Strength of Schedules - Year by Year Comparison

[tornado]

I'd say SIU is king as scheduling tough in the conference ....

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]

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.

[cpacmel]

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.

But on a positive note, you sure took the whole NEGLIGIBLE thing and ran with it.

[cpacmel]

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.

If this is your best attempt to justify ISU's non-conference schedule last year, you have failed miserably. Bradley was not the team that was left out of the NCAA tournament because of their nonconference schedule, ISU was. That makes 2 years in a row that ISU's at-large chances have been eliminated solely because of their embarrassingly weak schedule, and this year will be the 3rd year in a row.

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.

[cpacmel]

Honestly....all Valley teams need to work as hard as they can to upgrade schedules, as I can assure you Bradley has been doing...because it helps the entire league!
But for some odd reason, I DO NOT get the same feeling about the folks at ISU, and certainly the other people posting on RBF don't think so either.
This is the 3rd year win a row with teams so bad you'd have been hard pressed to land so many 300+ RPI teams so it must be by intent and design.
So while all other Valley teams are working hard to get better scheduling, ISU appears to be working hard in the exact opposite direction to get patsies on their home and even road non-conference schedules.

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]

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.

[tornado]

as I said...ISU fans be prepared for the onslaught of national writers taking you to task for such terrible scheduling.
You only got a little taste of it last year, but you'll get a bunch more this year.

[Da Coach]

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?

So are you saying ISU's nonconference schedule was good, or that you were happy with it?

[Bravesfan]

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.

[TheAsianSensation]

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.

[Bravesfan]

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.

I agree. Thank god for the Bracketbuster and the new Valley/Mountain West tournament, which helps every one in the Valley. Yes, the Bracketbuster is only meaningful for the top 3 or so teams in the conference, but if ISU takes care of business in the league, they get three decent opponents each year. Like you said though, they got lazy in regards to the rest of their OCC schedule, which helps no one!

[AZ BU Fan]

GTD was spot on...BU needs to win games and move up in the MVC...Admittedly, JL has had some bad luck (Granger fiasco, POB leaving early, Wilkens eligibility, injury after injury), and JL has been cut a lot of slack with the so so performance of all but one of his teams . I give JL this year or next to win Conference, or MVC Tournament (or get an NCAA/NIT bid). With the new players he has recruited, and others potentially arriving next year, it is time for JL to get the BU Program where he said he would take them. No more excuses!

IMO, winning would also open up more opportunity for scheduling better non con.

[Da Coach]

......
IMO, winning would also open up more opportunity for scheduling better non con.

Not necessarily true. The most consistent winning program in the MVC, Creighton, has just as much trouble scheduling good teams as Bradley does. The Omaha World-Herald called their non-conference schedule "disappointing". Their home schedule consists of exhibitions against Missouri Western and Nebraska-Omaha, and games against Florida A&M, Arkansas Little-Rock, Nebraska, Savannah State, and Houston Baptist. That is quite a "who's who" of bad teams for the home fans!-

Part of men's schedule proves disappointing

http://www.omaha.com/article/20090904/SPORTS02/709049893

In fact, you could make a better argument that it is exactly the opposite. Losing more games might help scheduling.
How else do you explain a school like Evansville, that has been a perennial bottom feeder in the MVC was able to get North Carolina to play them in Evansville? Its because UNC knows it's a road game they will win.

[tornado]

why EXACTLY did Doug Elgin get rid of the top 150 SOS requirement ....

he said in an interview that he is no longer holding teams to this because they had all voluntarily done what needed to be done.
Note that in two consecutive seasons (2005-2006 and 2006-2007) all the Valley teams were in the Top 100 SOS's.
(BU was Top 50 both years while ISU was one of the worst or the worst in the Valley each of those seasons).

http://realtimerpi.com/2005-2006/rpi_mvc_Men.html

http://realtimerpi.com/2006-2007/rpi_mvc_Men.html

but since then....the numbers have fallen off...so Elgin needs to get back on his high horse!

Not necessarily true. .

absolutely NOT true...the stronger the team is within the Valley the more scared the better teams are to face them.
But Evansville got a home and home against North Carolina because UNC does not fear taking a loss there!
Do you think UNC would have come here or gone to SIU or Creighton? NEVER!! The winning programs thus get hurt by being good!

[TheAsianSensation]

I think the UNC/Evansville series also has something to do with a certain UNC player looking to play a game near home. Zellar I think.