2010-11 and beyond schedule

[bauman]

Since the other thread has done as many other threads on this Board tend to do (evolve into a side argument over an issue not intended by the initial thread topic), I thought I'd start one with the appropriate topic in the title-Scheduling.

Honestly, it amazes me how rabid SLU MBB fans can often ignore or appear to ignore other fans points or issues. It seems if Roy says the sky is blue that kshoe will weigh in with his "well-reasoned" opinion that it is really very light blue tending towards gray.

Drop back ten yards and punt. Does anyone on here really think the anticapated schedule is just great as it is projected? I'll give RM a pass on the last couple of years schedules, given the youth of our teams. I agree with his approach. However, it needs to be better (tougher) this yr. and next yr. No "I'm trying my best but no one wants to play us bul$#!+." If you really see no need to play a better schedule, fine no need to argue that point here. I'll accept your position no matter how wrong it might be.

Let's not misstate the position of someone on the other side of the issue. It seems to me that Roy is asking for an improved schedule for 2 reasons---first, to help our chances of making the NCAA tournament; second as a season ticket holder, to improve the product we are spending our hard-earned $$$ on. Can anyone really disagree with either of those points? Really, can you??

In response, we get a long list of pretty undesirable schools that would not improve the outward appearance of the schedule. How about this. Don't focus on the projected RPI analysis of one web site, in a limited RPI range.

Here's a list of schools that probably would be willing to schedule the Bills w/o fear of losing to (or being outcoached by) RM or his SLU team: NM-10, Butl-11, Vandy-26, ODU-27, Ut St.-30, St Marys-35, Gonz-36, UNLV-48, VCU-66, Tulsa-68, C of Ch-91, Bradl-105, Hous-110, Mich-132, G Mason-158, Ark-159, Davidson-181, Org St-185 (Surely BO's B-in L would see the value of Change which playing the Bills would represent), Iowa-211, Depaul-212, Loyola-213. I picked this list without regard to the conf of the team, but with regard to their sex appeal as an opponent and with some rationale for why they might want to play us. E.g. Vandy, SMC and Mich have some connection to ST Louis, or they are other mid-level conference schools e.g. Tulsa, ODU, VCU, UNLV, or they are big conf schools who are looking up to SLU (we are projected at # 86)Mich, Ark., Org. St, Depaul, Iowa.

Do you want to see teams from the above list or do you prefer to spend your entertainment $$$ on the likes of Podunk U/Slippery Rock/U of Georgia at Macon and so on? If you pick the latter, great go for it-enjoy seeing us beat the cr@% out of them and walking out of the 'Fetz being very proud of our big win!

I find it hard to believe we couldn't get 5-6 of those teams to add to our schedule the next couple of years. I don't accept the excuse we use many years that Mizzou won't play us and programs like Ill and Purdue are afraid that they might lose to us so they won't agree to a game. Great. That excuse probably holds water for 20-40 cowardly schools. Still no excuse this year for our talented team playing a weak OOC home schedule-get some teams off the partial list I proposed above. I'm sure it's possible.

A side note, it looks like the A-10 might be loaded this year so we might need to rely on an improved SOS to get a bid, rather than relying on finishing at the top of the Conf. The RPI projector link provided by kshoe, as off today, lists us as the 7th best team in the A-10, behind Temple-9, X-19, Rich-URI-39, UD-53, and Charl-77.

Finally, I have zero interest in the side-side-side discussion of the economics of buy-games versus playing better teams on a home-and-home basis. Since all parties agree that none of us really know anything for sure, drop it. In addition, it should not be any of our concerns. Our concern priority should be seeing our team play the best schedule possible taking into account the anticipated quality of our team along with maximizing the value of our dollars spent. Anything else is the job of the Ath Dept. If have $100,000 less revenue following either approach, so what, hold a bake sale.

[drkelsey55]

Since the other thread has done as many other threads on this Board tend to do (evolve into a side argument over an issue not intended by the initial thread topic), I thought I'd start one with the appropriate topic in the title-Scheduling.

