Past Opponents' Performance

  • 71 replies
  • 35199 views

Marillac

  • *****
  • 11224
Re: Past Opponents' Performance
« Reply #60 on: February 19, 2019, 09:51:00 PM »
Bowling Green wins again...this time over NET #121 Akron.

VCU bearing the brakes off Rhode Island 62-35.

Worst.Schedule.Ever.

LoganK

  • ****
  • 739
Re: Past Opponents' Performance
« Reply #61 on: February 20, 2019, 06:25:06 AM »
Bowling Green wins again...this time over NET #121 Akron.

VCU bearing the brakes off Rhode Island 62-35.

Worst.Schedule.Ever.

How are Loyola MD, Cal, UMES, MSM, Wagner, St Francis, and Sacred Heart doing?

Certainly not worst schedule ever.  There's even 30 schools who had weaker schedules this year alone.  So we're really only in the bottom 10% of weakest schedules.  You keep pointing to VCU and BG (BG is what, a quad 3 win?  Rutgers would be the better example) while ignoring everything else.

And again, as is required for all posts with Marillac, some disclaimers:
I am not, nor have i ever said that the OOC was a bad schedule, I have simply stated (and backed up with evidence - both annecdotal and factual) that it was very weak.  I acknowledge that VCU and BG have been pleasant surprises, but they do not erase playing 7 schools that are sub 240 on KP.  We will make the NCAA tourney (barring a total collapse), but we will not be seeded as highly as most other power conference teams would be with a 12-1 OOC record.  I think that covers everything...

Re: Past Opponents' Performance
« Reply #62 on: February 20, 2019, 07:45:58 AM »
How are Loyola MD, Cal, UMES, MSM, Wagner, St Francis, and Sacred Heart doing?

Certainly not worst schedule ever.  There's even 30 schools who had weaker schedules this year alone.  So we're really only in the bottom 10% of weakest schedules.  You keep pointing to VCU and BG (BG is what, a quad 3 win?  Rutgers would be the better example) while ignoring everything else.

And again, as is required for all posts with Marillac, some disclaimers:
I am not, nor have i ever said that the OOC was a bad schedule, I have simply stated (and backed up with evidence - both annecdotal and factual) that it was very weak.  I acknowledge that VCU and BG have been pleasant surprises, but they do not erase playing 7 schools that are sub 240 on KP.  We will make the NCAA tourney (barring a total collapse), but we will not be seeded as highly as most other power conference teams would be with a 12-1 OOC record.  I think that covers everything...

There was 1-2 too many cupcakes but there was a thought that anything other than 12-0 would be a big disappointment. We have seen, beating teams like vcu, Rutgers, gtech all away from home are not gimmies. All of them have beaten good teams throughout the year. Bowling green was thought of as a joke and a terrible close win..turns out not so much.
*wipes ketchup from his eyes* - I guess Heinz sight isn’t 20/20.

Marillac

  • *****
  • 11224
Re: Past Opponents' Performance
« Reply #63 on: February 20, 2019, 08:26:01 AM »
There was 1-2 too many cupcakes but there was a thought that anything other than 12-0 would be a big disappointment. We have seen, beating teams like vcu, Rutgers, gtech all away from home are not gimmies. All of them have beaten good teams throughout the year. Bowling green was thought of as a joke and a terrible close win..turns out not so much.

What really gets me upset each year are the posters that talk about us needing 23+ wins just to make the tournament. It ignores facts. The Big East is very hard. And the PAC-12 has been awful for a few years now.

LoganK

  • ****
  • 739
Re: Past Opponents' Performance
« Reply #64 on: February 20, 2019, 08:06:17 PM »
There was 1-2 too many cupcakes but there was a thought that anything other than 12-0 would be a big disappointment. We have seen, beating teams like vcu, Rutgers, gtech all away from home are not gimmies. All of them have beaten good teams throughout the year. Bowling green was thought of as a joke and a terrible close win..turns out not so much.
There are different levels of cupcakes.  Teams like Princeton in that 150-200 range are more ideal than teams that are sub 250.  It's a game you should still win, but it looks prettier on the team sheet.

Obviously it's easier for me to just say "schedule teams in 150-200 instead of 250-343!" than it is for the staff to actually make that happen, but even swapping two of those lower cupcakes for two middling cupcakes would give the appearance of a stronger schedule without putting the team through the grinder.

Re: Past Opponents' Performance
« Reply #65 on: February 21, 2019, 06:35:02 AM »
There are different levels of cupcakes.  Teams like Princeton in that 150-200 range are more ideal than teams that are sub 250.  It's a game you should still win, but it looks prettier on the team sheet.

Obviously it's easier for me to just say "schedule teams in 150-200 instead of 250-343!" than it is for the staff to actually make that happen, but even swapping two of those lower cupcakes for two middling cupcakes would give the appearance of a stronger schedule without putting the team through the grinder.

Agree
*wipes ketchup from his eyes* - I guess Heinz sight isn’t 20/20.

Marillac

  • *****
  • 11224
Re: Past Opponents' Performance
« Reply #66 on: March 09, 2019, 09:10:33 PM »
Cal ends the regular season winning its final three games in the PAC-12 including beating then top 25 Washington.


Re: Past Opponents' Performance
« Reply #67 on: March 09, 2019, 09:28:22 PM »
Cal ends the regular season winning its final three games in the PAC-12 including beating then top 25 Washington.


WOW

Marillac

  • *****
  • 11224
Re: Past Opponents' Performance
« Reply #68 on: March 15, 2019, 11:51:00 PM »
Bowling Green v Buffalo for the MAC championship tomorrow. If BG wins we are screwed.

Re: Past Opponents' Performance
« Reply #69 on: March 16, 2019, 02:50:08 PM »
Bowling Green v Buffalo for the MAC championship tomorrow. If BG wins we are screwed.
But I thought you loved BG! LOL