2019-20 nonconference schedules

[bballnut90]

It was confirmed by our insiders that we tried really hard to schedule some top teams. There's like 15 or so of those teams.... if none of them end up working out for one reason or another except Oregon, I'm not sure if you can see or not that there aren't many other teams left to try to call.

I don't think Vic cares if his team is seen as elite, but I do know that he doesn't wanna play a lot of bad teams. I don't either; nobody does.

And like I said....there could potentially be a lot of great teams we play on our schedule when it's all said and done. And....we've already been through this who's gonna be better this year SC or MSU argument many times before, and I still don't understand your overconfidence in South Carolina. You're not even guaranteed Greensville. You have to beat us out for that spot first of all. So doubting we'll be a top 3 seed sounds a bit mildly amusing to me.

...

The problem is that even if they couldn't get top 15 teams, why didn't they go after teams in the 20-100 RPI range? Beating up on a bunch of bottom feeders doesn't help the team improve or boost up their resume.

And fair or not, South Carolina will get Greenville over Mississippi State regardless of how teams finish. It's a 1.5 hour drive from Columbia and SC has a massive fan base that will fill up the arena. Mississippi State is a 6.5 hour drive from there. It's like how Oregon was given the Portland regional a year ago as a 2 seed even though Stanford deserved the 2 seed there over the Ducks.

 

[SimpleDawg]

The problem is that even if they couldn't get top 15 teams, why didn't they go after teams in the 20-100 RPI range? Beating up on a bunch of bottom feeders doesn't help the team improve or boost up their resume.

And fair or not, South Carolina will get Greenville over Mississippi State regardless of how teams finish. It's a 1.5 hour drive from Columbia and SC has a massive fan base that will fill up the arena. Mississippi State is a 6.5 hour drive from there. It's like how Oregon was given the Portland regional a year ago as a 2 seed even though Stanford deserved the 2 seed there over the Ducks.

I see the argument, but I don't think you could finalize things in July. Just like some people are finalizing the POY race down to Ionescu and Cox and finalizing Oregon and Baylor as the top 2 teams, same logic applies that you can't just assume SC will go to Greenville before games are even played.

I do think the only way we'll get Greenville is if we're a #1 seed. I know that's not in line with most people's predictions right now, but it's still a shot given we've been #1 for 2 straight years. That's probably the only scenario that sends SC somewhere else. Even though I do agree, SC probably has an 80% chance to play in Greenville.

I agree with that Oregon suggestion..... and they are getting huge gifts 2 years in a row with regionals being in Portland. Though I don't agree that Stanford deserved it more last year. I think Oregon looked like the more impressive team overall despite some questionable games in the end and the Pac-12 title game defeat.

And I agree on your argument about the bottom feeders, though that's only talk in November or December. By the time conference games comes around, we'll be seen by how we play against Stanford and the Vancouver teams and vs SC and A&M, not how we do against Jackson State.

..

 

[nwhoopfan]

It's like how Oregon was given the Portland regional a year ago as a 2 seed even though Stanford deserved the 2 seed there over the Ducks.

"Deserved" seems a bit strong. Teams split 2 head to head match ups, Ducks absolutely destroyed them on The Farm (worst home loss in Tara's career). Oregon won the conference regular season. Conference tourneys are overvalued I think. Stanford probably had a better OOC schedule but it's not like Oregon's was bad.

 

[bballnut90]

I think the only reason State got that 1 seed was winning the SEC. That was the only argument I could see for it.

There were 3-4 teams in the mix but no one really stood out.

Louisville based on traditional formulas looked the strongest but was coming off a game where they were absolutely slaughtered by Notre Dame. Eye test definitely said they weren't a #1 seed.

Oregon was also floundering entering the post season (finishing the year 5-3) and came off a rough loss to Stanford.

Stanford finished strong but had 4 pretty significant losses earlier in the year.

Mississippi State had a close road loss to Oregon early in the year and 1 bad home loss to Missouri but dominated the rest of their schedule. It was a weak schedule, but they had the least wrong with their resume and eye test said they absolutely looked like a top 4 team entering the tournament.


