ISU Hosting Exempt Tourney Next Season

[cpacmel]

Sure people would rather see Iowa over Chicago State. There is doubt about that.

Thats my point......ISU could draw 10k for Iowa where as they get 4-5k for C. State. And when you are struggling for butts in the seats......

You think Iowa would play at Redbird Arena?

[houstontxbrave]

Well my orginal point was to show that Winston-Salem State and Nicholls State would not bring down the Conference's RPI anymore than Fla Gulf and Maryland ES did. And that was to answer BRAVESFAN (see post #6 in this thread)

Also if Bradley's schedule was soo much stronger as you claim, why was it only 21 spots higher than ISU's?

The numbers might only be a 17 difference but it was a difference and it was a huge contibuting factor as to why ISU played in the NIT.




ISU played 5 tourney teams to Bradley's 5.

ISU played - Kent State, Indiana, Drake (3)
BU palyed - Michigan State, Butler, Vandy and Drake (2)


I have seen Iowa and Iowa State play last year. They were no more fun to watch than EMU or Chicago State.

You give them respect because they are from a BCS conference. That doesn't make them better.

In a way, it's sad that you think that.


Had ISU played Iowa and Iowa State instead of Chicago State and say Bowling Green, do you really think that would have made a difference in the eyes of the committee? All of the teams were around 200 in the RPI. When they are that bad, even in their BCS names can't help them. If you think beating Iowa and Iowa State is big because of their names, you my friend are the naive one.

I think if ISU would have played anyone with a name that was recognized and was not chicago State, etc then yes they would have both had a better RPI and a better chance to have been an atlarge selection.

But the more I think about this back and forth, its really no business of mine to talk about ISU's schedule. If they choose to schedule the sisters of the poor or whomever thats their choice. But that type of scheduling in the MVC not only effects the overall perception of their program but also that of the Valley's in the eyes of the National Media.

I dont respect Iowa State or Iowa because they are BCS, what I respect is that they have a name program that is recognized nationally. Sorry but nearly anyone will look at Iowa State and Iowa and immediately recognize the names, even if RPI doesnt care, those who talk about non conferences schedules are less likely to critize a schedule with Iowa and Iowa State then they are to with a schedule made up of Chicago State, UNC Wilmington etc. Even it the RPI does not care about names the media certainly does as do most fan bases. And no matter what anyone says, the media does influence the selection of NCAA teams. Theres a reason the teams you previously mentioned with higher RPI's the ISU got in as atlarges and ISU didnt.

If ESPN sits and talks about ISU's non conference schedule and see who they played, they are more likely to hammer about how soft it was, but if there are names, regardless of the names overall record, that schedule probably will be critized but it will be noted that ISU went out and played teams that were from BCS conferences and they would atleast be congratulated for attempting to play name teams. The name on the front of a jersey matters bigtime.

[Da Coach]

Another factor is that these games are scheduled 1 or sometimes 2 or 3 years ahead of when they are played. But the RPI that counts against you is that team's RPI the season you play them. That is sometimes hard to predict, and sometimes it's not.

When you schedule Chicago State, or the like, you know they will have a poor RPI, no matter how for into the future you play them. When Bradley scheduled Iowa State, and when they agreed to the SPI Tournament against Iowa, there was an expectation those teams could be good and have good RPIs. That's why it's silly to compare Bradley playing Iowa State, with ISU scheduling Nicholls State and Winston-Salem State next year.

[cpacmel]

I think if ISU would have played anyone with a name that was recognized and was not chicago State, etc then yes they would have both had a better RPI and a better chance to have been an atlarge selection.

RPI means very little anymore. It's silly to even bring that up. Mo State (#21) proved that.

But the more I think about this back and forth, its really no business of mine to talk about ISU's schedule. If they choose to schedule the sisters of the poor or whomever thats their choice. But that type of scheduling in the MVC not only effects the overall perception of their program but also that of the Valley's in the eyes of the National Media.

Houstontxbrave, we are just having a friendly debate. There is no anger or ill will in our replies.

ISU didn't schedule much different than Bradley last year. You fail to see this and fail to realize it. The numbers don't lie. We can go back and forth and go *** for tat, but in the end, the numbers are not much different in regards to the 2 team's schedules of last season.

