Big 12 scheduling embarrassment

[YCN]

Through yesterday's games, the Big 12 ranks #8 in conference RPI. The SEC, ACC, Big 10, Pac-10, Atlantic 10, Big East and Mountain West rank 1-7.

The conference has to upgrade its non-conference schedule, or else it will be difficult to improve our standing against other conferences year in and out. Right now the aggregate conference scheduling is about 63-64% against teams ranked outside the top 100 in the RPI.

Not only does weak scheduling limit the upside of the teams in the rankings when they get into conference play, it also limits the ability of the teams to improve from year to year without extensive competition against top teams. As long as teams have really weak schedules (Baylor, OSU and A&M come to mind) it hurts every team in the conference in the long run.

Every team in the conference should strive to play over half their non-conference schedule against top 100 quality competition. Currently only Texas and Texas Tech meet that standard, while KSU, Missouri and OU come close. Baylor, CU, ISU, KU, Nebraska, OSU and A&M all have non-conference schedules that as of this date are against teams outside the RPI top 100 at least 63% of the time.

Below are the ugly facts.

------------------------
Big 12 Conference:
1-25: 12-13
26-50: 13
51-100: 24
101-324: 88-89
------------------------

Team breakdown:
Baylor
1-25: 0
26-50: 1
51-100: 1
101-324: 9

Colorado
1-25: 2
26-50: 0
51-100: 2
101-324: 7

Iowa State
1-25: 1
26-50: 1
51-100: 2
101-324: 7

Kansas
1-25: 0
26-50: 2
51-100: 0
101-324: 9

Kansas State
1-25: 3
26-50: 1
51-100: 3
101-324: 7

Missouri
1-25: 1
26-50: 0
51-100: 4
101-324: 6

Nebraska
1-25: 1-2
26-50: 1
51-100: 1
101-324: 7-8

Oklahoma
1-25: 3
26-50: 2
51-100: 1
101-324: 7

Oklahoma State
1-25: 0
26-50: 0
51-100: 1
101-324: 10

Texas
1-25: 1
26-50: 1
51-100: 5
101-324: 4

Texas A&M
1-25: 0
26-50: 0
51-100: 1
101-324: 10

Texas Tech
1-25: 0
26-50: 4
51-100: 3
101-324: 5

[Go Buffs]

I am really surprised by the RPIs of CU's opponents as Coach Barry usually schedules tough in the preseason. (She may have just gotten tired of going into Big 12 play at 7-4 or 7-5 while most everyone else opens at 10-1 and 11-0).

Home attendance at CU is affected negatively when the competition is weak...not only in women's basketball, but in men's basketball and football as well.

The real season starts when Big 12 play opens. Then we will see how the weak schedules either help or hurt those who scheduled that way.

[Jennifer]

Well, you also have to beat those teams you do schedule to help your RPI as well, and the conference isn't doing as well in that category so far this season.

[Jimi]

I think much of what you have said is valid and a good post. I do have to give you another view of Kansas State's schedule however.

You showed KSU as 1-25=3, 26-50=1, 51-100=3 and 101-324=7.

I cheated and just used the WBCA/Summerville RPI since he breaks it out by class as you did. In his latest rankings (Dec. 9) he shows KSU as 2&1 v. 1-25, 2&0 v. 26-50, 1&0 v. 51-100 and 3&0 v. 101-150. K-State has since played one more game v. a team rated in the top 25 rpi and won, so the record would now be 3&1 v. top 25 rpi teams. The biggest thing though, is that we have not played anyone under 150 rpi and only 3 teams out of 10 under 100. Not 7 teams under 100 rpi.

The difference is significant for anyone looking at KSU stats but does not do major harm to your otherwise good post.

Thanks for your work.
__________________________

Wait a minute. I re-read your post and realize that you are talking about the whole non-con schedule. Not just the games already played. My bad. Please disregard my comment about the games under rpi 101.

[This message has been edited by Jimi (edited 12-14-2002).]

[YCN]

Jimi, I guess the underlying concern about the Big 12's non-conference RPI was how much ground the conference could gain between now and conference play. Once conference play starts there won't be a Big 12 team playing out of conference until after the Big 12 tourney.

I'm afraid that we can't gain much ground because our programs haven't scheduled very many respectable teams, period. I really don't have a complaint with about half of the Big 12 teams, but overall our scheduling is disappointing, to say the least. There are just far too many pattycake games with the occasional better opponent scheduled. When, at the current ratings, the conference as a whole schedules 88 out of 138 games against teams that aren't in the RPI top 100, it smacks of padding the W-L record in order to - what? Make sure your team at least gets to the Women's NIT? I just don't get it.

It is more than the fact that the schedules are generally weak. This conference has arguably been the best in the country for the last 2 years, but we sure won't stay there unless we take that position more seriously. As thing stand right now, we may not finish the season in the top 5 as a conference overall.

Not wanting to play better teams is defensible to some extent, as coaches want easier games so that they can get a better handle on how well different players perform, but unless they can perform under pressure, it really makes little difference in the long run. I admire KSU for scheduling one of the toughest schedules, maybe the toughest, in the conference this year.

I wish a lot of other teams would do the same. KSU is only about 20 months removed from having a miserable season, so it would be understandable if they had chosen to play a soft schedule. I can't imagine what excuse Baylor, ISU and CU would have to do the same.