Honestly, it amazes me how rabid SLU MBB fans can often ignore or appear to ignore other fans points or issues. It seems if Roy says the sky is blue that kshoe will weigh in with his "well-reasoned" opinion that it is really very light blue tending towards gray.

Drop back ten yards and punt. Does anyone on here really think the anticapated schedule is just great as it is projected? I'll give RM a pass on the last couple of years schedules, given the youth of our teams. I agree with his approach. However, it needs to be better (tougher) this yr. and next yr. No "I'm trying my best but no one wants to play us bul$#!+." If you really see no need to play a better schedule, fine no need to argue that point here. I'll accept your position no matter how wrong it might be.

Let's not misstate the position of someone on the other side of the issue. It seems to me that Roy is asking for an improved schedule for 2 reasons---first, to help our chances of making the NCAA tournament; second as a season ticket holder, to improve the product we are spending our hard-earned $$$ on. Can anyone really disagree with either of those points? Really, can you??

In response, we get a long list of pretty undesirable schools that would not improve the outward appearance of the schedule. How about this. Don't focus on the projected RPI analysis of one web site, in a limited RPI range.

Here's a list of schools that probably would be willing to schedule the Bills w/o fear of losing to (or being outcoached by) RM or his SLU team: NM-10, Butl-11, Vandy-26, ODU-27, Ut St.-30, St Marys-35, Gonz-36, UNLV-48, VCU-66, Tulsa-68, C of Ch-91, Bradl-105, Hous-110, Mich-132, G Mason-158, Ark-159, Davidson-181, Org St-185 (Surely BO's B-in L would see the value of Change which playing the Bills would represent), Iowa-211, Depaul-212, Loyola-213. I picked this list without regard to the conf of the team, but with regard to their sex appeal as an opponent and with some rationale for why they might want to play us. E.g. Vandy, SMC and Mich have some connection to ST Louis, or they are other mid-level conference schools e.g. Tulsa, ODU, VCU, UNLV, or they are big conf schools who are looking up to SLU (we are projected at # 86)Mich, Ark., Org. St, Depaul, Iowa.

Do you want to see teams from the above list or do you prefer to spend your entertainment $$$ on the likes of Podunk U/Slippery Rock/U of Georgia at Macon and so on? If you pick the latter, great go for it-enjoy seeing us beat the cr@% out of them and walking out of the 'Fetz being very proud of our big win!

I find it hard to believe we couldn't get 5-6 of those teams to add to our schedule the next couple of years. I don't accept the excuse we use many years that Mizzou won't play us and programs like Ill and Purdue are afraid that they might lose to us so they won't agree to a game. Great. That excuse probably holds water for 20-40 cowardly schools. Still no excuse this year for our talented team playing a weak OOC home schedule-get some teams off the partial list I proposed above. I'm sure it's possible.

A side note, it looks like the A-10 might be loaded this year so we might need to rely on an improved SOS to get a bid, rather than relying on finishing at the top of the Conf. The RPI projector link provided by kshoe, as off today, lists us as the 7th best team in the A-10, behind Temple-9, X-19, Rich-URI-39, UD-53, and Charl-77.

Finally, I have zero interest in the side-side-side discussion of the economics of buy-games versus playing better teams on a home-and-home basis. Since all parties agree that none of us really know anything for sure, drop it. In addition, it should not be any of our concerns. Our concern priority should be seeing our team play the best schedule possible taking into account the anticipated quality of our team along with maximizing the value of our dollars spent. Anything else is the job of the Ath Dept. If have $100,000 less revenue following either approach, so what, hold a bake sale.

