Georgia Non-Conference Schedule

3,032 Views | 17 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by LawHall88
Hop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
Just released…

Wake, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, St. Joe's - that's about it. Very similar to A&M's w/ 3-4 intriguing games but not many elite opponents. That seems to be the trend for non-elite programs in a P5 league. I guess coaches have run the numbers and this is the best path when mixed with a P5 conference schedule…don't play too many tough teams to keep your win total up, but play mostly competitive teams and only play a handful of really bad RPI teams.

HuttoAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I noticed the same thing when I saw this. Hopefully, the math adds up at the end of the season!
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Georgia absolutely sucks and has a first year head coach.
Proposition Joe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's 3 major conference opponents.

We have 1.

They are both bad non-conference schedules, but Georgia's has a lot less chance of bottoming out. Bad/Average teams in good conferences (Wake, GTech, Notre Dame) have a far less chance of being absolute anchors on your SOS than average teams in bad conferences.
TexAg1822
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks for the info Hop (and this isn't directed at you at all), but is this a good thing? Like previously mentioned, they're a bad program and a new coach. I just still don't understand Buzz's system or method
Hop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
TexAg1822 said:

Thanks for the info Hop (and this isn't directed at you at all), but is this a good thing? Like previously mentioned, they're a bad program and a new coach. I just still don't understand Buzz's system or method
I didn't suggest it was a good or bad thing...just a data point. It seems I've seen more schedules like this one lately as opposed to the really loaded schedules and the cream puff schedule designed by low level P5 schools to max wins. I think they are now trying to thread the needle between getting a bunch of cheap wins and playing a schedule strong enough (but not too strong) that won't hurt if the team were to be in the hunt for a bid.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I will say that their home schedule is absolutely awful.

Adding SMU at least gives us one ( though awful) major conference team and a decent mid-major team at home. That's really all I'm asking for. A decent tournament or multi-game event, and a few games against decent-or-better teams with at least one of them at home and that's fine.

At least their weird neutral site game that nobody will go to is against a major conference team though.
greg.w.h
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If we get our team storming early AND make the dance AND go sort of deep (S16) they probably will start amping up the schedule the next year.

Whether that approach is good or not is an opinion. But it isn't as fun.
Ag13
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Must be nice to play a non conference game against a rival within driving distance
jigsaw87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Seven Costanza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't know much about how SOS is calculated, but it seems that it could be greatly improved by trading out teams in the 300+ range for teams in the 120-180 range, with very little change in probability of winning.

Of course I say this without having looked at our schedule.
aggiebones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yea, I don't get the 300 teams.
They should NEVER be on your schedule. Not 1.

Gotta be more teams in the 150-200 range that we still guarantee beat but don't ruining our SOS.
Makes zero sense.
Hop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
aggiebones said:

Yea, I don't get the 300 teams.
They should NEVER be on your schedule. Not 1.

Gotta be more teams in the 150-200 range that we still guarantee beat but don't ruining our SOS.
Makes zero sense.


Because those can actually be tough games to schedule. The other P5 programs and top 100 coaches have that same idea, so those teams in the 150-200 range are in high demand and fill up their schedules quickly. That also drives up the guarantee they want to play you since these games typically aren't scheduled as a home-and-home series.

Travel expenses and geography are also a factor. Why would a Top 200 team spend the money to fly halfway across the country if they can get their guarantee money and spend very little busing a couple of hours to the game.

Timing is also a factor. Between these made for TV 3-game tournaments that just about every Top 150 program plays in late November, finals in early December, and then a week or so around Christmas, that only leaves approximately 3-4 weeks to try to sync-up with these teams, so the available dates for these Top 150-200 teams fills up very quickly.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but there are some constraints involved. It isn't as easy as it looks on paper.

Ultimately, the numbers almost dictate that you need a few Top 250-350 teams out of necessity to fill out a full schedule.

I remember a few years ago we had a decent team bail out on us at the last minute and the only game we could find was Dallas Christian. I'm not even sure they had scholarship players at the time.
Proposition Joe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Again, it's mostly about money.

Other schools are willing to pony up the $$$ to get these 150-200 teams on the schedule, we haven't been.

This idea that a school like Georgia or Ole Miss are just "moving quicker than we are" when it comes time to schedule is silly.