I certainly understand that the Big 12 conference schedule in itself is a forge of adversity, but if the conference truly wants to aim for the stars, it needs to schedule many more competitive teams in the future. If a team plays 8 teams out of conference with RPI's in the top 50 and goes 4-4 against them, surely that counts better than playing 2 games against the top 50 and going 1-1.

Thanks to everyone for their posts. I hope we can look back on the non-conference schedule at the end of the season and say it really wasn't a factor in whether or not a couple of Big 12 teams got NCAA berths or not.


[This message has been edited by YCN (edited 12-15-2002).]

[DblT81]

You must remember that these nonconference schedules are generally set in July. While some of the 150+ teams are usually obvious, who knew, for example, Rice would have such a down year when they consistently have been a below 100 team the last few years? Also, the RPI is just beginning to sort out with enough games to be an indicator.

[YCN]

DblT81, I did a quick numbers check on the teams that the conference as a whole scheduled that are currently ranked from 101-150 in RPI, and there are only 19 such games.

That means that at least 69 opponents, or 5.75 opponents per team, are currently ranked below 150 in the RPI ratings. That is better than half of all the non-conference games for the entire conference. I'll bet that a pretty high number of those games are either played on neutral courts or at home, as well.

I admire what Tennessee has done. They've played 8 games so far, and among those games was OU, Duke on a neutral court, at Lousiana Tech and at Southern Cal, with two other games against top 100 RPI teams in the mix. In their 5 remaining games before conference play, they have Stanford, at Texas, Notre Dame on a neutral court, at UConn, and at Old Dominion.

No backing down for the Lady Vols! After that schedule, they get to play an SEC schedule, with 13 games against top 100 teams, 9 of those games against the top 50!

[dem]

Originally posted by YCN:
KSU is only about 20 months removed from having a miserable season, so it would be understandable if they had chosen to play a soft schedule. I can't imagine what excuse Baylor, ISU and CU would have to do the same.

...I admire what Tennessee has done . . . No backing down for the Lady Vols!



Baylor, ISU, and CU all lost the absolute hard core of their teams from last season, a total of five WNBA draft picks. They schedule relatively soft (well, Baylor schedules VERY soft) because their teams are nowhere near as strong as last season and they could easily get squashed and demoralized by an overly hard pre-conference slate. (ISU is struggling to keep itself afloat as it is.)

KSU, on the other hand, has one of the five strongest teams in the country and can confidently take on anyone and everyone. And Tennessee is ALWAYS in that position.

Like it or not coaches do not get hired to lose, and no team in a power conference like the Big 12 would ever deliberately risk a losing non-conference season if they could possibly avoid it. They know that if your team is even a little bit down in talent and experience, the losses are sure to pile up when conference play begins.

[Jennifer]

Originally posted by dem:
Baylor, ISU, and CU all lost the absolute hard core of their teams from last season, a total of five WNBA draft picks. They schedule relatively soft (well, Baylor schedules VERY soft) because their teams are nowhere near as strong as last season and they could easily get squashed and demoralized by an overly hard pre-conference slate. (ISU is struggling to keep itself afloat as it is.)

OU lost 3 WNBA draft picks, not to mention Caton, and although they play their share of weak teams, they also have had TN, Uconn, NC, and still have to go to Stanford. Even if they end up going 1-3 vs these teams, I think they'll be all the better for it come March. To be the best, you have to play the best.

[mred]

"1-25: 1
26-50: 1
51-100: 2
101-324: 7"

Are you using 2002-2003 RPI numbers? It's too early in the season to do that if you are. Here's ISU's 02-03 non-conf schedule by 01-02 RPI (using collegerpi.com):

St. Francis (PA) 157
Drake 27
Iowa 40
UNI 146
High Point 222
Colgate 217
Washington 84
Detroit 168
Duke 4
Marquette 100
South Florida 158

1-25 1
26-50 2
51-100 2
101-324 6

That's 5 out of 11 games against top-100 competition. That's pretty close to half.


[This message has been edited by mred (edited 12-15-2002).]

[YCN]

The RPI rankings at CollegeRPI.com are current, and Palm is updating them daily. For instance, Tennessee climbed to #1 today in RPI, and I believe that OU climbed 5 spots to #21 after beating TCU yesterday.

While I agree that the RPI rankings will fluctuate more now than at the end of the season, most teams have played at least 5 games now, and the current rankings should be reasonably accurate. You won't likely be seeing too many teams rising or falling 50 spots after winning or losing two games.

I certainly hope that the Big 12 conference RPI climbs considerably before conference play starts, and I think the Big 12 went 4-1 yesterday, so maybe it will. But when I look at the aggregate remaining opponents for the conference teams, I don't think the upside is going to be very much.

I've listed the aggregate remaining non-conference shedule for the Big 12 below, using today's current RPI rankings. The conference certain could use some wins against the better teams on this list.

