Conf USA doing round robin/flex scheduling next year for Bball

Conf USA doing round robin/flex scheduling next year for Bball

Submitted by triguy616 on May 27th, 2018 at 4:10 PM

Link

Conference USA will be moving to a conference schedule that is a round robin and then "podding" teams into categories, with teams in a pod playing each other again. This is very similar to Brian's proposed Big Ten schedule.

"We're going to play 13 games and your travel partner twice, which would be Western Kentucky for us," said D'Antoni. "Then they are going to seed the schools. If you finish in the top five, No. 1 through No. 5 will play each other for the next four games to get 18 games.

They are hoping that this will increase their chances to get a second team into the tournament.

B1G to go to 9 or 10 game conference schedule

B1G to go to 9 or 10 game conference schedule

Submitted by dnak438 on February 11th, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Per Delany's interview with the Chicago Tribune:

B1G's Delany to Tribune: Status quo of 8 conf games "not even on the table" now. It'll be either 9 or 10. Decision in spring.

A CBS write up is here with the following quote from Delany:

“We like to play each other, and those are not hollow words," said Delany. "We are getting larger and want to bind the conference together.”

OT: Ohio & Oregon Schedule 2020

OT: Ohio & Oregon Schedule 2020

Submitted by IncrediblySTIFF on October 24th, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Ohio and Oregon have scheduled a home & home in 2020-2021 per 11W.  I know this is only slightly related to Michigan, just continues on the thought that Michigan should continue to schedule more matchups against non-directional-Dakota's.

http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2012/10/15399/ohio-state-oregon-schedule-…

Tom Izzo's media quotes with my questions inserted (attempt at humor apparently failed)

Tom Izzo's media quotes with my questions inserted (attempt at humor apparently failed)

Submitted by michfan4borw on February 1st, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Me: Coach Izzo, do you think big-ten-regular-season scheduling is much different now with Nebraska in the conference than it was before?

Izzo: "'Everything has changed so much,' coach Tom Izzo said. ""

Me: "Changed so much"?  Really coach?  I see that since at least as early as the 1998-1999 season, a big ten team would often avoid playing twice against at least two teams each.  What do you think about the effects of having to not play every team each twice?

Izzo: "'There's been seasons we've either won or lost strictly on schedule,' Izzo said. 'If it's really erratic -- playing the top four twice and the bottom four once -- that could be a four- to six-game swing. And who you play on the road (means) a lot. I think the champion a lot of times is now determined by the schedule.'" 

Me: You say the champion is "now determined by the schedule"?  Doesn't logic suggest that that must have been the case as far back as 1998 then?

Izzo: (silence)

Me: So you're saying that at least some of the big ten titles MSU won since 1998 were not based on merit?

Izzo: (silence)

Me: Do you think you'd make the same argument if your team were today alone in first place in the big ten conference?

Izzo: (frown)

Dantonio (surprise appearance): "'OK, here's what we're going to do,' Dantonio said. 'We're going to get other people up here. We're going to talk about more than [scheduling].

'How many guys got a guy that's [knowledgeable on big ten scheduling]?' Dantonio asked . . . . After a couple raised their hands, Dantonio said: 'One, two -- so the two guys can go back there in the corner and talk about that. All of us right here, we're going to talk about [excuses for losing] for everybody. Let's go.'"  

 

sources (disclaimer: one link is to a free press article; please avoid clicking to it if possible): http://www.freep.com/article/20120201/SPORTS07/202010433/Big-Ten-schedule-imbalance-irks-Michigan-State-s-Tom-Izzo 

http://www.freep.com/article/20120120/SPORTS08/120120037/Mark-Dantonio-cuts-off-Michigan-assistant-Jeff-Hecklinski-during-coaches-convention 

 

Remaining Basketball Schedule favors State, Ohio, Illinois

Remaining Basketball Schedule favors State, Ohio, Illinois

Submitted by StephenRKass on January 18th, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Last night's game vs. Michigan State was exciting and a great game to watch. However, this may be the high water mark for the year. Thankfully, Michigan has done well so far. There are three  ways, however, that our schedule was and continues to be very tough.

  1. Last five game stretch. Five games in thirteen days is pretty rough for college teams, as Beilein mentioned in the post-game interview, but we weathered this with a 3 - 2 record.
  2. Games vs. top 3 teams and bottom 3 teams. If you go through the schedule, Michigan and OSU play the other 3 front runners a total of six times, and the bottom dwellers four times. MSU & Illinois have a slight advantage, with playing the top 3 five times and bottom 3 five times.
  3. Home vs. Road games. This is perhaps the most significant gauntlet and challenge facing Michigan. From here on out, we have four home games and eight road games, only one home game for every two on the road. In contrast, MSU has seven at home, and five on the road (and Ohio six at home.)  With our four remaining home games, three (Indiana, Ohio, & Illinois,) are against teams ranked in the top 25.

Wins will be very difficult to come by from now through the end of the season. If we are going to finish well, it is critical that especially Hardaway and Smotrycz, along with Novak, Douglass, and Burke, return to form with the 3 point shot. This will completely open up the floor, and make back door cuts and the pick and roll much, much more effective.

We'll have to see what happens, but at this point, I hope we get at least six more wins. I can see winning at Nebraska, & Penn State, and beating Indiana, Illinois, and Purdue at home. If we win one of the other seven games, better yet, two, we would finish with a record of 21 - 10 prior to the Big 10 Tourney. Should we do better than that, this team will have exceeded my hopes and expectations.

