(05-30-2021 08:43 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Apparently I never unfollow former Navy fam.

She was great at Navy: very good interviewer, always hustling around the court/field, I think she also shot some photo video herself

She might want to ask for more work. Jank doesn’t talk to the press much.

(05-31-2021 07:08 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-31-2021 06:18 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(05-28-2021 08:12 AM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(05-27-2021 08:22 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

That’s 5 high major opponents in the OOC, 3 of which were tourney teams from last year.

This is exactly what we need more teams to do. We seems to only have a handful of teams that schedule well enough to get an at large.

You gotta schedule teams you can beat. Nice to have a good ooc but if you go 1-4 it would have better for the conference for you to go 5-0 vs scrubs

thats not true at all.. 1-4 would be huge.. this isnt their entire schedule ..
we have 13 ooc... 1-4 and beating the scrubs would mean 9-4 in ooc with a q1 win
this a HUGE win for conference

q1 losses dont hurt you, as long as its not a 25+ blowout, q4 wins dont help you
..q1 wins are huge boosts, q4 losses are huge docks in net... a schedule like that limits the potential q4 losses and gives you an opportunity for q1 wins ..that is a great schedule.. especially in a league like the AAC with limited q1 games

Q1 wins are huge for that team...

Q4 wins do help other teams that play them...Q1 losses are bad for other teams that play them

No one is going to say you beat a team with 4 Q1 losses. No one cares if you beat a team with a Q1 win if they are not ranked high. But being undefeated OOC may become a Q1 win on the road for other teams.

If everyone comes in with a good record the affects are multiplied and likely helps the whole conference.

The schedule is awesome for them but for it to help the conference they cant lay an egg.

(06-01-2021 07:10 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Q1 wins are huge for that team...

Q4 wins do help other teams that play them...Q1 losses are bad for other teams that play them

No one is going to say you beat a team with 4 Q1 losses. No one cares if you beat a team with a Q1 win if they are not ranked high. But being undefeated OOC may become a Q1 win on the road for other teams.

If everyone comes in with a good record the affects are multiplied and likely helps the whole conference.

The schedule is awesome for them but for it to help the conference they cant lay an egg.

again , not true.. we have a history to look at...
there is a reason many in the p5 have scheduling mandates, and limit how bad you can schedule

1) q1 is q1...q2 is q2.... the committee flat talks about the amount of q1-q2 wins you have, they have never differentiated the types of q1 or q2 wins for quality.. it is a counting stat they value...

2) the aac is a traditionally horrible scheduling league, we have a case study of our very own league that weak scheduling and inflated records dont get invites.. you are acting like it has worked at any point in our history.. ucf only started scheduling good recently.. same for usf, houston, memphis, smu (who were all dreadful as early as 3 years ago, but have respectable schedules next season).... the aac has never been lower than 6th in OOC win percentage as a conference, but have never been higher than 7th in conference net and tourney invites

2b) we have a case study of the SEC who had a crazy uptick in invites and league quality after scheduling mandates in 2016

3) q1 losses are meaningless...as long as you dont lose by 30.. lets go back to 2020 (last full season) byu was 3-5 in q1 games but was #9 in the net, Louisville was #8 in the net with a 4-6 q1 record, Arizona was #14 in the NET with a 4-7 q1 record... Houston was #20 in the net with a 2-5 q1 record...

q4 wins do nothing ... New Mexico st was 18-0 in q4 games but ranked 104 in the net (from 2020)

4) from points above ucf can lay eggs... going 1-4 in those q1 games and coming back 9-4 would be huge for the league...

5) you are missing the biggest issue-- less chances for q4 losses... in basketball upsets are an inevitability.. you play enough games vs terrible teams one will eventually beat you in basketball (shooting doesn't come every night, opposition can have an anamoly good shooting game)... q4 losses hurt more than gained from q1 wins.. you drop 25-40 spots for every q4 loss.... limiting the total amount of q4 losses is a win..

we've had conversations here about how this is how the system is rigged for the p5.. every conference game is a q1 or q2 game.. their off game is just a q2 loss.... a mid-major every conference loss is disastrous, in a sport where perfection is almost an impossibility...every conference game is a potential q3 or q4 loss

(06-01-2021 08:56 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-01-2021 07:10 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Q1 wins are huge for that team...