001 Tennessee
007 Cincinnati
010 Stanford
013 Southern Cal
017 Duke
019 Penn State
020 Illinois
040 Rutgers
045 Washington
054 Texas A&M-Corpus Christi
058 Arkansas
062 SMU
063 Iowa
063 Iowa
068 Ohio State
071 LSU
081 Houston
088 Saint Louis
097 UCLA
100 Buffalo
105 Western Illinois
107 Southern Miss
135 North Texas
140 SE Missouri State
145 Miami (Fl.)
149 South Florida
151 Michigan State
156 Marquette
160 Georgia State
165 Charlotte
175 Rice
184 Northern Illinois
194 Syracuse
197 Oral Roberts
201 Hampton
208 Texas-San Antonio
220 Central Michigan
225 San Diego
227 Western Michigan
229 Missouri-Kansas City
233 Texas-Arlington
246 Pacific
255 SE Louisiana
260 Indiana/Purdue-Indianapolis
260 Indiana/Purdue-Indianapolis
269 Texas Southern
278 Detroit
297 New Orleans
310 Texas-Pan American
310 Texas-Pan American
318 Mercer

[mred]

Originally posted by YCN:
While I agree that the RPI rankings will fluctuate more now than at the end of the season, most teams have played at least 5 games now, and the current rankings should be reasonably accurate. You won't likely be seeing too many teams rising or falling 50 spots after winning or losing two games.


Yes, but you will see teams move 50 or more spots between now and 5 games from now. I believe the RPI is meaningless until we get near the start of the conference season. By that time, the teams have played around 1/3 of their schedule and a mix of good and bad teams. Five games into the season, fluke games have a huge effect on RPI.

Or do you believe that Massachusetts, Stanford, and Arizona are all better than UConn?

[YCN]

mred, of course not. But I know for a fact that their RPI's are better right now. As teams collect more wins or losses or play better or weaker teams, their RPI's go up or down, and it doesn't matter what anybody thinks, because it is a set formula.

I happen to think that the #1 team in the RPI rankings today, Tennessee, is a better team this year than UConn. Apparently most don't agree, but it is pretty unanimous that people think UConn is better UMass, Stanford or Arizona.

The NCAA tournament selection committee relies pretty significantly on RPI, and not so much purely on wins and losses. That is why a weak conference RPI is a concern to me.

It seems it ought to be a concern to the Big 12 schools that schedule pattycake non-conference opponents for a majority of their non-conference games, too. It doesn't just hurt their development as a team, it hurts the conference as well.

[mred]

mred, of course not. But I know for a fact that their RPI's are better right now. As teams collect more wins or losses or play better or weaker teams, their RPI's go up or down, and it doesn't matter what anybody thinks, because it is a set formula.


Right. I'm just saying that judging anything by RPI this early in the season is not necessarily indicative of a team's actual quality.



It seems it ought to be a concern to the Big 12 schools that schedule pattycake non-conference opponents for a majority of their non-conference games, too. It doesn't just hurt their development as a team, it hurts the conference as well.


I'm not a huge proponent of scheduling a non-conference schedule full of tough teams unless you are a UConn or Tennessee. Some teams take a while to gel and get into the swing of things, and easy opposition is a good way to do that. I do, however, agree that teams should aim for having around half of their non-conf games against top-100 teams, and it would probably be best to have most of those closer to the conference season rather than at the very beginning. However, if you can pull it off at the very beginning, more power to you. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[textom]

Baylor's RPI is #73 and strength of schedule rating is #226. Here are Baylor's pre-conference opponents and their RPIs:

#159 Princeton
#278 Alcorn State
#224 Texas Southern
#244 San Jose State
at #42 Montana State (Baylor's only loss so far)
at #196 Southeast Louisiana
at #89 Arkansas Pine Bluff
#211 Grambling
#316 Texas Pan American
at #76 UCLA
#309 Mercer
#140 North Texas

This will allow Baylor to enter conference play with very few losses, and helps insure a winning season. KMR knows that a winning season will help keep the wolves away from her door. She also knows that this schedule does NOT prepare her team for a January 9th game at Texas Tech. It's a tradeoff.

Is that pre-season schedule embarassingly easy? Sure. But many Big 12 teams use this strategy -- maybe not as blatantly -- since they know they will have a number of losses in Big 12 play. Those easy non-conference wins help them keep their job.

On the other hand, while Baylor was drubbing Alcorn State Tennessee was losing to Duke on national TV. Which game do you suppose helped more with recruiting? Did anyone even know Baylor was playing that day? Do they even know who Alcorn State is? Does anyone think anyone at Tennessee would prefer to have played Alcorn State that day?

Yes, Tennessee plays a ridiclously hard schedule, year in and year out, and they will occasionally lose one while other teams are thumping teams nobody has heard of. But the best want to play the best, win or lose, and that's one of the main reasons Tennessee ends up with a bench full of high school All Americans.

I believe scheduling tough teams, win or lose, helps with recruiting, because it says you are serious about building an elite program. Scheduling Texas Pan American, Mercer, Alcorn State, Texas Southern, etc., says you aren't. Recruits know the difference.

I know I picked on Baylor a lot in this post, but the same remarks apply to many Big 12 teams, as well as most other teams around the country. But if we want the Big 12 to be a consistently top conference, the teams have to schedule tougher opponents in order to attract the best recruits.

JMHO, of course.

[dem]

There are, I think, two objectives in scheduling:

1) develop your team so that they are playing up to their maximum capabilities when it counts the most;

2) maximize your team's RPI (and your conference RPI if at all possible)to improve tournament seeding.