Gary Danielson on ND/Mich

Gary Danielson on ND/Mich

Submitted by SWFlaBlue on December 7th, 2009 at 6:28 PM

On the local radio show today (southwest Florida), Gary Danielson said that Michigan needs to drop Notre Dame off their schedule ASAP because of the disadvantage it creates for them - too regional, no opportunity to schedule good teams outside of them given the current BCS make-up, etc.

Now I'm normally one to dismiss anything he says as quick as it's uttered, but I think he's right in this instance. His example of how Ohio State can work their way around the country scheduling Texas, USC, et al for home and homes is the best way to do it given the current situation.

The days of scheduling a UCLA or Oregon in addition to the Domers just won't happen anymore. So I say let's drop them and whoever their new coach will be.

Michigan's bad Big 10 scheduling luck

Michigan's bad Big 10 scheduling luck

Submitted by Hannibal. on August 14th, 2009 at 4:03 PM

If you are placing a bet on who you will think will win the Big Ten, you might want to avoid betting on Northwestern or Minnesota.  If someone offers you the under-over on wins, take the under.  Is it because of who they lose off of the 2-deep?  Is it because of coaching or talent?  No.

Why then?  It is because they don't play Michigan this year.  Now, you might think that not playing Michigan is usually good for your record, but for some reason, history demonstrates the opposite.  Michigan has an uncanny knack for playing Big Ten teams when they are good, and avoiding them when they are really really bad.  It's almost as if the schedule is made up by somebody who has magical foresight and then purposely rotates the bad teams off of Michigan's schedule.  Michigan already has a tough draw by facing Ohio State every year.  In addition, our game with Penn State is like a de facto protected rivalry.  Because of all of these factors, we have one of the toughest intra-conference schedules on a yearly basis.

Since the Big Ten expanded in 1993, there have been 16 seasons, and 2 teams rotate off of the schedule each season.  Do the math, and that means that there have been 32 Big 10 teams that have rotated off of our schedule.  Want to take a guess as to how many of those teams have ever won or shared a conference title?  The answer -- none.  16 years, and not once has a team won or shared a title in a year where they did not play Michigan.  Even though we frequently rotate off the doormats of the league like Indiana, wouldn't you think that just once out of all those times, somebody would have stepped up and won or shared a championship?  Nobody has ever won 7 conference games, and only four times has somebody won 6 conference games (1996 Iowa, 1997&1998 Purdue, and 2004 Wisconsin).  Since 1993, we are sporting an impressive .727 Big 10 winning percentage, but nobody has ever take advantage of not playing us to go to a BCS Bowl.  Nobody has ever even made it to the Citrus Bowl!  Only two teams have made it as high as the Outback Bowl (Wisconsin '04, Iowa '08).

Let's compare winning percentages for various programs when they play Michigan against their winning percentages when they don't play Michigan.  For this analysis, I am only using Big 10 winning percentage, since non-conference scheduling has so much variation that it can distort the results.  For the "did play Michigan" years, the head-to-head game against Michigan is removed from the analysis so that these years can be validly compared to the "did not play Michigan" years.

Wisconsin:
Winning percentages in the "did not play Michigan" years:  .500
Winning percentages in the "did play Michigan" years:  .643

Indiana:
Winning percentages in the "did not play Michigan" years:  .354
Winning percentages in the "did play Michigan" years:  .214

Illinois:
Winning percentages in the "did not play Michigan" years:  .094
Winning percentages in the "did play Michigan" years:  .440

Penn State:
Winning percentages in the "did not play Michigan" years:  .188
Winning percentages in the "did play Michigan" years:  .745

Iowa:
Winning percentages in the "did not play Michigan" years:  .458
Winning percentages in the "did play Michigan" years:  .586

Minnesota:
Winning percentages in the "did not play Michigan" years:  .563
Winning percentages in the "did play Michigan" years:  .316

Purdue:
Winning percentages in the "did not play Michigan" years:  .625
Winning percentages in the "did play Michigan" years:  .429

Northwestern:
Winning percentages in the "did not play Michigan" years:  .156
Winning percentages in the "did play Michigan" years:  .536

Total:
Winning percentages in the "did not play Michigan" years:  .371
Winning percentages in the "did play Michigan" years:  .494

There are a few teams that slightly buck the trend, but that trend is overwhelming.  Now I'm not an expert statistician, but a difference in winning percentages of .123 with a huge sample of 8 teams over 16 seasons has to be very significant.  Remember in 2003 when we thought we were finally getting a break by having Penn State rotate off of our schedule for 2 years?  They went 3-13 in those two years.  Ouch.  Joe Paterno has never had a losing conference record except for when he has avoided playing Michigan.  The differences for Illinois and Northwestern are drastic too.  Illinois' conference record when they avoid us is a futile 3-29.  Northwestern's is 5-27.  We have played all of Kirk Frerentz's great teams from 2002-2004, and other than 2004, we played all of Barry Alvarez's best teams too. 

What's the point of all this?  None, I guess, except that for some reason, Michigan usually misses teams when they are down and plays them when they are up.  Since we don't play Northwestern and Minnesota this year, look for those teams to inexplicably suck.

Update Opponent Plausibility

Update Opponent Plausibility

Submitted by wile_e8 on July 28th, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Time to update the plausibility of the opponent for the 2010 opener. From Angelique Chengelis:

There is one change, however. The prevailing thought among the media was that the team would be among these four that have an open date next fall -- Virginia, Duke, Pitt and Oregon State. A Michigan official told me today those schools are not candidates and suggested it's very likely the team involved will be making changes to its already existing schedule to make room for Michigan.

OK, so that means just about any team with an open date is possible now. And removes everyone from Brian's list this morning except UConn.