brian5562 wrote:Gee I don't know got us on TV one more time and put some more money in the program.

How did getting run out of the building in the 2nd half, due to many factors, help our public image?? I'll agree, it helped us monitarily, but it did NOTHING for our image.

NibleyAg wrote:

brian5562 wrote:Barnes is the reason we even played Georgetown. Barnes gets that football is the money maker and has done a lot to improve the program.

Yes we are all pissed about the 12 seed and yes we are all pissed we aren't im the MWC yet, but USU sports are better then they were a year ago.

Funny example, what good did playing Georgetown do?

The real question is what if we had beat Georgetown...Where would we be??? Answer: In a much better spot than now..

Have to actually play them to beat them...Just Sayin...

NibleyAg wrote:Does anybody know the make-up of the selection committee. It was my impression that there were as many mid-majors being represented as major colleges. If this is the case, then Mr. Barnes & the other mid-major representatives totally & unequivically (I can't express myself w/o swearing) screwed up! Should have got the message to all members how hard it is to get a home game, and thus a win, versus a top tier team. No home opportunities = few victories. Is this hard to understand and get the message across? I don't think so.

This is exactly why I want to hear from him. Does anyone know when his next speaking engagement is?

bigbluebaby wrote:

NibleyAg wrote:

brian5562 wrote:Barnes is the reason we even played Georgetown. Barnes gets that football is the money maker and has done a lot to improve the program.

Yes we are all pissed about the 12 seed and yes we are all pissed we aren't im the MWC yet, but USU sports are better then they were a year ago.

Funny example, what good did playing Georgetown do?

The real question is what if we had beat Georgetown...Where would we be??? Answer: In a much better spot than now..

Have to actually play them to beat them...Just Sayin...

What are the percentages of winning a game like that? I would say very small, yet it does provide another loss for the committee to use to keep USU out.

dyedblue wrote:I would pay money to have had Mr. Barnes walk back into the room, see the 12 seed, and turn to the blowhard from Ohio State and say, "that is chicken (I can't express myself without swearing)! If you want us to schedule up then will you play us home and home next year?"

Schedule is such a cop out when it comes to seeding. The big boys know that it is impossible for a non-BCS school to create a great schedule and still have success.

We must be twins. I'd have paid to see that too!

Nibley, here's the selection committee, complete w/ contact info:

http://www.bracketography.com/selection-committee/

I just don't understand how ad's from utsa and uc-riverside and the big west commish wouldn't have been batting for us while Barnes was out of the room.

You know it was probably hard for Barnes to talk with his arms tied behind his back and his mouth duct taped shut and strapped down to a chair.

All he could probably do is nod his head up and down or side to side..

Then when the restraints finally came off he probably thought they were still talking about USU but it was BYU and he Yelled " A 3 Seed!!!! Heck Yea!!!!! Lets Do it!!!

NibleyAg wrote:

bigbluebaby wrote:

NibleyAg wrote:Funny example, what good did playing Georgetown do?

The real question is what if we had beat Georgetown...Where would we be??? Answer: In a much better spot than now..

Have to actually play them to beat them...Just Sayin...

What are the percentages of winning a game like that? I would say very small, yet it does provide another loss for the committee to use to keep USU out.

I do not think that the Georgetown loss hurt us. I do not see us being 30-2 (without a loss to G-town) as being that much better than 30-3.

+1

Never going to hurt you much to get beat by an obviously great team in their house...It is expected...

But if you happen to win..Which eventually you will...You get the grand prize..A huge resume builder and momentum...

bigbluebaby wrote:+1

Never going to hurt you much to get beat by an obviously great team in their house...It is expected...

But if you happen to win..Which eventually you will...You get the grand prize..A huge resume builder and momentum...

USU's football team has been trying to repeat that feat since 1971 - and I submit that it hasn't done a thing for them. A long series of teams have played money games at USU for decades and I challenge you to find one who has beaten USU in Logan. There aren't any.

Sure, you have to play them to win them. And you have to be sitting outside under a tree for lightning to strike. I don't like either of those ideas.

dogie wrote:

bigbluebaby wrote:+1

Never going to hurt you much to get beat by an obviously great team in their house...It is expected...

But if you happen to win..Which eventually you will...You get the grand prize..A huge resume builder and momentum...

USU's football team has been trying to repeat that feat since 1971 - and I submit that it hasn't done a thing for them. A long series of teams have played money games at USU for decades and I challenge you to find one who has beaten USU in Logan. There aren't any.

Sure, you have to play them to win them. And you have to be sitting outside under a tree for lightning to strike. I don't like either of those ideas.

