DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,306
|
Post by DanMcQ on Oct 5, 2018 10:05:09 GMT -5
Nice start.
|
|
blueandgray
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,728
|
Post by blueandgray on Oct 5, 2018 11:45:21 GMT -5
Very nice!!
|
|
FrazierFanatic
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,521
Member is Online
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Oct 5, 2018 15:03:35 GMT -5
Hopefully a sign Patrick understands that the schedule needs to be stronger, just wants to have his players in place and capable of handling it.
|
|
|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Oct 5, 2018 21:48:39 GMT -5
So far —2-4 games at MSG (or likely 2 there with 2 home games associated w the tournament) —@smu —home game vs a Big10 school in Gavitt tip-off
Anything I’m missing?
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Oct 5, 2018 21:50:56 GMT -5
So far —2-4 games at MSG (or likely 2 there with 2 home games associated w the tournament) —@smu —home game vs a Big10 school in Gavitt tip-off Anything I’m missing? Gotta believe the series with South East Canada junior college will be renewed so that should be a home game....
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 6, 2018 14:59:44 GMT -5
Great news. That’d be a great tournament and an improvement from a scheduling perspective on the Jamaica tournament.
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Oct 7, 2018 12:48:09 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2018 20:31:59 GMT -5
Is this a thing that people care about?
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Oct 7, 2018 21:39:14 GMT -5
Is this a thing that people care about? Absolutely! Some programs play 28 regular season games entering their conference tournament. Some play as many as 32 games before conference tournament. NCAA is also going to add a 2nd in season tournament for teams to play in during the season. It's really time for NCAA to move the start of the season up a week or two and really every team should play same amount of games which will eliminate the NCAA tournament committee having to deciding between unbalanced schedules
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 9:34:28 GMT -5
Is this a thing that people care about? Absolutely! Some programs play 28 regular season games entering their conference tournament. Some play as many as 32 games before conference tournament. NCAA is also going to add a 2nd in season tournament for teams to play in during the season. It's really time for NCAA to move the start of the season up a week or two and really every team should play same amount of games which will eliminate the NCAA tournament committee having to deciding between unbalanced schedules Maybe I'll put it a different way: this feels like a solution in search of a problem. Let's say (for the sake of argument) that everyone is required to play exactly 30 games prior to their conference tournament. How does that create any balance that matters? Some examples: The NCAA tournament committee is comparing - say - Georgetown and USC in trying to fill the tournament bracket. Georgetown went 22-8. USC went 20-10. Is Georgetown better? Let's assume no common opponents (not a crazy assumption). Now we look at some other metrics (RPI, KenPom, Whatever the new NCAA thing is) - all of which have their flaws, but they exist. Did Georgetown play its 2017-18 OOC schedule, which was full of some of the worst teams in the NCAA? Would it matter if they had played one more game against a NC A&T type? Or one less? Did USC play a tough OOC schedule? Either way, you have to look at some of those metrics, and I don't know if Georgetown played a few more games while going 24-8 while USC went 19-10 would make a material difference. What about asking teams to schedule OOC games? Do you think Ivy League coaches want to find SIXTEEN OOC games every year? They only play 14 in-conference. Not fair to compel some teams to schedule 16 when others only have to schedule 10 (aren't there some conferences that have gone to 20 conference games? or are at least considering it?). What if a coach doesn't want 14 or 15 or 16 OOC games? The tournament committee is comparing - say - Syracuse and Wake Forest. Both went 21-9 overall and 11-7 in the ACC. But they didn't even played "balanced" conference schedules, due to the comically oversized conference. So how do you break the tie? If one of them played one or two more (or fewer) games, you're still going to the metrics anyway. And we all know the committee would figure out a way to this up and give a garbage Syracuse team in a 10-seed anyway. What about the MEAC or Big Sky or other small-conference team that wants to play a ton of OOC games for the guarantee $? You want to tell them that they have to shave their athletic dept budget by a couple million dollars because they have to play 30 games when they'd like to play 34 and pocket that extra cash? Seems like that's their prerogative. 35 years ago, when the metrics like RPI didn't exist, getting to 20 wins was a benchmark that mattered. And back then, no one really understood how one team's path to 20 differed from another's. Maybe someone went 20-11 and someone else went 20-8, in which case "normalizing" to some standard might have made sense. In this day and age, I don't understand how making everyone play the same number of games actually creates balance. Flawed as they may be, the metrics exist that allow us to compare teams whether they play 28, or 29, or 32 games.
