How our non-conf opponents have done

[moqui]

No doubt that Cincy and others play lousy schedules. But those are usually not the teams we aspire to compete against at the beginning of each year. Compared to the traditional powerhouses, we typically fall short (2008-09 being a notable exception) and the system gaming is nothing but lipstick on a pig. Fortunately for the last few years we have not needed any benefit of the doubt due to in-conference superiority.

I think we are largely in agreement here about the smoke-and-mirrors approach that JB has taken to scheduling - subsitute teams ranked in the 100s for those in the 200s and teams in the 200s for those in the 300s (playing all of them at home); sprinkle in a few neutral court games against mid-pack teams from the Big 6, one road game against another mid-pack Big 6 team and maybe one team you think will be good and you might have a chance of losing to and, voila, you have a top 30 SOS. It's worked for 6 years in a row now.

My only exception is that I wouldn't call the schedule "embarrassing." I would use "disappointing," but maybe that is just semantics.

 

[kuethstheman]

I think we are largely in agreement here about the smoke-and-mirrors approach that JB has taken to scheduling - subsitute teams ranked in the 100s for those in the 200s and teams in the 200s for those in the 300s (playing all of them at home); sprinkle in a few neutral court games against mid-pack teams from the Big 6, one road game against another mid-pack Big 6 team and maybe one team you think will be good and you might have a chance of losing to and, voila, you have a top 30 SOS. It's worked for 6 years in a row now.

My only exception is that I wouldn't call the schedule "embarrassing." I would use "disappointing," but maybe that is just semantics.

Why not "almost perfect"?

Early season you play teams that can make you work to win. Few default blow-outs. You play some teams that will beat you if you don't play well. In both cases you can see your weaknesses. You ease your way into a hellish conference schedule (most years).

The only thing lacking in my mind are away games. They wouldn't have to be against very good teams even. A few more like NCState would be fine.

I don't think this is gaming the RPI. It's setting up your schedule to increase your chances of peaking at the right time.

 

[CusefanATL]

I got blasted back in November for saying that we beat two garbage teams in NYC.

as did i... as well as getting blasted for calling UCONN an obvious choice for overrated team of the year.

 

[Knicks411]

My only exception is that I wouldn't call the schedule "embarrassing." I would use "disappointing," but maybe that is just semantics.

I think the # of road games is embarrassing, disappointing, whatever you want to call it.

 

[SouthCampusHero]

Speaking of Eastern Michigan, has anyone caught a glimpse of DaShonte Riley? Only shooting 37% from the field and averaging 4.2 points, 4.4 reb, 1.5 blocks per game while averaging 24 minutes. Not great considering the level of competitive and playing in a system that should be somewhat similar to the one he played in last year. I was kind of hoping he would be granted a waiver and would have to redshirt this year because I thought he could become a decent player but had a long road in front of him. A 7 footer that maybe just isnt very passionate about basketball. :noidea:

 

[SWC75]

I think we are largely in agreement here about the smoke-and-mirrors approach that JB has taken to scheduling - subsitute teams ranked in the 100s for those in the 200s and teams in the 200s for those in the 300s (playing all of them at home); sprinkle in a few neutral court games against mid-pack teams from the Big 6, one road game against another mid-pack Big 6 team and maybe one team you think will be good and you might have a chance of losing to and, voila, you have a top 30 SOS. It's worked for 6 years in a row now.

My only exception is that I wouldn't call the schedule "embarrassing." I would use "disappointing," but maybe that is just semantics.

in those six years we've played Florida three times, Kansas, Memphis, North Carolina and Michigan State. And we beat all of them. (We also played Ohio State- you can't win 'em all.)

 

[KingOtis]

Good analysis, was wondering about this myself. I think the wins over Florida and NC State were impressive no matter how you slice it, and enough to hang our hats on. But just like the conference schedule, the non-conference schedule wasn't as strong as it looked on paper, which might be one of the reasons fans are concerned right now.

I will say this. The Bernie Fine situation was a major distraction at the beginning of the season, but these kids didn't let the pressure get to them. Maybe that's a reason to have faith as they continue to win ugly, because nothing seems to faze them.

 

[KingOtis]

At the end of the day, I just don't want to be 1-4 or 2-3 on the one seed line with Kentucky. We can beat Kentucky, but if I can choose one team to avoid as long as possible its them. And that will happen as long as we don't **** the bed down the stretch. One team will be #1 and the other will be #2.