I am not sure what you are talking about. But I do know that you are comparing apples and oranges. Hard to compare football scheduling and basketball scheduling.

sorry dogie but I think that is such a crap attitude. Let's stay in the bubble of Logan so we don't get hurt.

I do not think that the Georgetown loss hurt us. I do not see us being 30-2 (without a loss to G-town) as being that much better than 30-3.

Unless, I am mistaken we would have potentially been 31-2 and it would have improved our top 100 win/loss average. I see no evidence of this game being a help to us, like many of the posters were saying both before & after the game.

NibleyAg wrote:

I do not think that the Georgetown loss hurt us. I do not see us being 30-2 (without a loss to G-town) as being that much better than 30-3.

Unless, I am mistaken we would have potentially been 31-2 and it would have improved our top 100 win/loss average. I see no evidence of this game being a help to us, like many of the posters were saying both before & after the game.

You are missing my point. Of course it would have helped us if we would have won. All I am saying is that the loss did not hurt us compared to not playing the game.

There is no guarantee that had we not played Georgetown that the opponent we would have played in their place would have been top 100. We could have ended up playing someone like Wyoming. I'd rather take the chance at Georgetown.

NibleyAg wrote:

brian5562 wrote:Gee I don't know got us on TV one more time and put some more money in the program.

How did getting run out of the building in the 2nd half, due to many factors, help our public image?? I'll agree, it helped us monitarily, but it did NOTHING for our image.

What image? No one knows who we are anyways. The Georgetown game is no brainer. If we win it's huge if we lose who cares nobody expected us to win. People keep talking like playing 1 big time program in the last 10 years will all of sudden work magic and we will get better seeding and instant recognition. We have to play a few every year to increase our odds of winning a few and that is how we will actually have an image to protect.

TrueAG wrote:

NibleyAg wrote:

brian5562 wrote:Gee I don't know got us on TV one more time and put some more money in the program.

How did getting run out of the building in the 2nd half, due to many factors, help our public image?? I'll agree, it helped us monitarily, but it did NOTHING for our image.

What image? No one knows who we are anyways. The Georgetown game is no brainer. If we win it's huge if we lose who cares nobody expected us to win. People keep talking like playing 1 big time program in the last 10 years will all of sudden work magic and we will get better seeding and instant recognition. We have to play a few every year to increase our odds of winning a few and that is how we will actually have an image to protect.

+10000

unfortunetly the image we have now is that we rack up wins against poor competion and it shows in March.

ProvoAggie wrote:There is no guarantee that had we not played Georgetown that the opponent we would have played in their place would have been top 100. We could have ended up playing someone like Wyoming. I'd rather take the chance at Georgetown.

Exactly, therefor if we had not scheduled Georgetown our net result would be 1 less top 100 loss.

Normally, I would agree with all of you guys and say schedule the big boyz & try to beat them. If you lose the committee will understand; however I will stick with my original arguement that it does NO GOOD. A freaking 12 seed!!!!!!

NibleyAg wrote:

ProvoAggie wrote:There is no guarantee that had we not played Georgetown that the opponent we would have played in their place would have been top 100. We could have ended up playing someone like Wyoming. I'd rather take the chance at Georgetown.

Exactly, therefor if we had not scheduled Georgetown our net result would be 1 less top 100 loss.

Normally, I would agree with all of you guys and say schedule the big boyz & try to beat them. If you lose the committee will understand; however I will stick with my original arguement that it does NO GOOD. A freaking 12 seed!!!!!!

Except had we not played Georgetown, our resume show 2 top 100 opponents on the schedule (BYU, LBSU) and a game we were forced into by the Bracket Buster. We'd be looking even more sheepish and probably get a 12 seed anyway. Our real problem is continuing the Gossner's Classic and missing out on the many preseason tournaments and celebrations going on across the country with opponents who strive to play post season games.

if Barnes was working the MWC angle he only really helped SDSU, UNLV I'm sure is pissed (although I'm not sure why, they didn't deserve the seed they got IMHO).

Does anyone know the financial gain for playing in the Gossners?

I don't see any major harm in playing one Georgetown-type game per year. Having said that, we played Georgetown this year. We had a team with six seniors that was believed to be one of our best teams in years. We got hammered. We ended up with a 12 seed anyway.

It drives me crazy the way people constantly complain about our schedule but almost no one has a realistic proposal to make things better. Do we play five Georgetown's every year? Most likely we end up with five losses, and we still have no quality wins on our resume. If a 30-3 team with few quality wins gets a 12 seed, do we really think that a 26-7 team with losses to numerous highly ranked opponents will do better? Sure, maybe we win one. So now we're 27-6 with one win against a highly ranked opponent... But now we're 3-6 against teams in the top 100 of the RPI. Is that really going to get us a better seed?

