Mids looking at scheduling plan

[Class of '83]

Mids looking at scheduling plan
Monday, March 27, 2006 | Feedback

WASHINGTON -- Standing courtside just before Sunday's Elite Eight tipoff, two of the sport's new power brokers -- the commissioners of the Missouri Valley Conference and Colonial Athletic Association -- were scheming about a new scheduling plan.
Doug Elgin of the MVC and Tom Yeager of the CAA were discussing a new plan to help their top teams schedule next season.

Elgin and Yeager said they were going to solicit the commissioners of the MAC, WAC and Horizon League to form a consortium of sorts to schedule a challenge among the top five teams in each league. So, for instance, Bradley could play at Nevada in 2006-07 and then the Wolf Pack would return the game the following season.

Elgin said it will be tough to pull off since a lot of schedules are already done but the commissioners are going to try and hammer this through in the coming weeks.

When asked what he thought of the idea, Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese said when he was chair of the committee he always looked to see what mid-majors the bubble mid-major teams played. He said if they went ahead and scheduled each other then that would truly help.

Elgin and Yeager said this new scheduling plan wouldn't have anything to do with ESPN's sponsored BracketBusters event, which matches some of the top-rated mid-majors for a game in February with a return game the following season. This past season, BracketBusters produced George Mason-Wichita State, a game that was repeated in the Sweet 16. Next season, Wichita State will play at George Mason.

www.digitaldestinies.com/newboard/viewtopic.php?t=462&sid=2b6edf031d2cdc82e39783bf66622522

[Big D]

statmaster said:

Elgin and Yeager said they were going to solicit the commissioners of the MAC, WAC and Horizon League to form a consortium of sorts to schedule a challenge among the top five teams in each league.

Unfortunately, we might not even be invited to participate since they are only looking at the top 5 teams in each league.

[wsu97]

At least this is a start. Better cooperation between quality mid-majors on scheduling each other would reduce the pool the BCS schools draw from in filling out their non-conference schedules. If the top mid-major programs refuse to accept road only games against BCS schools, the BCS schools would be forced to either schedule low-majors or schedule us in more home-home series.

[Big D]

That will never happen. There is always going to be a program out there willing to whore themselves out to a BCS school. UWGB contract with MSU is the perfect example of this.

[observer]

UWGB did get a home game against Michigan State

[raider fan]

I absolutely LOOOOOOOOOVE this concept. This is and "expanded" bracket busters. If the top mid majors play each other then it will help thier rpi's and they can garner "quility" wins when the selection committee reviews at large bids. As and example, if Bradley wins the MVC tournament and the automatic bid then if any other mid major beat them in the regular season it would be considered a quility win versus a NCAA tournament team.

This is the formula that the MVC has used and it seems to work. This concept would only be and expanded version of what the MVC current does.

On a personal note I would love to see teams from the MVC, ACC, & MAC play at the Nutter Center.

If mid majors want to play "a couple" of road games versus BCS schools to get their SOS up then that is ok but it should also "cut down" on the number of high quality mid majors the BCS school can schedule AS A HOME GAME ONLY since most of the top mid majors schedules will already be filled with other top mid majors.

I think this plan will "limit" the number of TOP MID MAJOR teams that the BCS schools can count on for a home game only and it will force them, if they only want a home game, to schedule LOW MID MAJORS which in turn will hurt thier rpi's.

If nothing else it will help bring quality teams into the Nutter Center!

I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!

[Raider Country]

observer said:

UWGB did get a home game against Michigan State

I believe Big D is referring to Green Bay agreeing to a 3 for 1 contract with Michigan State. That was a horrible precedent for mid-majors. It will be impossible to get a BCS school to agree to a 1 for 1 contract when they can get a 2 for 1 and now a 3 for 1 contract with teams like Green Bay.

[GBFanJ]

You can't start at the top, you have to start somewhere. I don't like what UWGB is getting in these deals with teams like Wisconsin and Michigan State, but at least they're getting them to come. Plus, UWGB doesn't have some of the advantages of Wright State. There are plenty of teams in Ohio (and even Indiana) that are good schools and Wright State can bring in easily with 1 for 1 deals. It's tougher for UWGB. They don't have as many good relationships with other schools, and they have to do what they can to get schools to come. In the state of Wisconsin, there are 4 Division I schools. Ohio has 13, Illinois has 12, Indiana has 10, and Michigan has 7. They have more opportunities.

[Spicy Toast]

I see no problems with a 3-for-1 type of the deal. Of course, a 1-for-1 or even a 2-for-1 would be better, but I would much rather see a 3-for-1 with Michigan State and Wisconsin than home games with Morgan State, Prairie View and Kenyon or 1-for-1 with Texas-Pan American and Brown.

[Rambler63]

Loyola had the first year of a 2-for-1 with Purdue last year, and got the first year up front because sometimes the big schools buy their way out of the road game. A few years ago, Loyola agreed to be in the Michigan State tournament plus a 1-for-1 (so it was actually like a 11/2-for-1). Three for one is too much, in my opinion.

Detroit had a 3-for-2 deal with Michigan State a few years ago, but I think the Detroit games had to be played at Cobo or a neutral site in Detroit.