Q4 wins do help other teams that play them...Q1 losses are bad for other teams that play them

No one is going to say you beat a team with 4 Q1 losses. No one cares if you beat a team with a Q1 win if they are not ranked high. But being undefeated OOC may become a Q1 win on the road for other teams.

If everyone comes in with a good record the affects are multiplied and likely helps the whole conference.

The schedule is awesome for them but for it to help the conference they cant lay an egg.

again , not true.. we have a history to look at...
there is a reason many in the p5 have scheduling mandates, and limit how bad you can schedule

1) q1 is q1...q2 is q2.... the committee flat talks about the amount of q1-q2 wins you have, they have never differentiated the types of q1 or q2 wins for quality.. it is a counting stat they value...

2) the aac is a traditionally horrible scheduling league, we have a case study of our very own league that weak scheduling and inflated records dont get invites.. you are acting like it has worked at any point in our history.. ucf only started scheduling good recently.. same for usf, houston, memphis, smu (who were all dreadful as early as 3 years ago, but have respectable schedules next season).... the aac has never been lower than 6th in OOC win percentage as a conference, but have never been higher than 7th in conference net and tourney invites

2b) we have a case study of the SEC who had a crazy uptick in invites and league quality after scheduling mandates in 2016

3) q1 losses are meaningless...as long as you dont lose by 30.. lets go back to 2020 (last full season) byu was 3-5 in q1 games but was #9 in the net, Louisville was #8 in the net with a 4-6 q1 record, Arizona was #14 in the NET with a 4-7 q1 record... Houston was #20 in the net with a 2-5 q1 record...

q4 wins do nothing ... New Mexico st was 18-0 in q4 games but ranked 104 in the net (from 2020)

4) from points above ucf can lay eggs... going 1-4 in those q1 games and coming back 9-4 would be huge for the league...

5) you are missing the biggest issue-- less chances for q4 losses... in basketball upsets are an inevitability.. you play enough games vs terrible teams one will eventually beat you in basketball (shooting doesn't come every night, opposition can have an anamoly good shooting game)... q4 losses hurt more than gained from q1 wins.. you drop 25-40 spots for every q4 loss.... limiting the total amount of q4 losses is a win..

we've had conversations here about how this is how the system is rigged for the p5.. every conference game is a q1 or q2 game.. their off game is just a q2 loss.... a mid-major every conference loss is disastrous, in a sport where perfection is almost an impossibility...every conference game is a potential q3 or q4 loss

Exactly right.

(06-01-2021 09:12 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(06-01-2021 08:56 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-01-2021 07:10 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Q1 wins are huge for that team...

Q4 wins do help other teams that play them...Q1 losses are bad for other teams that play them

No one is going to say you beat a team with 4 Q1 losses. No one cares if you beat a team with a Q1 win if they are not ranked high. But being undefeated OOC may become a Q1 win on the road for other teams.

If everyone comes in with a good record the affects are multiplied and likely helps the whole conference.

The schedule is awesome for them but for it to help the conference they cant lay an egg.

again , not true.. we have a history to look at...
there is a reason many in the p5 have scheduling mandates, and limit how bad you can schedule

1) q1 is q1...q2 is q2.... the committee flat talks about the amount of q1-q2 wins you have, they have never differentiated the types of q1 or q2 wins for quality.. it is a counting stat they value...

2) the aac is a traditionally horrible scheduling league, we have a case study of our very own league that weak scheduling and inflated records dont get invites.. you are acting like it has worked at any point in our history.. ucf only started scheduling good recently.. same for usf, houston, memphis, smu (who were all dreadful as early as 3 years ago, but have respectable schedules next season).... the aac has never been lower than 6th in OOC win percentage as a conference, but have never been higher than 7th in conference net and tourney invites

2b) we have a case study of the SEC who had a crazy uptick in invites and league quality after scheduling mandates in 2016

3) q1 losses are meaningless...as long as you dont lose by 30.. lets go back to 2020 (last full season) byu was 3-5 in q1 games but was #9 in the net, Louisville was #8 in the net with a 4-6 q1 record, Arizona was #14 in the NET with a 4-7 q1 record... Houston was #20 in the net with a 2-5 q1 record...

q4 wins do nothing ... New Mexico st was 18-0 in q4 games but ranked 104 in the net (from 2020)

4) from points above ucf can lay eggs... going 1-4 in those q1 games and coming back 9-4 would be huge for the league...

