BSC Teams schedule one of the weakest...

[catsrback76]

This morning in the Great Falls Tribune BSC Commissoner Fullerton noted his displeasure over the Big Sky Coaches scheduling a weak non conference schedule.

"The Big Sky finished last season ranked 31st out of 32 conferences in the Ratings Percentange Index, which is based on strength of schedule.

"That's unacceptable for the type of conference we are, in my opinion. I've been working with some of the coaches, some of the athletic directors. Our efforts have been focused primarily on increasing the schedule."

" This season the Big Sky has the lowest schedule strength among the 32 NCAA Division 1 conferences for RPI."

" I think a lot of the times the coaches are weighing their jobs," Fullerton told the AP in a telephone interview.

Three Big Sky teams--Sacramento State, Montana, and Nothern Arizona--have a schedule strength 311 or below out of the 333 NCAA Division 1 teams. Six teams are at 291 or lower.

"When our schedule starts dropping off, you're going to have recruiting problems," he said which leads to worse win-loss records, possibly being relegated to the NCAA Tournament play-in game and the inability to schedule tough teams at home."

" They've got to quit looking at people like Boise State as their road money game," Fullerton saidof the Big Sky schools. "As long as your're going to play up, you might as well really play up," he said, suggesting league schools try to schedule Washington, Arizona,UCLA or Utah."

Coaches counter that playing such schools still wouldn't get the Big Sky a second berth in the NCAA Tournament and the road losses could all up to lower attendance at home, recruiting troubles and job insecurity. (end of article)

What say you? I find Fullerton's argument compelling. I understand coaches wanting to protect their jobs, but with our history of constantly losing ( and badly) in the Tourney we need to look at stepping up.IMO

What about Montana's record in light of their low strength of schedule rating?
How does this correlate to our discussions on scheduling weaker opponents for football?

[El_Gato]

I'm sorry, but I've never seen a positive to getting your arse handed to you by superior teams, despite the RPI "advantage" to doing so.

I DON'T think we should ever "play down" to DII or NAIA, but I also see absolutely no benefit to travelling to a good DI school, just to boost our RPI. Most folks in Bozeman who might attend a game see a Win as a good thing and a Loss as bad, regardless of the opponent (and mostly oblivious to the RPI).

"Moral victories" don't put butts in the seats and even if you win the Big Sky tourney with a solid RPI but less than 20 total wins, you're still talking 16 seed, BABY!

Face it; the Big Sky has a LONG way to go before our representative ever gets higher than a 14 seed.

[BelgradeBobcat]

I don't know-I kind of agree with Fullerton. From MSU's perspective if past history is any indication, the Bobcats are going to lose nearly all road games regardless anyway. And every now and then we steal one like we did against Washington a few years ago. Heck lets lose by 20 to UCLA instead of by 10 to Boise State-what could be the harm?

[catsrback76]

Contrary to EG's take, I do think that playing up for the athletes is not only inspiring, but when it becomes familiar is a growth point for them. I know if you want to clear the high bar every time, keep it low. Sure you will miss the higher you raise the bar, but you develop the ability to fly higher only as you do. Gonzaga only became what they are today not because they played parochial schools in Washington state, but they took the challenge on for years until they competed, began to win,and now have the confidence to be a premier school nationally.

I'd rather watch MSU loose by 20 or more to UCLA etc. than win by 20 over College of Wherever.

