Jump to content
Ron Mexico

Scheduling is everything

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, hhcdimes said:

is the B1G going to be "good" next year?

Will playing 20 conference games help or hurt the conference and/or us?

Obviously can't say for certain that it 'will' be good.

We can say though that this year is an outlier in terms of performance and RPI measures.   Based on recent history, there's no reason to believe this year is the norm.  

 

The 20 game question is solely based on the performance and what the NCAA criteria is.  If the selection criteria is the same as this year, and the conference is stronger, the 20 games schedule is a bonus.   If it's weak like this year, the 20 game schedule may hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, nustudent said:

 

 

The standard created this year was supposed to help non-P5/Big East schools who struggled to get quality non-con games.  In the end, the mid-majors/small schools got screwed.  Had Nevada and Rhode Island won out, only the AAC would have received at large bids.  St. Mary's was penalized under this new system because they did not schedule enough strong opponents.  The committee just made it harder for mid-majors (with the exception of the AAC and Gonzaga) to schedule quality games.  

 

Nebraska also got screwed for scheduling too many mid-major/small school games. The Advocare Invite probably did more damage than people think.  Losing to CFU and then beating Marist and LBSU was not helpful at all.  Comparatively, Purdue played in the "Bad Boy Battle 4 Atlantis" with games against Tennessee (loss), WKU (loss), and Arizona (win).  Purdue had 3 quad 1 opportunities.  Right now that 2018 Hall of Fame Classic Nebraska has scheduled with a potential match up against Missouri St does not look appealing.  

 

I understand what happened in the Gavitt Games and Big Ten/ACC challenge.  Nebraska was not projected to do well and was given the "JV" match up.  If I were Delany, I would schedule a Pac-12/Big Ten match up each year as well.  I also think the Big 12/SEC February match up was a stroke of scheduling genius.  While the Big 10 is limiting its non-con scheduling by scheduling games no one is watching in December, the Big 12/SEC were playing high profile games during a slow sports weekend (right before the Super Bowl and not having to compete with the NFL).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't all Power 6 conferences get together and create a series with each other each year during the non-con!?!

 

That would give you 5 quality opponents right there.  Throw in a travel tourney and you still have room left over to do what you want with your schedule.  

Share this post


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

 

I remember when we had the Big 12/Pac-10 challenge, but they did away with that. The Pac-12 no longer has any crossover challenges anymore. I don't think anybody wants to touch that conference.

This is what I was thinking of:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/sports/ncaafootball/pac-12-and-big-ten-announce-scheduling-partnership.html

Quote

In a time of instability and uncertainty on the college sports landscape, the Pacific-12 and the Big Ten announced an innovative scheduling agreement Wednesday that links the two conferences and shows they have no imminent plans for change.

Starting in 2017, each team from the Pac-12 and the Big Ten will play a team from the other conference in football each season, and the conferences will also begin to play each other extensively in other sports starting as soon as next season.

It was scrapped within a year

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/sports/ncaafootball/scheduling-partnership-linking-pac-12-and-big-10-falls-apart.html

Quote

The fundamental fissure between the leagues was the Big Ten’s preference for 12 games with the Pac-12 every year. Larry Scott, the Pac-12’s commissioner, said in a telephone interview that it ultimately became a “flexibility”  issue for his teams, which play a nine-game conference schedule and have longstanding scheduling agreements with other teams, like those of Southern California and Stanford with Notre Dame. The Big Ten teams play an eight-game league schedule, making the addition of an annual marquee game outside the league easier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, nustudent said:

We're no different than most teams.   We'll get a handful.

As I posted yesterday...we played as many Top 100 non-con games as Texas, OU, Syracuse and Arizona State.   They just won theirs.    The big difference came in conference this year.   The Big 10 had 7 +100 RPI teams this year.   The 4 prior years....had 17 total.   Nearly double the average this year.   In all likelihood, our chances for Q1/Q2 games goes up dramatically next year

Nebraska played 2 Q1 non-con games: Duke, and Creighton

Texas played 5 Q1 non-con games: Duke, Gonzaga, Butler, Alabama, and Michigan

OU played 4 Q1 non-con games: WSU, USC, Arkansas, and Alabama

Syracuse played 3 Q1 non-con games: Buffalo,  Kansas, and St Bona

ASU played 2 Q1 non-con games: Xavier, and Kansas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ron Mexico said:

