sycamore tuff
The Wade Level
How about the swac? 
Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
Schertz, Sycamores announce 2023-24 Indiana State men’s basketball schedule
- Thread starter ISUCC
- Start date
WANTED: Passionate Sycamore Fanatics. That You?
Register NOW to join our community of die-hard Sycamore fans.
Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
landrus13
The JSW Level
I like the Butler idea but they've been down the last few years so it wouldn't have the luster it's had in the past. I wouldn't mind a home and home with SLU. Or maybe Dayton. I don't wanna see any more D2 or D3 teams on the schedule.
they're beneath us
maybe consider a home game AFTER they've completed the transition to Div I... maybe consider
I always liked the idea, execution of the MVC-Mtn West series/challenge -- revive it
WCC - I'm not opposed; I'm not convinced a lot of kids from California, the Left Coast would venture all the way to the Wabash Valley but cast the nets wide
SoCon isn't a bad idea, NEC as well; we might have better luck recruiting NEC - just from a ##s angle than SoCon
MAC schools may be better draw(s) for the local fan base wrt 'name recognition' but winning cures alot of ails
I like the idea of a MVC-SOCON challenge. They were nearly a 3 bid league back in 2019. I often refer to their league as "the MVC of the South".
What does that mean? The transition for them has no affect on us. Playing them now vs then nothing changes.
Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
Agreed. That is an illogical point of view.
I don't think ISU should play them now, yesterday or tomorrow.
I spell it N-E-V-E-R.
Do you have an actual legit reason other than just you don't want to play them? Otherwise this is just a dead topic.
Who defines "legit?" You?
I believe they're a legit university, much less Div. I program - what does ISU gain from playing them in any sport?
If Clink and Schertz schedule them, so be it. Will I attend, much less watch that game? Doubtful - WRT the annual chattering about scheduling, I'll air my position every time the topic is proposed.
I'll define it sure. You saying ISU never should play them. Not a legit reason with that statement alone.
What does ISU gain? Let's see they are a Division 1 opponent and while you don't accept that, they are better that UE at least right now. If they happen to ever be really good at some point the better for us as we play them. Will they get to the top of the OVC who knows. Easy travel for team and fans.
You not attending or watching just because you don't like the opponent you have that right. I would question you on how many games do you not watch a year because you don't like the opponent. Typically we all feel that way against non-division opponents. USI is no longer that and that is factual not an opinion.
Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
They're not Div I, regardless of how many times you beat the drum - they're a D2 school transitioning to Div I.
"Teams new to Division I must go through a four-year transition period during which they are not eligible to compete for NCAA championships. They also don’t get any money from the NCAA Tournament or other NCAA revenue streams until the transition is complete."
Call em Div I in Sept 2026 and I still wouldn't want the Trees to play them.
I didn't watch the Trinity game this season - why? not a huge fan of the Trees playing an NAIA team; didn't watch the Oak City game last year or the Midway or Hanover games.
If the Trees are playing a (rare) P5 team, I'll watch, chiefly because it's usually broadcast vs. streaming; try to watch most of the Valley games, I may miss one b/c of other commitments
Again that doesn't affect us. No matter how many times you say what their program is or isn't, they show up on INSU's record as a Division 1 opponent. Which is all anyone cares about. Would I rather play better teams? Absolutely but until that happens we are dealt with what we got. That's playing USI for 3 more seasons at least and every time we play them it's either Division 1 W or L.
Does the NCAA "bin them" as a Div I school for NET calculation?
If they do, it's yet again, another fallacy with the NET.
They'll be a Div I school when they finish their transition and I still have no desire for the Trees to play them - in any sport - period.
Yes!
DI Men's Basketball Rankings - NCAA Men's Basketball NET Rankings | NCAA.com
Get NCAA college basketball rankings from the Associated Press, USA Today Coaches poll and the NCAA NET Rankings.
www.ncaa.com
Besides the NET being rigged to help High Majors how does this become a fallacy?
"They'll be a Div I school when they finish their transition and I still have no desire for the Trees to play them - in any sport - period." - But you rather play UMKC or NIU and they are worse than USI.