Regional sites were also very significant in deciding seeds, probably more so than actual resumes of the teams above.
-The top 3 seeds were locks for #1 spots with UCONN going to Albany regardless, Notre Dame to Chicago and Baylor going to North Carolina.
-Oregon was a lock (deserved or not) to play in Portland, but they didn't have the resume for a #1 seed.
-Stanford wasn't going to Portland due to Oregon being there and also playing in the PAC


The leaves Louisville and Mississippi State for the last 1 seed. Call it a toss up or even favor Louisville, but watching Louisville lose by 20 vs. Mississippi State win by 29 the same day likely pushed Mississippi State into Oregon.

Honestly it was a lose-lose for each of Stanford, Louisville and Mississippi State since they were going on the road for an Elite 8 battle. People like to cling to Mississippi State being undeserving of a 1 or saying it was given due to favoritism, but there wasn't an obvious option ahead of them.

 

[bballnut90]

"Deserved" seems a bit strong. Teams split 2 head to head match ups, Ducks absolutely destroyed them on The Farm (worst home loss in Tara's career). Oregon won the conference regular season. Conference tourneys are overvalued I think. Stanford probably had a better OOC schedule but it's not like Oregon's was bad.

Oregon went 5-3 entering the tournament last year, Stanford had won 9 straight. Both had almost identical records, but Stanford had a slightly higher RPI and SOS. Close, but they were still ahead and Stanford won the most recent matchup. They weren't light years ahead of Oregon, but based on the body of work they deserved to be in Oregon over the Ducks.

The original point I was trying to make was that no one ever considered the option of putting Stanford in Portland and moving Oregon to a different regional even if Stanford did have a stronger resume (which they did).

 

[Plebe]

That speaks to the inconsistency of the committees selection process. Maryland also had a similar record and year in 2017 but got placed a 3 seed in the tournament due to a weak schedule. I also don’t this Miss St will be as good as they were last year so it’s possible that they could run the table OOC and lose a couple SEC games but shouldn’t be awarded a higher seed because of it IMO.

The committee isn't always consistent but Maryland in 2017 had a weaker resume than Miss St in 2019. Yes, Maryland 17's was that bad. MSU at least had multiple top-25 wins (SC x2, TAMU, Marquette, KY). Maryland 17 had only one.

 

[bballnut90]

I see the argument, but I don't think you could finalize things in July. Just like some people are finalizing the POY race down to Ionescu and Cox and finalizing Oregon and Baylor as the top 2 teams, same logic applies that you can't just assume SC will go to Greenville before games are even played.

I do think the only way we'll get Greenville is if we're a #1 seed. I know that's not in line with most people's predictions right now, but it's still a shot given we've been #1 for 2 straight years. That's probably the only scenario that sends SC somewhere else. Even though I do agree, SC probably has an 80% chance to play in Greenville.

I agree with that Oregon suggestion..... and they are getting huge gifts 2 years in a row with regionals being in Portland. Though I don't agree that Stanford deserved it more last year. I think Oregon looked like the more impressive team overall despite some questionable games in the end and the Pac-12 title game defeat.

And I agree on your argument about the bottom feeders, though that's only talk in November or December. By the time conference games comes around, we'll be seen by how we play against Stanford and the Vancouver teams and vs SC and A&M, not how we do against Jackson State.

..

Obviously the season has to play out, but unless SC is unexpectedly horrible or Mississippi State is amazing I don't see it happening. The same can be said about Oregon not going to Portland....it's kind of on par with that even though everyone has Oregon locked in to that location before the season starts.

Plus for Mississippi State, travel time from Starkville to Greenville is about the same as it is to Dallas, so there isn't a big location preference between the two for MSU.

 

[MSUFan2003]

I just don't buy that other teams won't come play us. Maybe I don't understand how this all works, but does that seem like a legitimate reason?

 

[bballnut90]

I just don't buy that other teams won't come play us. Maybe I don't understand how this all works, but does that seem like a legitimate reason?

I agree. Even if it isn't top 20 teams, they should be targeting more teams with top 100 RPIs that may present more of a challenge than bottom feeder D1 schools.

