PDA

View Full Version : Schedule Strength



chrisheery
12-22-2009, 08:12 PM
I have heard the argument that Duke doesn't have a difficult enough schedule compared to other top teams. I completely disagree with that notion, but I thought it was worthwhile to point out just how absurd some other teams' schedules are.

Carolina
Texas
MSU

Are they serious. They are playing top ten teams every other week. Texas played Carolina this week and now MSU today? Wow.

Heelkiller1
12-22-2009, 08:17 PM
Every year we all hear this type of crap from all the haters . Just let it roll off your back and enjoy watching Duke prove everyone wrong.

Highlander
12-22-2009, 08:33 PM
http://rpiratings.com/mensrpi.html

If your definition of a tough schedule is how many potential losses or competitive non conf games you schedule, UNC wins the SOS argument hands down. If your definition is a cumulative measure of the relative strengths of all opponents (and not just the top opponents), then Duke has a tougher road this season.

striker219
12-22-2009, 09:38 PM
...and because some people like to compare SOS between Duke and UNC, the following are SOS numbers through all games played as of Sunday, December 6.

Ken Pomeroy
Duke - 31
UNC - 140

Jeff Sagarin
Duke - 31
UNC - 134

Warren Nolan
Duke - 1
UNC - 126

StatSheet.com
Duke - 3 (projected 17)
UNC - 152 (projected 38)

TeamRankings.com
Duke - 1
UNC - 126

And updated through yesterday...
Ken Pomeroy
Duke - 76
UNC - 114

Jeff Sagarin
Duke - 35
UNC - 140

Warren Nolan
Duke - 4
UNC - 82

StatSheet.com
Duke - 10 (projected 15)
UNC - 123 (projected 22)

TeamRankings.com
Duke - 4
UNC - 82

Just for fun.

Wildcat
12-22-2009, 09:55 PM
Our schedule can't compare to other top programs. Carolina has played IN Texas, AT Kentucky, played Michigan State at home..... We don't go in the Lions den anymore like we used to. Instead we play UCONN at the Cameron North. Wisconsin doesn't count...sorry; not a tough enough environment. Our schedule has weakened from years past.

You can configure all the stats and SOS you want; but our schedule is not the toughest by far. Our era of dominance is fading and Kentucky looks like its rising with Calimari.

striker219
12-22-2009, 10:10 PM
Our schedule can't compare to other top programs. Carolina has played IN Texas, AT Kentucky, played Michigan State at home..... We don't go in the Lions den anymore like we used to. Instead we play UCONN at the Cameron North. Wisconsin doesn't count...sorry; not a tough enough environment. Our schedule has weakened from years past.

You can configure all the stats and SOS you want; but our schedule is not the toughest by far. Our era of dominance is fading and Kentucky looks like its rising with Calimari.

How many teams have won at Wisconsin in the last 10 years?

Serious question, I remember them talking about it during the game, but I don't remember the number. It's a pretty darn tough environment.

VaDukie
12-22-2009, 10:25 PM
Our schedule can't compare to other top programs. Carolina has played IN Texas, AT Kentucky, played Michigan State at home..... We don't go in the Lions den anymore like we used to. Instead we play UCONN at the Cameron North. Wisconsin doesn't count...sorry; not a tough enough environment. Our schedule has weakened from years past.

You can configure all the stats and SOS you want; but our schedule is not the toughest by far. Our era of dominance is fading and Kentucky looks like its rising with Calimari.

We consistently play quality opponents. UNC beats up on nobodies, makes good showings against actual competition (while losing), and pretends to have a tough schedule.

And really, how could Wisconsin have been a tougher environment? Just because they were unranked at the time it's not a tough atmosphere?

duke09hms
12-22-2009, 10:26 PM
sure wisconsin is a tough place to play, but they aren't a marquee powerhouse. I mean, which matchup is going to look more appealing to recruits, Duke-Wisconsin, or North Carolina-Kentucky, you know what I'm saying? Even though we are on tv all the time, most of those games arent all that appealing for the general public to watch.

