iowa80
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,402
|
Post by iowa80 on Oct 24, 2017 8:28:00 GMT -5
Who the heck cares about these moronic computer numbers? If we are on the NCAA bubble this year, and the schedule is a "problem" at that point, it will be a good one to have. Play the games on the schedule and win. As fans we should concentrate more on supporting the team than nitpicking the schedule. I wonder how many fans ever have put together a college basketball schedule, as a new coach, in the midst of rebuilding. It seems so easy from behind a computer screen. Give it a break. Oh please. This thread is about the schedule. If you want to try to dictate what we should do as fans, that's your privilege. If people want to criticize an incredibly weak schedule for being incredibly weak, that's their privilege. As far as computer numbers being "moronic" . . . Really?
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Oct 24, 2017 8:28:45 GMT -5
But what are the chances of that with this year's team? Versus the chances of getting some wins and building some momentum versus lesser opponents? It is the coach's decision to make, and we should respect and support it. He is the one who has seen these players go in practice, etc., and he built the schedule around that. It is his call.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Oct 24, 2017 8:29:38 GMT -5
Who the heck cares about these moronic computer numbers? If we are on the NCAA bubble this year, and the schedule is a "problem" at that point, it will be a good one to have. Play the games on the schedule and win. As fans we should concentrate more on supporting the team than nitpicking the schedule. I wonder how many fans ever have put together a college basketball schedule, as a new coach, in the midst of rebuilding. It seems so easy from behind a computer screen. Give it a break. Oh please. This thread is about the schedule. If you want to dictate what we should do as fans, that's your privilege. If people want to criticize an incredibly weak schedule for being incredibly weak, that's their privilege. As far as computer numbers being "moronic" . . . Really? Yes, really. I categorically reject all RPIesque computer babble for the garbage it is.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,362
|
Post by calhoya on Oct 24, 2017 8:35:31 GMT -5
I hate acknowledging the need for a schedule as pathetic as this year's but agree that the coach got a late start in getting hired, hiring assistants and getting to know which players were staying or leaving. Add injuries to some returning players, and it is fair to give him the time and opportunity to get to know these kids, what they can and cannot do and how to utilize their talents. That said, if Ewing intends to return to the OOC scheduling approach of his mentor and that of schools like Syracuse it would be incredibly disappointing. Say what you want about some of the shortcomings of JT III, but his approach to scheduling made the OOC season exciting and eagerly anticipated every year.
|
|
|
Post by FromTheBeginning on Oct 24, 2017 9:06:09 GMT -5
As a fan it was more exciting. As a season ticket holder there's not much difference as most of those "good" games were away or neutral court. While there are more "bottom feeders" this year I expect the home OOC schedule will be pretty much the same as in JTIII's time - maybe one marquee home game. The question is will PE schedule the OCC tourneys. My guess is yes - at least one a year.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,362
|
Post by calhoya on Oct 24, 2017 9:11:44 GMT -5
As a fan it was more exciting. As a season ticket holder there's not much difference as most of those "good" games were away or neutral court. While there are more "bottom feeders" this year I expect the home OOC schedule will be pretty much the same as in JTIII's time - maybe one marquee home game. The question is will PE schedule the OCC tourneys. My guess is yes - at least one a year. Fair point about the quality of home games. However, the benefits of playing national opponents--wherever--is not just for those fans who cannot attend games in DC, but also in recruiting. Potential quality recruits want to play Duke or MSU or Oregon, rather than the bottom-feeders.
