What do we already know about next year's schedule?

[pschatz25]

The schedule won't be released for at least a few months, but it looks like we know something about at least six non-conference games. Are there any other home-and-homes we know about?

- DePaul (home)
- B10/ACC game (presumably home)
- Legends Classic in Brooklyn - play two of Texas, Notre Dame, Colorado (assume this will also include two on-campus games against mid-majors)
- Gavitt Tipoff Game vs. Big East (Maybe. I'm not sure how teams are determined, but Wikipedia suggests we're guaranteed at least four appearances between next season and 2022.)

 

[Styre]

It hasn't been officially confirmed yet but there were reports all over the place back in December that NU will play Dayton at the United Center as part of a doubleheader that also includes Illinois playing BYU.

 

[YesterdaysCat]

The schedule won't be released for at least a few months, but it looks like we know something about at least six non-conference games. Are there any other home-and-homes we know about?

- DePaul (home)
- B10/ACC game (presumably home)
- Legends Classic in Brooklyn - play two of Texas, Notre Dame, Colorado (assume this will also include two on-campus games against mid-majors)
- Gavitt Tipoff Game vs. Big East (Maybe. I'm not sure how teams are determined, but Wikipedia suggests we're guaranteed at least four appearances between next season and 2022.)

I know everybody says our schedule is too tough with these games, but at this point of Chris's tenure, we're supposed to be competitive, if not winning these games.

Personally, I'd rather play major conference teams like ND, Texas, et al., than scheduling low RPI mid-majors like Northern Iowa, SFA and other schools that have more to gain by beating us than us beating them.

 

[NJCat]

I know everybody says our schedule is too tough with these games, but at this point of Chris's tenure, we're supposed to be competitive, if not winning these games.

Personally, I'd rather play major conference teams like ND, Texas, et al., than scheduling low RPI mid-majors like Northern Iowa, SFA and other schools that have more to gain by beating us than us beating them.

I have a hard time calling a school like SFA and UNI a low RPI mid-major. They are 60 and 71 respectively versus NU at 115. Playing NU doesn't do much for them but would help the Cats, instead of playing MVSU or Sacred Heart!

 

[pschatz25]

It hasn't been officially confirmed yet but there were reports all over the place back in December that NU will play Dayton at the United Center as part of a doubleheader that also includes Illinois playing BYU.

That's right, I forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder.

So this year's non-conference schedule had one game (UNC) against a team that made NCAA Tournament the year before. Next year we'll play at least three teams (2 in Brooklyn plus Dayton) coming off an NCAA appearance.

 

[CommodoresAndCats]

The off season schedule might be tougher than last year. But honestly we need to play more teams that fall somewhere between 40-80 in RPI. For a team like Northwestern that aspires to get to the NCAA bubble, winning games against teams in this range is critical to build a resume. The issue with the past season is that we had very few chances against bubble or low seeded NCAA teams, either playing creampuffs or high ranked teams like Maryland and Michigan State. Just think how close we were to beating Ohio State and Michigan, and how we beat Wisconsin. Even if our record is worse next season, pulling out more games against those kind of teams is what is going to get Northwestern into the NIT or NCAAT, not games against Loyola-Maryland and Mississippi Valley State.

 

[NUCat320]

The off season schedule might be tougher than last year. But honestly we need to play more teams that fall somewhere between 40-80 in RPI. For a team like Northwestern that aspires to get to the NCAA bubble, winning games against teams in this range is critical to build a resume. The issue with the past season is that we had very few chances against bubble or low seeded NCAA teams, either playing creampuffs or high ranked teams like Maryland and Michigan State. Just think how close we were to beating Ohio State and Michigan, and how we beat Wisconsin. Even if our record is worse next season, pulling out more games against those kind of teams is what is going to get Northwestern into the NIT or NCAAT, not games against Loyola-Maryland and Mississippi Valley State.

With a third year point guard, there should be no breaking in period. Play whoever is willing, whenever they're willing.

I do think that *avoiding 270-320* is at least as important as playing and beating 40-80. Swap out the SWAC and the MAAC for the MAC and the Valley, and you're on the right track.

