Scheduling Question

[thebigabd]

Last nights game was a good example of playing a soft opponent in front of a home crowd.

Does it do anything for player confidence, on a young team, to play more opponents like this? Or to struggle and/or lose to better opponents? Where you are playing games where the 5 starters are needed to play 38 minutes just to stay in it?

Or would it have been better this year, from a development and confidence perspective, to play UT Rio Grande Valley, UMKC, Southeastern Louisiana, ORU, Lamar, Texas Southern, UT Arlington, UTEP, and still play the Creighton, North Texas, and UCF games are your toughest opponents but everyone else is weaker.

Would Harmon and Bienemy have built more confidence? Would Kur have gotten the minutes and production like last night to find a role? Etc?

Or would development have been slowed? Confidence been the exact same?

 

[BCSooners]

Hurts your chances to get to the Dance, so I say keep scheduling tough.

 

[WichitaSooner]

Hurts your chances to get to the Dance, so I say keep scheduling tough.

Agree. It's an absolute no-brainer. Scheduling has been THE reason we've made it the last two years. Changing it would be a disaster. Several teams each season get left out precisely because they play a schedule like the one cited above. I understand the theoretical confidence bump that some players might get by beating up on bad teams, but I'd much rather take the tangible NCAA berths. Plus, we have won the vast majority of the games, so it's not like the schedules have beaten us up.

 

[thebigabd]

Hurts your chances to get to the Dance, so I say keep scheduling tough.

That is one side of the debate... The other said is, maybe the confidence and experience you gained by playing a weaker schedule made you a better team come conference time and you didn't have to barely make the NCAA Tournament because of a strong non-con schedule?

The teams who don't make it at the end of the year are ones that played a soft schedule, have a good record, but didn't win any significant games in their league. This is avoided by being a better team come conference time and winning significant games.

 

[skyvue]

It'll be interesting to see how conference play goes. Both Baylor and Texas have played MUCH easier schedules than we have, but if they are successful in conference play, that may not hurt them (except perhaps when it comes to tourney seeding).

I did notice that yesterday's game lowered our strength of schedule ranking on Kenpom from 21 to 40, though I'm sure that'll be a temporary dip.

 

[steverocks35]

I just looked at Texas's schedule. Their SOS is ranked much worse than ours. They played (and beat) number 23 Purdue. They've played, Cal, Georgetown, Texas A&M and Providence. I guess the reason their schedule is ranked so much worse than ours is because the other teams they've played are extreme cupcakes. Our SOS according to ESPN is 41 while Texas's is 169. interestingly, Wichita State's SOS is 236.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/overview/sort/bpirank/page/1/dir/asc

 

[thebigabd]

I just looked at Texas's schedule. Their SOS is ranked much worse than ours. They played (and beat) number 23 Purdue. They've played, Cal, Georgetown, Texas A&M and Providence. I guess the reason their schedule is ranked so much worse than ours is because the other teams they've played are extreme cupcakes. Our SOS according to ESPN is 41 while Texas's is 169. interestingly, Wichita State's SOS is 236.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/overview/sort/bpirank/page/1/dir/asc

See... I just don't get these rankings.

Wichita State has a non-con of OU, OSU, South Carolina, West Virginia, VCU (ranked), East Carolina, and Ole Miss.

 

[BCSooners]

See... I just don't get these rankings.

Wichita State has a non-con of OU, OSU, South Carolina, West Virginia, VCU (ranked), East Carolina, and Ole Miss.

Don’t schedule the super easy teams, that simple. I’d rather my team be battle tested before conference.

 

[steverocks35]

See... I just don't get these rankings.

Wichita State has a non-con of OU, OSU, South Carolina, West Virginia, VCU (ranked), East Carolina, and Ole Miss.

I know, neither do I, it makes no sense at all.

 

[steverocks35]

Don’t schedule the super easy teams, that simple. I’d rather my team be battle tested before conference.

We scheduled super-easy teams. North Texas, William & Mary, Maryland Eastern Shore, Texas RGV, and UTSA. Cupcake city

 

[skyvue]

We scheduled super-easy teams. North Texas, William & Mary, Maryland Eastern Shore, Texas RGV, and UTSA. Cupcake city

It appears you are relying strictly on name recognition. Here are some facts for you:

OU has played 7 top 100 teams (four in the top 50), 2 in the 100s (just barely missing out on on a third -- UTSA at 201), 2 in the 200s and 1 in the 300s.

texas has played 3 top 100 teams (2 in the top 50), 6 teams in the 100s (a category you describe as "cupcakes" when OU plays them), 2 teams in the 200s and 1 team in the 300s.

Baylor has played 4 top 50 teams (2 top 20), 3 in the 100s, 0 in the 200s and 4 in the 300s.

Tech has played 4 top 100 teams (1 top 50, 1 top 20, 1 top 5), 1 in the lower 100s (189), 6 in the 200s, and 1 in the 300s.

Also, one of the teams you rate as a cupcake for OU -- North Texas -- is ranked considerably higher in Kenpom than two of the teams -- Cal, A&M -- you cite as quality opponents for texas.

 

[steverocks35]

It appears you are relying strictly on name recognition. Here are some facts for you:

OU has played 7 top 100 teams (four in the top 50), 2 in the 100s (just barely missing out on on a third -- UTSA at 201), 2 in the 200s and 1 in the 300s.

texas has played 3 top 100 teams (2 in the top 50), 6 teams in the 100s (a category you describe as "cupcakes" when OU plays them), 2 teams in the 200s and 1 team in the 300s.

Baylor has played 4 top 50 teams (2 top 20), 3 in the 100s, 0 in the 200s and 4 in the 300s.

Tech has played 4 top 100 teams (1 top 50, 1 top 20, 1 top 5), 1 in the lower 100s (189), 6 in the 200s, and 1 in the 300s.