5) you are missing the biggest issue-- less chances for q4 losses... in basketball upsets are an inevitability.. you play enough games vs terrible teams one will eventually beat you in basketball (shooting doesn't come every night, opposition can have an anamoly good shooting game)... q4 losses hurt more than gained from q1 wins.. you drop 25-40 spots for every q4 loss.... limiting the total amount of q4 losses is a win..

we've had conversations here about how this is how the system is rigged for the p5.. every conference game is a q1 or q2 game.. their off game is just a q2 loss.... a mid-major every conference loss is disastrous, in a sport where perfection is almost an impossibility...every conference game is a potential q3 or q4 loss

Exactly right.

Tulsa is guilty of bad scheduling right now, but an important thing left out here is the AAC is in a position to hijack the system akin to how the MVC got the rpi down in the mid 2000s.

It is possible that every team scheduling 5 q1 games and going 2-3 or even 3-2 while mostly avoiding q4 games generally and losses period ooc and turning in solid records overall 9-4 or 10-3 types means a that all AAC games would be q1/q2. Ideally this would be the goal meaning our seeds will be higher as well as bids.

(06-01-2021 08:56 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-01-2021 07:10 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Q1 wins are huge for that team...

Q4 wins do help other teams that play them...Q1 losses are bad for other teams that play them

No one is going to say you beat a team with 4 Q1 losses. No one cares if you beat a team with a Q1 win if they are not ranked high. But being undefeated OOC may become a Q1 win on the road for other teams.

If everyone comes in with a good record the affects are multiplied and likely helps the whole conference.

The schedule is awesome for them but for it to help the conference they cant lay an egg.

again , not true.. we have a history to look at...
there is a reason many in the p5 have scheduling mandates, and limit how bad you can schedule

1) q1 is q1...q2 is q2.... the committee flat talks about the amount of q1-q2 wins you have, they have never differentiated the types of q1 or q2 wins for quality.. it is a counting stat they value...

2) the aac is a traditionally horrible scheduling league, we have a case study of our very own league that weak scheduling and inflated records dont get invites.. you are acting like it has worked at any point in our history.. ucf only started scheduling good recently.. same for usf, houston, memphis, smu (who were all dreadful as early as 3 years ago, but have respectable schedules next season).... the aac has never been lower than 6th in OOC win percentage as a conference, but have never been higher than 7th in conference net and tourney invites

2b) we have a case study of the SEC who had a crazy uptick in invites and league quality after scheduling mandates in 2016

3) q1 losses are meaningless...as long as you dont lose by 30.. lets go back to 2020 (last full season) byu was 3-5 in q1 games but was #9 in the net, Louisville was #8 in the net with a 4-6 q1 record, Arizona was #14 in the NET with a 4-7 q1 record... Houston was #20 in the net with a 2-5 q1 record...

q4 wins do nothing ... New Mexico st was 18-0 in q4 games but ranked 104 in the net (from 2020)

4) from points above ucf can lay eggs... going 1-4 in those q1 games and coming back 9-4 would be huge for the league...

5) you are missing the biggest issue-- less chances for q4 losses... in basketball upsets are an inevitability.. you play enough games vs terrible teams one will eventually beat you in basketball (shooting doesn't come every night, opposition can have an anamoly good shooting game)... q4 losses hurt more than gained from q1 wins.. you drop 25-40 spots for every q4 loss.... limiting the total amount of q4 losses is a win..

we've had conversations here about how this is how the system is rigged for the p5.. every conference game is a q1 or q2 game.. their off game is just a q2 loss.... a mid-major every conference loss is disastrous, in a sport where perfection is almost an impossibility...every conference game is a potential q3 or q4 loss

Win the games your are supposed to...

5-0 vs. Nobody is better for the league than 1-4 against somebodies.

If the formula was 100% kenPom or Sagarin I would agree with you but they are still awarding points just for winning.

