G
georgethedog
Guest
Bradley was left out because they just were not very good...
-
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.
Strength of Schedules - Year by Year Comparison
- Thread starter tornado
- Start date
Bradley was left out because they just were not very good...
G
georgethedog
Guest
And ISU was better then BU last year and went to the NIT AND the finals of the MVC.
BU had a tougher sked and another mediocre year.
So I ask, does scheduling make ALL that much difference?
I suppose a stronger schedule for ISU (you know about 8 points higher) would have given them more at large consideration but the bottom line is, WHATEVER the sked, you gotta win and the rest takes care of itself.
PM me if you want to here more....
100% agreed. Especially the part about "another mediocre year". If BU has another mediocre year this year, here is a small list of excuses we will read on this board:
-Wilkins could not enroll
-AW's foot just wasn't right and he has been out a long time
-WE's knee didn't fully heal and he is still young
-Sticks just needs a few more pounds
-Our Freshman just are just not ready (even though other team's seem to have ready freshman--Butler, etc....)
- Blah, blah, blah...
The heck with the non-conference schedule. A harder one would probably just mean more losses. Let's WIN some games and WIN the conference for once during the Les era. 4th place and below is starting to get rather old after all these years. BU has nothing to boast about (except the aberration of the Sweet 16 year). BU needs to start winning and consistently. My patience is wearing thin... (Just thought I would mention that in case you couldn't tell).
I may be the only one on the board that feels this way, but I don't think so.
And BU, with a stronger sked, did nothing either. I guess I'm a more "results" oriented guy. We have a tough sked over the years and its gotten us ONE "moment" and that was still with a 4/5th place Valley finish.
Other then that its been mediocre year in and year out with NO valley regular season title and NO Tournament appearance title again save for 06.
So we can brag about our sked all we want and put down ISU but it still comes down to winning. Either Sked as tough as you can and win or go easy (by force or by choice) and win the auto-bid.
Believe me GTD, You are NOT the only one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can agree with both sides of the issues, none of us would be true sports fans if we weren't a little bit bipolar regarding sports.
But I do think this is going to be a good season for Bradley if the excuses being put forward before the season has even started don't happen.
I like the fact that BU schedules 3-4 top teams every non-conference. If we had won those three last season we would have been ranked, at least early on. We've got another chance this season. I like the fact Bradley takes risks with their schedule, ISU doesn't seem to want to do that. And I agree we need to start winning many more MVC games.
But I do think this is going to be a good season for Bradley if the excuses being put forward before the season has even started don't happen.
I like the fact that BU schedules 3-4 top teams every non-conference. If we had won those three last season we would have been ranked, at least early on. We've got another chance this season. I like the fact Bradley takes risks with their schedule, ISU doesn't seem to want to do that. And I agree we need to start winning many more MVC games.
Apparently neither was isu, considering they couldn't beat some of the bottom-feeders in the Valley and lost to the "not very good" Bradley team. In fact, I remember leaving Carver on that January night being extremely unimpressed with isu as a team.
I guess it comes down to every team in the Valley winning those games in St. Louis. Might as well not even put forth the time and effort in scheduling and just do it the isu way? :roll:
I do find it humorous when Bradley's schedule is blamed on the lack of a full-time AD, especially when it sure seems to be much better than isu's schedule. Did I miss something or do they not have a full-time AD as well?
Seems to me people will never be happy with the schedule, be it too many BCS opponents, no BCS opponents, and even having games on Sunday. :roll:
I do find it humorous when Bradley's schedule is blamed on the lack of a full-time AD, especially when it sure seems to be much better than isu's schedule. Did I miss something or do they not have a full-time AD as well?
Seems to me people will never be happy with the schedule, be it too many BCS opponents, no BCS opponents, and even having games on Sunday. :roll:
Exactly my point.
It is ridiculous to try to justify ISU's bad schedule that kept them out of the NCAA by comparing it to Bradley's schedule and saying ISU's was not really too much worse than Bradley's.
tornado
New member
RPI and SOS are not qualitative measures, they are rankings.....and there's a bit of subjectivity to it, since the formula takes into account arbitrary assignments of value to things like road and neutral, which can be misleading since many times, playing in a "neutral place" is playing right in the opponents' back yard.
I have shown solid data that over a five year span, Bradley has played consistently better opposition than not just ISU, but better than anyone else in the Valley except SIU.
People without data, and with embarrassingly impotent scheduling for the past half decade are blowing smoke, and have no argument.
I have shown solid data that over a five year span, Bradley has played consistently better opposition than not just ISU, but better than anyone else in the Valley except SIU.
