Gotta say, that might be the best OOC UK has ever had. UCLA, UNC, MIch St, KU, U of L. Cal is either very confident or crazy. Don't know of any other school with a schedule like that.
UK's OOC schedule...whew
- Thread starter Cawood86
- Start date
Michigan State will have a claim for it, depending on a couple of things. It's a very, very strong OOC schedule though. Even some of the smaller named teams are strong (Specifically Valparaiso, who was screwed out of the NCAA tournament after a phenomenal season, and Stephen F. Austin, who dominated their conference and almost made it to the Sweet 16)
Decent as always, but taken in the context of 31 games total, nothing all that special. 8 gimme wins, then 18 games against the hot garbage that comprises most of the SEC. I'm not a fan of Cal refusing to use the 4 exempt games as anything other than 4 extra exhibition games. If the SEC offered more I'd understand, but right now the SEC isn't all that much tougher than the C-USA slate Cal used to face at Memphis.
Last edited:
We play great OOC teams every year
2017
UCLA
UNC
Michigan State
Kansas
UL
Arizona State
2016
Duke
UCLA
Arizona State
Ohio State
Louisville
Kansas
2015
Kansas
Providence
Texas
UNC
UCLA
UL
2014
Michigan State
Providence
Baylor
UNC
UL
2013
Maryland
Duke
Notre Dame
Baylor
UL
So you think a team starting mostly freshmen and playing Louisville, Michigan State, North Carolina, UCLA, Kansas, Arizona State and Valpo, should have added up to four MORE potentially lose-able games before the conference starts? Knowing that road losses in the SEC are almost guaranteed (Even with two undefeated teams, Cal's Cats have averaged four conference losses)? That strikes me as potentially suicidal if you have a group with great potential that is slow to jell, like 2014 or 2011. You could be running all season trying to catch an 8 seed. Not to mention that you don't have those easy games for young players to work on adjustments. There is a reason coaches like K, Roy Williams, Pitino, Boeheim, and on and on keep their tough OOC games to a minimum. And they aren't turning over most of their roster every year like Cal.
Not 4, but those 4 don't need to all be games where UK is going to be a 20+ point favorite (unless something has gone very, very wrong). I see little benefit to playing 7 games against non-Big 5/6 conference competition. No, you don't have to add Duke and Villanova to what you already have, but there's a canyon between schools like that and the UT-Martins and Cleveland State's of the world. Find some teams closer to the middle of the canyon.
Are there "automatic wins" in professional sports? Some, because you always have your dregs, but only in college sports is it seen as perfectly normal for 50% of a schedule (for the top teams, basketball or football) to be games where there's about a .0001% chance of losing. It's one of the things I hate about college sports. Fans are so desperate to win that they'll celebrate games that are the equivalent of a full grown man beating up a 10 year old boy. And pay to see it, which is why colleges will continue to schedule those games.
And Cal's teams have been pretty immune to seeding. They got us last year, but we got them in 11 and 14.
And as they do every year, UofL fans will attempt to dismiss their own pathetic OOC schedule by pointing at how bad the SEC is. The key difference being, that unlike your set conference schedule, you can actually do something to make your OOC schedule challenging.
I'm not opposed to it. Kentucky also won't be a 20+ point favorite against Stephen F. Austin (the real season opener). That was a team that lost to Notre Dame by 1 point in the Round of 32 this past season. The easier games are important. It's a young team that needs playing time to experience the kind of calls they'll face with college refs, different game situations, and chemistry building.
SEC teams in football are starting to schedule outstanding programs in college football. Alabama scheduling Southern Cal, Auburn scheduling Clemson, Ole Miss getting Florida State, LSU plays Wisconsin, Georgia against North Carolina (and Georgia Tech, but that's a normal rivalry), Arkansas plays TCU, Tennessee just finished a home and home with Oklahoma, and so on. The SEC is by far the strongest football conference in the nation, yet all of these SEC programs are taking that extra step to play very, very challenging teams in their OOC slate.