 

[SimpleDawg]

@bballnut90

I agree with most of what you're saying. Louisville probably deserved to be over us (and they were). They shouldn't be penalized that harshly for one bad game. Although a really bad game and the fact that anyone could just say "we'll be #1 anyways, it's against Notre Dame win or lose, why bother playing at all." Still, despite that argument, it really was just one bad game by them and their highs were higher than ours last year. However, I think the fact that UConn had only 4 wins over teams seeded 8 or higher vs ours having 7 is a legitimate argument for putting us over UConn.

Though I agree with you about Oregon and Stanford. And now that you bring it up, I do see how similar their final resumes looked, though based on my eye test I thought Oregon was overall the better team. That game at the Farm was too big of a disaster for Stanford to erase from your eyes even though Stanford boasted some huge wins during the year: in the Pac-12 conference title game and against the #1 overall team.

And no arguments about your discussion on locations. Playing in Dallas is probably what most people are thinking right now, and I don't mind playing there but if Vic could reload his team up as well as he did last year, and grab some key wins on our schedule, and get into that conversation for being a #1 seed, I do think Greenville is definitely possible for us. Those are the two most realistic destinations - hoping dearly we don't get Portland again.

...

 

[SCspur]

The committee isn't always consistent but Maryland in 2017 had a weaker resume than Miss St in 2019. Yes, Maryland 17's was that bad. MSU at least had multiple top-25 wins (SC x2, TAMU, Marquette, KY). Maryland 17 had only one.

I was mainly speaking to their schedule next year in regards to the 2017 Maryland team but who knows with the committee anything can happen.

 

[Plebe]

Oregon went 5-3 entering the tournament last year, Stanford had won 9 straight. Both had almost identical records, but Stanford had a slightly higher RPI and SOS. Close, but they were still ahead and Stanford won the most recent matchup. They weren't light years ahead of Oregon, but based on the body of work they deserved to be in Oregon over the Ducks.

The original point I was trying to make was that no one ever considered the option of putting Stanford in Portland and moving Oregon to a different regional even if Stanford did have a stronger resume (which they did).

I don't agree. Oregon's resume on the whole had a very slight edge over Stanford's. Having a slightly higher RPI and SOS doesn't necessarily equate to having the stronger resume. In a comparison of quality wins and significant losses, Oregon just edged out Stanford.

 

[SCspur]

And I say it is what it is at this point.

I definitely don't think you're guaranteed Greenville. Don't know if you would have played in Greenville last year, and Mississippi State would've probably been the #1 seed there last year if the locations last year was this year's.

Attendance is one thing but it's not everything. I think you have to at least be a #1 or #2 seed to be playing in Greenville and I would definitely believe we are your biggest threat for that spot. Vic could easily finish higher in the standings than SC this year and be a higher overall ranked team which would give us the argument over you in Greenville.

Not saying you can't be overconfident in your team, but I'm just wondering if you realize that MSU and SC are seen as practically equal going into the year with about the same level of talent. I'm just surprised you don't see us as, once again, your main threat.

..

I might have a biased eye but I think SC has more talent. That’s not to say Miss St doesn’t I just feel like SC has more. I also never said you all weren’t SC’s main threat, A&M are threats as well, I just feel like the advantages plays in SC’s favor this year.

 

[SCspur]

@bballnut90

I agree with most of what you're saying. Louisville probably deserved to be over us (and they were). They shouldn't be penalized that harshly for one bad game. Although a really bad game and the fact that anyone could just say "we'll be #1 anyways, it's against Notre Dame win or lose, why bother playing at all." Still, despite that argument, it really was just one bad game by them and their highs were higher than ours last year. However, I think the fact that UConn had only 4 wins over teams seeded 8 or higher vs ours having 7 is a legitimate argument for putting us over UConn.

Though I agree with you about Oregon and Stanford. And now that you bring it up, I do see how similar their final resumes looked, though based on my eye test I thought Oregon was overall the better team. That game at the Farm was too big of a disaster for Stanford to erase from your eyes even though Stanford boasted some huge wins during the year: in the Pac-12 conference title game and against the #1 overall team.

