Getting a boost from 18-game B10 schedule?

Donate To GopherHole
TheDinkytowner

TheDinkytowner

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
637
Reaction score
0
Points
16
The B10 moved from 16 league games to 18 games in 2007, and I'm wondering how much of a boost this is giving the B10 this year or how much it is hurting leagues like the SEC this year.

Moving to 18 games is like automatically building into your schedule two additional BCS opponents, while the ACC/B12/SEC/MWC/A10/CUSA still only play 16 league games. Doesn't this provide us with an automatic boost, as a 9-9 B10/Pac10/BE team should look better than an 8-8 ACC/B12/SEC team?

B10/Pac10/BE teams should also be able to get away with scheduling slightly weaker noncon opponents, while the ACC/B12/SEC teams need to make up for it.

Also, should Tubby get more slack for his noncon schedule, as he has to play 2 more B10 games that Monson did not have to play?
 

Good points, never really thought of that. I would imagine that would help most Big Ten teams' RPI with the depth of 9 quality teams in conference The fact that the Big Ten teams had played well out-of-conference as a whole boosts each other's RPI even more with the extra two Big Ten games.
 

RW+RW=Our W's said:
Good points, never really thought of that. I would imagine that would help most Big Ten teams' RPI with the depth of 9 quality teams in conference The fact that the Big Ten teams had played well out-of-conference as a whole boosts each other's RPI even more with the extra two Big Ten games.
Click to expand...

RW, this year it probably helps, but the bottom line is whether the move to 18 games helps us or hurts us in the long run.

Why don't I ever hear analysts mention this fact when comparing nonconference schedules? Why doesn't the ACC ever get knocked because they only play 16 conferences game? It seems like people don't talk about it, so I tend to think it may actually hurt us, maybe not in the computers, but to the AP voters, to the Selection Committee and in public opinion. If it hurts us, maybe we should go back to 16? Would love to hear SelectionSunday's thoughts.
 

The Big 10, to me, has got to go to a full 20 game home and home schedule, playing each team twice. But, start the B10 season earlier, and fill in open gaps in the schedule with some very competitive non-Big10 games. It could be done. That way, we have a true BT champion, playing everyone twice, and good fun OOC games....Just my opinion.
 

I think it might actually hurt us. As with mathematical limits there is a diminishing return the furthur down the line you go. In other words the last two games have less of an impact as the first two and so on. The better a conferences RPI is to start the conference season the better it will be in the end.

I think for the argument to make sense you'd have to see our overall (the conferences) improve over the last two games. I doubt it changed at all, or just a little. SS should chime in on this as he watches the RPI more closely than the rest of us.
 


Schnoodler said:
I think it might actually hurt us. As with mathematical limits there is a diminishing return the furthur down the line you go. In other words the last two games have less of an impact as the first two and so on. The better a conferences RPI is to start the conference season the better it will be in the end. I think for the argument to make sense you'd have to see our overall (the conferences) improve over the last two games. I doubt it changed at all, or just a little. SS should chime in on this as he watches the RPI more closely than the rest of us.
Click to expand...


Even if it helps our RPI some, it still might hurt us with the Selection Committee.

For example, imagine if the Gophers went back to 16 Big10 games but added Boston College and Cincinnati to this year's non-conference schedule.....our SOS/RPI would still be in the same ballpark, but suddenly our non-conference schedule looks pretty darn good.
 

I'm the wrong guy to ask on this one. As a season-ticket holder, I'm biased. I loved the move to 18 games, and would welcome it even more if the Big 10 made the move to a full round-robin schedule (ain't gonna' happen because most coaches, save for Bo, prefer cupcakes over getting a true champion).

My reasoning is simple. By moving from 16 to 18 conference games, it guaranteed season-ticket holders 2 more quality games, as opposed to the additional cupcakes the coaches surely would have scheduled. Using 17 years as a season-ticket holder as a guide, for the most part Gopher season-ticket holders (paying among the highest prices in the country) have been robbed blind in November and December, spanning Clem, Dan and, thus far, Tubby's tenures. Be clear. I'm not asking for every home game to be a quality opponent; that's not reasonable. I understand the need for having 2 or 3 gimmes. But the number of cupcakes we play every year is too much to stomach at $30 a pop.
 

That is exactly my point...SS, Snowman, Blizzard, GopherLady,and of course FOT, TT, and FTB would be a lot better at this but I just, in my opinion, think a total double round robin conference schedule would truly show a Big 10 champion. That is how we did it when I was coaching HS BB...Double round scheduling. It was amazing how many of the Conference Champions were decided on the last game of the season.

