The MAC's new basketball plan

[skip-zip]

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.

That's a no-brainer. Yes, replacing a few of the opponents with 200-300 RPIs with opponents with higher RPIs would certainly increase your own RPI.

But, what does beating a 200 team as opposed to a 300 team really do to improve our standing on the national stage significantly? Where's this mindset coming from that we can't beat a Top-50 team? And beating one of those teams.....just one time....would earn our program 1,000 times more attention than beating number 187.

The bottom line is....in order get the attention that we all want, you have to knock off a couple of bigger programs. And if we aren't playing enough of them, we don't have enough opportunities to make that happen. And we'll continue to have a #100 program that gets no national attention....just like we've been doing for the last 5 years.

[Dave in Green]

Skip, the concept of "having more opportunities" to knock off a top 25 or top 50 team begs the question of how few is too few, how many is too many, how many is just right?

The extreme view would be that if you're just playing a statistical odds game that if you play an infinite number of top 25 or top 50 teams you'll eventually win one, then why bother to schedule anything but top 25 and top 50 teams?

Another scenario would be to schedule more games with teams in the 50-100 range, and prove that you can consistently win those games before trying to take on too many tougher opponents.

Personally, I prefer a balanced approach where you try to have an increasingly tougher OOC schedule each season at the same time that you're building up the quality of your team. I think this is what KD is currently trying to do with the Zips OOC schedule.

There's plenty of room to debate whether or not we think KD is moving fast enough in toughening up the OOC schedule. Putting it into specifics makes it easier to understand where everyone is coming from. Do you have any specific numbers in mind about how many top 25, top 50, top 100 teams you'd like to see the Zips play this season? Do you just want to replicate Miami's typical OOC schedule, or do you have something else in mind?

Last season, for example, the Zips played 8 teams in the top 100 RPI. But one was an NCAA tournament game and 2 were against a MAC team. So the Zips scheduled only 5 OOC games last season against top 100 teams. I agree that needs to go up if the Zips have any aspirations of becoming a nationally ranked team.

RPI -- OPPONENT

1-25 -- Notre Dame (NCAA tournament)

26-50 -- Temple, Cleveland State

51-75 -- Miami (FL), Can't (2 conference games)

76-100 -- Dayton, Minnesota

I wouldn't mind seeing the Zips schedule a few more top 100 teams and drop some of the really low-ranked teams. But we have to keep in mind that the Zips won only 1 of the 8 games they played against top 100 teams last season. So they have yet to prove that they have the ability to regularly win these types of games.

By the way, you can check out the RPI of all of last season's Zips opponents at the following link:

statsheet.com

[skip-zip]

Skip, the concept of "having more opportunities" to knock off a top 25 or top 50 team begs the question of how few is too few, how many is too many, how many is just right?

The extreme view would be that if you're just playing a statistical odds game that if you play an infinite number of top 25 or top 50 teams you'll eventually win one, then why bother to schedule anything but top 25 and top 50 teams?

Another scenario would be to schedule more games with teams in the 50-100 range, and prove that you can consistently win those games before trying to take on too many tougher opponents.

Personally, I prefer a balanced approach where you try to have an increasingly tougher OOC schedule each season at the same time that you're building up the quality of your team. I think this is what KD is currently trying to do with the Zips OOC schedule.

There's plenty of room to debate whether or not we think KD is moving fast enough in toughening up the OOC schedule. Putting it into specifics makes it easier to understand where everyone is coming from. Do you have any specific numbers in mind about how many top 25, top 50, top 100 teams you'd like to see the Zips play this season? Do you just want to replicate Miami's typical OOC schedule, or do you have something else in mind?

Last season, for example, the Zips played 8 teams in the top 100 RPI. But one was an NCAA tournament game and 2 were against a MAC team. So the Zips scheduled only 5 OOC games last season against top 100 teams. I agree that needs to go up if the Zips have any aspirations of becoming a nationally ranked team.

RPI -- OPPONENT

1-25 -- Notre Dame (NCAA tournament)

26-50 -- Temple, Cleveland State

51-75 -- Miami (FL), Can't (2 conference games)

76-100 -- Dayton, Minnesota

I wouldn't mind seeing the Zips schedule a few more top 100 teams and drop some of the really low-ranked teams. But we have to keep in mind that the Zips won only 1 of the 8 games they played against top 100 teams last season. So they have yet to prove that they have the ability to regularly win these types of games.

By the way, you can check out the RPI of all of last season's Zips opponents at the following link:

statsheet.com

Dave, This is a good post. Some good and fair thoughts here on the different sides of this issue.

