Non-Conference Schedule needs more.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

DeadHorseBeater: start a thread just for your comments. If it's orginal or something that we haven't discussed someone will weigh in. If not you will be talking to yourself away from the rest of us.

Wasn't that basically what this thread was? Those who felt that his comments were boring, same-old-same-old, and lacking originality could have ignored this thread, but many didn't. I fear that "deadhorsebeater" could start a new thread as you suggest and the same thing that happened here would repeat itself.

[Rlh04d]

You are addressing the issues/phenomenons of "trying to schedule well" and "getting unlucky with opponents having poorer than predicted seasons.

I was not attempting to address either of those. I was trying to reference actual results. Whether the schedule was well planned, or simply the results of pure luck, I was simply saying that the 2014-2015 schedule, AS IT ACTUALLY PLAYED OUT, became a big hinderance on WSU's seed. I hate the fact that the committee did what it did, and I hate the fact that WSU tried to schedule better and ended up being a bit unlucky with teams like St. Louis tanking badly...

but...

It was what it was. Schedule hurt WSU were it really counts: seed. That was all I was trying to say, and I only brought it up as a counter to a post cdizzle made about how strong WSU's RPI had been the past several years. His wording made it sound like WSU had not been hurt in recent year's by its schedule. I simply wanted to counter that thought.

Gotcha. I was thinking you were arguing for taking buy games to up our schedule strength.

I don't think anyone would argue with making our schedule as difficult as possible in a fair way -- home and homes & neutral site games with the best quality competition we can play. But that will always be difficult for us.

[pogo]

DeadHorseBeater: start a thread just for your comments. If it's orginal or something that we haven't discussed someone will weigh in. If not you will be talking to yourself away from the rest of us.

The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long.

[AZ Shocker]

Having a good to great Non-con schedule is no doubt a big thing for Wichita St. (as many D-I schools)....BUT...the grind of the Valley (even though the MVC isn't considered a GREAT basketball conference) is plenty hard. The MVC doesn't always get the run the P-5 schools and a couple other conferences get nationally....but man...that MVC is tough. Well coached teams that play sound basketball. The teams in the MVC just don't go out there and try to run past everyone and jump higher than everyone. It's physical and game planned wonderfully. I don't see that much from the P-5 schools when they are playing games within their conference. Just ask kansas how tough Valley schools are. ku can blow thru the Big-12 every year but when faced with a well coached sound basketball team...they fail (like alot). In other words...sometimes I wonder is it harder to beat kansas...or Evansville??? You guys know what I mean?

Don't get me wrong. I would love to have home and homes with Duke, North Carolina, Arizona, Michigan St. Louisville, etc simply from a fan stand point. And I'm pretty sure...coach wouldn't turn down none of them. Even if all the blue-bloods lined up to play us in one single season.

[shelback]

We all complain about the Valley but! There are 23 other NCAA D1 basketball confrences ranked lower and the best team from our conference beat the #1 team fron the top ranked confrence. On a good year the Valley can be closer to the top than the middle.

[ShockTalk]

We have had excellent SOS OOC over the last several years. One can go over board scheduling too hard in the OOC. Remember, this is the time period where new players are getting their first taste of D-I ball. It's also a transition period for returning players now playing without last year's seniors and working in the newbies.

The P-5 have the toughest part of their schedule in the last 2/3s of the season after their players have already gone through "the breaking in period". Unless you have everyone back and are mostly all juniors and seniors, a team scheduling too aggressively will probably be hurt more than helped.

[WuDrWu]

Can someone define how WSU was "hurt" by their non-conference schedule?

At what point could they have been "helped" instead of hurt by their non-conference schedule?

And if they were "hurt", wasn't some other team "hurt" more? Or was WSU hurt the most? I'm just trying to get a handle on all this hurt WSU is suffering due to flawed non-conference scheduling.

Thanks.

[Dupe]

Can someone define how WSU was "hurt" by their non-conference schedule?

At what point could they have been "helped" instead of hurt by their non-conference schedule?

And if they were "hurt", wasn't some other team "hurt" more? Or was WSU hurt the most? I'm just trying to get a handle on all this hurt WSU is suffering due to flawed non-conference scheduling.

Thanks.

The way I remember it, we had a great resume until we hit the Valley.

[AZ Shocker]

Just for the record...I think Wichita St. has scheduled VERY WELL in the out of conference schedule since Gregg has been coach. Sometimes I re-read my post too many times getting even myself confused on what I just posted. Definitely not a communications major here fella's.

[jdshock]

I think the biggest benefit you get from playing a top 5 or a couple of top 10 teams in the non-conference is in who else you have to schedule to have a great NCSOS. KU has had some of the toughest NCSOS's in the last few years. All they do is play a couple great teams, then absolutely nobody. The problem with relying on teams like Memphis and Seton Hall to build your strength of schedule is two-fold: (1) the teams could definitely fall apart in any given year and (2) they're not going to be top 10 teams, but you're still only going to ever have like a 70% chance of beating them. If your schedule has UK and Michigan State, you're not expected to win both, so you get greater flexibility. Then you can run roughshod over the rest of your schedule. (unless you're KU. Then you lose by 30 to Temple...)