And to prove that, let's look at overall SOS:

Illinois State #71
Bradley #75

Try if you can, to spin that one, my friend.

Theres a reason the teams you previously mentioned with higher RPI's the ISU got in as atlarges and ISU didnt.

Yes there is. They all beat teams in the tourney and had more wins against the top 50 than ISU did.

If ESPN sits and talks about ISU's non conference schedule and see who they played, they are more likely to hammer about how soft it was, but if there are names, regardless of the names overall record, that schedule probably will be critized but it will be noted that ISU went out and played teams that were from BCS conferences and they would atleast be congratulated for attempting to play name teams. The name on the front of a jersey matters bigtime.

During the weeks leading up to selection Sunday, I probably watched more ESPN and other college basketball, than humanly possible. I also read online more articles from every corner of the globe on bubble team's chances of making the Big Dance than I should have.

I didn't see much talk about ISU being hammered for playing a soft schedule. I did see them get hammered for not beating teams that would be dancing. (kent state, indiana, Drake) or having enough top 50 wins to compare positively to other bubble teams. (2 top 50 wins in 7 chances)

I am curious how Bradley could have scheduled soo tough, especially as compared to ISU, but than their SOS #'s are only 96 and 117 respectively.
You would think that there would be a HUGE margin between the 2 to prove that point, but there isn't. Weird.

[cpacmel]

When you schedule Chicago State, or the like, you know they will have a poor RPI, no matter how for into the future you play them.

Did Bradley play Chicago State a few seasons go? Same with Bowling Green? Loyola (IL)? UIC? SEMO? Seems over the recent past, we have played a lot of the same foes.

When Bradley scheduled Iowa State, and when they agreed to the SPI Tournament against Iowa, there was an expectation those teams could be good and have good RPIs.

Why is that? Iowa just got a new coach (alford didn't leave much either for lick) and Iowa State really hasn't been good since 2001. Is that when the contract was signed? 7 years ago?

That's why it's silly to compare Bradley playing Iowa State, with ISU scheduling Nicholls State and Winston-Salem State next year.

But it isn't silly to compare them to Fla Gulf Coast or Maryland ES.

[houstontxbrave]

I agree cp that the RPI numbers are not that far apart but would you not agree that a 96 non conference RPI would have looked much better then a 117?

Regardless of the numbers though I still believe Bradley played a much more difficult non conference schedule. Bradleys biggest problem is they didnt win any of the games that they played. If BU goes and wins versus MSU, Vanderbilt that makes them 19-15 overall and possibily still in bubble talk.

I sincerely believe if ISU would have had Iowa and Iowa State on their schedule instead of Chicago State and UMSL. If they would have won both the Iowa games, even with the 0-5 versus the top 50 they would have been an NCAA participant. Even if the numbers would not have varied much, the eyeball test so to speak would have looked better. I think teams even if the BCS opponent is not of record quality, the fact the non BCS played the BCS even if likely it is on the road says a lot and says a heck of a lot more then playing weak D 1 schools. Especially by choice.

I just believe that ISU really hurt themselves this past season by scheduling so softly, and with the announced tourney and its teams it appears they still are leaning towards a softer schedule.

I completely understand that D1 scheduling is very difficult especially in the MVC where few if any BCS's will venture, and I do not completely agree with all the Horizon league teams BU played this season but that type of scheduling kept the Chicago States off of the schedule. Teams like ISU and BU have to do what they can to get the BCS's but I think have to look at scheduling teams from like conferences.

I would bet in retrospect if Jank was asked he would have even played a couple of buy games versus the home games that were scheduled non conference last season, he would take a buy at Iowa rather then take a home win versus Chicago State. Losing one BCS on the road competitively I think speaks volumnes over one home win versus a weak non competitive team.

[real fan]

The major problem with this tour. comes more from the fans as you hate to pay $$$ for games against opponents that if you don"t beat by a huge margin it does not look good plus I as a fan hate to see games against teams you know that you should win by 30 points; I know it is hard to schedule big name teams but it is a lot more exciting game day to know your opponent is a Michigan State then a Chicago State or Western Illinois.