If Memphis wins the 2 games against Tulsa they are in the tourney with 0 Q1 wins.

It is all relative...A Q4 win by 10 is likely better than a Q1 loss by 10...All depends on what the computers say you should have won by. But even if you have equal performaces against both teams based on the computers you still will be rewarded more for winning in the NET. Memphis is not going to get credit because UCF won 1 out 4 of Q1 games OOC (If UCF is borderline they will get credit for that one win)

Bottom line is you gotta win games...Those extra points for wins are circular once you get in conference.

Otherwise you are praying you get graded on a curve for losing close to a top 25 team...And Memphis fans know how well that turned out last year. Nobody cared how close those Q1 (2,3,2 points) games were.

(06-01-2021 10:09 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Win the games your are supposed to...

5-0 vs. Nobody is better for the league than 1-4 against somebodies.

If the formula was 100% kenPom or Sagarin I would agree with you but they are still awarding points just for winning.

If Memphis wins the 2 games against Tulsa they are in the tourney with 0 Q1 wins.

It is all relative...A Q4 win by 10 is likely better than a Q1 loss by 10...All depends on what the computers say you should have won by. But even if you have equal performaces against both teams based on the computers you still will be rewarded more for winning in the NET. Memphis is not going to get credit because UCF won 1 out 4 of Q1 games OOC (If UCF is borderline they will get credit for that one win)

Bottom line is you gotta win games...Those extra points for wins are circular once you get in conference.

Otherwise you are praying you get graded on a curve for losing close to a top 25 team...And Memphis fans know how well that turned out last year. Nobody cared how close those Q1 (2,3,2 points) games were.

you are speaking theoretical when we have practical history to show

the aac has a track record of horrendous OOC scheduling (easy games)..

over the 8 year span of the aac-- temple, cincy, Wichita*, uconn* are the only aac with a track record of scheduling good, with temple the only one with track record of scheduling Great (The other 3 just passable)... the remaining 8 have scheduled horrendous "on average" in our 8 year span.. we've struggle badly to get 3 teams over that span

the p5+B6 who have been doing 6-9 bids each in the span have been forcibly making all their teams schedule harder - scheduling mandates, multiple conference challenges, going to 20 conference games (trading easy ooc for harder conference games), getting into quality early season tournaments..

one method is working- the other hasnt...

interesting enough is that next year could be the 1st year the aac top to bottom has decent schedules... still a lot is unknown but so far every aac but tulsa has been connected to atleast 1 tourney team in the OOC... theres a chance we get to test out the other side of the theory this year if whats unknown is atleast respectable

the deadline to enter the NBA draft has passed. here is the full list of players who made themselves eligible - only 300 players applied
https://pr.nba.com/wp-content/uploads/si...6-1-21.pdf

surprises (But i expect them to come back)
- Marcus sasser houston
- cj walker UCF

Keith Williams name is now included...still none of the ecu seniors

July 7th is the withdrawal deadline

(06-02-2021 12:28 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-01-2021 10:09 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Win the games your are supposed to...

5-0 vs. Nobody is better for the league than 1-4 against somebodies.

If the formula was 100% kenPom or Sagarin I would agree with you but they are still awarding points just for winning.

If Memphis wins the 2 games against Tulsa they are in the tourney with 0 Q1 wins.

It is all relative...A Q4 win by 10 is likely better than a Q1 loss by 10...All depends on what the computers say you should have won by. But even if you have equal performaces against both teams based on the computers you still will be rewarded more for winning in the NET. Memphis is not going to get credit because UCF won 1 out 4 of Q1 games OOC (If UCF is borderline they will get credit for that one win)

Bottom line is you gotta win games...Those extra points for wins are circular once you get in conference.

