GWRising wrote:

The win counts on the record. The stats count for the players. That is what makes it different than an exhibition game. It may not count for NCAA or other post season but that's a problem we are not going to have to worry about this season in all likelihood. They won't ask CC in a few years as to whether his record should be minus one win because he played Virginia State in his first year at home. That said, I don't imagine this (a game versus a non-DI) will be replicated in the future.

 

Yes, though we all know coaching records are extremely meaningless.  As ML once said when trying to upgrade three dreadful Hobbs schedules, he’d rather go 15-15 vs a good schedule than 18-12 vs a joke schedule.

GWRising wrote:

Free Quebec wrote:

GWRising wrote:

The win counts on the record. The stats count for the players. That is what makes it different than an exhibition game. It may not count for NCAA or other post season but that's a problem we are not going to have to worry about this season in all likelihood. They won't ask CC in a few years as to whether his record should be minus one win because he played Virginia State in his first year at home. That said, I don't imagine this (a game versus a non-DI) will be replicated in the future.

 

Yes, though we all know coaching records are extremely meaningless. As ML once said when trying to upgrade three dreadful Hobbs schedules, he’d rather go 15-15 vs a good schedule than 18-12 vs a joke schedule.

Yes, they all say that until it's contract renewal time and they say you went .500 vs .600. 

Show me an AD who is fooled by that distinction and I’ll show you a program destined to a fail.

Free Quebec wrote:

GWRising wrote:

Free Quebec wrote:

Yes, though we all know coaching records are extremely meaningless. As ML once said when trying to upgrade three dreadful Hobbs schedules, he’d rather go 15-15 vs a good schedule than 18-12 vs a joke schedule.

Yes, they all say that until it's contract renewal time and they say you went .500 vs .600. 

Show me an AD who is fooled by that distinction and I’ll show you a program destined to a fail.

 How much time do you have? LOL. C'mon you've never heard the term "scheduling wins"? Many programs do it.

I realize we are sort of veering off into a different topic, but 18-12 vs. 15-15 includes conference games we don't really have control over.  Instead, you should look at just OOC.

While ML scheduled hard and actually won a lot of quality OOC games once the Core Four was in place, his conference record ultimately did him in. 

*extreme caveat here that this is all relative.  We'd gladly take an NIT bid right now in a heartbeat*

In 14-15, we finished OOC at 10-3 with wins against Rutgers, DePaul, Colorado, and Wichita State.  Our KenPom at the end of OOC play was 38.  However, we went 10-8 in conference and finished with a KenPom of 69 (nice).

In 15-16, we finished OOC at 11-2 with wins against UVA, USF, Tennessee, Seton Hall, and Penn State.  Our KenPom at the end of OOC play was 68.  We were as high as 42 and ranked before our brutal 21 point beat down at KenPom 183 DePaul.  We went 11-7 in conference and finished with a KenPom of 75.

Where I'm getting at is that whether you go 18-12 or 15-15 is sort of irrelevant if those losses come in conference play. In both of those scenarios, if we replaced one of those quality OOC wins with another 1-2 conference wins, I think we probably make the NCAA tournament both years.

I think CC has the right idea to go 70% OOC with most games at home.  I think this year is just extremely weak because he didn't know what he had year 1.

The 04-05 KH schedule would probably be what CC wants except the FIU game would be at home.  Some good quality teams and then easy wins.

@ Wake Forest
Morgan State
Fairfield
Mount St. Mary's
(N) Michigan State
(N) Maryland
St Francis (PA)
Towson
@FIU
@ WVU

Last edited by GW0509 (10/31/2022 6:28 pm)

Gwmayhem wrote:

It's hard for me to believe that either of you thinks they are definitively correct about this.  FQ, if any team went 30-0 in the regular season playing the 30 weakest teams in the country, and then lost in their one bid conference tournament, would they make the Dance as an at large with a 30-1 record?  Of course they would.  So it's really unfair to say that won loss records are extremely meaningless.  And Rising, am not sure if your initial response was serious but your follow-up certainly appeared to be.  Assuming this was the case, what I'd say to you is that there isn't a current AD who does not have at least a basic understanding of advanced metrics, and who in turn would be happier with an 18-12 record with a top 10 easiest schedule in America than a 15-15 record with a Top 10 most difficult schedule.   

