Thoughts from the Tech Game

[TEvans4Three]

I am somewhere in between both of you here.

I am not mad at the fluff non-con at all. I wanted us to play more floofy-puffs. You scheduled USC/Seton Hall/Iowa for a tournament. Last year USC was 45, SH was 58, and Iowa was 41. That is challenging you in noncon. We swept the easy teams, which is what you want to do. You beat Providence, a top-50 team, and you drop one to #5 UNC. Could we have played more Top100 teams? Maybe, would it have made a difference with a loss? Absolutely.

KP rank of Non-Con Opponents by Total	2023​	2024​
101+	5​	9​
51-100	6​	1​
26-50	0​	2​
Top 25	2​	1​
Record	10-3​	12-1​

OU was not that far off from WVU last year (non-con schedule wise) and that got them into the tournament with a 19-14 record.

	2023 WVU	2023 OU	2024 OU
101+	7​	5​	9​
51-100	2​	6​	1​
26-50	2​	0​	2​
Top 25	2​	2​	1​
Non-Con Record	11-2	10-3	12-1
Worst Loss	63 Taco Tech (H)	73 SHSU (H)	38 Texas (H)
Best Win	21 KSU (H)	4 Alabama (H)	12 ISU (H)
20 game rec	12-8	11-9	15-5

OU was also 1-6 in conference play at this point.

Edit to add: This is all moot if we s*** the bed in conference play.

 

[WichitaSooner]

I am somewhere in between both of you here.

I am not mad at the fluff non-con at all. I wanted us to play more floofy-puffs. You scheduled USC/Seton Hall/Iowa for a tournament. Last year USC was 45, SH was 58, and Iowa was 41. That is challenging you in noncon. We swept the easy teams, which is what you want to do. You beat Providence, a top-50 team, and you drop one to #5 UNC. Could we have played more Top100 teams? Maybe, would it have made a difference with a loss? Absolutely.

KP rank of Non-Con Opponents by Total	2023​	2024​
101+	5​	9​
51-100	6​	1​
26-50	0​	2​
Top 25	2​	1​
Record	10-3​	12-1​

OU was not that far off from WVU last year (non-con schedule wise) and that got them into the tournament with a 19-14 record.

	2023 WVU	2023 OU	2024 OU
101+	7​	5​	9​
51-100	2​	6​	1​
26-50	2​	0​	2​
Top 25	2​	2​	1​
Non-Con Record	11-2	10-3	12-1
Worst Loss	63 Taco Tech (H)	73 SHSU (H)	38 Texas (H)
Best Win	21 KSU (H)	4 Alabama (H)	12 ISU (H)
20 game rec	12-8	11-9	15-5

OU was also 1-6 in conference play at this point.

Edit to add: This is all moot if we s*** the bed in conference play.

Good research. The one thing I’d be curious to see is how many of the 100+ teams were 300+. That’s the killer. I have no problem playing teams in the 100-150 or even 150-175 range, and even playing a couple 300 teams. I definitely am not suggesting we should play five or six top 25 teams. That would be suicide for all but a few teams in the country.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

lol so in your view, the two options are laughably weak or “super hard?” If playing a few teams in the 150-200 range would have been too challenging for us, that says it all. I’ve never in my life complained about a noncon being too tough. Good teams challenge themselves. And enough with the new roster stuff. Again, this applies to 95 percent of teams in the country every year. I guess we can just use that excuse every year. Given the fact Moser is unwilling to play freshmen, we take the court with more experience than most teams. The excuse making is truly incredible at this point.

We have played 5 teams in that 150-200 range

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Based on BPI we played 3 teams in the top 50. 1 in the top 50-100. 1 in the 100-150 range. 3 in the 200-250

 

[WichitaSooner]

Based on BPI we played 3 teams in the top 50. 1 in the top 50-100. 1 in the 100-150 range. 3 in the 200-250

Based on NET, the most important metric, we played four teams in the 300s and two more in the 250-299 range. So, nearly half our schedule was made up of teams near the bottom of division one. Barring a late run by Providence or Iowa, UNC will be the only top 50 team (both are currently just outside the top 50). Cut it down to 2 teams in the 300s and replace those with teams in the 100-150 range, and that helps.

All I am saying is this: if we find ourselves on the bubble, our noncon will be more of a hindrance than a help. And that should never be the case for us.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Based on NET, the most important metric, we played four teams in the 300s and two more in the 250-299 range. So, nearly half our schedule was made up of teams near the bottom of division one. Barring a late run by Providence or Iowa, UNC will be the only top 50 team (both are currently just outside the top 50). Cut it down to 2 teams in the 300s and replace those with teams in the 100-150 range, and that helps.

All I am saying is this: if we find ourselves on the bubble, our noncon will be more of a hindrance than a help. And that should never be the case for us.

I don't disagree with any of this ...

I will point out that Providence lost one of their best players AFTER we played them .. (15.5 and 8.6) 2nd leading scorer and leading rebounder ..

they would for sure have been a top 50 win ..