Otherwise you are praying you get graded on a curve for losing close to a top 25 team...And Memphis fans know how well that turned out last year. Nobody cared how close those Q1 (2,3,2 points) games were.

you are speaking theoretical when we have practical history to show

the aac has a track record of horrendous OOC scheduling (easy games)..

over the 8 year span of the aac-- temple, cincy, Wichita*, uconn* are the only aac with a track record of scheduling good, with temple the only one with track record of scheduling Great (The other 3 just passable)... the remaining 8 have scheduled horrendous "on average" in our 8 year span.. we've struggle badly to get 3 teams over that span

the p5+B6 who have been doing 6-9 bids each in the span have been forcibly making all their teams schedule harder - scheduling mandates, multiple conference challenges, going to 20 conference games (trading easy ooc for harder conference games), getting into quality early season tournaments..

one method is working- the other hasnt...

interesting enough is that next year could be the 1st year the aac top to bottom has decent schedules... still a lot is unknown but so far every aac but tulsa has been connected to atleast 1 tourney team in the OOC... theres a chance we get to test out the other side of the theory this year if whats unknown is atleast respectable

Guess what...Teams that go 1-4 against good comp OOC in P5 leagues have a lot of ground to make up in league. The deal is they are able to make that ground up in league...We are not.

We can schedule as many good teams OOC as we want...But unless we win close to 1/2 of them it wont matter.

The way they are weighting the NET now we need our terrible teams OOC to be terrible in Conference. That allows more opportunities for Q1 games although almost all of them will be on the road.

(06-02-2021 11:40 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Guess what...Teams that go 1-4 against good comp OOC in P5 leagues have a lot of ground to make up in league. The deal is they are able to make that ground up in league...We are not.

We can schedule as many good teams OOC as we want...But unless we win close to 1/2 of them it wont matter.

The way they are weighting the NET now we need our terrible teams OOC to be terrible in Conference. That allows more opportunities for Q1 games although almost all of them will be on the road.

your 1st point misses the bigger picture... they can make it up in those leagues because even if 1 team fails in their tough OOC, another wont...net rankings do not include anything for the previous years, nor does it have bonus points for being in any conference...they start at zero just like the rest of us... their league mates arent auto starting at high NET

the sec was considered a terrible basketball league prior to 2016, they made their bad teams schedule harder, now are considered on of the better basketball leagues

here is an article talking about how bad they are, from 2010 and 2014:
- https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1315...n-football
- https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...l-football

in 2014 after getting only 3 bids, the SEC Added a scheduling mandate:
-the article below (from when it passed) includes quote from bottom feeding SEC teams not liking it (at that time) using some of your very justifications
https://www.gatorsports.com/uncategorize...m-coaches/

in 2014, the SEC also started the SEC/Big 12 Challenge- that forcible makes SEC teams play good big 12 teams .. since 2016 the SEC has been averaging 7 bids

your theory has no grounds to stand on....its just a hypothesis by you and not a good one...with no real life data to back it up

we have legitimate evidence that says you are wrong and backs my point ...
we historically scheduled easier (aac) and it did not work....the sec made teams schedule harder including bottom feeders and it worked

if you go to sports reference you can literally tie number of bids to thier SOS rank, and can flat see the SECs bid increase with the increased sos, and see the aac has pretty weak SOS

(06-02-2021 12:19 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-02-2021 11:40 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Guess what...Teams that go 1-4 against good comp OOC in P5 leagues have a lot of ground to make up in league. The deal is they are able to make that ground up in league...We are not.

We can schedule as many good teams OOC as we want...But unless we win close to 1/2 of them it wont matter.

The way they are weighting the NET now we need our terrible teams OOC to be terrible in Conference. That allows more opportunities for Q1 games although almost all of them will be on the road.

your 1st point, misses the bigger picture... they can make it up in those leagues because even if 1 team fails in their tough OOC, another wont...net rankings do not include anything for the previous years, nor does it have point for being in any conference...they start at zero just like the rest of us...

the sec was considered a terrible basketball league prior to 2016, they made their bad teams schedule harder, now are considered on of the better basketball leagues

here is an article talking about how bad they are from 2010 and 2014:
- https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1315...n-football
- https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...l-football

in 2014 after getting only 3 bids, the SEC Added a scheduling mandate:
-the article below includes quote from bottom feeding SEC teams not liking it (at that time) using some of your very justifications
https://www.gatorsports.com/uncategorize...m-coaches/

in 2014, the SEC started the SEC/Big 12 Challenge- that forcible makes SEC teams play good big 12 teams .. since 2016 the SEC has been averaging 7 bids

your theory has no grounds to stand on....its just a hypothesis by you and not a good one...

we have legitimate evidence that says you are wrong and backs my point ...
we scheduled badly (aac) and it did not work....the sec made teams schedule harder including bottom feeders and it worked

The bigger picture is you have to win the games. As you state...If one team falls on their face another won't...That means they are winning those games.