And if we don't schedule body bag games against the Georgetown's of the world, how do you propose to make our schedule better? Sure, scrapping the Gossners (or making it non-exempt) and playing in a better exempted tournament would be a good start, but that gives us maybe three games per year (if everything goes well). Then what? No coach who is interested in job security is going to play us in Logan, and most BCS programs won't even let us play a one-and-done on the road. Do we play a one-and-done game on the road against MVC or WCC schools (and hope they finish in the top 100 of the RPI)? Then how do we offset the revenue that we lost by giving up a home game? We need to increase our athletic budget if we want any hope of joining the MWC some day.

The bottom line is that there are no easy solutions. And I'm not sure what people hope to accomplish by constantly criticizing our coaching staff about this issue.

StanfordAggie wrote:I don't see any major harm in playing one Georgetown-type game per year. Having said that, we played Georgetown this year. We had a team with six seniors that was believed to be one of our best teams in years. We got hammered. We ended up with a 12 seed anyway.

It drives me crazy the way people constantly complain about our schedule but almost no one has a realistic proposal to make things better. Do we play five Georgetown's every year? Most likely we end up with five losses, and we still have no quality wins on our resume. If a 30-3 team with few quality wins gets a 12 seed, do we really think that a 26-7 team with losses to numerous highly ranked opponents will do better? Sure, maybe we win one. So now we're 27-6 with one win against a highly ranked opponent... But now we're 3-6 against teams in the top 100 of the RPI. Is that really going to get us a better seed?

And if we don't schedule body bag games against the Georgetown's of the world, how do you propose to make our schedule better? Sure, scrapping the Gossners (or making it non-exempt) and playing in a better exempted tournament would be a good start, but that gives us maybe three games per year (if everything goes well). Then what? No coach who is interested in job security is going to play us in Logan, and most BCS programs won't even let us play a one-and-done on the road. Do we play a one-and-done game on the road against MVC or WCC schools (and hope they finish in the top 100 of the RPI)? Then how do we offset the revenue that we lost by giving up a home game? We need to increase our athletic budget if we want any hope of joining the MWC some day.

The bottom line is that there are no easy solutions. And I'm not sure what people hope to accomplish by constantly criticizing our coaching staff about this issue.

There is only 1 way that I can think of & that was already completely botched by our AD & Prez: Get in a better conference. That is the only way. Period. It sucks, but it is what it is. 2 years from now the winner of the WAC will be penciled in as a 14 or 15 seed if they are lucky.

That is exactly the problem w/ scheduling those games Stanford. What happens to our RPI w/ 4-5 more losses too. I just don't see that 3-6 against top 100 helps either. The key is to win at least as many as we lose and, that isn't going to happen unless we get return games. If we could accurately predict 50-100 RPI teams then we'd have a better chance but, good luck with that. Where'd we expect NMSU and Nevada to be this year? We can't even count on our conference mates to finish where we expected. Had a couple of other WAC teams stepped it up this year we would have been fine.

I am hoping that the G-town game did one thing for us. I hope it is recent enough, combined w/ last years' tourney and the St. Mary's game to get the Ags to start the game ready to play. No spotting a lead.

Georgetown game

Positives:
Play a team with great basketball tradition
Play a team from a power conference
Have a chance to win and get noticed
Have your players play against better competition and see how they measure up
Fans excited you are playing a quality opponent. 3 games most people cared about BYU, St Marys, Georgetown
Players get to see the capital and hopefully some history they are students right
$94k

Negatives:
Lose to a quality opponent and take a notch off Stew's bed post


Not seeing a lot of negatives to playing this game. If you are a competitor you want to play against the best. Play 2-3 games like this a year. It adds excitement to the fan base. Helps recruiting and if you win a couple you will get noticed. You'll still have plenty of games to hit 25 wins and take the tour of Utah. Now ditch the Gossners and get into a decent tourney and you can build a strong resume.

First time I've been to the board in about 40 hours.... So just to verify.. We have still heard nothing from Barnes? At all? I'm mostly just curious as to his reaction when he came back in the room, and the justifications that the other members gave to him. This thread was not meant to blame Barnes, or incite scheduling philosophy discussions. I am just truly amazed that our AD was on the committee and we have heard zero from him about anything. I am very curious.

Not a word.

according to Eric Franson, the FCP tried to interview SB yesterday. SB declined.

Don't expect to hear anything publicly from barnes. I'm sure they don't want committee members discussing why their own team got a certain seed. They want to avoid any appearances of conflicts of interest. I'm sure he has already talked to stew about it and will spend more time in the future discussing it.