I love the Dayton game. That's a nice doubleheader for all involved, I think.

 

[hdhntr1]

The off season schedule might be tougher than last year. But honestly we need to play more teams that fall somewhere between 40-80 in RPI. For a team like Northwestern that aspires to get to the NCAA bubble, winning games against teams in this range is critical to build a resume. The issue with the past season is that we had very few chances against bubble or low seeded NCAA teams, either playing creampuffs or high ranked teams like Maryland and Michigan State. Just think how close we were to beating Ohio State and Michigan, and how we beat Wisconsin. Even if our record is worse next season, pulling out more games against those kind of teams is what is going to get Northwestern into the NIT or NCAAT, not games against Loyola-Maryland and Mississippi Valley State.

It was lack of respect for the BIG more than our OOC schedule that kept us out of the NIT. It showed up in poor seedings for many BIG teams, OSU going to NIT rather than NCAA (When was the last 11 win BIG team that did not get to NCAA) and us getting snubbed from NIT.

 

[Styre]

It was lack of respect for the BIG more than our OOC schedule that kept us out of the NIT.

It was our RPI that kept us out of the NIT, and the easiest way to control that is to schedule more difficult non-conference games.

 

[willycat]

It was our RPI that kept us out of the NIT, and the easiest way to control that is to schedule more difficult non-conference games.

A losing non-conf. record also does that.

 

[Catreporter]

A losing non-conf. record also does that.

Thank you, Willy. I'm all for a better noncon schedule but be careful what you wish for. This schedule strength argument is overblown. Wisconsin had a great run, beating the good teams in the BIG, and that earned them an NCAA bid, despite a poor non-con season. Had we done the same, we would have been in the NCAAs as well.

 

[Styre]

Thank you, Willy. I'm all for a better noncon schedule but be careful what you wish for. This schedule strength argument is overblown. Wisconsin had a great run, beating the good teams in the BIG, and that earned them an NCAA bid, despite a poor non-con season. Had we done the same, we would have been in the NCAAs as well.

You mean if we go 13-5 or 12-6 in the Big Ten we'll probably make the tournament? You don't say!

Obviously if we win a bunch more conference games we'll have a better postseason berth. Nobody thinks otherwise. But we didn't do that because we're not good enough to do it. Scheduling has nothing to do with that. And if we do get good enough to do that, our non-con schedule won't matter for anything other than our tournament seed.

I just illustrated in the "next year" thread how replacing four garbage teams on our non-conference schedule with four better (but still clearly inferior) opponents would have put us into the NIT. Why is this controversial?

 

[hdhntr1]

It was our RPI that kept us out of the NIT, and the easiest way to control that is to schedule more difficult non-conference games.[/QUOT
Sure seems like RPI is an attempt to make look scientific the biases that they had. Knock down the rating of BIG Teams and you cannot get a descent RPI by playing them. LOOK again at that 2010/11 season. We beat no one but the bottom of the conference and supposedly, even losing teams had good RPIs so we had a good RPI

 

[olshin]

We need to raise the floor in addition to these extra 51-100 games.

Kenpom has preseason projections based on returning players, so I'm sure others do too. We need to target the 125-200s as our floor rather than 300-351. Will make a HUGE (yuuuuuge?) difference in RPI.

Raising the floor won't help build a resume of good wins, but it could raise our RPI 30-40 spots with little extra difficulty.

 

[hdhntr1]

You mean if we go 13-5 or 12-6 in the Big Ten we'll probably make the tournament? You don't say!

Obviously if we win a bunch more conference games we'll have a better postseason berth. Nobody thinks otherwise. But we didn't do that because we're not good enough to do it. Scheduling has nothing to do with that. And if we do get good enough to do that, our non-con schedule won't matter for anything other than our tournament seed.

I just illustrated in the "next year" thread how replacing four garbage teams on our non-conference schedule with four better (but still clearly inferior) opponents would have put us into the NIT. Why is this controversial?

