Death of the MTE?

[SFspidur]

Proposal to go to a flat 32-game schedule limit. The big guys have fewer and fewer reasons to play the little/medium guys.

Men’s and Women’s Basketball Oversight Committees propose 32-game maximum contest limits - NCAA.org

The Division I Men's and Women's Basketball Oversight Committees on Tuesday proposed legislation for basketball seasons to have a 32-game maximum contest limit.

www.ncaa.org

 

[8legs1dream]

let's just go ahead and get rid of the non-conference altogether outside of the strategic "P5 vs P5 battle" showcases that's what these greedy bastards want eventually anyway. Rip the bandaid off.

 

[SpiderTrap]

I think under this proposal - the MTE still exists as too much money involved in some of these events - like Maui and other big names, but it will definitely eliminate the majority of them for smaller and mid-major teams. This will put pressure on conferences to align with other conferences for annual matchups.

 

[SFspidur]

How can the Maui Invitational in Lahaina Civic Center that seats 2,400 plus all of the associated travel expenses with getting to Hawaii be more lucrative than a home game or marquee neutral site game in a big-time arena in a major city that could draw 10,000+?

About the only reason these MTEs exist is because they allow you to play more games.

 

[GKiller]

How can the Maui Invitational in Lahaina Civic Center that seats 2,400 plus all of the associated travel expenses with getting to Hawaii be more lucrative than a home game or marquee neutral site game in a big-time arena in a major city that could draw 10,000+?

About the only reason these MTEs exist is because they allow you to play more games.

With the Maui Invitational returning to its scenic Lahaina home, questions emerge about tournament's future

In a time of big economic changes in college athletics, the Maui tournament may be forced to change later this decade if it wants to keep getting the biggest schools

www.cbssports.com

 

[SpiderTrap]

I was thinking more lucrative for the location, not the school. Think Maui invitational - its tourism dollars for them and the city that holds the event. 8 teams - each bringing about 20-30 players and staff, depending on the team and school. Then - because this is such an event - you have alumni and families attending, lets say 50 people per school decide to go. So right there alone - you have an estimated 500 people coming to stay, and half of them staying on athletic budget - which means no expense spared on hotels, meals, activities, etc.

Plus - from a coaching and team perspective, an argument could be made in the transfer portal era - these types of intensive trips, play 2-3 games in 3-4 days, away from home, staying and travelling as a team - is vital to help a team full of transfers bond together and come together early in the season.

 

[SFspidur]

To pull out the relevant bit:

There is a catch to the glamour and prestige of a Maui invite: Schools lose a lot of money for the opportunity to play on a huge stage in a small gym. Sources that played both in this year's tournament and have played in previous versions all said the price is easily north of $400,000, with some schools putting the cost well above $450,000 when taking charter flights into account.

"When you compare it to three games elsewhere with guarantees or [home game revenue], when you put it in that context, the disparity is enormous," one source said.

The bill also includes hotel rooms, meals, on-site events and ticket packages the athletic departments have to sell to fans, which schools pay for in advance. Universities don't recoup that money. Nobody that plays in the Maui Invitational winds up coming close to breaking even.

In a day when they're having to share millions of dollars of revenue with the athletes, what is the benefit for schools to continue losing money on this? Play somewhere closer to home where you can line your pockets with cash.

 

[SFspidur]

Meanwhile, after expanding to 18 teams next season, the Players Era event is looking to grow to 32 teams in 2026. St. Joe's managed to get into the field for next year, but otherwise it's all big boys...this is what will happen when MTEs cease to be a thing.

No more restrictions on conference representation or frequency of participation in any given event, and no scheduling bonuses. Just big boys getting together to play each other in major arenas for NIL payouts. Most A-10-level schools will be lucky to get a nibble once in a blue moon.

