Agreed it is almost impossible to go undefeated. San Diego State might do it but that is the exception. The season is long, players get hurt, match up styles are different and some are easier than others. There has and will almost always be a year where at least 1 SLC team finds a night where our shooting is off or a player is hurt and we take a bad loss. Conference schools know you better than anyone. So the only way into the NCAA tourney for a SLC team is to win in Katy.

Not sure the SLC will ever have more than 1 team in the NCAA. They would have to take a serious approach to basketball and so far its still the step child to FCS football. Prime examples are Nichols paying their head coach $95K and HBU and their basketball "facility" where the only change since the 80's was the removal of the stage to make room for some seats. One school I would applaud is McNeese and their new facilities.

Both NET and KenPom step down after a double digit win over a 300+ ranked team.

nacluth said:

---

Both NET and KenPom step down after a double digit win over a 300+ ranked team.

---

I get it if we beat this team when they were like 1-9 coming into conference. But they've put together a decent conference record since switching coaches.

Tough night for non-conference SOS as Duke lost, Alabama lost at home to TAMU, and Rutgers lost at home. On a more positive note, we have made the first ever appearance, that I can recall, on ESPN's "Bubble Watch"

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/28577356/ncaa-tournament-bubble-watch-updated-look-wildest-bubble-years

Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks

The Lumberjacks constitute an intriguing selection test case that might never happen. Kyle Keller's team, of course, recorded one of the best profile wins of the entire Division I season, an 85-83 overtime victory at Duke in November. Is that, plus a 23-3 record, sufficient for an at-large? Don't dish the question to the rating systems, because they're squabbling. Stephen F. Austin is one team where the NET ranking (mid-80s) and the strength of record metric (mid-40s) disagree. The Jacks would therefore pose a singular challenge for the committee, though, again, we might never see the ending to this at-large thriller. SFA is likely to win the regular-season Southland title and thus earn a bye straight into the conference tournament semifinals. That tournament will be played on a laudably neutral floor in Katy, Texas, 170 miles from Nacogdoches. An automatic bid could be in the offing.

That's the thing with Strength of Schedule metrics. Once you get to conference play, you have got what you got. Despite what everyone says, the Corpus game didn't hurt us that much. It's playing the SLC that didn't terrible in non conference that hurts us. We would probably be 10 points higher without the loss. Every game hurts our rating - save the ACU game on the road which will probably be a wash.

SFA is maxing out their rating potential. Ken Pomeroy's article was basically an admission that if we had two losses to top 50 teams, beat Duke on the road, and if we had gone undefeated through conference, we still probably wouldn't crack the top 100 on his metric. He knows it's wrong. Everyone knows it's wrong. But, that's how it is.

One thing to note on why Pomeroy is using SFA as an example in his comments about bubble teams. He does not want the NCAA to use his rating system in their selection process. Despite this they still do. So I believe that he is trying to make a point to the committee by using SFA and comparing them to other bubble teams and showing them how he thinks they should evaluate times for the Tourney. To make a point that his ratings are being misused and are predictive and the NCAA should look at other factors as well.

Honestly, I hope all this exposure helps get us some looks from other conferences so when the next big realignment happens we can move. My targets would be the Sun Belt, C-USA and if you wanted to stay FCS Southern Conference.

Currently by average NET rankings the Southland is 30th out of 32 conferences. SFA is propping up the conference here. (Removing SFA from the equation doesn't quite drop us to 31st but makes it close.) The three conferences you picked are 14th, 15th and 13th in average respectively. I actually think we would be a good fit in any of those conferences. I don't think our football program is or probably ever will be FBS ready, but that's just my feelings about it.

SoCon isn't quite as "Southern" as it's name seems to be as most of its teams all cluster just under the Mason-Dixon line on the east coast. We would be 700 miles from the closest school in Chattanooga. Sun Belt and C-USA are both in our area, but football is our biggest detractor. Still not a bad option. I've always thought the Missouri Valley would be the closest all-sport rival league to join, but it would mean better access to airports. I think it would be pretty optimistic for Gordon to try to jump ship immediately, but maybe if someone could show him what it would mean for exposure.

We just need someone to pony up several million to expand the Nacogdoches Intercounty Airport! (And yes I did mean to say inter county!) It seems that travel concerns will always be a problem. The team had to bus from Tyler for goodness sake after the Duke game!

jboy93 said:

---

We just need someone to pony up several million to expand the Nacogdoches Intercounty Airport! (And yes I did mean to say inter county!) It seems that travel concerns will always be a problem. The team had to bus from Tyler for goodness sake after the Duke game!

---

Is there a reason Nac/Lufkin don't have a regional airport between the 2?

I'm not sure Southern or MVU do a whole lot for us on growing the brand. Sunbelt would a small step up.

CUSA, on football, sits between 11-25k in average football game attendance across it's league. Charlotte is the smallest at 11k.

For basketball, they average between 900 and 6000 average attendance, but only 4 teams are match SFA's 3500 or higher.

That'd be a much better fit from a branding standpoint, an actual perception of it being a higher level. But you're right, football would hold us back. We'd need to average 12-15k and be a perennial playoff team if they're going to take the whole athletic department. Maybe men's & women's basketball could be a standalone.

The challenge is, that hopping to CUSA or another conference necessitates some dominoes falling about them & losing atleast one team. Or, perhaps Sunbelt & Conference USA follow the sensible route that some experts have suggested of splitting into 2 or 3 regional conferences.

As much as we hate the current trash conference that we're in, it's a pretty good springboard into the NCAA tourney. If we rebuild the football team to a serviceable level, we can pair that with some deep runs on the basketball side, we'd be a great candidate for addition for a better conference.

