Having played two Final 4 Teams (UW and MSU) twice this conference season and only having played Rutgers, Penn State, Minnesota and Nebraska once means that NU had a very difficult conference schedule. Also, having to play Maryland, the conference's no. 2 or 3 team on the road further added to NU's difficulty of its conference schedule.
Tough Conference Schedule
- Thread starter Walker Fan
- Start date
I don't think anyone denies our conf schedule was brutal this year. Hope it's better next year...
I don't see why the B1G doesn't go to a divisional structure and make these things less "random" and more "geographic".
The benefits are limiting travel, deepening rivalries, limiting "but our schedule was b.s." threads, and adding potential for an additional meaningless banner. The drawbacks are, I guess, that the banner is limited in value.
A pattern of outside-the-geography scheduling and conference tourneys in Washington DC and NYC (right?) has firmly established that the B1G and college sports are exclusively about making money at this point - isn't a geographically-tied schedule more likely to drive attendance and ratings than a random one? (That is, isn't IU at Welsh-Ryan more likely to draw a crowd than NU-Maryland, regardless of record?)
The schedule would simply be 12 conference games in your division, every year, six cross-divisional split between home and road, and one cross divisional home and home against the team that finished in the same spot as division as you. (Or, alternatively, miss one team and play a total of 18 games, with guarantee to never miss a team twice in a row.)
I think that the college football playoff has cooled potential expansion (except to the Big 12, presumably), so it's the right time to commit to something a bit more firm and less scattershot.
The benefits are limiting travel, deepening rivalries, limiting "but our schedule was b.s." threads, and adding potential for an additional meaningless banner. The drawbacks are, I guess, that the banner is limited in value.
A pattern of outside-the-geography scheduling and conference tourneys in Washington DC and NYC (right?) has firmly established that the B1G and college sports are exclusively about making money at this point - isn't a geographically-tied schedule more likely to drive attendance and ratings than a random one? (That is, isn't IU at Welsh-Ryan more likely to draw a crowd than NU-Maryland, regardless of record?)
The schedule would simply be 12 conference games in your division, every year, six cross-divisional split between home and road, and one cross divisional home and home against the team that finished in the same spot as division as you. (Or, alternatively, miss one team and play a total of 18 games, with guarantee to never miss a team twice in a row.)
I think that the college football playoff has cooled potential expansion (except to the Big 12, presumably), so it's the right time to commit to something a bit more firm and less scattershot.
Not so fast. The conf schedule strength is determined by the strength of the entire conference, not just the top teams. True that the B1G has two teams in the F4 this year...but it only has one additional team (out of 14) ranked at all at this point. By comparison, in 2012-13 (last of BC's) the conference ended with FOUR teams ranked in the top 10, and one additional in the top 20, plus four additional teams finished one-game under .500 or better in conference play...and the B1G only had 12 teams!!...that is massive top-to-bottom strength.
To compare SoS you have to use some kind of formula or system that considers all teams involved...as an example, just take a quick look at Sagarin (you can use some another system, obviously, but the results should be similar). Per Sagarin, NU SoS is ranked 46 this year...however the same Sagarin ranked NU's SoS as 15 (fifteen!!) nationally in 12-13.
Another thing is that MSU performance is a bit deceptive...yes, it s great that they made the F4, and perhaps they'll win the whole thing....yet they haven't done it by beating stellar competition....their E8 win was over a solid but underwhelming Louisville recently ranked #17 in the country...before that they beat UOk, ranked #13, and so on...yes, they still deserve credit for beating those teams, but in a tournament format the quality of the competition can vary drastically depending on luck (who got upset by whom, etc). Fact is MSU is ranked about #23 nationally, which is fair considering that they lost 6 (one third) of their reg. season B1G games.
Sorry to rain on your parade (again).
This post was edited on 3/29 8:56 PM by FeliSilvestris
So you intentionally misunderstood the point, and cherry-picked data to counter a point that wasn't ever being made. Well played, Feli!
The Big 10 has TWO of the Final Four teams and Felis is trying to tell us how weak the league really was. Ha ha ha. Next, he'll probably tell us how STRONG the mighty Big 12 was despite the fact none of their teams even made it to the final 8.
