The MAC's new basketball plan

[ZachTheZip]

http://www.mlive.com/broncos/index.ssf/201...e_hope_for.html

Beginning in 2011-12, MAC men’s basketball programs will be judged on their commitment to scheduling and their results on the court.

The incentive, finally, is more than rhetoric. It’s cash. As in the league’s share of units from the NCAA and its 14-year, 10.8 billion contract with CBS and Turner Cable to broadcast the NCAA tournament.

Each unit was worth about $240,000 in 2010-11, with conferences receiving one unit for every NCAA tournament appearance and win over a rolling six-year term. That means, with Ohio University’s 2010 first-round win, the MAC will see seven units, or roughly $1.68 million, to disperse however it sees fit.

It won’t be equal shares.

“A portion will be distributed straight out and a portion will distributed through an incentive plan, which you pick up units based on things you do throughout the year,” Steinbrecher said Friday. “So if you win the tournament, you win the regular season, you pick up more units.

“You’re in the NCAA tournament or NIT or CBI or CIT, you pick up units. Nonconference winning percentage at a certain level, you pick up more units. If your RPI is at a certain level, you pick up more units.”

In other words, invest or fizzle.

That begins with home games. Each program, Steinbrecher said, must have a rolling two-year average of 15 home games to receive its full share of NCAA money.

Steinbrecher is also pushing programs to “right-size schedule,” as he put it.

“I think our coaches and institutions have a pretty good understanding as they’re preparing for the next year, probably where they’re going to be, assuming kids stay healthy and so on,” he said. “Are they going to be a top 100 program? Are they going to be fighting for the conference title? Is it a rebuilding year? And I think you schedule accordingly.”

This is also a conference that has its two best teams — Can't State and Akron — playing in the equivalent of run-down high school gyms. And the administration at its most nationally respected program, Can't State, ridiculously under-funds men’s basketball in the name of equity, to the point it just lost its second head coach to a fellow mid-major program offering to double their pay. Can't State ought to be Butler or Gonzaga at this point. That it’s not is as much a reason for the MAC’s decline as anything.

Similarly, the West Division has been set back by a series of unnecessary coaching changes by self-serving, greedy and simple-minded administrators.

[ZachTheZip]

Seems like we'll be getting a good portion of the money.

I like forcing teams to play 15 home games a year. You can't win by going on the road 20 times in a 30 game schedule.

Hopefully this discourages teams like Miami and the West from scheduling over their heads, and thus dragging down the conference RPI with poor winning percentages.

[skip-zip]

Seems like we'll be getting a good portion of the money.

I like forcing teams to play 15 home games a year. You can't win by going on the road 20 times in a 30 game schedule.

Hopefully this discourages teams like Miami and the West from scheduling over their heads, and thus dragging down the conference RPI with poor winning percentages.

Sorry. I have to tell you you're wrong.

According to Real Time RPI, despite having several more losses than us, Miami had an almost identical RPI. Why? Because they had a 55 SOS vs. our 180 SOS.

I know this is yet another attempt by someone on this board to try to prove that a strong SOS doesn't make a difference, but the facts in Miami's case sure show otherwise.

[ZachTheZip]

Seems like we'll be getting a good portion of the money.

I like forcing teams to play 15 home games a year. You can't win by going on the road 20 times in a 30 game schedule.

Hopefully this discourages teams like Miami and the West from scheduling over their heads, and thus dragging down the conference RPI with poor winning percentages.

Sorry. I have to tell you you're wrong.

According to Real Time RPI, despite having several more losses than us, Miami had an almost identical RPI. Why? Because they had a 55 SOS vs. our 180 SOS.

I know this is yet another attempt by someone on this board to try to prove that a strong SOS doesn't make a difference, but the facts in Miami's case sure show otherwise.

And if they scheduled more home games and got a few more wins from it instead of destroying their winning percentage, they would have had an even higher RPI.

