2025-26 schedule information

[BoulderSooner]

I’d prefer to go 8-10 in the SEC. That brings up your NET ranking just the same.

well sure ... but the other takes 0 effort

 

[colston15]

well sure ... but the other takes 0 effort

I am fine with avoiding the SWAC teams you know are going to be Sub 250. No argument there.

 

[cmdsooner]

what was the OOC sos??


OU would have been 10 spots higher in the NET just trading the 300+ teams with 200 + teams ... with almost no risk of a loss

NET is a sorting tool used to determine an opponent’s strength (quads). It isn’t used by the committee to power rank teams. OU being 10 spots higher in NET does very little for OU. It’s good for teams that played OU.

 

[notaburner]

See UNC's schedule last year. The real way to game the NET is play a ton of Quad 3 games and win handily.

 

[WTSooner]

I will never understand this logic.

Playing Samford, New Mexico State, (insert decent mid major here), etc., is useless.

It doesn’t improve your resume at all, but can absolutely kill it if you happen to get upset. There’s simply no upside to it.

I’m all for playing Marquette, Gonzaga, etc., but the remaining games SHOULD be gimmes vs. Prairie View A&M.

We’re going to play 20 or more Quad 1 games, it won’t make a bit of difference if we have 3-4 Quad 4 opponents.

We've had this conversation over and over and over and over.

It's been proven that playing teams from the bottom 50, or 75, or 100 kills SOS. Simply moving some of those games out of that bottom tier, an into the 200's (which still should be gimmes), HAS BEEN SHOWN to have a positive effect on SOS and other team rating metrics.

You know what else hurts your resume? Losing a bunch of games even if they are to tough teams.

Again, I'm not saying I wouldn't play tough teams. I hate that they are ALL away from Norman, but to me, that magic number is probably 3-5. We're getting to be near the top of that list. It's no different than football. No reason to play a bunch of tough OOC games if you think the SEC is going to be a gauntlet again.

 

[WTSooner]

Exactly... just like Ive said on repeat we go 9-4 in the non con last year... we dont get in.

lol, that is NOT what you have said. You literally agreed with my comment that colston is disagreeing with, as recently as last week.

Nobody is saying play NO tough games. We played tough games last year. Three of them, right? I'm fine with that. My point is that I'd rather keep that number at 3-4 and increase the bottom of the schedule (which again, you seemed to agree with that thought last week), rather than keep 10 really crappy games the same, and bump a Quad 2 game or two up to Quad 1.

We could have gotten a better seed last year by improving the bottom of the OOC schedule last year. That's the point.

 

[WTSooner]

lol, that is NOT what you have said. You literally agreed with my comment that colston is disagreeing with, as recently as last week.

Nobody is saying play NO tough games. We played tough games last year. Three of them, right? I'm fine with that. My point is that I'd rather keep that number at 3-4 and increase the bottom of the schedule (which again, you seemed to agree with that thought last week), rather than keep 10 really crappy games the same, and bump a Quad 2 game or two up to Quad 1.

We could have gotten a better seed last year by improving the bottom of the OOC schedule last year. That's the point.

And for those of you that like to say "gotta play tough OOC schedule to get the team ready", please tell me how playing teams that would struggle to beat some good HS teams is helping our team?

If we can't beat a team ranked around 200 as easily as we can beat a team ranked around 315, we have larger issues than scheduling.

 

[colston15]

We've had this conversation over and over and over and over.

It's been proven that playing teams from the bottom 50, or 75, or 100 kills SOS. Simply moving some of those games out of that bottom tier, an into the 200's (which still should be gimmes), HAS BEEN SHOWN to have a positive effect on SOS and other team rating metrics.

You know what else hurts your resume? Losing a bunch of games even if they are to tough teams.

Again, I'm not saying I wouldn't play tough teams. I hate that they are ALL away from Norman, but to me, that magic number is probably 3-5. We're getting to be near the top of that list. It's no different than football. No reason to play a bunch of tough OOC games if you think the SEC is going to be a gauntlet again.

I’m good with replacing the SWAC teams, they’re reliably horrible in the NET.

Though I don’t think it’s quite as easy in May to differentiate a team that will wind up with a sub-300 NET and one that won’t.

Stetson lost a ton in the portal, but I don’t think anyone thought they’d finish 6-27 at this point a year ago.

 

[WichitaSooner]

I’m good with replacing the SWAC teams, they’re reliably horrible in the NET.

Though I don’t think it’s quite as easy in May to differentiate a team that will wind up with a sub-300 NET and one that won’t.

Stetson lost a ton in the portal, but I don’t think anyone thought they’d finish 6-27 at this point a year ago.

Actually, identifying the bottom 50 or so teams is one of the easiest things to do. Go to any of the publicly available sites (KenPom, Torvik, etc.) and they all had the eight Q-4 teams we played last year as bottom feeders from last spring on. Stetson was definitely in the 320 range all along.