For some reason, those stats just don't pass the eye test. And speaking just as a fan, it'd be great to see us establish some home/away series with some big programs: UK, KU, UCLA. Help us get used to some other styles of play that we dont see in the ACC that might help in the tourney. Get used to some other opposing venues that we dont see every year in the ACC that might help in the tourney.

I wonder why we don't have these big away games against non-conference teams. There's no downside to them.

Duvall
12-22-2009, 10:30 PM
Our era of dominance is fading and Kentucky looks like its rising with Calimari.

Our?

How long are we going to let this farce continue?

jv001
12-22-2009, 10:38 PM
Our schedule can't compare to other top programs. Carolina has played IN Texas, AT Kentucky, played Michigan State at home..... We don't go in the Lions den anymore like we used to. Instead we play UCONN at the Cameron North. Wisconsin doesn't count...sorry; not a tough enough environment. Our schedule has weakened from years past.

You can configure all the stats and SOS you want; but our schedule is not the toughest by far. Our era of dominance is fading and Kentucky looks like its rising with Calimari.

that Wildcat will not be watching the telecast of the 1992 Duke vs. Kentucky Wildcats game tomorrow. Might be too painful for a Wildcat fan. Just a thought. Go Duke!

Underdog5
12-22-2009, 10:38 PM
What happened to the annual Michigan match up? Did that get cut due to the Big 10 challenge? Would love to see us cut the annual St. John's game for a better opponent. That program is soooo irrelavant now (apologies in advance to any offended Red Storm fans).

Bob Green
12-22-2009, 10:41 PM
Would love to see us cut the annual St. John's game for a better opponent.

It is the wrong time to cut the annual St. John's game. While St. John's has been down in the recent past, they are a team on the upswing side of the cycle.

Kedsy
12-22-2009, 10:58 PM
I mean, which matchup is going to look more appealing to recruits, Duke-Wisconsin, or North Carolina-Kentucky, you know what I'm saying?

Do you really think most recruits care (assuming they get to play on TV)? I don't. Do you think any recruits would find playing Kentucky in Lexington more appealing than playing UConn at Madison Square Garden? I can't even imagine that one. Everything isn't a recruiting issue.

The reason they invented the "strength of schedule" concept was so the top programs couldn't schedule a few marquee games to pass the eye test and then pad their record playing the bottom of the barrel.

For example, this year's UNC schedule, according to Sagarin, contains the following teams: #1, #3, #8, #18, #25, #96, #210, #291, #310, #337, #341. Sure, the top few games look good, but it's hard to get much worse than their bottom five.

In contrast, Duke's schedule, according to Sagarin, is as follows: #15, #19, #36, #43, #51, #57, #82, #158, #251, #337. Only the bottom two are embarrassing, and besides those two there's only one team not in the top 85.

UNC's schedule is certainly flashier, but Duke's schedule, overall, is tougher. It may not look it if you're browsing through and looking only at the big games, but that's why they let computers figure this stuff out.

Lord Ash
12-22-2009, 11:29 PM
Our schedule can't compare to other top programs. Carolina has played IN Texas, AT Kentucky, played Michigan State at home..... We don't go in the Lions den anymore like we used to. Instead we play UCONN at the Cameron North. Wisconsin doesn't count...sorry; not a tough enough environment. Our schedule has weakened from years past.

You can configure all the stats and SOS you want; but our schedule is not the toughest by far. Our era of dominance is fading and Kentucky looks like its rising with Calimari.

Adore this post. You can't compare Duke's schedule to other top programs, even though, according to everyone who does that for a living, you can.

Playing Wisconsin at Wisconsin doesn't count, because... well, not sure. Because Wisconsin doesn't have the basketball tradition of *snort* Texas? BTW, it was 10 losses in ten years, if I recall correctly. Oh, and playing UConn in the middle of Big East country doesn't count... and playing Gonzaga at a neutral court doesn't count... and...

