Big Sky Conference Schedule 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?

 

[Swillbury]

It's a dam shame that we are doing this, I think if we cut back on playing the Frontier conference so much then maybe we could raise it up enough to where its not tottally embarrassing....

 

[Grizbeer]

The problem is when you are scheduling teams 2 or 3 years in advance you don't know how good they will be. Stanford should have raised Montana's SOS, not lowered it. The Griz schedule wasn't bad, but it is being rated bad. Sometimes you just can't win.

Here is the problem - if a team like Montana beats a team like Santa Clara, it lowers Santa Clara's RPI, lowering the Griz SOS. It is a circular trap. If Eastern had beaten Boise, BYU, and Gonzaga it would have lowered the RPI for all 3 of those teams, and lowered Eastern's SOS.

I'm not sure how to get out of the trap. If you schedule all top 50 teams and lose all, your RPI is in the toilet and it brings down the league. If you schedule a mix of top 50 teams and really bad teams your RPI is in the toilet and your SOS sucks, and you bring down the league. If you schedule mostly mid-major teams, with a couple PAC 10's thrown in your SOS is in the toilet, your RPI isn't great, and any PAC 10 team you beat must suck.

Their is only 2 ways out - 1) win NCAA tournament games so when you beat a good mid-major or decent PAC 10/MWC team it doesn't ruin their RPI and take your SOS down, or 2) bring better teams into the conference.

Fullerton likes to blame the schools, but he was the one most recently pushing for Northern Colorado, a team that will make it harder for the BSC to increase their respect.

 

[drewklein1]

What we need to hope for is the teams we beat in non-conf play to start winning. Stanford looks like it is starting to come together. They beat OSU 80-66 on Thursday and are up 38-30 on Oregon at the half. The two losses to start out their conference play certainly didn't help, but if they can play well the rest of the way that will certainly help the Grizzlies. If Santa Clara can put up a W against Gonzaga on Monday that would also help us out a lot.

 

[Swillbury]

Everybody is looking into this system way too much, 65 deserving teams get in every year and that is pretty much all that matter after it is all said and done. If you win games and forget about the RPI and SOS and all that other stuff thrown into the mix then you will be just fine. March Madness is not the BCS and every team that gets in is deserving. Montana right now has to win the Big Sky to get in and that is that Griz fans should be worrying about...

 

[Grizbacker1]

Everybody is looking into this system way too much, 65 deserving teams get in every year and that is pretty much all that matter after it is all said and done. If you win games and forget about the RPI and SOS and all that other stuff thrown into the mix then you will be just fine. March Madness is not the BCS and every team that gets in is deserving. Montana right now has to win the Big Sky to get in and that is that Griz fans should be worrying about...

RPI in a conference like the BSC doesn't mean squat anyway. If you don't win the BSC Tournament you are not going to the Big Dance, simple as that. I don't care if you are 24-3, don't win the tournament and you might get an NIT bid. Now that the NCAA owns the NIT don't bet on that either.

 

[Catsrback76]

I also think it is a philosophy about coaching that centers around being "safe" with the schedule.
I think that rather than work to play up, coaches would rather play it safe and the best chance for a W. I mean, if you want to succeed all the time then keep the bar low. Why not raise the bar? Why not raise it up and let the kids play teams that they can begin to learn the speed, the skills and the challenge of playing a UCLA, Arizona etc.?
I's rather see the team lose by 25 to a powerful team than win by 25 over some no name.

I think the coaches are playing down because it is the easy road.

 

[Grizbacker1]

I also think it is a philosophy about coaching that centers around being "safe" with the schedule.
I think that rather than work to play up, coaches would rather play it safe and the best chance for a W. I mean, if you want to succeed all the time then keep the bar low. Why not raise the bar? Why not raise it up and let the kids play teams that they can begin to learn the speed, the skills and the challenge of playing a UCLA, Arizona etc.?
I's rather see the team lose by 25 to a powerful team than win by 25 over some no name.

I think the coaches are playing down because it is the easy road.

I think that was more the case years ago. If you look at UM and msu schedules 15 years ago they pale in comparison to the schedules today. Frankly, it isn't as easy as just picking up the phone and asking Coach K at Duke for a game. We haven't even been able to get Montgomerey (when he was at Stanford), Morrill, or Taylor to play us.

