I agree for the most part - don't need to over do it - but more than we have

The problem is you need to have a perfect storm to getting that at-large scenario for mid-major programs and goes something like this:

1. You have to be coming off of a decent season: I'm not saying winning 27 games, but something like winning 20 at most and going out of the post-season early. If you win too many the year before, you will attract too much attention and ultimately schools will not want to schedule you due to a potential loss. Happens all the time with mid-majors coming off a deep NCAA run.
2. Return a lot of guys: something like last year's team heading into this season would be a good example of that. Having a lot of returners combined with a non-noticeable amount of wins makes this a lethal dosage.
3. Having a power 5 mix on the road or tournament setting of teams that are on the verge tourney teams: Monmouth last season had that right mix of teams with USC, Georgetown, and others where those teams were going to win 20+ games and make them look good. Going to pre-season tourney games set up teams for the most opportunities to get these precious RPI boosting W's.
***Note: When in these preseason tourneys, DO NOT LOSE IN THEM! NO LOSSES PERIOD.
4. Schedule mid-major teams that won't hurt the RPI: buy games are good to fill the schedule, but you can't pull an Indiana and have half the SWAC and MEAC as your home schedule. That's how you ask to be left at home and going to the NIT yet again. For us to get teams like WKU and Cleveland State are normally good mid-majors are RPI enhancers historically. Sure some years they are going to be terrible, but Vegas odds say scheduling historically good mid-major programs never hurts. Plus finding similar teams that could win their leagues becomes huge to schedule. Jamie Dixon is someone who knows how to play this game and is someone that can game an RPI like a genius.
5. Only lose 1-2 games in league play: These losses can't be in our case against a Bowling Green or Fiami. You have to lose to Akron or Kent and that's it. Any losses to the bottom, win the conference tourney or bust.
6. Get to the conference finals: You cannot screw around with less than finals appearances. Multiple mid-majors have proven this time and time again that you cannot get to the NCAAs without AT MINIMUM get to the conference finals.
BONUS Conference members pull upsets during the season: This rarely happens unlike football some years, but nonetheless this needs to happen to help bolster the conference RPI Ratings.

Feel free to dispute the math, but this is how a mid-major gets in and does it not leave it in the hands of the committee. Because we all know how much they love those mid-major programs!

At-large has a lot more to do with the level of athletes on your team. A legit power conference lineup would roll through the schedule and have an all-american candidate. The AAC has a few programs with the pedigree to attract the players. The A10 absorbs power conference overflow along the East Coast. The answer might be to hold back 1 scholarship every year for a high major transfer with hope of the NCAA's as a super loaded team.

We don't have the talent.

Not play in the MAC.

I mean, come on, someone had to say the obvious.

For non-"Power" conferences, there really isn't something that's going to guarantee or even improve your chances an at-large bid. Several non-"P" teams in the past few years heard the call from the committee to improve their OOC schedule, came away with impressive wins and a very good record, and still wound up on the outside looking in. The committee has gotten more subjective in the past few years by taking into account whether a "P" team played games without its star player or even its coach. Let's face it. If you're not in a "P" conference, they'll find a way to screw you.

From a USAT story on the top snubs of this year:

"The NCAA selection committee made it clear Illinois State's profile was fully examined. But ultimately it lacked what the committee needed much more of: Top 50 Ratings Percentage Index wins. The Redbirds had just one top-50 win, against the Shockers, to go with two résumé-staining losses to Tulsa and Murray State. Illinois State likely paid the cost of the committee veering away from placing a high value on a team's overall RPI. Last season, for instance, Syracuse squeaked into the field with a worst-ever 72 RPI. The Redbirds' Selection Sunday RPI of 33 is one of the 10 best RPIs to be snubbed from the NCAAs."

And Coach Dan Muller's comment regarding scheduling:

Muller, frustrated with the criticism that his team did not schedule hard enough as a mid-major, added: "We ask dozens of schools to play us every year and they won't. Don't talk to me about scheduling."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2017/03/12/nca... /

Hence what I said above, you cannot be coming off a 25+ win campaign. You gotta come off of something way under the radar like a 19-20 win season.......

