That we agree on. We’ll need more wins for sure.We aren't UNC. Different rules.
That we agree on. We’ll need more wins for sure.We aren't UNC. Different rules.
It’s due to NET.
Under the RPI playing too many sub 280 teams was playing with fire. The sweet spot for gaming the RPI was trying to schedule teams you knew you could beat but were not terrible — somewhere in the 100-150 area. View it as the Q3 home game.
Now you want to avoid those teams in the 100-180 area and beat up on su 280 teams under the NET. That’s why such a low % of OOC games for power conference teams are in Q3.
That being said it’s still relative margin. If you aren’t winning those games by an average of at least 20 points or more you are not helping yourself. And if you win them by amounts like we did last year you hurt yourself badly.
It’s why I push for a ranking system that is 50% old RPI and 50% NET. The weaknesses of each offset each other and encourage more balanced scheduling.
The problem is that over the last handful of years, we haven't won the "easy" games by large margins. It doesn't do much for the resume if we lose the hard games and squeak by in the easy ones.Schedule seems to be designed to help that stupid, but obviously very important metric in the NET. Win the very easy games by 20+, stay close against the Houston, Tennessee, and Kansas (hopefully pull at least one of these off). And we are in good shape in January. Not sure if the other ACC schools followed the program as well, but if they did and have somewhat similar results and perhaps wins against the P4, we will have plenty of Q1 and Q2 opportunities in conference play. Welcome to College Basketball in 2025!
Yes, but that is why I think we went with the non con opponents that we did vs Colgate/Cornell. Because those games on paper should be easier for us to run up the score. But design and how it actually happens are two different things.The problem is that over the last handful of years, we haven't won the "easy" games by large margins. It doesn't do much for the resume if we lose the hard games and squeak by in the easy ones.
Colgate and Cornell are all well and good, but taking LeMoyne to the final seconds and Youngstown St to OT are what I'm talking about. We used to abuse all of those schools every season. Btw, we should be able to abuse Cornell and Colgate too.Yes, but that is why I think we went with the non con opponents that we did vs Colgate/Cornell. Because those games on paper should be easier for us to run up the score. But design and how it actually happens are two different things.
50% RPI is still about 50% too much weighting to the RPI for my liking.
I like the wins above bubble stuff, I think that may be the best way to frame it. Two teams can have the roughly the same ranked schedule, but get their in vastly different ways (something barbelled like we have, with a few games against great teams and some against awful) or a bunch of games against pretty good teams.
I'm actually going for 40 point wins. If you win 8 games by 40 points, and play every other game to an average of a tie, you have successfully maxed out your "average margin of victory" component of the NET without necessarily being very good... Otherwise known as the Big12 Conference Scheduling Mandate.Before we worry about beating Houston, Kansas and Tennessee, we need to worry about beating Binghamton, Delaware State, Drexel and Monmouth. If those are all 15-20 point wins like they should be, that will tell us whether we're getting back to normal.
On paper those should be tune up games where we experiment with lineups and get the roster to gel. But we absolutely escaped our first three games last year (I know our roster is much different this year) against LeMoyne, Colgate and Youngstown State, the last of which needed two OTs.
Would you describe it as...It’s due to NET.
Under the RPI playing too many sub 280 teams was playing with fire. The sweet spot for gaming the RPI was trying to schedule teams you knew you could beat but were not terrible — somewhere in the 100-150 area. View it as the Q3 home game.
Now you want to avoid those teams in the 100-180 area and beat up on su 280 teams under the NET. That’s why such a low % of OOC games for power conference teams are in Q3.
That being said it’s still relative margin. If you aren’t winning those games by an average of at least 20 points or more you are not helping yourself. And if you win them by amounts like we did last year you hurt yourself badly.
It’s why I push for a ranking system that is 50% old RPI and 50% NET. The weaknesses of each offset each other and encourage more balanced scheduling.
Complaining about the schedule is kind of stupid. If you have a good team, you’ll win games, if you don’t have a good team, you won’t win games. I suspect that they are gonna blow a lot of those terrible teams out, and they are gonna play the other teams close. They will have a chance to win and they will have a chance to lose some. It’s like any season, you play hard and see what happens.Would you describe it as...
nothing but NET?
Exactly. If you look at the net Q4 range at home its 160+ teams that’s 200 teams. Q3 = 76-159, another 85 teams. 285 cupcakes to choose from. The ACC as a whole should be scheduling as much fluff as possible to max those efficiencies and raise their nets as a league for conference play. Then play as many high profile games as possible, ideally to win but also where a loss doesn’t hurt.I'm actually going for 40 point wins. If you win 8 games by 40 points, and play every other game to an average of a tie, you have successfully maxed out your "average margin of victory" component of the NET without necessarily being very good... Otherwise known as the Big12 Conference Scheduling Mandate.
I strongly suspect it's the reason we're playing mostly top 25 teams and bottom feeders in our ooc schedule this season.
I'm actually going for 40 point wins. If you win 8 games by 40 points, and play every other game to an average of a tie, you have successfully maxed out your "average margin of victory" component of the NET without necessarily being very good... Otherwise known as the Big12 Conference Scheduling Mandate.
I strongly suspect it's the reason we're playing mostly top 25 teams and bottom feeders in our ooc schedule this season.
You're correct in general. The problem is gaining momentum after the last few years so we have bigger crowds. I think it is super important that we get off a good start. That's the main reason the Vegas tournament concerns me. I want to see the Dome full again.Complaining about the schedule is kind of stupid. If you have a good team, you’ll win games, if you don’t have a good team, you won’t win games. I suspect that they are gonna blow a lot of those terrible teams out, and they are gonna play the other teams close. They will have a chance to win and they will have a chance to lose some. It’s like any season, you play hard and see what happens.
If they win a couple of games in Vegas, the crowds are gonna be huge. People will be coming from New York, New Jersey, Canada to see them. They could do it…You're correct in general. The problem is gaining momentum after the last few years so we have bigger crowds. I think it is super important that we get off a good start. That's the main reason the Vegas tournament concerns me. I want to see the Dome full again.
Vegas has 18 teams playing 3 games each all Mon-Wed Thanksgiving week. Yes alot of people will be watching but I really don't believe our fanbase is going to say ok damn we lost to Houston and Kansas within 24 hours this season is cooked. I would say they need to be competitive though and be really careful about that 3rd game.If they win a couple of games in Vegas, the crowds are gonna be huge. People will be coming from New York, New Jersey, Canada to see them. They could do it…
The only thing I would say to this is if you win 8 games by 40 points each, you probably are pretty good.
I agree but all I have in Winter after Christmas is SU hoops. Especially when there no Olympics so I will stay. At least I got to see all of the good years. I will cheer hard but one can only pull for the laundryI agree with much of what is posted. I unfortunately think I have to walk away. I have followed SU football since 1950 as a young Bo going with my dad tonSU football games. In 1957 I was an usher at Archibald 58 too. I’ve the best on the gridiron the worst in hoops and everything in between. From before Dave Bing to the last few teams that disappointed. 2003 and the dream year. I saw the 59’ team and got to know many of the players in later years. The drought for the football team resurgence under Mac, kept alive by Pasqualoni and the severe drought since then with a few ok years since then. Hoops under Jimmy was a great run. Now however money is the entire deal. The Yankees of old or the dodgers of today. Money runs the ship. No such thing as a level playing field. Great coach for football now but money will kill that. I think Red can get it done, but you’ll see not me. Can’t take the uncertainty of todays market. Enjoy if you can what’s left. Can’t see players develop, players chasing the bag as they say. Loyalty is dead and I’m close. Sad. But I’m out. Peace to all.