Mayhem, I'd point to the 05-06 squad and say you're PROBABLY right, but not DEFINITELY right. GW nearly ran the table (save a wipeout at NC State) in the non-con, then swept through a down A-10, reached as high as #6 in the polls, lost early in the A10 tournament, and only picked up an 8 seed. KenPom rated it the second worst non-conference schedule in the country that year, and the A-10 schedule made it the 184th-best schedule in the nation. 

I don't recall where GW sat on the S-Curve among #8 seeds, but there were 18 at-large teams who got seeded before GW. Indiana went 18-11 with the 91st Non-Con and 10th strongest schedule overall and got an at-large 7 seed.

I am in the corner of playing touch opponants makes  you a better team, but to get the fans to return to the Smitty, it will need to start with a gaudy record, which means beating up on cupcakes to pad the won loss record.

creeksandzeeks wrote:

Gwmayhem wrote:

It's hard for me to believe that either of you thinks they are definitively correct about this.  FQ, if any team went 30-0 in the regular season playing the 30 weakest teams in the country, and then lost in their one bid conference tournament, would they make the Dance as an at large with a 30-1 record?  Of course they would.  So it's really unfair to say that won loss records are extremely meaningless.  And Rising, am not sure if your initial response was serious but your follow-up certainly appeared to be.  Assuming this was the case, what I'd say to you is that there isn't a current AD who does not have at least a basic understanding of advanced metrics, and who in turn would be happier with an 18-12 record with a top 10 easiest schedule in America than a 15-15 record with a Top 10 most difficult schedule.   

Mayhem, I'd point to the 05-06 squad and say you're PROBABLY right, but not DEFINITELY right. GW nearly ran the table (save a wipeout at NC State) in the non-con, then swept through a down A-10, reached as high as #6 in the polls, lost early in the A10 tournament, and only picked up an 8 seed. KenPom rated it the second worst non-conference schedule in the country that year, and the A-10 schedule made it the 184th-best schedule in the nation. 

I don't recall where GW sat on the S-Curve among #8 seeds, but there were 18 at-large teams who got seeded before GW. Indiana went 18-11 with the 91st Non-Con and 10th strongest schedule overall and got an at-large 7 seed.

My primary point was that this is a more nuanced discussion, such that we can't make the statement that coaching won-loss records are meaningless nor can we ignore the importance of playing a schedule that isn't filled with nothing but cupcakes.  Believe me when I say that at that time and for a number of years thereafter, I went ballistic over the 2005-06 OOC schedule.  Not only did it cost that team seeding wise but it was so unnecessary given the talent and veteran nature of that team.  Instead of going 26-1 in the regular season, that team could have replaced three cupcakes with quality games, gone say 24-3, and received a more favorable seed.

My own personal preference is to opt for a more challenging schedule (1/3 top 75, 1/3 76-174, and 1/3 175+).

Interesting discussion, but I fear we are getting ahead of ourselves. When you have lost to UC-San Diego, UMass-Lowell, BU, Cal State-Fullerton, Navy, Hampton, UMBC, Bill & Mary. Towson. Morgan and AU in recent years, we should be happy with any winning record against non-conference opponents.  Let's start by beating Va State, UMES, UC-San Diego, Hofstra, UNH and American. 
I know I sound like LSF, but I attended the exhibition game and while Edwards and Bishop were impressive, I don't think we are going to shoot 50 percent from 3 and I am only cautiously optimistic we can beat the weakest of our opponents. And I would be very happy to be proven wrong and see us have a winning non-conference record.