Future Schedules

[jayball]

Is the reflex to complain automatically about everything? Who care what particular buy games we have? The question is how many.

[Wizard of Westroads]

Is the reflex to complain automatically about everything? Who care what particular buy games we have? The question is how many.

No kidding.
(1) This year's crappy schedule didn't look that crappy at this time last year. I went back and read the comments, and people had some complaints, but nobody was saying the schedule was going to kill us. We had Indiana, Oklahoma, Ariz St and Nebraska on it, plus the Vegas tourney. A lot of the opponents had really crappy years. Plus, is it necessary to point out that even with the crappy schedule, we still lost 4 games in non-con? (2) Ras and any number of other sources have pointed out that our RPI didn't keep us out of the tournament. We're sitting right now in the 40-50 range in the analytics. We were good this year, but not good enough, because we lost too many close games.

Yeah, the home schedule isn't looking like much right now with ASU and NU on the road and no Gavitt game, and I'd like to get some more value out of my tickets. But next year's schedule isn't going to be the deciding factor in whether we make the tournament.

[vivid_dude]

Is the reflex to complain automatically about everything? Who care what particular buy games we have? The question is how many.

^This.

People act like we would have been dancing if we had scheduled some 150-200 RPI teams, instead of those 300+ RPI teams, everything else being equal. In my opinion, those games had little, or nothing, to do with us being in the NIT. It was our bad losses and our inability to notch a few better wins (especially when a few were there for the taking). Win the Providence home game and the Arizona State and Georgetown choke jobs, and we are in the Final Four right now because of the inevitable run gtmo would have predicted.

Everything else being equal, I don't think the committee would have all of a sudden had a Sophie's Choice level decision if CU had beaten Ball State (157) and Elon (161) instead of Coppin State (327) and North Texas (297).

[Jet915]

Kinda disagree, this year the Pac-12 was smart with their scheduling and rarely played 300+ rpi teams, all their rpis were low and it helped them get 7 teams into the tournament. Sure, they were exposed in the tourney but it helped yhemvget in

[cu8493]

Is the reflex to complain automatically about everything? Who care what particular buy games we have? The question is how many.

Is the reflex to just lump any legitimate criticism into "complaining automatically about everything? I care, because I'd like to see at least somewhat decent games against teams that have actual D1 talent. There are different levels of buy games, and this one is horrible. What's the point? What do you get out of beating a team like this by 40, or winning by just 20 because the guys went into cruise mode half way through the first half? How enjoyable is that game for anyone to go watch, truly? We get a certain number of home games each year, is it too hard to understand that at least some people want to watch at least somewhat competitive games?

[bluejaydano]

Is the reflex to complain automatically about everything? Who care what particular buy games we have? The question is how many.

Is the reflex to just lump any legitimate criticism into "complaining automatically about everything? I care, because I'd like to see at least somewhat decent games against teams that have actual D1 talent. There are different levels of buy games, and this one is horrible. What's the point? What do you get out of beating a team like this by 40, or winning by just 20 because the guys went into cruise mode half way through the first half? How enjoyable is that game for anyone to go watch, truly? We get a certain number of home games each year, is it too hard to understand that at least some people want to watch at least somewhat competitive games?

I sort of agree with his argument. Don't lump me into the "fair weather, only go to socialize Jays fan." I LOVE going to Jays games but find it a lot easier to not go when they play someone like this. It just isn't fun to watch them have the game in hand before the 2nd media timeout. And it tells me nothing about our team to see how easily we can beat teams like this. Everyone looks great, even players like Clement. I get we need a couple of these games for development but when we have 3-4 games like this I just don't get it. There are 200 other teams that would be better to schedule.

[vivid_dude]

Is the reflex to complain automatically about everything? Who care what particular buy games we have? The question is how many.

I care, because I'd like to see at least somewhat decent games against teams that have actual D1 talent. There are different levels of buy games, and this one is horrible. What's the point? What do you get out of beating a team like this by 40, or winning by just 20 because the guys went into cruise mode half way through the first half? How enjoyable is that game for anyone to go watch, truly? We get a certain number of home games each year, is it too hard to understand that at least some people want to watch at least somewhat competitive games?

Here's the problem with this entire position. Believe it or not, I don't think "fan enjoyment" factors much into scheduling, nor should it, especially now that we are in the Big East. If it does, it falls well behind team development, availability, travel, other scheduling, finances, etc. You keep looking at it from the fans' point of view, and I'm fairly certain that's not how Coach Mac or the athletic department determine who is on the schedule.

I'm not saying keep things the same. And I'm fine with wanting to schedule tougher. I just think the degree to which people are valuing the importance of buy-in games is way overstated. A win over Longwood (319) is worth about exactly the same as a win against Elon (162) for the purposes those games serve. It's up to Creighton to not lose to Loyola and not blow games against Arizona State, Providence and G'Town. That's what gets us dancing. Not scheduling Radford (190) over Coppin State (327).

[section202jay]

We just have to schedule smart. A good formula to get into the dance and get a solid seeding is needed. Starting off with Longwood on the schedule, a team with a routinely 300+ RPI, is not a good addition. I don't think anybody is overreacting or complaining unnecessarily. It's a concern. We would seriously benefit more from playing a non-D1 team than Longwood. They'll be an RPI drag.

Surely we did not get into the NCAA Tournament this season because we beat North Texas instead of Ball State. However, beating teams with better RPIs improves your RPI. A better RPI improves your team in the eyes of the committee. It's not rocket science.

[Savannah Jay]

I think our schedule this year had two main issues:
1. Aside from Oklahoma and Indiana, every other team that should have been a resume builder had a worse RPI this year than last...UMass (170, down from 84 last year); Loyola (239, down from 87 the prior year); ASU...90 to 99; Fuskers 154 to 165 (when's the basketball revolution going to happen?); essentially we "lost" three top 100 RPI games because the teams were not as good this year and the Fuskers are perennially disappointing

2. We lost games (ASU and Loyola, in particular) that hurt, given the #1 above

[TrueBlueJay]

Creighton being smart about which "bad" team they schedule is not going to make or break them for the NCAA...it just isn't. The committee looks well beyond the RPI. 300, 250 or 200 makes zero difference. Winning games that mean something matter, and not losing games to bad teams matters.

If you choose to think that playing a 200 team over a 300 team makes a difference, please continue your hand wringing.