I've said it a million times. We need to schedule better and play on the road if we have to. What is there to lose?

It's as simple as this - perception is reality.

The perception is, major schools from P5 conferences are consistently good teams with consistently good players and coaches. Therefore, even in years where their records don't look great - you can still make the case about strength of schedule. And - sometimes that's true. It's hard to tell quantitatively just how well a 500 Big Ten school would do if it played 18 MAC/A10/Colonial/MVC games instead or similarly how well a 16-2 mid-major from one of those conferences would have done had they played 18 games in the ACC instead.

Similarly, the perception is that mid-majors and low-majors are NOT consistently good teams with consistently good players and coaches.

The only way to change that perception, is to PROVE IT. You have to EARN the change of perspective.

How? Well you start by playing the P5 guys. Some might tell you no - but ask anyway. You don't need to schedule 20 of them. But you can't schedule 0-1 either. Keep asking until you get "some". You have to be willing to go on the road or a neutral court to play them (because they aren't coming to you - deal with it. It's the reward for having the perception of being a power school.) Play in as many neutral-site tournaments as you are allowed by rule. We're talking multiple per year. Why? Because it gives you the chance to schedule another 2-4 P5 teams (depending on the tournament and format) where you don't have to get them to agree to play you and BONUS it will be on a neutral floor instead of their home floor. Literally the best possible scenario.

Now your schedule should contain something like 2-5 P5 games you schedule on the road and 2-5 P5 games on a neutral site, so we're talking 4-8 (10 is probably a bit much) games against "quality" P5 opponents. Every year.

Next step - you have to beat some of them! That means you better have the athletes and depth and talent to stand a fighting chance (But then if you don't - then why are crying about at-large bids and national perception anyway? Clean up your house first) I honestly don't think we're at a spot where we have a team that can do this yet (see my posts regarding #SaulBall and his recruiting philosophy). But you can't just beat 1 or 2. You need to win at LEAST 3 of these "quality" games. Another reason why you need to schedule more than 3-4 of these games because then you have 0 margin for error. You're probably not going to run the table (these are good teams too). But, if you go 4-2 in your 6 "Top 50 RPI games against P5 schools" then you're going to FORCE the committee and public to take notice - that's the beginning of forcing them to change their perception of your team, because now they have a lot more data points for comparing you against that 500 P5 school.

Next step, get 3+ "quality" wins against P5 schools for successive years in a row. Otherwise you run the risk of being a fluke or a one-hit wonder. Those teams get warm spots in hearts of the public, but they don't change their perception of the school. But - do it 2/3/4 years in a row? That's Gonzaga-esque.

Next step - don't squander all your hard work during the conference season. Look, we all know the MAC/A10/MVC etc. can be tough - so you can't expect to go undefeated every year. But, what you can't do is go 4-2 against P5 schools in your OOC and then go 11-7 in conference. You better be 13-5,14-4 or better. Take care of your business.

Final step - make it to your conference tourney finals. Fair or not, teams get judged based on "what have you done for me lately". When you don't have the perception of being a power school - even if you had a successful OOC AND in-conference - you can't appear to have slipped in March.

Accomplish all of the above, and you'll start seeing at-large bid consideration.

Now - want to fully change the perception of the public so you can be in the at-large consideration camp more permanently? Then win a few NCAA tournament games here and there when you're finally given the shot.

Sounds easy right? Not really. In fact it's incredibly hard. But - you have to have the journey/blueprint charted out in front of you to even attempt it. The question is, do we currently (as a school or a conference)?

a better non conference schedule is a good idea. try to set up home and home type games with Indiana ohio state west Virginia Dayton Cleveland state and Xavier. throw in some tournaments that have a field of strong teams as well. in addition to that a game or two against duke Kansas Michigan state or similar teams saul could then talk to the coaches of these teams and get top notch adsvice on how to develop and recruit players. all this will make ou a better team.

Trolling again, I see.