Players Era Festival intends on expanding to 32 teams in 2026 to create 'November madness' tournament event

The NIL-based event already includes the likes of Alabama, Auburn, Gonzaga, Houston, Kansas, Michigan, St. John's, Tennessee and many more

www.cbssports.com

 

[plydogg]

Meanwhile, after expanding to 18 teams next season, the Players Era event is looking to grow to 32 teams in 2026. St. Joe's managed to get into the field for next year, but otherwise it's all big boys...this is what will happen when MTEs cease to be a thing.

No more restrictions on conference representation or frequency of participation in any given event, and no scheduling bonuses. Just big boys getting together to play each other in major arenas for NIL payouts. Most A-10-level schools will be lucky to get a nibble once in a blue moon.

Players Era Festival intends on expanding to 32 teams in 2026 to create 'November madness' tournament event

The NIL-based event already includes the likes of Alabama, Auburn, Gonzaga, Houston, Kansas, Michigan, St. John's, Tennessee and many more

www.cbssports.com

I would absolutely LOVE one of these that is 16 or 32 of the best mid-majors. I have zero interest in watching a bunch of football schools fight it out. But I would watch every game of a “best of the best” mid-major MTE

 

[spider23]

I would absolutely LOVE one of these that is 16 or 32 of the best mid-majors. I have zero interest in watching a bunch of football schools fight it out. But I would watch every game of a “best of the best” mid-major MTE

Good idea Ply. You see the middle major top 25 polls on Twitter. Get together and play preseason event.

 

[Gallipoli]

Meanwhile, after expanding to 18 teams next season, the Players Era event is looking to grow to 32 teams in 2026. St. Joe's managed to get into the field for next year, but otherwise it's all big boys...this is what will happen when MTEs cease to be a thing.

No more restrictions on conference representation or frequency of participation in any given event, and no scheduling bonuses. Just big boys getting together to play each other in major arenas for NIL payouts. Most A-10-level schools will be lucky to get a nibble once in a blue moon.

Players Era Festival intends on expanding to 32 teams in 2026 to create 'November madness' tournament event

The NIL-based event already includes the likes of Alabama, Auburn, Gonzaga, Houston, Kansas, Michigan, St. John's, Tennessee and many more

www.cbssports.com

Are they planning to share the revenue of the event with players? It wasn't clear from the article.

 

[SFspidur]

Are they planning to share the revenue of the event with players? It wasn't clear from the article.

Presumably, since that's the model they're using now. Each team in this year's event got $1 million toward NIL.

 

[GKiller]

I would absolutely LOVE one of these that is 16 or 32 of the best mid-majors. I have zero interest in watching a bunch of football schools fight it out. But I would watch every game of a “best of the best” mid-major MTE

but would u love it more than mid major vs. major?

 

[MrTbone]

I really enjoyed our MTE this season featuring low major D1 and D2 competition. Super compelling.

 

[GKiller]

I really enjoyed our MTE this season featuring low major D1 and D2 competition. Super compelling.

sources: we got Lunardi working on this

 

[plydogg]

but would u love it more than mid major vs. major?

I personally would, I’m so sick of the P5 whistle taking over those games. I’m way more interested in seeing two good mid majors than a good mid major vs some mediocre P5 team that we’re told is good despite going 5-13 in conference

 

[spiderman]

I'd always rather play the major but it's becoming difficult to get that game ... at least for us.

 

[SpiderTrap]

Its a good model and one that could be followed on the mid-major level. The issue is scheduling and knowing the top mid-major teams. Because of the roster turnover - mid-majors are the hardest to predict. At least with the bigger schools, the name alone - even if the team is not very good - will carry some weight. Take for instance Drake. Very good team this year. Lots of transfers that made that happen. But they just lost their coach, and likely will lose a lot of players as well. Will they be a top mid-major team next year - who knows?

Robert Morris - very solid season, and almost pulled off the 15-2 upset. Already two of their best players have entered the portal, will they be good next year? Will their success attract players to transfer to Robert Morris. Maybe - but who knows.

Point being - you run the risk of having a 16 team tourney and only 4-5 of the teams end up being any good.