Nebraska played 2 Q1 non-con games: Duke, and Creighton

Texas played 5 Q1 non-con games: Duke, Gonzaga, Butler, Alabama, and Michigan

OU played 4 Q1 non-con games: WSU, USC, Arkansas, and Alabama

Syracuse played 3 Q1 non-con games: Buffalo,  Kansas, and St Bona

ASU played 2 Q1 non-con games: Xavier, and Kansas

And had UCF and St. John’s not had injuries.  We’d have had 4.    Had we beaten UCF, we’d have had 2 more.    Biggest difference is those teams won their tournament games.   We didn’t 

 

The disparity in q1 opportunities came from conference play, with the conference having a flukishly bad year 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, nustudent said:

And had UCF and St. John’s not had injuries.  We’d have had 4.    Had we beaten UCF, we’d have had 2 more.    Biggest difference is those teams won their tournament games.   We didn’t 

 

The disparity in q1 opportunities came from conference play, with the conference having a flukishly bad year 

Not arguing that what happened in the BIG was not in line with previous years. What that should teach us, under the current system, is to not count on our conference or our conference schedule to always be favorable. Every single bracket expert has said the same thing and that is the non-con schedule played a very important role in how the season played out for us. 

I heard,  "Don't be afraid to play a mid major on the road." as advise for our non-con scheduling.

Lessons Learned:

1. Don't put too many eggs in a strong BIG.

2. Don't assume our conf schedule will be favorable.

3. Smart non-conf scheduling to maximize the opportunities for Q1 wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ron Mexico said:

Not arguing that what happened in the BIG was not in line with previous years. What that should teach us, under the current system, is to not count on our conference or our conference schedule to always be favorable. Every single bracket expert has said the same thing and that is the non-con schedule played a very important role in how the season played out for us. 

I heard,  "Don't be afraid to play a mid major on the road." as advise for our non-con scheduling.

Lessons Learned:

1. Don't put too many eggs in a strong BIG.

2. Don't assume our conf schedule will be favorable.

3. Smart non-conf scheduling to maximize the opportunities for Q1 wins.

Not disagreeing that the non-con had a part to play.   Where we differ is that...I don't see an issue with the scheduling.   If we had beaten Kansas, Creighton and UCF....we'd have our metrics.   It was about performance in the non-con, not scheduling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, nustudent said:

Not disagreeing that the non-con had a part to play.   Where we differ is that...I don't see an issue with the scheduling.   If we had beaten Kansas, Creighton and UCF....we'd have our metrics.   It was about performance in the non-con, not scheduling.

That is where we differ. Our schedule was lacking, especially with the MEAC, and SWAC type teams. I don't blame anybody for the schedule since we had no way of really knowing that the season would play out the way it would with the amount of import placed on Nov and Dec games and a historically down BIG. In hindsight we where hurt by our non-con schedule this season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ron Mexico said:

That is where we differ. Our schedule was lacking, especially with the MEAC, and SWAC type teams. I don't blame anybody for the schedule since we had no way of really knowing that the season would play out the way it would with the amount of import placed on Nov and Dec games and a historically down BIG. In hindsight we where hurt by our non-con schedule this season. 

We were hurt by it because we didn't win and because Lovett and Tacko got hurt.   Otherwise it was absolutely on par with what we would have needed.   Had we won, even one more game against UCF, our SOS is DRAMATICALLY better.

Some of those games that UT, OU, etc played...weren't scheduled.   They got them as they won prior games.   As it stands, we had several opportunities for solid wins.   Had we won another game....those opportunities double.

Edited by nustudent

Share this post


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

We were hurt by it because we didn't win and because Lovett and Tacko got hurt.   Otherwise it was absolutely on par with what we would have needed.   Had we won, even one more game against UCF, our SOS is DRAMATICALLY better.

 

This is partly right. Had we beaten UCF but lost to WV, we get St. Johns. Our SOS improves from 95 to 81.

Had we beaten WV somehow, we get Missouri. Our SOS improves another four points to 77. Better...but not night and day better, and considering how WV was playing at the time and how we were too, that doesn't seem like a super safe bet.

 

But...

Let's say we scheduled Western Carolina instead of Delaware State, another low-major (Southern Conference) with a losing record. Only their RPI is 215 instead of 351. That move alone improves our SOS from 95 to 86.

Leave that game off entirely and play a D2 instead, and we're at 83 -- comparable to beating UCF and likely winding up with two more losses (not that those matter in the metrics necessarily, but potentially in team confidence heading into that rough stretch).

