forums

2018-2019 Schedule

OriginalGatorHater said:
Of course it is intentional. We can't even go undefeated against our weak OOC schedule. Why would we want to add a couple more losses prior to ACC play. As long as we do well in ACC play we will be a high seed in the tourney regardless of our OOC schedule.
Click to expand...

And we've been on the NCAA bubble twice in Larranaga's tenure. 2012 and 2015. And neither time did we miss the tournament because our non-conference schedule was too weak.

In 2012 it was too tough (we went 0-4 against Ole Miss, Purdue, Memphis and West Virginia) and in 2015 it was just fine but we lost to Green Bay, Eastern Kentucky and Providence.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
OriginalGatorHater said:
Of course it is intentional. We can't even go undefeated against our weak OOC schedule. Why would we want to add a couple more losses prior to ACC play. As long as we do well in ACC play we will be a high seed in the tourney regardless of our OOC schedule.
Click to expand...

It is actually really simple.

For the following, I'm ignoring any regular season tourney or the Big 10/ACC Challenge.

1. If you lose to any of these chit teams (bad losses), it hurts. Beating them does nothing, as it is expected. If we're on the fence or a true bubble team playing an OOC schedule packed with crap won't help us and we already saw the consequences of losing to nobodies.

In 2014-15, we were a true bubble team. That year we played Green Bay and Eastern Kentucky. I assure you losing to those teams didn't help us with the selection committee.

2. How does playing nobody with a pulse help us to get ready for the ACC schedule? This doesn't mean we need to play a gauntlet before the ACC schedule, but how about 2 quality OOC opponents?
 
Consigliere said:
This doesn't mean we need to play a gauntlet before the ACC schedule, but how about 2 quality OOC opponents?
Click to expand...

We probably will at the Wooden Legacy.

The point is that this issue is nowhere near as important as you're making it out to be. It certainly doesn't demand the attention that you've given it.
 
Consigliere said:
It is actually really simple.

For the following, I'm ignoring any regular season tourney or the Big 10/ACC Challenge.

1. If you lose to any of these chit teams (bad losses), it hurts. Beating them does nothing, as it is expected. If we're on the fence or a true bubble team playing an OOC schedule packed with crap won't help us and we already saw the consequences of losing to nobodies.

In 2014-15, we were a true bubble team. That year we played Green Bay and Eastern Kentucky. I assure you losing to those teams didn't help us with the selection committee.

2. How does playing nobody with a pulse help us to get ready for the ACC schedule? This doesn't mean we need to play a gauntlet before the ACC schedule, but how about 2 quality OOC opponents?
Click to expand...

The thing is with the tier system that was recently put in place I would rather have us beat 2 extra nobodies then have 2 extra losses against good OOC opponents. In addition I would rather lose an early ACC game, since we can usually avenge the loss. Finally, if you look at our schedule the past few years we didn't really perform much better at the end of ACC play vs the beginning of ACC play so we most likely would not have fared any better had we had tougher OOC competition.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
The thing is with the tier system that was recently put in place I would rather have us beat 2 extra nobodies then have 2 extra losses against good OOC opponents.
Click to expand...

You don't get credit for beating teams with NO pulse BUT you get punished for losing to them.

Do you see the difference? Just 1 or 2 teams.


OriginalGatorHater said:
Finally, if you look at our schedule the past few years we didn't really perform much better at the end of ACC play vs the beginning of ACC play so we most likely would not have fared any better had we had tougher OOC competition.
Click to expand...

You know you can look this stuff up before you post?

2015-16

First 9 Games: 6-3
Second 9 Games: 7-2


2016-17

First 9 Games: 4-5
Second 9 Games: 6-3


2017-18

First 9 Games: 5-4
Second 9 Games: 6-3

Average Winning % First Half: 55.6%
Average Winning % Second Half: 70.4%

Over the last 3 years, we performed better at the end and by a good amount.
 
Advertisement
Mark Little said:
We probably will at the Wooden Legacy.

The point is that this issue is nowhere near as important as you're making it out to be. It certainly doesn't demand the attention that you've given it.
Click to expand...

1. If you actually read the post, it says "I'm ignoring any regular season tourney or the Big 10/ACC Challenge". The reason being is you can specifically pick your opponents in those things. You can actually pick your non-conference opponents when you schedule them.

2. As for the Wooden Classic, our actual first two opponents in the wooden classic aren't good (based on last year). La Salle was garbage, Northwestern was garbage and Fresno State was okay (but they have a new coach). Sure, one of these teams can be decent or quality. But again, you can't control who you specifically play. All of this was discussed in this thread BTW.

The teams with pulses (Utah and Seton Hall) are on the other side of the bracket. There is no guarantee we play them either.

http://espnevents.com/wooden-legacy...tes/12/2018/07/Wooden-Legacy-Horizontal-3.pdf

3. We already saw what happened in 2014-15. We know it doesn't help when you lose to crappy non-conference opponents. It makes a bubble team weaker to have a bad loss. Simply having a winning record in the ACC isn't enough to guarantee a bid (see below).