It is an entirely valid point. If everyone schedules 5 OOC games against decent P5s and no one has a winning record we are screwed. You have to win the games.

Your evidence is teams winning games...If we don't win them it wont matter if we play them.

Why didn't the SEC bids as a conference skyrocket right after they started scheduling the BIG12-SEC challenge...Why did it take two years? Surely it is just math...Nothing carries over so the stronger scheduling should have taken affect immediately.

Or could it have just been the teams have gotten better than they were in 2013.

In 2013 the SEC was the 9th best league in RPI...Do you think that was due to scheduling are because they didn't perform.

As a matter of Fact the first year they played the challenge their bids went from 3 to 3...Probably because they went 3-7 in the challenge...LOL...Yep...There is your smoking gun...You got me...LOL

Krzyzewski to retire after 2021-22 season
Thankfully we don't have any hot, young coaching talent, right?

(06-02-2021 12:23 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  The bigger picture is you have to win the games. As you state...If one team falls on their face another won't...That means they are winning those games.

It is an entirely valid point. If everyone schedules 5 OOC games against decent P5s and no one has a winning record we are screwed. You have to win the games.

Your evidence is teams winning games...If we don't win them it wont matter if we play them.

Why didn't the SEC bids as a conference skyrocket right after they started scheduling the BIG12-SEC challenge...Why did it take two years? Surely it is just math...Nothing carries over so the stronger scheduling should have taken affect immediately.

Or could it have just been the teams have gotten better than they were in 2013.

it did have an immediate impact.. they jumped from 3 bids to 5 bids immediately after being enacted ... they went back to 3 bids the following year, but that had more to do with in-conference carnivalization.. their 3rd place team was 11-7, their 10th place team 8-10...
that 10th place team made the NIT... they had the most ncaa and NIT teams that year...
there was undeniable improvement from day 1.. even though hard core ncaa bids didnt come till 2 years later

and forced hard scheduling is going to have some delayed benefits...you can hide behind weak schedules...haith (tulsa) and jank (smu) have lasted as long as they have because of weak schedules and inflated records. if the aac ever had forced hard schedules that will get some bad coaches fired and have a net positive effect 2 years later

not sure why you are trying to ignore hard data

(06-02-2021 12:48 PM)maybeimhere Wrote:  Krzyzewski to retire after 2021-22 season
Thankfully we don't have any hot, young coaching talent, right?

except johnny dawkins is one of the biggest favorites seen to replace coach k..

(06-02-2021 12:48 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-02-2021 12:23 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  The bigger picture is you have to win the games. As you state...If one team falls on their face another won't...That means they are winning those games.

It is an entirely valid point. If everyone schedules 5 OOC games against decent P5s and no one has a winning record we are screwed. You have to win the games.

Your evidence is teams winning games...If we don't win them it wont matter if we play them.

Why didn't the SEC bids as a conference skyrocket right after they started scheduling the BIG12-SEC challenge...Why did it take two years? Surely it is just math...Nothing carries over so the stronger scheduling should have taken affect immediately.

Or could it have just been the teams have gotten better than they were in 2013.

it did have an immediate impact.. they jumped from 3 bids to 5 bids immediately after being enacted ... they went back to 3 bids the following year, but that had more to do with in-conference carnivalization.. their 3rd place team was 11-7, their 10th place team 8-10...
that 10th place team made the NIT... they have the most ncaa and NIT teams that year...
there was undeniable improvement from day 1.. even though hard core ncaa bids didnt come till 2 years later

and forced hard scheduling is going to have some delayed benefits...you can hide behind weak schedules...haith (tulsa) and jank (smu) have last as long as they have because of weak schedules and inflated records. the hard schedules will get some bad coaches fired and have a net positive effect 2 years later

not sure why you are trying to ignore hard data

That is completely inaccurate...


2014 they had 3 bids...
2013 they had 3 bids...

They went 3-7 and bids stayed the same...Yeah all you have to do is schedule better games...you don't need to win them


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_12/SEC_Challenge

So am I ignoring hard data or are you not accurate.