[Dave in Green]

I give the MAC credit for putting its money where its mouth is in trying to improve the standing of MAC basketball. It sounds like the kind of effort the MVC made years ago that resulted in raising that conference to the top of the mid-major conference charts. But reading a Michigan sports columnist's take on it makes me feel like I don't have all the facts.

From what this guy says, it appears that the MAC is going to require teams to both play more games at home and increase SOS. But one of the biggest problems for MAC teams is finding teams with higher RPI who will play at MAC arenas. It's a lot easier for MAC teams to schedule high-RPI opponents on the road than it is at home. What will the MAC do to help its teams overcome this obstacle?

As far as RPI goes, it's nothing more than a math formula based on winning percentage and SOS to try to evaluate the relative strength of different teams. A team can achieve identical RPI by winning more games with a weaker SOS or winning fewer games with a stronger SOS.

[ZachTheZip]

I give the MAC credit for putting its money where its mouth is in trying to improve the standing of MAC basketball. It sounds like the kind of effort the MVC made years ago that resulted in raising that conference to the top of the mid-major conference charts. But reading a Michigan sports columnist's take on it makes me feel like I don't have all the facts.

From what this guy says, it appears that the MAC is going to require teams to both play more games at home and increase SOS. But one of the biggest problems for MAC teams is finding teams with higher RPI who will play at MAC arenas. It's a lot easier for MAC teams to schedule high-RPI opponents on the road than it is at home. What will the MAC do to help its teams overcome this obstacle?

As far as RPI goes, it's nothing more than a math formula based on winning percentage and SOS to try to evaluate the relative strength of different teams. A team can achieve identical RPI by winning more games with a weaker SOS or winning fewer games with a stronger SOS.

One way to increase your SOS is to have your conference opponents have a better record.

[lance99]

I give the MAC credit for putting its money where its mouth is in trying to improve the standing of MAC basketball. It sounds like the kind of effort the MVC made years ago that resulted in raising that conference to the top of the mid-major conference charts. But reading a Michigan sports columnist's take on it makes me feel like I don't have all the facts.

From what this guy says, it appears that the MAC is going to require teams to both play more games at home and increase SOS. But one of the biggest problems for MAC teams is finding teams with higher RPI who will play at MAC arenas. It's a lot easier for MAC teams to schedule high-RPI opponents on the road than it is at home. What will the MAC do to help its teams overcome this obstacle?

As far as RPI goes, it's nothing more than a math formula based on winning percentage and SOS to try to evaluate the relative strength of different teams. A team can achieve identical RPI by winning more games with a weaker SOS or winning fewer games with a stronger SOS.

Thank you! I said this a long time ago

[skip-zip]

Seems like we'll be getting a good portion of the money.

I like forcing teams to play 15 home games a year. You can't win by going on the road 20 times in a 30 game schedule.

Hopefully this discourages teams like Miami and the West from scheduling over their heads, and thus dragging down the conference RPI with poor winning percentages.

Sorry. I have to tell you you're wrong.

According to Real Time RPI, despite having several more losses than us, Miami had an almost identical RPI. Why? Because they had a 55 SOS vs. our 180 SOS.

I know this is yet another attempt by someone on this board to try to prove that a strong SOS doesn't make a difference, but the facts in Miami's case sure show otherwise.

And if they scheduled more home games and got a few more wins from it instead of destroying their winning percentage, they would have had an even higher RPI.

You mean....like Akron did? The difference in RPI between the two of us was 0.0015

Your original post is just bizarre. Miami's scheduling did not drag down the conference RPI.

[ZachTheZip]

Seems like we'll be getting a good portion of the money.

I like forcing teams to play 15 home games a year. You can't win by going on the road 20 times in a 30 game schedule.

Hopefully this discourages teams like Miami and the West from scheduling over their heads, and thus dragging down the conference RPI with poor winning percentages.

Sorry. I have to tell you you're wrong.

According to Real Time RPI, despite having several more losses than us, Miami had an almost identical RPI. Why? Because they had a 55 SOS vs. our 180 SOS.