Same could happen with a tourney of all major teams, but less concern there because even if Iowa and Nebraska turn out to not be very good - those are two big schools, with big fanbases, and money will follow. And not to mention, there computer numbers don't suffer as much because in their league - they play good competition.

 

[GKiller]

I personally would, I’m so sick of the P5 whistle taking over those games. I’m way more interested in seeing two good mid majors than a good mid major vs some mediocre P5 team that we’re told is good despite going 5-13 in conference

less whistle at neutral. I'm definitely not. we already play 90% of schedule against mids as it is. 97% last year. I think that is the mindset the majors want...ppl being ok just playing & beating up each other...sort of like FCS.

 

[spiderstudent17]

I wonder if Bernadette has had difficulty just calling the commissioners of the MWC, new Pac-12, WCC, AAC, & MVC and having an agreement that A10 teams will play at least 1 team from each of those conferences a year. Strong mid major conferences have to work together to get better games.

 

[SpiderTrap]

I wonder if Bernadette has had difficulty just calling the commissioners of the MWC, new Pac-12, WCC, AAC, & MVC and having an agreement that A10 teams will play at least 1 team from each of those conferences a year. Strong mid major conferences have to work together to get better games.

I think this is the way mid-majors need to go. Have these conference to conference matchups. These games can even be scheduled after a few games into the season to gauge who is good and where the matchups should be.

I also like with these coaching changes and have seen this put into contracts - that if the coach leaves, part of the buyout is to schedule a game with their new school. So like Odom going to UVA, - UVA now has to schedule VCU in the next year or two (or likely pay a hefty buyout). If your successful and coaches keep moving up - its an easy way to secure a game or two.

 

[plydogg]

less whistle at neutral. I'm definitely not. we already play 90% of schedule against mids as it is. 97% last year. I think that is the mindset the majors want...ppl being ok just playing & beating up each other...sort of like FCS.

I’m 100% with you that we need to schedule against P5. This convo wasn’t about who we schedule, just about what I would rather watch.

I’m saying if there was a P5 tourney and a mid-major tourney on at the same time I’m not tuning into one single P5 game and I’m watching all the mid-major games I can (also this hypothetical tournament doesn’t even exist).

I don’t watch any P5 basketball unless it’s a Richmond game (or LSU this year to see Dji). P5 basketball is, to me, the least interesting thing on tv. That includes the Property brothers and Mesothelioma commercials. I just have zero interest in watching it since the NIL era started.

 

[spiderman]

I like the idea of a 16 or 32 team "best mid majors" tournament ... but we wouldn't be invited right now.

the high majors play among themselves (going .500) and play against lesser teams (going like .900). that works.

mid majors all try to schedule high majors, and as a group we go like .200. that's the problem. in theory, most MM's should just play other MM's (going .500) and lesser teams (winning .800).

nobody would agree to it, but unless you're a team projected near the top 4 of the A10, you shouldn't schedule a HM. that's a loss. if I was A10 commissioner, I'd only want VCU, Dayton regularly playing the HM teams (and this year Loyola and Mason ... may SLU and SJU). those teams fight the good fight. the rest should schedule like UR did, minus the Auburn game.

 

[97spiderfan]

nobody would agree to it, but unless you're a team projected near the top 4 of the A10, you shouldn't schedule a HM. that's a loss. if I was A10 commissioner, I'd only want VCU, Dayton regularly playing the HM teams (and this year Loyola and Mason ... may SLU and SJU). those teams fight the good fight. the rest should schedule like UR did, minus the Auburn game.

Wait, what? This is not how you schedule in the era of the NET. If everyone schedules like us except the Top 4, your gonna have 10 teams with NETS in the high 100's or in 200's which will then bring down your Top 4 during conference play.

