Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
Comments about SB bball games: Fri-Sun 11/28-11/30
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,298
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #21
RE: Comments about SB bball games: Fri-Sun 11/28-11/30
(11-29-2014 12:57 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  
(11-29-2014 12:49 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  
(11-29-2014 12:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here's what we can do

1) A minimum RPI requirement for OOC. if that means a bunch of road games, fine. Its not like you're getting big crowds to see Spring Hill College or Carroll College. I'd like a ban on non-D1's.

2) Minimum basketball budgets

3) Adding NMSU as an all sport member

4) Setting up an A-10 style revenue sharing scenario where teams that earn money get to keep more of it.

This falls in line with a post I made in April, 2013. I agree that we need to go ahead and add NMSU to replace WKU and have 12 BB members.

1. Enforce the Scheduling Requirement:
We have a scheduling requirement in place that states each school must schedule opponents whose RPI averages 150 or better and limits non-DIV I games. But it disappeared. Why not bring the scheduling requirement back? I know it's hard to schedule for basketball, but we have to at least try.

2. Monetary Incentive:
A. If a school gets the auto-bid and loses the first game, nothing changes. The money from the one NCAA unit is split up evenly among all members.

B. Any school making it to the NCAA Tournament via the auto-bid and winning a game earns the Sun Belt another unit. Therefore that team should get an extra share of any subsequent units that they earned when that money is split up; the other teams staying home should only get 1 share. To reward a team with an extra share we would just divide the unit one more time to give that team extra money. For example, if a team makes it to the Sweet 16, thereby gaining 2 additional units for the Sun Belt, they should be rewarded the following way (if we had 12 members): [(1/12) unit 1 + (2/13) unit 2 + (2/13) unit 3].

C. Any school earning an at-large bid, thereby gaining the league another unit, gets an extra share. For example, if a team makes it to the NCAA tournament but loses in the first round, because this is still an extra unit for the league they would get 2/13 of that unit. Since a different team received the auto-bid this team would actually make 2/13 of their unit share and 1/12 of the auto-bid share. I believe this money is dispersed for 6 years.

The numbers could be worked out differently above, but the point is that an annual cellar dwelling team shouldn't be rewarded the same as a team winning games in the NCAA Tournament. This incentive could help light a fire under some AD's butts to put some decent roundball on the court.

Coaches complained about the 150RPI requirement and it was dumped. The primary problem was attempting to schedule only games like that created situations where teams were no longer able to schedule the number of home games they need to in a year, and it would ruin some long term OOC rivalries (I.E. ASU vs Lamar)

What needs to happen is that we ban Non D1 home games entirely, and limit teams to only two money games per year. That forces teams to find D1 home and home series. Those were all requirements at one point that were never enforced.

I don't even really care if we have to go out and get 2 for 1's or play 65% of our OOC on the road. I think that the excuse of 'we can't get teams to come here' has become a crutch that too many AD's have used to schedule the non D1s.
11-29-2014 01:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pounce FTW Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,797
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 82
I Root For: Georgia State
Location: Western NC
Post: #22
RE: Comments about SB bball games: Fri-Sun 11/28-11/30
GSU pulls out a 66-63 win over IUPUI. Good road trip by the Panthers eases the sting of football a little bit.
11-29-2014 03:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,680
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 59
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Comments about SB bball games: Fri-Sun 11/28-11/30
(11-29-2014 12:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here's what we can do

1) A minimum RPI requirement for OOC. if that means a bunch of road games, fine. Its not like you're getting big crowds to see Spring Hill College or Carroll College. I'd like a ban on non-D1's.

2) Minimum basketball budgets

3) Adding NMSU as an all sport member

4) Setting up an A-10 style revenue sharing scenario where teams that earn money get to keep more of it.

The Sun Belt needs to win games. No one wants to play bad schools, home or away, if you are going to hurt their RPI. Until the Sun Belt start winning, schools will play the games they can schedule.

Minimum basketball budgets are not going to happen. Winning will increase the budget. Just spending more does not ensure a better product.

The Sun Belt needs six NMSU type of basketball programs. Adding NMSU solves nothing. NMSU can't keep Lamar from beating Arkansas State on the road. You put NMSU in the MVC and they are middle of the pack. You put them in the Atlantic 10 and they are just another school. They are not saviors.

The Sun Belt does not have the basketball revenue that the A10 does. The A10 has a $4.5 million TV contract and they just sent six schools to the tournament last spring. That is a lot of NCAA tournament revenue to divide up. The Sun Belt does have the basketball revenue because their teams don't win. Winning will solve a lot of problems.
11-29-2014 03:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MICHAELSPAPPY Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,401
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Little Rock
Location: Booneville, Arkansas
Post: #24
RE: Comments about SB bball games: Fri-Sun 11/28-11/30
Little Rock beat Central Arkansas 85-71. We did not look all that great, and allowed them to get back into the game late. Our 3-point shooting was awful. However, our two inside guys, James White and Roger Woods, both looked great. Playing with lots of authority, and very hard to guard.
11-30-2014 05:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.