byrne on getting the big boys

[cps36]

We probably wont win. Because no one is coming to the Hump.

Maybe stans is of the opinion that if we simply cut out loses against bad teams we will be fine. Example: Last Season.

Plus if you'll look at when we were a number 2 seed all we have to do is take care of SEC business.

 

[DowntownDawg]

....just play a cupcake schedule in the OOC and shoot for being undefeated if schedule strength doesn't matter.

And for the record, seeing as how we got a 13 seed after winning the SEC tournament, we were probably more than 2 more games away from getting an at large bid.

All this discussion is about the fact that in the last couple of years the SEC has been way down. In the early aughts, that wasn't the situation. Now it seems to be. So when your conference is weak, what do you do? You beef up your OOC schedule.

See Tigers, Memphis.

I am not saying we should go play a one and done with anybody. But we need to have a tough enough schedule that we can go 8-8 or 9-7 in the SEC and get a bid. That was obviously not the case last year. And it's also unrealistic to expect to win all of your nonconference games most years. So the "we should just win more games" argument only holds so much water.

 

[MSUCostanza]

no matter how down the SEC is, it is still rated much higher than CUSA. That's why Memphis plays the schedule they do - they have to. They also had a nationally recognized coach with a lot of connections to get some of those games. We have none of that.

And my point was not for an at-large bid. If we had won 2 or 3 of those games we lost OOC, and still won the SECT, we would've been higher than a 13.

And if our schedule is tough, and we lose more games than we might otherwise, and still go 8-8 in the SEC, we still won't get an at-large. Our goal should be to win 10-12 SEC games, win the division or the overall league, and the seeding will take care of itself. Our non-conference schedule in 2004 was not exactly eye-popping, and we got a 2 seed.

You guys just think it would be "cool" to play Kansas, get beat by 20, and somehow think that's better than beating Western Kentucky. There's no guarantee a game vs. Kansas gets on TV, either. We are not a national draw.

 

[DowntownDawg]

...

Our goal should be to win <span style="font-weight: bold;">10-12 SEC games</span>, <span style="font-weight: bold;">win the division</span> or the overall league, and the seeding will take care of itself. Our non-conference schedule in 2004 was not exactly eye-popping, and we got a 2 seed.

Winning ten games and/or winning the West has not been good enough to garner a good enough seed and in some cases even an NCAA bid.

Anyway, nobody is changing their minds on this. I am done until somebody can show one way or the other that a win over McNeese is better than a loss to a top 20 RPI team or vice versa. That's the key part of this discussion and there are no numbers to support it either way.

 

[seshomoru]

They also had a nationally recognized coach with a lot of connections to get some of those games. We have none of that.

Plus an NBA arena to play in.

 

[Sutterkane]

makes my day every time. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">nothing</span> better than pedantic ******** that don't get the joke and think they're all high and mighty.

 

[MSUCostanza]

that you are debating whether or not a loss against anyone is better than a win. Unbelievable. The last year or two were a total anomaly as far as the SEC is concerned. Typically, the SEC is among the top 2-3 conferences, and it really doesn't make a **** bit of difference who we play out of the league. Our conference schedule is more than enough to maintain a high RPI. Again, I go back to 2004. We did not play much of a non-conference schedule as HD6 pointed out, but we had a top 10 RPI at the end of the year and got a 2 seed.

 

[DowntownDawg]

...but that's the way the system works. It's called RPI. Look into it. It is kind of important come March. I didn't make the rules. There have been plenty of times where we have all noted that beating a bad RPI team hurts us more than not playing them would've.

And that's fine. As long as the SEC is a top 2-3 league and we can get a 6 or better seed by playing patsies and going 9-7 in the league, then let's do that. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the reality for a while now.

 

[VegasDawg13]

Isn't it pretty much established fact that just playing a top team does more to help your RPI than beating a 200+ team?

This doesn't automatically mean that the loss to the top team is overall better, but that's not a laughable position.

One thing that no one is acknowledging is that playing a top team on the road in the non-conference would give us experience in a tournament-like situation (very good, unfamiliar opponent in an unfamiliar building). That has to count for something. I think it's safe to say we're all confident this team will be in the NCAAT this year. Would we not want them to be as battle-tested as possible once they get there?

 

[Eureka Dog]

A home FB game for a road BKB game, a home-and-home BKB series for a road baseball series, etc. This might work with schools who would play us in one sport, but nor another.

 

[DowntownDawg]

[No message]

 

[KurtRambis4]

.