 

[spiderman]

Wait, what? This is not how you schedule in the era of the NET. If everyone schedules like us except the Top 4, your gonna have 10 teams with NETS in the high 100's or in 200's which will then bring down your Top 4 during conference play.

you need wins, 97.
Fordham getting killed by St John's doesn't help anyone's NET.
Richmond getting killed by Auburn doesn't help.
LaSalle getting killed by UNC.
Davidson getting killed by Arizona and Gonzaga.
UMASS getting killed by FSU.
etc ...
bad teams being the sacrificial lambs to high-majors isn't working.

 

[GKiller]

Wait, what? This is not how you schedule in the era of the NET. If everyone schedules like us except the Top 4, your gonna have 10 teams with NETS in the high 100's or in 200's which will then bring down your Top 4 during conference play.

well those top 4 would have to blow out the A10 teams. but gaming the A10 will not work. Our mid to bad teams lose easy OOC games too. That's not stopping. some league wide system doesn't work on A10 level. the teams and budgets r so different. u r better off scheduling hard for yourself. or all A10 teams scheduling hard and just hope a few come of it well. that would actually be best way for a10 imo.

but i don't care what others do. I care about what we do. who wants to play a lousy schedule. not the players not the fans. well most fans a few like sman and student17 want to play weak schedules w bad teams I guess.

our only way into ncaa at large access is hard. only way it's ever been, only way I expect it to continue. unless if they expand ncaa field a fair amount.

 

[plydogg]

you need wins, 97.
Fordham getting killed by St John's doesn't help anyone's NET.
Richmond getting killed by Auburn doesn't help.
LaSalle getting killed by UNC.
Davidson getting killed by Arizona and Gonzaga.
UMASS getting killed by FSU.
etc ...
bad teams being the sacrificial lambs to high-majors isn't working.

I think for a lot of these schools it’s about the money that comes from that game. It isn’t working for their NET, but it is working for their bottom line and I’m sure that’s what’s driving that part of their scheduling.

 

[97spiderfan]

you need wins, 97.
Fordham getting killed by St John's doesn't help anyone's NET.
Richmond getting killed by Auburn doesn't help.
LaSalle getting killed by UNC.
Davidson getting killed by Arizona and Gonzaga.
UMASS getting killed by FSU.
etc ...
bad teams being the sacrificial lambs to high-majors isn't working.

You can look at the NET and see teams like College of Charlestown or Central Conn. State who did exactly this and their NETS are 150 and 168, despite winning 20 plus games.

So then you have your top 4 having to play 10 teams in conference with NET's that are all Quad 3 and Quad 4 games. So, they have no where to go but down.

Scheduling easy is not the solution to anyone's problems and will ensure that the A-10 is one bid league going forward, because we will look exactly like other 1 bid leagues in our NET rankings.

I would tell all of those schools above that you mentioned to improve their damn programs. You are in the A-10 not the Patriot League so if you are getting killed by P5 schools, that is a "you" problem, fix it. Fordham and LaSalle are at least trying by replacing coaches who got them in those positions in the first place.

 

[gcarter52]

Bad mouthing is school doesn’t help us getting top tier recruits. I hope he wants to come home to finish his career!

 

[mr.spider]

I guess this is just one step closer to the "fcs" split. Once that happens, which may be sooner than later, I can be done with sports forever.

I'm only hanging by a thread at this point anyway since money rather than school merits and pride are mostly driving everything now.

Rousell keeps me interested because he represents our university so well and keeps team spirit & Spider pride up.

 

[spiderstudent17]

you need wins, 97.
Fordham getting killed by St John's doesn't help anyone's NET.
Richmond getting killed by Auburn doesn't help.
LaSalle getting killed by UNC.
Davidson getting killed by Arizona and Gonzaga.
UMASS getting killed by FSU.
etc ...
bad teams being the sacrificial lambs to high-majors isn't working.

Agree completely. Will add that the alternative of us not playing Auburn and losing by 50 isn’t to then schedule all Q4s but finding a right balance of playing teams where we will have a good record and also finding the Q1/2 games that are more winnable. Both Auburn and Cincinnati would’ve been Q1 this year neutral or away. One of those teams would’ve been a lot easier to potentially beat than the other.

