This is what it seems like they don't understand. The same games count against the program multiple times over.
the bolded part is why when someone says, "eh, just pound the bad teams", that is an uninformed take.
The big difference is (if they do win 24-25 games) the NCSOS is at least 100 spots higher.
Well, that is the way you avoid the former problem Haros points out (having the bad teams impact your NET). If you're underperforming against a bad opponent compared to how other teams play them then you're generally going to be (should be?) negatively impacted.
Well sure but plenty of teams are putting together schedules that don't include 5 teams outside the top 300 in the country. This may be a valid point regarding "why don't we specifically play team X" but not really for "why aren't we playing more teams in the 175-275 projected ranking spots"
Right, and all those things are made a lot easier if we could make the tournament more than once every 15 years. I refuse to believe that the MWC can do that (especially considering they are spread out way more than we are geographically when it comes to getting teams in than we are here), and we keep stubbing our toe with Delaware fucking State.
I mean, I also don't have access to the bottom line - we've been a trash program for so long it may simply be that based on projected ticket sales we can only afford to play trash teams in non-conference because the schools in the 175-275 range simply want larger payouts (I would not be surprised if there is a certain sweet spot in the rankings where teams who are rated worse can charge more because they know they will be in high demand because they're considered winnable games that won't affect your metrics).
I'd be shocked if there's a major difference in pay "accepted" from Western Carolina, USC Upstate, Howard, Delaware State, Grambling etc.
The bigger issue with it is it doesn't do you much positive and gives you a lot more of a downside. MIzzou is a good example: they went 24-9 last year and had a NET OOC SOS of 210, 27th on the seed list. Penn State went 22-13, 34th on the seed list, OOC SOS of 277(!) Providence had a non conference SOS of 283, 2 Q3 losses, and 3 Q1 wins, 42nd on the seed list.
I don't get this. A win over the #333 team is worse than a loss to a top 10 team. As far as the risk of losing to a #150-200 team, so what? Don't lose. Setting up a schedule where your team is punished for winning is absurd. Like I said before, this is an easy fix to the ACC woes. Winning is tough, but at least set up teams for success by making the wins matter.
Some of that’s probably right, but I’ll push back with 1 comment and one question:
Correct they do get the benefit of the doubt. But there’s two ways to fix that perception. 1) schedule harder and win or 2) stop losing the crappy games you schedule. I’d rather bet on just stop losing to the crappy teams (Clemson’s resume last year comes to mind) than completely reverse course and say “screw it let’s take on some harder competition. I can see that side of the coin and don’t think it’s a bad strategy but I do think it can be flawed.