Well, let's look at this from Barnes' perspective: Let's say it is entirely a scheduling issue. And let's say he knows that he and his coach don't see eye to eye on this subject. And let's say that his coach is flirting with a school south of here that is possibly willing to double his salary. Would you want to come out and say, "USU got a bad said because they didn't like our scheduling philosophy?", knowing that you are basically throwing your coach under the bus? I wouldn't. I can definitely see where Barnes is coming from on this one... If the committee didn't like Stew's scheduling philosophy, then the smart move for Barnes would be to discuss it privately with Stew rather than potentially turning the fan base against the coach.

Barnes needs to Step up and Make a Statement PERIOD! Even if it is Simple and Non Informative.

But we as Fans deserve to know WTH is going on and We better figure out a way to get a better Seed. This Seed is the BIGGEST Slap in the face yet to USU B-ball. Best year in history as far as the rankings, RPI, etc...I Dont really mind the 12 seed, because we can win and our 2nd round match up is better than a 6-8 seed. IF Barnes and Stew cant figure out HOW to play the Game, Then we need new people, we are past making the Big Dance 1 time in 10 years, WE NOW NEED TO WIN in NCAA"s & Get a REAL Seed.
IT"S TIME TO MOVE TO THE NEXT LEVEL. Figure it out Barnes and STEW....

Conzaga has... How did they get a 11 seed in a weaker conference??? Played some people.

+1
Its time to give up the 30 win years and start playing some teams that will mean something. Not only to to the selection committee but to the fans and players. Beating UVU and W. Montana does nothing to help prepare for the tournament. Georgetown showed us what a real team is like. And if I hear Stew say that he was surprised by how physical K-state played us i am going to have a come a part. Ya a home and home would be nice but who in there right mind would come to Logan to play USU with the knowledge of our home court? Surely not Ohio St. this year, or any other team with something to lose.I would take 25 wins and 7 losses to teams that really matter than win 30 every year and get a 12 seed and have no real big time playing experience. Stew needs to play the games that matter reguardless if he gets his home and home.

Wow, are you people for real? I hope Stew doesn't read this thread, because if I were him and I saw this thread, I would call up Chris Hill tomorrow morning. Did you see the team's reaction when our seed was announced? You don't think that they were even more upset than we are? You don't think that Stew is more frustrated than anyone with the situation? As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks that we should get rid of Stew to try to improve our seeding is an absolute idiot. Any other coach that achieved half of his success in Logan would have left for a bigger payday years ago. I guess we can bring back Kohn Smith. We won't have to worry about our NCAA seeding then; we'll consider it a successful season if we finish above .500. Will that make you people happy? I bet you are the same types of people who complain that the deficit is too large but that taxes are too high and that your Social Security check is too small. It's really easy to complain about these types of problems but it's much harder to fix them, because every possible alternative has its own drawbacks. I think this season has shown that playing a few tougher teams and losing will not help our seeding. Figuring out a scheduling policy that will get us a better seed and will also give us enough revenue to make our budget will be a very challenging task, and unless you can figure out a way to do it better than our coaching staff, I suggest you stop running your mouth.

bigbluebaby wrote:OK...so who is full of Crap here???

Door #1--The Voting Coaches (17th),,,The Voting Press (21st).. The RPI (as High as 15th)..Sagarain (The computer..around 25th) Whom all I assume take all of the variables into account..

or

Door #2--the distinguished committee of 12 sweaty dudes from big conferences in a room drinkin Beer..


"I'll Take Door #1 as the legitimate option bob" "for a 7th seed please!!"

I'll take number 2. As Barnes explained they start meeting months before the selection, and meet many times over. They put in tons of hour and when they interviewed Barnes about being a rookie to the committee and what he thought of it he said it was 'more time consuming than I thought'. They evaluate every single win and loss by each team.

The AP polls, etc. basically just look at who did what the prior week.

Still, what annoys me is how they care about RPI when evaluating wins (top 50 wins, top 100 wins), but then don't care when evaluating a specific teams RPI (which told them we should be a 4 seed)

Seeding isn't as important to get right to the committee as it is to set the field and get the top 3 or 4 seeds in each region right. I think our seed fell due to other factors that we had no control over. In the end, the committee wants to crown a national champion, not worry about getting USU's seed correct. We are a good team and good teams win tourney games. We need to go out and earn respect, then we will get those 7 and 8 seeds when we don't deserve them.

StanfordAggie wrote:Wow, are you people for real? I hope Stew doesn't read this thread, because if I were him and I saw this thread, I would call up Chris Hill tomorrow morning.

I am going to assume that Stew does not make career decisions based on what is said on this board.