Our Non Conference

[AllHusky]

Because we've played like 6 sub-300 teams. They are joke games we should have never played.

So, if: BE Regular season Champs and 2nd in tourney to Marquette who we beat twice in regular. How much will the "joke game" factor impact our NCAA Tourney seed?

 

[tzznandrew]

So your contention is that Arkansas Pine Bluff and the Sisters of the Poor are going to drag us down instead of our OOC resume lifting us up? Or that you think we are going to suffer another January like last year? Or that we can't win the BE Tourney?

If we do another January and don't win the BE Tourney, we probably don't deserve a higher seed.

If we have a 3 loss or better Regular Season(champs??) and win the BE Tourney, don't you think we'll be a 1 or 2?

I think that we gave ourselves less of a margin of error by scheduling these ****y schools. If we play as we're capable of and go into selection Sunday with a record like 30-3 or 29-4, we're getting a 1-seed. But a little more a slip up and the volume of Q4 games might let lesser team's resume look better.

Ultimately, I think games against sub-300 teams in particular do nothing to help us. They lower our basic computer metrics (including the NET which includes SOS). They hurt our resume by giving us more Q4 games. They don't provide a test in any way. They don't even come close to exciting the fan base. All they really offer is a chance for our players to get hurt with no upside. There's no good reason to play them.

 

[tzznandrew]

Before I can agree they never should have been played I’d like to know when we scheduled them. Do you know?

Most of these buy games aren't scheduled out years in advance. I don't know for a fact (and I'm happy to be corrected) but my assumption is that these are scheduled within the calendar year they take place.

 

[Waquoit]

You'll never give up on this, will you? Sigh.

I will never prostrate myself on the altar of Ken Pom, correct. And I think only a couple of you Pommie's truly know how to interpret data.

 

[uconngb]

All of this nonsense would go away if we weren’t so scared to schedule Bryant.

 

[Travelman6]

Im pretty sure someone said we could beat an nba team

Ya Detriot wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[ctchamps]

Most of these buy games aren't scheduled out years in advance. I don't know for a fact (and I'm happy to be corrected) but my assumption is that these are scheduled within the calendar year they take place.

That's my guess as well. They kept five slots open and planned on scheduling them dependent on which players were returning. We knew Joey, Alleyne and Adama were definitively or almost certainly leaving. Hawkins was projected as well and his end of season play confirmed it. Andre, Tristen, Samson, Hassan and Donovan were question marks.

Imagine this season without Donovan, Tristen, Samson or Hassan and Timberlake instead of Cam. We could be fighting for an NCAA berth. A lot would be dependent on how quickly the freshman class developed. The safety net for scheduling defensively was supposed to be a very strong BE. I doubt anyone projected the BE to be underwhelming OOC this year. I believe this a good argument for scheduling these awful programs.

 

[Tenspro2002]

If we play how we've been playing, we're going to be fine. Keep winning and we don't have to worry.

If we're in a group competing for a 1 seed against:

Arizona
Marquette
Purdue
Kansas

We might be in trouble and those bad teams might come back to bite us. All those teams have played exceptional teams and don't have nearly as many bottom feeders.

I'm actually not sure about this.

If we were scrapping for a spot on the bubble and the Committee is sort of blindly looking at computer numbers, then maybe an NET of 50 instead of 45 because we played teams in the #300-350 range instead of the #200-250 range would hurt us.

But if we're in the top 5 and competing for a #1 seed, or competing for #1 in the East, the Committee is going to scrutinize who we beat and lost to among the other top teams, they're not going to care that we beat #350 instead of #250.

 

[connVA]

I don't underestimate his ability to schedule for success.

#1 in Kenpom and their best competition has been a watered down Charleston Invitational field and Xavier in the BE-B12 challenge. Certainly knows how to work the algorithm.

 

[tzznandrew]

That's my guess as well. They kept five slots open and planned on scheduling them dependent on which players were returning. We knew Joey, Alleyne and Adama were definitively or almost certainly leaving. Hawkins was projected as well and his end of season play confirmed it. Andre, Tristen, Samson, Hassan and Donovan were question marks.