 

[spiderman]

a few like sman and student17 want to play weak schedules w bad teams I guess.

not saying that. I want a tougher schedule too. it's hard to get HM's to play us, but I want to. it's absolutely more fun as a fan.

I said "if I was A10 Commissioner". maybe it's not just the top 4, but scheduling the losses I mentioned above certainly isn't working. we're a good league ... 7th best. but we're a 1 bid league this year. we're actually a 1 bid league most years if the #1 team doesn't lose in the A10 tournament. heck, GMU went 15-3 in conference and wasn't close. playing Marquette and Duke didn't help them.

 

[mr.spider]

not saying that. I want a tougher schedule too. it's hard to get HM's to play us, but I want to. it's absolutely more fun as a fan.

I said "if I was A10 Commissioner". maybe it's not just the top 4, but scheduling the losses I mentioned above certainly isn't working. we're a good league ... 7th best. but we're a 1 bid league this year. we're actually a 1 bid league most years if the #1 team doesn't lose in the A10 tournament. heck, GMU went 15-3 in conference and wasn't close. playing Marquette and Duke didn't help them.

Heck, we won the league last year and didn't get in. So there's that.

 

[spiderstudent17]

I want an appropriately tough schedule. For us that means different scheduling than VCU would or how La Salle would schedule. You have to be strategic in scheduling and like sman mentioned and something I’ve been saying too, it doesn’t do us any good to play a bunch tough teams and get blown out. We can maybe schedule a couple of those a year, but you dial up/down the amount of those games each season relative to prior success and the team at hand. This doesn’t then mean go and schedule all Q4 and D2 teams, but striking that balance of getting a good record and playing tough competition. For me, it’s about 2 or so Q1 games and 2-3 or so Q2 games right now.

The difference between our men’s and women’s team is a great example. I would have no problem if our women’s team schedules next season all Q1/2 level games because we’ve shown that we can win those games. We lost to UCLA and Texas both 1 seeds in the tournament very respectably. We beat Ok State, Georgia Tech who were both ranked at some point. Barely lost to a ranked Alabama team and only Tennessee we lost pretty handedly. Even wins at Fairfield and Columbia which were Q1 high Q2. So knowing we’ve won those games and who we have returning next year I am in favor of a tough schedule. If we had this same level of difficulty with our men’s schedule this year we would’ve gone 0-13.

 

[spiderstudent17]

Scheduling easy is not the solution to anyone's problems and will ensure that the A-10 is one bid league going forward, because we will look exactly like other 1 bid leagues in our NET rankings.

What is your definition of scheduling tough and also scheduling easy? Perhaps we agree on this more than we disagree.

You can look at the NET and see teams like College of Charlestown or Central Conn. State who did exactly this and their NETS are 150 and 168, despite winning 20 plus games.

Those lower level conference are all going to be Q3/Q4 games so that will automatically lower the NET by the end of conference play. That’s why teams like that or JMU a few years ago still need to win their conference despite having a very good record. Unfortunately, the A10 might be heading that direction but it’s not completely lost yet. This year we had 3 Q1s and 5 Q2s in conference play. If we replicate that next year for in conference NET in addition to what I’m proposing which is about 2 Q1s OOC and 3 Q2s OOC that’ll be a total of 5 Q1s and 8 Q2s in the 2025-2026 schedule. We win 60+% of those Q1/Q2 games and have an otherwise good record, and we’re putting ourselves in a good position for an at-large. Doesn’t take scheduling all very tough teams. At-large chances = scheduling tough + winning the games.

 

[GKiller]

I want an appropriately tough schedule. For us that means different scheduling than VCU would or how La Salle would schedule. You have to be strategic in scheduling and like sman mentioned and something I’ve been saying too, it doesn’t do us any good to play a bunch tough teams and get blown out. We can maybe schedule a couple of those a year, but you dial up/down the amount of those games each season relative to prior success and the team at hand. This doesn’t then mean go and schedule all Q4 and D2 teams, but striking that balance of getting a good record and playing tough competition. For me, it’s about 2 or so Q1 games and 2-3 or so Q2 games right now.