+1

[Clock_Tower]

I could be mistaken, but I do seem to remember RM, himself, saying (probably 2 years ago), that we/he did weaken the schedule b/c of the complete rebuilding job (my words) and youthful composition of the team. Also, just my opinion based upon observations, but I do think RM doesn't mind playing a soft schedule or playing in a "lesser" conference. Not many are like him, but he got talented kids to play for him at Ball State, Utah and now SLU - all lesser names/conference schools. I do believe RM has tried and is trying to play some big name schools but, in the meantime, believe he can, and wants to, make more headlines with a 27-4 team against lesser teams than 23 - 8 against better teams.

Recall MO State's 10 game winning streak which drew such attention last year before they then went 14-12 the rest of the season.

Believe this is part of RM's strategy - put up some gaudy numbers in the win columns and get the national attention that way. I did not read RM's book, Life on a Napkin. To those that did read it, anything about his scheduling philosophy in there?

[kshoe]

Since the other thread has done as many other threads on this Board tend to do (evolve into a side argument over an issue not intended by the initial thread topic), I thought I'd start one with the appropriate topic in the title-Scheduling.

Honestly, it amazes me how rabid SLU MBB fans can often ignore or appear to ignore other fans points or issues. It seems if Roy says the sky is blue that kshoe will weigh in with his "well-reasoned" opinion that it is really very light blue tending towards gray.

Drop back ten yards and punt. Does anyone on here really think the anticapated schedule is just great as it is projected? I'll give RM a pass on the last couple of years schedules, given the youth of our teams. I agree with his approach. However, it needs to be better (tougher) this yr. and next yr. No "I'm trying my best but no one wants to play us bul$#!+." If you really see no need to play a better schedule, fine no need to argue that point here. I'll accept your position no matter how wrong it might be.

Let's not misstate the position of someone on the other side of the issue. It seems to me that Roy is asking for an improved schedule for 2 reasons---first, to help our chances of making the NCAA tournament; second as a season ticket holder, to improve the product we are spending our hard-earned $$$ on. Can anyone really disagree with either of those points? Really, can you??

In response, we get a long list of pretty undesirable schools that would not improve the outward appearance of the schedule. How about this. Don't focus on the projected RPI analysis of one web site, in a limited RPI range.

Here's a list of schools that probably would be willing to schedule the Bills w/o fear of losing to (or being outcoached by) RM or his SLU team: NM-10, Butl-11, Vandy-26, ODU-27, Ut St.-30, St Marys-35, Gonz-36, UNLV-48, VCU-66, Tulsa-68, C of Ch-91, Bradl-105, Hous-110, Mich-132, G Mason-158, Ark-159, Davidson-181, Org St-185 (Surely BO's B-in L would see the value of Change which playing the Bills would represent), Iowa-211, Depaul-212, Loyola-213. I picked this list without regard to the conf of the team, but with regard to their sex appeal as an opponent and with some rationale for why they might want to play us. E.g. Vandy, SMC and Mich have some connection to ST Louis, or they are other mid-level conference schools e.g. Tulsa, ODU, VCU, UNLV, or they are big conf schools who are looking up to SLU (we are projected at # 86)Mich, Ark., Org. St, Depaul, Iowa.

Do you want to see teams from the above list or do you prefer to spend your entertainment $$$ on the likes of Podunk U/Slippery Rock/U of Georgia at Macon and so on? If you pick the latter, great go for it-enjoy seeing us beat the cr@% out of them and walking out of the 'Fetz being very proud of our big win!

I find it hard to believe we couldn't get 5-6 of those teams to add to our schedule the next couple of years. I don't accept the excuse we use many years that Mizzou won't play us and programs like Ill and Purdue are afraid that they might lose to us so they won't agree to a game. Great. That excuse probably holds water for 20-40 cowardly schools. Still no excuse this year for our talented team playing a weak OOC home schedule-get some teams off the partial list I proposed above. I'm sure it's possible.

A side note, it looks like the A-10 might be loaded this year so we might need to rely on an improved SOS to get a bid, rather than relying on finishing at the top of the Conf. The RPI projector link provided by kshoe, as off today, lists us as the 7th best team in the A-10, behind Temple-9, X-19, Rich-URI-39, UD-53, and Charl-77.

