Our Non Conference | The Boneyard

Our Non Conference

Status
Not open for further replies.
jibsey

jibsey

Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
18,846
Reaction Score
34,138
Amazing performance and some here predicted it, but the national praises are already being shouted and there’s going to be a lot more to come for this team, and I’m much more comfortable coming at this from an underdog role. Don’t think that’s possible this season after seeing this non conference. We can have a challenging BE and lose games but unless Hurley sits down our first 5 players for large stretches and let the freshman develop with tons of floor time we have that status all year. And Castle has barely shown up yet.
 
RedStickHusky said:
Last year at this time the Boneyard was pretty unanimous in wondering where ANY Big East losses were coming from....
Expand ...
Yes, but I feel a lot better about this year’s Big East slate than I did last year. Marquette can clip us. So can Creighton if they shoot with any level of efficiency. One of Providence, Nova and St John’s might get us, but I don’t see losing 6 of 7 anywhere on the remaining schedule.
 
Yankees32123 said:
Yes, but I feel a lot better about this year’s Big East slate than I did last year. Marquette can clip us. So can Creighton if they shoot with any level of efficiency. One of Providence, Nova and St John’s might get us, but I don’t see losing 6 of 7 anywhere on the remaining schedule.
Expand ...
BE schedule is 180°from last years; toughest games are back-loaded. Should be a nice setup for tourney season.
 
.-.
I loved the 5 "power" non-conference games...great scheduling. My only wish is that we hadn't played 6 "cupcakes" with this team. Some years 6 non-conf buy games are fine, but this team would have been better off playing 1 or 2 quality mid-majors and less buy games.... playing 232, 237, 329, 348, 358 & 362 (out of 362) ranked in Kenpom is not all that helpful.

Minor complaint and not a big deal....on to the BE.
 
Last edited:
Hi-Low said:
I loved the 5 "power" non-conference games...great scheduling. My only wish is that we hadn't played 6 "cupcakes" with this team. Some years 6 non-conf buy games are fine, but this team would have been better off playing 1 or 2 quality mid-majors and less buy games.... playing 232, 237, 329, 348, 358 & 362 (out of 362) ranked in Kenpom is not all that helpful.

Minor complaint and not a big deal....on to the BE.
Expand ...
Despite playing some very good teams, our OOC SOS is pretty bad because of those really really bad teams. Currently 252 by KenPom.
 
tzznandrew said:
Despite playing some very good teams, our OOC SOS is pretty bad because of those really really bad teams. Currently 252 by KenPom.
Expand ...
This is why it’s bad to get lost in the numbers. We beat a number of high quality ranked teams so what does that matter?
 
.-.
jibsey said:
This is why it’s bad to get lost in the numbers. We beat a number of high quality ranked teams so what does that matter?
Expand ...
Not really about getting lost in the numbers...but scheduling 6 buy games knowing at least 4 will have really really bad "numbers" weighing down NCSOS wasn't ideal. Like I said not a major deal just would have liked 1 or 2 less of these games with this team....but I agree overall the 4 high quality non-conf wins heavily outweighs the poor NCSOS ranking in the end.
 
Last edited:
tzznandrew said:
Despite playing some very good teams, our OOC SOS is pretty bad because of those really really bad teams. Currently 252 by KenPom.
Expand ...
Just because a guy makes a number doesn't mean it has to be respected. Four games out of 11 against Top 15 competition away from home can't possibly be 252. His algorithm needs work.
 
#3 Kenpom, #6 NET, top 5 AP ranking going into BE play. 1 missed three away from being undefeated and honestly probably #1.

Fantastic work OOC. I'm positive the BE coaches already have different defenses lined up to go against us, and as we learned last season that can snowball pretty quickly. Quick adjustments will be key to getting that elusive BE championship
 
Right where I expected us to be. 1 loss and 1 shot away from undefeated.
 
Hi-Low said:
I loved the 5 "power" non-conference games...great scheduling. My only wish is that we hadn't played 6 "cupcakes" with this team. Some years 6 non-conf buy games are fine, but this team would have been better off playing 1 or 2 quality mid-majors and less buy games.... playing 232, 237, 329, 348, 358 & 362 (out of 362) ranked in Kenpom is not all that helpful.

