End of Scheduling Debate

by zoo752 on Mar 24, 2008 6:12 AM PDT Comment 16 comments

At the beginning of the season, there was quite a bit of debate and criticism around other message boards regarding scheduling. I noticed a blurb at the end of an LA times article Saturday (link: http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/ucla/la-sp-uclahoops24mar24,1,6559632.story) that mentioned UCLA has a record of 7-1 against other regional semifinalists (including 5-0 PAC-10, 2-1 nonconference). I think that, along with Texas' wins over UCLA and Tennessee, is one of the more impressive resumes left in the field. Also, the other 3 number one seeds combined have a whopping record of 2-2 against remaining regional semifinalists.

I believe that Coach Howland has earned our trust regarding nonconference scheduling.

Here are the records of the remaining 15 teams against the other current regional semifinalists:

EAST
North Carolina, 1-0, Davidson
Washington State 0-5 (Stanford 3, UCLA 2)
Louisville 2-0 (WV, 'Nova)
Tennessee 4-1 (W: Memphis, WK, WV, Xavier L: Texas)

MIDWEST
Kansas: 1-1 (Split w/Texas)
Villanova 1-1 (W: West Virginia, L: Louisville)
Wisconsin 3-0 (MSU twice, Texas)
Davidson 0-2 (UCLA, UNC)

SOUTH
Memphis 0-1 (Tennessee)
Mich State 1-3 (W: Texas, L: UCLA, Wisconsin x 2)
Stanford 3-3 (Washington State 3, UCLA 3-interestingly, it would have been 2-4 had Siena pulled it out over 'Nova)
Texas 3-3 (W: Kansas, UCLA, Tennessee, L: Kansas,
Mich State, Wisconsin)

WEST
Western Kentucky 0-1 (Tennessee)
Xavier 0-1, Tennessee
West Virginia 0-3 (Tennessee, Louisville, 'Nova)

Here are the number of nonconference games that each team had scheduled against the current regional semifinalists:

Tennessee 5
Texas 4
UCLA 3
Davidson 2
Mich State 2
Western Kentucky 1
Xavier 1
Wisconsin 1
Memphis 1
North Carolina 1
West Virginia 1
Washington State 0
Louisville 0
Kansas 0
Villanova 0
Stanford 0

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Next season

we'll be at Texas in December and host Notre Dame the week of the USC game. We'll likely try to enter a preseason tournament too, as that has become Howland's preference. I wouldn't be surprised to see us add a name school to play at home before conference play because our preconference home schedule would be pretty weak without one and the Morgan Center won't be happy with that.

My one concern about this season's schedule was that we didn't play a tough road game before conference play began. We were at Michigan, but that was on their winter break with a very small student section. I'd still like to see us play a tough road game before conference play ever year and next season it won't be an issue as we travel to Austin.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 24, 2008 7:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Scheduling and Texas

For the second year in a row our much-criticized non-conference schedule turns out to have been pretty tough.

On another note, our road game versus Texas next year may not be our next road game versus Texas. We just may be meeting them in San Antonio in 12 days.

by bornagainbruin on Mar 24, 2008 7:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Good numbers

But we only played Washington State twice this year. Stanford beat them in the PAC10 tournament.

Otherwise your point is well made, there was a lot made of how soft our non-conference schedule was this year. Although some of our competition was weak, two teams are in the sweet 16 and I expect Texas to go even further.

by Rhapsode on Mar 24, 2008 8:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

Sorry about that, it's edited now. Thanks for the correction!

by zoo752 on Mar 24, 2008 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stanford

They also beat Washington St 3 times. Twice in the regular season and once in the pac-10 tourney. That would make them 3-3

CG (Signholder #18)

by lil eg not cs on Mar 24, 2008 2:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks-Edited

by zoo752 on Mar 25, 2008 3:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bit Misleading?

UCLA's 7-1 record could be a bit misleading b/c it just so happens that the reg. semis have 3 PAC10 teams, thus making UCLA's record appear more impressive than it is.

Wins mainly coming from intra-conf. teams notwithstanding, I'd have to agree w/ your premise. The PAC10 was one of the best, if not the best, conf. this year. And, by definition of what it means to advance in sudden death playoffs, the reg.semis finalist teams are the best 16 teams in the country. Having said this, then UCLA's record is by far the most impressive.

Still, it'd be just that much more impressive had the 7 wins been spread out more evenly over non-conference finalists; or if the two non-conf. wins came from the likes of KS, NC, TX; or not over the lessor (if you will) remaining non-conf. teams. MSU and Davidson.

This is why TX record is the most impressive in my opinion.

by Rich1996UCLA on Mar 24, 2008 3:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Great Insights, BTW. And Thanks.

by Rich1996UCLA on Mar 24, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why misleading?

Why is it misleading that the record came mostly against WSU and Stanford? Isn't it MORE impressive to beat a top team 3 times in a year vs. a bunch of one-off victories?

by swc89 on Mar 24, 2008 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with swc

by Fox 71 on Mar 24, 2008 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What I was Trying to Say...

was that I think the record would be more impressive had some of the wins been against a more diverse number of teams. For example, instead of the furd 3 times and WSU 2 times, it was hypothetically the furt 2 times; WSU, MSU and Davidson each 1 time; and KS one time and TX one time. In the latter case, a 7-1 record would be just that much more impressive.

Misleading? Well, only in the sense that 5 out of the 7 wins come from a limited statistical sample of 2 teams (albeit very good teams in the furd and WSU.) Which is what I was trying to say but admittedly not altogether terribly succinctly.

by Rich1996UCLA on Mar 24, 2008 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still agree with swc

Our three wins against a No. 7 or No. 11 or whatever number you want to assign them Stanford team are to me more impressive than a regular season win over a lower-ranked team.

On the other hand, I could be missing your point, which I have been known to do.

by Fox 71 on Mar 24, 2008 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Timing of Tough Games

Another item which might be relevant is that by playing the toughest league schedule, UCLA was playing tough games in February and March. We had much angst about the Pac-10 tourney, risking (and incurring) injuries when the Bruins already had the regular season championship wrapped up. However, the tourney did give the Bruins a chance to play pressure games with little turnaround time. This could come in handy in the coming weeks.

The fact that UNC beat Davidson on its home court on November 14 is basically irrelevant in terms of strength of schedule. If we went on the road and played tougher teams in December, that would also not count as much in my book as tough road games against true rivals in February and March.

by islandbruin on Mar 25, 2008 7:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but ...

Our schedule did prepare our guys well to play in pressure games in tough environments. But still, did we need a tournament to determine the Pac 10 champion? I don't think so. The mental toughness our guys exhibit is such that they would have been OK if they had taken that week off and just played HORSE. (I know what shot Shipp would have taken.)

by Fox 71 on Mar 25, 2008 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No HORSE

It's an NCAA violation, worse than failing classes and taking money from agents remember? I'm not sure if the HORSE rule would apply here, but if it didn't I'm sure the NCAA could write it in in the margins of the rule book.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 25, 2008 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs