2019-20 Non-Con

[jfish26]

Certainly, one consequence of the 18-game league schedule (and the SEC game being in January) is that you lose a few November/December nights.

[PhDhawk]

allow guys like Braun and McBride to play through and learn from their mistakes without fear of getting yanked at the first mistake as opposed to playing a bunch of games from the Sun Belt so they can get reps in scrub time.

I think this is the big issue in all of this.

I mean, we really only need someone like McBride to be able to play 5-10 mpg, but we need for him to be able to do it on a consistent basis, pretty much every game. (Sure you might want Dotson to play a 38-40 minute game here or there, but not regularly). I think a guy who is comfortable in a more consistent role, can build his confidence and chemistry and timing better than a guy who plays 15 minutes in one game followed by 3 dnps and a game with 3 min, then 12 minutes, etc.

Give a guy a role, even a limited one, then show him that you trust him in that role, even if he makes a mistake in the first 30 sec.

[Deleted User 266]

'15 WSU is the perfect example of a good mid-major.
2010 - UNI
2011 - Richmond (and VCU, 4th round, but a 12 seed that falls in the same category)
2019 - we were a buzzer beater away from playing NMSU, who we scheduled precisely for this reason. We were a 4 seed, other 4 seeds, like KSU played UC Irvine, FSU played Murray State, and Va Tech played Liberty

We can go all day, with this, I mean, we got Seton Hall in '18 who the committee ranked 29th overall but we could have easily gotten Nevada who the committee ranked 27th overall. I don't know why you'd argue that there isn't a reasonably good chance you'll be paired up with a really good, possibly underseeded mid-major team in the tournament it happens every year. 12 seeds make the S16 just about as often as 5 seeds do.

Of course, you're also likely to play teams from power conferences, but we have at least 25 games against those teams. We only have a couple against ETSU and UNC-greensboro which is a completely different style of team, style of play, etc.

"Just about as often" or not, if I'm not mistaken, 12s are 50-90 against 5s since 1985.

Forgetting that, we can all debate whatever facts we want in terms of what does and doesn't benefit us in terms of who we play during the regular season but at the end of the day I'm convinced it really doesn't mean jack shit once the ball is tipped during the tournament.
You play who you play, you beat who you beat or you lose to who you lose. Mid-major, Major, whatever. The tournament is a whole new season as UMBC proved in 2018 and then Virginia proved in 2019.

Carry on.

It's much more frequent now than it was in the mid-80s.

Since 2001 12 seeds have won 32 games and lost 44. That's better than 42%, so I stand by my just about as often statement. From 1985-2000 only 18 12 seeds beat 5 seeds out of 64 games, so that's about 28% of the time. Maybe expansion to 65 and then 68 is a factor.

Since we're talking about scheduling now, and not 30 years ago, I think the more recent data matters more.

I agree with you 100% that what has happened most recently is more valuable than what has happened in the distant past in terms of trends.

Few worthless thoughts.....
* I'm one of the guys who is completely against expanding the tournament. Just the right amount of games for me.
* Play in games are not my thing. Doesn't need to be a thing. Shouldn't be a thing.
* Single elimination needs to exist but it really sucks when a team who dominated a great conference has one bad game and then it's over. What if anything can be done about that? Unfortunately - I say nothing. Sure it can be exciting when it happens but is it really good for college basketball in the long run? Hey - Maybe it is. I just don't think so. Maybe being a KU fan has a bearing on my feelings.
* Don't love conference tournaments. Sure they are nice for Cinderellas but then why play 30 or so other games that ultimately matter a lot less than a few games come March?
* Teams that are below .500 in a power conference might be a lot better than some who are .800 in a "mid-major" but we don't know that for sure. So in essence do some teams get rewarded for a loss more than others do for a win?
I'll stop there.

[PhDhawk]

* I'm one of the guys who is completely against expanding the tournament. Just the right amount of games for me.

I agree with this, the first 4 days of the tournament are the greatest thing in all of sports. I love having 4 sets of 4 games for two days and then 4 sets of 2 games the next day. They've even gotten close to getting the timing of the games almost right too.

* Play in games are not my thing. Doesn't need to be a thing. Shouldn't be a thing.

I mostly agree. If you make it into the tourney, you should be in the tourney, and no one counts the play-in games as part of the tourney. This is definitely true for a team who wins an automatic bid. If you want to keep them for the last teams to win at-large bids, that's fine...but then we can consider them true play-in games.

* Single elimination needs to exist but it really sucks when a team who dominated a great conference has one bad game and then it's over. What if anything can be done about that? Unfortunately - I say nothing. Sure it can be exciting when it happens but is it really good for college basketball in the long run? Hey - Maybe it is. I just don't think so. Maybe being a KU fan has a bearing on my feelings.

I like single elimination. It's more exciting. The NBA has a better way to crown a champion, but the only thing making this years finals exciting, rather than just a formality, is injuries to the team that would otherwise win the finals in 5. A few Cinderellas are great, but from the E8 on I want there to be at least 7 or so really good teams fighting for the title, doesn't need to be all chalk, but 4 seeds or better and keeping most of the 'great' teams.