For kicks, if we drop that game AND beat UCF but lose to WV (and so get St. John's again), we're up to 67, and starting to approach an actual bubble team SOS. But that still only gives us one Quad 1 opportunity in WV...UCF and St. John's were not.

 

Personally I think our SOS was hurt more so by Lovett and Tacko getting hurt than by losing to UCF, but it's hard to project that into actual numbers. Had we beaten UCF, that impact becomes even more amplified. The conference really killed us too, but as you pointed out, that's not the norm. But the D2-for-Delaware State swap and subsequent bump in SOS (not to mention RPI) shows how broken this stupid system is.

Edited by ladyhusker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is focusing way too much on Nebraska's non-conference schedule.  What doomed NU from the start is the collective poor performance of OTHER Big 10 teams in the non-conf.  The most important factor in having a chance to get into the dance is having ALL Big 10 teams do well in the non-conference.  Those bad losses by teams like PSU and Iowa, Illinois, were absolute killers, not only for those teams that lost, but for ALL teams in the B1G.  When those other B1G teams lose in non-conference, they bring their poor RPI into the conference, and that brings down every conference team because even beating those teams can actually drop your RPI.  It makes it impossible to get multiple Quad 1 wins, etc.  If every team in the Big could come into conference with an RPI of 75 or better, that would allow all teams multiple, multiple, multiple changes at Quad 1 wins.  And apparently it doesn't matter how many you lose (ie, Oklahoma) as long as you rack up a few wins.  Thus, no more laughing when Iowa or Illinois loses to Sisters-of-the-Poor in non-conference because that loss could potentially hurt us as much as them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ladyhusker said:

 

This is partly right. Had we beaten UCF but lost to WV, we get St. Johns. Our SOS improves from 95 to 81.

Had we beaten WV somehow, we get Missouri. Our SOS improves another four points to 77. Better...but not night and day better, and considering how WV was playing at the time and how we were too, that doesn't seem like a super safe bet.

 

But...

Let's say we scheduled Western Carolina instead of Delaware State, another low-major (Southern Conference) with a losing record. Only their RPI is 215 instead of 351. That move alone improves our SOS from 95 to 86.

Leave that game off entirely and play a D2 instead, and we're at 83 -- comparable to beating UCF and likely winding up with two more losses (not that those matter in the metrics necessarily, but potentially in team confidence heading into that rough stretch).

For kicks, if we drop that game AND beat UCF but lose to WV (and so get St. John's again), we're up to 67, and starting to approach an actual bubble team SOS.

 

Personally I think our SOS was hurt more so by Lovett and Tacko getting hurt than by losing to UCF, but it's hard to project that into actual numbers. Had we beaten UCF, that impact becomes even more amplified. The conference really killed us too, but as you pointed out, that's not the norm. But the D2-for-Delaware State swap and subsequent bump in SOS (not to mention RPI) shows how broken this stupid system is.

 

Id consider a 15 spot move from just one game to be significant.   Not to matter the perception of the upcoming games 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it's a big jump, but it's not enough to make up the difference between us and other bubble teams in contention. I guess that's more what I meant, like we'd have a heck of a lot more territory to cover for it to move the needle. I meant more that I agreed with you on Tacko's and Lovett's injuries (and the Big Ten being abnormally bad) being a bigger factor, because the uptick in SOS from beating UCF wasn't going to really make that much of a difference without those other things coming into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hhcdimes said:

is the B1G going to be "good" next year?

Will playing 20 conference games help or hurt the conference and/or us?

 

Michigan State - a slight drop, depends if Ward goes (assuming Jackson and Bridges go)

Purdue - not as good, lose four seniors, could maybe be a bubble team

Ohio State - not as good assuming Bates-Diop leaves

Michigan - depends on Wagner, could be better if he stays

Penn State - depends on Carr, Stevens, Watkins - much better depending on that

Maryland - much better

Wisconsin - better

Indiana - unknown, could be better or could be about the same

Iowa - better (depending on Cook)

Illinois - better

Rutgers - slightly better if Sanders is back

Northwestern - probably not as good

Minnesota - who knows, could be quite a bit better or they could suck

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say we switch these results.  @SJU, UCF, @PSU,  @ Ill.   We lose to W Vir, and rematch to SJU.   Our record is 25 - 7, and 15 - 3 in conference.  We still have 1 Q1 win.  Does the committee give us a bone for 3 more Q2 wins to get us in?  We still would have 1 win over an NCAA tournament. That would really unprecedented.  At least we probably get a home NIT game.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×