The strategy that works for objective (1) will differ for different teams and different coaches. Kim Mulkey-Robertson proved last season that it is possible to have a 100% soft pre-conference schedule and still end up with the #2 team in the Big 12 during its strongest year ever, and one of the best teams in the country. Tennessee has proved for years that you can schedule a (near-)100% hard non-conference schedule and obtain similar results. For most teams and most coaches, it is a delicate balancing act, playing teams strong enough to make your players better, but not so strong that they keep losing and get demoralized.

For objective #2, it is essential to remember that playing a very strong RPI team may not help your team's RPI unless you WIN -- with the exceptions being teams that will end up with extremely low RPI's in the end. If your RPI will end up being, say, top 50, and you play #15 and lose, you are probably worse off then if you beat #115. On the other hand, if you take on #300, that will hurt your RPI even if you win. So here, too, it's a balancing act.

Last season CU took on a ferocious non-conference schedule and had somewhat disappointing results. This contributed to their having an artificially depressed RPI for the entire season, and endangered their chances at a top-4 seed. Fortunately, things worked out well for them in the end and they made the Elite Eight -- playing up to their potential. But I suspect that Ceal Barry had a lot of nervous moments along the way while they tried to bring up their RPI in the face of a hellacious conference schedule. And she said publicly that she had probably scheduled a bit too hard.

Another potential factor in playing a very strong pre-conference schedule is the potential for burnout. You may schedule tough teams and have good results, and yet find your players get worn out emotionally, if not necessarily physically, before conference play starts. Something similar can happen if your conference schedule has worn you down by the time you reach the post-season tournament. This might be more of a danger for younger and less experienced teams, while senior-dominated teams may have the physical and mental stamina to keep it going right until the end.

Cases in point: Oklahoma: four senior starters, national runner-up; Colorado: four senior starters, Elite Eight.

[ChipperF1]

If we're worrying about RPI's when Santa's still doing reconnaissance flights to update his naughty-or-nice target profiles, SOMETHING'S WRONG!

YCN makes some good points, but is forgetting the most important thing. If you don't handle your business and win games, your RPI really doesn't matter.

Win as many games as you can, and you'll find the RPI takes care of itself.

Oh by the way. Nebraska 65, (25) Cincinnati 55. The Huskers get their first non-Jabroni win of the season.

[mred]

Originally posted by ChipperF1:
Oh by the way. Nebraska 65, (25) Cincinnati 55. The Huskers get their first non-Jabroni win of the season.



I was wondering when someone would mention that score. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[YCN]

Congrats, Chipper! You team has just announced that it intends to be competitive in Big 12 ball this year.

Outstanding win against a very good opponent.

I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I'm not advocating that the entire Big 12 commit scheduling suicide by playing nothing but top teams in non-conference play. I have merely noted that the strong majority of teams in the conference play 4 or fewer teams ranked in the top 100 during non-conference play. I don't think that ratio is conducive to the best results in the long run. A majority of the teams that are played outside the top 100 are absolute cupcakes, and serve as nothing more than glorified scrimmages while fattening won-loss records.

I would like to note that won-loss record is only 25% of the RPI formula, while the ranking of the overall record of your opponents counts half. Scheduling 5 or 6 top 100 clubs rather than 1-4 is not exactly loading up the schedule, and can effect seasonal RPI ranking dramatically.

Besides, the fans might enjoy watching better teams than High Point, Mercer and Texas A&M-Kingsville.

[35TangoTango]

A majority of the teams that are played outside the top 100 are absolute cupcakes, and serve as nothing more than glorified scrimmages ...

How a coach decides best to prepare a team is a year to year thing. Coach Coale defends this year's brutal schedule (ten games played to this point, 8 of them on the road, competitive teams more than cupcakes), but I bet she secretly would like the opportunity to practice defending a 20 point lead 3 or 4 times in a row!

There are a lot of factors in scheduling besides "what does this RPI do for the conference" - in fact, that's probably way down the list.

[DblT81]

TCU may have committed scheduling suicide.

[Bob_Ballew]

I remember this same topic was hashed over last year about some of the team's scheduling, especially Baylor's. Baylor proved to be a formidable team and finished 2nd in the conference after the "cupcake" schedule. You all make some very good points and I agree with Chipper that it is still very early. I don't see the hoopla over an RPI. It fluctuates so much. I know that the Big 12 is a great conference and could care less that the conference as a whole has an 8th place rating based upon an RPI. All that matters to me is where my team and conference finishes. I certainly don't think recruits consider RPIs over other factors. Baylor has been criticized and are thought to finish in the bottom half of the conference. Some of you will be surprised. Can't wait for conference play to begin.

Sic 'em http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/bu.gif

[kate dawg]

I agree with this argument on a lot of the issues, but I also don't think that in the case of Colorado, and I can't speak to the other schedules because I'm too lazy to look at the them, didn't plan on having a bunch of candypants opponents.

Rice wasn't supposed to be that bad and really, neither was Cal. CSU was ranked at the beginning of the season. And upcoming..Syracuse wasn't supposed to be bad, and neither was Southern Cal. Right there are five teams on CU's schedule that are really playing below expectations right now and should be doing better than they are.

And you know what else, I don't blame some teams if they DID try and schedule some more wins. After getting smacked around in the Big 12, it hurts some more than it helps.