I would rather play UK than Mizzou or Michigan State. I think the Spartans would miss the first shot on every possession, then get an offensive rebound (or two or three) and score. They would probably set a record for offensive boards. Mizzou has enough shooters to cause problems, plus a solid post scorer. Defensively, I think they would give our guards (and Joseph) fits, and I don't think our inside game is strong enough to exploit the size advantage. I doubt our press would be effective against them if we needed it.

As for Kentucky, I think they're too young and inexperienced to handle our zone. Calipari isn't a great tournament coach. His best job was probably last year, when expectations were low.

 

[Knicks411]

As for Kentucky, I think they're too young and inexperienced to handle our zone. Calipari isn't a great tournament coach. His best job was probably last year, when expectations were low.

I'm not sure this is fair. He's been to the elite 8 5 times in the last 6 years.

 

[KingOtis]

I'm not sure this is fair. He's been to the elite 8 5 times in the last 6 years.

Aside from last year and the vacated season, weren't all the losses to higher seeds?

 

[Knicks411]

Aside from last year and the vacated season, weren't all the losses to higher seeds?

2006: #1 seed, lost to a 2 seed
2007: #2 seed, lost to 1 seed
2008: #1 seed, lost in the finals
2009: #2 seed, lost to a 3 seed
2010: #1 seed, lost to a 1 seed
2011: #4 seed, lost to a 3 seed

Twice they lost to a lower seed, and both times it was to a team 1 seed line worse than them. (in 2006, for example, they lost to second seeded UCLA in Oakland. I bet UCLA was a favorite in that game). They don't have anything in there like losing as a 3 to an 11, or as a 5 to a 12, or as a 4 to a 13, or as a 5 to an 8.

I dunno, the guy looks like a pretty good coach, tournament and regular season, to me. (Just to avoid a debate about vacated wins, etc, I'll amend to say he has a lot of success in both the tournament and the regular season).

Also; just using the losing to a lower seed method of evaluation seems a bit unfair to the coaches who are great during the regular season.

Using the Performance against Seed expectation numbers, over the last 6 years, Calipari was "expected" to win 16.46 games. He has won 20.

 

[KingOtis]

2006: #1 seed, lost to a 2 seed
2007: #2 seed, lost to 1 seed
2008: #1 seed, lost in the finals
2009: #2 seed, lost to a 3 seed
2010: #1 seed, lost to a 1 seed
2011: #4 seed, lost to a 3 seed

Twice they lost to a lower seed, and both times it was to a team 1 seed line worse than them. (in 2006, for example, they lost to second seeded UCLA in Oakland. I bet UCLA was a favorite in that game). They don't have anything in there like losing as a 3 to an 11, or as a 5 to a 12, or as a 4 to a 13, or as a 5 to an 8.

I dunno, the guy looks like a pretty good coach, tournament and regular season, to me. (Just to avoid a debate about vacated wins, etc, I'll amend to say he has a lot of success in both the tournament and the regular season).

Also; just using the losing to a lower seed method of evaluation seems a bit unfair to the coaches who are great during the regular season.

Using the Performance against Seed expectation numbers, over the last 6 years, Calipari was "expected" to win 16.46 games. He has won 20.

I didn't say anything about the regular season. He's an outstanding regular season coach. He's also an outstanding coach with new personnel, whether it be a job change or freshman class.

2006: They played Oral Roberts, Bucknell and Bradley before UCLA. Easy road.
2007: Blown out by Ohio St.
2008: Vacated.
2009: Sweet 16 loss to Mizzou was considered an upset. They had 27 straight wins heading into that game and Mizzou was overseeded a bit after winning the Big 12 Tourney.
2010: West Virginia was a #2 seed.
2011: Like I said, that season might have been his best tourney-wise.

You might want to check out his tournament record with UMass. It's not pretty. And don't forget that 1996 doesn't count.

 

[shizzah]

Speaking of preseason tourneys, are we locked into one next year yet?

I read an interview with Juli B. (can't remember where) and she mentioned that she was excited to go back to Maui for the Classic in 2013.

 

[Knicks411]

If you don't want to count the vacated years, then whatever, his record looks a lot worse. Where are all the coaches who consistently outperform their seed more than Calipari?

 

[KingOtis]

If you don't want to count the vacated years, then whatever, his record looks a lot worse. Where are all the coaches who consistently outperform their seed more than Calipari?

Why would I count the vacated years? He was cheating.

