3star_recruit Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=127209 After the presidents of the league's institutions are briefed later this fall, the ADs are expected to discuss -- and likely finalize -- the policy at a January meeting. Bruno said getting two teams into the 2006 NCAA Tournament field "isn't bad, but we want to get more in . . . We're not going to just sit back and say, 'Two teams is OK.' That's not the Atlantic 10. That's not what we're used to." Here's roughly how the policy would work: At the Atlantic 10 postseason tournament, the league's head coaches would convene and vote on a projected order of finish for the following season. The league's 14 teams would be divided into three tiers. Teams in the lowest group would be encouraged to play schedules that would include more games they'll have a chance to win. They presumably would not be allowed to sell themselves as opponents for "guarantee games" at richer schools. Those at the highest level, expected to contend for NCAA at-large berths, would not be allowed to play opponents lower than 200 on the previous year's Ratings Percentage Index scale. GW had six such games on its 2005-06 schedule, counting first-year Division I member Kennesaw State. There also would be RPI restrictions for opponents of those teams in the middle third. There will be some leeway granted in the case of regional rivalries and games already contracted, but league members that refuse to comply will face penalties -- possibly including fines and banishment from the league's championship tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 I believe that Brad was a key member of this committee. I also believe that Joe Lunardi the braketology guy was involved. It's good to see that Bruno seems to be playing along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 there were apparently a lot of people beating on her to make this change. as of last season she was in lala land on scheduling, referees and the conference tourney. publically she was taking the stance all is fine. glad someone woke her up. now if off the record she could get on st bonnie and duquesne to try to actually get better or get out that would be great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 That is fantastic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 >now if off the record she could get on st bonnie and >duquesne to try to actually get better or get out that would >be great. Bingo. BTW, Duquesne's transfer from Siena sounds a little fishy to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 steve your boys there at gw are probably crying like crazy though. hobbs likes those cherry picked wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Hell, I am happy. I won't have to watch SW Appalachian-Martin Polytech College anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Didn't they change their name to Appalachian State or Missouri State or something...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 I think what is interesting here is that the Bottom Teams have to play easier schedules. While obviously this makes some sense RPI-wise the dividing the conference into "thirds" is completely arbitrary. Last year SLU was predicted to be in the bottom third, would we have had to give up playing a big time program to help the conference? As stupid as it is for GW to play a cupcake schedule it hurts THEIR chances to get an at large (or a better seed) but it helps SLU's RPI. So, making some teams get better records helps the others and I suppose forcing better teams to play better schedules makes their post-season chances better. I think this makes some sense but it is not perfect. I could cause problems with teams that are really not bottom third being forced to play a worse schedule because of the conference (and I suppose SLU fans won't complain until we are forecast into the bottom third and we can't play a top program). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Kbo - I think you misread the plan. It does not say if you are in the bottom 3rd that you can only play those lower level acceptable teams - it simply says that you can not play anybody lower. At least that is how I read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 It says that the Lower Third cannot be a buy game. You are right that you could still play a tougher game or two as a Lower Third Team (and I am sorry if I implied otherwise in my earlier post). But in practice it may be very difficult for a team in a certain year to get a good team on the schedule without being a buy game for another good team. It is hard, but not impossible, as SLU knows to schedule Home and Homes with good teams. More importantly, I definitely think the intent is to make more W's for the Lower Third (sacrifice their RPI for the conference top teams). This means there is some pressure for them to schedule EASY in the same way the plan is to make the top third schedule tough. This is fine if you are the top third and want to make a run at the NCAA (or fine if you are Lower Third and just want some W's) but what if you want a chance to make a run at the tourney (SLU last year)and everybody else pegs you as bottom third. That is a problem even if a lot of the plan makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 but at the same time a lot of people on here were arguing that our non-conference schedule last year was too tough and it was reflected in our .500 record. Considering we were good enough to go 10-6 in conference but only 6-6 out of it, maybe we should have scheduled easier. It certainly would have been a benefit for the rest of the conference if our W-L record had been better. This is a nice rule but it doesn't have much teeth, especially for a SLU that only schedules home and homes. Basically the rule said you can't be the buy game. Considering SLU has never been a buy over the last 10 years I don't think it affects us. Teams like St. B, Duquense, that could use the revenues from those likely guaranteed losses are the ones affected here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 Kbo - please explain how lower level tiered conf. teams playing games to get easy wins helps them and the conf. They will have a better record but their RPI will still stink and so the conf will suffer. What am I not understanding here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3star_recruit Posted September 14, 2006 Author Share Posted September 14, 2006 The largest component of the RPI formula, 50% of it in fact, is based on your opponents winning percentage. It's in everyone's best interest to play a Duquesne team that is 6-5 out of conference rather than 2-9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.