Finally, I have zero interest in the side-side-side discussion of the economics of buy-games versus playing better teams on a home-and-home basis. Since all parties agree that none of us really know anything for sure, drop it. In addition, it should not be any of our concerns. Our concern priority should be seeing our team play the best schedule possible taking into account the anticipated quality of our team along with maximizing the value of our dollars spent. Anything else is the job of the Ath Dept. If have $100,000 less revenue following either approach, so what, hold a bake sale.

For what its worth, that link I provided was our RPI at the end of last year. Doesn't really say anything about next year's RPI. However, a strong A-10 would actually imply we can have a weaker non-conference schedule since there will be more opportunities to get quality wins in conference.

Couple initial thoughts:

- There are about 60 teams that have apparently said no to playing home and home's with us as the coaching staff has repeatedly said that we'll play any BCS team home and home. I'm not sure why people insist on saying we are only talking about the top 20 or so.

- Not sure why you have no interest in discussing the financial impact of our scheduling decisions. Certainly it has to be a factor in deciding how to structure the schedule, does it not?

I'll keep this as short as possible:

- Yes, our schedule can be improved.

- No, it is not as easy as some make it sound. It takes two willing partners, open dates on both ends, etc.

- Yes, I would love to play the cream of the non-BCS crop in home and homes. The teams ranked in the top 75 offer some name/sex appeal and offer an RPI benefit given that we will probbaly have more losses with that type of schedule.

- No, I do not want to play non-BCS or non MVC teams ranked 75-150 as they don't offer name/sex appeal, don't offer a material improvment in the RPI UNLESS you beat them all, and they probably hurt the AD finances.

[cheeseman]

For what its worth, that link I provided was our RPI at the end of last year. Doesn't really say anything about next year's RPI. However, a strong A-10 would actually imply we can have a weaker non-conference schedule since there will be more opportunities to get quality wins in conference.

Couple initial thoughts:

- There are about 60 teams that have apparently said no to playing home and home's with us as the coaching staff has repeatedly said that we'll play any BCS team home and home. I'm not sure why people insist on saying we are only talking about the top 20 or so.

- Not sure why you have no interest in discussing the financial impact of our scheduling decisions. Certainly it has to be a factor in deciding how to structure the schedule, does it not?

I'll keep this as short as possible:

- Yes, our schedule can be improved.

- No, it is not as easy as some make it sound. It takes two willing partners, open dates on both ends, etc.

- Yes, I would love to play the cream of the non-BCS crop in home and homes. The teams ranked in the top 75 offer some name/sex appeal and offer an RPI benefit given that we will probbaly have more losses with that type of schedule.

- No, I do not want to play non-BCS or non MVC teams ranked 75-150 as they don't offer name/sex appeal, don't offer a material improvment in the RPI UNLESS you beat them all, and they probably hurt the AD finances.

+1

[cheeseman]

Since the other thread has done as many other threads on this Board tend to do (evolve into a side argument over an issue not intended by the initial thread topic), I thought I'd start one with the appropriate topic in the title-Scheduling.

Honestly, it amazes me how rabid SLU MBB fans can often ignore or appear to ignore other fans points or issues. It seems if Roy says the sky is blue that kshoe will weigh in with his "well-reasoned" opinion that it is really very light blue tending towards gray.

Drop back ten yards and punt. Does anyone on here really think the anticapated schedule is just great as it is projected? I'll give RM a pass on the last couple of years schedules, given the youth of our teams. I agree with his approach. However, it needs to be better (tougher) this yr. and next yr. No "I'm trying my best but no one wants to play us bul$#!+." If you really see no need to play a better schedule, fine no need to argue that point here. I'll accept your position no matter how wrong it might be.

Let's not misstate the position of someone on the other side of the issue. It seems to me that Roy is asking for an improved schedule for 2 reasons---first, to help our chances of making the NCAA tournament; second as a season ticket holder, to improve the product we are spending our hard-earned $$$ on. Can anyone really disagree with either of those points? Really, can you??