[two cents]

Hmmm....interesting thread. I thought about posting on this topic last year at the start of conference play when I first registered, and again before this season began. I could never sort through my own thoughts enough to construct a coherent post (no smart arse remarks needed). In reading this thread, I agree in some form with every contribution which accounts for why I couldn't sort through my own thoughts on the subject. So in that spirit:

a justification for fans to be interested:

YCN:
As long as teams have really weak schedules (Baylor, OSU and A&M come to mind) it hurts every team in the conference in the long run.

It seems it ought to be a concern to the Big 12 schools that schedule pattycake non-conference opponents for a majority of their non-conference games, too. It doesn't just hurt their development as a team, it hurts the conference as well.
Teams are bound to play their conference sisters, and each team's RPI feeds into all the others. A poor schedule can drag down all the teams. A good schedule can lift them.

however:

soonerman:
There are a lot of factors in scheduling besides "what does this RPI do for the conference" - in fact, that's probably way down the list.
This is an unfortunate but undeniable reality. Yet, the RPI's of conference teams are mathematically interdependent. The varying RPI incentives faced by each team when constructing a schedule can generate an obstacle to effective collective action by the conference as a whole. I concede that it is the prerogative of the head coach to dictate their own schedule as they see fit, but their decisions are fair game for public criticism from fans and commentators.

some scheduling considerations:

mred:
Some teams take a while to gel and get into the swing of things, and easy opposition is a good way to do that.
A valid point, but it shouldn't be carried to extremes.

and:

dem:
Baylor, ISU, and CU all lost the absolute hard core of their teams from last season, a total of five WNBA draft picks. They schedule relatively soft (well, Baylor schedules VERY soft) because their teams are nowhere near as strong as last season and they could easily get squashed and demoralized by an overly hard pre-conference slate. (ISU is struggling to keep itself afloat as it is.)

KSU, on the other hand, has one of the five strongest teams in the country and can confidently take on anyone and everyone. And Tennessee is ALWAYS in that position.

Jennifer:
Well, you also have to beat those teams you do schedule to help your RPI as well, and the conference isn't doing as well in that category so far this season.
I recognize that teams face different situations from year to year and must adjust their schedules accordingly. It is necessary to produce a winning record in order to receive consideration for NCAA play. Some teams may not even anticipate the possibility of NCAA play and are just trying to build their programs and the confidence of their players. It is reasonable to forgive poor teams a very weak schedule.

furthermore:

dem:
it is essential to remember that playing a very strong RPI team may not help your team's RPI unless you WIN -- with the exceptions being teams that will end up with extremely low RPI's in the end. If your RPI will end up being, say, top 50, and you play #15 and lose, you are probably worse off then if you beat #115. On the other hand, if you take on #300, that will hurt your RPI even if you win. So here, too, it's a balancing act.
It does just depend on the math, but it can get a little tricky. It basically boils down to the relative difference between a team's current SOS and the win percentage and SOS of the potential opponent.

another issue:

dem:
Another potential factor in playing a very strong pre-conference schedule is the potential for burnout. You may schedule tough teams and have good results, and yet find your players get worn out emotionally, if not necessarily physically, before conference play starts. Something similar can happen if your conference schedule has worn you down by the time you reach the post-season tournament. This might be more of a danger for younger and less experienced teams, while senior-dominated teams may have the physical and mental stamina to keep it going right until the end.
I definitely believe this must be given consideration, and may be the single best justification for a weaker conference schedule. If Coach Gobrecht is to be believed, USC may have suffered from this already. I think one or two Tech teams may have experienced this as a result of conference play (regular plus tourney). The Longhorns may have hit the wall last year with all of the OT's during the season.

For this reason, I prefer the Big 10 approach to building conference RPI rather than the Tennessee/SEC approach (where one team does most of it).

DblT81:
TCU may have committed scheduling suicide.
Yeah...maybe they should have done better so far, but it is a tough schedule.

Southern Cal is in the same boat. Thing is though---if the Women of Troy can hold it together mentally and break .500 in the PAC 10 with a couple of wins against any of Washington, Stanford, and Arizona---they probably get a bid.

yet the coaches claim this is the country's best conference:

YCN:
I certainly understand that the Big 12 conference schedule in itself is a forge of adversity, but if the conference truly wants to aim for the stars, it needs to schedule many more competitive teams in the future.

It is more than the fact that the schedules are generally weak. This conference has arguably been the best in the country for the last 2 years, but we sure won't stay there unless we take that position more seriously.
If the coaches of this conference want to proclaim it the premier conference in the country, they need to schedule accordingly. It doesn't do for coaches to look around the table and ask others to carry the load, to boost every team's RPI, and enhance tournament prospects. Free riders should not be free of criticism. Step up or bow out.

As things stand right now, we may not finish the season in the top 5 as a conference overall.
I do think this conference will end up in the top 5, probably 3rd in conference rank behind the SEC and the Big 10, but nothing is guaranteed. Tennessee will pull up the SEC as a whole. The Big 10 will earn their ranking as a result of reasonably good scheduling on the part of several teams. The Volunteers are a boon to their conference mates. Everybody gets a free ride. The Big 10 does it the way the Big 12 should; a bunch of quality teams pull their own weight.

plus:

textom:
Yes, Tennessee plays a ridiclously hard schedule, year in and year out, and they will occasionally lose one while other teams are thumping teams nobody has heard of. But the best want to play the best, win or lose, and that's one of the main reasons Tennessee ends up with a bench full of high school All Americans.