And of course, the old dreaded "You can look at facts all you want, but really, the gut is what you measure by" argument. Never mind the fact that Kentucky has been BAD for a while, and when the games were scheduled no one knew they would be good. Nevermind that we played #2 Texas a few years back and DESTROYED them. Nevermind the fact that when we signed up for the Gonzaga games they were basically the sweetheart of the nation. Nevermind the fact that Wisconsin has been excellent year in and year out. Nevermind the fact that we've beaten Michigan State in 2003 and 2004 and...

*sigh*

Jumbo
12-22-2009, 11:35 PM
sure wisconsin is a tough place to play, but they aren't a marquee powerhouse. I mean, which matchup is going to look more appealing to recruits, Duke-Wisconsin, or North Carolina-Kentucky, you know what I'm saying? Even though we are on tv all the time, most of those games arent all that appealing for the general public to watch.

If the general public isn't interested in watching them, why do the games keep ending up on TV, then?


For some reason, those stats just don't pass the eye test. And speaking just as a fan, it'd be great to see us establish some home/away series with some big programs: UK, KU, UCLA. Help us get used to some other styles of play that we dont see in the ACC that might help in the tourney. Get used to some other opposing venues that we dont see every year in the ACC that might help in the tourney.

I wonder why we don't have these big away games against non-conference teams. There's no downside to them.

Someone like, say, Georgetown?

FireOgilvie
12-22-2009, 11:40 PM
Our schedule can't compare to other top programs. Carolina has played IN Texas, AT Kentucky, played Michigan State at home..... We don't go in the Lions den anymore like we used to. Instead we play UCONN at the Cameron North. Wisconsin doesn't count...sorry; not a tough enough environment. Our schedule has weakened from years past.

You can configure all the stats and SOS you want; but our schedule is not the toughest by far. Our era of dominance is fading and Kentucky looks like its rising with Calimari.

Remember that Duke didn't schedule the Wisconsin game and UNC didn't schedule Michigan State. It was part of the Big Ten/ACC Challenge.

Also, Kentucky has a very easy pre-conference season schedule. They play UNC and UCONN, and a bunch of pretty bad teams (including Stanford - sorry Johnny).

chrisheery
12-22-2009, 11:59 PM
Yeah, I wasn't trying to rehash this debate about SOS. I think any team that falls outside the top 100 shouldn't get extra weight for being 101 versus 205. I mean, any top tier team is going to dominate any of those teams. All I was trying to say is that those are some marquee match-ups early in the year. I am glad they are scheduled. They are fun to watch. I don't care who is in them. Just glad they are available on a Saturday afternoon.

By the way, Gonzaga, UConn, Wisconsin, St. John's is a pretty impressive out of conference schedule. Make no mistake about that. Just because we did well in those games (except Wisconsin), that doesn't mean they didn't make up a tough lineup.

FireOgilvie
12-23-2009, 12:08 AM
By the way, Gonzaga, UConn, Wisconsin, St. John's is a pretty impressive out of conference schedule. Make no mistake about that. Just because we did well in those games (except Wisconsin), that doesn't mean they didn't make up a tough lineup.

Plus we still have Iowa State (9-3), #13 Georgetown (8-1), and Tulsa (9-2) left.

kexman
12-23-2009, 12:49 AM
We have learned to schedule just like the Missouri Valley Conference. Do not schedule any really bad teams (below 150 in the RPI). Which is the harder schedule: team A playing RPI teams (1, 2, 3, 4, 300) or team B playing RPI teams (61, 62, 63, 64, 65). According to using the cumulative RPI it is the same. Top 10 and top 25 matchups are great and are likely tourney teams. After an RPI of 75...I really don't care.

A lot goes into the schedule including managing travel, alumni base, recruiting hot beds, etc. However, duke is an elite team and I would love at least one series with an elite basketball team. Probably Kansas or michigan state since I don't really like Uconn or kentucky. UCLA would be ok as well.

Dukeface88
12-23-2009, 01:10 AM
A lot goes into the schedule including managing travel, alumni base, recruiting hot beds, etc. However, duke is an elite team and I would love at least one series with an elite basketball team. Probably Kansas or michigan state since I don't really like Uconn or kentucky. UCLA would be ok as well.

