2013 - 2014 schedule

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: 2013 - 2014 schedule

I think the tough OOC schedule is more benefit than handicap.

How so? We have seven losses, some that were very lopsided to teams we will be competing with in the NCAA for seeds. If we make the tourney those losses are going to hurt our seeding.

In my opinion in order for our program to take the next step we have to win some NCAA tourney games. That's tough to do if we get stuck with a 13 or lower seed. History has shown that 13 and lower seeds have a very very tough time winning games (see: http://mcubed.net/ncaabw/seeds.shtml). 13 and lower seeds have won 7 of 320 games all time in the first round.

My point is we need to get a better seed. The way to do that is dominating OOC (and the conference), not merely going .500.

[jackdaniel]

Re: 2013 - 2014 schedule

If we have that team to make a tourney run, we'll know it,just like i knew the 2008-2009 team was special.I hold these truths to be self evident..Just kidding with the self evident quote.Seriously though,teams are supposed to earn their way with seeding.Doesn't alway's work that way,but it should.We had a team the selection committee had to respect during our little run in 2008-2009.Some think we should have even got a better seed, but as that tourney progresses,the opponents get tougher quick.Wish we'd made it past Baylor though,our next opponent might not have been such a "home" game.

Sorry to keep brining up the 2008-2009 team,but that team still remains as the high level mark,in Div 1, for our womens basketball program,til someone knocks them off that perch.

[JamesJacks]

Re: 2013 - 2014 schedule

The Jacks will play anyone and I like that. Scheduling more cupcakes won't help in the long run. Being competitive in the games against teams like Notre Dame or Stanford (which we weren't) shows more than beating a weak NJIT team. Losing by 20 to Stanford is the closest any mid-major has been to them this year. No bonus points for that BUT it does show the gap between a Stanford and a good mid-major is huge and we were closer than others. And believe it or not, we were about right in line with the Notre Dame loss compared to other mid-majors they beat. I don't say that to say it's ok to lose like that. It's not. Losing to other competitive mid-majors like FGCU, Middle Tennessee St, and UALR hurt a lot more than a big loss at Notre Dame.

[Southeast]

Re: 2013 - 2014 schedule

This is a tough issue and you can easily make arguments for either side. I agree that "the next step" involves winning a game or two at the NCAA Tourney. The odds of getting one of those wins with a 12+ seed are incredibly low. Continually winning the Summit and making an appearance in the NCAA is awesome, but I wonder where it leads us. Can anyone claim that fan interest in SDSU WBB is up compared to 5 years ago? Can we really say that playing these tough
OOC schedules has made us well prepared for the NCAA tourament? We've had double-digit losses there since 2009. I wonder how trading out three or four BCS-type teams for beatable mid-majors would affect things.

In the last 20 years:
- only ONE #16, #15, or #14 seed has ever won a game in the tournament (vs 24 in MBB).
- only six #13 seeds have won a game (vs 17 in MBB).
- only 17 #12 seeds have won a game (vs 31 in MBB). Only two of those 17 went on to win a second game.

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: 2013 - 2014 schedule

This is a tough issue and you can easily make arguments for either side. I agree that "the next step" involves winning a game or two at the NCAA Tourney. The odds of getting one of those wins with a 12+ seed are incredibly low. Continually winning the Summit and making an appearance in the NCAA is awesome, but I wonder where it leads us. Can anyone claim that fan interest in SDSU WBB is up compared to 5 years ago? Can we really say that playing these tough
OOC schedules has made us well prepared for the NCAA tourament? We've had double-digit losses there since 2009. I wonder how trading out three or four BCS-type teams for beatable mid-majors would affect things.

In the last 20 years:
- only ONE #16, #15, or #14 seed has ever won a game in the tournament (vs 24 in MBB).
- only six #13 seeds have won a game (vs 17 in MBB).
- only 17 #12 seeds have won a game (vs 31 in MBB). Only two of those 17 went on to win a second game.

Yes. Yes. Yes!

We're stuck in a rut. Damn good, but haven't taken the next step.

Our fan interest is not even close to what it was 5 years ago. Look at the Penn St. game this year. We get a top 15 women's team into Frost and the attendance is 1,713! That's pathetic. People are getting used to where we are. Need to give them something else to be excited about.

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: 2013 - 2014 schedule

Losing to other competitive mid-majors like FGCU, Middle Tennessee St, and UALR hurt a lot more than a big loss at Notre Dame.

