I know *some* of what goes into it, but I definitely think historically we've had way too much pride about our scheduling. But we aren't the only ones.

It's really rare to see power conference teams go on the road to mid-major teams in non-conference. Everyone is too afraid of losing I guess.

What is the pride? We have too much pride to not play the entire SWAC? Too much pride to play good teams? Or too much pride to say just do a 1 game road matchup with a great team and not expect them to do return?

Im guessing you mean the last one, but wasn't positive what you meant

Yeah, the last one. What was the last home and home or just road game we did with a non-power conference team (that wasn't designated by the league)? I vaguely remember a road game at SMU like 15 years ago, and I think we played at Rice once for some reason.

But again, it's not just us.

It kind of seems like college basketball is broken into tiers, and the good teams all only play each other in non-con. So if you're in that bottom-tier-of-a-power-conference band it's hard to get good games.

Proposition Joe said:

---

I don't know exactly how the sausage is made, but if I had to guess I'd say the "dog****" teams cost us $XXX to get them to come play at Reed, while the "bad" teams cost a chunk more.

Our athletic department, seeing that attendance numbers / ticket sales aren't going to be impacted one iota whether it's Northwestern State coming to Reed or Northwestern School for the Blind coming to Reed, chooses the latter (cheaper).

And 9 times out of 10 it doesn't matter... Until it does.

---

That game cost is not a factor for the athletic department.

Hop said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

I don't know exactly how the sausage is made, but if I had to guess I'd say the "dog****" teams cost us $XXX to get them to come play at Reed, while the "bad" teams cost a chunk more.

Our athletic department, seeing that attendance numbers / ticket sales aren't going to be impacted one iota whether it's Northwestern State coming to Reed or Northwestern School for the Blind coming to Reed, chooses the latter (cheaper).

And 9 times out of 10 it doesn't matter... Until it does.

---

That game cost is not a factor for the athletic department.

---

So then what is the reasoning for choosing really, really bad team over just a bad team?

bobinator said:

---

Yeah, the last one. What was the last home and home or just road game we did with a non-power conference team (that wasn't designated by the league)? I vaguely remember a road game at SMU like 15 years ago, and I think we played at Rice once for some reason.

But again, it's not just us.

It kind of seems like college basketball is broken into tiers, and the good teams all only play each other in non-con. So if you're in that bottom-tier-of-a-power-conference band it's hard to get good games.

---

I think y'all are going way deeper into this scheduling thing than needed. Each coaching staff will schedule to how they see fit for their situation on the basis of wins and how it affects the team…not how it affects the bottom line financials of the AD, pride, or anything like that.

FYI, we played a true road game at Prairie View A&M in the Melvin era. I went to that game and we had to hit a buzzer beater to win it.

Hop said:

---

bobinator said:

---

Yeah, the last one. What was the last home and home or just road game we did with a non-power conference team (that wasn't designated by the league)? I vaguely remember a road game at SMU like 15 years ago, and I think we played at Rice once for some reason.

But again, it's not just us.

It kind of seems like college basketball is broken into tiers, and the good teams all only play each other in non-con. So if you're in that bottom-tier-of-a-power-conference band it's hard to get good games.

---

Each coaching staff will schedule to how they see fit for their situation on the basis of wins and how it affects the team…not how it affects the bottom line financials of the AD, pride, or anything like that.

---

What does that actually mean? Are you saying that Buzz is looking at the strengths of his team and saying "lets schedule Central Arkansas, but I want no part of Georgia Southern" ?

Proposition Joe said:

---

Hop said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

I don't know exactly how the sausage is made, but if I had to guess I'd say the "dog****" teams cost us $XXX to get them to come play at Reed, while the "bad" teams cost a chunk more.

Our athletic department, seeing that attendance numbers / ticket sales aren't going to be impacted one iota whether it's Northwestern State coming to Reed or Northwestern School for the Blind coming to Reed, chooses the latter (cheaper).

And 9 times out of 10 it doesn't matter... Until it does.

---

That game cost is not a factor for the athletic department.

---

So then what is the reasoning for choosing really, really bad team over just a bad team?

---

Because those teams are hard to schedule in November/December because every Top 100 Program is looking for a "bad but not too bad" team to schedule in November/December.

Take into account all of the holiday tournaments in November, final exam schedules in December, and Christmas break most coaches want, and there simply aren't that many dates to sync up all of these preferred match-ups.