Imagine this season without Donovan, Tristen, Samson or Hassan and Timberlake instead of Cam. We could be fighting for an NCAA berth. A lot would be dependent on how quickly the freshman class developed. The safety net for scheduling defensively was supposed to be a very strong BE. I doubt anyone projected the BE to be underwhelming OOC this year. I believe this a good argument for scheduling these awful programs.

Here's the thing: given the talent level of UConn even if more people left or different things took place...the team will still reliably beat a team around 200 with ease. Those aren't powerhouses.

I get playing some scrubs. It's just the dreck we play is way worse than it needs to be, IMO.

 

[Mazhude]

Your use of "literally" is actually worse than Deepster's of "penultimate".

If only he'd used "decimate" as well...

 

[KingAG]

Are we really criticizing a scheduling method that led us to a national championship???

 

[Huskyforlife]

Are we really criticizing a scheduling method that led us to a national championship???

I don’t think anyone really cares that much anymore, it’s just conversation between games. It’s just true that we’d still beat up on teams in the 200-250 range, and they’d make our scheduling numbers look better. And it’s impossible to say this is the absolute formula to winning championships, just cause it worked one time.

 

[KingAG]

I don’t think anyone really cares that much anymore, it’s just conversation between games. It’s just true that we’d still beat up on teams in the 200-250 range, and they’d make our scheduling numbers look better. And it’s impossible to say this is the absolute formula to winning championships, just cause it worked one time.

I think it shows at least that it’s inconsequential. It’s splitting hairs.

I would argue in the era of the transfer portal it’s beneficial. It gives your team glorified practices with real game pressure. With the high roster turnover it makes sense.

 

[elmcityboy]

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).

this is completely wrong. a quad 4 game is any team 161 or lower in the NET at home, so a "quality mid major" team like, for instance, upenn from the ivy league (net #174) is viewed the same as, say, mississippi valley (net #362) using the new system.

and that is only one factor in determining seedings -- other factors, including margin of victory and team efficiency, heavily favor teams that blow other teams out.

do you really think you know more about non-conference scheduling than our coaching staff?? we literally won a national championship last year with the same scheduling practices.

 

[Icehawk]

And folks keep ignoring that a few of those are HBCUs and Hurley has committed to playing them.

 

[Tiamat7]

KenPom's rankings are among the most respected out there. His algorithm doesn't need any work. And by advanced metrics they haven't played 4 games against Top 15 competition:

11 Kansas
19 Gonzaga
15 North Carolina
32 Texas

I'm happy we played all those games, and the team will benefit from them all. I think it has given a fair representation of what it was going for: the general strength of the teams we have played. We played 5 good to very good teams, and then a bunch of trash.

The Texas win should age well. Their Kenpom and NET will rise if they do reasonably well in the killer Big 12. And Dylan Disu (who wasn't available against UConn) looked good in his return last game.

 

[87Xfer]

this is completely wrong. a quad 4 game is any team 161 or lower in the NET at home, so a "quality mid major" team like, for instance, upenn from the ivy league (net #174) is viewed the same as, say, mississippi valley (net #362) using the new system.

and that is only one factor in determining seedings -- other factors, including margin of victory and team efficiency, heavily favor teams that blow other teams out.

do you really think you know more about non-conference scheduling than our coaching staff?? we literally won a national championship last year with the same scheduling practices.

I'm pretty sure he does think so

 

[McLovin]

Yeah, and? A higher seed is indicative of a better team and it's better and easier to win the title from a higher seed. 60%+ of champs are 1 seeds. 33 out of 38 (since the expansion) have been 1, 2, or 3 seeds.

UConn is the only 7 seed and one of only two 4 seeds to win. Give me a great resume and a 1 or 2 seed every year.

Kansas has a great resume and a 1 or 2 seed every year and we have more titles in the last 13 seasons as a 3, 7 and 4 seed than they have in 30 years.

I’m really not worried about seeding. If we take care of business and aren’t rewarded with a top seed, great, we’ll have less cupcakes next year. If we take care of business and are rewarded with a top seed, great, the schedules worked out as planned.

Either way, I don’t care who we play in March if we are playing like we are capable.

 

[McLovin]

Here's the thing: given the talent level of UConn even if more people left or different things took place...the team will still reliably beat a team around 200 with ease. Those aren't powerhouses.

I get playing some scrubs. It's just the dreck we play is way worse than it needs to be, IMO.