Purplecat88 and CatReporter,
My topic was only based on this year's conference schedule strength and not any prior year's, but you see what a one-tracked perspective this other poster has. Notice how the fact that MSU beat a 30-3 UVA squad in the Round of 32 who was ranked 6th in the nation was omitted. Too funny!
My topic was only based on this year's conference schedule strength and not any prior year's, but you see what a one-tracked perspective this other poster has. Notice how the fact that MSU beat a 30-3 UVA squad in the Round of 32 who was ranked 6th in the nation was omitted. Too funny!
Aw, give the poor kid a break. He's just pissed that none of the 271 people who read his thread "CONFIRMED: Extremely weak OOC Schedule" found it interesting enough to comment upon it! All that research and nothing but [crickets] and a big Yawn.........
I would VERY MUCH argue that the conference schedule wasn't BRUTAL.
I would AGREE that it was brutal relative to the other conference schedules in the Big Ten THIS YEAR and we got unlucky with ours.
But I'd certainly argue it wasn't brutal. Only 2 Big Ten teams made the Sweet 16, fewer than most recent years. Maryland was very good, but not great and sleepwalked against us. Ohio State was down, Iowa was down a bit from last year I think but close, Minnesota was down, Nebraska was WAY down, Rutgers was awful, Penn State was a 1-man team, Michigan was obviously down, Purdue was solid and way up, but certainly not overpowering. Illinois was better but NOT an NCAA team and Indiana was talented but a mess.
Wisconsin is as good as they were last year. Michigan State -- one of the two times we played them (up there), they were still trying to figure it out, and honestly we outplayed them. Maryland sleepwalked its way through the game, until some of our guys got the bug eyes and we blew it.
So, I'd say based on overall quality, our Big Ten schedule has been tougher most of the last 5-6 years. But within this year, I'd say we had a tougher schedule than the others. Still, I prefer to look at that as opportunity and a challenge, not a negative.
I would AGREE that it was brutal relative to the other conference schedules in the Big Ten THIS YEAR and we got unlucky with ours.
But I'd certainly argue it wasn't brutal. Only 2 Big Ten teams made the Sweet 16, fewer than most recent years. Maryland was very good, but not great and sleepwalked against us. Ohio State was down, Iowa was down a bit from last year I think but close, Minnesota was down, Nebraska was WAY down, Rutgers was awful, Penn State was a 1-man team, Michigan was obviously down, Purdue was solid and way up, but certainly not overpowering. Illinois was better but NOT an NCAA team and Indiana was talented but a mess.
Wisconsin is as good as they were last year. Michigan State -- one of the two times we played them (up there), they were still trying to figure it out, and honestly we outplayed them. Maryland sleepwalked its way through the game, until some of our guys got the bug eyes and we blew it.
So, I'd say based on overall quality, our Big Ten schedule has been tougher most of the last 5-6 years. But within this year, I'd say we had a tougher schedule than the others. Still, I prefer to look at that as opportunity and a challenge, not a negative.
Rond-robin plus parity assures approximately uniform B1G SoS
Besides the RR, there are only 5 (of 18) games left. The worst-case scenario if for a team to have to play teams ranked 1-5 as its extra 5 games...in such case the "average rank" of these opponents would be 3. A "totally fair" 5-team schedule would have an average rank of 7 (since
there are 14 B1G teams).
As it turned out NU played WI, MSU, IOA,Ill and MI, ranked resp.1,3,4,8,9, with an average rank of 5.
So, NU 5 extra games were a bit tougher than the "fair" schedule (average rank of 5 instead of 7) but not by much, and certainly nowhere near the worst case (average rank of 3!).
But even if a team had the worst (or best) case 5-game schedule, that team would have to still play the THIRTEEN game RR, which means that still its B1G schedule would have been substantially similar to the others. Furthermore, the difference in actual strength between top and bottom B1G teams is significant but by no means overwhelming. NU itself has often proven this by upsetting (or nearly upsetting) some B1G teams ranked very highly not only in the B1G but nationally. And MSU proves this in a different direction: it is now playing in the FA yet it LOST one third of all its reg. season B1G games!
To recap, the 13-game B1G RR (almost 3/4 of the conference schedule), and the relative parity within the conference makes arguing about in-conference SoS nearly pointless.