I'd like to see the non-conference schedule get pushed back a week to alleviate these scheduling challenges. This is also one of the reasons why holiday tournaments have become so popular for coaches once the NCAA provided the game exemptions for these tourneys.

Going back to A&M, I'm really surprised we accepted an invite to a tourney with such a blah lineup of teams. It causes more pressure to develop the rest of the schedule which will be a challenge.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Hop said:

---

bobinator said:

---

Yeah, the last one. What was the last home and home or just road game we did with a non-power conference team (that wasn't designated by the league)? I vaguely remember a road game at SMU like 15 years ago, and I think we played at Rice once for some reason.

But again, it's not just us.

It kind of seems like college basketball is broken into tiers, and the good teams all only play each other in non-con. So if you're in that bottom-tier-of-a-power-conference band it's hard to get good games.

---

Each coaching staff will schedule to how they see fit for their situation on the basis of wins and how it affects the team…not how it affects the bottom line financials of the AD, pride, or anything like that.

---

What does that actually mean? Are you saying that Buzz is looking at the strengths of his team and saying "lets schedule Central Arkansas, but I want no part of Georgia Southern" ?

---

Yes. Buzz tells his staff in charge of scheduling what his criteria are and his people go try to execute it. That's why you see us playing teams coached by somebody that mentored Buzz 20 years ago or somebody Buzz has a relationship with…or whatever Buzz decides is important to the schedule. Sure, his folks will consult with Bjork to make sure they are fulfilling any SEC mandates and such, but you were suggesting that A&M makes decisions on bad opponents and really bad opponents based on cost and trying to save a few dollars sneaking in Alcorn St. versus Tulane. I don't think that is the case. I think the AD gives Buzz and the staff power to schedule how they want for the most part.

I know it's not that simple, but that more or less means that our non-conference schedule was dog**** last season because Buzz wanted to throw some old friends a bone.

Which is fine... obviously in the grand scheme of things relationships matter... but it kind of weakens his diatribe to the selection committee on our metrics. Maybe had we scheduled for resume instead of scheduling friends we would have been dancing.

Like I said before -- in the grand scheme of things it probably isn't that big of a deal... until it is.

They are called "guarantee games" for a reason - if we're willing to pony up the money then a few of those aforementioned "bad but not too bad" teams will come to Reed instead of another Top 100 program.

I disagree with Hop a bit here because we've had the same problem for like 20 years. Our good optional non-con games (meaning not set by the conference as part of some deal) are so few and far between that we can practically name them off the top of our heads. And that's with four different coaches.

bobinator said:

---

I disagree with Hop a bit here because we've had the same problem for like 20 years. Our good optional non-con games (meaning not set by the conference as part of some deal) are so few and far between that we can practically name them off the top of our heads. And that's with four different coaches.

---

Which is why I very much believe this is a "well these teams have always made themselves available to us so we're going to continue using those relationships and giving them the guarantee game".

And I think we're in an era (and have been for 10+ years) where coaches literally have incentives in their contract to keep their non-conf opponents under a certain NET/RPI, so if we're still taking the old school "relationship" approach with who we schedule then we desperately need to evolve.

Again, there's a very decent chance that had we scheduled just slightly better then we are in the 2022 NCAA Tournament. If our scheduling isn't a priority then maybe it should be?

i'm not sentimental to the old SWC, but that would be quite the non-conference schedule. Line up SMU, TCU, Baylor, UH, TT and Rice.

Proposition Joe said:

---

I know it's not that simple, but that more or less means that our non-conference schedule was dog**** last season because Buzz wanted to throw some old friends a bone.

Which is fine... obviously in the grand scheme of things relationships matter... but it kind of weakens his diatribe to the selection committee on our metrics. Maybe had we scheduled for resume instead of scheduling friends we would have been dancing.

Like I said before -- in the grand scheme of things it probably isn't that big of a deal... until it is.

They are called "guarantee games" for a reason - if we're willing to pony up the money then a few of those aforementioned "bad but not too bad" teams will come to Reed instead of another Top 100 program.

---

You are trying to argue in detail something we don't have detail to intelligently discuss. I have no idea what criteria Buzz had in scheduling. It may have been a personal thing to play a mentor, or maybe Buzz couldn't find a good opponent for a specific date and his mentor stepped up to take that date. Nobody knows.