People without data, and with embarrassingly impotent scheduling for the past half decade are blowing smoke, and have no argument.
TheAsianSensation
New member
Also important to note: We're not talking about which team is better - we're just talking about who schedules tougher and the impact it has on the Valley. Fact is, having SoSs in the 200's hurts the MVC as a whole.
I'd say SIU is king as scheduling tough in the conference, and I'd put Creighton ahead of BU too - if they would've learned to ignore SWAC schools, they would have a higher SoS than us. CU does a good job at building depth with their schedule.
I'd say SIU is king as scheduling tough in the conference, and I'd put Creighton ahead of BU too - if they would've learned to ignore SWAC schools, they would have a higher SoS than us. CU does a good job at building depth with their schedule.
tornado
New member
UNTIL NOW....
but apparently they have subscribed to the Tim Jankovich theory of how to get an NIT bid...
you schedule terribly soft knowing you sacrifice even an astronomical chance of an at large NCAA bid,
to try to win 20+ games so you will at least get an NIT bid.
Check out SIU's schedule...not ONE single opponent from even one of the better conferences....
(Note the release...usually the SID places the words strong, challenging, or tough somewhere in the release about the schedule...
but the Salukis seem to know better....read it...)
http://siusalukis.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/090409aaa.html
http://siusalukis.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/silu/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/Schedule2
TheAsianSensation
New member
Well, yeah, this year, I'm not sure what the heck made them decide to stray from the norm. I'll reserve long-term judgement for a couple of years; they've earned my benefit of doubt for a year given their past few years.
Ok..you wanna speak negligible....
Last year, ISU won 24 games...they're touting it as one of the best year's ever in their history..
--but Bradley won 21...so that's just a 3 game difference when BU played Florida, Michigan State, Butler (we coulda gone out and gotten Grambling & Winston Salem)
..conclusion - NEGLIGIBLE DIFFERENCE
The year before, ISU won 25 games....called by some as their best year ever in 100 years!!
But Bradley won 21...so again....NEGLIGIBLE DIFFERENCE (GIVEN D-II's on ISU's schedule)
In the Osiris Eldridge era....three years...ISU has won 64 games, while Bradley has won.....64 games. That's right, completely negligible...so that even during an era when ISU has had unprecedented back to back 25 and 24 win seasons, their performance doesn't really differ from BU's except negligibly.
ISU's average RPI in the Osiris Eldridge era (3 years)....
ISU = 74
BU = 80
...again........how much more negligible can you get??
Not sure what this all has to do with MVC SOS's. :roll:
But on a positive note, you sure took the whole NEGLIGIBLE thing and ran with it.
I am just looking at the data you supplied.
Last year's nonconference SOS #'s
BU #201
ISU # 210
My Illinois State math tells me they are only seperated by 9 spots.
I wasn't justifying anything.
Maybe you or someone else on this board can explain to me how ISU played such a poor schedule last season while Bradley played such on outstanding schedule, but when comparing SOS #'s, Bradley has ISU beaten by a mere 9 spots. :?:
According to your #'s posted in post #1 of this thread ISU had the 5th toughest non-conference schedule. Bradley had the 4th.
Do your SOS #'s lie? And if they do, isn't it sort of silly to average them over a 5 year period, if they are inaccurate for the 2008-2009 season?
TheAsianSensation
New member
I don't think you can call Bradley's non-con last year "outstanding", and I realize the numbers say there's a 9 spot difference. I'm a numbers fan, but the eye test is just too overwhelmingly in Bradley's favor to make me say the schedules were almost even.
I understand how the RPI numbers can be influenced to inaccurately represent information. The #1 way that happens is scheduling conference champions of terrible conferences. The simple reason ISU got within 9 spots of Bradley was because 4 of their opponents turned into conference champs.
I'm not trying to jump the whole "Bradley >>>>>>> ISU" bandwagon or trying to take the side of BU just for taking the side of BU....but the numbers do paint a false picture.
It's not the overwhelming difference everyone wants to make it out to be, but Bradley had the superior schedule last year, more superior than the 9 spot difference indicates.
I understand how the RPI numbers can be influenced to inaccurately represent information. The #1 way that happens is scheduling conference champions of terrible conferences. The simple reason ISU got within 9 spots of Bradley was because 4 of their opponents turned into conference champs.
I'm not trying to jump the whole "Bradley >>>>>>> ISU" bandwagon or trying to take the side of BU just for taking the side of BU....but the numbers do paint a false picture.
It's not the overwhelming difference everyone wants to make it out to be, but Bradley had the superior schedule last year, more superior than the 9 spot difference indicates.