[houstontxbrave]

The major problem with this tour. comes more from the fans as you hate to pay $$$ for games against opponents that if you don"t beat by a huge margin it does not look good plus I as a fan hate to see games against teams you know that you should win by 30 points; I know it is hard to schedule big name teams but it is a lot more exciting game day to know your opponent is a Michigan State then a Chicago State or Western Illinois.

A few years ago I drove over to ISU to watch them play Utah St. Knowing Utah St was a good team and it was a competitve basketball game. And it was not a bad crowd. People will come out to watch good basketball, die hards come out to watch Chicago State.

Your not going to get Michigan State every night but getting Butler, University of Houston, Utah State, Pepperdine etc is obtainable and much better for your fan base and for the strength of your program.

[cpacmel]

I agree cp that the RPI numbers are not that far apart but would you not agree that a 96 non conference RPI would have looked much better then a 117?

Of course 96 looks better than 117, but it's not much better. It's marginally better.

Regardless of the numbers though I still believe Bradley played a much more difficult non conference schedule. Bradleys biggest problem is they didnt win any of the games that they played. If BU goes and wins versus MSU, Vanderbilt that makes them 19-15 overall and possibily still in bubble talk.

I think this is where BU Bias comes in. And all one has to do is look at the numbers to see as much.

First of all, and I don't mean this literally, but you are completely Delusional if you think Bradley is ANYWHERE near the bubble at 19-15. BU plays in the MVC, not the SEC.

Do the numbers all of a sudden lie? I know numbers can be used in any way to show your side of things, but I don't know how it applies here, when both team's SOS for the year are nearly identical and their non-conference #'s are 21 spots away from one another.

I sincerely believe if ISU would have had Iowa and Iowa State on their schedule instead of Chicago State and UMSL. If they would have won both the Iowa games, even with the 0-5 versus the top 50 they would have been an NCAA participant. Even if the numbers would not have varied much, the eyeball test so to speak would have looked better. I think teams even if the BCS opponent is not of record quality, the fact the non BCS played the BCS even if likely it is on the road says a lot and says a heck of a lot more then playing weak D 1 schools. Especially by choice.

We will have to agree to disagree here. Beating the cellar dwellars, even from the BCS conferences doesn't help much. As Jay Bias says "everyone in their conferences are beating Iowa and Iowa State, why is such a big deal when Drake or UNI does it"

I just believe that ISU really hurt themselves this past season by scheduling so softly, and with the announced tourney and its teams it appears they still are leaning towards a softer schedule.

I completely understand that D1 scheduling is very difficult especially in the MVC where few if any BCS's will venture, and I do not completely agree with all the Horizon league teams BU played this season but that type of scheduling kept the Chicago States off of the schedule. Teams like ISU and BU have to do what they can to get the BCS's but I think have to look at scheduling teams from like conferences.

You guys just played Chicago State in 2006. They are not all that far removed from BU's schedule.

I would bet in retrospect if Jank was asked he would have even played a couple of buy games versus the home games that were scheduled non conference last season, he would take a buy at Iowa rather then take a home win versus Chicago State. Losing one BCS on the road competitively I think speaks volumnes over one home win versus a weak non competitive team.

There you ago again with the BCS thing.

Losing to Iowa would have done wonders over a home win over Chicago State?

With that comment, I will bow out of this debate. I just can't see how losing to a school with an RPI of 192 is better for the resume than pounding a team with an RPI of 213 at home. Sorry.

[Da Coach]

Did Bradley play Chicago State a few seasons go? Same with Bowling Green? Loyola (IL)? UIC? SEMO? Seems over the recent past, we have played a lot of the same foes.



Why is that? Iowa just got a new coach (alford didn't leave much either for lick) and Iowa State really hasn't been good since 2001. Is that when the contract was signed? 7 years ago?



But it isn't silly to compare them to Fla Gulf Coast or Maryland ES.

Come on, now you are the one acting delusional.

There is only 1 reason a school schedules WS State or Nicholls State at home. You want an easy win, and you don't care if it hurts your RPI.