Absolutely correct. Those losses hurt.

Notre Dame and Stanford are at a different level.

[OldHare]

Re: 2013 - 2014 schedule

The 2008-09 year included Oregon, Missouri, Wisconsin, Utah, Maryland, Illinois, Montana, Minnesota, Gonzaga, UC Davis, Valpo, and UNI for the OOC schedule. 2 of those games were against Top 25. They lost 1 OOC game to Maryland. The Jackrabbits had maybe a 7 seed that year?? Even though this year was tougher opponents, I do not see why you want cupcakes on the schedule since the selection people may penalize a team for having too many easy games and even more if you are upset by a cupcake. The competition is more now than 10 years ago in the women's game. 2008-09 was not a great year for the Summit past ORU and Oakland women. The Jackrabbits handled most of those teams easily. The #7 seed was earned for the OOC schedule and results. The Summit is always going to get tough games in the tournament. Even in the year of #7 seed we had TCU and Baylor back to back.

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: 2013 - 2014 schedule

The 2008-09 year included Oregon, Missouri, Wisconsin, Utah, Maryland, Illinois, Montana, Minnesota, Gonzaga, UC Davis, Valpo, and UNI for the OOC schedule. 2 of those games were against Top 25. They lost 1 OOC game to Maryland. The Jackrabbits had maybe a 7 seed that year?? Even though this year was tougher opponents, I do not see why you want cupcakes on the schedule since the selection people may penalize a team for having too many easy games and even more if you are upset by a cupcake. The competition is more now than 10 years ago in the women's game. 2008-09 was not a great year for the Summit past ORU and Oakland women. The Jackrabbits handled most of those teams easily. The #7 seed was earned for the OOC schedule and results. The Summit is always going to get tough games in the tournament. Even in the year of #7 seed we had TCU and Baylor back to back.

That 08-09 team was special. No one is arguing that fact. We just aren't as good as that team right now. Four teams from the list above made the tourney that year. This year, we may see 6 teams from our OOC schedule make the dance (ND, Stanford, Penn State, MTSU, ULAR, and Florida Gulf Coast). Had the 08-09 team played this schedule, I'm guessing they probably would have had more than 1 loss.

Maybe it's not entirely fair to compare to the 08-09 team, but our women's program has at best plateaued since then (you could argue it's regressed slightly). Both in on-court success and fan support (I bet if you look the average attendance numbers have dropped). I don't like that. We can do better. Winning the Summit is awesome and I'm happy when it happens, but I'm tired of getting our tails handed to us in the first round of the tourney because we are playing a top 10ish team.

The bottom line is we need a better seed.

I can assure you we didn't do ourselves any favors with our OOC performance this year when it comes to tourney seeding. Sure we beat Penn St, but we can whipped by our peers. So what did the schedule gain us?

[jackdaniel]

Re: 2013 - 2014 schedule

[QUOTE=JamesJacks
Losing to other competitive mid-majors like FGCU, Middle Tennessee St, and UALR hurt a lot more than a big loss at Notre Dame.[/QUOTE]

Agree completely,but it's my contention,these being either away or neutral site games is why.
We have to figure out why we play well at home, but lousy on the road.Don't get me wrong, i know its tougher to win on the road,but we are getting blown out,with no chance of winning.Tough teams I know,but we should be able to contest the game at least.

[OldHare]

Re: 2013 - 2014 schedule

I agree that the OOC did not gain any points in the seeding category. However, if we win MTSU or UALR or BYU-then we could have been in the light for higher seeding. Winning cures the problem. Winning against the cupcakes does not improve our seeding when SOS is involved either.
In response to attendance(support), the fans have dropped off. I would guess that we had another record season ticket sales, but that does not translate into rumps in the chair. Many of those fans missing are the students. The athletic department may need to get into action to draw some students back to the games. Last year the men had a bump with better student involvement as Nate brought attention to the team. When you have 12,000 students and less than 100 or 50 students make the game, that is a hard thing to understand.

[SanDakotaState]

Re: 2013 - 2014 schedule

That 08-09 team was special. No one is arguing that fact. We just aren't as good as that team right now. Four teams from the list above made the tourney that year. This year, we may see 6 teams from our OOC schedule make the dance (ND, Stanford, Penn State, MTSU, ULAR, and Florida Gulf Coast). Had the 08-09 team played this schedule, I'm guessing they probably would have had more than 1 loss.