Louisville doesn't have a legitimate excuse for its piss poor out of conference basketball schedule (and that's an understatement, it's truly awful on a year-to-year basis). The ACC isn't such a nasty conference with its depth that you're just completely unable to schedule good OOC games. In the past several years, Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Louisville are the consistently really good teams in that conference. NC State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Wake Forest, Boston College, and Virginia Tech are all consistently bad teams, and Notre Dame, Miami, Pitt, and Syracuse are often pretty average teams overall. The chances that you're playing a weak team in that conference on a game-by-game basis are much higher than your chances of playing a truly good team. There are 4 really good teams, and 4 average teams vs 7 awful teams annually.
You can't convince me that the ACC schedule is just so, so grueling that they absolutely cannot afford to have a decent out of conference schedule.
That's a very strong schedule. How many NCAA tournament potential teams does the SEC have this upcoming year?
I wouldn't be opposed to what you are suggesting -- in fact would favor it -- if it were a practice adopted by everyone. But as it is, it's like unilaterally disarming. If Kentucky goes 21-10 heading into the NCAA tournament with five tough OOC losses and a 13-5 conference record, while a score of other teams gorging on cupcakes are 27-4, I certainly don't trust the NCAA seeding committee to do the Cats any favors. Then there is the all-time wins record. Kansas plays Duke and Kentucky and, I guess you'd include Indiana OOC. Nobody else. With a typical lay-down by the always overrated Big-12 the Jayhawks could get through the regular season with 3-4 losses easily. If programs like Kansas are perfectly comfortable playing 2 or maybe 3 legitimate OOC games, Kentucky is disadvantaged by playing 7-8.
Which? A&M, Kentucky, Florida... other?
Last year was Kentucky, A&M and Vanderbilt made it in and didn't A&M and Vanderbilt lose their top players? Looking at the top 60 high school commits, Kentucky is the only SEC team which landed any potential impact freshmen other than A&M which landed JJ Caldwell.
A&M lost four starters, I believe.
UF should be decent. UGA could be okay. South Carolina has some talent. Alabama is an up and coming program that might have a good squad this season.
Other than UK, there are no legitimate threats to be NCAA tourney teams.
UF should be decent. UGA could be okay. South Carolina has some talent. Alabama is an up and coming program that might have a good squad this season.
Other than UK, there are no legitimate threats to be NCAA tourney teams.
Not sure that's true. Big 12 typically gets 5+ teams in the tournament and I expect the same next season.
Stanford, Nebraska, Indiana, Duke, UNLV and Kentucky isn't exactly a weak OOC schedule. I know you hate Indiana, but they will be good again next year.
You don't need a harsh schedule with freshman , you need to try and play who might be the few best teams that year . Play one but preferably two of the best three teams , losing that game will motivate and simultaneously humble them .
Damn, Trolls don't even try anymore! Just curious, do you remember UKs record vs ACC teams last year? I know, I do!
Where is the Sun Devil gm.?
Only at Louisville is a true road gm and you know Blue will get in to that one too.
Only at Louisville is a true road gm and you know Blue will get in to that one too.
You must be thinking of the SEC and football. UK owned the ACC in basketball last year.
Great post X . You need to be careful with a young team early ! Cal has a good schedule for this young team which include challenges but nothing that's going to break their spirit, you are starting a freshman backcourt with a sophomore experienced guard coming back. these guys need to be eased into it and not thrown to the wolves.they need to gain.experience and confidence.
It is also important that we remember that the scheduling goes 2 ways. We have to want to play the teams, and the other teams have to want to play us. I think it is a pretty tough OOC schedule. It could be tougher, although I'm not sure Cal would want it any tougher, and I'm not sure a lot of the teams we would want to play are going to jump at the chance to play us. And outside of a hand full of teams that are consistently good, the others are hit and miss, and most scheduling with other legit teams will be at least a 2 year deal. Which also may be how some of the teams made it on our schedule. While we may want a tougher schedule this year, do we really want to lock in with some of the other teams for 2 years, knowing that we may have to hold tryouts just to fill the team out next year? The point of all that, is scheduling is much tougher than just looking at a list of teams and picking out the ones you wanna play.
