This RPI report speaks volumes does it not?

[AZ BU Fan]

We all have a pretty keen sense of the obvious!

[srw]

Friends and Foes..

Im really not even pointing out BU's RPI although I grant it is obvious. We all know we aren't very good. We have a difference of opinion on reasons and solutions but thats ok.

Im more concerned with

• Poor scheduling
  Poor RPI's with the conference as a whole
  New coaches with no idea what it takes to actually succeed at this level (jank)

Its pretty pathetic really. This league got 4 bids a while ago. We aren't even close as a league now.

[TheAsianSensation]

Friends and Foes..

Im really not even pointing out BU's RPI although I grant it is obvious. We all know we aren't very good. We have a difference of opinion on reasons and solutions but thats ok.

Im more concerned with

• Poor scheduling
  Poor RPI's with the conference as a whole
  New coaches with no idea what it takes to actually succeed at this level (jank)

Its pretty pathetic really. This league got 4 bids a while ago. We aren't even close as a league now.

Yes, this year's schedule turned out to be bad, but I wouldn't worry about it. Until this year, Les has consistently put together a top 3 schedule in the Valley in the non-con. I'd give the man a mulligan on that front.

[squirrelgotdead]

While I do understand the need for the better teams to play as tough as schedule as possible, it is just important for the league's weak brothers to win as many games in the non-con as possible. There's a mix that is required.

2006 was a banner year for the Valley, not just because the top 5-6 teams were legitimately all very good, but because teams finishing 7-10 were 20-15 collectively against DI and boasted a win against Purdue, and only one team finished the non-con below .500 for RPI purposes (non-DI wins put everyone over). However, one single game (Indiana State's loss to IPFW) dropped the Valley from 2 to 5 in the CRPI.

So that shows you how delicate that balance is. But it is more important for the bottom to win than to kill itself by its schedule. JMO.

[BradleyBrave]

Doesn't some of this have to go on Doug Elgin for lifting the scheduling restrictions?

[Da Coach]

Maybe. But if he hadn't, the MVC schools might have not found enough teams to schedule. I think it had more to do with the BCS schools realizing that the MVC was benefitting more than they were, and taking a step back and refusing to schedule MVC teams, even if they offer one-and-done guarantee games.
The BCS boys just didn't like what happened in 2006 (4 MVC bids and 2 MVC Sweet 16 teams, and a midmajor in the Final 4).

[MacabreMob]

We are at the bottom of one of the weaker leagues in the country, and 85 spots behind Evansville. Chalk it up to youth and inexperience I guess.

I'm curious: Of all the conferences, how many conferences are considered to be the "stronger" leagues and how many are considered to be the "weaker" leagues? Is it BCS=stronger and the rest=weaker? Is it top 10=stronger and the rest=weaker? Is it top 1/2=stronger and bottom1/2=weaker?

[Fetz86]

I think they just have to pass the "eye-test"

[MacabreMob]

I think they just have to pass the "eye-test"

Exactly. And passing the "eye-test" means it has to be approved by the "learned opinion".

But I was just wondering... if in the argument of Bradley's experience/age whatever, a ranking of 5th is top 1/2... but now, the perception of the MVC being one of the weaker leagues in the country... how can that be when the MVC ranks 12th out of 32 leagues? 12 of 32 is one of the weaker, but 5 of 10 is one of the most experienced?

[Buesch N Chips]

I'm curious: Of all the conferences, how many conferences are considered to be the "stronger" leagues and how many are considered to be the "weaker" leagues? Is it BCS=stronger and the rest=weaker? Is it top 10=stronger and the rest=weaker? Is it top 1/2=stronger and bottom1/2=weaker?

...whatever fits your argument.....