Maybe it's not entirely fair to compare to the 08-09 team, but our women's program has at best plateaued since then (you could argue it's regressed slightly). Both in on-court success and fan support (I bet if you look the average attendance numbers have dropped). I don't like that. We can do better. Winning the Summit is awesome and I'm happy when it happens, but I'm tired of getting our tails handed to us in the first round of the tourney because we are playing a top 10ish team.

The bottom line is we need a better seed.

I can assure you we didn't do ourselves any favors with our OOC performance this year when it comes to tourney seeding. Sure we beat Penn St, but we can whipped by our peers. So what did the schedule gain us?

Experience, what we need to work on, publicity, recruiting, etc...

I would rather play a schedule like this every year than a schedule with a some tough opponents and some cupcake teams. Good teams challenge there team with tough schedules year in and year out. Who cares if you get blown out by the #2 team in the nation. There is a big gap between top 10 teams in women basketball and the rest of the field. If we did beat MT, UALR, FGC, BYU, and Creighton you could make an argument that we could get a top 10 seed in the Big Dance. I will even go out on a limb and say a couple more wins would have got us a top 10 seed (assuming we only end up with a couple loses in conference). SDSU women have dominated the Summit because of the schedule they play and the experience they get in big time games during the ooc schedule. A good majority of the Summit League Championship games have came down to wire and SDSU pulls it off every time because of the experience they have gained.

[bigticket1]

Re: 2013 - 2014 schedule

That 08-09 team was special. No one is arguing that fact. We just aren't as good as that team right now. Four teams from the list above made the tourney that year. This year, we may see 6 teams from our OOC schedule make the dance (ND, Stanford, Penn State, MTSU, ULAR, and Florida Gulf Coast). Had the 08-09 team played this schedule, I'm guessing they probably would have had more than 1 loss.

Maybe it's not entirely fair to compare to the 08-09 team, but our women's program has at best plateaued since then (you could argue it's regressed slightly). Both in on-court success and fan support (I bet if you look the average attendance numbers have dropped). I don't like that. We can do better. Winning the Summit is awesome and I'm happy when it happens, but I'm tired of getting our tails handed to us in the first round of the tourney because we are playing a top 10ish team.

The bottom line is we need a better seed.

I can assure you we didn't do ourselves any favors with our OOC performance this year when it comes to tourney seeding. Sure we beat Penn St, but we can whipped by our peers. So what did the schedule gain us?

The bottom line is that whatever team represents the Summit will always fall into that 12-14 seed area unless they have a "magical" season against a strong schedule like that 08-9 team did. Why ? Because the Summit is ranked as the 16th best conference in the NCAA. Look at the current Sagarin rankings for the conference - SDSU-84; IUPUI-110 ; USD-149 ;IPFW-189 ; WIU-201 ; UNO-258 ;NDSU-259 and Denver-265. And adding ORU back into the mix isn't going to help. I was shocked to see they have a 1-10 record and a 293 ranking , lower than any team currently in the Summit.

[jackdaniel]

Re: 2013 - 2014 schedule

Regarding seeding,there are 16 seeds,four teams per seed, the top 25 ranked teams get in one way or the other(taking seeds 1-6 basically),winning their conf or getting at large.You could probably go right down the poll ranking list or RPI list for all but the spots they have to reserve for Conference champs.I'm getting wordy,but basically,if you are a 10 seed for example,you are supposedly better than the other 6 seeds seeded below you (24 teams).

Seeding for really bad RPI Conference champs and Conferences is always low.Where we fit in the scheme of things is really a culmination of a lot of variables,that change from yr to yr.We always get the lower seed because we don't elevate our position,so consequently we get the 13,14 seed it seems.I trust AJ to do what it takes to see us get better,and get better seeds,if we are fortunate enough to keep winning the Conf seed(Championship).

Ther are 25 Conference champs getting a auto bid to seed,excluding the 5 BCS conf champs(ranked team usually wins conf),the Amer Ath conf (UConn) and WCC (Gonzaga,if they are still ranked and win Conf Championship) Thats roughly seeds 16-11.This is our pool basically,the teams we are competeing against (all mid-majors)for basically an 11 seed as the top prize ,unless we are a ranked team or an at large selection.Only then will our team get seeded higher than 11th seed.There might be some slight shuffling,but this is the rough draft.