The non conference schedule is tough. Stephen Austin, Valpo, and Hofstra all had good teams last year.
Michigan state lost four starters and despite a good class it's not as good as ours. UCLA will be good but they are at home. Arizona State shouldn't be much. Louisville will be tough but only because it's a road game. Kansas is elite but in Rupp.
11-2
Michigan state lost four starters and despite a good class it's not as good as ours. UCLA will be good but they are at home. Arizona State shouldn't be much. Louisville will be tough but only because it's a road game. Kansas is elite but in Rupp.
11-2
Understandable when you think about how low the low is. The high is high with 5 teams that should be top 10 but the low is more than 5 teams that won't even make the N.I.T
I imagine that we would want the sweetspot... teams that we feasibly can't lose to but also teams that are solid competition and help our SOS, RPI, Etc.
I'd guess teams between 50 and 100 would be good. There really isn't any point in playing someone under 200. It's a lose/lose situation. If we win, we were supposed to and it's a cupcake that doesn't help us. If we lose, it's a huge aberration on the season.
That said, I'm kind of fine that way it is. We can't do anything about the SEC slate, so no sense diving into it. We need to tailor our OOC based on how the SECT is trending. As it stands now, I'm fine with 5-6 really good teams in OOC and a few joke teams to play with lineups and try out some bench players.
I'd guess teams between 50 and 100 would be good. There really isn't any point in playing someone under 200. It's a lose/lose situation. If we win, we were supposed to and it's a cupcake that doesn't help us. If we lose, it's a huge aberration on the season.
That said, I'm kind of fine that way it is. We can't do anything about the SEC slate, so no sense diving into it. We need to tailor our OOC based on how the SECT is trending. As it stands now, I'm fine with 5-6 really good teams in OOC and a few joke teams to play with lineups and try out some bench players.
Who gives a rat's azz if a game is a neutral site or a true road game? Cal can show the team tape of last year's KU game to show the young squad how the refs can steal a game away from you. Even if you play well. The whole NCAA tournament is on neutral courts. Too much stock is put on "true road games".
What you want to do is play a bunch of teams that play a lot of road games.
That way, their RPI is artificially high, and you have a better shot at top 50 RPI wins.
As we've seen recently, your own RPI matters little to the committee, but you better play and beat a bunch of top 50 RPI teams.
Even if they are only top 50 because they played a bunch of other top RPI teams on the road.
That should be good for us playing UofL, UNC, UCLA, KU, and Michigan St. They should all have a lot of high RPI road matchups.
Nothing Cal can do about the SEC schedule. I would add that the SEC is not C-USA either.
Kentucky, A&M, Alabama, South Carolina, and possibly Auburn (dark-horse). I think all of them have decent talent and good coaches.
The best? Wth does that mean? The toughest? Not even close. The SEC is pathetic and to be in a position to gain a 1 seed we must play these games. What's the difference between last season and this one? UNC will be ass UCLA likely will too.
Lots of SEC talk so I'll way in too. I don't see any threats to a UK regular season and tourney three peat. Two years ago it was Arkansas, and last year it was A&M. This year besides UK only one SEC team makes the tourney, maybe.
Have to schedule the likes of Michigan state, UCLA, Arizona state, Louisville, UNC, and Kansas to get big wins. Losing to those teams don't hurt unless we lose five to six of them. I think UK goes 4-2 or 5-1.
Also playing the conference challenge in late January is huge since Kansas is the only real quality opponent after December. I'm not trying to down the SEC but simply stating cold hard facts.
Have to schedule the likes of Michigan state, UCLA, Arizona state, Louisville, UNC, and Kansas to get big wins. Losing to those teams don't hurt unless we lose five to six of them. I think UK goes 4-2 or 5-1.
Also playing the conference challenge in late January is huge since Kansas is the only real quality opponent after December. I'm not trying to down the SEC but simply stating cold hard facts.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Rich Paul throws shade at Cal regarding Chris Livingston- Latest: Killswitch24
-