Have we established that Calipari consistently outperforms his seed? I would say we've established the opposite. And we're not talking about other coaches.

 

[jncuse]

Why would I count the vacated years? He was cheating.

Have we established that Calipari consistently outperforms his seed? I would say we've established the opposite. And we're not talking about other coaches.

Of course you have to count those years in assessing Cal's pedigree as a tourney coach, and its impact on UK 2012 chances.

Especially when this version is probably cheating as well.

 

[SWC75]

Why would I count the vacated years? He was cheating.

Have we established that Calipari consistently outperforms his seed? I would say we've established the opposite. And we're not talking about other coaches.

It's hard to "outperform your seed" when you have a high seed. How do you "outperform" a #1 seed?

 

[KingOtis]

It's hard to "outperform your seed" when you have a high seed. How do you "outperform" a #1 seed?

By not losing to lower-seeded teams for starters.

It was his wording, not mine. I was just responding to it.

 

[Knicks411]

You are the one who said most years he loses to a lower seeded team. You also said he wasn't a great tournament coach. If you are going to say that, don't you need to have something to compare it to? Who is a great tournament coach then?

Have we established that Calipari consistently outperforms his seed? I would say we've established the opposite. And we're not talking about other coaches.

Except he has won more games than his seed would predict. (To be fair, I'm only looking at the Memphis/UK years, maybe if I have some time I'll look at this Umass years.) So I am not sure how this is true.

But I think you have to look at the vacated years, because A) he is probably cheating now, and B) I don't see what it matters to his coaching.

I looked up the overall numbers. Calipari isn't among the top 10 of active coaches in exceeding expectations. Not sure that is the best measure, but it is a measure. So there you go. Maybe I was wrong; he probably isn't a great tournament coach. But I still think very good.

 

[KingOtis]

You are the one who said most years he loses to a lower seeded team. You also said he wasn't a great tournament coach. If you are going to say that, don't you need to have something to compare it to? Who is a great tournament coach then?

Tom Izzo. Even with the upset losses like Nevada, he's been outstanding.

Except he has won more games than his seed would predict. (To be fair, I'm only looking at the Memphis/UK years, maybe if I have some time I'll look at this Umass years.) So I am not sure how this is true.

But I think you have to look at the vacated years, because A) he is probably cheating now, and B) I don't see what it matters to his coaching.

Like I said, check out his UMass years.

If the NCAA doesn't count the vacated years, then neither should we. Even if I concede 1996 (Camby was about to go pro and players getting paid by agents isn't uncommon or even wrong in my opinion) and you concede 2008 (Rose shouldn't have even been eligible), it doesn't make a huge difference.

Furthermore, if he's cheating now and has always been cheating, that just makes it worse. He's breaking the rules and still underachieving.

BTW, I'm not sure if your prediction formula is accurate. You lose once and you're out. You can have a winning record in the tournament and still be a s***** tournament coach. Just ask Roy Williams.

 

[Knicks411]

BTW, I'm not sure if your prediction formula is accurate. You lose once and you're out. You can have a winning record in the tournament and still be a s***** tournament coach. Just ask Roy Williams.

Not sure I follow the first part. (Also, FWIW, surprise surprise, Izzo is #1 for performance against seed.)

I don't think it is totally fair though to try and only look at seeding anyway, or to look at the tournament as a complete different animal from the regular season.If you are a coach and you put together a great team that m akes th e final four, to me that is still a great job. The fact that you were "expected" to do so shouldn't temper the accomplishment. I guess that is more of a personal opinion though.

The guy has made it to the elite eight 5 times in the last 6 years. Seems pretty damn good to me.

 

[KingOtis]

Not sure I follow the first part. (Also, FWIW, surprise surprise, Izzo is #1 for performance against seed.)

I don't think it is totally fair though to try and only look at seeding anyway, or to look at the tournament as a complete different animal from the regular season.If you are a coach and you put together a great team that m akes th e final four, to me that is still a great job. The fact that you were "expected" to do so shouldn't temper the accomplishment. I guess that is more of a personal opinion though.

The guy has made it to the elite eight 5 times in the last 6 years. Seems pretty damn good to me.

What don't you follow? Nevada beat Michigan St. one year. George Mason upset them as well. Other than that, Izzo is one of the best tournament coaches out there.

You've never heard the expression, "Can't win the big one?" People criticized JB for it until 2003. The tournament is what matters most. Remember Dale Brown? One of the worst tourney coaches ever.