ADVERTISEMENT

Release of Non-Conference Schedule today?

Oct 13, 2007
496
267
63
Just saw on twitter, that they were releasing the non-conference schedule, one team at a time, and every 15 minutes.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdaCAyiX4AAT8tQ.jpg


DdaCAyiX4AAT8tQ.jpg


Wow, not much to see here; guess it'll be good for a young team to have a little lighter schedule. Although, to be fair: a lot of that depends on match-ups in the Charleston Classic, and the B1G/ACC match-up as well.

Who do you think will give us the toughest game(s)? Prediction on record through non-conference?

Lots of questions on this years team; like the first one would be seeing if/when Carsen and Nojel withdraw from the draft process. Or...
Are there any super late additions (transfers?), that might change the dynamics of the team?
 
Ohio comes at a great time. The young 'uns will have some experience, Ohio could be good this year ... I'd pay to see ... then Belmont next. I like that too. Time to challenge the young 'uns. Win or lose these two, we'll learn a lot. Still time to make a run in the conference, and we've seen how that influences the committee ...
 
Ohio comes at a great time. The young 'uns will have some experience, Ohio could be good this year ... I'd pay to see ... then Belmont next. I like that too. Time to challenge the young 'uns. Win or lose these two, we'll learn a lot. Still time to make a run in the conference, and we've seen how that influences the committee ...

Agreed. The key for the team next year if they want to make the tournament is to avoid bad losses as much they can. Not that an Ohio would be a bad loss, but it looks bad.

The Texas home and home is cool to see. \

We're going to have some losses to teams you wouldn't like to have losses to next year, but have to keep them as much to a minimum as possible and to also make sure we have a good number of wins heading into the Big Ten schedule. The Big Ten will have some bad teams next year, but the conference schedule is a grind.
 
Well, Ohio may well indeed be better this year, but all I see is trap games...those you don't get much credit for winning (because you're supposed to), but they'll play hell on a teams tourney chances, if they drop one or two of them at home.

The Charleston Classic only has two teams that are even close to the (Way too Early) top 25 lists, and Purdue is #25 (For both ESPN & Gary Parrish), so not the deepest field there.

I don't see either of the Texas game thats away, or Notre Dame on a neutral court, as being what the committee will consider as quad #1 quality wins...so, I'm not sure where are they gonna come from?
 
Well, Ohio may well indeed be better this year, but all I see is trap games...those you don't get much credit for winning (because you're supposed to), but they'll play hell on a teams tourney chances, if they drop one or two of them at home.

The Charleston Classic only has two teams that are even close to the (Way too Early) top 25 lists, and Purdue is #25 (For both ESPN & Gary Parrish), so not the deepest field there.

I don't see either of the Texas game thats away, or Notre Dame on a neutral court, as being what the committee will consider as quad #1 quality wins...so, I'm not sure where are they gonna come from?

We're not going to get in the tournament based on wins we get non-conference. However, they will be good for computer ratings. The way we'll get into the tournament is to go through growing pains in the non-conference, win a decent number and then hope that we're improving throughout the season with the young/inexperienced guys to where we're playing a lot better come conference play and we can get some good wins then.

I mean, if we're losing all these games - we aren't going to the tournament anyways - but if you beat an Ohio and they win their conference, it's not going to murder you ratings like a loss to Alabama A&M would. The MAC isn't great, but that's not a low, low level conference.

I actually think we'll start off the season a bit worse than most expect (you couldn't pay me to rank Purdue in the pre-season top 25), but we'll end up better than where people expect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Do Dah Day
ND will attract attention. I think that they lose a lot this year. But a win would still be good. Texas at Texas is interesting. They are losing Bamba iirc. However, again Smart is well-known so that game will get noticed. Belmont and Ohio are the kinds of teams that can trip you up very easily. They will be likely under-ranked.

At this point, I have no idea how the B1G will be overall.My suspicion is that it will be very competitive with lots of on-the-road losses by a lot of teams.
 
ND will be good. They don't lose THAT much.. much less than we do, and their incoming class is pretty good. Well coached. Farrell is an all-ACC level pg. Harvey and Pflueger will be solid. Gibbs could be special.
 
ND will be good. They don't lose THAT much.. much less than we do, and their incoming class is pretty good. Well coached. Farrell is an all-ACC level pg. Harvey and Pflueger will be solid. Gibbs could be special.
I believe Farrell was a Senior last year.
 
if you look at the BIG 10 last year, both Nebraska and penn st were worthy, but didn't receive an NCAA bid primarily because they had very few significant non-conference wins. and the BIG 10 had a very poor non-conference record. in the past a 20 win BIG 10 team wasn't even a bubble team - it was an automatic bid. to make the dance , Purdue is going to have to start out strong and win those non-conference match-ups and hope other BIG 10 teams win their non-conference games as well to make the BIG 10 match-ups actually meaningful games.