|
|
saxagael
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,765
|
Post by saxagael on Oct 8, 2018 11:01:50 GMT -5
Absolutely! Some programs play 28 regular season games entering their conference tournament. Some play as many as 32 games before conference tournament. NCAA is also going to add a 2nd in season tournament for teams to play in during the season. It's really time for NCAA to move the start of the season up a week or two and really every team should play same amount of games which will eliminate the NCAA tournament committee having to deciding between unbalanced schedules Maybe I'll put it a different way: this feels like a solution in search of a problem. Let's say (for the sake of argument) that everyone is required to play exactly 30 games prior to their conference tournament. How does that create any balance that matters? Some examples: The NCAA tournament committee is comparing - say - Georgetown and USC in trying to fill the tournament bracket. Georgetown went 22-8. USC went 20-10. Is Georgetown better? Let's assume no common opponents (not a crazy assumption). Now we look at some other metrics (RPI, KenPom, Whatever the new NCAA thing is) - all of which have their flaws, but they exist. Did Georgetown play its 2017-18 OOC schedule, which was full of some of the worst teams in the NCAA? Would it matter if they had played one more game against a NC A&T type? Or one less? Did USC play a tough OOC schedule? Either way, you have to look at some of those metrics, and I don't know if Georgetown played a few more games while going 24-8 while USC went 19-10 would make a material difference. What about asking teams to schedule OOC games? Do you think Ivy League coaches want to find SIXTEEN OOC games every year? They only play 14 in-conference. Not fair to compel some teams to schedule 16 when others only have to schedule 10 (aren't there some conferences that have gone to 20 conference games? or are at least considering it?). What if a coach doesn't want 14 or 15 or 16 OOC games? The tournament committee is comparing - say - Syracuse and Wake Forest. Both went 21-9 overall and 11-7 in the ACC. But they didn't even played "balanced" conference schedules, due to the comically oversized conference. So how do you break the tie? If one of them played one or two more (or fewer) games, you're still going to the metrics anyway. And we all know the committee would figure out a way to this up and give a garbage Syracuse team in a 10-seed anyway. What about the MEAC or Big Sky or other small-conference team that wants to play a ton of OOC games for the guarantee $? You want to tell them that they have to shave their athletic dept budget by a couple million dollars because they have to play 30 games when they'd like to play 34 and pocket that extra cash? Seems like that's their prerogative. 35 years ago, when the metrics like RPI didn't exist, getting to 20 wins was a benchmark that mattered. And back then, no one really understood how one team's path to 20 differed from another's. Maybe someone went 20-11 and someone else went 20-8, in which case "normalizing" to some standard might have made sense. In this day and age, I don't understand how making everyone play the same number of games actually creates balance. Flawed as they may be, the metrics exist that allow us to compare teams whether they play 28, or 29, or 32 games. I deeply agree with Cam. Over the years I've heard a lot of different coaches talk about their approach to scheduling for their programs. Some programs are just fine with fewer games so their students can focus on academics or have had a lot of injuries in years prior and want to scale back. Yet their programs still make it to the NCAA tourney or NIT. Other schools may want more OCC games early as they have a lot of new players who they want to get experience in their system. Programs that lose their full starting rotation (due to successful season the prior year or graduation) seem to often want more games on their schedule. There are many reasons why programs select the number of games they have to get ready for their conference season. As Cam pointed out there are and long have been good analytics for sorting all of this out and what matters. The 20 game metric is an odd one, but it is easy for most to understand, but often make a mess of things, like St. Mary's College of California with at 30-6 record not making the NCAA last year coming in just behind Gonzaga. 30 is more than 20 wins, but being in the WCC their conference schedule, other than Gonzaga (and sometimes BYU), is soft and hurts their ability to go to the dance. Setting a standard number of games seems like it has no value and it isn't a solution to a problem that actually exists, but creates problems for many programs who need the flexibility to have more or fewer games to meet their needs.