And no arguments about your discussion on locations. Playing in Dallas is probably what most people are thinking right now, and I don't mind playing there but if Vic could reload his team up as well as he did last year, and grab some key wins on our schedule, and get into that conversation for being a #1 seed, I do think Greenville is definitely possible for us. Those are the two most realistic destinations - hoping dearly we don't get Portland again.

...

Also have to include A&M as a possibility to Dallas and either Miss St or them will likely have to play Baylor if that’s their destination. There’s also a possibility of Fort Wayne as well especially when the Committee thinks of you have to fully on a plane why not go farther.

 

[SimpleDawg]

I might have a biased eye but I think SC has more talent. That’s not to say Miss St doesn’t I just feel like SC has more. I also never said you all weren’t SC’s main threat, A&M are threats as well, I just feel like the advantages plays in SC’s favor this year.

Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with you predicting SC higher than us this year, but just not sure of the exact extent of how much you think we'll be a little worse than you.

And I think talent level is quite equal in Columbia and Starkville. 10 top 100 recruits by SC, 9 by Missisissippi State. Plus a few more (Scott, Bibby) that outplayed their initial ranking. SC might have more players ranked higher on the top 100 initially though, but I don't think those slight differences in initial ranking will end up showing on the court.

Sure... A&M is possible in Dallas too and if that's the case we could get Fort Wayne which could end up being the easiest regional if you think about it. If UConn gets sent somewhere else and Notre Dame takes a dip like everyone predicts, we might roll through that bracket easier depending on who the #1 or #2 team is there.

...

 

[Jmsdawg]

yikes....

I criticized Baylor’s OOC schedule but MSST OOC is even worse. I really do not see any game that will have any positive impact on attracting new WBB fans. Going to be hard to find a interesting game to watch amoung these game even for a MSST fan.

 

[Reypl21]

I criticized Baylor’s OOC schedule but MSST OOC is even worse. I really do not see any game that will have any positive impact on attracting new WBB fans. Going to be hard to find a interesting game to watch amoung these game even for a MSST fan.

I criticize both for their weak OOC schedules. Baylor is pathetic for being the defending champions and scheduling weak. Pathetic.

Vic has been feasting on cupcakes for several years. He came up just short of being champions the first two years, while missing out on the FF last year. I can't argue with his results, but his way of getting their is questionable. Playing against tough teams teaches you so much more than beating up on low teams.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I criticize both for their weak OOC schedules. Baylor is pathetic for being the defending champions and scheduling weak. Pathetic.

Vic has been feasting on cupcakes for several years. He came up just short of being champions the first two years, while missing out on the FF last year. I can't argue with his results, but his way of getting their is questionable. Playing against tough teams teaches you so much more than beating up on low teams.

But sadly, that is much the norm. I type a spreadsheet with the schedules for all the P5's, AAC (that will stop after UConn leaves), nBE and Rutgers and Arizona's opponents (then I highlight the wins in 1 color and the losses in another).

In any case, I find each year that schedules are not strong for most schools. UConn is an obvious exception every year, and select teams each season will have good schedules, often predicated on some tourneys they are in. But few of the decent (never mind top) teams play more than 3 really competitive games OOC. In large part, they count on the RPI boost of their conference, I suppose.

Notre Dame has often scheduled tougher than most, by the way, and Rutgers did for many years, although they have slacked off.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

I should just put this out there, but we tried REALLY hard to schedule top names, but it's much easier for teams who already had a contract worked out years before the schedule's release. I'll think we'll need to work out some future contracts by the end of this year against top teams... one that both sides can agree on.

But like I said, maybe the SEC won't suck this year and we can get a lot of good wins in conference. And that we play Stanford and another top 10 team in Vancouver this year. I'm sure Notre Dame or Louisville or some other top ACC team will go to Vancouver. Last year SC, Notre Dame, and Oregon State were there. They'll probably be 3 top 10 teams there this year.


...

I'm calling baloney on that one. Miss State has been a thing for several years now and has had plenty of time to get home and homes and neutral site appearances with top 20 programs. It's not like the college basketball elite tend to shy away from high profile games.