Florida Gulf Coast and Maryland ES were not scheduled by Bradley. They were scheduled by the SPI people. And there was a tradeoff- Bradley got to play teams like Iowa and Vanderbilt from conferences rated higher than the MVC. Tell me what ISU's tradeoff is for playing the cupcakes they are getting.... there isn't one. They will take an RPI hit, and it will affect all the other MVC schools. Maybe Jankovich doesn't care. He won't have 25 wins next year, so maybe it won't keep them out of the NCAA like it did last year. The lack of quality wins and the RPI hit from playing too many non-conference cupcakes was the reason ISU played in the NIT. Sorry, but the truth hurts.

I know it's hard for MVC teams to get anyone from power conferences to play them at home. But to add extra exempt games against these high-RPI teams, with no benefit of a chance to play a better team is going to hurt ISU. They would be better off just playing fewer games.

[houstontxbrave]

CP,

Yes if BU has non conference wins versus MSU and Vanderbilt and the record was 19-15 I do believe those two wins would have put Bradley in atleast bubble talk. I didnt say they would be on the right side of the bubble but in bubble talk. In that seniero the bubble talk would have evaporated with the quarterfinal loss to CU, but before that with injuries and if those two wins would have occured they would have had that talk.

We are going to have to disagree on the RPI difference if it would have made any impact for ISU, I really think it would have but you dont so there you have that.

If you think Jank would not have traded a chance at a BCS, yes even at Iowa for a chance to get Chicago State off the schedule then I think that is crazy. More chance of wins v BCS the better.

I really dont know what the non conference SOS was for BU or ISU but I can read and when I read at Butler, MSU, VCU, Vanderbilt, Iowa, and Iowa State. That reads much more impressive then UMSL, Chicago State, Cinn, E Michigan, Ball State. But I must have BU red glasses on because the schedules apparently are nearly identical.

Without being able to go back to talk of the 2006 schedule I am certain no one is real happy with Chicago State on a schedule and having someone of that poor standing on a schedule is not a good thing ever. I am sure it is at times unavoidable but I can we agree it would be better for everyone to schedule Iowa rather then Chicago State even if Iowa is holding up the big ten?

Ill bow out of this also, Im BU biased and **** proud of it

[BU Firsty]

Actually scheduling D2 teams does not kill one's RPI or SOS because those games don't count toward the RPI or SOS. The only drawback is that it gives teams fewer D1 teams to play and thus fewer chances to beat quality opponents. But I would rather see Bradley or any other Valley team schedule a D2 game here or there rather than an RPI killing D1 game against Chicago St or Nichols St. Obviously it would be better to schedule more Butlers or Wisconsin's if given the opportunity, but at least a D2 game won't kill a team's rankings like playing the "quality" schedule ISU has in this tourney.

You are absolutely correct. A DII team (one) is far better to schedule than a 300+ RPI DI team. While it does take away from the win total, it will not crush your (and the conference's) RPI and SOS.

[cpacmel]

Okay you boys pulled me back into this.

Come on, now you are the one acting delusional.

There is only 1 reason a school schedules WS State or Nicholls State at home. You want an easy win, and you don't care if it hurts your RPI.

Florida Gulf Coast and Maryland ES were not scheduled by Bradley. They were scheduled by the SPI people.

Um, yeah ISU didn't schedule WS State and Nicholls State at home. ISU offered to host a tourney run by Basketball Travelers. They, like Bradley were at the mercy of the organizers of the tourney.

The only difference is, ISU is hosting, while Bradley played in South Padre.

And there was a tradeoff- Bradley got to play teams like Iowa and Vanderbilt from conferences rated higher than the MVC. Tell me what ISU's tradeoff is for playing the cupcakes they are getting.... there isn't one.

The tradeoff could be, they get to play Cal-SB. (22 wins and an RPI of 89 last year)

And most people I have talked to, that are ISU fans aren't thrilled with foes coming for this tourney.

Speaking of trade offs, ISU did one last year, to get a chance at Indiana and Kent State, they played UNC-WIL and SEMO.

I noticed BU scheduled SEMO. What was the trade-off for scheduling them again? Or was that contract signed when SEMO was good, with the expectation they would be good when they played BU? I think SEMO was last good in 2000. So again, a contract that was signed 7 years ago?