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Oct 24, 2017 9:29:51 GMT -5
When it comes to this season, I would rather beat weaker teams than lose to better ones.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 24, 2017 10:03:09 GMT -5
When it comes to this season, I would rather beat weaker teams than lose to better ones. This is not the point, yet it continues to be made repeatedly! Nobody in this thread is saying that we should be playing top 100 opponents every game. Rather, we want more games like Mount Saint Mary's (269) than the MEAC/SWAC teams that are truly awful. This still ensures very likely wins without wrecking your schedule.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 24, 2017 10:04:21 GMT -5
I categorically reject all RPIesque computer babble for the garbage it is. If you're willing to bury your head into the sand, that's fine, but the reality is things like RPI matter to getting to the NCAA tournament, and isn't that our primary goal? You can reject it all you want, but that's not a very measured and intelligent way of looking at college basketball in 2017. I promise you that if we are close to the bubble and don't make the NCAA tournament because we are playing half of MEAC, I will be angry, and I think a lot of other people will be too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 11:01:41 GMT -5
I wouldn't be... Year one imo should be about getting comfortable and stopping the bleeding. Hopefully they can finish over 500 because that would be able to be spun as some positive momentum for the program.
If we are fortunate to be considered for the tourney that would be a result none of us predicted before the season. Not sure why I would be upset if we just barely missed on something virtually nobody thought was possible before the season began.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,670
|
Post by seaweed on Oct 24, 2017 11:32:06 GMT -5
I wouldn't be... Year one imo should be about getting comfortable and stopping the bleeding. Hopefully they can finish over 500 because that would be able to be spun as some positive momentum for the program. If we are fortunate to be considered for the tourney that would be a result none of us predicted before the season. Not sure why I would be upset if we just barely missed on something virtually nobody thought was possible before the season began. It's amazing how, the closer we get to Tip Off, the more unrealistic the expectations become. Last April people were talking like we should disband the program and now we are griping about failure to properly position ourselves for a bubble bid...
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 24, 2017 12:51:23 GMT -5
I wouldn't be... Year one imo should be about getting comfortable and stopping the bleeding. Hopefully they can finish over 500 because that would be able to be spun as some positive momentum for the program. If we are fortunate to be considered for the tourney that would be a result none of us predicted before the season. Not sure why I would be upset if we just barely missed on something virtually nobody thought was possible before the season began. It's amazing how, the closer we get to Tip Off, the more unrealistic the expectations become. Last April people were talking like we should disband the program and now we are griping about failure to properly position ourselves for a bubble bid... Well, fans stupidly exaggerate all the time. As I've said on numerous occasions, things are rarely as bad as they seem when things aren't going well (or as good as they seem when things are going great). Yes, the last two seasons were not good, but people who acted like the sky was falling weren't looking at things rationally, either. I don't think anybody "expects" us to be on the bubble. I certainly don't. The real issue is that a coach/program should position itself to maximize potential and NCAA tournament selection *at all times*. There is no reason to take any different approach. Are the odds we'd be a bubble team really low? Probably. I think there's virtually no chance it happens. BUT, in the unlikely event that we exceeded expectations, I would want to be positioned to make the most out of it, and the 2017 OOC schedule does not do that. I don't think this is a matter of expectations, as much as a philosophy of running your program to maximize its potential along a spectrum of outcomes. A slightly tougher OOC schedule would have allowed us to guarantee tons of wins anyway, while better positioning us in the rare event we exceed expectations. There's simply no reason to do otherwise, even if the odds it will even matter are low.
|
|
BigmanU
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 915
|
Post by BigmanU on Oct 24, 2017 14:20:54 GMT -5
It's amazing how, the closer we get to Tip Off, the more unrealistic the expectations become. Last April people were talking like we should disband the program and now we are griping about failure to properly position ourselves for a bubble bid... Well, fans stupidly exaggerate all the time. As I've said on numerous occasions, things are rarely as bad as they seem when things aren't going well (or as good as they seem when things are going great). Yes, the last two seasons were not good, but people who acted like the sky was falling weren't looking at things rationally, either. I don't think anybody "expects" us to be on the bubble. I certainly don't. The real issue is that a coach/program should position itself to maximize potential and NCAA tournament selection *at all times*. There is no reason to take any different approach. Are the odds we'd be a bubble team really low? Probably. I think there's virtually no chance it happens. BUT, in the unlikely event that we exceeded expectations, I would want to be positioned to make the most out of it, and the 2017 OOC schedule does not do that. I don't think this is a matter of expectations, as much as a philosophy of running your program to maximize its potential along a spectrum of outcomes. A slightly tougher OOC schedule would have allowed us to guarantee tons of wins anyway, while better positioning us in the rare event we exceed expectations. There's simply no reason to do otherwise, even if the odds it will even matter are low. In the rare event we exceed expectations we can either win the BEast tourney or get at least ten conferences wins after sweeping the OOC. Both of these scenarios have nothing to do with scheduling. The scheduling is fine this year.