I wouldn't even agree with that. First, at the risk of stating the obvious, B1G bkb has NO divisions. A B1G bkb schedule consists of 18 games, of which THIRTEEN (13) are a ROUND-ROBIN involving ALL teams. 13/18 is almost 3/4 of all games. Since every team plays in this RR and that is 3/4 of the schedule the actual strength of each team's B1G's schedule is VERY similar...not identical of course, but substantially similar nonetheless.
Besides the RR, there are only 5 (of 18) games left. The worst-case scenario if for a team to have to play teams ranked 1-5 as its extra 5 games...in such case the "average rank" of these opponents would be 3. A "totally fair" 5-team schedule would have an average rank of 7 (since
there are 14 B1G teams).
As it turned out NU played WI, MSU, IOA,Ill and MI, ranked resp.1,3,4,8,9, with an average rank of 5.
So, NU 5 extra games were a bit tougher than the "fair" schedule (average rank of 5 instead of 7) but not by much, and certainly nowhere near the worst case (average rank of 3!).
But even if a team had the worst (or best) case 5-game schedule, that team would have to still play the THIRTEEN game RR, which means that still its B1G schedule would have been substantially similar to the others. Furthermore, the difference in actual strength between top and bottom B1G teams is significant but by no means overwhelming. NU itself has often proven this by upsetting (or nearly upsetting) some B1G teams ranked very highly not only in the B1G but nationally. And MSU proves this in a different direction: it is now playing in the FA yet it LOST one third of all its reg. season B1G games!
To recap, the 13-game B1G RR (almost 3/4 of the conference schedule), and the relative parity within the conference makes arguing about in-conference SoS nearly pointless.
Virginia Wildcat,
You are right on the money. NU only played the four worst teams (teams who were ranked 11-14th for the Big 10 tourney) in the league once - Minn., UNL, PSU and Rutgers. So that means, for prior posters who have not figured it out, that NU did not get the benefit of playing Rutgers, UNL and Minnesota at home. That does not mean NU would have beat those teams, but they stood a much better chance to win if they played those teams at home than playing the top teams like UW or MSU at home.
On the other hand, they played the teams with the best (UW 16-2 who is putting together a historically good season), third (MSU 12-6 in the Final 4) and fourth (Iowa 12-6) best records twice and the team with the second best record Maryland on the road. That means they played the top four teams in the league 7 out of the possible 8 games.
So that means that NU did not have a favorable conference schedule in my opinion. I have seen that 9 of the 10 posters on this thread have agreed with me.
Tom Izzo was interviewed yesterday and said that he stated that his team started putting it together in the week that they went to Champaign and beat the Illini and then crushed NU in Evanston. So catching MSU in mid-February was not fortuitous or favorable scheduling. There are those who might discount that who have seen MSU advance to the Final 4 based on favorable scheduling or seeding but I don't agree with that. Since then for those who have been paying attention MSU has been playing really strong basketball.
You are right on the money. NU only played the four worst teams (teams who were ranked 11-14th for the Big 10 tourney) in the league once - Minn., UNL, PSU and Rutgers. So that means, for prior posters who have not figured it out, that NU did not get the benefit of playing Rutgers, UNL and Minnesota at home. That does not mean NU would have beat those teams, but they stood a much better chance to win if they played those teams at home than playing the top teams like UW or MSU at home.
On the other hand, they played the teams with the best (UW 16-2 who is putting together a historically good season), third (MSU 12-6 in the Final 4) and fourth (Iowa 12-6) best records twice and the team with the second best record Maryland on the road. That means they played the top four teams in the league 7 out of the possible 8 games.
So that means that NU did not have a favorable conference schedule in my opinion. I have seen that 9 of the 10 posters on this thread have agreed with me.
Tom Izzo was interviewed yesterday and said that he stated that his team started putting it together in the week that they went to Champaign and beat the Illini and then crushed NU in Evanston. So catching MSU in mid-February was not fortuitous or favorable scheduling. There are those who might discount that who have seen MSU advance to the Final 4 based on favorable scheduling or seeding but I don't agree with that. Since then for those who have been paying attention MSU has been playing really strong basketball.