Purdue is going to have to beat both Texas and Notre Dame if they expect an invite. Finishing 5th in the BIG 10 may not be good enough. there were also teams in the top 25 last year who didn't receive invites. Rather than increasing the field, I'd love to see some conferences lose their automatic bids. or do something more drastic and give the invites just to conference champions and place more emphasis o n teams winning their conference. Being an informed person, I realize the NCAA would never do either - too much revenue involved.
 
We're not going to get in the tournament based on wins we get non-conference. However, they will be good for computer ratings. The way we'll get into the tournament is to go through growing pains in the non-conference, win a decent number and then hope that we're improving throughout the season with the young/inexperienced guys to where we're playing a lot better come conference play and we can get some good wins then.

I mean, if we're losing all these games - we aren't going to the tournament anyways - but if you beat an Ohio and they win their conference, it's not going to murder you ratings like a loss to Alabama A&M would. The MAC isn't great, but that's not a low, low level conference.

I actually think we'll start off the season a bit worse than most expect (you couldn't pay me to rank Purdue in the pre-season top 25), but we'll end up better than where people expect.
Exactly what I was about to write.
 
if you look at the BIG 10 last year, both Nebraska and penn st were worthy, but didn't receive an NCAA bid primarily because they had very few significant non-conference wins. and the BIG 10 had a very poor non-conference record. in the past a 20 win BIG 10 team wasn't even a bubble team - it was an automatic bid. to make the dance , Purdue is going to have to start out strong and win those non-conference match-ups and hope other BIG 10 teams win their non-conference games as well to make the BIG 10 match-ups actually meaningful games.

Purdue is going to have to beat both Texas and Notre Dame if they expect an invite. Finishing 5th in the BIG 10 may not be good enough. there were also teams in the top 25 last year who didn't receive invites. Rather than increasing the field, I'd love to see some conferences lose their automatic bids. or do something more drastic and give the invites just to conference champions and place more emphasis o n teams winning their conference. Being an informed person, I realize the NCAA would never do either - too much revenue involved.
Our early season will be a total learning experience. We don't have a pre-season trip this year. That's fine and how things work out. But there will be some severe ups and downs. Some learning from your mistakes and some learning from your successes. They don't HAVE to beat Texas and ND to make the tourney. But it will force them to become really good by the end of Jan. See MSU this year. Finishing 5th in the B1G may not do it if they lose to ND and TX, but if they get good enough through the experiences before Christmas, they could finish better than 5th... no way to know... but experience is the key.

Anyone predicting whether we get in the dance is like a Junior in weatherman school, has some intelligence, but is trying to do something that even the experts aren't very good at.

I believe our best course of action in the 2018 games is to give a lot of chances to several people (always based on practice and work-ethic). I also "expect" the more experienced players to get starters roles early-on. That has little to do with who will start in the B1G season. It may or well may not remain the same.
 
Another way to make the NcAA tournament.....win the dang BTT....10-year anniversary.

This will be an interesting transition.....a great opportunity and quite a challenge. I expect a little bit of a roller coaster, but I am intrigued on what this team might do on the defensive end and in transition.
 
if you look at the BIG 10 last year, both Nebraska and penn st were worthy, but didn't receive an NCAA bid primarily because they had very few significant non-conference wins. and the BIG 10 had a very poor non-conference record. in the past a 20 win BIG 10 team wasn't even a bubble team - it was an automatic bid. to make the dance , Purdue is going to have to start out strong and win those non-conference match-ups and hope other BIG 10 teams win their non-conference games as well to make the BIG 10 match-ups actually meaningful games.

Purdue is going to have to beat both Texas and Notre Dame if they expect an invite. Finishing 5th in the BIG 10 may not be good enough. there were also teams in the top 25 last year who didn't receive invites. Rather than increasing the field, I'd love to see some conferences lose their automatic bids. or do something more drastic and give the invites just to conference champions and place more emphasis o n teams winning their conference. Being an informed person, I realize the NCAA would never do either - too much revenue involved.

I'd also add that Penn State and Nebraska didn't really have any (or at least multiple) good wins in conference. Nebraska beat Michigan (when Michigan was fringe top 25) and Penn State beat Ohio State in the tournament, but neither team had good wins outside of that.

Putting imaginary benchmarks in May 2018 on who we have to beat to make the NCAA Tournament in March 2019 is crazytown.

Also, there were teams in the top 25 who didn't receive invites? Let's not start comparing Purdue to small conference teams. Your post is really pushing it...
 
