Yes, I always say the goal of scheduling is all the toughest teams that you will beat. But it is nearly impossible to predict that with complete accuracy.
2022–23 Schedule Updates
- Thread starter SFspidur
- Start date
But if your on the bubble and your kenpom says 94 - your not getting in. You need to be better than 50. Which I agree is tough to accomplish every year, but when you think you got a worthy team that can handle it - go for it.
I think a lot of us are discounting the power of a Big W. Go back to 2019, we had a big win over Wisconsin that looked really good on our resume. In 2011, our win over Purdue carried a lot of weight. Granted, the former was cancelled due to Covid and we won the auto-bid in 2011 but most of prognasticaters had us in largely on the basis of those wins.
Likewise, Quad 4 losses are like anchors. So, when constructing the OOC, you want to minimize your chances of Quad 4 losses and maximize your chances of Quad 1 wins.
Likewise, Quad 4 losses are like anchors. So, when constructing the OOC, you want to minimize your chances of Quad 4 losses and maximize your chances of Quad 1 wins.
I very much disagree with this. The committee won't care who has the 40th toughest OOC schedule and the 94th toughest. They will look at all of the other factors before they look at that because both of those schedules will be more than acceptable to them. There will be very little difference in those schedules anyway. If you are on the bubble with the 94th best OOC schedule, that might be the best OOC schedule among the bubble teams anyway. This year's first four teams and OOC schedule rating:
Rutgers 354
Indiana 319
Wyoming 186
Notre Dame 90
Unless you can give me an example of the committee saying a top 100 OOC schedule was the difference in keeping a team out, I will stick to my opinion that that is an above average schedule and more than good enough to get you an at large.
Last edited:
This discussion seems to me to be focused on paper and not team development. How can you over a season develop a tough team mindset if you continue to hang around mediocrity in the OOC? What if this year the team had come out of the gate playing like they did 5 of the last six games ( I would have missed Plydogs rants over Thanksgiving 😎, truly epic, and appreciated). Perhaps we might be discussing 6 out the last 7 or 7 out of the last eight. We’ve lived in failure with opening with Longwood or JMU. Bring on a brick wall to start and see if the coaching staff has the team ready to bust through and the team to have that competent swagger and Believe in themselves and their ability. Let them feel and know what work there is to do to do to consistently play at that level.
And develop the players! I recall Beilein playing Skrocki as a Frosh and wondering what the heck. Well we know that ended! If you are a good coach you have to have the confidence in the kids you recruit. Throw them in the fire. Meld them.
And develop the players! I recall Beilein playing Skrocki as a Frosh and wondering what the heck. Well we know that ended! If you are a good coach you have to have the confidence in the kids you recruit. Throw them in the fire. Meld them.
i thought he meant you needed to be 50 and not 94 as your kenpom rank, not your ooc rank. but if so, how many degree of separation are there between kenpom rank and ooc difficulty quite a few I would think.
No, this was strictly an OOC schedule number debate. He said last year's schedule was average. I disagreed and said 94 is above average. But, it is all opinion anyway.
Anachnid, we're reading the same book but coming to different conclusions.
what if the relatively tough early schedule last year put us in a hole and stunted development?
what if we had scheduled a bit easier, won more games early, built confidence, and got national press for having a guady record (in addition to the preseason hype)?
we'll never know if that would have worked better.
What difference would it have made? We had to win the tourney. As as to this past year I seem to recall “most experienced team ever” or something like that. So throw out last year. If we have a young team that plays a tough OOC schedule and gets beat up, I would suggest they should pretty much plow through the A10, as they should be hardened veterans. But alas it’s all a $1.3 dollar question.
I saw that the debate was about OOC and at large. I was trying to make since of his 50 vs 94 comment.
I still don’t think he is right. Most nonP5 at larges could have an OOC above 50 I haven’t checked) but I would doubt that is why they are at large.
He is not close to right. Davidson got an at large with a kenpom 219 OOC SOS last year (200 Warren Nolan team sheet). Wyoming's was 186 kenpom (158 warren nolan team sheet). Boise St was 195 OOC, and Colorado St 144. San Fran lost 9 games pre tourney and was at 125 OOC schedule, and San Diego St lost 8 games and was at 84 OOC schedule. So, as a non power team, you can lose more than 7 games and have a higher, and sometimes much higher OOC SOS than 50. I used Warren Nolan's SOS because the kenpom numbers might include post season. I know Warren Nolan's do not. We were 94/96 with these 2 sources.
