Why are some MIAA schools fighting so hard to keep silo scheduling?

[the Northeasterner]

These types of decisions are almost always driven by money. When my daughter was looking at GLVC schools I took a look at the travel (from KC) and was very surprised the trips weren't long from KC, Truman would be even better positioned for travel to the eastern GLVC schools, especially with Bellarmine moving up.

No that is a good argument to . The gac schedules Thursday sat games at travel partners . So you drive Thursday to play at swosu then stay and play nwosu sat afternoon and then drive home to ark. Hotels cheaper than gas . It's a really good model and why gave could add just two it would need four to add.

Would need two for each state and go divisions really save money then





????

[GorillaBred]

No that is a good argument to . The gac schedules Thursday sat games at travel partners . So you drive Thursday to play at swosu then stay and play nwosu sat afternoon and then drive home to ark. Hotels cheaper than gas . It's a really good model and why gave could add just two it would need four to add.

Would need two for each state and go divisions really save money then

The MIAA does essentially the same for basketball now, too. In the late 70s and through most of the 80s, Pitt State was in an 8 team conference that included two MO schools (MW, MS), all 4 KS schools and two NE schools (Kearney and Wayne). In those days the schools did something similar with travel partners for doubleheaders, but the games were Friday-Sunday. Really cuts down on class time missed.

[Rational Observer]

[QUOTE=the Northeasterner;n459495]

Remember, much of the GAC was in the GSC, and many of those schools never even sniffed the playoffs. They formed the GAC, and now they are making the playoffs each year. Are they going to schedule tougher regular season games and jeopardize their playoff chances?[/QUOTE

Two things on this . The ark schools did comparibly well getgettingbinti po and remember there were less teams making .Po . . In the gsc. Ar tech, henderson oachita and sau( I think ) came into the gac with po games under thier belts in the '00s . I went to a tech po game in Russellville . And that was when una Delta and Valdosta we're all three just top level schools. The gsc schedule was set up to where they still played non conference schools and sometimes you only got one or two of murders row each year . And while conference did ok. The ark schools left because of travel costs esp in non football .

That's why are schools have dominated gac they came in healthy. The lone star just stripped the ok schools bare and they haven't recovered

AR Tech made it in 1999, 2004, & 2009 and won two games total combined
SAU made it in 2003, no wins
UCA made it in 2001 and 2005, they won two games in 2005 and moved to FCS the next year

Since forming the GAC:

OBU- 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019
Harding- 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019
Henderson- 2014, 2015
SAU-
AR-Mont-

Granted, there are more teams in the playoffs now than previously, but the GSC has also seen UWA and UWG and UWF (not a football school until 2016 or so) all make playoff runs plus SR has had two independent teams make the playoffs. UWG and UWF both made it deep. VSU has won a national championship.

[backintheday]

Anyone defending silo is doing so because, despite what Western's AD says, the MIAA hasn't been close to only having one team make the playoffs. In fact, in the 6 years of complete silo scheduling, the MIAA has never had a team that lost 2 games or less fail to make the playoffs. In 2016, CentralMO got in at 9-2 as the 3rd MIAA team. That probably wouldn't get a team in under the current regional configuration (Henderson this year) but most aren't going to feel sorry for a 3rd place team that doesn't get in.

Maybe how many teams in, in the last six years is the wrong way to look at things. Maybe more important to look at what those teams accomplished is a better benchmark.

16-11 record with 8 of those wins belonging to NW in '15 and '16, occurring early in the 6 year window. Take those out of the equation and the rest of the league is 8-11 over the 6 years. Maybe more to the point is the last 3 years under the current configuration where the league is 4-5 with not even a sniff at the national championship.

[Taxman]

Maybe how many teams in, in the last six years is the wrong way to look at things. Maybe more important to look at what those teams accomplished is a better benchmark.

16-11 record with 8 of those wins belonging to NW in '15 and '16, occurring early in the 6 year window. Take those out of the equation and the rest of the league is 8-11 over the 6 years. Maybe more to the point is the last 3 years under the current configuration where the league is 4-5 with not even a sniff at the national championship.

Outside of NW and Pitt a couple of other years you could make this statement every year back to when they were placing 4 teams in a region for the POs and noncon games were in abundance. No one outside of those 2 schools were sniffing a NC even prior to the silo scheduling. So due to NW not dominating the national scene for 3 years we need to get rid of silo scheduling? NW's issues with an inability to adequately complete the forward pass and offensive coaching is not due to silo scheduling.

[EveryCatAWildman]

So due to NW not dominating the national scene for 3 years we need to get rid of silo scheduling? NW's issues with an inability to adequately complete the forward pass and offensive coaching is not due to silo scheduling.

I was just thinking something along these lines - silo schedule hasn't hurt Minnesota St. the past two years of advancing far in the playoffs.
Didn't hurt Harding in 2017 advancing to semifinals.

If you just ignore it being MIAA because that's 'our' conference - silo schools have always represented 1 of the 4 semifinalst. Which is basically what you'd expect since about 1 in 4 teams (40 of 167) are in a silo conference.

It'd probably be better representation in the semis if silo conferences as we know weren't paired in the playoffs. 2015 & 2016 MIAA, GAC & NSIC and 2017 to now MIAA and GAC. So in a way, for those calling for silo conferences to be penalized, they have been by eliminating each other early in the playoffs.

[Brandon]

This type of scheduling is a historic anomaly.

