menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: "Scheduling alliance" in 2019
Page: 1 of 1
mail
OU_Country
9/19/2018 10:34 AM
ETSU men's hoops to join "scheduling alliance" in 2019

http://www.etsubucs.com/mbasketball/news/2018-19/15338/me... /


This is an interesting idea that I hope OU and the MAC are considering.
mail
person
Ohio69
9/19/2018 2:51 PM
Is this just more of the non-P5 beating each other instead of trying to beat the P5?
mail
OU_Country
9/19/2018 3:53 PM
In a way, yes. What they're doing is aligning to schedule each other for better games because of the fact that many of the P6 conferences have gone to 20 conference games.

To me, in effect, it's going to end up creating a tier of schools below the P6 that end up trying not to schedule the lowest tiered conferences.

All this because the NCAA and their selection committee continue to be unwilling to require some form of scheduling mandates to P6 schools.
mail
person
Buckeye to Bobcat
9/20/2018 9:32 AM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
In a way, yes. What they're doing is aligning to schedule each other for better games because of the fact that many of the P6 conferences have gone to 20 conference games.

To me, in effect, it's going to end up creating a tier of schools below the P6 that end up trying not to schedule the lowest tiered conferences.

All this because the NCAA and their selection committee continue to be unwilling to require some form of scheduling mandates to P6 schools.
+1