What we don't want to do is schedule like Davidson did last year. They finished at 200 OOC SOS, with 5 Q4 games, and 7 games against teams ranked 180 or higher. By comparison, we played 3 teams higher than 160. They only played 3 top 100 teams, we played 6. They needed to go 9-2 OOC and 15-3 IC just to get a 10 seed. I think had they not won the regular season title, they might not have gotten in. Even though it is not an automatic invite, the regular season A-10 title certainly helps you, especially at 15-3. But, I know I wouldn't want to go 15-3 IC and win the regular season title and still have to sweat a little on selection Sunday.
What we don't want to do is schedule like Davidson did last year. They finished at 200 OOC SOS, with 5 Q4 games, and 7 games against teams ranked 180 or higher. By comparison, we played 3 teams higher than 160. They only played 3 top 100 teams, we played 6. They needed to go 9-2 OOC and 15-3 IC just to get a 10 seed. I think had they not won the regular season title, they might not have gotten in. Even though it is not an automatic invite, the regular season A-10 title certainly helps you, especially at 15-3. But, I know I wouldn't want to go 15-3 IC and win the regular season title and still have to sweat a little on selection Sunday.
I agree with u a 94 ooc sos rank can definitely get a Richmond in. Tho I still don’t get why ppl use kenpom when ncaa has their own sos rankings for Net. Our ooc sos was 146 per ncaa. Not sure why such a difference. Kenpom is good some will say better but we really don’t know with sos. So best to defer to ncaa one imo. In 19-20 it was 98 ooc sos per ncaa. And we certainly would have got in if we beat Davidson in quarters tho that was no easy task. I think we should target a top 100 ooc sos if possible. It makes a difference imo when u r on bubble and competing w any other bubbles.
I don’t think that’s a particularly apples to apples comparison. Three of those four are P5 programs who don’t need the strong ooc to make the tournament.
I think it’s far more relevant to a mid major program like ours to have a strong ooc beacuse we won’t get the bump based on conference sos.
im in agreement that it’s wise to have a good spread of competition but it’s likely we’d need a stronger total sos if we’re hoping to get in at large.
T, did you see this from a couple posts ago?
Davidson got an at large with a kenpom 219 OOC SOS last year (200 Warren Nolan team sheet). Wyoming's was 186 kenpom (158 warren nolan team sheet). Boise St was 195 OOC, and Colorado St 144. San Fran lost 9 games pre tourney and was at 125 OOC schedule, and San Diego St lost 8 games and was at 84 OOC schedule.
Davidson got an at large with a kenpom 219 OOC SOS last year (200 Warren Nolan team sheet). Wyoming's was 186 kenpom (158 warren nolan team sheet). Boise St was 195 OOC, and Colorado St 144. San Fran lost 9 games pre tourney and was at 125 OOC schedule, and San Diego St lost 8 games and was at 84 OOC schedule.
I did see it and it works when the teams assemble a top end IC record. Those teams are all turning in 14-4 or 15-3 type conference showings. So admittedly it works when you do that, but we’ve not shown much capacity to turn in those results with any regularity. I think we’ve had one season at 14-4 in the past decade.
I don’t know if that’s statistically a better path or if you want to schedule a bit harder and try to get some marquee wins that offset a less gaudy conference record. I can see both paths working, neither at great frequency.
I can counter this with facts also, just like I did with the previous post. San Fran was 10-6 IC and Wyoming was 13-5 IC, so no, those teams aren't all turning in 15 -3 or 14-4 showings. I keep posting facts and others keep posting opinions on why a top 100 OOC schedule needs to be harder. Until I hear a committee member mention a team with a 100ish OOC schedule got left out because of their schedule, I will continue to say a top 100ish schedule is more than good enough. Shoot, they rarely mention top 200 schedules as an issue.