But, on the other hand, would other Major Conferences do the same?????
 

Dr.Don said:
The Big 10, to me, has got to go to a full 20 game home and home schedule, playing each team twice. But, start the B10 season earlier, and fill in open gaps in the schedule with some very competitive non-Big10 games. It could be done. That way, we have a true BT champion, playing everyone twice, and good fun OOC games....Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Dr, I agree that 20 games would be ideal, but can you imagine what our non-con schedule would look like??? We would play 100% cupcakes, and rightfully so, but is seems like public perception is that you MUST play a tough non-con schedule or you're not worthy.

Take Penn State right now and the crap they're taking for their soft non-con. OK, drop back to 16 B10 games, add 2 BCS non-conference games, and presto, now their non-con schedule looks OK.
 



Dinkytowner,

I think it depends on the year and it depends on who you gain. This year is something of an extreme in terms of the number of Big Ten teams that are in the RPI top 100 as there are nine. I went back through Palm's history back to 1994. In those 16 years, there were only two years that had more top 100 teams in the league (all 11 in '99 and 10 in '94). The average over that span has been about eight.

If you add two teams in the top 100, it helps. If you add teams outside the top 100, it probably doesn't help. If you add a mix, it's probably a wash.

If you look at this season, the Gophers played only two top 100 OOC opponents, that is tied for the least top 100 OOC in the Big Ten with Penn State and Northwestern. Every other school in the league played at least four while Michigan State played six.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Using 17 years as a season-ticket holder as a guide, for the most part Gopher season-ticket holders (paying among the highest prices in the country) have been robbed blind in November and December, spanning Clem, Dan and, thus far, Tubby's tenures. I understand the need for having 2 or 3 gimmes. But the number of cupcakes we play every year is too much to stomach at $30 a pop.
Click to expand...
Not to be smart SS, but there are thousands of people on the waiting list that would gladly pay the season ticket price for quality seats, regardless of the cupcakes on the schedule.
 

Point taken. Gophers' nonconference HOME scheduling has always been my #1 gripe. Truth is of the 3, I think Monson was the most fair to season-ticket holders in comparison to Clem and Tubby (so far). Just a guy that wants more bang for my buck(s), of which I don't have a lot of.
 

anonymous said:
If you add two teams in the top 100, it helps. If you add teams outside the top 100, it probably doesn't help. If you add a mix, it's probably a wash. If you look at this season, the Gophers played only two top 100 OOC opponents, that is tied for the least top 100 OOC in the Big Ten with Penn State and Northwestern. Every other school in the league played at least four while Michigan State played six.
Click to expand...


You're right that it depends on the year, but why use 100 as a cutoff? What if all the teams were in the 90-100 or 100-110 range? Even in a "down" year for the B10, still probably tougher than the average non-con opponent.
 



I threw top 100 out there just because it's easy to scan in the standings to be honest.

But I think when the schedule is being put together and they now have two fewer spots to fill, I think Big Ten teams are largely not scheduling teams from quality OOC leagues. I think they're saying, 'I don't think we should play Providence because we've got more Big Ten games.' I don't think they're saying, 'We've got more Big Ten games so let's scrap that game with Elon.'

So if you don't play a decent OOC opponent (say a bubble-type team or NIT team) and you replace it with a bad Big Ten team, that's a loss.

I guess my take on the deal is that it doesn't matter because coaches aren't replacing creampuff games with Big Ten games, they're replacing average to above average games (but not elite games) with Big Ten games.
 

anonymous said:
But I think when the schedule is being put together and they now have two fewer spots to fill, I think Big Ten teams are largely not scheduling teams from quality OOC leagues. I think they're saying, 'I don't think we should play Providence because we've got more Big Ten games.' I don't think they're saying, 'We've got more Big Ten games so let's scrap that game with Elon.'
Click to expand...

You're probably right!!! (although would want to see data before being sure)

Which goes back to the original question: is it "worth it" to have 18 B10 games, if all the pundits, analysts, and maybe even the Selection Committee penalizes you for having a "soft" OOC schedule, even if your entire schedule as a whole is just as strong as before? If you don't get "credit" for the 2 extra Big 10 games, why play them?
 

I think the fact that 8 teams from the Big Ten are projected in the tourney right now by most "experts" means the extra 2 Big Ten games aren't hurting. The reason teams like Penn State might be in trouble is because they didn't care of business in their non-conference games that weren't tough. Granted the overall depth in the conference is pretty good this year, I don't see it being much different in the near future, especially with Indiana reloading with recruits
 

RW+RW,

That said, the Big Ten played 18 games and the league only got four teams. I don't think one equals another.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom