• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

Schedule Hard

squirrel said:
Actually we did. After it became clear we would not be in a feature game, JL requested Milwaukee specifically for the W and the return game.
Click to expand...

So once we realized we were not in a marquee matchup, we had our pick of the litter for who we wanted to play? Who else could we have chosen?
 
squirrel said:
Actually we did. After it became clear we would not be in a feature game, JL requested Milwaukee specifically for the W and the return game.
Click to expand...

I know you were in favor of Niagara. And maybe their 19-10 record mighta been better for our RPI than UWM's 13-16 record.

But how do the rest of Metro Atlantic records (and rpi's) help us?
 
MacabreMob said:
I know you were in favor of Niagara. And maybe their 19-10 record mighta been better for our RPI than UWM's 13-16 record.

But how do the rest of Metro Atlantic records (and rpi's) help us?
Click to expand...

Simple. Directly better opponent (.5 to the RPI calculation) and different connectors, and opponents opponents wins aren't working against you the same way they do with the other HL games. In other words, Butlers wins came at the expense of UIC, Wright, Milwaukee, and Loyola. The same way that all of their wins also worked against each other.

With Niagara, BU indirectly gets credit for Siena, Marist, and Rider's wins with little interference.

That trumps the bad rpi's from the MAAC because your raw calculation will be greater.
 
BU_EMT128 said:
So once we realized we were not in a marquee matchup, we had our pick of the litter for who we wanted to play? Who else could we have chosen?
Click to expand...

Yes. The scheduling is done via a web meeting scheduling service with conference commissioner's and AD's with schools able to request preferences.
 
squirrel said:
Actually we did. After it became clear we would not be in a feature game, JL requested Milwaukee specifically for the W and the return game.
Click to expand...

I know you may disagree Squirrel, but knowing that we had to win the MVC Tournament to dance (therefore the RPI boost is insignificant), and knowing that we were just getting our team back together (Ruff had recently come back and AW wasn't hurt yet), an easier opponent at home with a close (and likely winnable) return game next year makes sense. I can't fault the logic on that selection.
 
squirrel said:
Simple. Directly better opponent (.5 to the RPI calculation) and different connectors, and opponents opponents wins aren't working against you the same way they do with the other HL games. In other words, Butlers wins came at the expense of UIC, Wright, Milwaukee, and Loyola. The same way that all of their wins also worked against each other.

With Niagara, BU indirectly gets credit for Siena, Marist, and Rider's wins with little interference.

That trumps the bad rpi's from the MAAC because your raw calculation will be greater.
Click to expand...

I understand all that and I think you have a good point.

But, Feb 4th - BracketBuster Announcements

UWM
RPI 125
Record 11-10
Finished 2-6

Niagara
RPI 136
Record 13-7
Finished 6-3

I just think you have a love fest for Metro Atlantic. ;)
 
BradleyBrave said:
I know you may disagree Squirrel, but knowing that we had to win the MVC Tournament to dance (therefore the RPI boost is insignificant), and knowing that we were just getting our team back together (Ruff had recently come back and AW wasn't hurt yet), an easier opponent at home with a close (and likely winnable) return game next year makes sense. I can't fault the logic on that selection.
Click to expand...

If we weren't already playing multiple games from the same league next year, I would agree.
 
MacabreMob said:
I understand all that and I think you have a good point.


I just think you have a love fest for Metro Atlantic. ;)
Click to expand...

Every team with the exception of Loyola remaining on Milwaukee's sked beyond Feb. 4 had a winning record. So even though at the time they had a winning record, I wasn't blinded by that fact.

Niagara had the one bad loss in the week leading up to the pairings, but still had a decent shot to approach a 20-win season. I will submit however that they did have a disappointing finish to their season overall.

I just may happen to have a love fest for the MAAC.
 
squirrel said:
If we weren't already playing multiple games from the same league next year, I would agree.
Click to expand...

That's a good point as well, and I still have big issues with us scheduling UIC when we already have Loyola and Butler on the schedule. Fortunately this coming year, 3 of our 4 games in our Horizon League schedule are at Carver. Hopefully after next year we can trim down to only 1 or 2.
 
Basic schedule:

2 Horizon (hone-n-home)
2 MAC (home-n-home)
1 B10 (could be road "buy" game only)
1 A10 (prefer home-n-home)
1 Summitt (no return road game)
1 other low-major w/out return game like OVC
1 holiday tourney
18 Conf games
1 Conf Trny
1 BracketBuster
 
I have heard rumblings that we may drop back down to a 28-29 game schedule next year if we cannot find an exempt tournament to our liking.
 
ph said:
SIU's scheduling before this year was all about scheduling (as much as you can predict) other D1 Conference champs. RPI wise, you want to schedule games vs teams that win a bunch of games. Conference champions from even low majors win bunches of games, thus SIU regularly had top 10/20 RPI's. In other words, you do not need to schedule other big schools to have a very, very good RPI.

Now when you're like BU and play half of another mid-major, it will not do much for your RPI.
Click to expand...