Re: Rond-robin plus parity assures approximately uniform B1G SoS
For the benefit of our record, we had a difficult schedule. We were basically a team at about the middle of the BIG. We won 6 games but had we played the bottom 4 teams which we go only once a second time rather than playing MSU, Purdue, etc the second time, we might have had 3-4 more wins than the 6 we ended up with. The schedule we had was the difference between winning 6 and 9 wins in the BIG.
For the benefit of our record, we had a difficult schedule. We were basically a team at about the middle of the BIG. We won 6 games but had we played the bottom 4 teams which we go only once a second time rather than playing MSU, Purdue, etc the second time, we might have had 3-4 more wins than the 6 we ended up with. The schedule we had was the difference between winning 6 and 9 wins in the BIG.
Re: Rond-robin plus parity assures approximately uniform B1G SoS
For example, Nebby's "repeat games" were against Wiscky, Mary, IOA, ill, and Minny, ranked 1, 2, 4, 7 and 10...all had a non-losing conf records, except Minny (which won 6 r.s. games, as NU)...those 5 seem tougher than NU's 5, considering than IN CONFERENCE Mary was stronger than MSU (in fact swept them in the reg. season).
But, anyhow, both NU and Nebby play THIRTEEN games as part of a ROUND ROBIN with the same teams, so even if Nebby's B1G schedule was indeed tougher than NU's it couldn't be by much, since the RR covers about 3/4 of the B1G schedule.
To talk about SoS you have to compare a team's schedule against the others, using some sort of system or formula for all teams...And when you do it for the B1G schedule, considering the RR and the relative parity of the league, you'll find out that the actual difference in SoS is very small from a team to the next.
P.S. Playing more of the bottom B1G teams would not necessarily have meant more NU victories, since sweeping a B1G opponent (any one) is really tough for NU...the weaker teams won't "look past" NU and may view the NU game as a must-win especially if late in the season they have any hope of getting to a T.
A lot of teams could say the same, because to my knowledge no team got to play all their 5 non-RR games against the bottom five teams....certainly not all could...Other teams may also be complaining about their own B1G schedule, that they had to play so-and-so away, that they had to play so and so twice, etc., etc. It is a comparative thing.
For example, Nebby's "repeat games" were against Wiscky, Mary, IOA, ill, and Minny, ranked 1, 2, 4, 7 and 10...all had a non-losing conf records, except Minny (which won 6 r.s. games, as NU)...those 5 seem tougher than NU's 5, considering than IN CONFERENCE Mary was stronger than MSU (in fact swept them in the reg. season).
But, anyhow, both NU and Nebby play THIRTEEN games as part of a ROUND ROBIN with the same teams, so even if Nebby's B1G schedule was indeed tougher than NU's it couldn't be by much, since the RR covers about 3/4 of the B1G schedule.
To talk about SoS you have to compare a team's schedule against the others, using some sort of system or formula for all teams...And when you do it for the B1G schedule, considering the RR and the relative parity of the league, you'll find out that the actual difference in SoS is very small from a team to the next.
P.S. Playing more of the bottom B1G teams would not necessarily have meant more NU victories, since sweeping a B1G opponent (any one) is really tough for NU...the weaker teams won't "look past" NU and may view the NU game as a must-win especially if late in the season they have any hope of getting to a T.
Re: Rond-robin plus parity assures approximately uniform B1G SoS
It is not necessarily that we play all of them but we did not play any of them. On average, you could expect to play 2 of the bottom 5 teams twice (a little less since we are one of them. Every other of the bottom five play at least 1 and usually two of the bottom feeders twice. We got to play none of them twice. Half of our wins were against that group as we went 3-1 against the group and the one we lost was on the road.. Just saying that with the unbalanced schedule, we should average playing 1.6 of these teams twice (since we were one of the 5). The fact that we did not get to probably cost us at least one and maybe two wins and those two additional victories might have put us in the NIT. Play all 4 twice and we might have been in the NCAA. It makes a difference. If you are in the middle as we were, the schedule can have a big impact
This post was edited on 4/1 5:02 PM by hdhntr1
It is not necessarily that we play all of them but we did not play any of them. On average, you could expect to play 2 of the bottom 5 teams twice (a little less since we are one of them. Every other of the bottom five play at least 1 and usually two of the bottom feeders twice. We got to play none of them twice. Half of our wins were against that group as we went 3-1 against the group and the one we lost was on the road.. Just saying that with the unbalanced schedule, we should average playing 1.6 of these teams twice (since we were one of the 5). The fact that we did not get to probably cost us at least one and maybe two wins and those two additional victories might have put us in the NIT. Play all 4 twice and we might have been in the NCAA. It makes a difference. If you are in the middle as we were, the schedule can have a big impact
This post was edited on 4/1 5:02 PM by hdhntr1
Re: Rond-robin plus parity assures approximately uniform B1G SoS
From what I read somewhere, Nebraska is the only team that had a tougher in conference schedule than we had. So second toughest schedule out of 14 teams is not a tough schedule relative to the rest of the Big Ten?