[bozbobcat]

Well, it would be very hard to get stronger competition across the Big Sky. The WAC would be great for most teams in the Big Sky because most of those programs would most likely agree to a home-and-home series. Some Mountain West teams would be willing to do home-and-home, like Colorado St. (not Wyoming, of course ) Especially UM and MSU. Portland St. and Eastern Washington benefit a little bit from being in their areas and playing Gonzaga and Washington (EW) and Portland, Oregon, and Oregon St. (PSU) Weber St. benefits from being close to Utah, Utah St., and BYU and gets to play them every year. The Bozeman Daily Comical said earlier this week that MSU agreed on a 2-and-1 series with Oregon St; the home game will be in Nov. or Dec. later this year. Then 2 years in a row at Oregon State in 2007 and 2008. That may help MSU a little bit. MSU and UM can usually get bigger games because of the level of respect for the programs. Idaho St. can get games and so can Sac. St. I think it would be really hard for NAU to improve their strength of schedule due to their location, but again that program has a little bit of respect. So I think the Big Sky teams can improve their schedules by scheduling Western regional teams for the most part and maybe playing that money game somewhere once a season.

[BelgradeBobcat]

It might help if the Big Sky had more teams. If we have 10 or 12 teams instead of 8 each team has fewer non-conference games to schedule and gets more D-1 home games. You don't mind playing a couple of road money games with no return home game if you know you're going to have a lot home games in conference.

[El_Gato]

I'd rather watch MSU loose by 20 or more to UCLA etc. than win by 20 over College of Wherever.

Well, that's great; you and the other 20 people in the Brick could discuss how good our 0-10 team REALLY was!

Take a look at what's going on in Marijuanaville: The Griz ran off to an 11-2 start, but only 3 of their opponents had a winning record when they faced off (the Griz were 1-2 against those squads).

Despite that, the Griz attendance is better than it's been for decades, which will give them an even bigger home-court advantage during the Big Sky conference season! DUH!! Obviously, those "new" griz bball fans are showing up BECAUSE of 10 straight wins; NOT because the Griz are playing (and losing to) quality teams like UW or Gonzaga.

Any Big Sky AD and/or coach who set their schedule with the almighty RPI in mind are simply wasting their time. I'm not saying that you can't schedule a UW or Gonzaga on occassion, but if you have more than 2 games like that per season, all you are doing is HURTING your chances of getting a higher seed in the dance, should you make it, because you simply won't have enough W's to justify anything more than a 15.

And I'm pretty sure the ONLY reason we are discussing RPI is because some feel it is the path to getting a higher seed in the dance. As I've said before, folks, the Big Sky is AT LEAST 10 years away from ever A) getting the BSC Tourney Champ a 14 seed or better, and/or B) getting more than 1 team into the Dance. That 10 years would have to be filled with Big Sky teams DOMINATING their non-conference slates and the Big Sky Champ would have to make the Sweet 16 AT LEAST 4 times in order for our league to get that kind of respect.

Goals are nice; it's good to have goals; but your initial goals need to actually be achievable and the Big Sky is a LOOOOOOOONG way from earning any national recognition/respect.

[El Profesor]

I'd rather watch MSU loose by 20 or more to UCLA etc. than win by 20 over College of Wherever.

CatsRBack needs to revise his/her statement to say,

"I'd rather listen (on the radio or internet) to MSU lose by 20 or more to UCLA etc. than win by 5 at the Fieldhouse over University of Denver, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay, and the like."

[Note: El Profesor also corrected a spelling error ("loose") and changed '20' to '5' because the 'Cats never beat anybody by 20!]

I, personally, think that our program is best served by a schedule that pits our Bobcats against similar-caliber, mid- to upper-mid-major programs that are somewhat geographically proximate to Montana (sort of an oxymoron) ... schools from conferences such as the Horizon League, Missouri Valley Conf., Western Athletic Conf., Mountain West Conf., Big West Conf., West Coast Conf., etc.

MSU could almost surely secure home-and-home arrangements with most schools from these leagues, except for Gonzaga, the MWC schools, and a couple of MVC schools.

[PapaG]

I'd rather watch MSU loose by 20 or more to UCLA etc. than win by 20 over College of Wherever.

Well, that's great; you and the other 20 people in the Brick could discuss how good our 0-10 team REALLY was!

Take a look at what's going on in Marijuanaville: The Griz ran off to an 11-2 start, but only 3 of their opponents had a winning record when they faced off (the Griz were 1-2 against those squads).