I believe scheduling tough teams, win or lose, helps with recruiting, because it says you are serious about building an elite program.
Is this really disputable.

It may not be necessary to play a murderer's row like Tennessee, but a step in that direction might pay dividends.

another problem in scheduling:

kate dawg:
I also don't think that in the case of Colorado...[they] didn't plan on having a bunch of candypants opponents.

DblT81:
You must remember that these nonconference schedules are generally set in July. While some of the 150+ teams are usually obvious, who knew, for example, Rice would have such a down year when they consistently have been a below 100 team the last few years?
There is always a lot of guesswork, and some surprises pop up inevitably.

nevertheless:

YCN:
Every team in the conference should strive to play over half their non-conference schedule against top 100 quality competition.
For teams that are good enough to have reasonable hopes of NCAA play, this should be a minimum acceptable standard. Anything short of this standard should be roundly criticized. Weaker teams with little hope of post-season play (beyond the conference tournament) can be forgiven for riding the coattails of others. For good teams to project accurately enough to meet this criterion shouldn't be too difficult.

and there are benefits:

I would like to note that won-loss record is only 25% of the RPI formula, while the ranking of the overall record of your opponents counts half. Scheduling 5 or 6 top 100 clubs rather than 1-4 is not exactly loading up the schedule, and can effect seasonal RPI ranking dramatically.

If a team plays 8 teams out of conference with RPI's in the top 50 and goes 4-4 against them, surely that counts better than playing 2 games against the top 50 and going 1-1.
In addition to the above example, a 4-4 record against top 50 teams is likely to produce a better RPI than an 8-0 record against teams below 150. As of Friday, USC at 5-4 was ranked 14th. Baylor at 9-1 was ranked 93rd. West Virginia at 8-0 was ranked 114th. Strength of schedule makes a difference. It makes a whale of a difference.

Zo3157:
Baylor has been criticized and are thought to finish in the bottom half of the conference. Some of you will be surprised.
Aye, there's the rub!

I agree Baylor can be a contender for the NCAA tourney and a serious player in the conference race. That's what annoys me about their schedule. It can and should be much tougher.

I remember this same topic was hashed over last year about some of the team's scheduling, especially Baylor's. Baylor proved to be a formidable team and finished 2nd in the conference after the "cupcake" schedule.
Yes, the Bears had a great season last year. Their SOS was built on the scheduling backs of other teams in the conference. They proved their mettle by beating good teams in the conference; thereby, legitimately earning a very high seed. If Baylor finishes 2nd again this year, they will earn a good seed again. If they finish 4th or 5th, they might be selected, depending upon the other teams' pre-conference accomplishments. The Bears need to make a contribution worthy of their skill.

is it too soon to worry though?

ChipperF1:
If we're worrying about RPI's when Santa's still doing reconnaissance flights to update his naughty-or-nice target profiles, SOMETHING'S WRONG!

YCN:
While I agree that the RPI rankings will fluctuate more now than at the end of the season, most teams have played at least 5 games now, and the current rankings should be reasonably accurate. You won't likely be seeing too many teams rising or falling 50 spots after winning or losing two games.
Watch and see what happens to the Longhorns' RPI after playing the Volunteers on Saturday, win or lose.

Every team in the SEC gets that same benefit at least once every season. Some teams get it two or three times. Yeah, they might take losses, but their RPI improves. This allows other SEC teams to have notoriously weak non-conference schedules; Tennessee offsets them. No team in our conference (or any conference) corresponds to the Vols. We've gotta earn our numbers collectively.

mred:
Yes, but you will see teams move 50 or more spots between now and 5 games from now. I believe the RPI is meaningless until we get near the start of the conference season. By that time, the teams have played around 1/3 of their schedule and a mix of good and bad teams. Five games into the season, fluke games have a huge effect on RPI.
This is true, but once teams have played about 7 games, if their opponents have done likewise, SOS will be composed of the winning percentage of approximately 42 games. That's a reasonable sample. Still, because of asymmetry in scheduling, SOS can change substantially when league play begins.

I'm just saying that judging anything by RPI this early in the season is not necessarily indicative of a team's actual quality.
True, of course. However, it is also true that at the end of the season, RPI is not necessarily indicative of a team's actual quality, if its quality is not reflected by the schedule.

chipperF1:
Win as many games as you can, and you'll find the RPI takes care of itself.
Winning takes care of 25% of it. All teams can do now is concentrate on winning every possible game. Fans and teams can watch the RPI and hope for the best as the season progresses. It is true that the pre-Christmas RPI doesn't matter much. However, in a very real sense, it is not too early to worry about the RPI, it is too late. The time to worry and think ahead was during the composition of schedules. Teams, now, have no control over 75% of a measure which may determine their post-season fate.

some general remarks:

I am not an apologist for the RPI. It has weaknesses, as would any alternative measure. The RPI as a measure of team quality has two primary strengths. First, its formula is conceptually fairly simple, even if all of its implications are not. Second, it is a fairly efficient self-selection device for teams who want serious post-season consideration. Teams are limited by their conference schedules, but they have a lot of latitude in their non-conference schedules. It allows coaches to assess the quality of their own team and act accordingly.

