I might take a beating for this...but it seems to me this unbalanced schedule is really unjust. When you place PU schedule VS IU (for instance), you will see two different levels of competition and toughness. I know, I know, it might be a little whiny, but come on - to me its blatant...I cant be the only one. Thus, when I see IU at the top of the standings I honestly feel like they aren't getting "vetted" in the B10 like we are (I warned you - its a bit whiny, but am I wrong?)
Schedule - unbalanced- unjust?
- Thread starter BTFU22
- Start date
I get what you are saying, but we had a pretty easy road in the B1G last year and that helped us secure 3rd place in the league when the "experts" picked us somewhere around 11-13. With the B1G having so many teams, it's never going to be a fair test.
I was just using IU as an example (although it does get under my skin, I am an admitted hater - and damn proud of it), but this unbalanced schedule is crap, whether its an advantage or not. Every team should have the same road to face. Too many teams? -Then cut out non-conference games...that would be the fair thing to do.
On to my hatter status - there are 4 ranked teams in the B10 (besides IU) and IU doesn't play 1 of them until mid February? Ill give them MI on the road, but besides that, its been weak!!!!
I was self aware - its unfortunate that I had to put that in my post - but there are always haters out there that will attack the person, instead of the subject. Its normally a tactic used in debates by the low minded when they have nothing important to add to a discussion but want to be heard without true substance. There are just a bunch of those people out there, so I was trying to be proactive. You know the type of guys I am talking about, right? THE WORST!
As long as there are no "protected" games, like one team always playing Rutgers and Penn State twice, then it should all even out eventually. Like punaj said we got some breaks last year. The only alternative I see is splitting into 2 divisions like football, but I'm not a fan of that in hoops.
Perhaps - but I would argue the opposite is true (and that is kind of my point) - If you are winning based on a easier schedule, then you will get a higher seeding, thus playing weaker opponents in the tourney? Right? So you will walk thru 1st few rounds playing weaker comp - in that regards, it seems less far, not more. And if your play a tougher schedule, and get ranked lower, than you play better teams early, which makes the road more difficult. My point is - it should be fair and balanced so everyone can see the true merit of this league and each team.
If what you are suggesting above is true, then yes, there would be a real inequity in play. But reality doesn't line up with what you're suggesting. Understanding that team rankings aren't synonymous with NCAA seeding, it's fair to say they're at least a reasonable indicator. So let's look at them for a few teams:
Iowa - best record in the B1G with certainly one of the harder schedules in the B1G to date. they are ranked in the top-5
Purdue - in the middle tier of conference SOS with an identical overall record as Iowa but whose best win is less impressive than Iowa's best. they are ranked in the top-20
IU - in the lower tier of conference SOS to date, with 1 overall win higher than Iowa, and 1 overall win less than Purdue. they are ranked BEHIND both Iowa and Purdue as a top-25 team
If what you were suggesting above was true IU would be looked as being better than Iowa and Purdue because of the easier schedule to date that they have had. But they aren't. And that's because not all wins and losses are created equal, and the (reasonably) educated people that do rankings and tourney selections are fully aware of that, thus the reason NOBODY just looks at overall record or conference record and says "well, that's that, there you go".
Short answer... incredibly whiny, and your fear related to seeding seems - to me - to be borderline irrational.
Last edited:
From an equity standpoint, you'd still have the issue btfu22 was complaining about... just look at the SEC in football. It's practically a foregone conclusion that the West team will win the league, and the split between East and West has been the reason the sole reason the past couple years that the 2 best teams haven't played for the conference championship... because they were both from the West and couldn't. No doubt your suggestion would provide more equity within the divisions, true.
Not really, if you look at any projected brackets, IU has been lower than us all year. If they win the B1G & the B1GT, then they will have a higher seed, but if they win the B1G & another of the top tier teams win the B1GT, they will have a much higher seed than IU. They don't have the schedule to move them up. I also don't think there ceiling is a 1 seed right now, where ours, Iowa's & Maryland's is that high.
At the end of the day, you play who you are scheduled and in this conference you will have a number of tests by the end of it. IU fans would be the first to admit they've had an easy schedule. That said, they really haven't slipped up (loss to Wisconsin not terrible) and they have been winning several of them convincingly. They'll be tested more frequently in the remaining schedule and if they're not legit it will show there.
I think they actually got a bit of a break that Blackmon got injured because that benefited them and I'm not sure it's a move Crean ever makes with a healthy Blackmon. With that break, however, they look legit to me. Their defense actually looks good most nights (just goes to show what one terrible defensive player can do to a team). My guess is their schedule may be worth a couple of conference wins and aid them as it pertains to a Big Ten title but they would still be near the top if they had a normal schedule.