Re: Rond-robin plus parity assures approximately uniform B1G SoS
And toughest may be the wrong term. Maybe it should be not as easy because the bottom feeders are the most likely source of victories and they got to play an extra game against that group than we did. We also had only one of the bottom feeders at home. We only had one of the bottom feeders at home. Nebraska only won at home. Our double games were against IL, MSU, WIS, MI,and IA. We replace MN and Mary with IA and Mich. Does not really sound like a weaker Conference schedule.
Again the easiest place to earn victories is against the bottom five and we played none of that group twice. The average is 2 and since we played 3 of the 4 on the road, it is likely that thos games would be at home where the likelihood of victory is greater. Therefore our schedule is likely to have cost us one or two victories and that would have potentially gotten us to the NIT.
And toughest may be the wrong term. Maybe it should be not as easy because the bottom feeders are the most likely source of victories and they got to play an extra game against that group than we did. We also had only one of the bottom feeders at home. We only had one of the bottom feeders at home. Nebraska only won at home. Our double games were against IL, MSU, WIS, MI,and IA. We replace MN and Mary with IA and Mich. Does not really sound like a weaker Conference schedule.
Again the easiest place to earn victories is against the bottom five and we played none of that group twice. The average is 2 and since we played 3 of the 4 on the road, it is likely that thos games would be at home where the likelihood of victory is greater. Therefore our schedule is likely to have cost us one or two victories and that would have potentially gotten us to the NIT.
Re: Rond-robin plus parity assures approximately uniform B1G SoS
Say, it may well be that Neb had the toughest schedule followed by NU (using whichever rating system), but the difference between Neb's SoS and that of the bottom-ranked team may only be 5% (of whichever index is being used); and that between Neb and NU could be nearly negligible. That is the point.
Well, I don't know what you read, or where you read it...it will of course depend on the specific formula or system used....Most sites won't even bother with the in-conf SoS...they figure if teams are in the same conference (and especially if they don't have divisions) it goes without saying that their in-conference SoS is very similar...yes, you could somehow rank them, but again, how big would the separation be between the toughest and easiest confs schedule (however is measured)?
Say, it may well be that Neb had the toughest schedule followed by NU (using whichever rating system), but the difference between Neb's SoS and that of the bottom-ranked team may only be 5% (of whichever index is being used); and that between Neb and NU could be nearly negligible. That is the point.
Yes, but that only makes it tougher than the other teams in the Big Ten. Not BRUTALLY tough. Because there was only 1 team that I'd describe as brutally tough during the season, and they were similarly tough last year, when we actually beat them.
It was not a brutally tough schedule AT ALL. Just tougher than the other teams in the conference.
It was not a brutally tough schedule AT ALL. Just tougher than the other teams in the conference.
just look at the RR ONLY and project...what do you get?
In the mean time the most sensible thing I can do for you is to allow you to just look at the all team ROUND ROBIN and project the record over 18 games...that is fair, right?
After all EVERY B1G team did participate in that RR, so how a given team did is a pretty fair indicator of their conference standing...you agree, right? It was an all-team ROUND ROBIN!!
Here is what NU did...it went 5-8...which amounts to a 38% winning percentage....now project that 38% over five more games (those are the five extra non-RR games "under dispute") and you get....drum roll.....
1.9 of 5....so in a perfectly "fair" 5-extra-game schedule NU would have won 1.9 games, get it?
And in the allegedly 'unfair' non-RR NU won.....drum roll.... 1 game.
So, having (one of) the"toughest" B1G schedule(s) cost NU a grand total of...drum roll...drum roll....0.9 of one win.