Tired of this stuff. Smart for the alliance though to get quality wins. Then again, don't schedule them and beat them on "guarantee win games" by your power members of said group, you can skew the math in a hurry.
mail
person
Alan Swank
9/20/2018 5:11 PM
Kind of sounds like an early season/preseason Bracket Buster to me.
mail
TWT
9/20/2018 8:26 PM
I think the answer is better coaching for those that can afford it. A highly paid coach will go a long way toward perception of a program which means more revenue and better recruiting. The schools that have broken out in the past few decades like Xavier and Gonzaga had great coaching, then high profile profile recruits coming in behind it. These scheduling alliances aren't going to make a difference if the coaching is not there.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
9/21/2018 6:59 AM
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
I think the answer is better coaching for those that can afford it. A highly paid coach will go a long way toward perception of a program which means more revenue and better recruiting. The schools that have broken out in the past few decades like Xavier and Gonzaga had great coaching, then high profile profile recruits coming in behind it. These scheduling alliances aren't going to make a difference if the coaching is not there.
Those schools also do not have football.
mail
TWT
9/21/2018 7:38 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
I think the answer is better coaching for those that can afford it. A highly paid coach will go a long way toward perception of a program which means more revenue and better recruiting. The schools that have broken out in the past few decades like Xavier and Gonzaga had great coaching, then high profile profile recruits coming in behind it. These scheduling alliances aren't going to make a difference if the coaching is not there.
Those schools also do not have football.
Memphis, Cincinnati, Temple have football and used the same model.
mail
person
GoCats105
9/21/2018 8:35 AM
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
I think the answer is better coaching for those that can afford it. A highly paid coach will go a long way toward perception of a program which means more revenue and better recruiting. The schools that have broken out in the past few decades like Xavier and Gonzaga had great coaching, then high profile profile recruits coming in behind it. These scheduling alliances aren't going to make a difference if the coaching is not there.
It's not just highly paid coaching. You have to find the right fit and make a commitment financially in ALL facets (coaching, facilities, recruiting, scheduling, etc.).
mail
OU_Country
9/21/2018 10:04 AM
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
I think the answer is better coaching for those that can afford it. A highly paid coach will go a long way toward perception of a program which means more revenue and better recruiting. The schools that have broken out in the past few decades like Xavier and Gonzaga had great coaching, then high profile profile recruits coming in behind it. These scheduling alliances aren't going to make a difference if the coaching is not there.
Those schools also do not have football.
Memphis, Cincinnati, Temple have football and used the same model.
Also worthy of consideration is that those schools have a long history of basketball success, and a pretty solid reputation already. They also invest a ton of money into hoops (UC and Memphis especially). I guess my point is that I don't think they aren't really mid-majors in the same way that the teams using this alliance are.
mail
TWT
9/23/2018 11:04 AM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
I think the answer is better coaching for those that can afford it. A highly paid coach will go a long way toward perception of a program which means more revenue and better recruiting. The schools that have broken out in the past few decades like Xavier and Gonzaga had great coaching, then high profile profile recruits coming in behind it. These scheduling alliances aren't going to make a difference if the coaching is not there.
Those schools also do not have football.
Memphis, Cincinnati, Temple have football and used the same model.
Also worthy of consideration is that those schools have a long history of basketball success, and a pretty solid reputation already. They also invest a ton of money into hoops (UC and Memphis especially). I guess my point is that I don't think they aren't really mid-majors in the same way that the teams using this alliance are.
First I am told that a non-power conference team can't have football if they want to be successful in basketball. Then I cite examples of G5 programs with highly successful basketball programs. Next I am told they are different because they invest a lot of money into hoops. What I said originally then holds if a program follows a model of investing in a good coach its possible. A coach that immediately has the team playing better defense, over achieving with current talent and in play for higher level recruits. Defense is key because it allows a program to take care of business night in and out during conference play which is what a mid major program has to do for a NCAA tournament resume. I'd be happy with a program that on the schedules we play could win 25 a year, finish with no more than 2 or 3 conference losses and was in the NCAA tournament regularly. That seems about right for this basketball program not 14-17 finishes on the 300th rated schedule.
mail
person
longtiimelurker
9/24/2018 9:26 AM
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
Memphis, Cincinnati, Temple have football and used the same model.
Cincinnati and Temple broke out? They have been legitimate basketball schools before most here were concieved
mail
TWT
9/24/2018 10:41 PM
longtiimelurker wrote:expand_more
Memphis, Cincinnati, Temple have football and used the same model.
Cincinnati and Temple broke out? They have been legitimate basketball schools before most here were concieved
They are tradition rich but the Huggins era @ UC and Chaney era @ really got things moving for both athletic departments at a time when the college basketball landscape was being framed at ESPN. There was only ESPN and ESPN2 for sports networks and they were on it frequently in the 90's. Many programs that were prominent in the 50's, 60's and 70's didn't cross over into the cable era and ended up left behind in conference reshuffling.
mail
person
longtiimelurker
10/1/2018 9:56 AM
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
. Many programs that were prominent in the 50's, 60's and 70's didn't cross over into the cable era and ended up left behind in conference reshuffling.
Just curious. Aside from Depaul and St John's who are you referring to that got left behind? Looking through basketball reference over the last 60 years the schools in the 50s 60s and 70s look to be the same as now. Looking at the tournament and conferences the schools that were on top then seem to be the same pretty much as it is now. Who was prominent in the 70s that dropped off? 60s was UCLA and the rest but Dayton is still legit as they were. Name the programs you see that dropped off due to "the cable era"
mail
TWT
10/1/2018 10:09 PM
longtiimelurker wrote:expand_more
. Many programs that were prominent in the 50's, 60's and 70's didn't cross over into the cable era and ended up left behind in conference reshuffling.
Just curious. Aside from Depaul and St John's who are you referring to that got left behind? Looking through basketball reference over the last 60 years the schools in the 50s 60s and 70s look to be the same as now. Looking at the tournament and conferences the schools that were on top then seem to be the same pretty much as it is now. Who was prominent in the 70s that dropped off? 60s was UCLA and the rest but Dayton is still legit as they were. Name the programs you see that dropped off due to "the cable era"
Quite a few that were squeezed out. You can tell from the AP All Americans where some of the top players once played. 50' Holy Cross, Bradley, Duquesne, San Francisco, Long Island. 52' Dayton, Seattle. 53' Penn, LaSalle, Furman. 57' Columbia. 60' St. Bonaventure. 63' Loyola Chi. NYU. 64' Princeton, Davison. 66' St. Joseph's. 68' Niagara. 69' Detroit, Santa Clara. 71' Jacksonville. 72' Long Beach St, Oral Roberts. 73' Illinois St, American. 74' Canisius. 78' Indiana St, Portland St. 79' Rhode Island. Right here is a list of 30 schools that showed up at least once in those decades (some a few times) with a 1st or 2nd team All American meaning that they had one of the very best players in the entire country.

