Article on American OOC Schedules

[BFieldHusky]

Witchia writer. He ranks the OOC schedules like this in terms of difficulty (I don't agree this btw)

1. Witchia State
2. Temple
3. Cincinnati
4. Memphis
5. UCF
6. UConn
7. Houston
8. Tulsa
9. SMU
10. Tulane
11. East Carolina
12. USF

6. Connecticut
Home: Morehead State, UMKC, Cornell, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Lowell, Arizona, Lafayette, Manhattan, Drexel.
Neutral: 2K Empire Classic (Syracuse and Iowa*), Florida State, Villanova.
Away: None.

There’s no doubt UConn has the flashiest top-end of the schedule, as it will likely play a conference-best four Q1 games from neutral-court games against Syracuse, Florida State, Villanova and either Oregon or Iowa. But how many of those games are the Huskies winning? If it’s zero, then UConn basically only has one chance at a quality win: at home against Arizona. UConn doesn’t play any true road games and the other eight home games are all likely Q4, which brings this schedule down a few notches for me. Grade: B


Here’s why WSU has the strongest nonconference schedule in the American

 

[Storrs South]

Witchia writer. He ranks the OOC schedules like this in terms of difficulty (I don't agree this btw)

1. Witchia State
2. Temple
3. Cincinnati
4. Memphis
5. UCF
6. UConn
7. Houston
8. Tulsa
9. SMU
10. Tulane
11. East Carolina
12. USF

6. Connecticut
Home: Morehead State, UMKC, Cornell, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Lowell, Arizona, Lafayette, Manhattan, Drexel.
Neutral: 2K Empire Classic (Syracuse and Iowa*), Florida State, Villanova.
Away: None.

There’s no doubt UConn has the flashiest top-end of the schedule, as it will likely play a conference-best four Q1 games from neutral-court games against Syracuse, Florida State, Villanova and either Oregon or Iowa. But how many of those games are the Huskies winning? If it’s zero, then UConn basically only has one chance at a quality win: at home against Arizona. UConn doesn’t play any true road games and the other eight home games are all likely Q4, which brings this schedule down a few notches for me. Grade: B


Here’s why WSU has the strongest nonconference schedule in the American

I don't even know where to start with how dumb his logic is for not having UConn's schedule #1.

 

[NJHoops]

It’s like he made predictions on each game and then went back to judge the schedule.

That’s not how that works.

I understand that the OOC is easily split into two groups, but you can’t judge it based on thinking that they’re going to lose all the good games.

 

[RayIsTheGOAT]

You really have to wonder how some of these people have a job.

He's like countering the argument that UConn has a flashy schedule with the idea that they dont have a good chance to win them, implying it's not a difficult schedule.
I can't believe I even have to type that out because it's so dumb. It doesn't make sense.

Tougher games=tougher schedule, 2=2?

The only argument against the OOC schedule is no true road games and lowly ranked cupcakes. But it's still better than most AAC teams.
Dumb.

 

[kobe]

wichita has #1 schedule according to a paper in wichita. im stunned bois

 

[Guapo]

You really have to wonder how some of these people have a job.

He's like countering the argument that UConn has a flashy schedule with the idea that they dont have a good chance to win them, implying it's not a difficult schedule.
I can't believe I even have to type that out because it's so dumb. It doesn't make sense.

Tougher games=tougher schedule, 2=2?

The only argument against the OOC schedule is no true road games and lowly ranked cupcakes. But it's still better than most AAC teams.
Dumb.

There’s a reason he’s writing for a paper in Witchita, South Dakota

 

[auror]

The top of the AAC appears to be down this season, but its depth should still produce an at-large bid (or a few). Which teams have scheduled to grab those bids? Let’s take a look around the American and grade each team’s nonconference schedule.

You guys complaining about his schedule rankings need to realize he's specifically grading how likely they are to give that team (as currently projected) a chance to make the NCAA tournament as an at-large team. Essentially, how smart did they schedule?