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Based on NET, the most important metric, we played four teams in the 300s and two more in the 250-299 range. So, nearly half our schedule was made up of teams near the bottom of division one. Barring a late run by Providence or Iowa, UNC will be the only top 50 team (both are currently just outside the top 50). Cut it down to 2 teams in the 300s and replace those with teams in the 100-150 range, and that helps.

All I am saying is this: if we find ourselves on the bubble, our noncon will be more of a hindrance than a help. And that should never be the case for us.

The alternative is the risk of adding 2 additional tougher games and losing them. Then we wouldn't be on the bubble

 

[WichitaSooner]

The alternative is the risk of adding 2 additional tougher games and losing them. Then we wouldn't be on the bubble

And if we aren't good enough to win home buy games against teams in the 100-150 range, then we have bigger issues. I'd prefer not to coach or schedule from a position of fear.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

And if we aren't good enough to win home buy games against teams in the 100-150 range, then we have bigger issues. I'd prefer not to coach or schedule from a position of fear.

it isn't fear. It is being smart. When you play in by far the toughest conference (arguably ever), you don't schedule ultra hard non conference games because realistically, the conference record won't get you into the tourney, it has to be padded with a great nonconference record.

Do I like this fact? No. but it is what it is.

 

[WichitaSooner]

it isn't fear. It is being smart. When you play in by far the toughest conference (arguably ever), you don't schedule ultra hard non conference games because realistically, the conference record won't get you into the tourney, it has to be padded with a great nonconference record.

Do I like this fact? No. but it is what it is.

100-150 equates to "ultra hard?" I'm not suggesting we replace Mississippi Valley State with UConn or Purdue. But how about, say, UMass Lowell? Towson? And those wins that you think pad the resume -- the committee gives you no credit for them. They are smart enough to realize that a team could buy itself 13 noncon wins if it chose to do so.

 

[BoulderSooner]

100-150 equates to "ultra hard?" I'm not suggesting we replace Mississippi Valley State with UConn or Purdue. But how about, say, UMass Lowell? Towson? And those wins that you think pad the resume -- the committee gives you no credit for them. They are smart enough to realize that a team could buy itself 13 noncon wins if it chose to do so.

an underrated part of the Kruger tenure was the scheduling ... (not hard games but ending up with a great non con rating)

 

[SoonerBounce13]

100-150 equates to "ultra hard?" I'm not suggesting we replace Mississippi Valley State with UConn or Purdue. But how about, say, UMass Lowell? Towson? And those wins that you think pad the resume -- the committee gives you no credit for them. They are smart enough to realize that a team could buy itself 13 noncon wins if it chose to do so.

Ultra hard was hyperbole. The problem with adding UMass Lowell and Towson is you have no idea when you schedule these types of teams where they are going to fall.
But aside from that, I would agree with your approach if we didn't play in the big 12. I just see no reason to play any harder of a schedule than we did thsi year when you play such a tough conference slate. It is better IMO to have a decently rated schedule with a great nonconf record than a top 25 rated schedule with a good record

 

[snydrosooner]

How many good teams do you want schedule? I mean we had 5 supposed to be strong games. That is generally enough. Arkansas, usc, Iowa and providence are all today below what most thought at the beginning of the season. UNC is the other who is in a good spot. I get we could have played a better bottom feeder, but if 3 of the 4 were playing better, we would not need to worry about that.

 

[WichitaSooner]

How many good teams do you want schedule? I mean we had 5 supposed to be strong games. That is generally enough. Arkansas, usc, Iowa and providence are all today below what most thought at the beginning of the season. UNC is the other who is in a good spot. I get we could have played a better bottom feeder, but if 3 of the 4 were playing better, we would not need to worry about that.

I laid out exactly what I thought we need to do. Play a couple top likely 25 teams, limit the true bottom feeders to two or three, and then play a lot of teams in the middle. The fact that Arky, USC, and Iowa are all underachieving is precisely why you can't schedule so many really bad teams -- there is always going to be some uncertainty on how good the "good" opponents will be, unless you are Kansas and you are playing four or five teams who were unquestionably going to be top 25. I think the five best teams on our schedule were fine. It's the other eight where we fell short. Shep was a master at that part of the schedule when he was here. KU is also great at it -- Self describes it as, play the best teams from the mid or low major leagues.

 

[snydrosooner]

I laid out exactly what I thought we need to do. Play a couple top likely 25 teams, limit the true bottom feeders to two or three, and then play a lot of teams in the middle. The fact that Arky, USC, and Iowa are all underachieving is precisely why you can't schedule so many really bad teams -- there is always going to be some uncertainty on how good the "good" opponents will be, unless you are Kansas and you are playing four or five teams who were unquestionably going to be top 25. I think the five best teams on our schedule were fine. It's the other eight where we fell short. Shep was a master at that part of the schedule when he was here. KU is also great at it -- Self describes it as, play the best teams from the mid or low major leagues.

Central Michigan 3rd in mac.
Green Bay 1st in horizon
Central ark. 4th asun

The other 5 are pretty bad. So I could see trading them, but it’s tough to know how some small schools will be today. I mean we took Seana’s best player. Nil changed this some.