|
|
|
Post by centercourt400s on Oct 24, 2017 15:04:06 GMT -5
A slightly tougher OOC schedule would have allowed us to guarantee tons of wins anyway, while better positioning us in the rare event we exceed expectations. There's simply no reason to do otherwise, even if the odds it will even matter are low. I'm sorry but there obviously is a reason to do otherwise. You just don't understand it or don't agree with it. Coach Ewing had a reason he created this schedule the way he did and whether it was done by choice, because of circumstances or a combination, doesn't matter. There was a reason. I'm willing to bet that a man with Ewing's basketball credentials, experience and knowledge had a good reason. And because of those credentials and because of who he is and what he's meant to the Georgetown basketball program over the last 30+ years, I'm willing to trust him.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Oct 24, 2017 21:36:39 GMT -5
Well, fans stupidly exaggerate all the time. As I've said on numerous occasions, things are rarely as bad as they seem when things aren't going well (or as good as they seem when things are going great). Yes, the last two seasons were not good, but people who acted like the sky was falling weren't looking at things rationally, either. I don't think anybody "expects" us to be on the bubble. I certainly don't. The real issue is that a coach/program should position itself to maximize potential and NCAA tournament selection *at all times*. There is no reason to take any different approach. Are the odds we'd be a bubble team really low? Probably. I think there's virtually no chance it happens. BUT, in the unlikely event that we exceeded expectations, I would want to be positioned to make the most out of it, and the 2017 OOC schedule does not do that. I don't think this is a matter of expectations, as much as a philosophy of running your program to maximize its potential along a spectrum of outcomes. A slightly tougher OOC schedule would have allowed us to guarantee tons of wins anyway, while better positioning us in the rare event we exceed expectations. There's simply no reason to do otherwise, even if the odds it will even matter are low. First, I agree that I would have theoretically preferred more 200-300 level opponents this season, and I agree that I hope the scheduling is more competitive once the team and Ewing are more established. However, just because a team is 200-300 doesn't mean it's an easy win. Below are the year before end of season RPI figures for the 4 teams that were "bad" losses the past two seasons. 2016 Season - Arkansas State RPI 284 2015 Season - Radford RPI 150, Monmouth RPI 178, UNC Asheville RPI 248 So, IF the objective this season is to let Ewing establish his coaching style and to strive for a winning record, then keep in mind that teams in the 200-300 range are not guaranteed wins.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 24, 2017 23:25:20 GMT -5
First, I agree that I would have theoretically preferred more 200-300 level opponents this season, and I agree that I hope the scheduling is more competitive once the team and Ewing are more established. However, just because a team is 200-300 doesn't mean it's an easy win. Below are the year before end of season RPI figures for the 4 teams that were "bad" losses the past two seasons. 2016 Season - Arkansas State RPI 284 2015 Season - Radford RPI 150, Monmouth RPI 178, UNC Asheville RPI 248 So, IF the objective this season is to let Ewing establish his coaching style and to strive for a winning record, then keep in mind that teams in the 200-300 range are not guaranteed wins. Obviously, a team's previous-year RPI isn't a reflection of their current-year RPI. Arkansas State's RPI the year we lost to them was 113 (but 284 the year before, as you note). When we lost to Radford, their RPI was 190 when we lost to them; Monmouth was was 60, and UNC Asheville was 132. So in reality, we lost to teams whose RPI's were 113, 190, 60, and 132. I realize predicting RPI from past results is an inexact science, but the SWAC/MEAC teams generally don't vary all that much. They are almost always awful. Almost all MEAC/SWAC teams are 200+ in RPI every year, and we aren't even playing the better SWAC and MEAC teams. So yes, I get the desire for a win. But you don't have to play the 340th worst team to do that. That's all I am saying. And yes, there may be a small risk you'll lose if you play 275 versus 350, but it's well worth it.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Oct 25, 2017 1:39:39 GMT -5