But, that being said, unless we think the A-10 will be a 3+ bid league every year, we should definitely shoot for 14-4 IC. Trying to get in at 13-5 or less would make it difficult, regardless of our OOC showing. 14-4 should be good for 2nd or 1st most years, so that would normally put us ahead of any other A-10 bubble teams.
Maybe with Loyola joining, the A-10 can be more of a 3+ bid league. But that wouldn't change my opinion about a top 100 OOC schedule being more than good enough every year. And, it also depends on who you beat and who you lost to. 13-5 with 2 Q1 wins and no bad losses would be better than 13-5 with 0 Q1 wins and 1 or 2 bad losses. Same with our OOC schedule. The schedule will always be fine. We just need to beat enough of the right teams, and not lose to the wrong teams.
Last edited:
Very interesting concept here:
www.cbssports.com
We DONT Sleep in May
The bold, new college basketball flex scheduling model that would bring big nonconference games into February
An ambitious, groundbreaking idea is being mulled in college hoops that could significantly upgrade the regular season
www.cbssports.com
We DONT Sleep in May
I think this is an important statement, we just haven’t shown great capacity to do this regularly. But sure, do that and your approach makes good sense.
I don't like this idea. The powers that be are always looking for ways to keep the non-P6 out, and this is a way to ensure they rack up losses in crucial games down the stretch. It's going to hurt at least as many bubble teams as it helps. That was part of the downfall of BracketBusters.Very interesting concept here:
The bold, new college basketball flex scheduling model that would bring big nonconference games into February
An ambitious, groundbreaking idea is being mulled in college hoops that could significantly upgrade the regular season
Agree, SF. I think it will hurt more than it helps. When power conference teams play late in the season, they get no bad losses in the committee's eyes. The wins help, and the losses don't hurt. With this proposal for non power teams, I think we will see the losses hurt, and the wins not meaning that much.
It can certainly help some...both GMU and VCU benefited from BracketBusters in their Final Four seasons by beating Wichita State late in the season, but on balance, I think it's a negative for non-power teams.
helps the winners, hurts the losers. but it'd certainly be a fun week of basketball.
Right, the winners elevate themselves, which is the point. Of course the losers won't like it, but that's on them for losing. You want opportunities to get a few quality late-season wins? Well here they are – go win them.
Does this idea change anything from the perspective of giving non P6 teams a better shot at the dance? No.
However, being a fan of college basketball, I like the idea of having some high quality non-conference games at the end of the year. This is really just a way to make scheduling easier. If this was done, the participating league’s teams would not have to try to schedule quality OOC games with non P6 opponents in advance and the games played would be some of the best possible matchups. Such games would help the winners and hurt the losers, just like all games do for non P6 teams. I think it could help from an exposure perspective as well as many games would be non-traditional opponents.
The part about P6 teams wanting to join in after a few years is a joke though. Lower level P6 teams always get the advantage in terms of NCAA bids, so they would gain nothing from this type of arrangement. I don’t think there is anything that is going to change that.
However, being a fan of college basketball, I like the idea of having some high quality non-conference games at the end of the year. This is really just a way to make scheduling easier. If this was done, the participating league’s teams would not have to try to schedule quality OOC games with non P6 opponents in advance and the games played would be some of the best possible matchups. Such games would help the winners and hurt the losers, just like all games do for non P6 teams. I think it could help from an exposure perspective as well as many games would be non-traditional opponents.
The part about P6 teams wanting to join in after a few years is a joke though. Lower level P6 teams always get the advantage in terms of NCAA bids, so they would gain nothing from this type of arrangement. I don’t think there is anything that is going to change that.
It does nothing to solve the problem that the P6 teams feel that their own .500 conference teams should always make it, and often do. Half the bubble teams opting out because they're big conf. schools is the issue.
They try to claim that the 8-10 team in the B10 is still better than the 13-3 team from leagues like the A10, Often they're wrong, but they don't have to risk losing a game to an A10 or WCC team to get the benefit of the doubt.
When we were on the bubble in 2020, I did a quick run down of the SOS numbers of BE schools that year. Most OOC schedules were middling/bad to atrocious. But most of their overall SOS numbers came in really high, just by playing one another and leeching off a team like Villanova. It was a miraculous rise that the 250th OOC SOS could make it to borderline top 50, when half the league was in that terrible range coming into the league. It was the old Syracuse strategy of great win % against cupcakes, then in an extended sample size, show that you're mediocre to bad, yet still benefit.