The rest of the at- larges take the middle ground (four seeds) because they are actually picked by the committee to be better than the bottom 6 seeds ,and not as good as the top six seeds.Just about all BCS Conf teamsWhen we get picked 13 0r 14 seed,we are ,in the eyes of the committee, a better team than 12 Conf Champions,and equal to three (13 seed) and better than 8 Conf Champions,and equal to three (14 seed).

Right now,there are 12 potential Conf Champions in the mid-major poll ranked higher than us.That means we're last out as a 13 seed,at a 14 seed drawing a #3 ( 2-4 are top 10 teams....yikes) for the tournament...figures.Thats if we stay where we are at #19.

We have to hope for lower RPI teams to upset the favorites,or some teams elevate themselves into AP rankings.This assumes that all 12 mid majors ahead of us have indeed a higher RPI,and they don't create room for us to creap up,should they falter.We have to hope for some luck .

To avoid the top 10 ranked teams, we only have to avoid the 16,15 , and half (if we're lucky) 14 seed.We've done that.Trouble is,the three , four (?) seeds are beating us anyway.(South Car last yr ,a #3 seed)

Sometimes,the seeding doesn't quite seem to fit ,like they have the 64 pieces out of order somewhat ( I know,they've expanded the tournament to ?? teams ?).That said,it's a tough job and you are always going to have detractors to their (the selection committee) decisions.

The bold is true every year,that's it in a nutshell.

Bcs conferences get all tournament seeds except those bottom 11-16 seeds,unless a mid -major gets ranked,or has high enough RPI and good quality wins enough to be picked as an at-large selection.The mid-major poll is very important,because that's our competition to escape the dreaded 16-13 seeds.

[JackrabbitGuy]

Re: 2013 - 2014 schedule

Experience, what we need to work on, publicity, recruiting, etc...

I would rather play a schedule like this every year than a schedule with a some tough opponents and some cupcake teams. Good teams challenge there team with tough schedules year in and year out. Who cares if you get blown out by the #2 team in the nation. There is a big gap between top 10 teams in women basketball and the rest of the field. If we did beat MT, UALR, FGC, BYU, and Creighton you could make an argument that we could get a top 10 seed in the Big Dance. I will even go out on a limb and say a couple more wins would have got us a top 10 seed (assuming we only end up with a couple loses in conference). SDSU women have dominated the Summit because of the schedule they play and the experience they get in big time games during the ooc schedule. A good majority of the Summit League Championship games have came down to wire and SDSU pulls it off every time because of the experience they have gained.

Totally agree. The program can't get strive to get to that level one day by talking about it and wishing it to happen. They have to continue to play this type of competition and have the players, coaches, etc begin to measure themselves against that level year in and year out. We can be the best in the Summit League, but that is as far as we can ever go without a higher goal for which to strive. We may always have trouble playing teams in the top 5 in the nation, but we certainly won't stand a chance if we wait until the NCAA tournament and meet a team of that caliber then.

I applaud the schedule and hope that they keep playing the highest level teams available each and every year.

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: 2013 - 2014 schedule

Experience, what we need to work on, publicity, recruiting, etc...

I would rather play a schedule like this every year than a schedule with a some tough opponents and some cupcake teams. Good teams challenge there team with tough schedules year in and year out. Who cares if you get blown out by the #2 team in the nation. There is a big gap between top 10 teams in women basketball and the rest of the field. If we did beat MT, UALR, FGC, BYU, and Creighton you could make an argument that we could get a top 10 seed in the Big Dance. I will even go out on a limb and say a couple more wins would have got us a top 10 seed (assuming we only end up with a couple loses in conference). SDSU women have dominated the Summit because of the schedule they play and the experience they get in big time games during the ooc schedule. A good majority of the Summit League Championship games have came down to wire and SDSU pulls it off every time because of the experience they have gained.

I never said anything about getting blown out by Notre Dame and I completely understand the gap between the top 10ish teams in WCBB and the rest of the field. That's my point. We need to stay away from them in the first round of the tourney. If we want exposure that's where were gonna get it.....winning some games! Finishing 9-7 OOC isn't going to help us do that, especially if you consider that 4 of those losses were to fellow mid-majors and we didn't compete in any of those games.

There has to be some balance to the schedule.

I'm not sure you can attribute our OOC schedule to winning the Summit. Maybe we win the Summit because we are just better than the other teams. I don't think you can definitively say we win the Summit because of the OOC schedule we play.