So your take is the 2 out of the 3 years after enacting this better scheduling their bids didn't increase yet it is the reason the league is better now. Not that the teams actually are performing better now. That is logical.

(06-02-2021 12:51 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(06-02-2021 12:48 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-02-2021 12:23 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  The bigger picture is you have to win the games. As you state...If one team falls on their face another won't...That means they are winning those games.

It is an entirely valid point. If everyone schedules 5 OOC games against decent P5s and no one has a winning record we are screwed. You have to win the games.

Your evidence is teams winning games...If we don't win them it wont matter if we play them.

Why didn't the SEC bids as a conference skyrocket right after they started scheduling the BIG12-SEC challenge...Why did it take two years? Surely it is just math...Nothing carries over so the stronger scheduling should have taken affect immediately.

Or could it have just been the teams have gotten better than they were in 2013.

it did have an immediate impact.. they jumped from 3 bids to 5 bids immediately after being enacted ... they went back to 3 bids the following year, but that had more to do with in-conference carnivalization.. their 3rd place team was 11-7, their 10th place team 8-10...
that 10th place team made the NIT... they have the most ncaa and NIT teams that year...
there was undeniable improvement from day 1.. even though hard core ncaa bids didnt come till 2 years later

and forced hard scheduling is going to have some delayed benefits...you can hide behind weak schedules...haith (tulsa) and jank (smu) have last as long as they have because of weak schedules and inflated records. the hard schedules will get some bad coaches fired and have a net positive effect 2 years later

not sure why you are trying to ignore hard data

That is completely inaccurate...

2014 they had 3 bids...
2013 they had 3 bids...

They went 3-7 and bids stayed the same...Yeah all you have to do is schedule better games...you don't need to win them

It went down...So try again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_12/SEC_Challenge

i thought we were talking about when all the scheduling decision where implemented, as it wasnt the fully mandated till the 14-15 season...

the big 12/sec challenge is just 1 game, why would 1 game drastically spike invites??
you are making a dumb straw man argument... i said that in addition "with all the other things", including the mandate

heres a link to sports reference
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/conferences/sec/
there is a column called "SOS" strength of schedule, the higher the number the harder the schedule...see the correlation of sos to invites

youve added ZERO legitimate points of evidene to your theory.. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH... your entire basis is your in head hypothesis, with nothing legitimate to back it up.. and using silly strawman arguments to counter legitimate points

the sec does major things to improve its basketball---- improvment happens..... you "thats a coincidence "

(06-02-2021 01:10 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-02-2021 12:51 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(06-02-2021 12:48 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-02-2021 12:23 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  The bigger picture is you have to win the games. As you state...If one team falls on their face another won't...That means they are winning those games.

It is an entirely valid point. If everyone schedules 5 OOC games against decent P5s and no one has a winning record we are screwed. You have to win the games.

Your evidence is teams winning games...If we don't win them it wont matter if we play them.

Why didn't the SEC bids as a conference skyrocket right after they started scheduling the BIG12-SEC challenge...Why did it take two years? Surely it is just math...Nothing carries over so the stronger scheduling should have taken affect immediately.

Or could it have just been the teams have gotten better than they were in 2013.

it did have an immediate impact.. they jumped from 3 bids to 5 bids immediately after being enacted ... they went back to 3 bids the following year, but that had more to do with in-conference carnivalization.. their 3rd place team was 11-7, their 10th place team 8-10...
that 10th place team made the NIT... they have the most ncaa and NIT teams that year...
there was undeniable improvement from day 1.. even though hard core ncaa bids didnt come till 2 years later

and forced hard scheduling is going to have some delayed benefits...you can hide behind weak schedules...haith (tulsa) and jank (smu) have last as long as they have because of weak schedules and inflated records. the hard schedules will get some bad coaches fired and have a net positive effect 2 years later

not sure why you are trying to ignore hard data

That is completely inaccurate...

2014 they had 3 bids...
2013 they had 3 bids...

