(01-04-2023 12:51 PM)Purplehazed Wrote:  This is a question, not debating the schedule

are we saying that our NET is currently higher than VT and the others listed because JMU scheduled Diii games that don't count toward the current NET valuation while UVA and UNC are included in a small sample size?

If yes, can we expect the NET to drop quite a bit in the coming weeks as the sample size starts including 200+ NET teams?

I haven't looked too much into the NET calculation in the last year or two but as any statistic operates, yes we would be helped out by a positive bias introduced by a smaller sample and selective treatment of the sample too - however this biasing effect will decrease as we play more games.

1. Smaller sample - UVA and UNC will weigh more right now because they take up a larger share of the sample but once we play a dozen more games their share will decrease and be reduced by the number of conference games. Reduces an outlier's impact but it makes you look impressive early on. Three removed games will have a larger impact when 10 games are played versus 30.

A quick example of this is:
14 Games In
All D1 Opponents: 2/14 = 14% share of schedule
3 D3 Opponents: 2/11 = 18% share of schedule

28 Games In
All D1 Opponents: 2/28 = 7%
3 D3 Opponents: 2/25 = 8%

The difference in share will decrease as more games are "counted"

2. Positive Selection - The advantage of adding a D3 opposed to a sub-250 NET team is two-fold. First is that it doesn't count, therefore lowering the sample size as seen in the first. However, what it also does is possibly remove a lower bound outlier, creating more upward bias in the sample. Again, as more games play out, this effect will also become marginal. At the end of the day, these moves will marginally bias the sample. It will have an effect but by March that effect will be diminished. Think of it as a downward sloping line.

(01-04-2023 12:51 PM)Purplehazed Wrote:  This is a question, not debating the schedule

are we saying that our NET is currently higher than VT and the others listed because JMU scheduled Diii games that don't count toward the current NET valuation while UVA and UNC are included in a small sample size?

If yes, can we expect the NET to drop quite a bit in the coming weeks as the sample size starts including 200+ NET teams?

The way I see it, yes the NET number will drop, but that doesn't necessarily mean the position we're in will fall all that much. Those in stronger conferences will move up some and those in weaker conferences will slide down and not much JMU can do but win games as overwhelmingly as possible. Nevertheless, this does almost nothing for JMU this year. We're not getting an at-large bid, I'm guessing the only affect a good number can gain us this year is possibly a higher seed should we get the auto-bid.

As 03 explained, the most this means for JMU is future scheduling. What does that matter if we're (coach and AD) are satisfied with this type of schedule? Answer: it doesn't. That's why I'd like to hear the plan and hold people accountable for executing their plan. If they're satisfied with the number of butts in the seats then what we see is what we'll get moving forward, but if they want to capitalize on a good NET, they've got to go after better competition, which will inturn put more butts in seats. Of course, scheduling isn't worth a crap if you don't compete.

(01-04-2023 11:21 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 10:25 AM)JMad03 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 09:14 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 08:39 AM)JMad03 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 08:29 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  So what is this NET going to gain JMU this year?

I'm probably not the right person to answer this question, but if we can end the season close to this number, that should certainly help us in the future when it comes to scheduling good teams. We would not be a scheduling liability. A win against us could help a team and a loss against us wouldn't ruin a team's season.
It also helps the Sun Belt, which helps us. I don't see this as an end step, I see this as a starting step.
However, if we lose and our NET falls, then this nice NET ranking now essentially means little to nothing.

Sounds like laying corner stone and the plan is for something bigger. You only lay corner stone once in the process. If the process fails to work properly then what? You get more of the same over and over. If the process is successful then you keep building higher, bigger, and better.

I have no issue with this being the foundation. Future scheduling like this year tells me the program is not growing, getting any better, and I should expect no more than what we have. The players/recruits will see the same.

If everything wasn't in a huge state of flux, I would agree with you. But we are in year one of being in the Sun Belt. There was uncertainty everywhere. The program hasn't been consistent enough to be relied upon as a "good win". The conference is saying they are improving, but there had not been any real proof of that before this season.
I just don't know how you can see this year as the norm. It is far from it.
And from a SOS point of view, we were 4th in VA. Ahead of VT and WAY ahead of GM and VCU.. two schools that obviously made a really poor decision not to play us. Ultimately it hurt them, not us.
Yes, our home schedule sucked. If we are 2 years down the road and still having really, really bad home schedules, then I will absolutely agree.
But this year is anything but normal. Yet despite a terrible home schedule, we are ranked in the Top 50 of the NET. Recruits see that too. And let's face it, if a recruit wants to play big teams all the time, they never have and never would pick JMU. We have NEVER been that. If a recruit is coming here for that, they've always been in the wrong place.
And yet, we still recruit extremely talented players.