So yes, as he notes, our schedule gives us the best shot if we win the games. But I've posted in other threads that our schedule is not a good one for us to just sneak into the tournament on the bubble. We're going to be underdogs in probably every noteworthy OOC game because we don't have any of them at home (Arizona is not currently projected as a tournament team). And we don't quite have the pure volume to win a couple and say we had a tough schedule put us in anyways. Put it this way, if we do enough to prove we deserve to be in the dance, we'll probably actually be a top 25 ranked team.

We scheduled fairly tough but not smart.

 

[Wordbomar]

Cincy and UConn have the top 2 OOC schedules. Everyone else is a good distance behind them

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

Doesn’t even include Arizona in Q1 games

 

[auror]

Doesn’t even include Arizona in Q1 games

Home against the #76 team doesn't qualify as Q1.

 

[LStudfellow]

I think most of us would agree that we would like to see at least one true road game against a semi-tough to tough P5/Big East team on our OOC.

That having been said... this guy is a genius and not only wearing home glasses, but his entire outfit blares Wichita State. Wichita State, with Providence at home as its "hardest game" and Oklahoma as its hardest road game (look how low they are ranked by Matt Norlander in his rankings yesterday: #92... this is not the usual Oklahoma team, or even the one with Trae Young last year).

We have at least 3 and maybe 4 teams on our schedule ranked far above their 1 bubble team, at home.

Ray, you are 100% right. How does this idiot have this job? You would think by these rankings that Wichita has at least one, if not 2, heavyweights on their OOC. The truth is, in name (Oklahoma and Baylor) only...

Edit: P.S. The kicker, to counteract your point Auror is the following: yes, the writer prefaced his rankings with a "which OOC schedule gives a team the best chance to make the tournament as an at-large team"

And he is 100% wrong by that measure, as well. Yes, every year we hear that Strength Of Schedule is the most important measure the committee uses - and every year, it is the bubble team with the most "glamour" wins (wins against the heavyweights) that gets that gets in, usually over at least one if not several teams with a better overall "body of work."
Cases in point: Arizona State last year and Syracuse in 2016. And although Arizona State's win did happen on Kansas' home court last year, we have also seen neutral court wins against heavyweights given huge weight, as well.

 

[businesslawyer]

You have to give him credit -- that is a shocking (get it?) misuse of logic to reach his result. Your schedule does not become easier because the teams you are playing are so good you are not going to beat them. Sheesh.

 

[Waquoit]

I can't get too upset about this. We scheduled for success after all.

 

[auror]

You have to give him credit -- that is a shocking (get it?) misuse of logic to reach his result. Your schedule does not become easier because the teams you are playing are so good you are not going to beat them. Sheesh.

He's not ranking the toughness of the schedule. He's projecting the smartness.

 

[HawkHusky]

He's right about us having either great games or really bad ones. I'd like to see a few quality mid-majors every year (Vermont/Harvard/Yale/A-10 schools/etc).

 

[FlippinCrazy!]

He's not ranking the toughness of the schedule. He's projecting the smartness.

I think it’s more, which non-conference record will look the best by end of season. But yes his point definitely isn’t SOS

 

[jibsey]

Our schedule OOC home, neutral and away has not been a problem, it’s the performance. Of course we have been stacked up early the last few years without much choice. We win these games and we’re sitting pretty. At this point I wouldn’t want it tougher than it is right now.

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

I feel like by his logic we’d be better off if our schedule was just 140-150. We have enough mid100 teams in league.

 

[Chief00]

You really have to wonder how some of these people have a job.

He's countering the argument that UConn has a flashy schedule with the idea that they don't have a good chance to win them, implying it's not a difficult schedule.
I can't believe I even have to type that out because it's so dumb. It doesn't make sense.

Tougher games=tougher schedule, 2=2?

The only argument against the OOC schedule is no true road games and lowly ranked cupcakes. But it's still better than most AAC teams.
Dumb.