How do you know whether any of those teams will remain an "elite" basketball team over the next several years? Kentucky hasn't been good for a decade (and with Calipari, they could easily face sanctions within the next few years). That isn't even getting into UCLA at 4-7, and last in the (bad) Pac-10 somehow qualifying as "elite".

SCMatt33
12-23-2009, 01:35 AM
I think that an overlooked point which someone started to touch upon is how scheduling works. We don't just pick who we want to play the summer before the season, it happens a year or more in advance. Just how good those teams are is a crapshoot. Duke can only put themselves in quality preseason tournaments every year and hope that the other teams are top competion. Same with the ACC/Big Ten challenge. If you take those games away from Duke and UNC's schedule, that leaves @Gtown and (technically) neutral against Gonzaga for Duke and @UK and (technically) neutral Texas for UNC as top 25 competition. We didn't do that much worse than UNC in scheduling top competition, they just got some tougher matchups in games they didn't choose.

pfrduke
12-23-2009, 02:11 AM
However, duke is an elite team and I would love at least one series with an elite basketball team. Probably Kansas or michigan state since I don't really like Uconn or kentucky. UCLA would be ok as well.

As pointed out upthread, how about Georgetown? Because, um, we have a home-and-home series with them. And have for several years (and took last year off at Georgetown's request, not ours).

MChambers
12-23-2009, 07:55 AM
As pointed out upthread, how about Georgetown? Because, um, we have a home-and-home series with them. And have for several years (and took last year off at Georgetown's request, not ours).

I think Duke and Georgetown took off two years ago, not last year.

Wander
12-23-2009, 08:46 AM
Our schedule is very good. UNC's is a little bit better. There's no need to make it any more complicated than that.

Also, did someone really say that Wisconsin was not a tough enough environment? They're famous for being one of the toughest places to play in the country.

superdave
12-23-2009, 09:14 AM
Duke was #3 on last year's end of season RPI, and yet we got demolished by the #8 team. It was not even close.

An objective and transparent ranking system still gets it wrong....let's just concentrate on the games they actually play!

InSpades
12-23-2009, 10:23 AM
I definitely think SoS is a bit misleading of a statistic and Duke definitely benefits from it's shortcomings. For a top team like Duke or UNC, the schedule UNC has played is more difficult than the one Duke has played. However if you gave the same schedule to an average team (say the 100th best team in the country) then Duke's schedule would probably be a lot harder than Carolina's schedule.

The reason is that there's really very little difference to a top team if they play a below average team or a terrible team. They are going to win 95%+ of those games regardless. The difference between playing a top 5 team or a top 50 team is very significant though. If you fill your schedule w/ teams in the 100-200 rank range and a few top teams you will have a great SoS. If you fill your schedule w/ 200-300 rank teams and a few elite teams you will have a much worse SoS (and probably lose more games if you are also a top team).

All of this being said... I have no problem with the Duke schedule. UNC is getting credit for scheduling Kentucky... Kentucky didn't even make the NCAAs last year. If not for John Calipari that game would have meant much much less. Compare Duke's schedule to the schedule Kansas has played... I think you'll notice some differences.

UrinalCake
12-23-2009, 12:34 PM
What happened to the annual Michigan match up?

We stopped that when Tommy Amaker became Michigan's coach. Coach K has always had a thing about coaching against his former assistants (which is becoming harder and harder as more of these guys get jobs...) They haven't been good for a while now, so I see no reason to bring it back.

We also had a home-and-home with UCLA for many years, but my understanding is that they called it off because they felt it was allowing us to attract too many recruits out of California.

What about a home-and-home against UCONN? That would throw some real spice into the preseason.

Kedsy
12-23-2009, 01:08 PM
We have learned to schedule just like the Missouri Valley Conference. Do not schedule any really bad teams (below 150 in the RPI). Which is the harder schedule: team A playing RPI teams (1, 2, 3, 4, 300) or team B playing RPI teams (61, 62, 63, 64, 65). According to using the cumulative RPI it is the same.

