Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
AuroranHusker

2018-19 Husker opponents

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Huskerpapa said:

The one head scratcher for me is the Indiana - Duke game.  That is all about the names on front of he jerseys. 

The last sentence should remove the need to scratch anything from the first.

 

Also, I think Indiana could be pretty good next year. They're bringing in a top 10 recruiting class and one of the best players in the country in Romeo Langford. It might be closer than people think here on June 1.

Edited by uneblinstu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I was a little concerned NU is overdoing the schedule, trying to over-compensate for 17-18. Thought I'd take a look at what this 18-19 schedule looks like using the beloved Quad system. (Just what we need - Quad system discussions in June. I sicken myself with this post.)

 

So here's a projected Quad ranking for 18-19 (based on P5 opponents only since that's all that seems to really matter), using the average RPI of the last 3 years for each team. (I believe all of these RPIs are as of Selection Sunday each year - hopefully I successfully filtered out NCAA & NIT games.)

 

 

2018-19 NU P5 Games

Proj Quad, off 3-yr avg RPI

3-yr Avg RPI

2018 RPI

2017 RPI

2016 RPI

A

Purdue

1

14

9

19

15

 

Purdue

1

14

9

19

15

A

Mich St

1

25

14

50

12

 

Mich St

1

25

14

50

12

A

Michigan

1

31

12

25

57

A

Maryland

1

41

74

34

14

N

USC

1

42

34

41

51

A

Clemson

1

70

11

68

131

 

Seton Hall

2

31

31

44

19

 

Maryland

2

41

74

34

14

 

bluebirds

2

57

44

26

100

N

Tex Tech

2

61

23

123

36

 

Ohio St

2

61

20

90

74

 

Wisconsin

2

64

113

36

43

A

Indiana

2

76

125

79

24

A

Iowa

2

89

157

81

29

A

Penn St

2

99

77

101

119

N

Okla St

2

100

88

40

172

A

Illinois

2

131

181

64

149

 

Iowa

3

89

157

81

29

 

Penn St

3

99

77

101

119

 

N'western

3

112

169

51

115

 

Illinois

3

131

181

64

149

A

Minnesota

3

149

171

20

257

 

Minnesota

3

149

171

20

257

A

Rutgers

3

223

203

172

294

             
             

Q1 = H 1-30; N 1-50; A 1-75

         

Q2 = H 31-75; N 51-100; A 76-135

       

Q3 = H 76-160; N 101-200; A 136-240

       

 

That yields this as the projected number of games in each quad - top row is based on 3-year RPI average, second row based just on 17-18 RPI (again P5 opponents only):

 

 

P5 Opponents

Q1 gms

Q2 gms

Q3 gms

Tot Q1-Q2

Q4 gms

 

2018-19 (proj. off 3-Yr avg RPI)

8

11

7

19

 
 

2018-19 (proj. only off 17-18 RPIs)

10

6

10

16

 

 

These projections assume we play both USC & Tech in KC, so the number could be 1 less.

 

Other than the total number of P5 games, the number of Q1 and Q2 games for 18-19 isn't all that different from what NU has played in the past under Miles. (Again, these numbers below are P5 games only)

 

                                                 Q1                 Q2            Q3             Tot Q1-Q2     Q4

NU AVG LAST 5 YRS

10.2

5.8

6

16

1.6

2017-18

8

4

8

12

(3 Q4 games)

2016-17

12

6

6

18

 

2015-16

12

5

5

17

(4 Q4 games)

2014-15

8

8

5

16

(1 Q4 game)

2013-14

11

6

6

17

 

 

It looks like the number of Q1 games may even end up being less than the 5-year average, but we're picking up a few Q2 games potentially over the average.

 

Now these last 5 years include Big Ten Tourney games, so 18-19 will add at least 1 more Q1-Q3 game as part of the B1G Tourney and hopefully more than that.

 

But overall, the projection for 18-19 is not as different as I was expecting from NU's average over the past 5 years for Q1 and Q2 games, which seem to be the primary criteria for the NCAA committee.

  • '18-19 Q1 & Q2 projected games: Between 16 and 19
  • NU 5-year average Q1 & Q2 games: 16

And if you take out the oddball season in '17-18, NU's average over the previous 4 years of Q1 & Q2 games is 17 .

 

 

 

Certainly, these are only projected RPIs, and things could change dramatically by the time March rolls around. For example, there's a pretty good chance the road games at Iowa & Indiana become Q1 games, but the home game vs Purdue could drop to Q2, so I'd guess it'll come close to evening out.