The past 30 years there weren't too many of these programs with the top players. 88' Bradley. 89' LaSalle. 90' Loyola Marymount. 91' ETSU. 95' UMass. 04' St. Joe's, 08' Davidson. 11' Morehead St. 12' Murray St. 15' Northern Iowa. 18' St. Mary's. Of course I'm excluding FBS schools, Big East and Gonzaga in this analysis but the past 30 years "cable era" produced only 11 AP 1st/2nd teamers from the smaller conferences while from 1950-1980 there was 3 times the. Obviously quite a few historically strong programs didn't make it in the cable era.

BTW, I do consider Dayton a left behind in the A10 as they are not nearly the national power they once were as evidence from the players they sign. I once worked with a guy who picked up his PhD at Bradley years ago. He said he loved the Braves but they can't get the players anymore. It was a program that dropped off the map in the late 80's while others like UC and Temple struck gold with televised college basketball.

Cincinnati had football and they were able to get into CUSA and later the Big East. Dayton at times a more impressive program had to settle for the A10, a conference mostly populated by programs from yesteryear. The AAC is up and coming metro schools plus private schools that kept FBS football. Maintaining a football program regardless of how bad it is was key.
mail
person
longtiimelurker
10/6/2018 5:28 PM
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
. Many programs that were prominent in the 50's, 60's and 70's didn't cross over into the cable era and ended up left behind in conference reshuffling.
Just curious. Aside from Depaul and St John's who are you referring to that got left behind? Looking through basketball reference over the last 60 years the schools in the 50s 60s and 70s look to be the same as now. Looking at the tournament and conferences the schools that were on top then seem to be the same pretty much as it is now. Who was prominent in the 70s that dropped off? 60s was UCLA and the rest but Dayton is still legit as they were. Name the programs you see that dropped off due to "the cable era"
Quite a few that were squeezed out. You can tell from the AP All Americans where some of the top players once played. 50' Holy Cross, Bradley, Duquesne, San Francisco, Long Island. 52' Dayton, Seattle. 53' Penn, LaSalle, Furman. 57' Columbia. 60' St. Bonaventure. 63' Loyola Chi. NYU. 64' Princeton, Davison. 66' St. Joseph's. 68' Niagara. 69' Detroit, Santa Clara. 71' Jacksonville. 72' Long Beach St, Oral Roberts. 73' Illinois St, American. 74' Canisius. 78' Indiana St, Portland St. 79' Rhode Island. Right here is a list of 30 schools that showed up at least once in those decades (some a few times) with a 1st or 2nd team All American meaning that they had one of the very best players in the entire country.

The past 30 years there weren't too many of these programs with the top players. 88' Bradley. 89' LaSalle. 90' Loyola Marymount. 91' ETSU. 95' UMass. 04' St. Joe's, 08' Davidson. 11' Morehead St. 12' Murray St. 15' Northern Iowa. 18' St. Mary's. Of course I'm excluding FBS schools, Big East and Gonzaga in this analysis but the past 30 years "cable era" produced only 11 AP 1st/2nd teamers from the smaller conferences while from 1950-1980 there was 3 times the. Obviously quite a few historically strong programs didn't make it in the cable era.

BTW, I do consider Dayton a left behind in the A10 as they are not nearly the national power they once were as evidence from the players they sign. I once worked with a guy who picked up his PhD at Bradley years ago. He said he loved the Braves but they can't get the players anymore. It was a program that dropped off the map in the late 80's while others like UC and Temple struck gold with televised college basketball.