I know this is yet another attempt by someone on this board to try to prove that a strong SOS doesn't make a difference, but the facts in Miami's case sure show otherwise.

And if they scheduled more home games and got a few more wins from it instead of destroying their winning percentage, they would have had an even higher RPI.

You mean....like Akron did? The difference in RPI between the two of us was 0.0015

Your original post is just bizarre. Miami's scheduling did not drag down the conference RPI.

Would you rather have an RPI of 130 with 23 wins or an RPI of 130 with 16 wins and a losing record?

And Miami's record did hurt the MAC. It gave the other teams in the conference one or two games against a team with a mediocre record instead of a good one. The feedback drags down the entire conference's SOS and the effect is greater than an OOC game because the conference is more tightly linked mathematically.

[zip37]

Scheduling 15 home games might be a bit of a chore IMHO,

[Zipmeister]

Seems like we'll be getting a good portion of the money.

I like forcing teams to play 15 home games a year. You can't win by going on the road 20 times in a 30 game schedule.

Hopefully this discourages teams like Miami and the West from scheduling over their heads, and thus dragging down the conference RPI with poor winning percentages.

Sorry. I have to tell you you're wrong.

According to Real Time RPI, despite having several more losses than us, Miami had an almost identical RPI. Why? Because they had a 55 SOS vs. our 180 SOS.

I know this is yet another attempt by someone on this board to try to prove that a strong SOS doesn't make a difference, but the facts in Miami's case sure show otherwise.

And if they scheduled more home games and got a few more wins from it instead of destroying their winning percentage, they would have had an even higher RPI.

You mean....like Akron did? The difference in RPI between the two of us was 0.0015

Your original post is just bizarre. Miami's scheduling did not drag down the conference RPI.

Would you rather have an RPI of 130 with 23 wins or an RPI of 130 with 16 wins and a losing record?

And Miami's record did hurt the MAC. It gave the other teams in the conference one or two games against a team with a mediocre record instead of a good one. The feedback drags down the entire conference's SOS and the effect is greater than an OOC game because the conference is more tightly linked mathematically.

How does one have 16 wins in the regular season and have a losing record?

[Dave in Green]

..... And Miami's record did hurt the MAC. It gave the other teams in the conference one or two games against a team with a mediocre record instead of a good one. The feedback drags down the entire conference's SOS and the effect is greater than an OOC game because the conference is more tightly linked mathematically.

Remember, RPI and SOS are purely math-based and not opinion-based. Time to check out the statistical facts at statsheet.com :

Miami's RPI absolutely did not drag down the MAC's overall SOS but pulled it up as Miami finished the season with the 3rd highest RPI in the MAC behind only Can't and UA, as well as the #1 SOS in the MAC.

The SOS of the 9 lower-ranked MAC teams (75% of the 12-team conference) all benefitted from playing Miami with its higher RPI.

And 4 of those 9 lower-ranked MAC teams had better overall won-lost records than Miami but worse RPI because they played weaker non-conference opponents than Miami did.

[Zip Watcher]

..... And Miami's record did hurt the MAC. It gave the other teams in the conference one or two games against a team with a mediocre record instead of a good one. The feedback drags down the entire conference's SOS and the effect is greater than an OOC game because the conference is more tightly linked mathematically.

Remember, RPI and SOS are purely math-based and not opinion-based. Time to check out the statistical facts at statsheet.com :

Miami's RPI absolutely did not drag down the MAC's overall SOS but pulled it up as Miami finished the season with the 3rd highest RPI in the MAC behind only Can't and UA, as well as the #1 SOS in the MAC.

The SOS of the 9 lower-ranked MAC teams (75% of the 12-team conference) all benefitted from playing Miami with its higher RPI.

And 4 of those 9 lower-ranked MAC teams had better overall won-lost records than Miami but worse RPI because they played weaker non-conference opponents than Miami did.

I can't actually believe that I'm going to do this .. but ...

I think you guys are missing Zach's point.