It's true we schedule similarly to the successful MVC teams, but your example is inaccurate. Based on today's RPI numbers, your team "A" would have an RPI SOS of .755 and team "B" would have an RPI SOS of .731. While those two numbers would be #1 and #2 SOSs on the current RPI, it is worth noting that the difference between them (.024) is currently the difference between the 10th best SOS and the 26th best SOS (also the difference between the 50th best SOS and the 90th best SOS, it tightens up as you do down).

Besides, UNC isn't playing the equivalent of Team A in your example. It's not even playing the equivalent of (1, 2, 20, 300, 340), which would end up with an RPI SOS of .577, significantly worse than either of your examples (although at 31st best SOS in the country, that schedule is still better than UNC's real schedule which is ranked 59th). Some people might argue that 3 very tough games plus two games your JV team could win is more difficult than 5 tough (but not very tough) games. But I would disagree. Playing five Louisvilles (#65 RPI) would be the harder schedule.

Now, I'm not suggesting the RPI is a valid judge of anything, because I don't think it is. But since you brought up the RPI, it is worth noting that UNC's schedule is nowhere near the equivalent of (1,2,3,4,300). In fact, only one of UNC's opponents to date (Texas, #4) is in the RPI top 10. Looking at the RPI, UNC's' top 5 RPI opponents this year have been (4, 11, 13, 54, 94) and Duke's have been (7, 14, 27, 36, 78), which frankly don't look all that different to me, while their remaining schedules are very different (UNC: (101, 110, 254, 260, 269, 295, 337); Duke: (81, 87, 92, 204, 260)), with Duke's being the much tougher "lower half" of the schedule.

As I said, I don't want to get in an argument about whether the RPI is an accurate judge of the various teams, because it isn't. But it is the preferred measure of the NCAA tournament selection committee, and is certainly more valid than the "eye test." UNC's schedule is certainly flashier than Duke's. It may be harder to go undefeated against. But it's not better, or tougher.

Kedsy
12-23-2009, 01:13 PM
What about a home-and-home against UCONN? That would throw some real spice into the preseason.

Until Calhoun retires and UConn becomes St. John's or Seton Hall.


Duke was #3 on last year's end of season RPI, and yet we got demolished by the #8 team. It was not even close.

An objective and transparent ranking system still gets it wrong....let's just concentrate on the games they actually play!

I agree the RPI is not a good predictor, but to use a single game in which one top 10 team beat another top 10 team as proof that objective systems get it wrong is not a particularly rigorous example.

shoutingncu
12-23-2009, 01:47 PM
Until Calhoun retires and UConn becomes St. John's or Seton Hall.

This was too good an opportunity for me to pass up (even in the holiday spirit ;))...

Or Krzyzewski retires and Duke becomes Georgia Tech or NC State.

airowe
12-23-2009, 01:54 PM
This was too good an opportunity for me to pass up (even in the holiday spirit ;))...

Or Krzyzewski retires and Duke becomes Georgia Tech or NC State.

As a Carolina fan, you are certainly qualified to put forth your opinion on this subject ;)

8-20 ;) ;)

shoutingncu
12-23-2009, 01:56 PM
As a Carolina fan, you are certainly qualified to put forth your opinion on this subject ;)

8-20 ;) ;)


I didn't think you'd want to be compared to Carolina in any way, but I certainly went there in my head, too. :)

Kedsy
12-23-2009, 02:01 PM
This was too good an opportunity for me to pass up (even in the holiday spirit ;))...

Or Krzyzewski retires and Duke becomes Georgia Tech or NC State.

I know you're just joking around, but UConn won a grand total of four NCAA tournament games before Calhoun started as head coach. While Duke had four Final Four appearances before K started for us. Which, by the way, is four times as many as UNC had before el Deano took the reins in Chapel Hill.

After K retires (which hopefully is a long way off), Duke is likely in for a couple rough years before we right the ship (although I don't imagine it will get as bad as 8-20). Once Calhoun goes, the smart money would be on UConn slipping into the middle of the pack in the Big East and staying there for awhile.

