guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,662
|
Post by guru on Jul 24, 2018 15:49:04 GMT -5
I'm not one to say that JT3's scheduling was directly responsible for his team's lack of tournament success (post 2007), but it is true that playing hard non-conference schedules did not produce the payoff that fans had hoped for. Given that, if Ewing wants to take a somewhat different approach then more power to him. Hopefully he will find the right balance required to help insure the success of the teams he puts on the court. Yes, and no. The two years Georgetown had the most success under JT3 (2006 and 2007), Georgetown had really high strength of schedule. Given that success, it's not surprising that JT3 continued to schedule that way. In any case, this is a clear example of causation and correlation being different. Just because Georgetown struggled in the NCAA tournament in 2010, 2011, 2013, etc. doesn't mean that it was because of the schedule. In fact, it's not logical to say (a) we would have a tough schedule, (b) we would beat almost all the teams on that tough schedule, and (c) that caused us to lose in March. The other issue is seeding. Sure, if we go 16-2, we are making the NCAA tournament (and not because RPI doesn't matter, but rather going 16-2 in the Big East will make up for RPI hits of playing bad teams), but if you had a scenario where we had the 2017-2018 OOC schedule, and we went 16-2, there would be lots of arguments against our having a 1 seed. And they'd be justified. The only thing that will make this part of the thread complete is guru chiming in and telling me I'm a broken record. Have at it buddy. Dude, you're obsessed. You're welcome, buddy. |
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,733
|
Post by seaweed on Jul 24, 2018 16:07:20 GMT -5
Ha, I keep clicking on this thread thinking that it will have updates on confirmed/rumored new additions to our 2018-19 schedule. Silly me. Me too. Although it is not September yet so I don't expect to hear much from the GU side of the schedule. Only 137 days till 'cuse!!! |
|
|
|
Post by x-centercourt400s on Jul 24, 2018 16:29:52 GMT -5
I'm not one to say that JT3's scheduling was directly responsible for his team's lack of tournament success (post 2007), but it is true that playing hard non-conference schedules did not produce the payoff that fans had hoped for. Given that, if Ewing wants to take a somewhat different approach then more power to him. Hopefully he will find the right balance required to help insure the success of the teams he puts on the court. Yes, and no. The two years Georgetown had the most success under JT3 (2006 and 2007), Georgetown had really high strength of schedule. Given that success, it's not surprising that JT3 continued to schedule that way. In any case, this is a clear example of causation and correlation being different. Just because Georgetown struggled in the NCAA tournament in 2010, 2011, 2013, etc. doesn't mean that it was because of the schedule. In fact, it's not logical to say (a) we would have a tough schedule, (b) we would beat almost all the teams on that tough schedule, and (c) that caused us to lose in March. The other issue is seeding. Sure, if we go 16-2, we are making the NCAA tournament (and not because RPI doesn't matter, but rather going 16-2 in the Big East will make up for RPI hits of playing bad teams), but if you had a scenario where we had the 2017-2018 OOC schedule, and we went 16-2, there would be lots of arguments against our having a 1 seed. And they'd be justified. The only thing that will make this part of the thread complete is guru chiming in and telling me I'm a broken record. Have at it buddy. We know by example that a hard OOC schedule does not automatically lead to post-season success, right? We also know by example that weaker OOC scheduling can be part of a season that leads to great success, even championship appearances and wins. The causation in either case is questionable, which is why I don't buy in to the arguments on the extremes of either side. I hope that Ewing is shooting for something more in the middle, balancing all the factors, and that he is taking into account the team he expects to be able to put on the court each season. A top 30 OOC schedule is not appropriate for a talent starved team, like last year's squad. And a sub-200 schedule would similarly not be appropriate for a team that expects to challenge for the lead of the Big East. This season's schedule, what is known of it so far, seems to indicate a willingness to ramp it up as the talent level rises. That's a good sign that Ewing is looking for a balance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 18:30:23 GMT -5