Totally agree, 100%, but please don't try insinuating I'm thinking something that I've not stated. I've been very careful in choosing my words. For the first time in many years I'm feeling an uptick in our MBB program. Some of what I wrote had a lot to do with memories of our time with Matt Brady. That was a rollercoaster ride. Pretty good one year only to be disappointed the next. It was if there was no plan for the program to move forward. I like vision and stated plans from both the HC and Athletic Department and believe that's not too much to ask for.

I wasn't trying to insinuate something. I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
I totally understand your concern. I just think it's a bit of a challenge to look at these last few years as any solid roadmap. And that lies the problem, I suppose.
At the same time, I don't know if I've ever heard a plan when it came to scheduling, present or future. I do think it would be good for everyone to know the challenges that the school is or isn't facing when it comes to scheduling. That clarity would definitely be nice. However, I don't expect any change there. I don't believe they've ever done that aside from a random interview here or there.
I think the next year or two will be a much better judge of where we are headed in all aspects of the program.

I think we can all agree that scheduling OOC Games is a problem for most mid-major and Sunbeit Teams. I randomly selected App State and found they have a number of D111 Games as well. I doubt this is a strategy, but more of a necessity for both App State and JMU. Also, one of our D111 games was the result of a tournament game cancellation beyond our control.

Until things change, the conference is going to have to get creative with other conferences to create better schedules. The MAC alliance is a good start.

(01-04-2023 03:25 PM)Dukes1987 Wrote:  I think we can all agree that scheduling OOC Games is a problem for most mid-major and Sunbeit Teams. I randomly selected App State and found they have a number of D111 Games as well. I doubt this is a strategy, but more of a necessity for both App State and JMU. Also, one of our D111 games was the result of a tournament game cancellation beyond our control.

Until things change, the conference is going to have to get creative with other conferences to create better schedules. The MAC alliance is a good start.

The MAC alliance is good. I also have no issue playing any in-state schools even if they must be home-and-home deals. UVA tossed us a bone, we can pay this forward with other VA D1 programs. Longwood is far better competition than any D3 and at least we've heard of the school.

The Mary Baldwin Fighting Squirrels recently added a DIII men's basketball team. Whoever signed off on the Gallaudet game might be keen on getting a MB game on a schedule for the fans that would like to see if JMU can score 100 points...in the first half

I expect the strategy won't change but the resulting schedule will. I'm sure we would've rather had VCU, Richmond, or GMCC than Coppin State and I'm sure we would've rather been in a tournament that got us better games than Valpo and South Dakota State. Once we have those better games though, it also makes sense that we'd still throw in a non-D1 game or two if we want a couple cupcakes instead of #363 NET Hartford who will actually drag down our SOS and ranking. It's also cool to see us do neat and rewarding things for our players like getting Molson a game in Buffalo and getting Strickland a game against his dad, I hope those continue even if it means one or two games that aren't ideal(LIU is currently #362 out of 363!).

Between looking at recent schedules, especially this year, and from what Mettlen said about trying to schedule every D1 school in Virginia I'd think our strategy is something like this:
1. Strong to average opponents to help our SOS, preferably with some regional appeal.
2. Try to avoid extremely low NET opponents even if it means scheduling non-D1 for cupcake/filler games.
3. A small amount of games that are special and meaningful to current players.

Scheduling D3 games is completely unnecessary and a slight to the players, program, and paying fans.
With over 360 D-1 teams, there are literally hundreds of teams that can be scheduled if there is the desire to make some concessions.
I’m sure Bourne puts an annual travel budget limit on Byington, but that doesn’t hamper scheduling. If you need to travel to San Diego State to get a home and home mid major series, then play an extra guarantee game against a P7 and use the $80-$100k to fund additional travel above the budget.

JMU doesn’t have to sell its soul like some MEAC and SWAC teams do, but they can use road guarantee games to eliminate any restriction on the thought of playing anyone, anywhere to fill out their remaining OOC schedule with quality opponents.

I just checked Jackson State’s OOC this year and they played zero home games.
But they funded their athletic dept with over $1 million in guarantee payouts while taking a bunch of beatings
They played…
Alabama
Texas Tech
Mississippi St
Indiana
Michigan
TCU
SMU (actually beat them)
Tulsa
Miami
Akron
And others.

GG Dukes. We just didn’t have enough in the tank to complete the comeback. See you again soon!