So are you saying ISU's nonconference schedule was good, or that you were happy with it?
Hello all! Enough of my ???summer vacation??? away from this board. It??™s coming up towards that time of the year where the college basketball ???hot stove??? talk really heats up, with the first topic of interest of course are the Valley schedules.
I have been reading the posts regarding Valley scheduling this year, and all I can say about ISU??™s is PATHETIC! I understand they are going for the easy NIT bid again, but come on! With some of the teams on their schedule, they may not even get an NIT home game even if they finish first in the Valley and fall short in the Valley tournament. However, their game against Niagara, a strong NCAA contender out of the MAAC, and their game at Utah might soften the blow a bit. But they have to realize that this type of soft schedule pulls down the rest of the Valley's SOS.
Now Bradley's and Creighton's schedules are great, but there is not one other team's schedule that screams at-large NCAA bid (I understand why SIU has scheduled down this year, but there schedule hurts the conference as well). And as some have stated, the strength of schedule may be a bit overrated, especially if a team fails to win enough games to even be considered for a major postseason tournament.
It looks like there is two schools of thought here. Schedule up and put yourself in a great position for an at-large bid IF you can take care of business, or schedule down but at least guarantee a spot in the NIT if you finish strong in conference play. With the way the NCAA Tournament committee has stiffed the Valley in recent years, maybe that's not the worst way to go with the NIT being a more prestigious tourney these days. And of course if every team in the Valley schedules soft and all finish with 8 or 9 non-conference wins, the argument made here is that there will be plenty of "quality" wins in-conference, just as the BCS conferences can claim, and just as had occurred during the 2005-06 season. But in reality, I think the Valley will have just enough good teams to produce one or two NCAA tourney births, two or three NIT births, and two or three births into the newer postseason tournaments, exactly where the "powers" in the NCAA want us.
Which brings me to the big question I have, and I apologize if this has already been discussed recently. But my question is just why EXACTLY did Doug Elgin get rid of the top 150 SOS requirement that worked wonders for our conference three to five years ago? I think it's time to bring this back, even if it drops our overall win-loss record in the short term. I think no matter what excuses the NCAA committee throws our way each year, the more shots Valley teams have to schedule up, the better it is for the conference as a whole. I'm just wondering why he got rid of this requirement in the first place.
I have been reading the posts regarding Valley scheduling this year, and all I can say about ISU??™s is PATHETIC! I understand they are going for the easy NIT bid again, but come on! With some of the teams on their schedule, they may not even get an NIT home game even if they finish first in the Valley and fall short in the Valley tournament. However, their game against Niagara, a strong NCAA contender out of the MAAC, and their game at Utah might soften the blow a bit. But they have to realize that this type of soft schedule pulls down the rest of the Valley's SOS.
Now Bradley's and Creighton's schedules are great, but there is not one other team's schedule that screams at-large NCAA bid (I understand why SIU has scheduled down this year, but there schedule hurts the conference as well). And as some have stated, the strength of schedule may be a bit overrated, especially if a team fails to win enough games to even be considered for a major postseason tournament.
It looks like there is two schools of thought here. Schedule up and put yourself in a great position for an at-large bid IF you can take care of business, or schedule down but at least guarantee a spot in the NIT if you finish strong in conference play. With the way the NCAA Tournament committee has stiffed the Valley in recent years, maybe that's not the worst way to go with the NIT being a more prestigious tourney these days. And of course if every team in the Valley schedules soft and all finish with 8 or 9 non-conference wins, the argument made here is that there will be plenty of "quality" wins in-conference, just as the BCS conferences can claim, and just as had occurred during the 2005-06 season. But in reality, I think the Valley will have just enough good teams to produce one or two NCAA tourney births, two or three NIT births, and two or three births into the newer postseason tournaments, exactly where the "powers" in the NCAA want us.
Which brings me to the big question I have, and I apologize if this has already been discussed recently. But my question is just why EXACTLY did Doug Elgin get rid of the top 150 SOS requirement that worked wonders for our conference three to five years ago? I think it's time to bring this back, even if it drops our overall win-loss record in the short term. I think no matter what excuses the NCAA committee throws our way each year, the more shots Valley teams have to schedule up, the better it is for the conference as a whole. I'm just wondering why he got rid of this requirement in the first place.
TheAsianSensation
New member
Ok, let's be clear about one thing. ISU didn't get to directly schedule Niagara or Utah. However, those are much, much more than "building blocks" for the RPI. Those are major coups to build a schedule around. Of course, they chose to surround it with less than stellar games.