2016-17 Schedule

[UAZip0510]

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.

[clarkwgriswold]

10 hours ago, UAZip0510 said:

 

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

 

Easy there sport, I never said we were.

[K92]

13 hours ago, UAZip0510 said:

 

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

I'll wager the odds of getting an at-large are a lot better than joining the Atlantic Coast Conference.

[Captain Kangaroo]

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. 

[skip-zip]

MTSU is certainly a good comparison for numerous reasons.  I think we've discussed this one at length before, but I guess it's appropriate to bring it up again whenever a "no way Akron will get an at-large" poster appears.  

[kreed5120]

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.

[UAZip0510]

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.  

[zippy5]

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?

[Blue & Gold]

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.  

[skip-zip]

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. 

[Let'sGoZips94]

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.

[kreed5120]

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.

[Let'sGoZips94]

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.

[Sportsjunkie330]

18 hours ago, UAZip0510 said:

Predicting the Zips had Sweet 16 possibility and it not panning out has nothing to do with his credibility when it comes to our scheduling

 

I don't think its the predictions that question the credibility of his posts....

[Valpo Zip]

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.

  

[kreed5120]

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.

[clarkwgriswold]

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.

[skip-zip]

15 minutes ago, clarkwgriswold said:

 the chance of a MAC team getting an at-large bid that has luminaries like Gardner Webb on the schedule is 0%.  

 

Maybe a little bit "off topic", but I wonder what our former football coach does every time he sees the name "Gardner Webb"

[clarkwgriswold]

1 hour ago, skip-zip said:

 

Maybe a little bit "off topic", but I wonder what our former football coach does every time he sees the name "Gardner Webb"

 

Hope it gives him the sweats.  I actually meant Bethune Cookman, but my point's the same.

[Roo]

 

Teams worried about losing to Akron. 

 

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..

[K92]

[zippyman23]

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? 

[K92]

3 minutes ago, zippyman23 said:

 

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

21.

[Blue & Gold]

16 minutes ago, K92 said:

21.

 

[UAZip0510]

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.