In response, we get a long list of pretty undesirable schools that would not improve the outward appearance of the schedule. How about this. Don't focus on the projected RPI analysis of one web site, in a limited RPI range.

Here's a list of schools that probably would be willing to schedule the Bills w/o fear of losing to (or being outcoached by) RM or his SLU team: NM-10, Butl-11, Vandy-26, ODU-27, Ut St.-30, St Marys-35, Gonz-36, UNLV-48, VCU-66, Tulsa-68, C of Ch-91, Bradl-105, Hous-110, Mich-132, G Mason-158, Ark-159, Davidson-181, Org St-185 (Surely BO's B-in L would see the value of Change which playing the Bills would represent), Iowa-211, Depaul-212, Loyola-213. I picked this list without regard to the conf of the team, but with regard to their sex appeal as an opponent and with some rationale for why they might want to play us. E.g. Vandy, SMC and Mich have some connection to ST Louis, or they are other mid-level conference schools e.g. Tulsa, ODU, VCU, UNLV, or they are big conf schools who are looking up to SLU (we are projected at # 86)Mich, Ark., Org. St, Depaul, Iowa.

Do you want to see teams from the above list or do you prefer to spend your entertainment $$$ on the likes of Podunk U/Slippery Rock/U of Georgia at Macon and so on? If you pick the latter, great go for it-enjoy seeing us beat the cr@% out of them and walking out of the 'Fetz being very proud of our big win!

I find it hard to believe we couldn't get 5-6 of those teams to add to our schedule the next couple of years. I don't accept the excuse we use many years that Mizzou won't play us and programs like Ill and Purdue are afraid that they might lose to us so they won't agree to a game. Great. That excuse probably holds water for 20-40 cowardly schools. Still no excuse this year for our talented team playing a weak OOC home schedule-get some teams off the partial list I proposed above. I'm sure it's possible.

A side note, it looks like the A-10 might be loaded this year so we might need to rely on an improved SOS to get a bid, rather than relying on finishing at the top of the Conf. The RPI projector link provided by kshoe, as off today, lists us as the 7th best team in the A-10, behind Temple-9, X-19, Rich-URI-39, UD-53, and Charl-77.

Finally, I have zero interest in the side-side-side discussion of the economics of buy-games versus playing better teams on a home-and-home basis. Since all parties agree that none of us really know anything for sure, drop it. In addition, it should not be any of our concerns. Our concern priority should be seeing our team play the best schedule possible taking into account the anticipated quality of our team along with maximizing the value of our dollars spent. Anything else is the job of the Ath Dept. If have $100,000 less revenue following either approach, so what, hold a bake sale.

I started to offer a point of view that might help in the discussion but I realized that I am wrong regardless so why bother. Thanks for making me realize that my well thought out well reasoned idea is worthless. Praise the Lord for Bauman.

[slufanskip]

I make a seriously good chocolate chip cookie for the bake sale. Yes, guys do bake

[GoBills]

I am not sure the Bills schedule is a lot worse than prior years. Keep in mind that we have not been to the NCAA Tourney in over ten years, plus we have moved from C-USA to the A-10. We are currently not the most desirable non-BCS opponent out there. How does the Bills schedule stack up to similar non-BCS programs? That to me is the important question.

[BLIKNS]

Cost wise I don`t know if this would be possible,but I would like to see a holiday tournament held in Australia (round robin) with us, St. Mary`s, Colorado,and Washington State. All these schools seem to have Aussie ties.

[slu72]

Cost wise I don`t know if this would be possible,but I would like to see a holiday tournament held in Australia (round robin) with us, St. Mary`s, Colorado,and Washington State. All these schools seem to have Aussie ties.

