2025-26 Season

[BoulderSooner]

Miss State's avg opponent net rating is 139
OU's avg opponent net rating is 193

OUr sub 100 oppenents avg net is 55 (six games)
Their sub 100 oppenents avg net is 52 (six games)

Sub 100: they play 6. We play 6
100-200: They play 1 we play 0
200-300: They play 3 we play 1
300+: They play 1 we play 5

Seems like a pretty similar strategy, their bad teams just aren't quite as bad

which makes a big difference in the computers

 

[stormspencer]

Miss State's avg opponent net rating is 139
OU's avg opponent net rating is 193

OUr sub 100 oppenents avg net is 55 (six games)
Their sub 100 oppenents avg net is 52 (six games)

Sub 100: they play 6. We play 6
100-200: They play 1 we play 0
200-300: They play 3 we play 1
300+: They play 1 we play 5

Seems like a pretty similar strategy, their bad teams just aren't quite as bad

And this is the point. You can play bad teams, but try your best to avoid the worst of the worst. There is a significant difference in their non-con SOS and it will reflect in the NET. Hell, almost half our non-con are teams in the sub 300.....give me a break, that's pathetic. Metrics are becoming more and more important in the selection and seeding process. I would trade schedules with them in a heartbeat.....because it would help us in the long run.

 

[WichitaSooner]

And this is the point. You can play bad teams, but try your best to avoid the worst of the worst. There is a significant difference in their non-con SOS and it will reflect in the NET. Hell, almost half our non-con are teams in the sub 300.....give me a break, that's pathetic. Metrics are becoming more and more important in the selection and seeding process. I would trade schedules with them in a heartbeat.....because it would help us in the long run.

This debate always fascinates me. A lot of people don't think it SHOULD matter whether you play a team that is ranked 200 as opposed to 320, but whether people like it it or not, it DOES matter significantly in the metrics, and the metrics, in turn, play a significant role in the selection and seeding process. Since everyone in the sport has known this for over a decade, it makes it all the more inexcusable to schedule the way we do. If we played Miss State's schedule, we would still be very likely to win all our buy games, but we could get a lot more credit in the metrics for doing so. Yet we consistently choose the other (worse) route.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

And this is the point. You can play bad teams, but try your best to avoid the worst of the worst. There is a significant difference in their non-con SOS and it will reflect in the NET. Hell, almost half our non-con are teams in the sub 300.....give me a break, that's pathetic. Metrics are becoming more and more important in the selection and seeding process. I would trade schedules with them in a heartbeat.....because it would help us in the long run.

I'm just saying their strategy isn't any different than ours. They just traded 300 teams for upper 200 teams. I don't think that is a material difference. Not enough to get upset over

 

[SoonerBounce13]

This debate always fascinates me. A lot of people don't think it SHOULD matter whether you play a team that is ranked 200 as opposed to 320, but whether people like it it or not, it DOES matter significantly in the metrics, and the metrics, in turn, play a significant role in the selection and seeding process. Since everyone in the sport has known this for over a decade, it makes it all the more inexcusable to schedule the way we do. If we played Miss State's schedule, we would still be very likely to win all our buy games, but we could get a lot more credit in the metrics for doing so. Yet we consistently choose the other (worse) route.

Please provide the metric formulas to show that upper 200s make a big difference vs 300+

 

[WichitaSooner]

Please provide the metric formulas to show that upper 200s make a big difference vs 300+

Every single metric based formula shows it in the SOS component. To pick one example, KenPom has their noncon SOS as 181 and ours as 256.

 

[WichitaSooner]

And from the NCAA's site, there is this explanation:

What did the RPI calculate? How is the NET different?​

The Ratings Power Index (RPI) was made up of three components:

• A team's winning percentage
• Average opponent's winning percentage
• Average opponent's opponent's winning percentage

The NET includes more components than just winning percentage. It takes into account game results, strength of schedule, game location, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses.

 

[SoonerDutch]

The image is an explanation of the KP metrics from a UM fansite, presumably playing 200-250 teams would be better than 300+ based on the efficiency metrics.

Since the 2016 FF, OU has consistently been a bubble team. Seems like that is likely to continue, have to be shooting for variables they can control like SOS and non-con SOS.