And I am suggesting that even changing those four non conference games would not have done it because of the lack of respect that was shown to the BIG in general. Michigag got in (and only barely having to go though a play in game) but they needed to win two in the BTT for a total of 12 wins in conference. And that just barely got in. OSU got a 4 seed in NIT after going 11-7 in conference during the season. A couple harder games in the non conference schedule would have not helped with the way they were viewing the BIG. OSUs RPI was 74 while SYR got in with an RPI of 72, even with all of their cheating garbage. And it was not as if OSU was a newcomer to the NCAA. Just saying that the lack of respect shown to the BIG was a bigger problem for us than our non con schedule. That does not that we had no effect from it, only that lack of BIG respect was a bigger factor.

 

[Styre]

A couple harder games in the non conference schedule would have not helped with the way they were viewing the BIG. OSUs RPI was 74 while SYR got in with an RPI of 72, even with all of their cheating garbage. And it was not as if OSU was a newcomer to the NCAA. Just saying that the lack of respect shown to the BIG was a bigger problem for us than our non con schedule. That does not that we got any boosts from it, only that lack of respect was a bigger factor.

Changing those four games (and winning the replacements) would have boosted our RPI about 20 spots. That is an easily achievable solution. If your "lack of respect" theory is correct, there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. So why not change the things we can change?

 

[MysticCat]

And I am suggesting that even changing those four non conference games would not have done it because of the lack of respect that was shown to the BIG in general. Michigag got in (and only barely having to go though a play in game) but they needed to win two in the BTT for a total of 12 wins in conference. And that just barely got in. OSU got a 4 seed in NIT after going 11-7 in conference during the season. A couple harder games in the non conference schedule would have not helped with the way they were viewing the BIG. OSUs RPI was 74 while SYR got in with an RPI of 72, even with all of their cheating garbage. And it was not as if OSU was a newcomer to the NCAA. Just saying that the lack of respect shown to the BIG was a bigger problem for us than our non con schedule. That does not that we got any boosts from it, only that lack of respect was a bigger factor.

Our nc sos was 337 out of 351.

In addition, all the disrespect for the BIG you speak of, was very much deserved disrespect.

Combine those 2 things and you can win 20 games and have not even a postseason sniff to show for it, and I can only think of one person in the world who doesn't understand this.

 

[NJCat]

We need to raise the floor in addition to these extra 51-100 games.

Raising the floor won't help build a resume of good wins, but it could raise our RPI 30-40 spots with little extra difficulty.

Well, in my day, the floor WAS raised at McGaw. The court was elevated about 3 feet above the dirt floor, sort of like the Barn at Minny. They should go retro and put back the baskets hung from the rafters like Cameron has.

 

[ricko654321]

Our nc sos was 337 out of 351.

In addition, all the disrespect for the BIG you speak of, was very much deserved disrespect.

Combine those 2 things and you can win 20 games and have not even a postseason sniff to show for it, and I can only think of one person in the world who doesn't understand this.

Yeah exactly. The Big Ten was "disrespected" by the committee in large part because our conference had weak RPI #s across the board. Too many teams had too many losses OOC, including to some bad teams.

And even worse, while in other years the bottom teams in the conference were in the 100-150 range, this year there we had some awful teams- Illinois 143 RPI, Nebraska 162, and then worse Minnesota 254 and Rutgers 294. When everyone in the B1G plays ~3 conference games against RPI 250+ teams, and ~5 games against RPI 140+ teams, it collectively hurts all of our RPI, even though the other 10 teams in the conference consistently beat those teams, and often badly. RPI doesn't take into account margin of victory, so you can't compare how you do to what might reasonably be expected (as happens with Ken Pom, Sagarin, etc). So the positive impact to your own record (which is 25% of RPI) is dwarfed by the drag on strength of schedule (which is 50%) and opponents SOS (25%) since all of our conference opponents played them too.

So this year, RPI as a metric was very much beneficial to the ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12. The ACC I think deserved it because they were strong top to bottom, but the advantage given to the Big 12 and especially the Pac 12 was unjustified in comparison to the Big 10, who got hated on. And some of the mid majors got hurt, and likely the SEC too, to a lesser extent.