BFD
OK, OK; I'll let you round up to 1...are you happy now?
Torrential rain on some people's parade...sorry.
This post was edited on 4/2 12:25 AM by FeliSilvestris
As explained to you already in a previous post, NU has great difficulty sweeping ANY B1G team, regardless of their real or alleged strength...And "weaker" B1G can be quite tough for anyone in a given night...just ask Wisconsin fans...they only lost TWO B1G games in this ENTIRE season...one was against 2nd-place Mary...no surprise...ask them against whom they lost their ONLY OTHER B1G game....check how that team did in the entire season, and then let's talk again.
In the mean time the most sensible thing I can do for you is to allow you to just look at the all team ROUND ROBIN and project the record over 18 games...that is fair, right?
After all EVERY B1G team did participate in that RR, so how a given team did is a pretty fair indicator of their conference standing...you agree, right? It was an all-team ROUND ROBIN!!
Here is what NU did...it went 5-8...which amounts to a 38% winning percentage....now project that 38% over five more games (those are the five extra non-RR games "under dispute") and you get....drum roll.....
1.9 of 5....so in a perfectly "fair" 5-extra-game schedule NU would have won 1.9 games, get it?
And in the allegedly 'unfair' non-RR NU won.....drum roll.... 1 game.
So, having (one of) the"toughest" B1G schedule(s) cost NU a grand total of...drum roll...drum roll....0.9 of one win.
BFD
OK, OK; I'll let you round up to 1...are you happy now?
Torrential rain on some people's parade...sorry.
This post was edited on 4/2 12:25 AM by FeliSilvestris
Re: just look at the RR ONLY and project...what do you get?
All that trivial math (difficulty taking two from a Big Ten team...sheesh!...prove it!) doesn't change the fact that NU's schedule was deemed the second toughest in the Big Ten (14 teams).
By the way, all the odds figured in this thread are off because we're not sampling independently with replacement here.
All that trivial math (difficulty taking two from a Big Ten team...sheesh!...prove it!) doesn't change the fact that NU's schedule was deemed the second toughest in the Big Ten (14 teams).
By the way, all the odds figured in this thread are off because we're not sampling independently with replacement here.
Re: just look at the RR ONLY and project...what do you get?
Yup
Two factors for that I think ....
We played the two best teams 2x
Northwestern played Wisconsin 2x. Wisconsin played Northwestern 2x. Same game, much different strength of schedule.
Yup
Two factors for that I think ....
We played the two best teams 2x
Northwestern played Wisconsin 2x. Wisconsin played Northwestern 2x. Same game, much different strength of schedule.
We had arguably the toughest schedule in one of the top conferences (two teams in the F4) in the country. C'mon olsh, that's a brutal conference schedule by any standard.
Not going to call it a brutal schedule because of 4 games, especially when ALL the teams play at least 2 of those same 4 games.
Plus, we only had 2 teams in the Sweet 16 ..... I mean, the depth of the conference at the "brutal" level just wasn't there.
Honestly, who below the 3 seeds in the NCAA Tournament would you say was Brutal to play?
I'm going to call it what it was .... the 2nd toughest Big Ten schedule. But not enough killer games to qualify as brutal to me.
Plus, we only had 2 teams in the Sweet 16 ..... I mean, the depth of the conference at the "brutal" level just wasn't there.
Honestly, who below the 3 seeds in the NCAA Tournament would you say was Brutal to play?
I'm going to call it what it was .... the 2nd toughest Big Ten schedule. But not enough killer games to qualify as brutal to me.
I guess doing some research, we're into splitting hair territory now - I'll say it was a tough conference schedule.
As per ESPN data for the selection committee, we had the 20th toughest Conference SOS in the nation.
But Kansas had 19 games against top 50 RPI teams (PRE-TOURNAMENT), we had 9.
Within the Big Ten, according to the ESPN data, we had the 3rd toughest Conference SOS (MSU ranked No. 7 nationally, Nebraska No. 13).
Also, if you look at overall games (yes, I know it's not conference games) against teams 1-25 in RPI ... the "brutal" games .... we played 6 of those games all year. Only 5 conference teams played fewer than that. Of course, all of our tough games were in conference, while the other teams play them throughout the year.