They went 3-7 and bids stayed the same...Yeah all you have to do is schedule better games...you don't need to win them

It went down...So try again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_12/SEC_Challenge

i thought we were talking about when all the scheduling decision where implemented, as it wasnt the fully mandated till the 14-15 season...

the big 12/sec challenge is just 1 game, why would 1 game drastically spike invites??
you are making a dumb straw man argument... i said that in addition "with all the other things", including the mandate

heres a link to sports reference
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/conferences/sec/
there is a column called "SOS" strength of schedule, the higher the number the harder the schedule...see the correlation of sos to invites

youve added ZERO legitimate points of evidene to your theory.. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH... your entire basis is your in head hypothesis, with nothing legitimate to back it up.. and using silly strawman arguments to counter legitimate points

the sec does major things to improve its basketball---- improvment happens..... you "thats a coincidence "

Major things like hire better coaches, invest in better facilities.

Again you mention the scheduling mandates and the BIG12 challenge. When that is shot down now there go those goal post moving. But hey whatever floats your boat.

People thought the SEC was a bad basketball league because they were bad at basketball. Not because they scheduled bad teams.

(06-02-2021 01:21 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Major things like hire better coaches, invest in better facilities.

Again you mention the scheduling mandates and the BIG12 challenge. When that is shot down now there go those goal post moving. But hey whatever floats your boat.

And your SOS schedule number you are quoting...Is that OOC SOS or just SOS.

So if it is overall SOS then obviously then your teams win more games OOC you SOS goes up because in conference is circular. So yeah...Duh.

You keep on trying.

no one is movin the goal post.. you moved the goal post, and then argued that goal post.. that is the exact definition of a straw man argument... i was from the start talking about the full impact of the scheduling decisions that was made

you took the big 12/challenge on its 1st year, the year the scheduling mandate wasnt fully implemented (aka not the full implementation of the scheduling decisions) as the center piece of your argument.. that is ridiculous ...

i cant tell if you realize how dumb your take is and just dont want to admit you ar wrong... or really think this

(06-02-2021 01:28 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-02-2021 01:21 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Major things like hire better coaches, invest in better facilities.

Again you mention the scheduling mandates and the BIG12 challenge. When that is shot down now there go those goal post moving. But hey whatever floats your boat.

And your SOS schedule number you are quoting...Is that OOC SOS or just SOS.

So if it is overall SOS then obviously then your teams win more games OOC you SOS goes up because in conference is circular. So yeah...Duh.

You keep on trying.

no one is movin the goal post.. you moved the goal post, and then argued that goal post.. that is the exact definition of a straw man argument... i was from the start talking about the full impact of the scheduling decisions that was made

you took the big 12/challenge on its 1st year, the year the scheduling mandate wasnt fully implemented (aka not the full implementation of the scheduling decisions) as the center piece of your argument.. that is ridiculous ...

i cant tell if you realize how dumb your take is and just dont want to admit you ar wrong... or really think this

So you post an article from June 2013 stating that a scheduling mandate was in place for the following season and teams complaining about it after the 2013 season.

You know the 2014 season where they still got 3 bids...But hey please continue.

So you argument now is that games that were scheduled years in advanced are the reason they didn't get more bids. Because the mandate to have schedules approved appears to have been in place prior to the 2014 season.

summary of debate, point being made

macgar32: our bottom teams should schedule horribly and get a non con full of super weak opponents top to bottom, that is what the conference needs
---- evidence- because macgar32 thinks so

Pesik: everyone in the conference has to schedule respectably, including the bottom feeders, that is better for the conference
----- evidence 1- the conference getting large amounts of bids and forcibly making all their teams schedule harder- every major conference has done something to make schedules harder (reducing non-con, challenges, mandates)
----- evidence 2- the aac already has a track record of scheduling poorly and that has not worked
----- evidence 3- the SEC, there is a direct connection to their improvement of bids when they forcible made everyone schedule better
---- evidence 4- the NET has shown it punishes q4 losses horribly, and doesnt punish q1 losses.. upsets are a thing in basketball

macgar32 rebuttal---
--- it was just pure coincidence with the sec improvement
--- historical data of our conference not succeeding with 1 method is meaningless,
--- upsets arent a thing, we can win every game you are supposed to every year 100% of the time.
--- the p5-BE all switching to 20 conference games is just a trendy thing to look cool and not to make the schedules harder