4. This is your second post in this thread about the amount of times I am discussing it. It is nice of you to keep track.






















Since 2014-15, 8 teams have finished 10-8 (in-conference) during the regular ACC season. 50% of those teams didn't make the NCAAT. A winning record in the ACC isn't always enough.


2014-15:

Miami (10-8)
NC State (10-8)*

2015-16

Clemson (10-8)
VT (10-8)

2016-17

Cuse (10-8)
Miami (10-8)*
VT (10-8)*


2017-18

VT (10-8)*
 
Consigliere said:
1. If you actually read the post, it says "I'm ignoring any regular season tourney or the Big 10/ACC Challenge". The reason being is you can specifically pick your opponents in those things. You can actually pick your non-conference opponents when you schedule them.
Click to expand...

I did read it and it doesn't make your post any better.

So except for non-conference games we play, we won't play any good teams in the non-conference schedule.

OK.
 
Consigliere said:
3. We already saw what happened in 2014-15. We know it doesn't help when you lose to crappy non-conference opponents. It makes a bubble team weaker to have a bad loss. Simply having a winning record in the ACC isn't enough to guarantee a bid (see below).
Click to expand...

Yeah, losing to bad teams will hurt your chances.

Not merely scheduling them in the non-conference.

So far you haven't given a single scintilla of evidence that a weak non-conference schedule will hurt our tournament chances.
 
Advertisement
Mark Little said:
I did read it and it doesn't make your post any better.

So except for non-conference games we play, we won't play any good teams in the non-conference schedule.

OK.
Click to expand...

The sad part is you can't read it. Even if you include the Wooden Classic, there is no guarantee. This isn't complex stuff.
 
Consigliere said:
Since 2014-15, 8 teams have finished 10-8 (in-conference) during the regular ACC season. 50% of those teams didn't make the NCAAT. A winning record in the ACC isn't always enough.


2014-15:

Miami (10-8)
NC State (10-8)*

2015-16

Clemson (10-8)
VT (10-8)

2016-17

Cuse (10-8)
Miami (10-8)*
VT (10-8)*


2017-18

VT (10-8)*
Click to expand...

And in the one year Miami missed the tournament (2015) it wasn't because of a weak non-conference schedule.

Again, you've made no progress in supporting your obsession for this topic.
 
Mark Little said:
Yeah, losing to bad teams will hurt your chances.

Not merely scheduling them in the non-conference.

So far you haven't given a single scintilla of evidence that a weak non-conference schedule will hurt our tournament chances.
Click to expand...


2014-15. We already saw what happens. We know what losing to bad non-conference opponents does.
 
Advertisement
Mark Little said:
It's hard to miss.

You're the whiniest ***** on this forum and about the stupidest topics, too.
Click to expand...

You've been here since May 2018. How would you know?

Are you one of those tremendous whinny ***** that keeps getting banned? No ***ing way.
 
Mark Little the banned whinny ****.
adult-tampon-costume.jpg
 
Advertisement
Mark Little said:
I've gotten him to say his favorite word.

You know he's defeated and desperate now.

Smashed on the argument he now resorts to childish insults to save face.
Click to expand...

1. You are a tremendous ****. Regardless of how many times I say it. You know you’re a tremendous, smelly, gaping ****.

2. Why do you keep coming back? Why do you keep starting new handles? Is it because your **** smells?

3. 2014-15. You lose again.

4. How many handles did you start? 5?
 
Last edited:
Consigliere said:
You don't get credit for beating teams with NO pulse BUT you get punished for losing to them.

Do you see the difference? Just 1 or 2 teams.




You know you can look this stuff up before you post?

2015-16

First 9 Games: 6-3
Second 9 Games: 7-2


2016-17

First 9 Games: 4-5
Second 9 Games: 6-3


2017-18

First 9 Games: 5-4
Second 9 Games: 6-3

Average Winning % First Half: 55.6%
Average Winning % Second Half: 70.4%

Over the last 3 years, we performed better at the end and by a good amount.
Click to expand...

Obviously losing to a bad team is worse then beating a bad team, but if you think we are going to lose to a bad team what makes you think we will beat a good team? 1 extra win is not what one would consider a good amount. Especially when you actually look at the teams we played. With such a small sample size the statistics get skewed massively so you need to look at the actual games. For example had Newton not hit the miracle shot to beat UNC we would have finished 5-4 in the second half as well. 2016 doesn't really fit the agenda you are trying to push because we actually played Florida and Iowa state which where both solid teams. That should have warmed us up to perform well in the ACC, but instead the opposite happened and we had the worst start to ACC play in the past 3 years. In 15 had we played Virginia at home in the first half and away in the second half the stat would have been flipped again.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top