Obviously, a team's previous-year RPI isn't a reflection of their current-year RPI. Arkansas State's RPI the year we lost to them was 113 (but 284 the year before, as you note). When we lost to Radford, their RPI was 190 when we lost to them; Monmouth was was 60, and UNC Asheville was 132. So in reality, we lost to teams whose RPI's were 113, 190, 60, and 132. I realize predicting RPI from past results is an inexact science, but the SWAC/MEAC teams generally don't vary all that much. They are almost always awful. Almost all MEAC/SWAC teams are 200+ in RPI every year, and we aren't even playing the better SWAC and MEAC teams. So yes, I get the desire for a win. But you don't have to play the 340th worst team to do that. That's all I am saying. And yes, there may be a small risk you'll lose if you play 275 versus 350, but it's well worth it. I used the year before RPI because we obviously don't have this year RPI figures yet, and that way I could compare the scheduled teams before the seasons started. I'm pretty sure the backlash of losing to the 275th worst team would be worse than beating the 340th worst team and would not be "well worth it".
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 25, 2017 10:44:29 GMT -5
Obviously, a team's previous-year RPI isn't a reflection of their current-year RPI. Arkansas State's RPI the year we lost to them was 113 (but 284 the year before, as you note). When we lost to Radford, their RPI was 190 when we lost to them; Monmouth was was 60, and UNC Asheville was 132. So in reality, we lost to teams whose RPI's were 113, 190, 60, and 132. I realize predicting RPI from past results is an inexact science, but the SWAC/MEAC teams generally don't vary all that much. They are almost always awful. Almost all MEAC/SWAC teams are 200+ in RPI every year, and we aren't even playing the better SWAC and MEAC teams. So yes, I get the desire for a win. But you don't have to play the 340th worst team to do that. That's all I am saying. And yes, there may be a small risk you'll lose if you play 275 versus 350, but it's well worth it. I used the year before RPI because we obviously don't have this year RPI figures yet, and that way I could compare the scheduled teams before the seasons started. I'm pretty sure the backlash of losing to the 275th worst team would be worse than beating the 340th worst team and would not be "well worth it". If your argument is that we should play the RPI 340 teams because they are a guaranteed win, I understand where you are coming from. I don't agree with the approach but I also acknowledge that if your goal is to just get wins (even if they are meaningless), then the SWAC/MEAC approach is one way to go. But, it's noteworthy basically no other team in the last decade has taken this approach. To me, it is worthwhile to run a bigger chance of a loss to someone ranked 270 than to just rack up the meaningless wins against the worst teams in all of Division I. You're still going to win almost all of them (if not all), and the upside is there too. Here's an interesting stat: From 2002 to present, Georgetown played 52 opponents ranked 200-300 on KenPom, and won 50 games. Yes, that includes some very good teams (2007, for example), but it also includes some really bad teams like Esherick's 2004 team. And the two losses were at the top of the range: Northeastern (ranked 203), and the double OT loss to Radford (222). So is there some risk in playing a bit tougher opponents? Yes, but as long as we field even a marginally competent team, we'd still win almost every game anyway. Lastly, I would add that in the very unlikely event that we did lose to a 340-type team, it would be absolutely devastating.