* Don't love conference tournaments. Sure they are nice for Cinderellas but then why play 30 or so other games that ultimately matter a lot less than a few games come March?

Agree with this. Even more so for single bid conferences...you should reward your best team. Multi-bid conferences shouldn't have them either because all you're doing is potentially rewarding a bad team.

* Teams that are below .500 in a power conference might be a lot better than some who are .800 in a "mid-major" but we don't know that for sure. So in essence do some teams get rewarded for a loss more than others do for a win?

In general I want the best teams. But, yeah, if you were 7-9 in conference and finished 7th or something, why do you deserve a shot at the national title. Go ahead and give that spot to the second team in the Mountain West, or whatever.

I'll stop there.

[twocoach]

It just depends on who they beat in that 7-9 conference record. If you beat a few top 4 seeds and didnt lose to a bunch of scrubs then I have no problem with them in the tourney.

[NDballer13]

allow guys like Braun and McBride to play through and learn from their mistakes without fear of getting yanked at the first mistake as opposed to playing a bunch of games from the Sun Belt so they can get reps in scrub time.

I think this is the big issue in all of this.

I mean, we really only need someone like McBride to be able to play 5-10 mpg, but we need for him to be able to do it on a consistent basis, pretty much every game. (Sure you might want Dotson to play a 38-40 minute game here or there, but not regularly). I think a guy who is comfortable in a more consistent role, can build his confidence and chemistry and timing better than a guy who plays 15 minutes in one game followed by 3 dnps and a game with 3 min, then 12 minutes, etc.

Give a guy a role, even a limited one, then show him that you trust him in that role, even if he makes a mistake in the first 30 sec.

Couldn't agree more.

[PhDhawk]

It just depends on who they beat in that 7-9 conference record. If you beat a few top 4 seeds and didnt lose to a bunch of scrubs then I have no problem with them in the tourney.

If you beat a few top 4 seeds and didn't loose to any bad teams, you won't be 7-9.

[twocoach]

It just depends on who they beat in that 7-9 conference record. If you beat a few top 4 seeds and didnt lose to a bunch of scrubs then I have no problem with them in the tourney.

If you beat a few top 4 seeds and didn't loose to any bad teams, you won't be 7-9.

Iowa State beat Kansas, Texas Tech and Kansas State and finished 9-9 in the Big 12. They did lose one bad one at West Virginia.

[PhDhawk]

It just depends on who they beat in that 7-9 conference record. If you beat a few top 4 seeds and didnt lose to a bunch of scrubs then I have no problem with them in the tourney.

If you beat a few top 4 seeds and didn't loose to any bad teams, you won't be 7-9.

Iowa State beat Kansas, Texas Tech and Kansas State and finished 9-9 in the Big 12. They did lose one bad one at West Virginia.

Exactly.

To get 2 games below .500 in an 18 game cinference without loosing to the bottom 2 teams in a conference, and to have beaten the top 3, you'd have to go 1-7 against the 4th to 8th ranked teams in the conference. If you go 3-3 against the top three, you're unlikely to go 1-7 against 4 teams below them and if you did, a team that can only win 1 outta 8 against mid level teams doesn't really deserve a bid anyway.

[twocoach]

That's exclusive to the Big 12 due to our 10 team full round Robin schedule. You're more likely to see it out of the ACC or some other huge conference. It would be hard to do but not impossible. Not worth arguing. I dont really care.

I want to see teams in the tourney who have shown they can be competitive and beat tourney caliber teams. Could the mid majors provide that? Sure. There's no 100% rule I would apply in all cases. Each decision is unique so my "it depends on who they beat" statement stands for me.

[TDub]

Bottom line is if your a sub 500 team (overall or even just in conference) you dont deserve a shot at the title. You've proved already that you're far from one of the beat teams.

[twocoach]

Bottom line is if your a sub 500 team (overall or even just in conference) you dont deserve a shot at the title. You've proved already that you're far from one of the beat teams.

Meh, sub 500 as an automatic disqualifier is lazy. It just depends on what that record includes compared to the other teams being considered. Every case is different.

[twocoach]

What if the other team in the running for that spot has a fat record vs. their crappy conference but only played 2 tough non con games and lost them both by 20? No thanks.

[PortlandHawk]

So... who is ready to pound some Dukie ass in a few months? I have a feeling it could be a blood bath.

Hurt, Stanley, Jones, etc better be ready to have some big ol’ nuts hanging on their foreheads.

[zsn]

All Hail the Woof Gods! Starting early, I see

https://wilson.engr.wisc.edu/rsfc/Woof.html

[Deleted User 104]

I think we won't lose more than 3 games this next season (before the tournament).

[pdub]

That's pretty lofty.
I'd set the over/under at 4.5.

[PhDhawk]

That's a pretty bad schedule, until you start filling in some Q1 and Q2 Maui teams. Really hope we don't end up on the Chaminade side of the bracket.

KU to face host school Chaminade in Round 1 of the Maui Invitational in November
http://www2.kusports.com/news/2019/jul/ ... i-invitat/

[pdub]

Chaminade.
BYU UCLA.

[PhDhawk]

Yeah, for those counting on Maui to increase our SOS, we better hope to play MSU in the title game.