The writer has to do logical gymnastics to rank his WSU homies #1. Strength of schedule is strength of schedule - bringing his opinion into who is going to win what games is an entirely different matter. He also neglected to mention one of these teams has won the National Championship in the last 5 years when he did his 5 year lookback and it’s not his homey team.

 

[auror]

Edit: P.S. The kicker, to counteract your point Auror is the following: yes, the writer prefaced his rankings with a "which OOC schedule gives a team the best chance to make the tournament as an at-large team"

And he is 100% wrong by that measure, as well. Yes, every year we hear that Strength Of Schedule is the most important measure the committee uses - and every year, it is the bubble team with the most "glamour" wins (wins against the heavyweights) that gets that gets in, usually over at least one if not several teams with a better overall "body of work."
Cases in point: Arizona State last year and Syracuse in 2016. And although Arizona State's win did happen on Kansas' home court last year, we have also seen neutral court wins against heavyweights given huge weight, as well.

You have to WIN the "glamour" games to get in. As projected by KenPom currently, we only have a 35% chance to get any wins at all in the 3 guaranteed neutral games against those top 15 teams. Probably 40/60 to win the 2nd tournament (Iowa/Oregon) game, and 55/45 for the Arizona game, so 73% for at least 1 win between those two and almost 20% chance we go 0-5 in those games.. The most likely outcome is to go 1-4 with the one win being Q2 (but 2-3 with 1 Q1 and 1 Q2 has an okay shot).

Because our actual conference is unlikely (or unable) to supply many of them, our schedule is lacking home games in the 15-30 range and neutral games in the 20-50 range (other than hopefully the 1 Iowa or Oregon game). We also have 0 non-conference road games in the 40-75 range. These are the sweet spots of gaming the quadrant system. Winnable games for bubble teams that in aggregate often count the same in the committee's eyes as heavyweight wins because they are Q1.

Power 5 conference teams load up on the road and home variety in conference play, but we're not as fortunate. By KenPom, we have 4 total Q1 opportunities in conference play. And since they're all on the road, we've got a 33% chance to lose all 4 (and the bulk of the remaining 67% is 1 win and 3 losses). So a 1-7 or 2-6 Q1 record is quite likely and that essentially means we've pulled 1 or 2 upsets since we won't be favored in a single one of the Q1 games. That result would require us to really clean up on not just the cupcakes but Q2 especially to have any chance of sniffing the tournament at all.

For context, you mentioned Arizona St. last year and Syracuse 2016. ASU was 4-5 in Q1 games and Syracuse '16 was pre-quadrant system but were 4-7 in Q1. 4 or 5 Q1 wins seems to be the pre-requisite for bubble teams. So just 2 upsets isn't going to do it, we'll probably need 4 or 5 (and at that point are they really upsets or we just good? And is being actual top 25 good within the ceiling of our projected range of outcomes?)

I think most of us disagree with the pessimistic KenPom preseason rating for the team, but regardless this schedule is not conducive to even a bubble strength team making the tournament due to the way it is constructed.

 

[Mokum]

We will beat all of them. Stop worrying about it!

 

[LStudfellow]

"I think most of us disagree with the pessimistic KenPom preseason rating for the team, but regardless this schedule is not conducive to even a bubble strength team making the tournament due to the way it is constructed.[/QUOTE]

I agree that our schedule could be a bit more conducive to helping us get in if we are a bubble team on Selection Sunday - but there is no way Wichita St.'s is #1 in the conference, or ours is #6. That is just nonsensical.

I will come at it from another direction Auror: Which of the following top-end OOC schedules gives a school a better chance to get pushed into the tournament field based on the all-important name recognition?

Providence (H), Baylor (H), Oklahoma (A) and.... Davidson? Louisiana Tech?
vs.
Villanova (N) (last year's national champion), Syracuse (N), Florida St. (N) and Arizona (H)

Ours... and it is not even close

You want to talk "quadrants" and I submit to you over 30 years of experience of watching closely every Selection Sunday - the bubble teams that get in are overwhelmingly (with only a very few notable exceptions) biased toward the Power conferences and schools with a couple of wins versus powerhouses during the year... the quadrant system is just another manufactured bunch of crap to justify to guys like you how totally undeserving teams like Arizona State last year got chosen. A win over Kansas in December (catching Kansas at the right time) should not have trumped their 8-11 (including tournament loss to Colorado) conference record and tied for 8th finish in the very mediocre Pac 12 last year - but it did. They finished with an RPI of 73. 73! No business making the tournament, none at all.