It appears our marquee games are going to come at holiday tournaments. Although, the Cancun tourney appears to have lost some luster, it opened the door for us in '11 and '12 to face some quality competition, read BCS'ers. I still think TV plays a bigger role in all this than we know, and face it we don't have much drawing power at this point. Still, plugging in some better mid majors, even on a home and home, makes sense, and I'd be surprised if we couldn't get this done instead of lining up a bunch of pushover buy games. Does the OOC sched really have that much impact on selection sunday? According to those coaches who went thru the process not as much as previously thought. I think our selection or non selection will come down to how we do in conference. Even if we got some good mid majors and went 13-1 OOC, but finished 5th or 6th in the A-10 with a 9-7 mark, we're not getting picked. But if we went 13-1 OOC and 12-4 and finish 3rd in the A-10... AND DON'T LAY AN EGG in the conf tourney... we should be a lock for a bid. It seems to me the real complaints on here about our OOC sched is that few of the local posters don't really relish or think it's worth leaving the comforts of home to watch games against the likes of East Bum F**k U. You can't fault them for that.

[Box and Won]

I make a seriously good chocolate chip cookie for the bake sale. Yes, guys do bake

Hey guys, how 'bout some fresh biscuits?

[cheeseman]

Cost wise I don`t know if this would be possible,but I would like to see a holiday tournament held in Australia (round robin) with us, St. Mary`s, Colorado,and Washington State. All these schools seem to have Aussie ties.

This would have no benefit for us - why showcase our competetion?

[cheeseman]

Hey guys, how 'bout some fresh biscuits?

Real men don't bake - I saw that on a Hardee's comercial so it must be true.

[Archy McNally]

It appears our marquee games are going to come at holiday tournaments. Although, the Cancun tourney appears to have lost some luster, it opened the door for us in '11 and '12 to face some quality competition, read BCS'ers. I still think TV plays a bigger role in all this than we know, and face it we don't have much drawing power at this point. Still, plugging in some better mid majors, even on a home and home, makes sense, and I'd be surprised if we couldn't get this done instead of lining up a bunch of pushover buy games. Does the OOC sched really have that much impact on selection sunday? According to those coaches who went thru the process not as much as previously thought. I think our selection or non selection will come down to how we do in conference. Even if we got some good mid majors and went 13-1 OOC, but finished 5th or 6th in the A-10 with a 9-7 mark, we're not getting picked. But if we went 13-1 OOC and 12-4 and finish 3rd in the A-10... AND DON'T LAY AN EGG in the conf tourney... we should be a lock for a bid. It seems to me the real complaints on here about our OOC sched is that few of the local posters don't really relish or think it's worth leaving the comforts of home to watch games against the likes of East Bum F**k U. You can't fault them for that.

But if we finish fourth and the RPI is around 40 but our non-conf schedule is weak, we will be worrying on selection Sunday.

The NCAA looks at the non-conf schedule. If the Bill have a weak one and are near the bubble, it will make the difference. It happened to Air Force in a similar situation a few years ago. There rpi was fine, finished in the top 2 or 3 of the Mountain West conf, but were left out of the tourney and non-conf schedule was a big part of it.

And if these teams we are playing are East Bum F**k U and are similar to us, does that make us Midwest Bum F**k U.

[brianstl]

But if we finish fourth and the RPI is around 40 but our non-conf schedule is weak, we will be worrying on selection Sunday.

The NCAA looks at the non-conf schedule. If the Bill have a weak one and are near the bubble, it will make the difference. It happened to Air Force in a similar situation a few years ago. There rpi was fine, finished in the top 2 or 3 of the Mountain West conf, but were left out of the tourney and non-conf schedule was a big part of it.

And if these teams we are playing are East Bum F**k U and are similar to us, does that make us Midwest Bum F**k U.

If we beat the BCS schools that we play we will be OK. We have to start winning those games. We should get a good chance when we face a potential top 25 Georgia at home.

[bills07]

One quick note. I know that RM mentioned the possibility of Saint Mary's being involved in the Cancun Governor's Cup, but unfortunately it appears they have been confirmed as a part of the South Padre Island Invitational:

http://www.bloggingthebracket.com/2010/4/2...the-south-padre