Wander
12-23-2009, 02:12 PM
As I said, I don't want to get in an argument about whether the RPI is an accurate judge of the various teams, because it isn't. But it is the preferred measure of the NCAA tournament selection committee, and is certainly more valid than the "eye test." UNC's schedule is certainly flashier than Duke's. It may be harder to go undefeated against. But it's not better, or tougher.

Come on. Take the top five games for both teams, and the order of difficulty is probably like this, from hardest to easiest:

1. Texas (away, kinda)
2. Kentucky (away)
3. Syracuse (away, kinda)
4. Georgetown (away)
5. UConn (away, kinda)
6. Ohio State (with Turner, neutral)
7. Wisconsin (away)
8. Michigan State (home)
9. Gonzaga (neutral)
10. St. John's (home)

UNC's schedule is clearly harder, even accounting for the fact that Duke's bad teams are better than UNC's bad teams. But they're both very good schedules.

And I'm upset that I was put into a position where I had to defend UNC, so I'll now take the time to point out that playing a tough schedule means absolutely nothing if you don't actually beat the best teams on it, and UNC has gone 0-3 in their toughest games, during which Deon Thompson has sucked and Roy Williams stabbed a reporter for asking why he wasn't playing better.

Kedsy
12-23-2009, 02:21 PM
Come on. Take the top five games for both teams, and the order of difficulty is probably like this, from hardest to easiest:

1. Texas (away, kinda)
2. Kentucky (away)
3. Syracuse (away, kinda)
4. Georgetown (away)
5. UConn (away, kinda)
6. Ohio State (with Turner, neutral)
7. Wisconsin (away, kinda)
8. Michigan State (home)
9. Gonzaga (neutral)
10. St. John's (home)

UNC's schedule is clearly harder, even accounting for the fact that Duke's bad teams are better than UNC's bad teams. But they're both very good schedules.


I understand your point of view, but I disagree. And the RPI certainly does. I'll grant you UNC's top 3 games were harder than our top 3 games (although not as much harder as many people thing) but if you line them up, 1 to 10, the remaining 7 games are all more difficult on Duke's schedule. You think the top matters most and I think the whole schedule matters.

One thing I will quibble about, however. How can playing a game in Wisconsin's home gym be classified as "away, kinda"?

Wander
12-23-2009, 02:25 PM
One thing I will quibble about, however. How can playing a game in Wisconsin's home gym be classified as "away, kinda"?

Err, I have no idea. Oops. That's a crazy tough place to play too, no shame in that loss.

airowe
12-23-2009, 02:34 PM
Come on. Take the top five games for both teams, and the order of difficulty is probably like this, from hardest to easiest:

1. Texas (away, kinda)
2. Kentucky (away)
3. Syracuse (away, kinda)
4. Georgetown (away)
5. UConn (away, kinda)
6. Ohio State (with Turner, neutral)
7. Wisconsin (away)
8. Michigan State (home)
9. Gonzaga (neutral)
10. St. John's (home)

UNC's schedule is clearly harder, even accounting for the fact that Duke's bad teams are better than UNC's bad teams. But they're both very good schedules.

And I'm upset that I was put into a position where I had to defend UNC, so I'll now take the time to point out that playing a tough schedule means absolutely nothing if you don't actually beat the best teams on it, and UNC has gone 0-3 in their toughest games, during which Deon Thompson has sucked and Roy Williams stabbed a reporter for asking why he wasn't playing better.


It's funny though that this is the first year where UNC can honestly say their schedule is tougher than ours. It's important to note as some else pointed out earlier in this thread, that these games are often scheduled far in advance. Without knowing exactly when this year's games were scheduled, you'd be hard pressed to prove to me that at that time the UK game and the Syracuse game were tougher than the Georgetown game, the Gonzaga game, and the UCONn game. Hell, no one thought the Cuse would be this good until they beat the TarHeels.

shoutingncu
12-23-2009, 02:41 PM
It's funny though that this is the first year where UNC can honestly say their schedule is tougher than ours...