Beating Villanova has a better than average choice of having a similar effect for us as beating Kansas had for Arizona St. Wichita has nobody remotely like that on their OOC schedule. Case closed.

 

[auror]

I agree that our schedule could be a bit more conducive to helping us get in if we are a bubble team on Selection Sunday - but there is no way Wichita St.'s is #1 in the conference, or ours is #6. That is just nonsensical.

I will give come at it from another direction Auror: Which of the following top-end OOC schedules gives a school a better chance to get pushed into the tournament field based on the all-important name recognition?

Providence (H), Baylor (H), Oklahoma (A) and.... Davidson? Louisiana Tech?
vs.
Villanova (N) (last year's national champion), Syracuse (N), Florida St. (N) and Arizona (H)

Ours... and it is not even close

You want to talk "quadrants" and I submit to you over 30 years of experience of watching closely every Selection Sunday - the bubble teams that get in are overwhelmingly (with only a very few notable exceptions) biased toward the Power conferences and schools with a couple of wins versus powerhouses during the year... the quadrant system is just another manufactured bunch of crap to justify to guys like you how totally undeserving teams like Arizona State last year got chosen. A win over Kansas in December (catching Kansas at the right time) should not have trumped their 8-11 (including tournament loss to Colorado) conference record and tied for 8th finish in the very mediocre Pac 12 last year - but it did. They finished with an RPI of 73. 73! No business making the tournament, none at all..

Beating Villanova has a better than average choice of having a similar effect for us as beating Kansas had for Arizona St. Wichita has nobody remotely like that on their OOC schedule. Case closed.

1) Nobody convinced me Arizona St was deserving, just that the committee used that criteria to select them so we should probably value it. You also shouldn't use RPI as your main point to retro-exclude them... there's a reason the NCAA did away with it.
2) Does it look like "Wins - Providence, @Oklahoma, Davidson, Louisiana Tech... Losses - None" vs. "Wins - Arizona... Losses - Villanova, Syracuse, Florida St."? If so, I'll take the former. There is certainly a value to the opportunity, but I see it a bit like the 3 pointer vs. 2 pointer debate in reverse.. Is it better to have a big name opponent you have a 20% chance to beat that will really improve your chances to get in or a team you have a 50% chance to beat that will still improve your chances but not as much. In the end I lean towards the 50% if it has a decent shot to be Q1.
3) Having a differing opinion than the author is perfectly valid, but a lot of people in this thread didn't even understand what he was arguing.

 

[Adios]

Witchia?

 

[Waquoit]

As projected by KenPom currently, we only have a 35% chance to get any wins at all in the 3 guaranteed neutral games against those top 15 teams. .

After UConn won 11 in a row and the NC, KenPom had UConn ranked 10th. That fact never leaves me when I hear KenPom.

 

[pj]

I don't even know where to start with how dumb his logic is for not having UConn's schedule #1.

It's simple. If you lose, the game doesn't count. You lose to better teams. Therefore having better teams on your schedule doesn't make your schedule stronger. Only having worse teams on your schedule can give you a strong schedule. Therefore, the team with the worst opponents has the strongest schedule.

 

[Tyler2Rings]

After UConn won 11 in a row and the NC, KenPom had UConn ranked 10th. That fact never leaves me when I hear KenPom.

idk, I mean it is a holistic look at a team from November to April. When UConn was hot (Maui and March), we were one of if not the best team in the country. When we were cold, still a top 25 team but probably not top 10. I agree any preseason ranking is suspect but kenpom does a good job quantifying teams as the season goes on. Better than other computerized rankings IMO