 

[TEvans4Three]

I laid out exactly what I thought we need to do. Play a couple top likely 25 teams, limit the true bottom feeders to two or three, and then play a lot of teams in the middle. The fact that Arky, USC, and Iowa are all underachieving is precisely why you can't schedule so many really bad teams -- there is always going to be some uncertainty on how good the "good" opponents will be, unless you are Kansas and you are playing four or five teams who were unquestionably going to be top 25. I think the five best teams on our schedule were fine. It's the other eight where we fell short. Shep was a master at that part of the schedule when he was here. KU is also great at it -- Self describes it as, play the best teams from the mid or low major leagues.

This is a very hindsight argument though.

If Iowa, USC, and Arkansas all ended up in the Top 25, no one in their right mind would say, OU should have scheduled MORE Top25 teams non-con.

It is what it is, we scheduled okay, those teams just didn't perform. If we were not in the Big12, I would 100% agree in having a much stronger non-con. But look at it like this, OU had the #7 SOS (according to KP) in 2022 and we should have been in the tournament. 2023 we had the #2 SOS, at some point you want to add more fluff to ease your grind. I think it is silly to want to have the #1 or #2 SOS just bc conf play is going to be tough, it makes no sense. Your goal is to get to 20 wins and hope your opponents do well enough to get you up there. With the Big12 strength, should be no problem on SOS...now we just need to get to 20.

	2022​	2023​	2024​
101+	9​	5​	9​
51-100	3​	6​	1​
26-50	0​	0​	2​
Top 25	2​	2​	1​
Non-con rec	10-3	10-3	12-1
SOS	7​	2​	?

Our noncon is close to 2022.

 

[TINY]

This is a very hindsight argument though.

If Iowa, USC, and Arkansas all ended up in the Top 25, no one in their right mind would say, OU should have scheduled MORE Top25 teams non-con.

It is what it is, we scheduled okay, those teams just didn't perform. If we were not in the Big12, I would 100% agree in having a much stronger non-con. But look at it like this, OU had the #7 SOS (according to KP) in 2022 and we should have been in the tournament. 2023 we had the #2 SOS, at some point you want to add more fluff to ease your grind. I think it is silly to want to have the #1 or #2 SOS just bc conf play is going to be tough, it makes no sense. Your goal is to get to 20 wins and hope your opponents do well enough to get you up there. With the Big12 strength, should be no problem on SOS...now we just need to get to 20.

	2022​	2023​	2024​
101+	9​	5​	9​
51-100	3​	6​	1​
26-50	0​	0​	2​
Top 25	2​	2​	1​
Non-con rec	10-3	10-3	12-1
SOS	7​	2​	?

Our noncon is close to 2022.

If ou gets to 20 regular season wins, they will be a lock for the tournament.

 

[WichitaSooner]

If ou gets to 20 regular season wins, they will be a lock for the tournament.

That would mean winning 8 conference games. I think you’re probably right in that scenario, but we’ve mainly been talking about whether 7-11 will do it.

And for the record, I questioned this noncon schedule well before the season started. It’s definitely not hindsight. I’ve read all sorts of articles over the years on how teams can help or hurt their metrics based on which low and mid majors they play, and as soon as our schedule was released, it was obvious we had too many really bad opponents.

 

[jmizzy4ou]

Completely fair for sure.

Also, to add to that, I am disappointed in the Texas and Tech losses. Happy with the Cincy and ISU wins.

Here is a breakdown I have on the other board.


OU is going to still be a Top25 ranked team in the AP poll, most likely.

According to KenPom OU is ranked 28th with 5 losses to:

#5 UNC (flat out beat)
#17 Kansas (Phog and Dickinson)
#21 TCU (OU got hosed in calls, allowed TCU to steal it)
#26 Texas Tech (we should have won this, but flopped it up)
#38 Texas (this is a bad loss to me, UT was on fire)

It is not like OU is playing a cake schedule, but they have to start winning those 50/50 games (TT - FT shooting) and winning the home games (UT - outshot and outrebounded).

On the bright side, OU's record against 51+ and below is 11-0.
Record vs. 26-50: 3-2
Record vs. Top 25: 1-3

Gotta be positive in the 26-50 range and steal one from the Top25 range to prove you are still a Top 25 team.

Games left (by KP rank)?
51+: 4
26-50: 2
Top 25: 5

Need to win the 4, split the 2 and take 1 from 5 if we can. That is 6 wins which puts us at 9-9. 8-10 gets us in the tournament. 7-11 and we are on bubble watch, AGAIN. OU currently has no bad losses on their resume.


(Last year WVU went 7-11 in conference and got the 9 seed.

Record vs.:
51+: 12-2
26-50: 5-1
Top 25: 2-11 (+1 loss to MD in tourney))

Good stuff!! Thank you for sharing.

 

[steverocks35]

It's not just the fact that we've lost these games, it's how we are losing. I also think our lack of competent play inside, especially on defense has been a real problem in conference play. I love Sam, but he should really be a 12-15 minute guy off the bench.