I guess, ultimately -- there are stats out there for everyone to argue with. We played one of the toughest conference schedules, but one of the easiest non-con schedules is what my gut says.
As per ESPN data for the selection committee, we had the 20th toughest Conference SOS in the nation.
But Kansas had 19 games against top 50 RPI teams (PRE-TOURNAMENT), we had 9.
Within the Big Ten, according to the ESPN data, we had the 3rd toughest Conference SOS (MSU ranked No. 7 nationally, Nebraska No. 13).
Also, if you look at overall games (yes, I know it's not conference games) against teams 1-25 in RPI ... the "brutal" games .... we played 6 of those games all year. Only 5 conference teams played fewer than that. Of course, all of our tough games were in conference, while the other teams play them throughout the year.
I guess, ultimately -- there are stats out there for everyone to argue with. We played one of the toughest conference schedules, but one of the easiest non-con schedules is what my gut says.
I guess my question is....what exactly would you consider a brutal conference schedule then, if not ours?
Re: just look at the RR ONLY and project...what do you get?
Not quite. If we were outside of the bottom 5 we should expect that on average we would play 2 of our double games against bottom five teams. We were 3-1 against teams and we played 3 of the four on the road so it was not because we were playing them at home. If we had played two more games against this group, we could expect to win 1.5 of them and possibly more as it it is more likely that the extra games would have been at home (where we were 100% against this group) leading to the potential for about 1.7 extra wins. That rounds to 2. In any event, 2 extra wins would have likely had us in the NIT and it is possible that one would have. That is the real cost of our difficult conference schedule.
Not quite. If we were outside of the bottom 5 we should expect that on average we would play 2 of our double games against bottom five teams. We were 3-1 against teams and we played 3 of the four on the road so it was not because we were playing them at home. If we had played two more games against this group, we could expect to win 1.5 of them and possibly more as it it is more likely that the extra games would have been at home (where we were 100% against this group) leading to the potential for about 1.7 extra wins. That rounds to 2. In any event, 2 extra wins would have likely had us in the NIT and it is possible that one would have. That is the real cost of our difficult conference schedule.
Re: just look at the RR ONLY and project...what do you get?
The FACT is that NU did play an ALL-TEAM B1G ROUND-ROBIN and finished with a 38% win perc.
Projected to the entire B1G schedule, that 38% amounts to 6.9 wins...and NU won 6.
If you want to claim that the schedule cost NU 0.9 of a win, go ahead....
But at the end of the day, what on earth would that change? NU wouln't have done any thing with that extra win, especially considering that it had an NCAA BOTTOM 50 (out of 351) OOC schedule (for example KenPom rates NU OOC schedule 315 !!).
To recap: The all team B1G ROUND ROBIN says NU is a 38% w.p. B1G team...the overall B1G schedule (5 more games) says about the same....The conf schedule did NOT have any real impact on NU season. Face it.
Deemed by whom? You?
The FACT is that NU did play an ALL-TEAM B1G ROUND-ROBIN and finished with a 38% win perc.
Projected to the entire B1G schedule, that 38% amounts to 6.9 wins...and NU won 6.
If you want to claim that the schedule cost NU 0.9 of a win, go ahead....
But at the end of the day, what on earth would that change? NU wouln't have done any thing with that extra win, especially considering that it had an NCAA BOTTOM 50 (out of 351) OOC schedule (for example KenPom rates NU OOC schedule 315 !!).
To recap: The all team B1G ROUND ROBIN says NU is a 38% w.p. B1G team...the overall B1G schedule (5 more games) says about the same....The conf schedule did NOT have any real impact on NU season. Face it.
If we were in the ACC and the round robin included 2x against Duke, Notre Dame, UNC, and Louisville.
Seriously though, I don't think our conference was strong enough at the top to be "brutal"
If we had 4 games against Wisconsin, that might have been brutal too
Seriously though, I don't think our conference was strong enough at the top to be "brutal"
If we had 4 games against Wisconsin, that might have been brutal too
Obviously Virginia ---- I mean strong enough OUTSIDE OF the top 2 teams. And remember, the first time we played MSU, they had quite a few question marks.
You have to expect 3-4 games vs. Final Four caliber teams in the Big Ten every year, don't you?