Despite that, the Griz attendance is better than it's been for decades, which will give them an even bigger home-court advantage during the Big Sky conference season! DUH!! Obviously, those "new" griz bball fans are showing up BECAUSE of 10 straight wins; NOT because the Griz are playing (and losing to) quality teams like UW or Gonzaga.

Any Big Sky AD and/or coach who set their schedule with the almighty RPI in mind are simply wasting their time. I'm not saying that you can't schedule a UW or Gonzaga on occassion, but if you have more than 2 games like that per season, all you are doing is HURTING your chances of getting a higher seed in the dance, should you make it, because you simply won't have enough W's to justify anything more than a 15.

And I'm pretty sure the ONLY reason we are discussing RPI is because some feel it is the path to getting a higher seed in the dance. As I've said before, folks, the Big Sky is AT LEAST 10 years away from ever A) getting the BSC Tourney Champ a 14 seed or better, and/or B) getting more than 1 team into the Dance. That 10 years would have to be filled with Big Sky teams DOMINATING their non-conference slates and the Big Sky Champ would have to make the Sweet 16 AT LEAST 4 times in order for our league to get that kind of respect.

Goals are nice; it's good to have goals; but your initial goals need to actually be achievable and the Big Sky is a LOOOOOOOONG way from earning any national recognition/respect.

So where does a .500 record against a weak OOC slate figure into this?

[El_Gato]

Good point, Papa.

My comments are directed at the whole RPI and strength of schedule debate, not really at the current Bobcat team.

Can you imagine where we'd be right now if we'd have suffered a few more losses to the hands of some higher-quality DI teams before the conference season began?

Personally, I don't think a couple of 20 point losses to UW, the Zags, or 10 point losses to WSU, Idaho, or either Oregon school would have made us any more (or less) prepared for the Big Sky, but they certainly would have hurt our overall W/L record, which is still bad in my book.

The day that losses actually HELP your team (solely based on the caliber of your opponent) is the day we need to quit keeping score, just like youth leagues...

[old wise one]

Gato,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Weber receive a 14 seed a few years back. I think it was the year they beat Carolina.

[El_Gato]

I don't recall their seed that year; my point is simply that: a FOURTEEN seed is the highest we can (maybe) remember a Big Sky team achieving.

IF a Sky team ever goes 13-1 (15-1 following this season) in conference AND wins the auto-berth, AND has 25+ wins, then MAYBE we'd see them get a 12 or a 13...

That's an awful lot to ask, just to be a MEDIUM underdog in your first round game.

FACE IT FOLKS: THE LEVEL OF PLAY IN THE BIG SKY IS NOT VERY GOOD. IMO, WE DESERVE OUR RANKING AS THE SECOND WORST CONFERENCE IN AMERICA, LIKE IT OR NOT.

[catsrback76]

I don't recall their seed that year; my point is simply that: a FOURTEEN seed is the highest we can (maybe) remember a Big Sky team achieving.

IF a Sky team ever goes 13-1 (15-1 following this season) in conference AND wins the auto-berth, AND has 25+ wins, then MAYBE we'd see them get a 12 or a 13...

That's an awful lot to ask, just to be a MEDIUM underdog in your first round game.

FACE IT FOLKS: THE LEVEL OF PLAY IN THE BIG SKY IS NOT VERY GOOD. IMO, WE DESERVE OUR RANKING AS THE SECOND WORST CONFERENCE IN AMERICA, LIKE IT OR NOT.

I'm not disagreeing in the least. I am however saying that the only way to get better is to play up, not down. If we are content to be what we are, then lower the bar, play anyone that we can beat stack the record and lose in the playoffs. Forever.

On a side note, there would no 0 chance that we could fill out nonconference schedule with stacked upper Division teams. IF we can get one per year at this point we'd be lucky. That being said, it would in no way really affect our W's and L's for the season. Again, I do not agree that getting your butt handed to you by a better team is a bad thing. You often learn far more there than you do in blow outs. Just look at MSU football after NAU in 04, it was the worst win of the year because of what happened in the remaining games.