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Oct 8, 2018 12:35:02 GMT -5
Maybe I'll put it a different way: this feels like a solution in search of a problem. Let's say (for the sake of argument) that everyone is required to play exactly 30 games prior to their conference tournament. How does that create any balance that matters? Some examples: The NCAA tournament committee is comparing - say - Georgetown and USC in trying to fill the tournament bracket. Georgetown went 22-8. USC went 20-10. Is Georgetown better? Let's assume no common opponents (not a crazy assumption). Now we look at some other metrics (RPI, KenPom, Whatever the new NCAA thing is) - all of which have their flaws, but they exist. Did Georgetown play its 2017-18 OOC schedule, which was full of some of the worst teams in the NCAA? Would it matter if they had played one more game against a NC A&T type? Or one less? Did USC play a tough OOC schedule? Either way, you have to look at some of those metrics, and I don't know if Georgetown played a few more games while going 24-8 while USC went 19-10 would make a material difference. What about asking teams to schedule OOC games? Do you think Ivy League coaches want to find SIXTEEN OOC games every year? They only play 14 in-conference. Not fair to compel some teams to schedule 16 when others only have to schedule 10 (aren't there some conferences that have gone to 20 conference games? or are at least considering it?). What if a coach doesn't want 14 or 15 or 16 OOC games? The tournament committee is comparing - say - Syracuse and Wake Forest. Both went 21-9 overall and 11-7 in the ACC. But they didn't even played "balanced" conference schedules, due to the comically oversized conference. So how do you break the tie? If one of them played one or two more (or fewer) games, you're still going to the metrics anyway. And we all know the committee would figure out a way to this up and give a garbage Syracuse team in a 10-seed anyway. What about the MEAC or Big Sky or other small-conference team that wants to play a ton of OOC games for the guarantee $? You want to tell them that they have to shave their athletic dept budget by a couple million dollars because they have to play 30 games when they'd like to play 34 and pocket that extra cash? Seems like that's their prerogative. 35 years ago, when the metrics like RPI didn't exist, getting to 20 wins was a benchmark that mattered. And back then, no one really understood how one team's path to 20 differed from another's. Maybe someone went 20-11 and someone else went 20-8, in which case "normalizing" to some standard might have made sense. In this day and age, I don't understand how making everyone play the same number of games actually creates balance. Flawed as they may be, the metrics exist that allow us to compare teams whether they play 28, or 29, or 32 games. I deeply agree with Cam. Over the years I've heard a lot of different coaches talk about their approach to scheduling for their programs. Some programs are just fine with fewer games so their students can focus on academics or have had a lot of injuries in years prior and want to scale back. Yet their programs still make it to the NCAA tourney or NIT. Other schools may want more OCC games early as they have a lot of new players who they want to get experience in their system. Programs that lose their full starting rotation (due to successful season the prior year or graduation) seem to often want more games on their schedule. There are many reasons why programs select the number of games they have to get ready for their conference season. As Cam pointed out there are and long have been good analytics for sorting all of this out and what matters. The 20 game metric is an odd one, but it is easy for most to understand, but often make a mess of things, like St. Mary's College of California with at 30-6 record not making the NCAA last year coming in just behind Gonzaga. 30 is more than 20 wins, but being in the WCC their conference schedule, other than Gonzaga (and sometimes BYU), is soft and hurts their ability to go to the dance. Setting a standard number of games seems like it has no value and it isn't a solution to a problem that actually exists, but creates problems for many programs who need the flexibility to have more or fewer games to meet their needs. I don't even understand the conversation here. Making every team play the same amount of total games seems like a no brainer.... The season starting earlier, More regular season games and a 2nd in season tournament all sounds like really good things to me...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 13:47:41 GMT -5
I deeply agree with Cam. Over the years I've heard a lot of different coaches talk about their approach to scheduling for their programs. Some programs are just fine with fewer games so their students can focus on academics or have had a lot of injuries in years prior and want to scale back. Yet their programs still make it to the NCAA tourney or NIT. Other schools may want more OCC games early as they have a lot of new players who they want to get experience in their system. Programs that lose their full starting rotation (due to successful season the prior year or graduation) seem to often want more games on their schedule. There are many reasons why programs select the number of games they have to get ready for their conference season. As Cam pointed out there are and long have been good analytics for sorting all of this out and what matters. The 20 game metric is an odd one, but it is easy for most to understand, but often make a mess of things, like St. Mary's College of California with at 30-6 record not making the NCAA last year coming in just behind Gonzaga. 30 is more than 20 wins, but being in the WCC their conference schedule, other than Gonzaga (and sometimes BYU), is soft and hurts their ability to go to the dance. Setting a standard number of games seems like it has no value and it isn't a solution to a problem that actually exists, but creates problems for many programs who need the flexibility to have more or fewer games to meet their needs. I don't even understand the conversation here... Okay
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Oct 8, 2018 16:51:20 GMT -5
NO ST. LEO'S???
