

 

But it is impossible to deny they would receive at-large consideration, and possibly a bid, if they did merit it. MTSU is the proof. It is indisputable. 

 

The committee chooses 2, maybe 3 mid-major at-larges per year.  Those are extremely low odds.  Any discussion regarding scheduling should have minimal focus on what the selection committee likes in at-larges.  The likelihood is just far too small.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, UAZip0510 said:

 

The committee chooses 2, maybe 3 mid-major at-larges per year.  Those are extremely low odds.  Any discussion regarding scheduling should have minimal focus on what the selection committee likes in at-larges.  The likelihood is just far too small.  

What would we do without you to let us know what to discuss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO I believe our primary focus should be on scheduling name P5 schools, even if they're only known for football (Nebraska, Penn State, Michigan), to do something... anything... to spark more local interest in the team.

 

The program is currently in a rut.  A high rut, to be sure, but a rut nonetheless.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, UAZip0510 said:

 

Any discussion regarding scheduling should have minimal focus on what the selection committee likes in at-larges.  The likelihood is just far too small.  

 

So, just completely disregard your only other option to get into the tournament?  Do you have a better option?  Let me guess:  "Just win the MAC tourney every year".  Well, that's only produced 3 chances in 10 years to make any impact nationally, and those 3 chances failed anyway. 

 

Please. 

 

Pursuing an agenda that could produce an at-large situation is LOADED with positives for the program in many, many different ways, whether it happens or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kreed5120 said:

Had Akron had a Monmouth type OOC year this season, I feel the Zips would have been sitting in a really good position to receive an at-large. The MAAC outside of a couple teams is very bad. The MAC despite not really providing the opportunity to pick up marquee wins, isn't a bad conference. Do I think Akron gets an at-large anytime soon?...No, but I don't feel it is impossible for a MAC team to get one if they schedule aggressive OOC and pick up 2-3 signature wins.

There's a difference between having an OOC schedule like Monmouth's, and ACCOMPLISHING what Monmouth did in their OOC schedule. The Miami (OH) schedules under the late and great Charlie Coles were just as good, if not better than Monmouth's OOC schedule this past season. However, Miami (OH) usually lost those tough OOC games. Did it prepare the Redhawks for the MAC/NCAA Tourney? Yes (Coles' Redhawks were always scrappy and fun to watch, yet a pain to play against). But did losing those games help their "At-Large" resume? No. Win those games, and we'll be in business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lilroodude said:

There's a difference between having an OOC schedule like Monmouth's, and ACCOMPLISHING what Monmouth did in their OOC schedule. The Miami (OH) schedules under the late and great Charlie Coles were just as good, if not better than Monmouth's OOC schedule this past season. However, Miami (OH) usually lost those tough OOC games. Did it prepare the Redhawks for the MAC/NCAA Tourney? Yes (Coles' Redhawks were always scrappy and fun to watch, yet a pain to play against). But did losing those games help their "At-Large" resume? No. Win those games, and we'll be in business.

 

Of course you have to win. If you notice, I also said a MAC team would need to get 2-3 signature wins. Those would have to be OOC wins as MAC opponents don't really provide marquee wins. You can't win them, if you don't play them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

 

Of course you have to win. If you notice, I also said a MAC team would need to get 2-3 signature wins. Those would have to be OOC wins as MAC opponents don't really provide marquee wins. You can't win them, if you don't play them.

Misunderstood that. Sorry for that.

 

I completely agree that you can't win them if you don't play them. But I guess my biggest gripe is even when we do play them, we don't win them. Our postseason success, or lack thereof, proves just that. And postseason success is a better indicator of where a program is rather than early-season OOC marquee wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, UAZip0510 said:

 

GoZips and a few others have tried explaining the scheduling difficulties and you (and several others) just don't want to hear it.  Teams aren't "scared" to play us, but MANY won't schedule us for a variety of reasons.  That's a fact.   

 

I don't know about the several others you are referring to, but I can speak for myself. I hear the argument about the "scheduling difficulties", I just don't buy it. Does that offend you? Am I not entitled to my own opinion?

As long as mid majors with very similar programs are able to get decent OOC schedules, we should too. If McFadden or McNeese cannot get it done, they should make way to someone who can. That's the fact!

Also, just because you think that Akron will never get an at large bid doesn't make it a fact.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lilroodude said:

Misunderstood that. Sorry for that.

 

I completely agree that you can't win them if you don't play them. But I guess my biggest gripe is even when we do play them, we don't win them. Our postseason success, or lack thereof, proves just that. And postseason success is a better indicator of where a program is rather than early-season OOC marquee wins.

 

Playing quality opponents in the regular season helps prepare you for when you face quality teams in postseason. Playing cupcakes that you can easily beat by 15 doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, since the decision has been made to again pummel the cold rotting carcass of this poor damn horse, the odds of a MAC team getting an at large bid are slim.  That being said, the chance of a MAC team getting an at-large bid that has luminaries like Gardner Webb on the schedule is 0%.  I'd rather have that slim chance rather than none, even if the team has to play for $60K.   

 

it's like playing the same damn par 3 golf course every day.  At some point, you have to try something new and better.

 

Oh, I hear they are now looking into joining the AFC North or the Premier League.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

Teams worried about losing to Akron. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

I love it....some people really believe that.

 

Akron has ZERO big wins in their school history, yet the reason they can't get a road game is because they are worried that they will become the first school to lose to Akron. Comedy relief is always good for this time of year.

 

Akron couldn't even get by an extremely weak OSU team in the NIT. Give me a break..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, UAZip0510 said:

 

The committee chooses 2, maybe 3 mid-major at-larges per year.  Those are extremely low odds.  Any discussion regarding scheduling should have minimal focus on what the selection committee likes in at-larges.  The likelihood is just far too small.  

 

So, the majority of the focus should be on what exactly? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2016 at 3:30 PM, zippy5 said:

What would we do without you to let us know what to discuss?

 

On 4/19/2016 at 3:30 PM, zippy5 said:

What would we do without you to let us know what to discuss?

 

Discuss whatever you want. If you all want to fixate on the schedule and make fun of the 21 win thing, go with it.  I've told you, GoZips has told you, KD himself has told you what the deal is with scheduling, and you just don't want to hear it.  And that's fine.  It was my mistake reading a thread related to scheduling, I should have known what kind of misery to expect.  Have a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...