I'd also add that Penn State and Nebraska didn't really have any (or at least multiple) good wins in conference. Nebraska beat Michigan (when Michigan was fringe top 25) and Penn State beat Ohio State in the tournament, but neither team had good wins outside of that.

Putting imaginary benchmarks in May 2018 on who we have to beat to make the NCAA Tournament in March 2019 is crazytown.

Also, there were teams in the top 25 who didn't receive invites? Let's not start comparing Purdue to small conference teams. Your post is really pushing it...


i wasn't comparing Purdue to small conference teams. i was comparing them to what the national posters believed were the top 25 best teams in college basketball last year. And unfortunately because of bias, several top 25 teams were forgotten and omitted from the NCAA tourney in favor of those from BIG conferences who did not deserve to be included. many of the teams fro m smaller conferences are every bit as good as Purdue is. What was that team out of Arkansas a couple of years ago? that Purdue took lightly?

and yes, the same could happen to Purdue if the BIG 10 conference as a whole does not fare well in non-conference games. I'm a firm believer with today's computer ratings, that non- conference games are being given a lot more meaning because they establish and form your conference's ranking. And win/loss standing i n your conference is beginning to mean a lot less. Purdue received its 3 seed last year based on their quality non-conference wins, not their BIG 10 standing. beating Arizona and Butler was just as important and maybe more so than beating Michigan.

that's my opinion, and i realize many here don't agree with it or share it. but our non conference wins had more to do with our computer ratings than our BIG 10 wins did.
 
i wasn't comparing Purdue to small conference teams. i was comparing them to what the national posters believed were the top 25 best teams in college basketball last year. And unfortunately because of bias, several top 25 teams were forgotten and omitted from the NCAA tourney in favor of those from BIG conferences who did not deserve to be included. many of the teams fro m smaller conferences are every bit as good as Purdue is. What was that team out of Arkansas a couple of years ago? that Purdue took lightly?

and yes, the same could happen to Purdue if the BIG 10 conference as a whole does not fare well in non-conference games. I'm a firm believer with today's computer ratings, that non- conference games are being given a lot more meaning because they establish and form your conference's ranking. And win/loss standing i n your conference is beginning to mean a lot less. Purdue received its 3 seed last year based on their quality non-conference wins, not their BIG 10 standing. beating Arizona and Butler was just as important and maybe more so than beating Michigan.

that's my opinion, and i realize many here don't agree with it or share it. but our non conference wins had more to do with our computer ratings than our BIG 10 wins did.
that may be true for PU, I'm not into debating anymore, but was it also true for MSU? Are there two paths to the same destination? Who knows??
 
... Rather than increasing the field, I'd love to see some conferences lose their automatic bids. or do something more drastic and give the invites just to conference champions and place more emphasis o n teams winning their conference. Being an informed person, I realize the NCAA would never do either - too much revenue involved.
Not sure I'm following your logic here on the automatic qualifier. If you took away the auto bid for the weak/tiny conferences, the bids would most likely go to power 5 teams that are just on the wrong side of today's bubble. Those power 5 teams have bigger name recognition, bigger fan bases, and arguably attract bigger audiences. In other words, it would seem there would be a greater amount of money at stake for the NCAA in that scenario, not less.

And if you're talking about taking away auto bids for larger/ power 5 conferences, that has basically zero effect since those teams would be invited regardless and wouldn't impact the field.
 
I'm talking about all those PAC 12 teams who got into the tourney based purely on name recognition verses many small conference teams who were much more deserving of being included.

And the case was made many times that Purdue received a higher seed than MSU last year based primarily on the non-conference competition Purdue faced. The people in MSU probably are upset Purdue received the higher seed when they were the conference champs and had beaten Purdue. Whether you agree or not, it's fairly clear Purdue's non conference wins were the difference in seeding between MSU and Purdue.

That's why I say Purdue needs to win the games against Texas and ND, because in the long run, those victories will be more significant than beating teams like IU.
 
I'm talking about all those PAC 12 teams who got into the tourney based purely on name recognition verses many small conference teams who were much more deserving of being included.

And the case was made many times that Purdue received a higher seed than MSU last year based primarily on the non-conference competition Purdue faced. The people in MSU probably are upset Purdue received the higher seed when they were the conference champs and had beaten Purdue. Whether you agree or not, it's fairly clear Purdue's non conference wins were the difference in seeding between MSU and Purdue.

That's why I say Purdue needs to win the games against Texas and ND, because in the long run, those victories will be more significant than beating teams like IU.
You said you'd like to see some conferences lose their auto bid but that you didn't think that would happen because there was too much money at stake. This follow-up post doesn't really explain that. I'm actually further confused given that you've somehow tied this into the seeds MSU and Purdue received, which seems to be a totally different subject.
 