Cincinnati had football and they were able to get into CUSA and later the Big East. Dayton at times a more impressive program had to settle for the A10, a conference mostly populated by programs from yesteryear. The AAC is up and coming metro schools plus private schools that kept FBS football. Maintaining a football program regardless of how bad it is was key.
This post is hugely uninformed. Going off AP All Americans is a strange way to look at it and the years and teams to support the case are all over the board and somewhat inaccurate. The point that the same teams that were prominent in those eras you mentioned are prominent today. NC, Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA and going down through the top 50 there is more of the same old names than those who have been replaced. Those names and programs in that air are are pretty familiar. Using AA's like Bird who left Indiana for ISU or Artis at JAX after 2 years at Gardner Webb as your premise for saying they got left behind is like saying Ohio got left behind because we never got another Trent. Not even worth going into it as discussing and debating would be folly. Have a great day.
mail
TWT
10/8/2018 11:56 PM
longtiimelurker wrote:expand_more
. Many programs that were prominent in the 50's, 60's and 70's didn't cross over into the cable era and ended up left behind in conference reshuffling.
Just curious. Aside from Depaul and St John's who are you referring to that got left behind? Looking through basketball reference over the last 60 years the schools in the 50s 60s and 70s look to be the same as now. Looking at the tournament and conferences the schools that were on top then seem to be the same pretty much as it is now. Who was prominent in the 70s that dropped off? 60s was UCLA and the rest but Dayton is still legit as they were. Name the programs you see that dropped off due to "the cable era"
Quite a few that were squeezed out. You can tell from the AP All Americans where some of the top players once played. 50' Holy Cross, Bradley, Duquesne, San Francisco, Long Island. 52' Dayton, Seattle. 53' Penn, LaSalle, Furman. 57' Columbia. 60' St. Bonaventure. 63' Loyola Chi. NYU. 64' Princeton, Davison. 66' St. Joseph's. 68' Niagara. 69' Detroit, Santa Clara. 71' Jacksonville. 72' Long Beach St, Oral Roberts. 73' Illinois St, American. 74' Canisius. 78' Indiana St, Portland St. 79' Rhode Island. Right here is a list of 30 schools that showed up at least once in those decades (some a few times) with a 1st or 2nd team All American meaning that they had one of the very best players in the entire country.

The past 30 years there weren't too many of these programs with the top players. 88' Bradley. 89' LaSalle. 90' Loyola Marymount. 91' ETSU. 95' UMass. 04' St. Joe's, 08' Davidson. 11' Morehead St. 12' Murray St. 15' Northern Iowa. 18' St. Mary's. Of course I'm excluding FBS schools, Big East and Gonzaga in this analysis but the past 30 years "cable era" produced only 11 AP 1st/2nd teamers from the smaller conferences while from 1950-1980 there was 3 times the. Obviously quite a few historically strong programs didn't make it in the cable era.

BTW, I do consider Dayton a left behind in the A10 as they are not nearly the national power they once were as evidence from the players they sign. I once worked with a guy who picked up his PhD at Bradley years ago. He said he loved the Braves but they can't get the players anymore. It was a program that dropped off the map in the late 80's while others like UC and Temple struck gold with televised college basketball.

Cincinnati had football and they were able to get into CUSA and later the Big East. Dayton at times a more impressive program had to settle for the A10, a conference mostly populated by programs from yesteryear. The AAC is up and coming metro schools plus private schools that kept FBS football. Maintaining a football program regardless of how bad it is was key.
This post is hugely uninformed. Going off AP All Americans is a strange way to look at it and the years and teams to support the case are all over the board and somewhat inaccurate. The point that the same teams that were prominent in those eras you mentioned are prominent today. NC, Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA and going down through the top 50 there is more of the same old names than those who have been replaced. Those names and programs in that air are are pretty familiar. Using AA's like Bird who left Indiana for ISU or Artis at JAX after 2 years at Gardner Webb as your premise for saying they got left behind is like saying Ohio got left behind because we never got another Trent. Not even worth going into it as discussing and debating would be folly. Have a great day.
I agree with what you are saying here to a large extent. The current power schools of today even back in 1960 had 75% of the total market value of college basketball. Over the course of time, they leveraged their natural advantages as major land grant universities and larger alumni bases to sculpt the system in their favor. The NCAA tournament expanded in a way to benefit the high resource conferences. Playing non-conference games only at home. Refusing to play other in-state schools at all ect. Today the power schools have 90-95% of the market value of college basketball.
mail
TWT
10/9/2018 12:11 AM
The question how does having a football program help or hinder development of a basketball program? As an example USF and Jacksonville both founded the Sun Belt Conference in 1977. USF decided to start an FBS program which allowed them to get into CUSA and later the Big East and AAC. Jacksonville without the FBS program is now competing in the low major Atlantic Sun basketball conference. Did football hurt USF's basketball aspirations or was it the key to keeping them relevant? Another case is Long Beach State, a football and basketball member of the Big West back when that conference had a national power in UNLV. They decided to drop football and stay in the Big West while San Jose St keeping football was invited to the WAC and eventually the MWC. Had Long Beach St kept football they could have been in the MWC today. Dropping football hurt Long Beach St. stay relevant in athletics. Much of the football dropping when it occurs is the result of a facility issue to be able to compete and not driven to conserve resources for other sports.
Showing Messages: 1 - 18 of 18
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)