2022-23 Out of Conference Schedules.

[BCPanther]

It's a bad MTE year because 14 of the top Nike schools are playing in the Phil Knight tournaments.

That's not an excuse for those that aren't in one, however...

[BEARZ77]

Yeah I have no idea what MTE the Bear's are in or if they are; last years was a MM collection. Wasn't that the teams were bad, just you have to use MTE's to get P-5 games or else be willing to go on the road multiple times .

It's really amazing to see the difference in scheduling between the mbb and wbb programs in the MVC , especially at the top. Drake/UNI/Mo St kill it on the women's side most years . We have a 1st year LB coach and already have home games vs MU and Okie St, a roadie to TCU , and a 2 game tourney in Las Vegas that will have a pair of P-5's and 1 other team, probably UNLV or similar. Which is why the Lady Bear's have gotten at large bids numerous times including the last two years. But you can do that in wbb, and baseball .

[Kyle_Saluki_17]

Pretty solid start to the schedule for Southern Illinois there. Valley schedules looking strong this year so far!

I don't see that all all; what we're seeing is a continuing trend to where the MTE's many Valley schools are getting only have 1 P6 school and you're not even guaranteed to play them.

But we are guaranteed to play them. UNLV is our first game at the neutral site.

[VUGrad1314]

Pretty solid start to the schedule for Southern Illinois there. Valley schedules looking strong this year so far!

I don't see that all all; what we're seeing is a continuing trend to where the MTE's many Valley schools are getting only have 1 P6 school and you're not even guaranteed to play them.

Here's the way I see it: All I see is a lot of solid mids being scheduled by schools like Murray State and SIU. SLU and UNLV should be solid (and if everything breaks right in the MTE SIU will also get Minnesota which is very nice) and I think the two OVC schools (TSU and Little Rock) are going to have their NET ratings inflated somewhat now that most of the competition in the OVC has moved on which should make them more competitive and boost their metrics. Will it be enough to make an appreciable difference? That remains to be seen but for right now I'm optimistic because it's well within the range of outcomes for these teams to at least be better than expected thereby providing quality games.

[BEARZ77]

Pretty solid start to the schedule for Southern Illinois there. Valley schedules looking strong this year so far!

I don't see that all all; what we're seeing is a continuing trend to where the MTE's many Valley schools are getting only have 1 P6 school and you're not even guaranteed to play them.

But we are guaranteed to play them. UNLV is our first game at the neutral site.

Exactly, UNLV isn't a P-6 team , and if they beat ya, you probably won't play Minn, the only P-6 in the tourney. Not saying UNLV can't be a good game; just noting it's hard to get a shot at more than 1 P-6 anymore, and sometimes even that 1 isn't guaranteed.

[Kyle_Saluki_17]

Just noticed they are Mountain West. For some reason I was thinking they were P6. I get what you are saying now.

[VUGrad1314]

If we are judging the quality of a schedule on the number of P-6 teams on it and believe that the only good games are P-6 games then we have already lost the battle and have bought fully into the narrative that every P-6 fan and national pundit wants us to ascribe to. It's a known fact that P-6 schools are scared to play outside of their clique especially against upper tier mid major conferences like the MVC the MWC the WCC (as long as it still has Gonzaga) the AAC (for now) and the A-10 but we know better than most that there are plenty of good teams and games outside of these ranks and we should be doing everything we can to work together to maximize the amount of bids for these conferences. There's no reason why any of these leagues can't become 2 even 3+ bid conferences consistently but it's going to take ambition and creative scheduling to get there with a possible added push from expansion should the right opportunities present themselves but that is further off into the future. We've already gotten a tremendous boost adding Murray State Belmont and UIC if they make good on their potential. if the existing programs continue to improve and these three schools hit the ground running we can still make great schedules and get bids. We just have to work at it.

[BEARZ77]

If we are judging the quality of a schedule on the number of P-6 teams on it and believe that the only good games are P-6 games then we have already lost the battle and have bought fully into the narrative that every P-6 fan and national pundit wants us to ascribe to. It's a known fact that P-6 schools are scared to play outside of their clique especially against upper tier mid major conferences like the MVC the MWC the WCC (as long as it still has Gonzaga) the AAC (for now) and the A-10 but we know better than most that there are plenty of good teams and games outside of these ranks and we should be doing everything we can to work together to maximize the amount of bids for these conferences. There's no reason why any of these leagues can't become 2 even 3+ bid conferences consistently but it's going to take ambition and creative scheduling to get there with a possible added push from expansion should the right opportunities present themselves but that is further off into the future. We've already gotten a tremendous boost adding Murray State Belmont and UIC if they make good on their potential. if the existing programs continue to improve and these three schools hit the ground running we can still make great schedules and get bids. We just have to work at it.