This is a very good point. As a hater, I often scoff at Duke's scheduling (and refer to it as another instance where objective, even admirable, numbers don't tell the whole story), but I have almost always been disappointed in Carolina's non-conference schedule.

NSDukeFan
12-23-2009, 02:56 PM
Come on. Take the top five games for both teams, and the order of difficulty is probably like this, from hardest to easiest:

1. Texas (away, kinda)
2. Kentucky (away)
3. Syracuse (away, kinda)
4. Georgetown (away)
5. UConn (away, kinda)
6. Ohio State (with Turner, neutral)
7. Wisconsin (away)
8. Michigan State (home)
9. Gonzaga (neutral)
10. St. John's (home)

UNC's schedule is clearly harder, even accounting for the fact that Duke's bad teams are better than UNC's bad teams. But they're both very good schedules.

And I'm upset that I was put into a position where I had to defend UNC, so I'll now take the time to point out that playing a tough schedule means absolutely nothing if you don't actually beat the best teams on it, and UNC has gone 0-3 in their toughest games, during which Deon Thompson has sucked and Roy Williams stabbed a reporter for asking why he wasn't playing better.
I would rank your list more like this
1. Texas (away, kinda)
2. Kentucky (away)
3. Georgetown (away)
4. Wisconsin (away)
5. Syracuse (neutral)
6. UConn (neutral)
7. Michigan State (home)
8. Ohio State (with Turner, neutral)
9. Gonzaga (neutral)
10. St. John's (home)

I would also add that, as we have seen so far this year, we see every year in the tournament, and we will see in the future this year, upsets happen. Those upsets are a lot more common with the 50-100 ranked teams than with those ranked in the 250-350 range. The bottom line to me is that our schedule is fine, with some tests and some easier opponents that should prepare us well for conference play and the NCAAs.

sandinmyshoes
12-24-2009, 11:25 AM
I like to use the analogy of topography.

UNC's schedule is like a stretch of grassy plains and rolling hills punctuated by a handful of really craggy mountains.

Our schedule is fewer grassy plains, more hills, but fewer mountains.

I have to admit that while we have a statistically higher rated schedule, in that our topography averages out higher from beginning to end, UNC's schedule offers more chances for taking a fall.

Kedsy
12-24-2009, 11:36 AM
I have to admit that while we have a statistically higher rated schedule, in that our topography averages out higher from beginning to end, UNC's schedule offers more chances for taking a fall.

This brings up an interesting question. What is the point of a "good schedule"? Is it to give you a greater chance to lose? Is it to prepare you for the post-season? Or is it to test your mettle against good, solid, opponents on a game-in, game-out basis?

Because I agree that if it's simply which schedule gives you the better chance of losing a game or two, then a top-heavy schedule like UNC's is probably the best way of accomplishing your goal (and kudos to the Heels, then, if that was what they were shooting for, because they achieved not one, not two, but three losses -- nice). I also think reasonable minds would differ on how best to prepare yourself for the post-season. My guess is K thinks the best schedule is the one that lets you play pretty good opponents almost every game, which is why he schedules the way he does. Whoever concocted the various "schedule strength" algorithms for RPI, Sagarin, etc., seem to see it that way as well.

sandinmyshoes
12-24-2009, 12:43 PM
I think comparing schedules is one place where relative matters.

A good schedule is going to be different, from a coach's viewpoint, year to year, team to team. You don't want to damage the psyche of a fragile young team. You don't want a talented, experience team to go unchallenged. Throw into that the fact that there are limitations on how much you can tweak your schedule year to year.

On the other hand, when comparing win-loss records you have to, imo, give more wait to games involving better teams, how much you or they had to travel, the relative hostility of the venue and so forth. Really, you can't make anything like an assured judgement until after the season. Did you catch the other team when it was in an up cycle or when it was struggling more than it later did? Did you or they have an injured player who was available for most of the rest of the season?

So while Sagarin and so forth can give us a simple take based on crunching numbers (and trying to assign statistical value to some subjective issues). But which is the "toughest" schedule is open to a lot of subjective debate, imo.