He's not saying that Miami's RPI dragged down the MAC. I think what he is trying to say is that Miami's scheduling philosophy had a negative impact on their RPI, and by extension, the MAC's RPI. Had Miami scheduled a *little* lighter on the road games against high majors they weren't going to beat, and won just a few more out of conference games, their RPI would have been HIGHER than it was, and therefore, the rest of the league would have seen a corresponding bump in SOS and RPI by playing a Miami team with a higher RPI.

Having said that .. Miami is not the problem with the MAC's rpi .. Zach is just grasping at the concept that a better w/l record gives you higher RPI, and Miami could have improved their RPI with more wins. Bottom line, blaming the teams at the top of the MAC, like the author of TFA and Zach are doing isn't really productive.

Go Zips!

[Captain Kangaroo]

I miss the days when NBA-caliber players regularly appeared at the JAR. Even if they were always on the opposing team's roster.

I could care less about RPI's...the CBI... Sagarin points and whatever other ancillary crap is bandied about. Make the MAC a better basketball conference.

If it makes the MAC a stronger overall basketball conference, I'm all for it. At least the Commish seems to have recognized a problem and implemented a plan to correct it. Will it work? Only Zach knows for certain.

[ZachTheZip]

..... And Miami's record did hurt the MAC. It gave the other teams in the conference one or two games against a team with a mediocre record instead of a good one. The feedback drags down the entire conference's SOS and the effect is greater than an OOC game because the conference is more tightly linked mathematically.

Remember, RPI and SOS are purely math-based and not opinion-based. Time to check out the statistical facts at statsheet.com :

Miami's RPI absolutely did not drag down the MAC's overall SOS but pulled it up as Miami finished the season with the 3rd highest RPI in the MAC behind only Can't and UA, as well as the #1 SOS in the MAC.

The SOS of the 9 lower-ranked MAC teams (75% of the 12-team conference) all benefitted from playing Miami with its higher RPI.

And 4 of those 9 lower-ranked MAC teams had better overall won-lost records than Miami but worse RPI because they played weaker non-conference opponents than Miami did.

The RPI is a simple formula. It is based upon three factors. 25% your win/loss record, 50% your opponents' win/loss records, and 25% your opponent's opponents' win/loss record. It is not based directly upon your opponent's RPI rank.

Miami had a good RPI, yes. But they had a poor win/loss record, which affects both the second and third factors of the RPI in conference, since not only do you play them, but a minimum of 15 of your opponents play them as well. So their record affects each team's RPI more than a non-conference game would since a non-conference game primarily affects only the second factor. Thus the best way to improve a conference's RPI across the board is to have conference opponents with good records, since it creates a kind of feedback loop in the third factor while directly affecting the second factor.

I hate to keep coming back to Miami, but they are the best example of this. If they played our OOC schedule and got to 23 wins like we did and kept their RPI the same as it was, it would have a positive effect on all the MAC teams' RPIs. They're a good team, but they schedule in a way that it hurts their record, which comes back to haunt us and everyone else. Because now your RPI reflects not only their record, but also all your other conference teams' opponents' records.

[Dave in Green]

Definition of the RPI formula from Wikipedia:

Commonly known as the RPI, the Rating Percentage Index is a quantity used to rank sports teams based upon a team's wins and losses and its strength of schedule. It is one of the systems by which NCAA basketball teams are ranked. This system has been in use since 1981 to aid in the selecting and seeding of teams appearing in the 68-team men's playoffs (see March Madness), and for the 64-team women's tournament since its inception in 1982. In its current formulation, the index comprises a team's winning percentage (25%), its opponents' winning percentage (50%), and the winning percentage of those opponents' opponents (25%). The opponents' winning percentage and the winning percentage of those opponents' opponents both comprise the strength of schedule (SOS). Thus, the SOS accounts for 75% of the RPI calculation and is 2/3 its opponents' winning percentage and 1/3 times its opponents' opponents' winning percentage.