 

Here's how many Quad 1-4 games some other teams had last year - just picked a few B1G teams, NCAA qualifiers, and NIT qualifiers at random (all as of Selection Sunday and only including Power 5 teams):

 

OTHER TEAMS

Q1 Q2 Q3 Tot Q1-Q2 Q4

Villanova 17-18

13

8

8

21

(2 Q4 games)

Michigan 17-18

12

5

6

17

(3 Q4 games)

Purdue 17-18

11

6

7

17

(2 Q4 games)

Penn St 17-18

11

3

7

14

(3 Q4 games)

bluebirds 17-18

10

7

4

17

(2 Q4 games)

UCLA 17-18

10

7

7

17

(2 Q4 games)

Texas 17-18

16

4

5

20

 

Oklahoma 17-18

15

6

4

21

 

Missi St 17-18

9

7

5

16

 

 

I'm still not 100% sold we needed the neutral site Okla St game, but if some of these B1G teams don't improve on their 3-year average RPI numbers, we may end up needing it (as long as OK St can stay in the Q2 range, of course, and we win it). So with a veteran team, it's probably better to have the game available than wish you had it come March.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, throwback said:

So I was a little concerned NU is overdoing the schedule, trying to over-compensate for 17-18. Thought I'd take a look at what this 18-19 schedule looks like using the beloved Quad system. (Just what we need - Quad system discussions in June. I sicken myself with this post.)

 

So here's a projected Quad ranking for 18-19 (based on P5 opponents only since that's all that seems to really matter), using the average RPI of the last 3 years for each team. (I believe all of these RPIs are as of Selection Sunday each year - hopefully I successfully filtered out NCAA & NIT games.)

 

 

2018-19 NU P5 Games

Proj Quad, off 3-yr avg RPI

3-yr Avg RPI

2018 RPI

2017 RPI

2016 RPI

A

Purdue

1

14

9

19

15

 

Purdue

1

14

9

19

15

A

Mich St

1

25

14

50

12

 

Mich St

1

25

14

50

12

A

Michigan

1

31

12

25

57

A

Maryland

1

41

74

34

14

N

USC

1

42

34

41

51

A

Clemson

1

70

11

68

131

 

Seton Hall

2

31

31

44

19

 

Maryland

2

41

74

34

14

 

bluebirds

2

57

44

26

100

N

Tex Tech

2

61

23

123

36

 

Ohio St

2

61

20

90

74

 

Wisconsin

2

64

113

36

43

A

Indiana

2

76

125

79

24

A

Iowa

2

89

157

81

29

A

Penn St

2

99

77

101

119

N

Okla St

2

100

88

40

172

A

Illinois

2

131

181

64

149

 

Iowa

3

89

157

81

29

 

Penn St

3

99

77

101

119

 

N'western

3

112

169

51

115

 

Illinois

3

131

181

64

149

A

Minnesota

3

149

171

20

257

 

Minnesota

3

149

171

20

257

A

Rutgers

3

223

203

172

294

             
             

Q1 = H 1-30; N 1-50; A 1-75

         

Q2 = H 31-75; N 51-100; A 76-135

       

Q3 = H 76-160; N 101-200; A 136-240

       

 

That yields this as the projected number of games in each quad - top row is based on 3-year RPI average, second row based just on 17-18 RPI (again P5 opponents only):

 

 

P5 Opponents

Q1 gms

Q2 gms

Q3 gms

Tot Q1-Q2

Q4 gms

 

2018-19 (proj. off 3-Yr avg RPI)

8

11

7

19

 
 

2018-19 (proj. only off 17-18 RPIs)

10

6

10

16

 

 

These projections assume we play both USC & Tech in KC, so the number could be 1 less.

 

Other than the total number of P5 games, the number of Q1 and Q2 games for 18-19 isn't all that different from what NU has played in the past under Miles. (Again, these numbers below are P5 games only)

 

                                                 Q1                 Q2            Q3             Tot Q1-Q2     Q4

NU AVG LAST 5 YRS

10.2

5.8

6

16

1.6

2017-18

8

4

8

12

(3 Q4 games)

2016-17

12

6

6

18

 

2015-16

12

5

5

17

(4 Q4 games)

2014-15

8

8

5

16

(1 Q4 game)

2013-14

11

6

6

17

 

 

It looks like the number of Q1 games may even end up being less than the 5-year average, but we're picking up a few Q2 games potentially over the average.