You have to expect 3-4 games vs. Final Four caliber teams in the Big Ten every year, don't you?
As mentioned earlier in this thread, in 2012-13 (last of BC's) the B1G ended with FOUR teams ranked in the top 10, and one additional in the top 20, plus four additional teams finished one-game under .500 or better in conference play...and the B1G only had 12 teams!!... In fact, Sagarin ranked NU's SoS as 15 nationally, but nearly all B1G teams had similar or even higher SoS rankings!
Playing a RR + 7 games in such league WAS brutal (regardless of who made the F4 that year).
As pointed out numeorous times, this season IN CONFERENCE MSU was a strong but by no means dominant team....it lost A THIRD of its reg. s. B1G games, including getting swept by a strong but by no means world-beating Mary (ranked #12 nationally)...MSU deserves credit for reaching the F4....but the best team they have faced in the T was #6 UVa....the next two best teams were ranked nationally as #13 (equivalent to a 3rd-place B1G team since 2nd-place Mary was ranked #12) and #17 (equivalent to a fourth-place B1G team)....MSU ended the reg. season as #23, which seems about right (regardless of its NCAA- T performance) and that is what is relevant for the NU SoS (NU did NOT play MSU beyond the B1G reg. season).
Re: just look at the RR ONLY and project...what do you get?
My statement is based upon articles on the web...I read it months ago...go look it up. Unlike some people here, I'm not posting lies. You yourself have already shown that our record was more difficult than a mean schedule in the Big Ten.
This post was edited on 4/2 6:24 PM by Gladeskat
My statement is based upon articles on the web...I read it months ago...go look it up. Unlike some people here, I'm not posting lies. You yourself have already shown that our record was more difficult than a mean schedule in the Big Ten.
This post was edited on 4/2 6:24 PM by Gladeskat
Re: just look at the RR ONLY and project...what do you get?
I you read it "months ago" it means it was written before (most of) the B1G season has been played (or even started), am I right?....it was likely highly speculative, based on the "projected" strength of the teams involved...not worth my time/effort to find it, then.
Re: just look at the RR ONLY and project...what do you get?
It was probably written in mid February, relying on team records and RPI values at that point. It should be easy to find if one cared to look. Anyway, you've already shown that NU had a significantly tougher schedule than the mean for the conference, that we didn't play any of the bottom 4 teams in the conference twice, and a more "average" schedule would have resulted in a 7-11 or even 8-10 record. That would blow up your "Collins hasn't done as well as others in year two" trolling effort.
Re: just look at the RR ONLY and project...what do you get?
But we were 75% against teams in the bottom 5 and likely would have been even a higher % if we played a couple of those teams twice as three games out of that group were on the road (including the one we lost) and we pretty much dismantled the team we played at home We would likely have won 2 of those games. We only won 21% against the rest of the teams in conference. And against the top 5 teams we were 1-7 and played 3 of them twice vs an expected 2. We were 2-4 vs the middle. Our schedule definitely did have an affect on our record of between 1 and 2 wins if we were to play the expected two games against bottom 5 opponents. With the unbalance schedule, we played only 4 games against bottom 5 teams (partially because we were one of them) THe average team in the BIG played about 7 games against this group.
Just saying the conference schedule definitely had an affect on our record IL, for example, won 9 conference games but 5 of the wins were against this group as they went 5-2. against the rest of the league, they were 4-7. But that was enough to get them to the NIT.
But we were 75% against teams in the bottom 5 and likely would have been even a higher % if we played a couple of those teams twice as three games out of that group were on the road (including the one we lost) and we pretty much dismantled the team we played at home We would likely have won 2 of those games. We only won 21% against the rest of the teams in conference. And against the top 5 teams we were 1-7 and played 3 of them twice vs an expected 2. We were 2-4 vs the middle. Our schedule definitely did have an affect on our record of between 1 and 2 wins if we were to play the expected two games against bottom 5 opponents. With the unbalance schedule, we played only 4 games against bottom 5 teams (partially because we were one of them) THe average team in the BIG played about 7 games against this group.
Just saying the conference schedule definitely had an affect on our record IL, for example, won 9 conference games but 5 of the wins were against this group as they went 5-2. against the rest of the league, they were 4-7. But that was enough to get them to the NIT.
Similar threads
