Improving the MVC

[CBB_Fan]

What does the MVC need to do to get back to a multi-bid conference? IMO, the biggest thing is scheduling. As a league, only WSU and UNI even tried to schedule competitively (top 50 OOC SOS), with every single other team in the 125+ range. SIU, Evansville, Bradley, and Loyola all have OOC SOSs above 200.

As a conference, the MVC ranks 21st of 32 in OOC scheduing. We need to be in the top 10, or even the top 5 if we want to have a chance at putting multiple people in the tournament. Of course, we need to win some of those games as well, but we can't win games we don't play.

Even the Thursday night teams need to get their schedules up for the league as a whole to get better. Look at the AAC for an example. They have 5 good RPI schools, 5 horrible RPI schools. One huge factor in that is that USF, UCF, and Houston are all above 300 in OOC SoS. Meanwhile the Big 12 is #1 in RPI and #1 in OOC SoS, with 7 schools sporting a top 150 ranking (TTech with 199, WVU with 212, TCU with 294).

So my suggestion basically boils down to a scheduling mandate. What do you think the Valley needs to do to get back to where we were in 2005-2006 or even to match the past couple of seasons?

[isumvc1]

doesn't the scheduling mandate go into effect next season again?

[MissouriValleyUnite]

Terrific thread. The #1 imperative absolutely is scheduling, as you've articulated. 21st is unacceptable. The mandate needs to be simple -- Top-150 OOC SOS, only way to receive entire balance of NCAA share. MAYBE (as in, if garnering the votes to pass the mandate depends on an insurance policy), 150-175 nets you half. 175-200, we'll give you a quarter. Above 200? Not a dime.

Like 2006, it starts with scheduling. The rest will follow. If Elgin can't get a simple scheduling mandate passed (one that even provides a partial security blanket if some opponents falter and you end up 151-200), then it's time to bring in a do-er like Beebe.

If you can't reel in BCS schools for a H/H, there are other avenues. The top 3 teams in the MAC/Horizon/Summit/OVC are usually predictable. The bottom half teams to steer clear of are almost always predictable. If Coaches/ADs/SIDs/DBOs aren't savvy enough to solve scheduling, bring in new blood to the department that can.

[MissouriValleyUnite]

doesn't the scheduling mandate go into effect next season again?

Is it the 2006 edition (ideal), or a watered down version?

[saluki762]

Scheduling doesn't matter if you lose all the games. SIU, Loyola, Bradley and Evansville had no business playing a top 50 schedule. An 0-13 Saluki team going into conference play does nothing to help the conference and it hurts the teams growth. I would expect the top 3-5 teams to schedule better but I don't expect it from the bottom.

[MissouriValleyUnite]

Scheduling doesn't matter if you lose all the games. SIU, Loyola, Bradley and Evansville had no business playing a top 50 schedule. An 0-13 Saluki team going into conference play does nothing to help the conference and it hurts the teams growth. I would expect the top 3-5 teams to schedule better but I don't expect it from the bottom.

Then you schedule 100-200 teams more in line with your ability than top 100 teams. That still puts you top 150-175, which is the worst our bottom OOC schedules should be. It's a 20-35 difference in RPI even with the same results. Add that together, and that's 1-2 spot difference in conference rankings each year.

There are better alternatives than Eastern Illinois, IUPUI, Balls Tate, SWACtions, Central Michigan, Pan American, Tennessee Tech, etc.

In an average year, you could replace that slew with other Midwestern teams like Duquesne, Robert Morris, Cleveland State, Detroit, Oakland, Akron, Toledo/Kent, Belmont, Murray State, Morehead State, Valparaiso, NDSU, SDSU, Little Rock, Denver, and Oral Roberts.

Replacing the BOTTOM HALF of your OOC schedule with the above makes a noticeable difference in your RPI, and the MVC's. I don't see any reason for not doing so -- it's not like those programs are world beaters.

[uniftw]

Scheduling doesn't matter if you lose all the games. SIU, Loyola, Bradley and Evansville had no business playing a top 50 schedule. An 0-13 Saluki team going into conference play does nothing to help the conference and it hurts the teams growth. I would expect the top 3-5 teams to schedule better but I don't expect it from the bottom.

Then you schedule 100-200 teams more in line with your ability than top 100 teams. That still puts you top 150-175, which is the worst our bottom OOC schedules should be. It's a 20-35 difference in RPI even with the same results. Add that together, and that's 1-2 spot difference in conference rankings each year.

There are better alternatives than Eastern Illinois, IUPUI, Balls Tate, SWACtions, Central Michigan, Pan American, Tennessee Tech, etc.

In an average year, you could replace that slew with other Midwestern teams like Duquesne, Robert Morris, Cleveland State, Detroit, Oakland, Akron, Toledo/Kent, Belmont, Murray State, Morehead State, Valparaiso, NDSU, SDSU, Little Rock, Denver, and Oral Roberts.

Replacing the BOTTOM HALF of your OOC schedule with the above makes a noticeable difference in your RPI, and the MVC's. I don't see any reason for not doing so -- it's not like those programs are world beaters.

This.

UNI over plays the OOC every single year, to an extent, on the other side.

If UNI played a 50-75th ranked OOC instead of top 30ish each year they'd probably head into conference play with 2 or 3 more wins each season.

[TheAsianSensation]

It's as simple as non-con SoS.

I'm not saying everyone has to be top 100. Just top 225 is enough. Just get to 225. Avoid 275, avoid 325. Just get to 225.

[Play Angry]

I too have heard the rumor about the SOS mandate returning next year. Does anyone have a link with more information? I am skeptical of its finality.

[uniftw]

It's as simple as non-con SoS.

I'm not saying everyone has to be top 100. Just top 225 is enough. Just get to 225. Avoid 275, avoid 325. Just get to 225.

225 still seems low.

175 seems reasonable....