I would disagree with the notion that the tougher schedules did not produce the desired results. Tougher schedules do not guarantee postseason success. Nor do easier schedules. Nothing does. Tougher schedules do improve your chances of getting a better seed in the NCAAs (or just getting in if you’re on the bubble). Having a better seed improves your chances of going deeper into the tournament. We might have lost to Davidson, Ohio, VCU, and FGCU with easier schedules. We also might have not played any of them because we might have had different seeds in those tournaments. In which case we might have lost to different, slightly better teams. All you can do is do what you can to improve your chances. JT3 understood that and scheduled accordingly. I expect Ewing to do the same. This year’s schedule is already looking far better than last year’s. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 24, 2018 19:42:36 GMT -5
I'm not one to say that JT3's scheduling was directly responsible for his team's lack of tournament success (post 2007), but it is true that playing hard non-conference schedules did not produce the payoff that fans had hoped for. Given that, if Ewing wants to take a somewhat different approach then more power to him. Hopefully he will find the right balance required to help insure the success of the teams he puts on the court. Yes, and no. The two years Georgetown had the most success under JT3 (2006 and 2007), Georgetown had really high strength of schedule. Given that success, it's not surprising that JT3 continued to schedule that way. In any case, this is a clear example of causation and correlation being different. Just because Georgetown struggled in the NCAA tournament in 2010, 2011, 2013, etc. doesn't mean that it was because of the schedule. In fact, it's not logical to say (a) we would have a tough schedule, (b) we would beat almost all the teams on that tough schedule, and (c) that caused us to lose in March. The other issue is seeding. Sure, if we go 16-2, we are making the NCAA tournament (and not because RPI doesn't matter, but rather going 16-2 in the Big East will make up for RPI hits of playing bad teams), but if you had a scenario where we had the 2017-2018 OOC schedule, and we went 16-2, there would be lots of arguments against our having a 1 seed. And they'd be justified. The only thing that will make this part of the thread complete is guru chiming in and telling me I'm a broken record. Have at it buddy. Really high? Kenpom non-con SOS 2007 - 174 2006 - 208 |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jul 25, 2018 10:38:40 GMT -5
Yes, and no. The two years Georgetown had the most success under JT3 (2006 and 2007), Georgetown had really high strength of schedule. Given that success, it's not surprising that JT3 continued to schedule that way. In any case, this is a clear example of causation and correlation being different. Just because Georgetown struggled in the NCAA tournament in 2010, 2011, 2013, etc. doesn't mean that it was because of the schedule. In fact, it's not logical to say (a) we would have a tough schedule, (b) we would beat almost all the teams on that tough schedule, and (c) that caused us to lose in March. The other issue is seeding. Sure, if we go 16-2, we are making the NCAA tournament (and not because RPI doesn't matter, but rather going 16-2 in the Big East will make up for RPI hits of playing bad teams), but if you had a scenario where we had the 2017-2018 OOC schedule, and we went 16-2, there would be lots of arguments against our having a 1 seed. And they'd be justified. The only thing that will make this part of the thread complete is guru chiming in and telling me I'm a broken record. Have at it buddy. Really high? Kenpom non-con SOS 2007 - 174 2006 - 208 I stand corrected on 2006 and 2007, I was using the overall strength of schedule. Still, in 2013 - when we had one of our worst NCAA losses ever - our strength of schedule was 312, and that's under JT3, who was known for good schedules. The simple fact is the strength of the non conference schedule does directly not impact whether you win if you play in the NCAA tournament. That said, the better your strength of schedule, the better your RPI, and the better your odds of actually making the tournament with fewer wins. And that's in the coach's control. That's what's important. |