It's as if the NCAA selection committee, before each season, says to all Division I coaches: "Okay. Everybody knows the rules. We've got 324 teams and 64 tourney berths. Almost half of those slots are taken by automatic qualifiers. If you think your team can hack it, then prove it. Give us a chance to compare how your team stacks up against other relatively high RPI teams. If you don't think your team can't hack it, fine. Thanks for saving us the time."

It narrows the field and allows the committee to devote more attention to bubble teams stuck with relatively weak conference schedules which they cannot control. They will not balk at taking many teams from the power conferences, as they did last year with the SEC, Big 12, and Big 10. But they have no reason to show any mercy toward teams from power conferences that do not earn a good RPI, as the PAC 10 learned last year. We may learn that lesson this year.

YCN:
I hope we can look back on the non-conference schedule at the end of the season and say it really wasn't a factor in whether or not a couple of Big 12 teams got NCAA berths or not.
I share this hope, but I think it is forlorn. Poor scheduling by the entire conference will probably result in one or more tourney capable teams playing in the NIT rather than the NCAA.

Zo3157:
Can't wait for conference play to begin.
Me too! It is a fun part of the season. But wasn't the UCLA game more interesting than the Texas Southern game. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by two cents (edited 12-21-2002).]

[two cents]

Okay, so much for the "I kinda agree with everybody post." This post will be more harsh. I am generally a fairly positive poster. I enjoy being a fan of this sport, so it is my inclination to be somewhat upbeat. However, Baylor's schedule cries out for analysis and criticism. Hopefully, fans of the program will not be offended by what I have to say. It is not a criticism of the fans, the players, or any characteristic of the coaching staff other than its proclivity to schedule poorly.

How many teams have an RPI ranking below Baylor with a winning percentage equal to or better than theirs?
West Virginia (8-0)--1 team.

How many teams are ranked above Baylor with a lower winning percentage?
By my count, 83 teams. That's staggering!

We know this: Because none of those teams have a better winning percentage than Baylor, mathematically there is only one way for them to achieve a superior ranking---strength of schedule.
[This reflects an improvement in Baylor's ranking, resulting from a victory over UCLA, from 108th to 93rd. Before that game the count stood at 98 teams. Unfortunately, after Baylor crushes Mercer (323, next to last), their ranking will drop back down, perhaps below W. Virginia.]

What would Baylor's ranking be if each of their opponents with an RPI ranking below 200 were replaced by the team exactly 100 spots higher, provided they were to win each such game?
This would result in Baylor having an RPI value of roughly .5947, placing them about 53rd in the rankings between Arizona St. and New Mexico. In my mind, this is a much more reasonable ranking. And the schedule would not be a stretch for the Bears; I am confident they would end up with the same record as they have now. It would require replacing Alcorn St. (248), Texas Southern (270), San Jose St. (294), SE Louisiana (264), Ark-Pine Bluff (235), and UT-Pan Am (305) with La Salle, Delaware, James Madison, St. Mary's, Niagara, and Washington St. respectively. Under Mulkey-Robertson, Baylor has lost only once to a team with an RPI below 100: Texas A&M (113), a conference road game by 6 points in 2001.


In all likelihood, the team could probably succeed against an even tougher schedule and earn a better ranking yet. This substitute schedule would not even come close to meeting YCN's standard (half the games against top 100), but it would make a world of difference in Baylor's RPI which would benefit the conference in its entirety by the time league play is finished.

I believe the Bears could do well against teams such as these. [i]Doesn't their coaching staff believe that? Evidently not. There is no rational basis for the coaching staff to schedule the first set of opponents unless they doubt their ability to achieve success against opponents like those represented in the second set. It reduces their chances of a tournament bid. It hurts the standing of the conference in the national picture. It cannot help attendance. It cannot help recruiting. Suppose that Baylor finishes 4th or 5th in the conference race and is skipped over by the NCAA selection committee for a team(s) which has finished lower within the conference but which played a tougher schedule. The committee has done this before to other teams. Who will be to blame? Not the players. Not the fans. Only the coaches can be blamed. Taking a risk of this sort is not fair to the players, nor is it fair to the fans of the program or the sport.

If the season were to end today, Baylor would receive no post-season consideration, in spite of their superb won-loss record. They would be in the same position as teams from weak conferences which must qualify by winning their conference tourney, even if they have lost no more than one or two games all season. Of course, the season is not ending today. And once conference play begins, Baylor's RPI and SOS will rise rapidly, because most of the Bears' opponents will have much higher values on those measures (particularly SOS). With each passing game, Baylor will benefit by absorbing some of the value of their opponents' numbers; and with each such trade the opponents will suffer a loss of value in their own numbers. And that is not fair to the other teams in this conference. The Bears are too good a team to be a burden within the Big 12.

I understand that Oklahoma State and Texas A&M have even weaker schedules. Oklahoma State is not winning. Texas A&M is beating but not thumping their opponents. They seem to have scheduled up to their capability. The schedules of these teams are understandable. Baylor has crushed most of their opponents. They could win against better competition. They need to do so.