Also, one of the teams you rate as a cupcake for OU -- North Texas -- is ranked considerably higher in Kenpom than two of the teams -- Cal, A&M -- you cite as quality opponents for texas.

If you re-read my post you will see that I agreed with you that Texas's schedule was easier than ours, and I found it interesting because of the "name" teams they played. I do scratch my head at the numbers though when I look at teams like Wichita State as mentioned above. And yes I do think that a team that is ranked in the 100s is a cupcake, as I think most people here would as well.

 

[skyvue]

If you re-read my post you will see that I agreed with you that Texas's schedule was easier than ours, and I found it interesting because of the "name" teams they played. I do scratch my head at the numbers though when I look at teams like Wichita State as mentioned above. And yes I do think that a team that is ranked in the 100s is a cupcake, as I think most people here would as well.

But your stance was that OU had an easy schedule, though we've played by far the most top 100 teams of any of the four I shared.

The dividing lines are somewhat arbitrary, but teams in the 100s -- and certainly from, say, 100-150 -- often have the talent to put a scare into teams and occasionally pull off an upset. Texas A&M is not a great team this season but are they a cupcake? I wouldn't say so, and they're ranked 158. Is UCLA a cupcake? They're at 127, six spots below North Texas. Is Stephen F. Austin, at 145, a cupcake? I think Duke players and coaches would tell us they aren't.

 

[BCSooners]

We scheduled super-easy teams. North Texas, William & Mary, Maryland Eastern Shore, Texas RGV, and UTSA. Cupcake city

OU has scheduled 2 super easy teams in UTSA & UMES. I’m basing that on numbers, not names.

 

[skyvue]

OU has scheduled 2 super easy teams in UTSA & UMES. I’m basing that on numbers, not names.

I don't disagree. And texas scheduled three such teams, Baylor scheduled four and Tech scheduled seven.

Duke also scheduled two super easy teams (its Kenpom SOS is 134). Even KU, which has the Big 12's highest SOS (10), played four teams in the 200s (plus Chaminade).

 

[BCSooners]

I don't disagree. And texas scheduled three such teams, Baylor scheduled four and Tech scheduled seven.

Duke also scheduled two super easy teams (its Kenpom SOS is 134). Even KU, which has the Big 12's highest SOS (10), played four teams in the 200s (plus Chaminade).

I’m on your side, OU plays a great schedule because they play teams in the top half & top 1/3 of the country consistently.

 

[steverocks35]

But your stance was that OU had an easy schedule, though we've played by far the most top 100 teams of any of the four I shared.

The dividing lines are somewhat arbitrary, but teams in the 100s -- and certainly from, say, 100-150 -- often have the talent to put a scare into teams and occasionally pull off an upset. Texas A&M is not a great team this season but are they a cupcake? I wouldn't say so, and they're ranked 158. Is UCLA a cupcake? They're at 127, six spots below North Texas. Is Stephen F. Austin, at 145, a cupcake? I think Duke players and coaches would tell us they aren't.

I was told earlier in the year, by you, that you can't look at one game and make judgments about a team (I'm being sarcastic but that's what you're doing with SFA, which I would definitely call a cupcake.) Even if I spot you North Texas, none of the other teams I listed were even close to non-cupcake status. Yes we have played some good teams, and we have a decent schedule, I never said we didn't. But you can't sit there and tell me we didn't schedule some super-easy opponents, which is exactly what I said.

But this early in the season I don't care all that much about numbers, at this point my main ranking is the eye test, and what I see on the court when I look at our team is not a good team.

That being said, last night we played very well, it was a great tune-up for conference play, I hope it continues.

 

[skyvue]

that's what you're doing with SFA, which I would definitely call a cupcake.

I'd be interested in hearing your criteria for judging cupcakes. Can you lay them out for us?

Obviously, the record doesn't matter -- SFA is 11-2, and has a higher SOS of schedule ranking than a number of Big 12 teams, including texas, Baylor and Tech. And a road win against the #1 team in the country doesn't impress you.

What, then, defines a cupcake in your view?

 

[steverocks35]

I'd be interested in hearing your criteria for judging cupcakes. Can you lay them out for us?

Obviously, the record doesn't matter -- SFA is 11-2, and has a higher SOS of schedule ranking than a number of Big 12 teams, including texas, Baylor and Tech. And a road win against the #1 team in the country doesn't impress you.

What, then, defines a cupcake in your view?

How do you think SFA would finish in the Big 12? You really think they could compete in our league? No, they would finish near the bottom. I define a cupcake as a team that you should beat almost any time or anywhere you play them.

I can't remember a year (Maybe one of the awful Capel years that I tried to block out of my memory?) in which we struggled so mightily in pre-conference play, and looked so out of sorts in several games. We got absolutely destroyed by Stanford. Then KU went to Stanford and completely dominated them. That doesn't give me a lot of confidence when conference play starts, but like I said, we looked great last night. Hopefully Doolittle is good and we can carry that over into conference play.

 

[daqman]

How do you think SFA would finish in the Big 12? You really think they could compete in our league? No, they would finish near the bottom. I define a cupcake as a team that you should beat almost any time or anywhere you play them.

I can't remember a year (Maybe one of the awful Capel years that I tried to block out of my memory?) in which we struggled so mightily in pre-conference play, and looked so out of sorts in several games. We got absolutely destroyed by Stanford. Then KU went to Stanford and completely dominated them. That doesn't give me a lot of confidence when conference play starts, but like I said, we looked great last night. Hopefully Doolittle is good and we can carry that over into conference play.

Not entirely. Starting guards were 1-6 from 3. We won't win many conference games if this trend continues. I don't care how tough of a schedule we've played.