They will take an RPI hit, and it will affect all the other MVC schools.

Just as the MVC took a hit when BU played FLA GC and Maryland ES. This has already been covered.

Maybe Jankovich doesn't care. He won't have 25 wins next year, so maybe it won't keep them out of the NCAA like it did last year.

Maybe we shouldn't even play next season, since you already know what it is going to happen.

Weren't you one who predicted that ISU would not finish ahead of BU this past season? Did you BOOK THAT prediction?

The lack of quality wins and the RPI hit from playing too many non-conference cupcakes was the reason ISU played in the NIT. Sorry, but the truth hurts.

I didn't know you sat on the committee. Thanks for the heads up. But you will be okay if I think differently, yes?

I know it's hard for MVC teams to get anyone from power conferences to play them at home. But to add extra exempt games against these high-RPI teams, with no benefit of a chance to play a better team is going to hurt ISU. They would be better off just playing fewer games.

Excuse my language here, but ISU has tried to limit the amount of times it "wenchs" itself out to the Big Boys. That's why you don't see us signing 2 for 1's or going to places for guaranttee games.

Maybe that's the wrong approach to take, but that is their policy for equal footing. If there is such a thing.

[cpacmel]

CP,

Yes if BU has non conference wins versus MSU and Vanderbilt and the record was 19-15 I do believe those two wins would have put Bradley in atleast bubble talk. I didnt say they would be on the right side of the bubble but in bubble talk. In that seniero the bubble talk would have evaporated with the quarterfinal loss to CU, but before that with injuries and if those two wins would have occured they would have had that talk.

When was the last time a Valley team with 15 losses was even near the bubble for an AT-LARGE bid though? Maybe in a BCS conference, but not the MVC. It's sad it has to be that way, but it is.

Remember the MVC is a conference that is known for getting snubbed. No way in heck any MVC team is even considered with 15 losses. NONE.

We are going to have to disagree on the RPI difference if it would have made any impact for ISU, I really think it would have but you dont so there you have that.

Yeah. That's cool. Agree to disagree.

If you think Jank would not have traded a chance at a BCS, yes even at Iowa for a chance to get Chicago State off the schedule then I think that is crazy. More chance of wins v BCS the better.

Not without a return game.

I really dont know what the non conference SOS was for BU or ISU but I can read and when I read at Butler, MSU, VCU, Vanderbilt, Iowa, and Iowa State. That reads much more impressive then UMSL, Chicago State, Cinn, E Michigan, Ball State.

It's funny you list all of BU's best teams on their schedule, but you don't do the same for ISU.

ISU also played Indiana (NCAA tourney team), Kent State (NCAA tourney team)

Also on the schedule were: Wright State and Cincy. I'll include Wright State because you included VCU, even though technically you guys didn't schedule VCU. (BB return game)

Also I think most people would look at Iowa and Iowa State these days and not consider them great or even good teams. But you continue to list them proudly. Yes they have name recognition because of their conference, but use the eyeball test with them. They aren't good. Their record wasn't good. Their RPI's weren't good and their play on the court wasn't good either.

But I must have BU red glasses on because the schedules apparently are nearly identical.

Yes they are very close. I didn't make up the Non-conference SOS's #.

I'll ask you this though. ISU has an overall SOS of 71, and BU's is 77.

How can that be explained? ISU played Drake a 3rd time, but also played UNI a 3rd time, while BU played the Jays 3 times.

If BU's schedule was soooo much tougher than ISU's, why don't the numbers show that?

It's a mystery.

Without being able to go back to talk of the 2006 schedule I am certain no one is real happy with Chicago State on a schedule and having someone of that poor standing on a schedule is not a good thing ever. I am sure it is at times unavoidable but I can we agree it would be better for everyone to schedule Iowa rather then Chicago State even if Iowa is holding up the big ten?

I think every year there are a few teams on everyone's schedule that fans wish weren't there.

Ill bow out of this also, Im BU biased and **** proud of it

That's cool. Atleast your honest about it.

Thanks for the civil debate. I know I am tired of this quoting thing.

[Rusty 54]

With that comment, I will bow out of this debate.

We were all so hopeful.