So for next year, I'm on board with:
1) schedule more 40-100 teams
2) change most of the 250-350 teams into 125-200 teams
3) hope that Rutgers and Minnesota and some others aren't so frighteningly terrible
4) let's not have a season ending injury before the year starts

GO CATS

 

[hdhntr1]

Yeah exactly. The Big Ten was "disrespected" by the committee in large part because our conference had weak RPI #s across the board. Too many teams had too many losses OOC, including to some bad teams.

And even worse, while in other years the bottom teams in the conference were in the 100-150 range, this year there we had some awful teams- Illinois 143 RPI, Nebraska 162, and then worse Minnesota 254 and Rutgers 294. When everyone in the B1G plays ~3 conference games against RPI 250+ teams, and ~5 games against RPI 140+ teams, it collectively hurts all of our RPI, even though the other 10 teams in the conference consistently beat those teams, and often badly. RPI doesn't take into account margin of victory, so you can't compare how you do to what might reasonably be expected (as happens with Ken Pom, Sagarin, etc). So the positive impact to your own record (which is 25% of RPI) is dwarfed by the drag on strength of schedule (which is 50%) and opponents SOS (25%) since all of our conference opponents played them too.

So this year, RPI as a metric was very much beneficial to the ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12. The ACC I think deserved it because they were strong top to bottom, but the advantage given to the Big 12 and especially the Pac 12 was unjustified in comparison to the Big 10, who got hated on. And some of the mid majors got hurt, and likely the SEC too, to a lesser extent.

So for next year, I'm on board with:
1) schedule more 40-100 teams
2) change most of the 250-350 teams into 125-200 teams
3) hope that Rutgers and Minnesota and some others aren't so frighteningly terrible
4) let's not have a season ending injury before the year starts

GO CATS

And that just ties into my position that we were hurt more by how the BIG was viewed than by our OOC schedule. it did not help us but it did not hurt us as bad as how the BIG was viewed and treated.

 

[MysticCat]

And that just ties into my position that we were hurt more by how the BIG was viewed than by our OOC schedule. it did not help us but it did not hurt us as bad as how the BIG was viewed and treated.

No, that's simply wrong mathematically.

- our nc sos was 337
- the average b10 opponent was 103
- we played 19 times against 103
- we played 13 times against 337

Our overall sos was 137. In other words our b10 performance raised our sos 200 slots.

The thing you keep stumbling on is how the big 10 was "viewed" and "treated" and "disrespected". These aren't people's opinions, this is the math metric used by the ncaa.

it is what it is.

Ohio state had a worse record than us, and an rpi 40 slots better. Why? Nc sos.

 

[hoosboot]

And that just ties into my position that we were hurt more by how the BIG was viewed than by our OOC schedule. it did not help us but it did not hurt us as bad as how the BIG was viewed and treated.

What hurt us was not beating very many teams that were decent. For your theory to have mattered, we would have needed to have beaten B1G teams that were good. We didn't. We lost to every decent B1G team we played save one. We beat a total of two teams that were playing postseason basketball of any kind. We gave selection committees almost no reason to pick us to play postseason basketball. We had some opportunities to get wins that would have mattered during the B1G season, but we didn't get them. And our OOC sked gave us few opportunities to do so as well. If we had scheduled more decent teams, we might have had an argument to make. But, our argument for the NIT in regard to the B1G rested on the selection committee respecting Penn State, Nebraska, Rutgers, and Minnesota. That's not a very compelling argument.

 

[Styre]

We beat a total of two teams that were playing postseason basketball of any kind.

While I agree with your post, this actually isn't true - in addition to Wisconsin being in the NCAAs and Virginia Tech being in the NIT, Fairfield and Columbia competed in this year's CIT. Columbia, in fact, is in tomorrow night's championship game.

 

[hoosboot]

While I agree with your post, this actually isn't true - in addition to Wisconsin being in the NCAAs and Virginia Tech being in the NIT, Fairfield and Columbia competed in this year's CIT. Columbia, in fact, is in tomorrow night's championship game.

Thanks for correcting that. I should amend that to be that we beat a total of two teams that made the NCAAs or NIT, but I guess the overall point remains as neither of those CIT teams even made the Top 120 RPI.