I can PRESUME that Buzz wanted some really bad teams scheduled in November after overhauling the roster and figuring they would struggle early. But I simply don't know, nor does anybody else here.

I think we can say that given the returning core of this team and the expectations, if the non-conference schedule is inadequate in 2022-2023 then a detailed discussion is certainly warranted.

bobinator said:

---

I disagree with Hop a bit here because we've had the same problem for like 20 years. Our good optional non-con games (meaning not set by the conference as part of some deal) are so few and far between that we can practically name them off the top of our heads. And that's with four different coaches.

---

Just in the last 2-3 years of Kennedy…

Gonzaga
USC
Arizona

All highly ranked, obviously.

These teams magically find our schedule when we have the Timelord on our roster and making Sweet 16's.

Coincidence?

I don't care if we had to kick the whole team out of school and start over, last year's noncon was inexcusably bad. And it's not like we were super unlucky, several of us pointed it out as soon as it was announced.

But yes, next years needs to be significantly better.

bobinator said:

---

I don't care if we had to kick the whole team out of school and start over, last year's noncon was inexcusably bad. And it's not like we were super unlucky, several of us pointed it out as soon as it was announced.

But yes, next years needs to be significantly better.

---

Will you slow down and read. I don't know what the motivation was behind the scheduling. I was just giving examples of different factors that affect a coach's mindset when scheduling…which was a response to Prop Joe suggesting we played really bad teams to save money. The coach decides how he wants his schedule to lay out…period.

I'm certainly not a supporter of easy schedules.

We're all really talking about two different things. How do we get high level opponents, and how do we stop playing so many teams ranked 250+.

No doubt that when we were good under Kennedy we had better schedules at the top end. Credit to him for that. And scheduling like that is why we were a lock for the 2018 tournament despite the program almost imploding the first few weeks of conference play.

bobinator said:

---

We're really talking about two different things. How do we get high level opponents, and how do we stop playing so many teams ranked 250+.

No doubt that when we were good under Kennedy we had better schedules at the top end. Credit to him for that. And scheduling like that is why we were a lock for the 2018 tournament despite the program almost imploding the first few weeks of conference play.

---

And being good is attractive to better competition also looking to schedule well. We were not an attractive opponent the past two years.

The point I've been trying to make is it's a lot more challenging to build the schedule you want and need than what fans think. Why would a Top 100 team want to schedule A&M last year with its Tier three resume' under a complete rebuild. It's not an attractive game. Do you think Keller wants to play that game? Not when he thinks we're Top 200 team. He'll wHtvto play us next year as a projected Top 50 or better team.

That along with the fact Buzz has a lot of incentive to schedule better has me optimistic that they will find more of those Top 75-150 teams to go along with hopefully a marquee game against a Tech or Baylor in Houston or DFW and a decent quality home-and-home against a mid-tier P5 team.

Hop said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

I know it's not that simple, but that more or less means that our non-conference schedule was dog**** last season because Buzz wanted to throw some old friends a bone.

Which is fine... obviously in the grand scheme of things relationships matter... but it kind of weakens his diatribe to the selection committee on our metrics. Maybe had we scheduled for resume instead of scheduling friends we would have been dancing.

Like I said before -- in the grand scheme of things it probably isn't that big of a deal... until it is.

They are called "guarantee games" for a reason - if we're willing to pony up the money then a few of those aforementioned "bad but not too bad" teams will come to Reed instead of another Top 100 program.

---

You are trying to argue in detail something we don't have detail to intelligently discuss. I have no idea what criteria Buzz had in scheduling. It may have been a personal thing to play a mentor, or maybe Buzz couldn't find a good opponent for a specific date and his mentor stepped up to take that date. Nobody knows.

---

You are the only one in this thread who has specifically said he *knows* it is or isn't something ($$$).

You have stated that Buzz specifically curates the schedule, and I pointed out that if that is the case then the job he did potentially cost us a tournament berth.

Hop said:

---

bobinator said:

---

We're really talking about two different things. How do we get high level opponents, and how do we stop playing so many teams ranked 250+.

No doubt that when we were good under Kennedy we had better schedules at the top end. Credit to him for that. And scheduling like that is why we were a lock for the 2018 tournament despite the program almost imploding the first few weeks of conference play.

---

And being good is attractive to better competition also looking to schedule well. We were not an attractive opponent the past two years.