It's a fallacy because they and all of the other transitioning schools are not "fully Div I" members -- if they were, they'd be eligible for NCAA tournaments.
Ergo, if they're not eligible, the NET formula should factor that in
I've never been a fan of using the NET, the BPI, the RPI or another "formula" that CONSISTENTLY screws non-"P5" schools.
NIU has been a Div I school for about as long as Indiana State, UMKC for ~35 years or more.
Yes - play ANY non-Div I transitioning teams before a transitioning team
No Div III, No NAIA
Ergo, if they're not eligible, the NET formula should factor that in
I've never been a fan of using the NET, the BPI, the RPI or another "formula" that CONSISTENTLY screws non-"P5" schools.
NIU has been a Div I school for about as long as Indiana State, UMKC for ~35 years or more.
Yes - play ANY non-Div I transitioning teams before a transitioning team
No Div III, No NAIA
Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
Most of your points are pretty solid except NCAA doesn't see it that way.
In all honesty the 4 year transition period is actually stupid. If a division 2 school transitions up why does NCAA ban them for 4 years when they most likely not making the tournament anyway. I could see a ban if you transitioned down. A division 1 dropping to division 2 makes a lot more sense to me.
MVC Teams RPI vs. NET
Bradley: 39 vs 74
Drake: 31 vs 52
Southern: 75 vs 122
Belmont: 86 vs 116
Indiana State: 136 vs 96
Missouri St: 125 vs 143
Murray: 151 vs 214
Northern Iowa: 203 vs 216
Illinois State: 300 vs 280
Valpo: 298 vs 290
Evansville: 339 vs 350
Averages
RPI: 148
NET: 162
Teams with better NET than RPI: Indiana State (+40), Illinois State (+20), Valpo (+8)
Biggest differences: Murray (-63), Southern (-47)
I know the formula is a "secret" but it's pretty apparent that "margin of victory" is a HUGE indicator for NET. We are the only conference team to have a considerable bump in the NET and we blew out sssooo many opponents this season. Murray got blown out of the water many times in their loses which would indicate the major drop in NET. And while Southern had a solid season overall they scraped by the skin of their teeth more times than not and could of easily finished closer to .500 with how they played. Bradley, Drake, and Belmont had MANY close games throughout the season that they finished out on top of; They get the bump in RPI but not the NET for these OT games they played in.
Looks like the key to a high NET is play an easy schedule; blow them out of the water then pick up some solid wins for the committee throughout the conference season....I think that reminds me of something we talk about all the time on here....
Bradley: 39 vs 74
Drake: 31 vs 52
Southern: 75 vs 122
Belmont: 86 vs 116
Indiana State: 136 vs 96
Missouri St: 125 vs 143
Murray: 151 vs 214
Northern Iowa: 203 vs 216
Illinois State: 300 vs 280
Valpo: 298 vs 290
Evansville: 339 vs 350
Averages
RPI: 148
NET: 162
Teams with better NET than RPI: Indiana State (+40), Illinois State (+20), Valpo (+8)
Biggest differences: Murray (-63), Southern (-47)
I know the formula is a "secret" but it's pretty apparent that "margin of victory" is a HUGE indicator for NET. We are the only conference team to have a considerable bump in the NET and we blew out sssooo many opponents this season. Murray got blown out of the water many times in their loses which would indicate the major drop in NET. And while Southern had a solid season overall they scraped by the skin of their teeth more times than not and could of easily finished closer to .500 with how they played. Bradley, Drake, and Belmont had MANY close games throughout the season that they finished out on top of; They get the bump in RPI but not the NET for these OT games they played in.
Looks like the key to a high NET is play an easy schedule; blow them out of the water then pick up some solid wins for the committee throughout the conference season....I think that reminds me of something we talk about all the time on here....
If the NCAA REALLY felt they way claim - there'd be no transition period.
But as the NCAA isn't a credible source for anything at this time, I don't see myself accepting their perception, their position on 95% of collegiate athletics.