It's not just about SOS it's also about who you're beating. We're pretty dependent on winning all of our big games in the non-conference. We've done an incredible job of doing that lately. But Utah, for example, hurt us I think. I'm not sure the committee takes into consideration that it was a close loss in their arena. I could definitely be wrong about that. I just think with teams like us the committee is quick to say "they didn't get it done when it counted." I wish we could know how we would have been seeded had we beat Utah and I wish we could know how we would have been seeded if we didn't play Utah and beat podunk state instead.

[Shocker1976]

I think the biggest benefit you get from playing a top 5 or a couple of top 10 teams in the non-conference is in who else you have to schedule to have a great NCSOS. KU has had some of the toughest NCSOS's in the last few years. All they do is play a couple great teams, then absolutely nobody. The problem with relying on teams like Memphis and Seton Hall to build your strength of schedule is two-fold: (1) the teams could definitely fall apart in any given year and (2) they're not going to be top 10 teams, but you're still only going to ever have like a 70% chance of beating them. If your schedule has UK and Michigan State, you're not expected to win both, so you get greater flexibility. Then you can run roughshod over the rest of your schedule. (unless you're KU. Then you lose by 30 to Temple...)

It's not just about SOS it's also about who you're beating. We're pretty dependent on winning all of our big games in the non-conference. We've done an incredible job of doing that lately. But Utah, for example, hurt us I think. I'm not sure the committee takes into consideration that it was a close loss in their arena. I could definitely be wrong about that. I just think with teams like us the committee is quick to say "they didn't get it done when it counted." I wish we could know how we would have been seeded had we beat Utah and I wish we could know how we would have been seeded if we didn't play Utah and beat podunk state instead.

I agree with your analysis and would add the Two Guiding Principles for scheduling out of conference games:

1. Schedule home games against weak opponents

2. Schedule no more than two Neutral court games against quality opponents

A comparison of the schedules played by Duke and Wisconsin last year illustrate these two principles; although Duke made an exception and played Wisconsin in Madison during the season.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

KU has had some of the toughest NCSOS's in the last few years. All they do is play a couple great teams, then absolutely nobody.

I wouldn't call the "other" teams a bunch of "nobodies", but I get your point. KU has played a grand total of 3 non-conf games against teams outside the KenPom 150 in the last 2 years combined. You are correct jdshock, it does not take something crazy like playing 6 games against the top 10 to make for a very tough non-conf SOS. KU's scheduling key seems to be that they almost exclusively plays teams that will be threatening to be in the top 100 at season's end.

For reference, WSU has played 8 non-conf opponents outside the top 150 in the same timeframe. That's actually not that bad. Only 4 per year, well below 50%. WSU could possibly look to reduce the number of cupcakes even further, but unfortunately, at this point I don't know that that is what they really need. Sure, it would help the computer numbers, but I think image, rather than computer rankings, is what WSU most needs to continue to improve on. In that regard, beating good teams is about the only thing that can seem to do the trick. This year's committee showed that quite well.

If unable to get more big names in the regular season, hopefully the regular routine of WSU going to the Big Dance and beating big name teams there will slowly lead to the same results.

[ShocktheHawks]

I agree with your analysis and would add the Two Guiding Principles for scheduling out of conference games:

1. Schedule home games against weak opponents

2. Schedule no more than two Neutral court games against quality opponents

A comparison of the schedules played by Duke and Wisconsin last year illustrate these two principles; although Duke made an exception and played Wisconsin in Madison during the season.

There will be no agreements on this thread.

[jdshock]

I wouldn't call the "other" teams a bunch of "nobodies", but I get your point. KU has played a grand total of 3 non-conf games against teams outside the KenPom 150 in the last 2 years combined. You are correct jdshock, it does not take something crazy like playing 6 games against the top 10 to make for a very tough non-conf SOS. KU's scheduling key seems to be that they almost exclusively plays teams that will be threatening to be in the top 100 at season's end.

For reference, WSU has played 8 non-conf opponents outside the top 150 in the same timeframe. That's actually not that bad. Only 4 per year, well below 50%. WSU could possibly look to reduce the number of cupcakes even further, but unfortunately, at this point I don't know that that is what they really need. Sure, it would help the computer numbers, but I think image, rather than computer rankings, is what WSU most needs to continue to improve on. In that regard, beating good teams is about the only thing that can seem to do the trick. This year's committee showed that quite well.

If unable to get more big names in the regular season, hopefully the regular routine of WSU going to the Big Dance and beating big name teams there will slowly lead to the same results.

And maybe KU is a bad example. If I remember right, one of their recent seasons they were the only team in the top-100 in the top 10 NCSOS. Bill Self may be a chicken about scheduling us, but they have had pretty brutal non-conference schedules.

I guess my gut instinct is that (assuming you can schedule whomever you want) it's better to play one or two very elite teams and then a bunch of teams close to 100. I would rather have that schedule and feel better about our chances against that schedule than playing six top-30 teams. And that's specifically because of the image and perception that you mention. I think it looks better to beat Georgetown than Memphis (because of their name only). I think it looks better from a numbers stand-point to beat Duke once than to beat six Seton Hall level teams. And from a stats point of view, I'm pulling these numbers out of thin air, but let's say this year we had a 35% chance of beating duke and a 75% chance of beating Seton Hall. We have a much better chance of beating Duke in that scenario than beating the Seton Hall level team six times.

[RoyalShock]

All of the television analysts that I heard,said that we were underseeded. There was only one (Jerry Palm) that I heard that said that we should be seeded where we were.

I will, from now on, refer to Jerry Palm as "Fortune Cookie".

"Fortune cookie always wrong."