The difference between our men’s and women’s team is a great example. I would have no problem if our women’s team schedules next season all Q1/2 level games because we’ve shown that we can win those games. We lost to UCLA and Texas both 1 seeds in the tournament very respectably. We beat Ok State, Georgia Tech who were both ranked at some point. Barely lost to a ranked Alabama team and only Tennessee we lost pretty handedly. Even wins at Fairfield and Columbia which were Q1 high Q2. So knowing we’ve won those games and who we have returning next year I am in favor of a tough schedule. If we had this same level of difficulty with our men’s schedule this year we would’ve gone 0-13.

 

[spider23]

I didn't even read all this. You need to schedule as best you can every single year, then it's the coaches job to get to that level most years. You really think we can pick and choose what level teams we play certain years?? Cmon. Based on how Mooney did with portal guys the year before, and getting some guys this season that looked good on paper, we should have been much better. With moon it's a bigger crapshoot.

 

[Anachnid]

What is your definition of scheduling tough and also scheduling easy? Perhaps we agree on this more than we disagree.


Those lower level conference are all going to be Q3/Q4 games so that will automatically lower the NET by the end of conference play. That’s why teams like that or JMU a few years ago still need to win their conference despite having a very good record. Unfortunately, the A10 might be heading that direction but it’s not completely lost yet. This year we had 3 Q1s and 5 Q2s in conference play. If we replicate that next year for in conference NET in addition to what I’m proposing which is about 2 Q1s OOC and 3 Q2s OOC that’ll be a total of 5 Q1s and 8 Q2s in the 2025-2026 schedule. We win 60+% of those Q1/Q2 games and have an otherwise good record, and we’re putting ourselves in a good position for an at-large. Doesn’t take scheduling all very tough teams. At-large chances = scheduling tough + winning the games.

When UR joined the A10 there was a scheduling sos requirement and back then the A10 was a badass league. Now it’s just a watered down CAA and we are a big part of the problem being an anchor q4 team with no way direction out.

 

[spiderstudent17]

When UR joined the A10 there was a scheduling sos requirement and back then the A10 was a badass league. Now it’s just a watered down CAA and we are a big part of the problem being an anchor q4 team with no way direction out.

We were a Q4 team this past season, but not the season before. We’re historically not an anchor team for this conference. I wouldn’t be opposed to a SOS requirement but tiered to each program. So Fordham, La Salle would have a different requirement than us and Davidson or even VCU, Dayton. A major help to this conference in getting an at-large is two-fold come conference play. 1) have as many Q1,Q2 conference games as possible 2) have as little Q4 conference games as possible.

I do not have expectation of a Fordham or La Salle ever being a Q1/2 game but it would be nice for them to not be a Q4. Same goes with us, Rhode Island, Davidson, GW where we could be a Q4 games some seasons and even Q1 games some seasons, but mostly fall in Q2, Q3 range. When was the last time if ever that Dayton or VCU was a Q3 or 4 game? So schedule accordingly so that we all do our part in maximizes those 2 points I alluded to above.

This is where I think Bernadette can help. Go call MWC, PAC-12, AAC, MVC and schedule each A10 team games with those conferences. That’ll help everyone’s NET.

 

[GKiller]

When UR joined the A10 there was a scheduling sos requirement and back then the A10 was a badass league. Now it’s just a watered down CAA and we are a big part of the problem being an anchor q4 team with no way direction out.

yes the league did better too when it scheduled hard. i just don't know ppl can think the A10 can game the system by scheduling soft. The A10. u r better off if everyone scheduled hard and hope u can get as many teams through it well as possible. we've scheduled softer & now we r basically a 1 bid league if the top team wins tourney...& the solution is to keep scheduling softer?...no thx