Raising the bar costs-- and you are so right EG. not many people will want to go there, only those who think the journey is worth the effort.

Hey-- Professor-- I take the correction on the "listening" and even the typo. I did think it was humorous that you give the name "Profesor".

[PapaG]

I don't recall their seed that year; my point is simply that: a FOURTEEN seed is the highest we can (maybe) remember a Big Sky team achieving.

IF a Sky team ever goes 13-1 (15-1 following this season) in conference AND wins the auto-berth, AND has 25+ wins, then MAYBE we'd see them get a 12 or a 13...

That's an awful lot to ask, just to be a MEDIUM underdog in your first round game.

FACE IT FOLKS: THE LEVEL OF PLAY IN THE BIG SKY IS NOT VERY GOOD. IMO, WE DESERVE OUR RANKING AS THE SECOND WORST CONFERENCE IN AMERICA, LIKE IT OR NOT.

I'm not disagreeing in the least. I am however saying that the only way to get better is to play up, not down. If we are content to be what we are, then lower the bar, play anyone that we can beat stack the record and lose in the playoffs. Forever.

On a side note, there would no 0 chance that we could fill out nonconference schedule with stacked upper Division teams. IF we can get one per year at this point we'd be lucky. That being said, it would in no way really affect our W's and L's for the season. Again, I do not agree that getting your butt handed to you by a better team is a bad thing. You often learn far more there than you do in blow outs. Just look at MSU football after NAU in 04, it was the worst win of the year because of what happened in the remaining games.

Raising the bar costs-- and you are so right EG. not many people will want to go there, only those who think the journey is worth the effort.

Hey-- Professor-- I take the correction on the "listening" and even the typo. I did think it was humorous that you give the name "Profesor".

He speaks Spanish? I'm just trying to help out here.

[BozoneCat]

I don't recall their seed that year; my point is simply that: a FOURTEEN seed is the highest we can (maybe) remember a Big Sky team achieving.

IF a Sky team ever goes 13-1 (15-1 following this season) in conference AND wins the auto-berth, AND has 25+ wins, then MAYBE we'd see them get a 12 or a 13...

That's an awful lot to ask, just to be a MEDIUM underdog in your first round game.

FACE IT FOLKS: THE LEVEL OF PLAY IN THE BIG SKY IS NOT VERY GOOD. IMO, WE DESERVE OUR RANKING AS THE SECOND WORST CONFERENCE IN AMERICA, LIKE IT OR NOT.

When the Cats played Syracuse in '96, we were a #13 seed. I believe Weber got a 13 seed when they returned to the Dance the year after they upset UNC.

Personally, I think the Big Sky is kind of set at the #14 seed preliminarily, then that can be adjusted up or down (more often down) depending on how good the team that wins the tourney is. When a .500 team gets hot and wins the tourney (see: griz last year), they get stuck with a much-deserved 16 seed. If the best team in the league actually wins the conference tourney, which sadly doesn't seem to happen very often, they will usually get a 14 seed.

That is the way it is, and I don't see that changing much in the near future because no school in the Big Sky is truly committed to building a powerhouse basketball program.

[twentythreeOh4]

I don't recall their seed that year; my point is simply that: a FOURTEEN seed is the highest we can (maybe) remember a Big Sky team achieving.

IF a Sky team ever goes 13-1 (15-1 following this season) in conference AND wins the auto-berth, AND has 25+ wins, then MAYBE we'd see them get a 12 or a 13...

That's an awful lot to ask, just to be a MEDIUM underdog in your first round game.

FACE IT FOLKS: THE LEVEL OF PLAY IN THE BIG SKY IS NOT VERY GOOD. IMO, WE DESERVE OUR RANKING AS THE SECOND WORST CONFERENCE IN AMERICA, LIKE IT OR NOT.