So basically next year scheduling any of these teams may help us

  • Siena
  • Niagara
  • Rider
  • Western Kentucky
  • South Alabama
  • Oral Roberts
  • IUPUI
  • Xavier
  • Portland State
  • Belmont
  • Winthrop
  • Kent State
  • UNC-Asheville
  • Akron
  • Cal State Northridge
  • Morgan State
  • BYU
  • UNLV
  • Appalachian State
  • Davidson
  • Robert Morris
  • Stephen F. Austin
  • Austin Peay
  • Alabama State
  • Utah State
  • Boise State
  • Cleveland State
  • Wright State


My only problem here is that its a real crap shoot looking at teams from low majors and figuring out if they're going to catch lightning in a bottle twice...the only sure bet is if they have most or all of their starters returning...and even then you can't really predict success
 
MacabreMob said:
Basic schedule:

2 Horizon (hone-n-home)
2 MAC (home-n-home)
1 B10 (could be road "buy" game only)
1 A10 (prefer home-n-home)
1 Summitt (no return road game)
1 other low-major w/out return game like OVC
1 holiday tourney
18 Conf games
1 Conf Trny
1 BracketBuster
Click to expand...

Using your template w/o the holiday tourney I would setup a schedule like this:


Season opener v Oral Roberts 11/8

v Butler 11/12

@ Iowa State 11/19

v George Mason 11/22

@ Michigan State 11/29

@ Wisconsin Milwaukee 12/2

v Akron 12/6

v Siena 12/9

@ Dayton 12/20

v Utah State 12/27

+ @ BracketBuster


This is provided we don't have any other return games I forgot about
 
SaintLouBrave22 said:
So basically next year scheduling any of these teams may help us

  • Siena
  • Niagara
  • Rider
  • Western Kentucky
  • South Alabama
  • Oral Roberts
  • IUPUI
  • Xavier
  • Portland State
  • Belmont
  • Winthrop
  • Kent State
  • UNC-Asheville
  • Akron
  • Cal State Northridge
  • Morgan State
  • BYU
  • UNLV
  • Appalachian State
  • Davidson
  • Robert Morris
  • Stephen F. Austin
  • Austin Peay
  • Alabama State
  • Utah State
  • Boise State
  • Cleveland State
  • Wright State


My only problem here is that its a real crap shoot looking at teams from low majors and figuring out if they're going to catch lightning in a bottle twice...the only sure bet is if they have most or all of their starters returning...and even then you can't really predict success
Click to expand...

You're right. . .it's not quite that simple to pick out conference champs...most coaches do have a good idea of who the good teams are and will be. The key is to play GOOD TEAMS FROM GOOD LEAGUES.

In other words, simply playing the MEAC or OVC champ still may not be much help if that's exclusively who you schedule. A 17 or 18 win A10 team may still be preferable than a 23-win team from a league where no one else even reaches .500.

You know leagues like the CAA, Southern, Southland, MAC, MAAC, WCC, and Sun Belt will likely have a few solid clubs with winning records. Naturally, those teams will likely be in contention for conference championships. Those are the key teams you need to look at.

An interesting case this year could be made against the WAC. The league's three bottom teams were among the worst in the nation this year. But the league's top 4 teams were all very solid.

An occasional team like Austin Peay on a schedule is ok. . .but if you play Austin Peay, Morgan State, and Alabama State, your SOS will still not be very good and you're RPI won't necessarily reflect the fact the individual teams are good.

This is where the BCS teams get into trouble and mid-majors hit a wall. The BCS teams generally won't play away from home, and generally speaking only the MEACs, SWACs and the likes will take the straight buy games. So they limit themselves.

The mid-majors can make a good offer to the BCS-type programs, but few of them bite.
 
JL requested Milwaukee specifically...
Click to expand...

have you some proof, as I suspect you don't have anything credible,
and nobody from the BU athletic dept is likely to substantiate this claim.

This is the first I have ever heard that ESPN or the NCAA would allow coaches to ask for what they want and grant it.
In fact, if this is even remotely true, then why would BU get firstsies?
It's not like we have a track record of getting big favors from NCAA.
 
tornado said:
have you some proof, as I suspect you don't have anything credible and nobody from the BU athletic dept is likely to substantiate this claim.
Click to expand...

Squirrel may have some 'squirrely' ;) ideas, but he has never been one to make things up. I don't think it's a good idea to discredit a respected poster like that. It's essentially calling him a liar.
 
Why not wait and see...........or am I the only one who is asked to give proof around here?
(which of course I generally do!! )
 
tornado said:
have you some proof, as I suspect you don't have anything credible,
and nobody from the BU athletic dept is likely to substantiate this claim.

This is the first I have ever heard that ESPN or the NCAA would allow coaches to ask for what they want and grant it.
In fact, if this is even remotely true, then why would BU get firstsies?
It's not like we have a track record of getting big favors from NCAA.
Click to expand...


Kyle Whelliston made the process public during his Bracket Buster marathon chat, and also pointed out specific examples of pre-arranged matchups.
 
tornado said:
Why not wait and see...........or am I the only one who is asked to give proof around here?
(which of course I generally do!! )
Click to expand...

People make statements on this board all the time without posting a link. I haven't seen anyone have to substantiate a claim that they talked to a player at lunch or talked to a player's parent after the game. Why does a respected poster have to substantiate a claim for this? Squirrel isn't claiming anything malicious, scandalous, or detrimental to anyone's character. Quite frankly, I find what he says very interesting and I agree with Jim's decision to choose UW-M 100%. Wouldn't questioning Squirrel's claim essentially be taking some credit away from our coach, something that's usually frowned upon on this board?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top