But margin of victory is a big factor in the overall computer rankings. So why risk beating a quad 4 team ranked 200 by 14 when you can smash the 357th team by 42? That’s the game Hurley is playing and what he’s banking on. We’ll see if it pays off…

 

[jibsey]

Even though teams that are 4’s and 7’s don’t usually win it all there are tons of 1’s, 2’s and 3’s that bomb out every year so what’s the problem? We’re not going in less than a 3 likely and we have to earn it no matter what seed we have.

 

[PAHusky]

Even though teams that are 4’s and 7’s don’t usually win it all there are tons of 1’s, 2’s and 3’s that bomb out every year so what’s the problem? We’re not going in less than a 3 likely and we have to earn it no matter what seed we have.

Right but the logic here is pretty simple. You don’t need to be a high seed to win it. We’ve proven that. But it’s statistically more likely to win a chip if you are and you clearly have an easier initial path the higher seed you are, so why wouldn’t you want one? Of course you have to earn it regardless of seed, so what?

 

[jibsey]

Right but the logic here is pretty simple. You don’t need to be a high seed to win it. We’ve proven that. But it’s statistically more likely to win a chip if you are and you clearly have an easier initial path the higher seed you are, so why wouldn’t you want one? Of course you have to earn it regardless of seed, so what?

Isn’t a 1, 2, or 3 seed good enough? I don’t see us worse than that unless injuries. You get a 16, 15, 14 in game one, an 8, 7, and 6 potentially in game 2. After that you gotta beat a team ranked worse than the Zags we just beat by 13 points.
Can’t protect against a higher seed playing out of their minds but how does the strength of our non conference schedule impact our situation this year based on what we’ve already done?

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Playing Mississippi Valley State is actually good and your seed doesn't matter because Shabazz Napier.

 

[uconn_jack]

How much of the NCAA Tourney seeding is human versus computer algorithims(sp?)?

It's all human, they just cherry pick computer analytic rankings to try and justify why they seeded teams where they did, even if they do so inconsistently.

 

[tzznandrew]

this is completely wrong. a quad 4 game is any team 161 or lower in the NET at home, so a "quality mid major" team like, for instance, upenn from the ivy league (net #174) is viewed the same as, say, mississippi valley (net #362) using the new system.

and that is only one factor in determining seedings -- other factors, including margin of victory and team efficiency, heavily favor teams that blow other teams out.

do you really think you know more about non-conference scheduling than our coaching staff?? we literally won a national championship last year with the same scheduling practices.

It's not viewed the same because SOS is factored into NET. So even if they don't look at it, it affects things.

do you really think you know more about non-conference scheduling than our coaching staff??

What kind of dumb ass ***** question is this? Why not just shut the board down if we can't talk about the games or make semi-critical statements.

I have given many reasons why I think those games are terrible to play. Only one avenue of reasoning is that it affects our tournament seeding. I think it does and it has. I think the other reasons, though, are sufficient to not play East Bumblechuck State in December. Because, as I have conceded, if we win big games it's not going to be all that important. We're talking about things on the about margins here.

 

[tzznandrew]

Playing Mississippi Valley State is actually good and your seed doesn't matter because Shabazz Napier.

Seriously. The stands are nearly empty. The teams gets almost nothing. It adds nothing to our resume and hurts our advanced metrics. And (as I've said before and I stand by it) these sorts of schedules affect things on the margins.

They're bad games that fans don't care about and only offer injury risk.

 

[elmcityboy]

It's not viewed the same because SOS is factored into NET. So even if they don't look at it, it affects things.

this is simply not true lol

you are being ridiculous

 

[Waquoit]

I think this team is primed and ready to hit on all cylinders going into conference play. Isn't that what an OOC schedule is for? UConn played 3 teams better than the best team Houston played. KenPom says that's good for being 49 spots ranked lower in SOS. Nonsense.

 

[PAHusky]

Isn’t a 1, 2, or 3 seed good enough? I don’t see us worse than that unless injuries. You get a 16, 15, 14 in game one, an 8, 7, and 6 potentially in game 2. After that you gotta beat a team ranked worse than the Zags we just beat by 13 points.
Can’t protect against a higher seed playing out of their minds but how does the strength of our non conference schedule impact our situation this year based on what we’ve already done?

Fair enough, agree completely that there's not much difference amongst 1-2-3 seeds.