Quote:
Originally Posted by justinhub2003
Good scheduling is all about increasing opportunity.
Last year we had just 6 chances at top 50 Kenpom wins
This year we could have :
WSU x 2
UCF X 2
Ucla
Florida
Xavier
Smu x 2
That's 9 just using the teams we know will be good.
Houston, temple, uconn and miss state could all be top 50 or top 100 at worse.
Basically at minimum adding 50% more chances at top 50 wins. And even more if other teams improve
|
That is a solid slate which should give us a chance to get some signature wins as well as solid top 50 wins. Hopefully 1 or 2 more teams in the AAC pull their weight and we get WSU twice.
I like the idea of the committee looking at more metrics based ranking systems. The arbitrary cut offs of top 25, 50, and 100 wins doesn't tell the whole story. If you have played and beaten team in the low 50's a couple times would be an obvious example. Our wins over Houston couldn't have been much worse than a win over a team in the high 40's. Another if, for instance, the teams around 50 is higher quality or lower quality year over year.
Weighting actual rankings and win margins should be used. This way a win over a team ranked 49 is treated roughly the same as a win over a team ranked 51. In the grand scheme the team ranked 51 could actually be a better team than the one ranked 49...it could be a simple difference of a single last second full court shot made against them...in other words "luck" can play a bigger part in whether you are ranked either high 40's or low 50's.
Arbitrary cutoffs are dumb IMO.