I know my best answer would be...."At least enough top-tier games to make our SOS high enough to get us some NCAA At-Large consideration if we knocked off a couple of those top-tier teams". I think schools have enough knowledge of where teams will stand in a given year to know if you've put together a schedule that will have a formidable SOS. My argument all along has centered around the fact that, before the season even starts, we already don't have the elements in our schedule that would get us this kind of attention.

So this would be my question for those people who just want us to grow our schedule slowly, as the team gets better, and the program grows...

Question:

Take yourselves back to 2006, when we just won 26 games, and the post-season tournaments gave us the snub. Would you be happy if I told you that 5 years from now we'd still be playing the #180 ranked schedule in the country, with only a very. very rare matchup against a Top-25 team, and only an occassional Top-50 team?

I think our speed of schedule growth has been rather frustrating. If we should ever return to being an unsuccessful program, wouldn't you have wished that we took more risks to grow this thing when we had the opportunity?

[Zipmeister]

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.

You are probably correct on this G-man, but I think this is because Kansas football players just take their college basketball too seriously rather than any bad intentions on the part of the Capt.

[Dave in Green]

More Important Question:

Take yourselves back to 2006, when we just won 26 games, and the post-season tournaments gave us the snub. Would you be happy if I told you that 5 years from now we'd have played in 6 straight MAC tournament championship games, made it to the NCAA tournament 2 of the last 3 years, and also been invited to the NIT and CBI?

Skip, here's the way I look at it. What if the Zips raised their SOS from the high 100s all the way up to the top 75 in the country and ended the season with an RPI in the top 25 instead of the low 100s? Would you think that would be enough to get an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament? It didn't help Missouri State in the 2005-2006 season, as they were rejected by the NCAA selection committee despite a #66 SOS and #20 RPI:

statsheet.com

Realistically, all MAC teams are a long way from having a remote chance of an NCAA tournament at-large bid. To offset the weakness of the conference games that make up half of the schedule, a MAC team would need to have a killer Miami-type OOC schedule to get close to a #66 SOS. Anything less is not going to get any MAC team close to a #66 SOS. And, as Missouri State proved, even a #66 SOS and #20 RPI wouldn't be enough to get a MAC team an NCAA tournament at-large bid.

I honestly believe it's not productive to put such a high priority on a stronger OOC schedule now. To me it's a distraction to focus on trying to improve SOS before proving you are worthy of a tougher SOS by consistently winning against a weaker SOS. I'm perfectly content with gradually building up SOS as the Zips prove they are worthy of playing stronger opponents.

If the Zips continue to get stronger, win more regular season games, and prove that winning 2 of the last 3 MAC tournaments was not a fluke, the importance of a tougher OOC schedule would take on increasing significance to me.

Right now it's more important to be focused on winning than on scheduling.

[skip-zip]

More Important Question:

Take yourselves back to 2006, when we just won 26 games, and the post-season tournaments gave us the snub. Would you be happy if I told you that 5 years from now we'd have played in 6 straight MAC tournament championship games, made it to the NCAA tournament 2 of the last 3 years, and also been invited to the NIT and CBI?

Skip, here's the way I look at it. What if the Zips raised their SOS from the high 100s all the way up to the top 75 in the country and ended the season with an RPI in the top 25 instead of the low 100s? Would you think that would be enough to get an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament? It didn't help Missouri State in the 2005-2006 season, as they were rejected by the NCAA selection committee despite a #66 SOS and #20 RPI:

statsheet.com

Realistically, all MAC teams are a long way from having a remote chance of an NCAA tournament at-large bid. To offset the weakness of the conference games that make up half of the schedule, a MAC team would need to have a killer Miami-type OOC schedule to get close to a #66 SOS. Anything less is not going to get any MAC team close to a #66 SOS. And, as Missouri State proved, even a #66 SOS and #20 RPI wouldn't be enough to get a MAC team an NCAA tournament at-large bid.

I honestly believe it's not productive to put such a high priority on a stronger OOC schedule now. To me it's a distraction to focus on trying to improve SOS before proving you are worthy of a tougher SOS by consistently winning against a weaker SOS. I'm perfectly content with gradually building up SOS as the Zips prove they are worthy of playing stronger opponents.

If the Zips continue to get stronger, win more regular season games, and prove that winning 2 of the last 3 MAC tournaments was not a fluke, the importance of a tougher OOC schedule would take on increasing significance to me.

Right now it's more important to be focused on winning than on scheduling.

Easy Answer: I'd applaud us for putting ourselves in a position to give ourselves a chance at an at-large bid. Right now, we give ourselves no chance.

Look at your last sentence too. If "just winning games" is good enough for you, that's fine. I love the winning too. But, our quantity of wins continue to garner a lack of national-level attention for 6 seasons now. And we're not doing much to change it. I'd like to see us challenge our players much more, challenge our program much more, and do some things to put ourselves in a much better position....while we still have the pieces in place to make a move on the national scene. The selection committee's apparent mindset right now regarding the MAC certainly makes it difficult, but when you virtually eliminate yourself from their radar before the season even starts....when you have so much control over your OOC scheduling.... it amounts to nothing more than just a big missed opportunity to me.

If "just winning games" was the answer, our status on the national stage would have changed over the last 6 high-win seasons. If making small, incremental improvements were enough, wouldn't we be seeing results also? So, I don't understand how one can argue that our efforts to improve our national ranking are on the right track. Six seasons of winning basketball, and the contunued lack of respect nationally, should be a clear indicator that we need to do much more.

[Dave in Green]

"Just winning games" is the one and only answer to proving how good a team really is.

The obvious corollary is that the weaker the schedule, the more games you have to win to prove you're a really good team, and the stronger the schedule, the fewer games you have to win to prove you're a really good team.

The obvious Zips connection to the above is that they have not yet won enough games with a weaker schedule to prove that they are a really good team.

Over the last 6 seasons, the Zips have won enough regular season games against modest competition to prove that they are a fairly good team. By reaching the MAC championship game 6 years in a row and winning 2 of the last 3 for NCAA tournament invitations, they've shown that they tend to be an even better MAC tournament team than they are in the regular season.

What the Zips have not done over the last 6 seasons is prove that they are a really good team while playing a modest regular season SOS. They can't reliably beat weaker teams, and they almost never beat tougher teams. If they can't perform well against modest regular season competition, odds are they would do even worse playing against tougher regular season competition.

I also want the Zips to put themselves in a position to have a chance at an at-large bid. The best way to start down that path is to focus on winning more regular season games with the current SOS.

[skip-zip]

Dave, You'll launch me into a whole book about how difficult it is for college athletes to run the table, or nearly run the table. Especially at our talent level. And you actually touch on a couple of the things that have happened to us over the years when we appeared to be heading in that direction. The truth is, waiting for a 30+ win season is likely a once in a century type of proposition. It takes so many things to fall the right way, repeatedly. I can dream about it, but it's not likely to happen. But unfortunately, unless our current strategy changes, it's our only hope.

Some might agree with your "beat more teams at your own level before moving upward" philosophy. But, I think what you fail to see is what just a couple of big wins can do for a program. Among them is the possibility to get the kind of publicity and subsequent recruiting power that could prevent some of those "bad losses" in the future.

[Dave in Green]

I absolutely do not fail to see what just a couple of big wins can do for a program. I want to see the Zips get those big wins. I think the best way to do it is to build up to it, not to try to find a shortcut by simply adding more teams of the caliber that you've already demonstrated you can't beat.

Give me just one season with more than one win against a highly ranked team, and I'll be an enthusiastic supporter of scheduling more highly ranked teams.

Continue losing all the big ones, and I'll continue to say: Prove that you're worthy of a tougher schedule by doing better with an easier schedule.

[GoZips]

Just how do you two (Skip & Dave) expect to improve Akron's schedule?

I believe the coaches would love to hear your suggestions. You simply can not go on the road

over and over and win. It has been tried. You get beat. Witness Miami and their OOC schedule.

While it is impressive they rarely win on the road. Chances are the Zips wont either.

You need a high level mid-major schedule that gets quality opponents in your house. This the

Zips have done several times and never seem to capitalize on it. That is, they lose at home

to better caliber teams. Xavier, Dayton and Nevada come to mind. Usually by just a tad. Still, its a loss.

Keep in mind that those opponents are also jockeying for their schedule to play to their advantage.

It goes both ways.

In my mind I see that Akron needs to have a "kick the door in" season just to get noticed. We

tend to make good noise around tournament time while dragging a string of early season weak

performances along with good late season performances.

We get good quality games with VCU because Shaka Smart is their coach. We get games with

Rhode Island because Jim Barron's is a friend of KD. These are two of the type teams Akron

needs up and down their schedule. Like the rest of you, I cringe when I see any Div-III opponent

on the schedule. That really hurts Akron.

There are several quality teams that simply will not risk playing Akron. From my point of view

I would like to see the Zips schedule "two-for-one" with high major programs. We need to get

our kids use to playing the high major opponents on better terms than a road trip. Our guys

need and deserve the opportunity to play high majors on a regular basis. The trick is getting

them to come play at Akron. It is not so easy to do. It is far safer for coach X to play a patsy

home game than it is to risk a loss to a quality mid-major. By the way; it takes buckets of money

to get a big boy to even schedule an Akron.

As for improving the chances of getting an at-large bid; most of the conference members need to

improve their scheduling and won-loss records to get noticed. Look at last season. Technically

Cant was bubble NCAA. But, losing twice to lower ranked Akron pretty much moved them out

of the selection committee's eye. Had Miami and Ohio been in the mix there would have been

a much better chance of Cant getting an at large. The disrespect was obvious when you look at

Cant being schlepped on the road as a seven seed in the NIT. They proved that they were

much better than that. Which in a perfect world would have also improved Akron's stock.

There is no easy fix.

[Dave in Green]

GoZips, I agree that there is no easy fix. Part of the fix is having a team full of players who are capable of playing at a higher level in the closing minutes of close games with higher-ranked teams, which is when the Zips often stumble. It's not easy to get more talented players, and it takes time to make it happen. But I think that KD has been making a major effort to accomplish this over the past few years. It's possible that this season's group of players may be the most talented overall of any Zips team. We won't know for sure just how good they are until we see how they play together in tough games.

As for raising SOS, one obvious move would be to try to drop the 2 or 3 lowest-ranked teams from the OOC schedule and replace them with teams ranked closer to the Zips RPI. I like the idea of early season tournaments. Most are played on neutral courts, which offers a better chance of winning than on a stronger team's home court, plus you don't have to pay those stronger teams big bucks to play at the JAR.

Because I think the overall talent level of this season's Zips team may be improved, the timing may be right to be thinking this season of toughening up the schedule rather than waiting for the players to first prove themselves on court. We've been talking for the last couple of years that Zeke's junior and senior seasons would offer the greatest opportunity for the Zips to upset highly ranked teams. If we're ever going to gamble that a Zips team might be up the challenge of a tougher schedule, this season and next would be the time to roll the dice.

[Districtballer]

We get good quality games with VCU because Shaka Smart is their coach. We get games with

Rhode Island because Jim Barron's is a friend of KD. These are two of the type teams Akron

needs up and down their schedule. Like the rest of you, I cringe when I see any Div-III opponent

on the schedule. That really hurts Akron.

While I certainly agree with the overall thrust of the post, VCU-Akron was solely a bracketbuster series and not some agreement between Dambrot and Shaka. In fact, I don't think you'll see us schedule each other again after this as long as Dambrot and Shaka are at each school. They both hated the fact that they had to play each other in the Bracketbuster to begin with. Coaches don't usually like to schedule their assistants and this case was no exception.

I do think that scheduling good mid-major programs is the way to go for teams like us who can't usually get major conference programs to agree to home-and-home series.

[Captain Kangaroo]

We get good quality games with VCU because Shaka Smart is their coach.

The only reason we've played VCU is due to the Bracketbuster event. Shaka has nothing to do with it.

And the Bracketbuster is awesome. Otherwise we'd never get to see the likes of Nevada, or Creighton, or VCU at the JAR.

[GP1]

I believe the coaches would love to hear your suggestions. You simply can not go on the road

over and over and win. It has been tried. You get beat. Witness Miami and their OOC schedule.

While it is impressive they rarely win on the road. Chances are the Zips wont either.

This is a really good discussion.

One issue that is never brought up about the ooc schedule is, "What is the purpose of the ooc schedule?" For schools like Miami, it appears as if they use their ooc schedule to rake in cash. They were doing the same thing with their ooc football schedule for a while as well.

I think we need one or two more ATM games on our schedule. Other than that, the schedule is fine. The basketball team has the highest paid coach on staff and IMNHO, doesn't contribute enough to the finances of the Athletic Department. What we really need to do is win the games we should be winning at this point and stop using the ooc schedule as a lab for what the team is going to look like come MAC time. We have a solid program with solid players. At this point, KD should know who his starters are going to be, who will be coming off the bench and when they will be coming off the bench. Let's use the ooc schedule to beat some high majors and win every ooc game against mid majors for a change. The JAR would be packed come MAC season. That is how they would better contribute to the Athletic Department.

We over-intellectualize the basketball team too much.

[Spin]

I absolutely do not fail to see what just a couple of big wins can do for a program. I want to see the Zips get those big wins. I think the best way to do it is to build up to it, not to try to find a shortcut by simply adding more teams of the caliber that you've already demonstrated you can't beat.

Give me just one season with more than one win against a highly ranked team, and I'll be an enthusiastic supporter of scheduling more highly ranked teams.

Continue losing all the big ones, and I'll continue to say: Prove that you're worthy of a tougher schedule by doing better with an easier schedule.

True, you think Cleveland State, you think of their wins in the tournament.

Cant fans hang their hats on their run.

I'll give them credit for scheduling better teams (and losing the Binghamtons) and for making the tourney again, and playing competitively in the first half. Now we need to make the next step and improve in those games. Then we can schedule into the NEXT tier of teams.