I have mixed thoughts. I hate the play in games. Their only purpose is to generate revenue. I'm also not a huge fan of automatic berths especially when a team gets accepted with a losing record. I'm not sure some of the smaller conferences deserve an automatic berth. However, I'd rather see every conference represented than seeing the 6th place SEC or 5th place PAC 12 team get into the tourney. I'd like to see the NCAA tournament be more of a tournament of champions than a tournament to generate as much revenue as possible. I'd rather see 32 teams play than 68. I'd like to see winning a conference have more meaning. Looking st our own posts, all most people cared about was being in the top 4 of our conference and what our NCAA tourney seed would be. More people were more concerned about getting a 2 seed than winning our conference.

I also believe if your team is in the top 25 in a poll made by college coaches, your team is deserving of being invited into the NCAA tourney over some 5th place school from a power 5 conference.

I'd rather have fewer teams and make winning your conference more meaningful. If you can't win your conference, you shouldn't be demanding a tourney invite. And I realize that's in stark contrast to the NCAA beliefs. I believe the expansion of the NCAA tournament has watered down the importance of winning it. It's no longer a tournament of champions.

And I fully realize that in several years Purdue was one of those bubble teams that got invited because they belonged to a power conference. And Purdue proved in those years they were really not worthy of the invitation.

You can look at high school football and basketball. In some states, all schools are invited while in others it's a select few. Which process is better? I don't have the answer
 
If I ruled the NCAA I'd like to see the NCAA tormey bid given to the regular season conference champions. I highly doubt any conference, network or fan would agree with me. I'd like to see the NCAA go back to focusing on the student athlete verses generating revenue.

But with the realization that none of my ideas would ever be implemented, I'd at least like to see the top 25 teams in the coaches poll get invited. If a coach votes for a team during the season to be in the top 25, it seems hypocritical not to also give them a tourney invitation.
 
NCAA tormey bid given to the regular season conference champions[/QUOTE I would have to agree on that one. A team with a losing record should not receive an automatic bid simply because they won their conference tournament.
 
If I ruled the NCAA I'd like to see the NCAA tormey bid given to the regular season conference champions. I highly doubt any conference, network or fan would agree with me. I'd like to see the NCAA go back to focusing on the student athlete verses generating revenue.

But with the realization that none of my ideas would ever be implemented, I'd at least like to see the top 25 teams in the coaches poll get invited. If a coach votes for a team during the season to be in the top 25, it seems hypocritical not to also give them a tourney invitation.

Not that this is a sole reason for conference tournaments, but they do give team's incentives to keep playing hard, even if having a poor season.

For example, there's a big difference between a 10 seed and 11 seed in the Big Ten Tournament. Those teams aren't in the hunt for an NCAA at-large, but it still makes it meaningful.
 
That's awesome that Carsen gets to play Texas @ Texas. He'll be amped up for that game and I'll be amped to watch it.

I seem to recall Painter schedule @ Valpo for Hummel (tho i think he was injured at the time).

Very cool if Painter schedules these intentionally so that out-of-area players get a chance to play in front of hometown area folks.
 
That's awesome that Carsen gets to play Texas @ Texas. He'll be amped up for that game and I'll be amped to watch it.

I seem to recall Painter schedule @ Valpo for Hummel (tho i think he was injured at the time).

Very cool if Painter schedules these intentionally so that out-of-area players get a chance to play in front of hometown area folks.
It is cool. Keady used to schedule a game in a senior's home state so their family could come and see them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tjreese and klmLB
That's awesome that Carsen gets to play Texas @ Texas. He'll be amped up for that game and I'll be amped to watch it.

I seem to recall Painter schedule @ Valpo for Hummel (tho i think he was injured at the time).

Very cool if Painter schedules these intentionally so that out-of-area players get a chance to play in front of hometown area folks.
he does and has in the past...so did Gene
 
Rothstein says multiple sources have confirmed Purdue will play at FSU in the B1G/ACC challenge: https://frshoopz.com/cbb/rothstein-matchups-set-for-2018-acc-big-ten-challenge/

It should be another tough early road test for our guys as I've seen FSU being ranked as a top 15-ish team according to the early top 25 lists.


If so, wouldn't this (at this juncture at least) be our highest ranked opponent of the non-conference schedule? Ad to that fact that it's a true road game, and that would be a big help to the strength of schedule.

Since the B1G/ACC challenge games are towards the end of non-conference portion, then that would also give the team a chance to start learning to play together, give CMP some time to tinker with line-ups and rotations, and to possibly have already faced some adversity along the way as well.
 
ADVERTISEMENT