|
|
|
Post by centercourt400s on Oct 25, 2017 11:47:35 GMT -5
I used the year before RPI because we obviously don't have this year RPI figures yet, and that way I could compare the scheduled teams before the seasons started. I'm pretty sure the backlash of losing to the 275th worst team would be worse than beating the 340th worst team and would not be "well worth it". If your argument is that we should play the RPI 340 teams because they are a guaranteed win, I understand where you are coming from. I don't agree with the approach but I also acknowledge that if your goal is to just get wins (even if they are meaningless), then the SWAC/MEAC approach is one way to go. But, it's noteworthy basically no other team in the last decade has taken this approach. To me, it is worthwhile to run a bigger chance of a loss to someone ranked 270 than to just rack up the meaningless wins against the worst teams in all of Division I. You're still going to win almost all of them (if not all), and the upside is there too. Here's an interesting stat: From 2002 to present, Georgetown played 52 opponents ranked 200-300 on KenPom, and won 50 games. Yes, that includes some very good teams (2007, for example), but it also includes some really bad teams like Esherick's 2004 team. And the two losses were at the top of the range: Northeastern (ranked 203), and the double OT loss to Radford (222). So is there some risk in playing a bit tougher opponents? Yes, but as long as we field even a marginally competent team, we'd still win almost every game anyway. Lastly, I would add that in the very unlikely event that we did lose to a 340-type team, it would be absolutely devastating. All your arguments are predicated on the idea that anything other than using the generally accepted methodology of schedule building to position a team for a post-season NCAA bid is a mistake. What you don't seem to get is that Ewing has seemingly thrown that idea out the window this season for reasons that he believes are good ones. He has likely chosen this route for a number of specific reasons, which have been cited MANY times by other posters in this thread, and don't need to be restated. Obviously his goal is to rebuild the team and the program to a perennial top 25 level with the continued post-season success. If you accept that he is an intelligent man with a huge amount of basketball experience then you should also be able to accept the fact that he believes this schedule will be good for the program, both in this transitional season, and as a stepping stone for future success.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Oct 25, 2017 11:48:48 GMT -5
If your argument is that we should play the RPI 340 teams because they are a guaranteed win, I understand where you are coming from. I don't agree with the approach but I also acknowledge that if your goal is to just get wins (even if they are meaningless), then the SWAC/MEAC approach is one way to go. But, it's noteworthy basically no other team in the last decade has taken this approach. To me, it is worthwhile to run a bigger chance of a loss to someone ranked 270 than to just rack up the meaningless wins against the worst teams in all of Division I. You're still going to win almost all of them (if not all), and the upside is there too. Here's an interesting stat: From 2002 to present, Georgetown played 52 opponents ranked 200-300 on KenPom, and won 50 games. Yes, that includes some very good teams (2007, for example), but it also includes some really bad teams like Esherick's 2004 team. And the two losses were at the top of the range: Northeastern (ranked 203), and the double OT loss to Radford (222). So is there some risk in playing a bit tougher opponents? Yes, but as long as we field even a marginally competent team, we'd still win almost every game anyway. Lastly, I would add that in the very unlikely event that we did lose to a 340-type team, it would be absolutely devastating. Like I said earlier, I agree with all of your points and I don't necessarily agree with the approach either. But under the assumption that Georgetown's main goal this season (not talking about future seasons) is simply to have a winning record, I don't understand what upside you're talking about. Your upside only matters when considering RPI and Kenpom rankings, which do not have an impact on overall record. If the team ends up 16-14, I don't see where the upside is of replacing even all of the 300-350 teams with 250-300 teams, since that still probably wouldn't help the RPI and Kenpom numbers enough to make the postseason without more 50-200 level opponents. I know no other team has taken this approach recently, but maybe the team is ahead of the times. Keep in mind what Kenpom stated: Rebuilding the team and re-energizing fan base were my top hopes for this season, and a winning record would certainly help with the fan aspect. I would love if the team over-performs this season. But if the team over-performs and misses the NCAA/NIT tournaments, most typical fans will blame the selection committees, not the schedule. Sure, us fans on Hoyatalk will be super upset about the schedule at that point, but ultimately it's pretty clear that making the postseason is not the top priority for the program this season.
|
|