As it stands, if you want a chance to win basketball games that matter every year, you've got 3 options if you want to go to school in Texas... SFA, Baylor, & Tech. We've got to capitalize on that & build out the resume.

CertifiedAxeman98 said:

---

Everyone is talking about SFA quick let's post something so it looks like we cover them.

---

Yep. If we want to talk about what's purely best for basketball, Southland is great for SFA. We win and keep on winning. Build the brand, bring in recruits, work hard on scheduling. Run the conference every year. Nothing wrong with that. Plenty of teams have done that to work their way deep in the tournament.

Next year if we have a couple of Q1 opportunities at the beginning of the year and win, then we will be in the conversation for a seed higher than 12. If not, winning the SLC still gets us in. For basketball, it's a great spot.

TallTexan said:

---

I'm not sure Southern or MVU do a whole lot for us on growing the brand. Sunbelt would a small step up.

CUSA, on football, sits between 11-25k in average football game attendance across it's league. Charlotte is the smallest at 11k.

For basketball, they average between 900 and 6000 average attendance, but only 4 teams are match SFA's 3500 or higher.

That'd be a much better fit from a branding standpoint, an actual perception of it being a higher level. But you're right, football would hold us back. We'd need to average 12-15k and be a perennial playoff team if they're going to take the whole athletic department. Maybe men's & women's basketball could be a standalone.

The challenge is, that hopping to CUSA or another conference necessitates some dominoes falling about them & losing atleast one team. Or, perhaps Sunbelt & Conference USA follow the sensible route that some experts have suggested of splitting into 2 or 3 regional conferences.

As much as we hate the current trash conference that we're in, it's a pretty good springboard into the NCAA tourney. If we rebuild the football team to a serviceable level, we can pair that with some deep runs on the basketball side, we'd be a great candidate for addition for a better conference.

As it stands, if you want a chance to win basketball games that matter every year, you've got 3 options if you want to go to school in Texas... SFA, Baylor, & Tech. We've got to capitalize on that & build out the resume.

---

While I think the Sunbelt is the most likely that would take us, and likely would make us competitive in FBS football much faster, I think C-USA would be better by a long shot. Even if we jumped into those conferences I'd love for us to make the jump quickly to a more established G5 conference like the American Conference or Mountain West. Any of those last 3 conferences have welcomed former FCS and low mid majors in the past and they have helped them grow to be decent.

The sunbelt just scares me because I think the top half of the FCS could potentially compete for a conference title in football, and we would run the table in basketball. Essentially we wouldn't gain much from them.

djsfw57 said:

---

CertifiedAxeman98 said:

---

Everyone is talking about SFA quick let's post something so it looks like we cover them.

---

---

It was a fluke right ok, now back to talking about Gonzaga.

nacluth said:

---

Sure. Both want to have their own airport. Lufkin has established an airport that is a little more successful than Nac's but it is by Diboll - quite a bit south of town. There has been resistance by Lufkin recently (though not just them) on relocating. It's extremely tough to do anyway.

Nac City Council recently approved a new terminal area plan to expand and improve the local airport. It's a multi-year, multimillion dollar project that has just begun. If enough interest and partnership can come on board then it may eventually pay off into being a good hub for SFA athletics plane fleet.

---

I mean, I get it, but you could get twice the airport by putting it in the middle of both and they're only 19 miles apart.

IMO, Nac/Lufkin may view themselves as competing against each other for businesses and growth, but in reality they're competing against Tyler, Longview, Marshall, etc.

Glad to hear Nac is atleast investing in theirs now though.

nacluth said:

---

Yep. If we want to talk about what's purely best for basketball, Southland is great for SFA. We win and keep on winning. Build the brand, bring in recruits, work hard on scheduling. Run the conference every year. Nothing wrong with that. Plenty of teams have done that to work their way deep in the tournament.

Next year if we have a couple of Q1 opportunities at the beginning of the year and win, then we will be in the conversation for a seed higher than 12. If not, winning the SLC still gets us in. For basketball, it's a great spot.

---

Pretty great for the entire AD and uni for atleast a few more years. Take the basketball money and publicity and get the university fundraising campaign done. Get to the 15k student mark. Work on the academic offerings.

2020s can be our decade. Basketball is our ticket, so whatever gives us the best chance to cash that ticket in is best, short term. Especially if we can complain enough to get the conference to do some work.

Imagine beating Duke and Michigan State in the same season.

SFAXE93 said:

---

Imagine beating Duke and Michigan State in the same season.

---

I actually really like this bracket for a potential sweet 16 run. Michigan State is certainly as good of a matchup as we'd get in the first round, and I think we could give Arizona more than enough fits to take them out, and I think this team will have enough of a chip on their shoulder that Baylor is probably the most favorable 1 seed we could end up playing.

I agree that being n Baylor's group is not a bad draw. They are a defense first team and can struggle on offense. We would probably match up well with a ridiculous defense for them to solve. If we see them in a sweet 16, I'll be happy.

nacluth said:

---

I agree that being n Baylor's group is not a bad draw. They are a defense first team and can struggle on offense. We would probably match up well with a ridiculous defense for them to solve. If we see them in a sweet 16, I'll be happy.

---

And it would be in Houston!

I saw another bracket today that had us as a 13 seed.

SFA_03 said:

---

I saw another bracket today that had us as a 13 seed.

---

I think if we win out with the rest of the games, we will get better than a 13 (an 11 or 12). If we lose a game but win the tourney, 13.

Another prognostication, this one from Shelby Mast of USA Today Sports...

Bracketwag.com has us as a 12 seed in the South Region, playing Iowa in Tampa in the First Round.

http://www.bracketwag.com/