Minor complaint and not a big deal....on to the BE.
Expand ...
The "buy" game opponents are probably why a team like Houston is rated higher at this time.
They didn't play a challenging OOC schedule but their worst opponents were superior to our worst opponents.
That said, courtesy of last year, I don't think any ratings or seedings matter when you have a well coached, balanced, team like ours in the NCAA Tournament.
 
.-.
Now that we can put a bow on the OOC season, I'd say this was in the 85th-90th percentile of possible outcomes.

We lost narrowly at Kansas in a game we could have won, though dealing with injuries (the Cam Spencer of the last few games would have beaten Kansas). We beat everyone else handily, including top 10 (for now) UNC and Gonzaga, as well as NCAAT-caliber (probably) Texas in semi-neutral games. A few of the cupcake games were only so-so.

But overall we're well positioned, resume and momentum wise, for conference play and eventually for March.
 
What was our seeding last year? Unless something terrible happens healthwise we’re going to be worse than a 3?
And how often have we seen #2’s and higher get knocked off? Our non conference is plenty good enough even with the low ranked ones as long as we’re intact and playing well In Feb and March.
 
tzznandrew said:
It could matter in seeding, especially with a weaker-than-expected Big East. There's a lot of Q4 games in there, and Indiana might end up only being a Q2.
Expand ...
strength of schedule is no longer factored into seeding. margin of victory is, though. hurley takes an analytics-based approach to scheduling, bringing in low major teams that we can absolutely wallop on.

there is basically no seeding-based argument for playing quality mid majors. if you want to say that it will prepare us better for the tourney, that's fine (although last year heartily disproved that argument) but otherwise this was pretty much an idealized non-conference schedule for us.
 
elmcityboy said:
there is basically no seeding-based argument for playing quality mid majors. if you want to say that it will prepare us better for the tourney, that's fine (although last year heartily disproved that argument) but otherwise this was pretty much an idealized non-conference schedule for us.
Expand ...
I agree. The cupcake games will have helped develop our depth.
 
.-.
jibsey said:
What was our seeding last year? Unless something terrible happens healthwise we’re going to be worse than a 3?
And how often have we seen #2’s and higher get knocked off? Our non conference is plenty good enough even with the low ranked ones as long as we’re intact and playing well In Feb and March.
Expand ...
If we perform to expectations in the BE (15-5 or 16-4, let's say), then we'll be a top 2 seed.

The problem last year was that we lost 8 games in conference.
 
Pure SoS doesn't matter much. We're 4th in Torvik WAB (Wins Above Bubble) and 5th in BPI SOR (Strength of Record) at the moment which are body of work resume metrics. So the strength of the schedule put us right in the spot we wanted it to, on track for a 1 seed. SOR is on the committee's team sheets, too.
 
REB1094 said:
#3 Kenpom, #6 NET, top 5 AP ranking going into BE play. 1 missed three away from being undefeated and honestly probably #1.

Fantastic work OOC. I'm positive the BE coaches already have different defenses lined up to go against us, and as we learned last season that can snowball pretty quickly. Quick adjustments will be key to getting that elusive BE championship
Expand ...
You are spitting only facts. I believe, in a clinical way, we will be the BE regular season Champs. The BE tourney, anything can happen. But aside from Shakas team. I do not see how we lose. I know that was said last year, but our five starters are ridiculous. It’ll be different in the BE this year. Our guys want to have that trophy.
 
elmcityboy said:
strength of schedule is no longer factored into seeding. margin of victory is, though. hurley takes an analytics-based approach to scheduling, bringing in low major teams that we can absolutely wallop on.

there is basically no seeding-based argument for playing quality mid majors. if you want to say that it will prepare us better for the tourney, that's fine (although last year heartily disproved that argument) but otherwise this was pretty much an idealized non-conference schedule for us.
Expand ...
Do they not factor in your record vs. various Quadrants, and then use a hold it against your team if you have played a ton of Q4 games? I've seen that every year as a thing discussed. It isn't literally called SOS...but it's that by another name.

And that's the seeding-based argument for playing higher quality low majors. (Not necessarily mid-majors).
 
Waquoit said:
I agree. The cupcake games will have helped develop our depth.
Expand ...
You can do that against teams that aren't among the worst 25-40 in Division 1. If you pick them right, you might even get better attendance.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,543
Messages
4,581,611
Members
10,491
Latest member
7774Forever


Top Bottom