We're playing the teams Buzz wants to play (throwing old friends a bone in some cases), or we're not willing to pay the money because there's not a good enough ROI for our athletic department to schedule a kinda bad team over a really bad team.
Hop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
Proposition Joe said:

Again, it's mostly about money.

Other schools are willing to pony up the $$$ to get these 150-200 teams on the schedule, we haven't been.

This idea that a school like Georgia or Ole Miss are just "moving quicker than we are" when it comes time to schedule is silly.

We're playing the teams Buzz wants to play (throwing old friends a bone in some cases), or we're not willing to pay the money because there's not a good enough ROI for our athletic department to schedule a kinda bad team over a really bad team.


I didn't suggest other schools are beating A&M to the punch. I was pointing out that scheduling those schools is a competitive situation with a lot of moving parts with money (as I clearly stated), timing, and geography.
Proposition Joe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hop said:

Proposition Joe said:

Again, it's mostly about money.

Other schools are willing to pony up the $$$ to get these 150-200 teams on the schedule, we haven't been.

This idea that a school like Georgia or Ole Miss are just "moving quicker than we are" when it comes time to schedule is silly.

We're playing the teams Buzz wants to play (throwing old friends a bone in some cases), or we're not willing to pay the money because there's not a good enough ROI for our athletic department to schedule a kinda bad team over a really bad team.


I didn't suggest other schools are beating A&M to the punch. I was pointing out that scheduling those schools is a competitive situation with a lot of moving parts with money (as I clearly stated), timing, and geography.

You've defended the bottom feeders on the schedule in the past with "well there's just not enough teams in the 100-200 range to go around because everyone wants to schedule them" or "well how could we have known [team that is historically bad at basketball] would be that bad?".

That's akin to saying a team's roster isn't strong because the good players were already taken, or how could we have known the 2* recruit wouldn't be good...

There are opportunities to improve our scheduling, but we haven't been willing to invest the $$$ in them -- which is why despite how deserving that squad was last season, Buzz' "letter to the committee" rings insanely hollow. If we made the effort last year to schedule worth a ****, we would have been in the dance. But like most years when it came time to shape our non-conference schedule we either weren't willing to pony up for some decent competition (likely due to the negative ROI from a literal financial sense in doing so), or Buzz had a few coaches he wanted to give a game to and really, is it really gonna matter?

Then it did.
Hop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
Proposition Joe said:

Hop said:

Proposition Joe said:

Again, it's mostly about money.

Other schools are willing to pony up the $$$ to get these 150-200 teams on the schedule, we haven't been.

This idea that a school like Georgia or Ole Miss are just "moving quicker than we are" when it comes time to schedule is silly.

We're playing the teams Buzz wants to play (throwing old friends a bone in some cases), or we're not willing to pay the money because there's not a good enough ROI for our athletic department to schedule a kinda bad team over a really bad team.


I didn't suggest other schools are beating A&M to the punch. I was pointing out that scheduling those schools is a competitive situation with a lot of moving parts with money (as I clearly stated), timing, and geography.

You've defended the bottom feeders on the schedule in the past with "well there's just not enough teams in the 100-200 range to go around because everyone wants to schedule them" or "well how could we have known [team that is historically bad at basketball] would be that bad?".

That's akin to saying a team's roster isn't strong because the good players were already taken, or how could we have known the 2* recruit wouldn't be good...

There are opportunities to improve our scheduling, but we haven't been willing to invest the $$$ in them -- which is why despite how deserving that squad was last season, Buzz' "letter to the committee" rings insanely hollow. If we made the effort last year to schedule worth a ****, we would have been in the dance. But like most years when it came time to shape our non-conference schedule we either weren't willing to pony up for some decent competition (likely due to the negative ROI from a literal financial sense in doing so), or Buzz had a few coaches he wanted to give a game to and really, is it really gonna matter?

Then it did.


Again, you are arguing a position that I wasn't defending. The poster was complaining why don't we just schedule a Top 150-200 team, and I said it simply wasn't as easy as picking up the phone tomorrow and scheduling team No. 150.

Sure, maybe A&M doesn't want to increase the budget to add more of these games. Maybe Buzz doesn't want to play more of these games. Maybe there's another reason they don't. I'm neither defending or condemning our philosophy on scheduling. I explained to the poster that scheduling isn't as straight forward or as easy as it sounds.
LawHall88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.