 

Now these last 5 years include Big Ten Tourney games, so 18-19 will add at least 1 more Q1-Q3 game as part of the B1G Tourney and hopefully more than that.

 

But overall, the projection for 18-19 is not as different as I was expecting from NU's average over the past 5 years for Q1 and Q2 games, which seem to be the primary criteria for the NCAA committee.

  • '18-19 Q1 & Q2 projected games: Between 16 and 19
  • NU 5-year average Q1 & Q2 games: 16

And if you take out the oddball season in '17-18, NU's average over the previous 4 years of Q1 & Q2 games is 17 .

 

 

 

Certainly, these are only projected RPIs, and things could change dramatically by the time March rolls around. For example, there's a pretty good chance the road games at Iowa & Indiana become Q1 games, but the home game vs Purdue could drop to Q2, so I'd guess it'll come close to evening out.

 

Here's how many Quad 1-4 games some other teams had last year - just picked a few B1G teams, NCAA qualifiers, and NIT qualifiers at random (all as of Selection Sunday and only including Power 5 teams):

 

OTHER TEAMS

Q1 Q2 Q3 Tot Q1-Q2 Q4

Villanova 17-18

13

8

8

21

(2 Q4 games)

Michigan 17-18

12

5

6

17

(3 Q4 games)

Purdue 17-18

11

6

7

17

(2 Q4 games)

Penn St 17-18

11

3

7

14

(3 Q4 games)

bluebirds 17-18

10

7

4

17

(2 Q4 games)

UCLA 17-18

10

7

7

17

(2 Q4 games)

Texas 17-18

16

4

5

20

 

Oklahoma 17-18

15

6

4

21

 

Missi St 17-18

9

7

5

16

 

 

I'm still not 100% sold we needed the neutral site Okla St game, but if some of these B1G teams don't improve on their 3-year average RPI numbers, we may end up needing it (as long as OK St can stay in the Q2 range, of course, and we win it). So with a veteran team, it's probably better to have the game available than wish you had it come March.

 

Wow...that looks to be a lot of very good work.    But just like last season, it makes zero sense to me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Huskerpapa said:

Wow...that looks to be a lot of very good work.    But just like last season, it makes zero sense to me.  

Not meaning to call you out specifically, but I see so many people say this same thing. Not sure I understand it. The quad system is an improvement over the days in which top 50 wins or top 100 wins were quoted without taking location into account. I don't get the strong disdain or confusion.

 

Now, what should be improved is the underlying metric used to determine the quadrant. It should be some sort of aggregation of RPI, Kenpom, etc and not just RPI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HuskerActuary said:

Not meaning to call you out specifically, but I see so many people say this same thing. Not sure I understand it. The quad system is an improvement over the days in which top 50 wins or top 100 wins were quoted without taking location into account. I don't get the strong disdain or confusion.

 

Now, what should be improved is the underlying metric used to determine the quadrant. It should be some sort of aggregation of RPI, Kenpom, etc and not just RPI.

Since you appear to be a strong advocate for analytics,  and appear to be a numbers person, I can understand why you would be perplexed by my "confusion."  It isn't the numbers and graphs that are the issues, it is the need for analytics in the first place.  I enjoy the college game for a multitude of reasons.  But I pride myself in knowing what I am watching.   I don't need analytics to provide definition. 

 

So as last season wound down, I was dismayed that analytic experts were telling me that my eyes and mind were not seeing or agreeing with their analytics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Huskerpapa said:

Since you appear to be a strong advocate for analytics,  and appear to be a numbers person, I can understand why you would be perplexed by my "confusion."  It isn't the numbers and graphs that are the issues, it is the need for analytics in the first place.  I enjoy the college game for a multitude of reasons.  But I pride myself in knowing what I am watching.   I don't need analytics to provide definition. 

 

So as last season wound down, I was dismayed that analytic experts were telling me that my eyes and mind were not seeing or agreeing with their analytics. 

 

What gets tricky is when you're dealing with 350 teams and a system that is not designed to take the best 68 teams.

 

Analytics tries to take some subjectivity out of the equation, but it's only as good as the system is. Going to the quadrant system actually seems to be a decent way to try to normalize home/away/road games. But the committee started to use that system and focus on the number of Quad 1 wins and Quad 3/4 losses. They also didn't value end of season success. Sure, we had a great season, but the way the committee called things, there were 15 others teams with just as good of a resume as we had (by their standards).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

What gets tricky is when you're dealing with 350 teams and a system that is not designed to take the best 68 teams.