The point I've been trying to make is it's a lot more challenging to build the schedule you want and need than what fans think. Why would a Top 100 team want to schedule A&M last year with its Tier three resume' under a complete rebuild. It's not an attractive game. Do you think Keller wants to play that game? Not when he thinks we're Top 200 team. He'll wHtvto play us next year as a projected Top 50 or better team.

That along with the fact Buzz has a lot of incentive to schedule better has me optimistic that they will find more of those Top 75-150 teams to go along with hopefully a marquee game against a Tech or Baylor in Houston or DFW and a decent quality home-and-home against a mid-tier P5 team.

---

They are called guarantee games for a reason.

Teams pay crappy teams to come play a game.

It's silly to on one hand say "there's not enough "just bad" teams to go around" and not acknowledge that maybe paying more lands a few.

But it sounds more like you really can't say for certain money played no factor, you just don't THINK it did.

This is an elite off-season thread and we're only a week in. We all agree on the basic thing, that last seasons schedule was so bad that it might have cost us a tournament bid, but we're all arguing anyway.

I know a little bit about how scheduling gets done for WVU and a lot of it comes down to revolving it around what tournament you have scheduled and your conference affiliated games. For instance, the Big 12 has the SEC game and a Big East game right now plus typically a high level tournament so they have a pretty decent non conference resume built in. I do know coaches try to help out either guys that coached with them or played for them that are coaches to give them a game as well so that can take up a couple of other games. Then you have a rivalry game that's non conference that's scheduled every year as well so that takes up one more spot as well.

IMO just like some others have pointed out, where A&M is screwing the pooch is not getting an old rivalry game scheduled and also not being in the Big 12/SEC game every year hurts as well. Teams will come to Reed (see Gonzaga) so scheduling home and homes at this point shouldn't be that difficult if you try hard enough.

Hop, do you think the factor of Buzz's teams playing much better as the season goes on plays into this "weak" non-conference schedule he draws up? It seems to me like he knows that's what is going to happen every season so he tries to soften the blow.

At what point do we trade losses against top 25 teams in the non-con vs wins against teams that have no chance of making the tournament?

I think Buzz relies on the fact that we can get hot at the right time and make a tournament push, rather than having the team lose confidence early in the year. Obviously, this would be a different conversation had we won just one game during the losing streak.

Problem with trying to get a power conference team too right now is that they are moving to 20 game conference schedules to give their teams more high profile win opportunities.

But like Bob said in one of his first posts. We aren't talking about trying to get a Gonzaga to come back or even a team as good as SMU. You can't tell me that if we tried to call a UTEP or UT Arlington tomorrow that they wouldn't entertain the offer. The Southland teams HAVE to go. How often do you see a CUSA team in the 16-seed play-in game?

I could go for this; Throw ACU, Tarleton and Sam in there also. Maybe Tamu-CC

Proposition Joe said:

---

Hop said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

I know it's not that simple, but that more or less means that our non-conference schedule was dog**** last season because Buzz wanted to throw some old friends a bone.

Which is fine... obviously in the grand scheme of things relationships matter... but it kind of weakens his diatribe to the selection committee on our metrics. Maybe had we scheduled for resume instead of scheduling friends we would have been dancing.

Like I said before -- in the grand scheme of things it probably isn't that big of a deal... until it is.

They are called "guarantee games" for a reason - if we're willing to pony up the money then a few of those aforementioned "bad but not too bad" teams will come to Reed instead of another Top 100 program.

---

You are trying to argue in detail something we don't have detail to intelligently discuss. I have no idea what criteria Buzz had in scheduling. It may have been a personal thing to play a mentor, or maybe Buzz couldn't find a good opponent for a specific date and his mentor stepped up to take that date. Nobody knows.

---

You are the only one in this thread who has specifically said he *knows* it is or isn't something ($$$).

You have stated that Buzz specifically curates the schedule, and I pointed out that if that is the case then the job he did potentially cost us a tournament berth.

---

I know that scheduling is performed by the staff, not the AD (other than final approval and oversight). That's a long-term 25,000 ft easy observation that many coaching staffs have discussed at a high level through the years.

That's a lot different than trying to get in the mind of Buzz Williams to understand his motivation to schedule Central Arkansas or North Florida.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Hop said:

---

bobinator said:

---

We're really talking about two different things. How do we get high level opponents, and how do we stop playing so many teams ranked 250+.

No doubt that when we were good under Kennedy we had better schedules at the top end. Credit to him for that. And scheduling like that is why we were a lock for the 2018 tournament despite the program almost imploding the first few weeks of conference play.

---

And being good is attractive to better competition also looking to schedule well. We were not an attractive opponent the past two years.

The point I've been trying to make is it's a lot more challenging to build the schedule you want and need than what fans think. Why would a Top 100 team want to schedule A&M last year with its Tier three resume' under a complete rebuild. It's not an attractive game. Do you think Keller wants to play that game? Not when he thinks we're Top 200 team. He'll wHtvto play us next year as a projected Top 50 or better team.

That along with the fact Buzz has a lot of incentive to schedule better has me optimistic that they will find more of those Top 75-150 teams to go along with hopefully a marquee game against a Tech or Baylor in Houston or DFW and a decent quality home-and-home against a mid-tier P5 team.

---

They are called guarantee games for a reason.

Teams pay crappy teams to come play a game.

It's silly to on one hand say "there's not enough "just bad" teams to go around" and not acknowledge that maybe paying more lands a few.

But it sounds more like you really can't say for certain money played no factor, you just don't THINK it did.

---

I'm saying I have never heard from insiders that suggested Buzz's staff sent over a recommendation for a game and the AD's office kicked it back because the opponent was asking for too much money. As with 90% of any inside scoop we hear, it's not firsthand information so obviously I'm at the mercy of what people close to the program tell me.

Savior Jimbo said:

---

Hop, do you think the factor of Buzz's teams playing much better as the season goes on plays into this "weak" non-conference schedule he draws up? It seems to me like he knows that's what is going to happen every season so he tries to soften the blow.

At what point do we trade losses against top 25 teams in the non-con vs wins against teams that have no chance of making the tournament?

I think Buzz relies on the fact that we can get hot at the right time and make a tournament push, rather than having the team lose confidence early in the year. Obviously, this would be a different conversation had we won just one game during the losing streak.

---

As I mentioned earlier today, I presume the extremely easy November games were a result of Buzz knowing he was turning over the roster and having a relatively young team.

Your question revolves around the experience and maturity of the team. With all major contributors (except Q) coming back in the fall, I'm expecting a more challenging non-conference schedule, and I'll be disappointed if it's on-par with last year's schedule.

And this isn't unique to Buzz. Kennedy significantly improved our schedule once he hit that monster 2016 class along with House and Williams. If a coach feels he's got a good team coming back, he'll adjust the schedule accordingly…well, usually.

I'm sure the AD gives Buzz a "budget" to buy games, but I'm also sure it's fluid.

With that said, I'd imagine scheduling comes down to Buzz's ego.

I could see staff member calling Georgia Southern offering them 70k on this date...Georgia Southern comes back with wanting more, different date, etc...staff member takes that to Buzz, and Buzz says we will just find someone else.

Do that enough times, and yea, you'll be scraping the bottom of the barrel of ****ty teams to schedule.

Buzz is very public with his reliance on analytics which is why last year's schedule was so weird. Our nonconference SOS last year was in the 300s. It's not asking lot to be in the 150s.

Two good examples of this are Providence and Boise State:

Providence played Wisconsin in the BigTen/Big East thing, Northwestern (lower level BigTen), Virginia (middle of the pack ACC), and Texas Tech (high level game). The rest of their opponents were mediocre and solid mid-majors (St. Peters, Vermont, Rhode Island).

Boise - played 2 power 5s (WSU and Ole Miss). Then a bunch of average to decent mids (Utah Valley, St. Bon, Temple, Tulsa, St. Louis, Santa Clara).

This isn't that hard.

I suspect Buzz wants to use the non-conf as in essence a preseason to get the team sorted out abd playing together and due to Big East and ACC experiences believes the conference schedule is "enough" for now to sort everything else out. As he gains consistency on roster and outcome he likely will work to increase the challenge. It certainly isn't clear that last year our better games…and there were some early ones…were transformational. Though the schedule certainly created false hopes…

Another annoying thing about the Myrtle Beach tourney is it wipes out one of the best days for a potentially decent home non-conference crowd.

The night before the UMASS football game on Nov. 19 would have been a decent opportunity to get a halfway good crowd.

If Dallas Christian is able to produce a team again next year, any change we can get them back on the schedule?