Cupcake schedule in college basketball makes no sense at all to me. Particularly for teams that know good and well they are going to make the tournament.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

And I say it is what it is at this point.

I definitely don't think you're guaranteed Greenville. Don't know if you would have played in Greenville last year, and Mississippi State would've probably been the #1 seed there last year if the locations last year was this year's.

Attendance is one thing but it's not everything. I think you have to at least be a #1 or #2 seed to be playing in Greenville and I would definitely believe we are your biggest threat for that spot. Vic could easily finish higher in the standings than SC this year and be a higher overall ranked team which would give us the argument over you in Greenville.

Not saying you can't be overconfident in your team, but I'm just wondering if you realize that MSU and SC are seen as practically equal going into the year with about the same level of talent. I'm just surprised you don't see us as, once again, your main threat.

..

In all likelihood, the NCAA will send South Carolina as far west as it can possibly manage, but Kentucky tends to be seeded in Lexington every time it's a possibility regardless of their seed so it's been known to happen.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with you predicting SC higher than us this year, but just not sure of the exact extent of how much you think we'll be a little worse than you.

And I think talent level is quite equal in Columbia and Starkville. 10 top 100 recruits by SC, 9 by Missisissippi State. Plus a few more (Scott, Bibby) that outplayed their initial ranking. SC might have more players ranked higher on the top 100 initially though, but I don't think those slight differences in initial ranking will end up showing on the court.

Sure... A&M is possible in Dallas too and if that's the case we could get Fort Wayne which could end up being the easiest regional if you think about it. If UConn gets sent somewhere else and Notre Dame takes a dip like everyone predicts, we might roll through that bracket easier depending on who the #1 or #2 team is there.

...

I don't think the following means a whole lot, but I kind of object to your use of statistics:

Top 15 Top 30 Top 50 Top 75 Top 100
South Carolina 5 7 9 10 10
Miss State 2 4 6 7 9

Looking at that makes me a little anxious. South Carolina has a lot of high end talent on next season's roster.

 

[mbr33ct]

Such nonsense.

When UConn first joined the AAC the mantra was: the team won't be prepared for the NCAA tournament playing in such an easy conference. Then after UConn won four straight National Championships the mantra became: it's unfair that UConn has a chance to rest during it's conference season (even though the travel is brutal and UConn plays ranked non-conference teams in Jan and Feb).

Then, after UConn failed to win the championship for 3 straight years, we're back to the conference schedule isn't tough enough to prepare for the rigors of the Final Four. But now we're hearing the easy conference argument again.

It's tough to keep up.

I hope this tag line, " However he has the advantage of being able to rest and recover and prep for the postseason during the AAC BE conference schedule." does not carry into the following year BE and beyond.

 

[mbr33ct]

Love Vic and what he has done with MSU. They have been one of the top programs the last few years (2 final fours and elite 8). They should not be playing OOC schedules like this. This is something I would expect Vandy, Florida or Ole Miss to play....

...or a team like Tenn that's rebuilding.

 

[mbr33ct]

I criticize both for their weak OOC schedules. Baylor is pathetic for being the defending champions and scheduling weak. Pathetic.

Vic has been feasting on cupcakes for several years. He came up just short of being champions the first two years, while missing out on the FF last year. I can't argue with his results, but his way of getting their is questionable. Playing against tough teams teaches you so much more than beating up on low teams.

I heard Vic has a sweet tooth, as another poster suggested.

 

[Jmsdawg]

I don't think the following means a whole lot, but I kind of object to your use of statistics:

Top 15 Top 30 Top 50 Top 75 Top 100
South Carolina 5 7 9 10 10
Miss State 2 4 6 7 9

Looking at that makes me a little anxious. South Carolina has a lot of high end talent on next season's roster.

My take, I believe SC and MSST will both be very good next season, as to who wins the SEC I still think A&M has the experience and talent and has the edge as of today. If A&M stumbles I think physicality will be the key to winning the SEC. I know Vic will do all he can get us ready as will Dawn, going to be an exciting season next year. BRING IT ON!