Finally, we have not had a rough schedule to date either. I envisioned us coming out of January with 1 loss. But we give away the home game to Iowa and don't show up at Illinois and 1 loss turns to 3 with the tougher portion of our schedule still to come. We have 7 games left and I'd be happy to come out of that stretch with a winning record in those 7 games. 3-4 would not surprise me.
I think they actually got a bit of a break that Blackmon got injured because that benefited them and I'm not sure it's a move Crean ever makes with a healthy Blackmon. With that break, however, they look legit to me. Their defense actually looks good most nights (just goes to show what one terrible defensive player can do to a team). My guess is their schedule may be worth a couple of conference wins and aid them as it pertains to a Big Ten title but they would still be near the top if they had a normal schedule.
Finally, we have not had a rough schedule to date either. I envisioned us coming out of January with 1 loss. But we give away the home game to Iowa and don't show up at Illinois and 1 loss turns to 3 with the tougher portion of our schedule still to come. We have 7 games left and I'd be happy to come out of that stretch with a winning record in those 7 games. 3-4 would not surprise me.
An unbalanced schedule requires that there be at least some inequity between schedules. We can say this balances out from year to year, but why should we be happy with that lame answer?
I posted this before the season began - the B10 schedule should increase to at least 22 games. That would put the beginning of the B10 season early December, which doesn't seem outlandish to me.
Most of the nation pays little attention to college hoops until January. Perhaps it's mostly due to competing with football, but I would think people would be more interested in watching conference matchups rather than games against smaller schools. I know I would enjoy it more. And the more games you add to the conference slate, the less likely the chance that an "easy" schedule arises.
I posted this before the season began - the B10 schedule should increase to at least 22 games. That would put the beginning of the B10 season early December, which doesn't seem outlandish to me.
Most of the nation pays little attention to college hoops until January. Perhaps it's mostly due to competing with football, but I would think people would be more interested in watching conference matchups rather than games against smaller schools. I know I would enjoy it more. And the more games you add to the conference slate, the less likely the chance that an "easy" schedule arises.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying... I wasn't judging teams about who had capacity or the schedule to make an impact on their seeding the rest of the way through... I stated that going to divisions in hoops would provide greater scheduling equity within the 2 divisions, but it too would fall short of perfect. I was merely point out that it wouldn't totally appease the complaint that btfu22 and others have today.
I was speaking of the B10 tourney which is based on record - has nothing to do with the NCAA tourney...that would be irrational but that is not what I was talking about.
Not everyone doing the same job gets paid the same amount for it. Not everyone getting paid the same amount for the same job works as hard. Not all children are born to parents who care for them equally. Not all parents who give birth to children receive a child that is healthy and free of birth defects. We all accept inequities in everyday life, I guess I just don't get why this such a grave injustice in college basketball. It's not like the rankings and seedings don't make at least some reasonable attempt to compensate for this.
My main point was - the scheduling is unjust because it is unbalanced - it may be of benefit one year or work against us in another year...but a schedule shouldn't be a factor to your seed in the B10 tourney, but I think it is. Could you imagine this in the NFL where each team plays each other twice in the same league to determine the league champ. there would be an uproar - that's all i am saying...
I am not talking about national rankings or NCAA tourney seeds.
I am not talking about national rankings or NCAA tourney seeds.
OK, my mistake. My overall point remains the same, but agree with you that there is no subjectivity in the B10 tourney rankings, it is straight down list based on results.
Agree would love to see home and home with all teams in the Conf. Still searching for OP's post from last season complaining when PU had a single game only against each of the teams that finished 1/2/3 above them in the Conf....
Unbalanced schedule stinks but it was it is
Unbalanced schedule stinks but it was it is
Yes, there are inequities in life. But scheduling isn't as near as complicated as the issues you brought up. When you can easily fix the issue, I think you need to provide reasons of why not to improve it rather than the other way around. I'm especially confused why you seem to be slow to push for the change that could so easily fix this. Wouldn't you rather watch Purdue play IU and MSU twice than IUPUI and New Mexico?
Five of their last eight games are against ranked teams. Home and home with Iowa, @ MSU, and home against Maryland and PU. Not to mention a home game vs. Nebraska and @ Illinois (we all know what is capable of happening there).
I agree, most of their tough games are at home, but they aren't going to fair well at the end of the season. I see them losing at least 3 of those 5 games against ranked team, and I think it's more likely than not that they'll lose all 5.
Besides, whats more satisfying than an over-achieved IU team lose early in the NCAA Tournament? You know it's going to happen.
I agree, most of their tough games are at home, but they aren't going to fair well at the end of the season. I see them losing at least 3 of those 5 games against ranked team, and I think it's more likely than not that they'll lose all 5.
Besides, whats more satisfying than an over-achieved IU team lose early in the NCAA Tournament? You know it's going to happen.
Similar threads