It's not about getting the top MIAA team in the playoffs (which is what you guys are doing when talking about NW/MSU playoff runs), it's about getting the right teams in the playoffs. That did not happen this year. The case could easily be made that Fort Hays and/or Missouri Western should have been in the playoffs as well as Wayne State and/or Grand Valley.

[Hornetfan]

This type of scheduling is a historic anomaly.

It's not about getting the top MIAA team in the playoffs (which is what you guys are doing when talking about NW/MSU playoff runs), it's about getting the right teams in the playoffs. That did not happen this year. The case could easily be made that Fort Hays and/or Missouri Western should have been in the playoffs as well as Wayne State and/or Grand Valley.

If those four teams should have been in the playoffs what four teams should not have made it?
I understand wanting to get the best teams in the playoffs, but that will not happen with regionalization. There will always be one region where the first team out is better than any team in another region.

Plus I'm not sure three loss teams really belong in the playoffs. You play to win the game.

The last three loss team to win the national championship was Northern Colorado in 1996. In the 22 years since then only three, three loss teams (NWMSU in 2005, Wayne St. (Mich.) in 2011, and West Florida in 2017) have made the national championship game. Out of 94 championship game participants since 1973 only 7 three loss teams have made the championship game.

[northwest missouri state]

[northwest missouri state]

silo scheduling otoh is a scourge

[EveryCatAWildman]

Funny enough if the 'better' team Mo West or FHSU had made the playoffs, Ouachita is probably at least makes the quarters

[Predatory Primates]

If those four teams should have been in the playoffs what four teams should not have made it?
I understand wanting to get the best teams in the playoffs, but that will not happen with regionalization. There will always be one region where the first team out is better than any team in another region.

Plus I'm not sure three loss teams really belong in the playoffs. You play to win the game.

The last three loss team to win the national championship was Northern Colorado in 1996. In the 22 years since then only three, three loss teams (NWMSU in 2005, Wayne St. (Mich.) in 2011, and West Florida in 2017) have made the national championship game. Out of 94 championship game participants since 1973 only 7 three loss teams have made the championship game.

You have to remember it was 8 teams total until 88 and 16 total until 04, and 24 until 2015, so some good 3 loss teams probably weren't getting a sniff of the playoffs before 04.

The fact that 3 such teams have made it to the NC in the modern era sort of justifies expansion. Or maybe it makes a case against regionalization? I don't know the circumstances. Did all 3 of those get to play an opponent from a weak region in the Quarters..

[TSU_Mike59]

The case could easily be made that Fort Hays and/or Missouri Western should have been in the playoffs as well as Wayne State and/or Grand Valley.

See, this continues to be the problem. You can't "easily" make the case that those teams should have been in. You can't "easily" make the case that a 3-loss MWSU or FHSU team, because of silo scheduling, should have been in this year over Lindenwood or Harding or Indianapolis (or Wayne State or Grand Valley in your example). You can only do that if part of your argument is that "well, the MIAA is better than the GAC or the GLVC or the GLIAC." Each year is unique, and you can't do it. Computer sites like Massey can't even figure it out for teams in silo schedules because there is absolutely nothing to go on for cross reference.

If it's so easy, I'd argue then that FHSU shouldn't have been even considered because the GLVC champ last year was better on the field than the MIAA co-champ last year. So, see, now I have an argument against it.

As long as there are at-larges, it will be a messed up debacle until there's a common opponent or some kind of cross reference ability. Want clarity? Four conferences in a region. Four conference championships. You start at the sweet 16 level and play down. Can't win your league? You don't get in. (Yes, I know that's ridiculous too).

[Hornetfan]

You have to remember it was 8 teams total until 88 and 16 total until 04, and 24 until 2015, so some good 3 loss teams probably weren't getting a sniff of the playoffs before 04.

The fact that 3 such teams have made it to the NC in the modern era sort of justifies expansion. Or maybe it makes a case against regionalization? I don't know the circumstances. Did all 3 of those get to play an opponent from a weak region in the Quarters..

Looking at the numbers there were nine three loss teams out of 120 possible (7.5%) from 1973-88 and if you include two loss plus ties it's 11 out of 120 (9.2%). There have been 44 out of a possible 380 (11.6%) in the last 15 years but in the last five years since the expansion to 28 teams the number is 11 of 140 (7.9%).
A 5-5 TAMU-Kingsville team actually made the playoffs in 1993. Lost their first five games and then won five in a row to make the field.

I haven't taken the time to break it out by regions since they have changed so much over the years, but I really think regionalization is a bigger problem than silo scheduling.

[GrifFan]

Looking at the numbers there were nine three loss teams out of 120 possible (7.5%) from 1973-88 and if you include two loss plus ties it's 11 out of 120 (9.2%). There have been 44 out of a possible 380 (11.6%) in the last 15 years but in the last five years since the expansion to 28 teams the number is 11 of 140 (7.9%).
A 5-5 TAMU-Kingsville team actually made the playoffs in 1993. Lost their first five games and then won five in a row to make the field.

I haven't taken the time to break it out by regions since they have changed so much over the years, but I really think regionalization is a bigger problem than silo scheduling.

If your previous numbers are correct, and I assume they are, 7.4 percent of the championship game participants (7 out of 94) have been 3-loss teams. That would seem to indicate they are participating in the championship game at about the same rate they are participating in the playoffs? So it seems like those 3-loss teams that have qualified belong just as much as any other team.