A Modest Proposal - to improve scheduling

by **sivert** » March 10th, 2016, 10:50 am

The Proposal: Distribute NCAA Tournament Shares as follows:
Any NCAA-Tournament Shares earned by the Auto-Bid Team will be shared by all the conference members, with the Auto-Bid team earning a double portion.
Any NCAA-Tournament Shares earned by any At-Large Team will be shard by only conference members who end the season of distribution (not necessarily the year of At-Large Tournament entry) with an OOC SOS above 150, with the At-Large recieving a double portion.

Why? We need to schedule better! Every team having a good RPI helps get a second team into the NCAA Tournament. If WSU doesn't get in, they will rightly put part of the blame on MVC schools who scheduled terribly. Even if not "terribly," at least they scheduled in a way NOT helpful to other conference members who are on the bubble.

Here are the OOC SOS per http://www.rpiforecast.com/confs/MVC.html
Wichita St - 12
No Iowa - 42
Evansville - 227
Illinois St - 10
So Illinois - 326
Indiana St. - 92
Missouri St. - 251
Loyola Chicago - 319
Bradley - 72
Drake - 301

**Sponsor**

by **achrist70** » March 10th, 2016, 11:34 am

I like this idea, but what do you do in the case of a team like UNI last year? They earned the auto bid, but would have been an at large if they wouldn't have earned it.

by **UE-grad** » March 10th, 2016, 11:56 am

One issue I see is that it may be based on the previous year's RPI or average the previous year with the current.

I wouldn't want a school to be penalized for scheduling a team that was thought to be in the 75-100 range (just arbitrary numbers) and they have a bad season, or their schedule (or conference) falls apart resulting in a bad rating.

by **Play Angry** » March 10th, 2016, 11:58 am

I do like the broad concept of incentivizing tougher scheduling - whether by tying it rights to Tournament Units or through another mechanism, something should probably be implemented.

The counterpoint to this proposal is that it is actually better, if an MVC team is terrible in any given year, for them to schedule down to their competition since the MVC team's winning percentage matters more than that of their opponents (i.e., better to go 8-3 vs. a 245 SOS than 2-9 vs. a 6 SOS). I can sympathize with that somewhat.

The problem is that many of the same teams have been stuck near the basement for a long time now. Our league needs to get (and keep) better coaches to cycle upward.

Something something something you have to have the money to hire and keep good coaches....

by **sivert** » March 10th, 2016, 12:01 pm

Auto-bid would be shared by all, exactly as it is now.
But WSU's shares from 2015 would be shared with only those who scheduled well.

The point, of course, is to use $$ to encourage good scheduling.

The nice thing about this is that over the long run, I don't believe there would be any loser. Some wouldn't get a "share" in some years. But those are shares that, if everyone scheduled like they did, wouldn't have come to the conference anyway. If we can get scheduling better, we could be more often a 2-bid league, and perhaps even sometimes a 3-bid league.

by **sivert** » March 10th, 2016, 12:32 pm

Play Angry wrote:I do like the broad concept of incentivizing tougher scheduling - whether by tying it rights to Tournament Units or through another mechanism, something should probably be implemented.

The counterpoint to this proposal is that it is actually better, if an MVC team is terrible in any given year, for them to schedule down to their competition since the MVC team's winning percentage matters more than that of their opponents (i.e., better to go 8-3 vs. a 245 SOS than 2-9 vs. a 6 SOS). I can sympathize with that somewhat...

Yes, but you have to view this NOT as a punishment, but only as an incentive to think "2-bid league."

Now, maybe you're in a rebuilding 'year.' And you're thinking, "No, we are not in the At-Large hunt at all. We've got a bunch of freshmen we want to train by playing medium-poor schools." Ok - then you give up on the effort for the MVC to have 2 bids. And you won't see the extra $$ that comes in if someone does make it. But the teams that are up to the challenge - they should try to schedule tough.

Take Evansville this year. With Mock and Ballentine, they should have been in the At-Large hunt. They could have scheduled tougher and still won close to as many games as they did. They are 24-9. WSU is 23-8. Pretty similar W-L. If their SOS was halfway towards WSU, and Bradley and Drake played a decent schedule, WSU would be firmly in and Evansville would be bubble-out.
Getting a share of WSU's shares would be a good encouragement to all three to schedule tougher.

by **shockem** » March 10th, 2016, 12:54 pm

Problem is some coaches think as long as they win 20 games their job is safe. They don't care what they have to do to get there.

by **Play Angry** » March 10th, 2016, 1:10 pm

sivert wrote:
Play Angry wrote:I do like the broad concept of incentivizing tougher scheduling - whether by tying it rights to Tournament Units or through another mechanism, something should probably be implemented.

The counterpoint to this proposal is that it is actually better, if an MVC team is terrible in any given year, for them to schedule down to their competition since the MVC team's winning percentage matters more than that of their opponents (i.e., better to go 8-3 vs. a 245 SOS than 2-9 vs. a 6 SOS). I can sympathize with that somewhat...

Yes, but you have to view this NOT as a punishment, but only as an incentive to think "2-bid league."

Now, maybe you're in a rebuilding 'year.' And you're thinking, "No, we are not in the At-Large hunt at all. We've got a bunch of freshmen we want to train by playing medium-poor schools." Ok - then you give up on the effort for the MVC to have 2 bids. And you won't see the extra $$ that comes in if someone does make it. But the teams that are up to the challenge - they should try to schedule tough.

Take Evansville this year. With Mock and Ballentine, they should have been in the At-Large hunt. They could have scheduled tougher and still won close to as many games as they did. They are 24-9. WSU is 23-8. Pretty similar W-L. If their SOS was halfway towards WSU, and Bradley and Drake played a decent schedule, WSU would be firmly in and Evansville would be bubble-out.
Getting a share of WSU's shares would be a good encouragement to all three to schedule tougher.

Agreed on all points. Don't get me wrong - if your idea was put to an up or down vote, I'd be in favor 100%.

Unfortunately I kind of doubt the league's leadership has the stomach or the drive to push for another set of reforms like we saw in the early 00s with scheduling mandates, etc. They have been cowed by the complaints of the teams who don't really want to commit to a higher level of competition.

I would love to be wrong and see something concrete agreed upon.