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Oct 8, 2018 19:58:35 GMT -5
I don't even understand the conversation here... Okay I see what you did there with my post. There is a position for you on Fox News...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2018 8:26:31 GMT -5
I see what you did there with my post. There is a position for you on Fox News... No idea what that means. I noted in detail why I don't think this is a thing that matters. You disagree. So be it.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,734
|
Post by njhoya78 on Oct 9, 2018 9:41:43 GMT -5
I'm late to the party, but I'm with Cam on this one.
I've posted the weekly Games of Interest on HoyaTalk for the past several years (for those who care/worry about this type of thing, all set for the coming season now that Howard finally posted their schedule). In this context, I've noted that several conferences conclude their regular season one week before the Power 6, and run their conference tournaments during the final week of the Big East season. If teams in these mid-major conferences were required to play the same number of games as the Power 6, they would have to do so within a more compacted, shorter period of time. These mid-majors would not be in consideration for any of the at large berths in the NCAA tournament, but would have to play more games for the benefit of others. For those of us who still believe in the myth of the student/athlete, this would mean more time away from campus and classes for these schools. It makes no sense through a cost/benefit analysis for the mid-majors.
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,893
|
Post by jwp91 on Oct 9, 2018 10:07:29 GMT -5
I am trying to imagine the benefit of forcing everyone to play the same number of games.
|
|
saxagael
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,765
|
Post by saxagael on Oct 9, 2018 10:37:00 GMT -5
I'm late to the party, but I'm with Cam on this one. I've posted the weekly Games of Interest on HoyaTalk for the past several years (for those who care/worry about this type of thing, all set for the coming season now that Howard finally posted their schedule). In this context, I've noted that several conferences conclude their regular season one week before the Power 6, and run their conference tournaments during the final week of the Big East season. If teams in these mid-major conferences were required to play the same number of games as the Power 6, they would have to do so within a more compacted, shorter period of time. These mid-majors would not be in consideration for any of the at large berths in the NCAA tournament, but would have to play more games for the benefit of others. For those of us who still believe in the myth of the student/athlete, this would mean more time away from campus and classes for these schools. It makes no sense through a cost/benefit analysis for the mid-majors. Agreed. There have been quite a few economics of scheduling on mid-major boards, particularly around getting into the NCAA tournament. Part of it is soft schedules that mid-majors often have to deal with if they don't win their conference. The other part is the balance of student athlete with the number of games and economic benefit or cost of extra games. Mid-majors often get offers from, say Georgetown, to play better programs and they get paid to go there and play. The weaker mid-major teams can fill out a cupcake schedule and make money to support their program doing it. The mid-majors often make a pre-season out of three or four solid teams that play and two or more regional D2 teams or other lower level D1 conferences. The top mid-majors (Gonzaga, etc.) will head to tournaments to compete against the top programs from the big conferences, as the top programs don't want to pay for a game and lose at home (these top mid-majors often work out a home and away arrangement over a couple years, but then gate receipt spits become a major issue - oh the fun on scheduling economics). Many of the smaller mid-majors try to get a balance of money coming in, enough competition to get them ready for the season, and time to focus for their student athletes to focus on school. The lesser mid-majors can often have 26 to 28 game seasons, some fewer depending on economics. A couple years ago when talking to a former assistant coach for a small mid-major in the Mid-West and the payments for pre-season came up, he said they at most would get two in a good year, but most years they had none. If they didn't have any of the larger schools paying for them to come in they had a much shorter season of 27 games (not counting postseason tournaments). In years with two paid games they could aim for 30 games, which often were years when they had a decent shot at winning their conference. Last year Dartmouth had the fewest number of games with 27, only a few other teams having 29 games, and most had 30 or more games. This attempt to provide a standard, where one isn't needed seems like it would end up creating problems and when where isn't a problem to solve.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Oct 15, 2018 16:27:06 GMT -5
|
|