|
One
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 192
|
Post by One on Jul 25, 2018 11:28:18 GMT -5
Not to mention the fans who, you know, ultimately pay for the program get to see interesting games.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jul 25, 2018 12:15:19 GMT -5
Not to mention the fans who, you know, ultimately pay for the program get to see interesting games. If we are talking about scheduling teams in the 150-250 range vs in the 300-350 range, I'm not sure it would make a big difference with fans. However getting a couple of top 50 home games and/or games against lower end major conference teams should definitely be a goal. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Jul 25, 2018 12:24:30 GMT -5
Really high? Kenpom non-con SOS 2007 - 174 2006 - 208 I stand corrected on 2006 and 2007, I was using the overall strength of schedule. Still, in 2013 - when we had one of our worst NCAA losses ever - our strength of schedule was 312, and that's under JT3, who was known for good schedules. The simple fact is the strength of the non conference schedule does directly not impact whether you win if you play in the NCAA tournament. That said, the better your strength of schedule, the better your RPI, and the better your odds of actually making the tournament with fewer wins. And that's in the coach's control. That's what's important. It also is a factor in higher seeding, which theoretically increases your chances of victory in the first/second rounds. |
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,954
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Jul 25, 2018 15:27:00 GMT -5
You think it's still 1992 and that you still can do things the easy way by playing the MEAC and St. Leo's. You can't. Just to be clear- I am not asking the staff to schedule easy schools. My only point is that they should schedule whomever they please, for their own reasons (few, if any, we are privy to), without having to be slave to the almighty RPI. Hey man, I know that shots from behind that curved line count for three points instead of two, but I don't like jumpshots, so I'm going to recruit only guys who bang in the post and never attempt three-point shots. If the team doesn't succeed, that's not my problem. I should be able to do whatever I want to do for whatever reason I want to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jul 25, 2018 17:32:39 GMT -5
I stand corrected on 2006 and 2007, I was using the overall strength of schedule. Still, in 2013 - when we had one of our worst NCAA losses ever - our strength of schedule was 312, and that's under JT3, who was known for good schedules. The simple fact is the strength of the non conference schedule does directly not impact whether you win if you play in the NCAA tournament. That said, the better your strength of schedule, the better your RPI, and the better your odds of actually making the tournament with fewer wins. And that's in the coach's control. That's what's important. It also is a factor in higher seeding, which theoretically increases your chances of victory in the first/second rounds. Theoretically😉 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2018 21:07:00 GMT -5
Found it interesting that Casual retweeted some college hoops “writer” who called the UMCP schedule “soft”. I may be getting too old to understand sarcasm, and I know it’s Maryland (and Turgeon -ugh, and Van Pelt, double ugh) but isn’t this an OOC schedule that’s sort of right in line with what the hard core schedulistas on here have been clamoring for?
(Final 2018 RPI from warrennolan.com)
Virginia -2
Loyola Chicago -14
Seton Hall -31
Marshall -78
Radford -115
Hofstra -121
Navy - 202
Mt St Mary’s -228
Delaware - 233
NC A&T -241
Loyola U -323
|
|
kbones17
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,187 
|
Post by kbones17 on Aug 1, 2018 22:04:00 GMT -5
Does anyone remember what date our schedule was announced last season?