 

[Swillbury]

I also think it is a philosophy about coaching that centers around being "safe" with the schedule.
I think that rather than work to play up, coaches would rather play it safe and the best chance for a W. I mean, if you want to succeed all the time then keep the bar low. Why not raise the bar? Why not raise it up and let the kids play teams that they can begin to learn the speed, the skills and the challenge of playing a UCLA, Arizona etc.?
I's rather see the team lose by 25 to a powerful team than win by 25 over some no name.

I think the coaches are playing down because it is the easy road.

I agree, and playing big schools get you more reconignition for recruiting then lets say playing Carrol or Western...

 

[UMclassof2002]

It's a I-AA mentaility in a sport where we compete at the I-A level. The conference, top to bottom, needs to step it up in the scheduling department. As long as we think of ourselves as small time, we will be small time.

 

[EverettGriz]

Agree 100% with 02. BSC schools don't consider themselves mid-major, but more like mid minor. That's got to change.

 

[bozbobcat]

I know we've all given solutions, but 2002 is right that the first step is a perception problem. The Big Sky is certainly not a weak conference, as seen in the RPI ratings this year. We're in the middle. And the schools need to start thinking that they're in the middle and certainly are not bottom feeders. I think that will help. I'm not sure why Fullerton keeps calling out basketball scheduling, especially when he wants to have Northern Colorado in the conference when North Dakota State and South Dakota State would be competitive immediately. But that's been discussed lately. I think MSU athletics has finally recovered from Fullerton's tenure as athletic director. My mom had geometry with Fullerton and she hates math to this day. He can make suggestions, but he's been caught with his pants down by saying that the Big Sky schools need to strengthen their schedules and by adding a currently weak Northern Colorado basketball program.

 

[Mung]

Our region might be factor too. There's Gonzaga a short bus ride away and then nobody really in bus range after that (powers, that is). Teams like North Iowa and Milwaukee are in a good spot to play tough teams on the cheap. And their conferences are better for it, whether it be their performance or just SOS.

 

[MinnesotaGriz]

I also think it is a philosophy about coaching that centers around being "safe" with the schedule.
I think that rather than work to play up, coaches would rather play it safe and the best chance for a W. I mean, if you want to succeed all the time then keep the bar low. Why not raise the bar? Why not raise it up and let the kids play teams that they can begin to learn the speed, the skills and the challenge of playing a UCLA, Arizona etc.?
I's rather see the team lose by 25 to a powerful team than win by 25 over some no name.

I think the coaches are playing down because it is the easy road.

I think that was more the case years ago. If you look at UM and msu schedules 15 years ago they pale in comparison to the schedules today. Frankly, it isn't as easy as just picking up the phone and asking Coach K at Duke for a game. We haven't even been able to get Montgomerey (when he was at Stanford), Morrill, or Taylor to play us.

Not to be nit-picky, but in 2002 the Griz actually upset Stanford in Palo Alto on a last second shot. Montgomery was the head coach of that Stanford team.

 

[Swillbury]

I want to play Duke

:shocked:

 

[Grizbacker1]

I also think it is a philosophy about coaching that centers around being "safe" with the schedule.
I think that rather than work to play up, coaches would rather play it safe and the best chance for a W. I mean, if you want to succeed all the time then keep the bar low. Why not raise the bar? Why not raise it up and let the kids play teams that they can begin to learn the speed, the skills and the challenge of playing a UCLA, Arizona etc.?
I's rather see the team lose by 25 to a powerful team than win by 25 over some no name.

I think the coaches are playing down because it is the easy road.

I think that was more the case years ago. If you look at UM and msu schedules 15 years ago they pale in comparison to the schedules today. Frankly, it isn't as easy as just picking up the phone and asking Coach K at Duke for a game. We haven't even been able to get Montgomerey (when he was at Stanford), Morrill, or Taylor to play us.

Not to be nit-picky, but in 2002 the Griz actually upset Stanford in Palo Alto on a last second shot. Montgomery was the head coach of that Stanford team.

You are correct, we beat them 70-68, David Bell scored 24. I was thinking that was an NIT game, I think it was Stanford Invitational, thanks for setting me straight. Anyway, we didn't play Stanford enough, we still have not played Utah State since Morril went there from CSU, and we haven't played ODU since Blaine went there.