 

Analytics tries to take some subjectivity out of the equation, but it's only as good as the system is. Going to the quadrant system actually seems to be a decent way to try to normalize home/away/road games. But the committee started to use that system and focus on the number of Quad 1 wins and Quad 3/4 losses. They also didn't value end of season success. Sure, we had a great season, but the way the committee called things, there were 15 others teams with just as good of a resume as we had (by their standards).

 

That is where I was completely wrong and Actuary was right but what I think needs to change. They place so much importance on analytics and do not use the eye test enough (not just this year with NU either). Maybe get some basketball folks instead of school ADs to be on the committee but not sure how that would work either. I know Rasmussen watches a lot of hoops but wonder how much others do and if not do they just rely on analytics. Picking that many teams from that many choices is going to be a flawed process no matter what I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

What gets tricky is when you're dealing with 350 teams and a system that is not designed to take the best 68 teams.

 

Analytics tries to take some subjectivity out of the equation, but it's only as good as the system is. Going to the quadrant system actually seems to be a decent way to try to normalize home/away/road games. But the committee started to use that system and focus on the number of Quad 1 wins and Quad 3/4 losses. They also didn't value end of season success. Sure, we had a great season, but the way the committee called things, there were 15 others teams with just as good of a resume as we had (by their standards).

 

Like you said.  They are not taking the best 68 teams in a 300+ pool of teams.  They are really only taking the "next best" 36 teams after the 32 auto bids are handed out.  So it gets even murkier from there because the 36 teams they are selecting usually doesn't include the Michigan States, Dukes, Kentuckys, Etc. of the world.  Those are teams that usually win their conference tournament.

 

I actually think the quadrant system is a start.  But like most systems, it can be flawed and needs improvement.  I am a huge advocate for an average of all the major metrics like the coaches wanted in the first place.  Average RPI, KenPom, KPI, SOR, SOS and I think you would have a much more accurate picture of things.  I still don't think an average of those metrics put us over the edge last year, but at least its an average of metrics that are all flawed in different ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HuskerActuary said:

Not meaning to call you out specifically, but I see so many people say this same thing. Not sure I understand it. The quad system is an improvement over the days in which top 50 wins or top 100 wins were quoted without taking location into account. I don't get the strong disdain or confusion.

 

Now, what should be improved is the underlying metric used to determine the quadrant. It should be some sort of aggregation of RPI, Kenpom, etc and not just RPI.

Exactly - the quad system would be better with a mixture of metrics.

 

Also, it might be better if they had a couple of additional sections, making the ranges smaller at the top (since those are the only ones that seem to matter) and larger at the bottom. Rather than giving the same weight to a road win vs RPI #1 and #75, shrinking the section range at the top would give a truer picture. Maybe something like:

 

S1 = H 1-15, N 1-25, A 1-35

S2 = H 16-35, N 26-55, A 36-75

S3 = H 36-65, N 56-95, A 76-125

S4 = H 66-110, N 96-150, A 126-190

S5 = all others

 

At some point, it becomes a matter of balancing how many quads/sections you have with how simple the system is to understand - too many sections, and you take away the simplicity of comparing teams by using it. 

 

Or maybe they could just create a formula - you play RPI #13 at home, you get X points if you win, you get X points if you lose, something like that, for all RPI teams in different locations - and then compare teams based on that point formula. That would take the range out of it, where a win over #1 RPI on the road gets the same weight as a win over #75 RPI on the road.

 

I see what they're trying to do with the quads, but there's a lot of room for improvement. 

 

Edited by throwback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nebraska missing the tournament wasn't an analytics vs. eye test thing. Choose whatever method you wish to evaluate Nebraska's schedule; there simply weren't enough good teams under the win column. Part of that is bad luck and part of it is on Nebraska for missing out on most of the opportunities they did have. If you believe Nebraska should have been in the tournament, then you're basically throwing out the entire discussion about resumes, and if you choose to discount analytics" then I don't understand what criteria is left. If you say Nebraska simply "looks like an NCAA Tournament team" and that should be enough, how many others could you say that about? There are only so many spots available. 

 

Nebraska is giving itself more opportunities to make the tournament next season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jacob Padilla said:

Nebraska missing the tournament wasn't an analytics vs. eye test thing. Choose whatever method you wish to evaluate Nebraska's schedule; there simply weren't enough good teams under the win column. Part of that is bad luck and part of it is on Nebraska for missing out on most of the opportunities they did have. If you believe Nebraska should have been in the tournament, then you're basically throwing out the entire discussion about resumes, and if you choose to discount analytics" then I don't understand what criteria is left. If you say Nebraska simply "looks like an NCAA Tournament team" and that should be enough, how many others could you say that about? There are only so many spots available. 

