I hate our schedule

[RedtheGOB]

We aren't UNC. Different rules.

That we agree on. We’ll need more wins for sure.

 

[Knicks411]

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.

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.

 

[dollarbill44]

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!

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.

 

[sufan59]

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.

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.

 

[dollarbill44]

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.

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.
Last year showed us we can't rely on the ACC schedule to build a tourney resume. We need to be able to rely on ourselves to win some tough OOC games. If we can’t be competitive, then what's really the point?
If we flame out in November and early December, I can start booking ski trips for February and early March.

 

[jncuse]

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.

That’s fair ..the 50/50 split would largely fix the scheduling issues caused by the NET even if zRPI completely sucks .. but tit weakens what should be intent of any ranking metric — To try to accurately measure teams as best as possible via some analytic measure.

 

[Eric15]

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.

 

[Niastri]

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.

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.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

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.

Would you describe it as...

nothing but NET?

 

[JonB]

Would you describe it as...

nothing but NET?

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.

 

[RedtheGOB]

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.

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.

Think about it this way. Let’s say we throw Siena on the calendar. Sure it’ll be a hype game with GMAC at the dome and there’ll be a few more butts in the seats and he’ll bring his squad in ready to play and we’ll get a fun game to watch prob. There’s zero upside for us tho playing in a rock fight in Nov-Dec. A close win actually hurts us, even a 10-15 pt win the net will say ouch not a good win should’ve won by 25-30 or even more. Especially when you consider other P5 conferences are running up their metrics blowing up a 350 net team by 45 the same night.

Lastly Q1 and Q2 it’s 30 and 45 teams which are your peer teams trying to make the tourney. We Need to have all ACC teams be in this Q1-Q2 range. If we don’t schedule well as a league the B12 is waiting which is why we’ve seen their bubble teams that arent even close to 500 in league play be in the tourney. ACC teams finishing in Q3-Q4 is really what sank the ACC and we’ve been guilty of it.