CSNbbs

Full Version: Tougher Schedules
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
BIG 03-confused for everyone......

I was engaged in a conversation about strength of schedules with a coworker who happens to be a Florida alum, and i started thinking about how strength of schedules are calculated. Why isn't the initial strength of a team factored in??? Consider the following: tOSU w/out ? fields a very talented team and get ridiculed for a weak schedule... no problem. But compare that to say........ my Zips who have less depth overall and open the season against monsters like the Suckeye's before settling into conference play against more closely matched opponents. In this approach would Akron have a more difficult schedule (considering talent) than say tOSU?? What about other MAC teams like Ohio who opened up against a weak D1aa team?? I guess my point is that i have more respect for weaker teams that schedule tougher seasons respectively, than a monster that coasts through.... irregardless of conference affiliation.

Side note: I have no problem w/ the Zips playing teams like the Suckeye's but some recognition must be given to mid-majors who play an inordinate amount of away games, especially early in the season while trying to work out the early season kinks.. We get knocked enough, but i feel this view affords us some well deserved respect.... no matter how unlikely


thoughts??
Who are the tough guys in the MAc... D1a???
Who plays the weakest schedule in D1a?
The Zips schedule is ridiculous. You would have thought that they would have learned from last year.

As far as OSU's schedule, I didn't realize that North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Butler & Syracuse were weak teams.
Are we talking hoops or football? I thought hoops at frist but sounds more like football.
Actually, I have no clue.
I think it is Football.
Since Ohio didn't open up with a DII school in basketball one would have to assume he is talking about football.
utpotts Wrote:I think it is Football.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq47xFKUt30
Football and basketball schedules are apples and oranges. In football the goal for the MAC should be to get to 7 wins so that the conference can max out bowls and split the cash that comes with that. Ohio's football schedule was designed to help a traditional struggling program be able to get into a bowl. Football schedule are set years in advance and with the MAC's addition of Temple teams don't have many options. They find who is available to play for a given week. Money also is a big factor in football. You need to play 1 or 2 money games in the for football. Its economics.

Basketball is completely different. Their is no magic number you need to reach the post season. Its based on who you beat and SOS. Basketball has 330 teams fighting for 65 spots. You have to set yourself apart in basketball and that is done by winning against the most difficult schedule if you want one of the 32 at-large spots. The MAC is fighting against other mid majors for 1 or 2 spots most years. Akron is already done as far as an at-large bid. They haven't played yet, but they filled the schedule with too many indepents which in basketball is code word for 300 plus rpi.

Contrast what Ohio scheduled. New Mexico State, @Holy Cross, @Bucknell, @Temple, @Kansas, @Maryland, St John's(in Hawaii), Georgia(in Hawaii), @Hawaii.

Even the cupcakes are from top 15 conferences which will see be in the top 250 rpi due to their tough conferences Delaware, St Bonaventure, Cornell. @ St Francis-NY is a road game which is no walk in the park despite being a member of weak conference.

Ohio also will get a home bracketbuster which could be a real good team considering their rpi strength potential with their non-conference schedule. Can the team get enough wins to earn that game and draw a Southern Illinois or Butler type that would get them seen by the selection commitee. Miami schedule is even more difficult than Ohio's. USC, Xavier, Cincinnati, Dayton offer the potential for wins the make headlines at home and across the nation.
good post

in addition, toledo and miami have even tougher schedules and western and central are right there too

kent, northern and ball state play good teams, buffalo as well.

the league as a whole put themselves in a position for a second bid this yr with scheduling. however, they need to keep beating teams like xavier, missouri state and nm state for that to happen
OUBJ, I love our schedule. If we can go .500 w/ that out of conference schedule, it will set us up nicely for MAC play.

BGSUFalcons

pono Wrote:good post

in addition, toledo and miami have even tougher schedules and western and central are right there too

kent, northern and ball state play good teams, buffalo as well.

the league as a whole put themselves in a position for a second bid this yr with scheduling. however, they need to keep beating teams like xavier, missouri state and nm state for that to happen

BG has a good schedule. There aren't any powerhouses, but it is filled with solid teams (even if they don't have "big names"). I'm not sure if Cincinnati is any good (OUBOBCATJOHN mentioned them above), but BG already beat them. Temple and Duquesne are two solid teams from a high or, perhaps, mid-high major conference (I know, these labels get ridiculous), Belmont is a good low-major team, and BG has two Missouri Valley teams on the schedule. I'd be nice if BG was playing a strong Big Ten or Big East team, or even another good A-10 team, but I think their schedule is fine all things considered.
BG's schedule is appropriate considering they are in a state of transition this season. I have no doubt Louis Orr will probably always provide a challenging schedule based on the team and talent he has. DD's schedule last year was someone trying to save his job, nothing more.
BG has a good and winnable out of conference schedule. I'm happy w/ OUs, wish we could schedule some Missouri Valley teams as well.
BGSUFalcons Wrote:
pono Wrote:good post

in addition, toledo and miami have even tougher schedules and western and central are right there too

kent, northern and ball state play good teams, buffalo as well.