[ZachTheZip]

Definition of the RPI formula from Wikipedia:

Commonly known as the RPI, the Rating Percentage Index is a quantity used to rank sports teams based upon a team's wins and losses and its strength of schedule. It is one of the systems by which NCAA basketball teams are ranked. This system has been in use since 1981 to aid in the selecting and seeding of teams appearing in the 68-team men's playoffs (see March Madness), and for the 64-team women's tournament since its inception in 1982. In its current formulation, the index comprises a team's winning percentage (25%), its opponents' winning percentage (50%), and the winning percentage of those opponents' opponents (25%). The opponents' winning percentage and the winning percentage of those opponents' opponents both comprise the strength of schedule (SOS). Thus, the SOS accounts for 75% of the RPI calculation and is 2/3 its opponents' winning percentage and 1/3 times its opponents' opponents' winning percentage.

Yes. And conference games count more because of the feedback they create. You also play more conference games than non-conference games, so the winning percentages of your fellow conference teams is mroe important than the winning percentages of your non-conference opponents. So if the MAC played a weaker OOC schedule but consequently came away with more wins, the RPI of every team in the conference would improve.

The MAC commish mentioned in the article that teams should be scheduling according to how good they are projected to be. No MAC team is projected to be in the top 25, so no MAC team should play a top 25 OOC schedule. It also works the other way, where the terrible teams out west should tone it down and focus on getting wins instead of hoping that a killer schedule will mask their poor record. That would boost the better teams' RPIs and raise the conference overall.

[skip-zip]

Definition of the RPI formula from Wikipedia:

Commonly known as the RPI, the Rating Percentage Index is a quantity used to rank sports teams based upon a team's wins and losses and its strength of schedule. It is one of the systems by which NCAA basketball teams are ranked. This system has been in use since 1981 to aid in the selecting and seeding of teams appearing in the 68-team men's playoffs (see March Madness), and for the 64-team women's tournament since its inception in 1982. In its current formulation, the index comprises a team's winning percentage (25%), its opponents' winning percentage (50%), and the winning percentage of those opponents' opponents (25%). The opponents' winning percentage and the winning percentage of those opponents' opponents both comprise the strength of schedule (SOS). Thus, the SOS accounts for 75% of the RPI calculation and is 2/3 its opponents' winning percentage and 1/3 times its opponents' opponents' winning percentage.

Yes. And conference games count more because of the feedback they create. You also play more conference games than non-conference games, so the winning percentages of your fellow conference teams is mroe important than the winning percentages of your non-conference opponents. So if the MAC played a weaker OOC schedule but consequently came away with more wins, the RPI of every team in the conference would improve.

The MAC commish mentioned in the article that teams should be scheduling according to how good they are projected to be. No MAC team is projected to be in the top 25, so no MAC team should play a top 25 OOC schedule. It also works the other way, where the terrible teams out west should tone it down and focus on getting wins instead of hoping that a killer schedule will mask their poor record. That would boost the better teams' RPIs and raise the conference overall.

Why not? If it works for them. I still fail to see any validity whatsoever in labeling Miami as a team that dragged down the MAC with their ambitious scheduling when they were the #3 RPI team in the league. Their excellent SOS earned them a near-equal RPI to Akron, despite having 4 more losses. They also finiished 2nd in the MAC East, earned the #3 seed in the tournament, and earned a first round bye. And this is the resume of a team that is hurting the league?

I think this is a completely separate point which might be better addressed in another thread, but I actually like their scheduling. It gives them great exposure, battle-tests their players against good competition, helps recruiting, and most of all it gives them opportunities to record a high-profile victory. And in the end, they enter the MAC tournament with the same or better chance to get an NCAA bid as everyone else in the league.

[Dave in Green]

Skip, I agree with you that the specific issue of Miami's scheduling is taking up a lot of the focus here right now. But it's one of many points that are relevant to this thread about the MAC's new basketball plan, which appears to put an emphasis on proper scheduling to raise the conference profile. So I think the Miami discussion should continue here as part of the larger discussion.

Having said that, I don't think we can come to a definitive conclusion about the net effect on overall MAC RPI by talking generalities. The formula for determining RPI may appear simple on the surface. But the deeper you dig into it, the more complex it gets.