 

Nebraska is giving itself more opportunities to make the tournament next season. 

I suppose that comes with being a fan versus a writer, especially a Husker basketball fan awaiting our first NCAA win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I despise the eye test...in both college basketball and college football.

 

I really hate the way we use the figure skating scoring method of picking participants in our national championship tournament.

 

I would much rather see a system where a team knows exactly what it has to do to make the tournmanent before the season starts not after it is over when they are then told where the goal posts were.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Blindcheck said:

I despise the eye test...in both college basketball and college football.

 

I really hate the way we use the figure skating scoring method of picking participants in our national championship tournament.

 

I would much rather see a system where a team knows exactly what it has to do to make the tournmanent before the season starts not after it is over when they are then told where the goal posts were.

 

 

 

But how can you create such a system when there are so many teams and schedules are so very different? Every season is unique and the bar to clear moves based on that season's results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jacob Padilla said:

 

But how can you create such a system when there are so many teams and schedules are so very different? Every season is unique and the bar to clear moves based on that season's results.

There are lots of ways to do it...

 

One example: You can set up the entire country into regions, much like they do at the High school level and after conference tournamnents or instead of conference tournaments, you could have regional tournaments to play into the NCAA tourney.

 

Just as you say there are way too many teams to have a way for teams to control their own destiny via set goal posts to achieve...I say there are too many teams to use the eye test to determine the national championship participants.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Blindcheck said:

One example: You can set up the entire country into regions, much like they do at the High school level and after conference tournamnents or instead of conference tournaments, you could have regional tournaments to play into the NCAA tourney.

 

Isn't that what they did prior to 1975? And what we were left with, at times, were either far superior teams being left out of the tournament because of one slip up during the season or some good teams never being given a shot because they were playing in a conference that had a dominant team like Kansas who would take that region nearly every single year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HuskerFever said:

 

Isn't that what they did prior to 1975? And what we were left with, at times, were either far superior teams being left out of the tournament because of one slip up during the season or some good teams never being given a shot because they were playing in a conference that had a dominant team like Kansas who would take that region nearly every single year.

That is precisely why the Huskers never made it to the NCAA Tournament.  We had some very good teams that were not quite as good as some of our old Big 8 brethren.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Miles was taking to Gaskins on the radio he said that Nebraska's last 3 opponents would be determined by the strength of the team in the B1G-ACC challenge. Considering we did draw a "top 25" team, we will see lesser opponents than what we might have seen facing someone like Boston College.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love throwback idea of simply coming up with a formula that will weigh exactly how good or bad a win or loss is instead of some arbitrary range.  If this were done and was based on a combination of metrics there would be less ways for the committee to confuse themselves, which is what happened last year.  They wanted to go away from rpi but developed a quadrant system that put more weight on it than before, and they got too caught up in it.  Bilas is smart(even if not as smart as he thinks) and he flat out said that this quadrant system is silly in many occasions and that it doesn’t make any sense.  Why?  Because it uses rpi, which doesn’t make any sense.  

Edited by royalfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree - RPI is an extremely simplistic formula that was fine in the days when you had to try to figure out formulas by hand with a calculator or a simple spreadsheet, but we should be able to do way better now with a formula that's far more precise - let the computer do the work.

 

The NSAA has the same problem with its playoff point system that uses quadrants - it was OK when we were trying to do the calculations by hand 3 and 4 decades ago, but that formula could be so much more precise now with some tweaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2018 at 8:09 AM, Blindcheck said:

I despise the eye test...in both college basketball and college football.

 

I really hate the way we use the figure skating scoring method of picking participants in our national championship tournament.

 

I would much rather see a system where a team knows exactly what it has to do to make the tournmanent before the season starts not after it is over when they are then told where the goal posts were.

 

 

I think this was the problem last year. Had we known teams like Oklahoma would make it in over us because of SOS we would have played a very difficult SOS last year. Thats obvious this year and as a fan this is great we will benefit from playing tons of fun games against great opponents next year. We were just unfortunate that the rules changed a lot in a year where we happened to have a weak schedule because the conference was down. Its just frustrating that the commities priorities when picking teams were only made clear when they picked the teams that made it not when we were scheduling half a year previous. If the system stays consistant then I'm all for it but it seems to not always do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×