It's not "buying into a narrative" when you are having to deal with the reality of how how things work. Sure we all know that top MM are as good as mid level P-6's, but we aren't on the committee, a committee that I repeatedly point out, is always at least 50% P-6 membership despite P-6 only comprising 20% of the D-1 teams. Scheduling takes both sides being invested in the process, and there is little investment for P-6's to play top level MM . We used to be able to get into MTE's that often had multiple P-6 teams , but as I've pointed out, those are becoming less available as P-6's play more 4 team events and interconference challenges . The simple fact is the P-6 found the perfect tool in emphasizing Q-1 wins as the major qualifier among NCAA tourney at large hopefuls. A good MM program scheduling at the very top of their game might get 10-12 Q-1 games if lucky, while a mediocre P-6 team will stumble into 20 fairly easily. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do every thing possible , but when your opposition is given 20 chips and you start the poker game with 8 , you tell me who's likely to win most .

[tribecalledquest]

If we are judging the quality of a schedule on the number of P-6 teams on it and believe that the only good games are P-6 games then we have already lost the battle and have bought fully into the narrative that every P-6 fan and national pundit wants us to ascribe to. It's a known fact that P-6 schools are scared to play outside of their clique especially against upper tier mid major conferences like the MVC the MWC the WCC (as long as it still has Gonzaga) the AAC (for now) and the A-10 but we know better than most that there are plenty of good teams and games outside of these ranks and we should be doing everything we can to work together to maximize the amount of bids for these conferences. There's no reason why any of these leagues can't become 2 even 3+ bid conferences consistently but it's going to take ambition and creative scheduling to get there with a possible added push from expansion should the right opportunities present themselves but that is further off into the future. We've already gotten a tremendous boost adding Murray State Belmont and UIC if they make good on their potential. if the existing programs continue to improve and these three schools hit the ground running we can still make great schedules and get bids. We just have to work at it.

It's not "buying into a narrative" when you are having to deal with the reality of how how things work. Sure we all know that top MM are as good as mid level P-6's, but we aren't on the committee, a committee that I repeatedly point out, is always at least 50% P-6 membership despite P-6 only comprising 20% of the D-1 teams. Scheduling takes both sides being invested in the process, and there is little investment for P-6's to play top level MM . We used to be able to get into MTE's that often had multiple P-6 teams , but as I've pointed out, those are becoming less available as P-6's play more 4 team events and interconference challenges . The simple fact is the P-6 found the perfect tool in emphasizing Q-1 wins as the major qualifier among NCAA tourney at large hopefuls. A good MM program scheduling at the very top of their game might get 10-12 Q-1 games if lucky, while a mediocre P-6 team will stumble into 20 fairly easily. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do every thing possible , but when your opposition is given 20 chips and you start the poker game with 8 , you tell me who's likely to win most .

Are we still doing the "the NCAA committee is out to screw mid majors" thing?

The committee chairman is Bradley AD Chris Reynolds for crying out loud.

[BEARZ77]

Are we still doing the "the NCAA committee is out to screw mid majors" thing?
The committee chairman is Bradley AD Chris Reynolds for crying out loud.

Who said anything about screwing the mid majors; it's a perfectly defined system that gets it's desired result. Basically they evolved a system that the major differentiating factor for who gets an at large bid, is Q-1 wins. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if 75 teams are routinely going to play 20 + such games, while the other 275 will struggle to schedule 10 , that the system will benefit the 75 disproportionately. The committee is inconsequential for most of that process.They don't have to screw anybody, it's legit based on the qualifying criteria.

However, in case there are close debates about a couple teams, committee composition does matter. Who chairs the committee is of little consequence when the committee composition is always stacked . If the committee composition wasn't a big deal, why would the P-5 insist on having 50 % of the membership, when they are by far the minority of the total field. I mean if it really doesn't matter , why would they stack the committee. Don't be stupid.