Meanwhile, Cajuns have the best basketball team in LA

[Turbine]

Not true, year ending RPI below:

2016-17 115
2015-16 145
2014-15 124
2013-14 85
2012-13 225
2011-12 197
2010-11 215
2009-10 246
2008-09 266
2007-08 178

I will agree that between 07-08 and 12-13 our RPI was not very good, but over the last 5, we should be a team, based on your model, that other quality RPI teams Top 150, would want to play).

Top 150 may not immediately jump off the page but it's equivalent in football would be almost every bowl eligible team including the upper half of the 6-6 crowd.

Top 150 is a desirable level of competition

[ZoomZoom]

Regarding the pay to play tournaments. I understand people not getting excited about them. However consider this scenario. Let's suppose this year's team goes 14 and 4 in conference but gets the 2nd seed because of a tiebreaker. They then go on to lose in the conference tournament finals. That likely gives them an overall record of 26 and 8. Do you know where they will go in the post-season. Book it that they would be in the CIT or an equivalent pay for play tournament. That is because NIT takes all conference champs that do not get into the NCAA tournament. Such a season would have the squad deserving of post season play, much more so than a 6 and 6 football team going to a bowl game. Unfortunate that their only option is pay to play. I think the scenario I described would have more fan support to play in the CIT than in the past. Of course, the easy solution is to win the regular season. I vote for that option.

When you get right down to it, unless a team makes one of the top tier bowls, they're all pay to play. Making money is up to how many tickets a program sells. They only thing that's going to save us in basketball when the big reshuffle happens with football are the Wtchita States, Butlers, and even Gonzangas of the world. Mid major programs with little or no football but all in for basketball.

[BeauCajun]

Not true, year ending RPI below:

2016-17 115
2015-16 145
2014-15 124
2013-14 85
2012-13 225
2011-12 197
2010-11 215
2009-10 246
2008-09 266
2007-08 178

I will agree that between 07-08 and 12-13 our RPI was not very good, but over the last 5, we should be a team, based on your model, that other quality RPI teams (Top 150, would want to play).

So actually an average RPI of 180. I consider that well below 200.

[RaginDave]

So actually an average RPI of 180. I consider that well below 200.

Correct and V is quoted as saying it was well above 200. And if you were looking at 2007/2008 - 2012/2013 he would have been correct, but from 2013/14 - 2017/18 our average RPI would have been 125, if you include this years 154 so far.

[zephyr]

C and V, I am with both of you about improving the RPI. I don't disagree with you at all. The issue I have is that I believe Coach Marlin tried to do that with the Cayman tournament and unfortunately it backfired.

Look at this real quick, year end RPI of some of the team we have played vs current RPI:

Iowa 83 last year, currently 194
Richmond 72 last year, currently 263
Mississippi 69 last year, currently 213
UNO last year 162, currently 244

I agree, lets remove at least one Non D1 and replace with a top 150 RPI D1 team and that would help.

Good news is Iowa is starting to help us a little. They have won 3 in a row and moved back into the top 200, last night they beat a team with an RPI of 69, granted they have fallen to 94 by losing to Iowa. But Iowa has won their last 3 games by a combined 83 points. They have another big game Friday vs Colorado who has an RPI of 94. We need them to get back on the right track.

That is a difference of 528 RPI spots by 4 teams from 16-17 to 17-18, or an average per team RPI drop of 132 spots.

Iowa will end up being OK as the season ends. Their RPI numbers, IMO, will be better as they will have some success in the Big 10. The B10 is not what it has been in the past and is somewhat watered down. They likely won't finish top 3 or 4 but I think they can be right behind them.

[zephyr]

Okay. We’re 10-2. 19 left. 9 home games. 10 Road. 18 conference games. What is our record in the final 19? I got 14-5. What you got?

I'm at 12-7

[zephyr]

Regarding the pay to play tournaments. I understand people not getting excited about them. However consider this scenario. Let's suppose this year's team goes 14 and 4 in conference but gets the 2nd seed because of a tiebreaker. They then go on to lose in the conference tournament finals. That likely gives them an overall record of 26 and 8. Do you know where they will go in the post-season. Book it that they would be in the CIT or an equivalent pay for play tournament. That is because NIT takes all conference champs that do not get into the NCAA tournament. Such a season would have the squad deserving of post season play, much more so than a 6 and 6 football team going to a bowl game. Unfortunate that their only option is pay to play. I think the scenario I described would have more fan support to play in the CIT than in the past. Of course, the easy solution is to win the regular season. I vote for that option.

I second this thought.

[RaginDave]

Massey has us at 14-5
Warren Nolan has us at 15-4

I will go conservative at 13-6 and hope we are better than that.

[Cajunsmike]

Again Mike, McNees is a consistent cellar dwelle much like UNO whose sole assets are ancient history and geography. Both these teams need to be paid visator at most.

Understand your view here. However, both UNO and McNeese will remain on the schedule on a home and home basis for the foreseeable future.

[Cajunsmike]

When you get right down to it, unless a team makes one of the top tier bowls, they're all pay to play. Making money is up to how many tickets a program sells. They only thing that's going to save us in basketball when the big reshuffle happens with football are the Wtchita States, Butlers, and even Gonzangas of the world. Mid major programs with little or no football but all in for basketball.

You are correct regarding football ticket sales. They great majority of the teams are losing significant money in the minor bowls. My main point regarding basketball pay to play is that often times the teams in those are more deserving of post season play than the 6 and 6 football team. That is not always the case of course and perhaps some of the Cajun teams that played in the CIT in the past were not. However, I think they would be in the 26 and 8 scenario I painted for the Cajuns. Would you not want the Cajuns to accept that bid in that scenario? As I said earlier, that would not be in the NIT in today's world and that is unfortunate.