IMO in terms of scheduling, OU needs to shoot for that 20 wins threshold for aesthetic reasons because the committee is still swayed modestly by wins & losses (although they’re moving towards more analytics, predictive measures for sure) but they should be able to do it with high 200s teams as opposed to 300+ teams.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Every single metric based formula shows it in the SOS component. To pick one example, KenPom has their noncon SOS as 181 and ours as 256.

That isn't what was asked.

I know it has an effect. But how much does a SOS of 256 (for the nonconference) really effect our rating compared to a nonconf SOS of 181?
They are both overall bad and only half of the season. Take into account a very strong conference SOS and I don't think it really makes a noticeable difference in ratings calculations.

I know it will come into play for subjective committees, even though I'm a firm believer overall SOS should be the driver there

 

[The_Banker]

He can't go pro till the 2028 draft now. I hope for his sake he really likes college and loves playing college baseball, because he locked himself in for three years. I think the only exception would be if he drops out of OU and goes to a JUCO.

Correct, If he wanted to drop to JUCO he’d be immediately eligible because of the drop down as long as he did it during the winter transfer window. Juco baseball players are eligible to enter the draft at anytime, so to my understanding of the rules he could technically enter the winter portal, play the spring, and enter to 2026 draft if he wanted to gamble.

 

[SoonerDutch]

That isn't what was asked.

I know it has an effect. But how much does a SOS of 256 (for the nonconference) really effect our rating compared to a nonconf SOS of 181?
They are both overall bad and only half of the season. Take into account a very strong conference SOS and I don't think it really makes a noticeable difference in ratings calculations.

I know it will come into play for subjective committees, even though I'm a firm believer overall SOS should be the driver there

If I am understanding your point, you are right in that it’s marginal in grand scheme of seeding but if it comes down to a bubble conversation it could be the determining factor because margins are so tight.

IE OU is not going to materially fall 15-20 spots in the overall seeding because their SOS/non-con SOS is poor. But if the choice is 5 teams for 3 spots and the margins are thin, it could cost OU (it has, like in 2023-2024). Which to me is the broader point, OU is and likely to remain stuck in the bubble conversation for foreseeable future so play the game of metrics manipulation as much as possible.

 

[CoachTalk]

rinse wash repeat

 

[sooner333]

My understanding is that regardless of the sport, the scholarship counts toward the first sport played during the academic year. So basically impossible to count against baseball if they play any other sport.

Plus, Blair was also a top 75 player in basketball (high as top 60) so he would be scholarship material anyway.

Is this correct: For NCAA purposes, there are no more scholarship limits, just roster limits. But the SEC has maintained scholarship limits at least for this academic year.

 

[mict085]

Is there ever a day or a topic that Wichita doesn’t complain about?

Constantly crying about something.

 

[WichitaSooner]

Is there ever a day or a topic that Wichita doesn’t complain about?

Constantly crying about something.

WTF are you even talking about? I didn't start this discussion about the schedule. Someone else made a valid point, and once the conversation started, another poster asked me to show him info about SOS and I linked to the NCAA site to answer him.

Maybe the better question is, is there ever a moment where you aren't obsessed over what I'm thinking about or posting?

 

[hoopsaustin]

Is there ever a day or a topic that Wichita doesn’t complain about?

Constantly crying about something.

Well he's actually right on this one. PM has potentially cost us 2 tourney bids due to poor scheduling

 

[hoopsaustin]

Nope. It’s what she does. Everyone here has her figured out but she’s still here unfortunately. Boomer

Eh keeps the board active lol and I don't mind him. Don't take yourself so seriously.

 

[pnkranger]

Ya'll -- we are literally two days away from an OU / Gonzaga basketball game, OU football is still in the playoff hunt, and we have already devolved into whatever all of this is...

 

[CoachTalk]

Well he's actually right on this one. PM has potentially cost us 2 tourney bids due to poor scheduling

One was a travesty that Virginia got in over us and the other. Our lack of wins in conference did us in.

 

[Boom Soon]

One was a travesty that Virginia got in over us and the other. Our lack of wins in conference did us in.

I wish PM would have scheduled a tougher noncon in 2023 but USC and Arkansas’ collapse that year really hurt OU.