Weber St. was a 12th seed 3 years ago when they played Wisconsin in the NCAA tourney.

As for second worst conference, that was last year. This year the Big Sky is about 20th out of 32 conferences in terms of RPI rating. And that is actually pretty typical for the Sky the last few years -- somewhere between 18-24 in RPI. Last year was the exception not the rule for the RPI rank.

I think Fullerton is right to prod teams to schedule better. That's exactly what he should be doing. I disagree with his comment about taking on Pac-10 powers instead of the Boise St.'s of the world. I think Big Sky schools should schedule more games against mid-majors like Boise and fewer games against non D-I schools like Wayland Baptist, Rocky Mountain, etc.

[Kadeezy]

I'm not so sure that this is as big of a deal as it's being made out to be. So what if the scheduling is a little weak. Big time schools schedule gimme games to gauge their players and such so why shouldn't we. Also, the conference is doing something right because...

In the Sagarin ratings we're ahead of some good conferences.



CONFERENCE

1 BIG TEN
2 ATLANTIC COAST
3 BIG EAST
4 SOUTHEASTERN
5 BIG 12
6 MISSOURI VALLEY
7 PACIFIC-10
8 ATLANTIC 10
9 MOUNTAIN WEST
10 COLONIAL
11 WESTERN ATHLETIC
12 MID-AMERICAN
13 METRO ATLANTIC
14 WEST COAST
15 HORIZON
16 SUN BELT
17 BIG SKY
18 CONFERENCE USA
19 OHIO VALLEY
20 SOUTHLAND
21 BIG WEST
22 SOUTHERN
23 PATRIOT
24 BIG SOUTH
25 MID-CONTINENT
26 NORTHEAST
27 IVY LEAGUE
28 AMERICA EAST
29 ATLANTIC SUN
30 INDEPENDENTS
31 SOUTHWESTERN
32 MID-EASTERN

[wbtfg]

I'm not so sure that this is as big of a deal as it's being made out to be. So what if the scheduling is a little weak. Big time schools schedule gimme games to gauge their players and such so why shouldn't we. Also, the conference is doing something right because...

In the Sagarin ratings we're ahead of some good conferences.



CONFERENCE

1 BIG TEN
2 ATLANTIC COAST
3 BIG EAST
4 SOUTHEASTERN
5 BIG 12
6 MISSOURI VALLEY
7 PACIFIC-10
8 ATLANTIC 10
9 MOUNTAIN WEST
10 COLONIAL
11 WESTERN ATHLETIC
12 MID-AMERICAN
13 METRO ATLANTIC
14 WEST COAST
15 HORIZON
16 SUN BELT
17 BIG SKY
18 CONFERENCE USA
19 OHIO VALLEY
20 SOUTHLAND
21 BIG WEST
22 SOUTHERN
23 PATRIOT
24 BIG SOUTH
25 MID-CONTINENT
26 NORTHEAST
27 IVY LEAGUE
28 AMERICA EAST
29 ATLANTIC SUN
30 INDEPENDENTS
31 SOUTHWESTERN
32 MID-EASTERN

We're above Conference USA? Do they still have teams like Cincinnati/Louisville/Xavier...etc? Or did all those teams leave?

[Kadeezy]

They still have a possible NCAA 1 seed in Memphis and some good teams who are likely candidates for at large bids in UAB, Houston. The rest of the conference isn't a bunch of pushovers either: UTEP, SMU, Marshall, Tulane, Tulsa, Rice, East Carolina, Central Florida, Southern Miss.

[grizzh8r]

They still have a possible NCAA 1 seed in Memphis and some good teams who are likely candidates for at large bids in UAB, Houston. The rest of the conference isn't a bunch of pushovers either: UTEP, SMU, Marshall, Tulane, Tulsa, Rice, East Carolina, Central Florida, Southern Miss.

Louisville, Cinci, DePaul, Marquette, and USF were all CUSA teams last year.