the league as a whole put themselves in a position for a second bid this yr with scheduling. however, they need to keep beating teams like xavier, missouri state and nm state for that to happen

BG has a good schedule. There aren't any powerhouses, but it is filled with solid teams (even if they don't have "big names"). I'm not sure if Cincinnati is any good (OUBOBCATJOHN mentioned them above), but BG already beat them. Temple and Duquesne are two solid teams from a high or, perhaps, mid-high major conference (I know, these labels get ridiculous), Belmont is a good low-major team, and BG has two Missouri Valley teams on the schedule. I'd be nice if BG was playing a strong Big Ten or Big East team, or even another good A-10 team, but I think their schedule is fine all things considered.

It would be good to have a few big lower high major teams to provide winnable games and add to the wins you get from palying lower, high mid-major/low-mid-major upper echelon teams. I'm not sure playing high major-major teams are good even if they are in a low year as these games are always on the road and tend to be losses. And we all saw what happened to Akron and BG last year when they played too many low mid/low major and high not major at all because they are in a different lower division teams. An average/high mid-major schedule with a smattering of low, high majors and a couple low/lowmajors seems ideal.

BGSUFalcons

H2Oville Rocket Wrote:
BGSUFalcons Wrote:
pono Wrote:good post

in addition, toledo and miami have even tougher schedules and western and central are right there too

kent, northern and ball state play good teams, buffalo as well.

the league as a whole put themselves in a position for a second bid this yr with scheduling. however, they need to keep beating teams like xavier, missouri state and nm state for that to happen

BG has a good schedule. There aren't any powerhouses, but it is filled with solid teams (even if they don't have "big names"). I'm not sure if Cincinnati is any good (OUBOBCATJOHN mentioned them above), but BG already beat them. Temple and Duquesne are two solid teams from a high or, perhaps, mid-high major conference (I know, these labels get ridiculous), Belmont is a good low-major team, and BG has two Missouri Valley teams on the schedule. I'd be nice if BG was playing a strong Big Ten or Big East team, or even another good A-10 team, but I think their schedule is fine all things considered.

It would be good to have a few big lower high major teams to provide winnable games and add to the wins you get from palying lower, high mid-major/low-mid-major upper echelon teams. I'm not sure playing high major-major teams are good even if they are in a low year as these games are always on the road and tend to be losses. And we all saw what happened to Akron and BG last year when they played too many low mid/low major and high not major at all because they are in a different lower division teams. An average/high mid-major schedule with a smattering of low, high majors and a couple low/lowmajors seems ideal.

Don't you mean high, high-major?
BGSUFalcons Wrote:
H2Oville Rocket Wrote:
BGSUFalcons Wrote:
pono Wrote:good post

in addition, toledo and miami have even tougher schedules and western and central are right there too

kent, northern and ball state play good teams, buffalo as well.

the league as a whole put themselves in a position for a second bid this yr with scheduling. however, they need to keep beating teams like xavier, missouri state and nm state for that to happen

BG has a good schedule. There aren't any powerhouses, but it is filled with solid teams (even if they don't have "big names"). I'm not sure if Cincinnati is any good (OUBOBCATJOHN mentioned them above), but BG already beat them. Temple and Duquesne are two solid teams from a high or, perhaps, mid-high major conference (I know, these labels get ridiculous), Belmont is a good low-major team, and BG has two Missouri Valley teams on the schedule. I'd be nice if BG was playing a strong Big Ten or Big East team, or even another good A-10 team, but I think their schedule is fine all things considered.

It would be good to have a few big lower high major teams to provide winnable games and add to the wins you get from palying lower, high mid-major/low-mid-major upper echelon teams. I'm not sure playing high major-major teams are good even if they are in a low year as these games are always on the road and tend to be losses. And we all saw what happened to Akron and BG last year when they played too many low mid/low major and high not major at all because they are in a different lower division teams. An average/high mid-major schedule with a smattering of low, high majors and a couple low/lowmajors seems ideal.

Don't you mean high, high-major?

No. Actually high Major-Majors would be the military academies in a good year.
Reference URL's