Of course, voicing this criticism does no good. Coach Mulkey-Robertson is not likely to read this board and stumble over this post, and even if she did, she would probably not give one whit about my opinion. But obviously, others have noticed the same things that I observe. It is legitimate for womenscollegehoops.com to criticize Baylor's schedule. It is fair and well-deserved if any public commentator chooses to do so. But I'm sorry to see it happen that way. That cannot help recruiting or the program's image. It will be much better if the criticism comes from within. Fans of the program, particularly season ticket holders and donors, must express these same concerns directly to the staff. Administrators within the athletic department must do so. I noted that during a pre-season internet chat, Coach Mulkey-Robertson received a couple of questions (Yemen Bear was one I believe) on this issue and may have been slightly defensive. It may take a concerted effort to persuade her to alter her scheduling strategy. And yet, if she can be persuaded, she will be one of the primary beneficiaries.

[35TangoTango]

Great Post! Lots of thought! We certainly all got our two cent's worth!! http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

(I was refering to the first post - hadn't seen the second one).

[This message has been edited by soonerman (edited 12-21-2002).]

[DBLTFarmer]

Excellent posts. Maybe the Big 12 needs to step in and make a rule that the teams in this conference must schedule at least 50 percent of their games against top 100 teams. They might even add they have to try and schedule at least two games with teams in the top 50. I dont know if this is possible but it might be something that the conference might want to encourage. It would benefit the whole conference.

Im not afraid to say that I dont appreciate some of the things that KMR has done while at Baylor.

[Bob_Ballew]

As a Baylor fan, I certainly appreciate what coach Kim has done at Baylor. Tougher schedules are on the horizon. I respect her decisions regarding the scheduling. If the season ended today, I think she would be pleased with the confidence and skills that she saw in the young players.



[This message has been edited by Zo3157 (edited 12-21-2002).]

[YemenBear]

As a Baylor graduate and fan, I've long been disappointed with the Bear's nonconference schedule this year. Not fair to the conference or Baylor fans. Difficult to see how beating teams by 40 to 50 points does much to help develop the team or prepare for rigors of Big XII play.

That said, I can see some benefits to players who needed to gain confidence. Specifically I think Melanie Hammerly and freshman class have been helped. Just don't understand why we don't have a few tougher teams prior to conference play. Was happy with win at UCLA, but that doesn't reflect level of competition in Big XII. I'm afraid we won't be ready for Tech or Texas, two early conference games. We also lost early last year to K State and OU before hitting the team's stride.

If Bears can go 8 - 8 in conference play this year, I guess Coach KMR will have made more of a believer out of me. Otherwise looks like our non-conference schedule is played just to pad the win column.

[carolann]

Great posts twocents. I don't think Texas did as good a job scheduling this year - 4 teams from the Southland conference seems a little excessive, particularly since a couple of them aren't even among the better Southland teams. Texas still has a handful of tough games though. Also, Texas has helped the conference, as well as itself, for several years with key nonconference wins.

[Jennifer]

CollegeRPI numbers, updated this evening. OVerall, the Big 12's rpi is .5716, ranked 6 .

<pre style="font size: 10pt;">

School W L Pct RPI Rank
Texas Tech 7 1 0.875 0.7506 1
Kansas St 10 1 0.909 0.694 9
Oklahoma 8 3 0.727 0.638 25
Colorado 8 1 0.889 0.6364 27
Nebraska 5 2 0.714 0.5638 75
Iowa State 3 3 0.5 0.5607 82
Baylor 9 1 0.9 0.5446 97
Texas 6 2 0.75 0.5438 99
Missouri 4 4 0.5 0.5147 136
Texas A&M 6 2 0.75 0.5004 155
Kansas 4 4 0.5 0.493 167
Oklahoma St 3 6 0.333 0.419 255
</pre>

[35TangoTango]

Do I read this right? That after all the Baylor Bashing that has been done, their RPI is almost identical to that of the Texas team that just beat Tennessee?

[Jennifer]

Yep...but that could bring back the discussion of how meaningful is the RPI at this point in the season (not very, but still something to look at). Here's the opponents of Texas and Baylor.
1st, Texas:<pre style="font size: 10pt;">
Date Rank Opponent Result
Nov 22 51 @ BYU L 63-79
Nov 26 302 McNeese St W 90-25
Dec 4 259 SW Texas St W 98-36
Dec 7 62 @ New Mexico L 70-77
$ Dec 10 40 TCU W 86-54
Dec 15 246 SE Louisiana W 106-42
Dec 18 243 TX-Arlington W 73-44
$$ Dec 21 4 Tennessee W 63-62


And for Baylor:
Date Rank Opponent Result
Nov 22 195 Princeton W 86-47 (Baylor Tournament)
Nov 23 237 Alcorn St W 78-62 (Baylor Tournament)
Nov 26 293 Texas Southern W 103-50
Nov 29 231 vs San Jose St W 78-46 (Montana St Tournament)
Nov 30 37 @Montana St L 66-75 (Montana St Tournament)
Dec 2 246 @SE Louisiana W 70-55
Dec 5 249 Ark-Pine Bluff W 104-38
Dec 14 202 Grambling W 99-40
Dec 16 305 TX-Pan American W 84-40
Dec 19 118 @ UCLA W 89-77
</pre>
$=Win against RPI Top 50
$$=Win against RPI Top 25

[This message has been edited by Jennifer (edited 12-22-2002).]

[Bob_Ballew]

Thank you Jennifer. Point well taken. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Zo3157 (edited 12-23-2002).]