For example, we haven't even mentioned here yet the fact that RPI has an additional element that awards RPI points differently for home, away and neutral court games. So a road loss only counts as only 0.6 win while a road win counts as 1.4 wins, and a home loss equals 1.4 losses while a road loss counts as 0.6. Only games on neutral courts count as 1 win or 1 loss.

Last season Miami played teams that were ranked #1, 2, 3, and 4 in RPI when the games were played. This is obviously what boosted Miami's SOS so high, even though all 4 games resulted in Miami losses. That means that every MAC team that played Miami benefitted from the fact that the winning percentages of those 4 teams (Kansas, Ohio State, Duke, and San Diego State) were factored into every MAC team's RPI (opponents' opponents' winning percentage).

Without crunching all the numbers in a super computer, we can't know if the MAC's overall RPI would have been raised if instead of those 4 losses to highly ranked teams Miami had played and beaten 4 SWAC teams with RPI in the 300s. So it's purely speculative to think that any 4 OOC wins are better than any 4 OOC losses in terms of raising conference RPI.

Speculation abounds on college basketball conference forums around the country about the best scheduling strategy to boost a conference's overall RPI. Many point to the MVC as an example. Some years ago the MVC made a major push to get their member teams to schedule higher-ranked OOC road games to help raise the conference RPI. It worked. The MVC became the highest RPI ranked mid-major conference in the country. But another factor is that they not only scheduled tougher OOC games, they won a fair percentage. No one disputes that when one conference team beats a highly ranked opponent that it raises the RPI of the entire conference.

The MVC has been accused of "gaming the system" by taking advantage of the way the NCAA calculates RPI and SOS. But the NCAA selection committee recognizes this, and a number of MVC teams with high SOS and RPI have been passed over for the NCAA tournament by the NCAA selection committee precisely because that committee looks at more than just SOS and RPI.

Personally, I've been an advocate of the Zips slowly increasing their OOC SOS along with building a stronger team with higher quality players. So I do agree with the principle of trying not to over-schedule or under-schedule. I think that's the best way for the Zips to grow into more of a national power. It may also be the best way for the MAC to improve its conference standing. Getting all 12 teams to follow a strategy that's good for the overall conference can be a challenge. I think the MAC is making a smart move by using performance-based distribution of NCAA tournament money as a motivator.

[GJGood]

I believe that a lot of times people have the wrong focus when it comes to improving the SOS and RPI numbers. So many people want to replace the opponents on the schedule with high major and top 40 RPI type of teams.

Personally, I don't think it is necessary for the MAC to schedule many more top teams at all, as long as each school schedules a few of them like they pretty much do now. The problem comes with MAC schools scheduling way too many dreadfully bad teams. The MAC needs to start shying away from scheduling teams that are likely to have RPIs in that 275 and worse range. If every MAC school would replace two or three of its 250+ RPI opponents with schools ranked in the top 200 or so, you'd see the MAC numbers take a big step up. It may not get the league to where the MVC or Atlantic 10 is right away but it should at least get the MAC champ a seed better than a 14 or 15 in the NCAA tourney.

I understand the point about it being difficult to get the top teams to play in MAC gyms, but is it really that difficult to get teams in that 125 to 210 range of RPI to play in a MAC arena?

I think KD has done a lot right in his scheduling philosophy... maybe play one big-time school on the road and then any others you can get on a neutral court. Schedule as many games as you can with good mid-major teams.

The part I can't stand is the playing of two or three teams a year out of conference that are in the bottom 40 or 50 nationally. I could see playing one like that early on for confidence but not much more than that. Also, if we are going to schedule near sure-thing wins against the likes of North Carolina A&T wouldn't we get higher RPI numbers for doing it on the road than at home?

[Dave in Green]

Yes, you could get higher RPI numbers by playing more away games. However, that means fewer home games for fans to attend. That's a tough tradeoff for fans who like to attend as many Zips games as possible.

[Spin]

Scheduling doesn't drag down the conference RPI.

Having a lousy Western Conference drags down your conference RPI.

Did I hear right during the conference championship, that Toledo has three scholarship players??? That's not DI, and the MAC needs to jettison the dead weight.

How bad is the West? Let's look past the RPI to the Sagarin Ratings...

82 Can't State = 78.49 24 12 73.30( 144) 0 1 | 0 1 | 80.11 71 | 76.71 98

117 Buffalo = 75.83 19 14 71.68( 187) 0 1 | 0 1 | 75.36 124 | 75.94 109

122 Akron = 75.43 22 13 71.75( 183) 0 1 | 0 2 | 76.13 115 | 74.40 128

146 Ohio University = 73.71 19 16 71.96( 178) 0 1 | 0 2 | 74.24 138 | 72.84 154

155 Ball State = 73.12 18 12 70.05( 246) 0 1 | 0 2 | 73.35 150 | 72.53 159

164 Miami-Ohio = 72.47 15 17 75.46( 88) 0 5 | 1 6 | 74.34 136 | 70.25 192

165 Western Michigan = 72.38 20 13 69.82( 253) 0 1 | 0 3 | 72.56 163 | 71.84 167

235 Bowling Green = 67.70 13 19 71.07( 209) 0 0 | 0 2 | 68.24 224 | 66.77 245

275 Central Michigan = 64.65 9 21 70.77( 218) 0 0 | 0 2 | 64.21 279 | 64.71 272

282 Northern Illinois = 64.22 8 21 70.76( 219) 0 0 | 0 3 | 63.02 297 | 64.94 267

302 Eastern Michigan = 62.76 6 22 70.47( 235) 0 0 | 0 1 | 60.75 317 | 64.05 280

333 Toledo = 57.53 3 28 71.99( 177) 0 2 | 0 4 | 56.50 335 | 58.07 328

Five schools that can't sniff the C-USA or Horizon League cellar. Five programs ranked >200th

17th ranked conference out of 33, behind such powerhouses as the Metro Atlantic, the Ivy League, and the West Coast.

The problem is not the scheduling, the problem is the western division sucks and doesn't belong in DI.

[Captain Kangaroo]

Who was the RPI National Champ last year? How big was the trophy?

[g-mann17]

Who was the RPI National Champ last year? How big was the trophy?

You know that is a smack in the face of a Kansas football player somewhere.

[Doug Snyder]

I believe that a lot of times people have the wrong focus when it comes to improving the SOS and RPI numbers. So many people want to replace the opponents on the schedule with high major and top 40 RPI type of teams.

Personally, I don't think it is necessary for the MAC to schedule many more top teams at all, as long as each school schedules a few of them like they pretty much do now. The problem comes with MAC schools scheduling way too many dreadfully bad teams. The MAC needs to start shying away from scheduling teams that are likely to have RPIs in that 275 and worse range. If every MAC school would replace two or three of its 250+ RPI opponents with schools ranked in the top 200 or so, you'd see the MAC numbers take a big step up. It may not get the league to where the MVC or Atlantic 10 is right away but it should at least get the MAC champ a seed better than a 14 or 15 in the NCAA tourney.

I understand the point about it being difficult to get the top teams to play in MAC gyms, but is it really that difficult to get teams in that 125 to 210 range of RPI to play in a MAC arena?

I think KD has done a lot right in his scheduling philosophy... maybe play one big-time school on the road and then any others you can get on a neutral court. Schedule as many games as you can with good mid-major teams.

The part I can't stand is the playing of two or three teams a year out of conference that are in the bottom 40 or 50 nationally. I could see playing one like that early on for confidence but not much more than that. Also, if we are going to schedule near sure-thing wins against the likes of North Carolina A&T wouldn't we get higher RPI numbers for doing it on the road than at home?

+1 I agree 100%

The easiest way to improve RPI is to reduce the # of weak opponents with very low RPI. That is much more likely to succeed than adding top 25-50 teams that are likely to be away games and unwinnable.