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Aug 2, 2018 8:48:05 GMT -5
Does anyone remember what date our schedule was announced last season? September 12th |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 2, 2018 9:35:52 GMT -5
Found it interesting that Casual retweeted some college hoops “writer” who called the UMCP schedule “soft”. I may be getting too old to understand sarcasm, and I know it’s Maryland (and Turgeon -ugh, and Van Pelt, double ugh) but isn’t this an OOC schedule that’s sort of right in line with what the hard core schedulistas on here have been clamoring for? (Final 2018 RPI from warrennolan.com) Virginia -2 Loyola Chicago -14 Seton Hall -31 Marshall -78 Radford -115 Hofstra -121 Navy - 202 Mt St Mary’s -228 Delaware - 233 NC A&T -241 Loyola U -323 To some extent, I think RPI probably makes the schedule look a little better than it actually is. For comparison, here are the same with KenPom rankings instead, but overall they are similar. Virginia - 2 Loyola Chicago - 31 Seton Hall - 26 Marshall - 105 Radford - 170 Hofstra - 157 Navy - 225 (this is an away game, too) Mt St. Mary's - 238 Delaware - 247 NC A&T - 306 Loyola - 323 This is definitely not a really soft schedule, but I wouldn't say it's strong either - my guess is that it'll turn out to be middle of the road in strength of schedule for the non-conference section. That said, this IS a lot stronger than our schedule last year. While I ideally would replace NC A&T and Loyola with better opponents, I would be fine with a schedule like this for us this year given that we lost Derrickson and have a lot of unknowns. |
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Aug 2, 2018 9:44:54 GMT -5
Found it interesting that Casual retweeted some college hoops “writer” who called the UMCP schedule “soft”. I may be getting too old to understand sarcasm, and I know it’s Maryland (and Turgeon -ugh, and Van Pelt, double ugh) but isn’t this an OOC schedule that’s sort of right in line with what the hard core schedulistas on here have been clamoring for? (Final 2018 RPI from warrennolan.com) Virginia -2 Loyola Chicago -14 Seton Hall -31 Marshall -78 Radford -115 Hofstra -121 Navy - 202 Mt St Mary’s -228 Delaware - 233 NC A&T -241 Loyola U -323 To some extent, I think RPI probably makes the schedule look a little better than it actually is. For comparison, here are the same with KenPom rankings instead, but overall they are similar. Virginia - 2 Loyola Chicago - 31 Seton Hall - 26 Marshall - 105 Radford - 170 Hofstra - 157 Navy - 225 (this is an away game, too) Mt St. Mary's - 238 Delaware - 247 NC A&T - 306 Loyola - 323 This is definitely not a really soft schedule, but I wouldn't say it's strong either - my guess is that it'll turn out to be middle of the road in strength of schedule for the non-conference section. That said, this IS a lot stronger than our schedule last year. While I ideally would replace NC A&T and Loyola with better opponents, I would be fine with a schedule like this for us this year given that we lost Derrickson and have a lot of unknowns. I would be irrationally elated if we came out with a schedule like this. Gets you where you need to be going into conference season. The schedule hawks aren't asking for much; just not a home ooc schedule full of meacs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 9:53:06 GMT -5
It's not a bad schedule but Seton Hall and Loyola should not be was strong as they were last year. Stong Possibility that they might only face 1 or 2 top 100 schools in their OOC..
Year 7 for Turgeon, think he's on the clock.
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Aug 2, 2018 10:04:15 GMT -5
It's not a bad schedule but Seton Hall and Loyola should not be was strong as they were last year. Stong Possibility that they might only face 1 or 2 top 100 schools in their OOC.. Year 7 for Turgeon, think he's on the clock. I think Turgeon's more on the clock for what's happening off the court (Feds) than what happening on court. I think Maryland's brass would be content if they made the NCAA tournament 3 outta every 4 seasons and won a couple tournament games in those appearances. Let Maryland miss the tournament this year and they will hang the investigation around his neck as they escort him out of the building. Let him make the tournament and say round of 32 or an even better sweet 16 run...then the narrative becomes what investigation. I actually think Turgeon was deceptively smart scheduling teams that are coming off good seasons but are expected to take huge steps back. It gets the "casual fan" excited about the season and fills their arena. |
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,954
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Aug 2, 2018 11:08:10 GMT -5
Curious if those RPI and Kenpom numbers include tournament games. I suspect that Loyola Chicago got a big boost from its tournament performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 2, 2018 13:13:17 GMT -5
Curious if those RPI and Kenpom numbers include tournament games. I suspect that Loyola Chicago got a big boost from its tournament performance. The KenPom numbers definitely include the tournament games. Maryland scheduled Loyola Maryland, not Loyola Chicago. EDIT: My mind was elsewhere, and didn't realize at the time of writing that they scheduled both Loyola's. |
|