Put the Indianas, the Rutgers, the Notre Dames of the world into this series and I'm for it. Otherwise it just becomes a first four type series for teams that are already excelling and many of which are already deserving. Forces teams like Richmond to prove themselves yet again for no reason. And when many of these teams go 1-1, it likely solves nothing.
They try to claim that the 8-10 team in the B10 is still better than the 13-3 team from leagues like the A10, Often they're wrong, but they don't have to risk losing a game to an A10 or WCC team to get the benefit of the doubt.
When we were on the bubble in 2020, I did a quick run down of the SOS numbers of BE schools that year. Most OOC schedules were middling/bad to atrocious. But most of their overall SOS numbers came in really high, just by playing one another and leeching off a team like Villanova. It was a miraculous rise that the 250th OOC SOS could make it to borderline top 50, when half the league was in that terrible range coming into the league. It was the old Syracuse strategy of great win % against cupcakes, then in an extended sample size, show that you're mediocre to bad, yet still benefit.
Put the Indianas, the Rutgers, the Notre Dames of the world into this series and I'm for it. Otherwise it just becomes a first four type series for teams that are already excelling and many of which are already deserving. Forces teams like Richmond to prove themselves yet again for no reason. And when many of these teams go 1-1, it likely solves nothing.
Don't know the date of our Drake game yet, but they should be good again...
A bit of an old A10 vs new A10 and maybe a preview of a return to conference play haha
Well what is the context. But makes no sense. The A10 isn’t going to ban teams from being scheduled have u seen some of the teams the A10 plays.
Starting with post 9&10
2022-2023 Men's Basketball Schedule Thread
The Monarch's Den: The #1 message board for Old Dominion Monarch sports on the internet.
I don't see anything that indicates an ODU ban by the a10. Sounds like they are struggling and no one, including us and VCU want to play them. Seems like Jeff Jones has been there for longer than Mooney, but with even less results.
Starting with post 9&10
2022-2023 Men's Basketball Schedule Thread
The Monarch's Den: The #1 message board for Old Dominion Monarch sports on the internet.csnbbs.com
not sure how 9&10 becomes “wild rumor of the A-10 banning games against ODU”. Schools would make that decision not a10. And idk but my guess is vcu & UR will still play odu this year, if not at least 1 of us.
mite next time maybe include the link upfront. The odu board is like the progressive commercial. Nobody knows who those ppl r.
#43 says not playing is not ODU decision, and not playing is not because ODU is bad. But doesn’t give the actually reason for not playing.
No idea if anyone there knows anything at all.
Just posted this over on the A-10 board, but figured might as well include it in the discussion here in terms of the suggestion that this is some sort of A-10 mandate.
It doesn't make much sense. Why ODU specifically? If there are additional commitments in the form of an expanded A-10 schedule or the new Bracket Busters, the teams should still be allowed to schedule as they see fit within the OOC slots they do have. Yes, there would be something of a pinch given some of those slots are already booked with MTEs and other contracts, but at least some of the ODU games were presumably in the middle of multi-year contracts too.
It can't be about the A-10 regulating quality of OOC schedule. ODU has been down, but they're not that far removed from a proud history and even so, we schedule plenty of worse cupcakes to pad things out.
It doesn't make much sense. Why ODU specifically? If there are additional commitments in the form of an expanded A-10 schedule or the new Bracket Busters, the teams should still be allowed to schedule as they see fit within the OOC slots they do have. Yes, there would be something of a pinch given some of those slots are already booked with MTEs and other contracts, but at least some of the ODU games were presumably in the middle of multi-year contracts too.
It can't be about the A-10 regulating quality of OOC schedule. ODU has been down, but they're not that far removed from a proud history and even so, we schedule plenty of worse cupcakes to pad things out.
ODU does nothing for me. They're irrelevant, and whether we ever play them again or not, I don't care. We have nothing in common with them, I hate that part of the state and have no desire to really drive over there to see us play, the school is a glorified commuter school, and they play in a league no one cares about.
Stop sugar-coating it...tell us how you really feel.
