Apples vs. oranges…
Honestly, I’m not convinced that route works at all for football: Fresno state, eastern Michigan, Nevada, Marshall, Bowling friggin’ Green, et.al. — all say hello😱🤢😱🤢
TORVIK 2024-2025 College Basketball Projections
- Thread starter Blimpy
- Start date
Honestly, I’m not convinced that route works at all for football: Fresno state, eastern Michigan, Nevada, Marshall, Bowling friggin’ Green, et.al. — all say hello😱🤢😱🤢
I think they banking on having 3 good games at the Battle 4 Atlantis and South Carolina being a Q2 at worst. It can be spun to be seen each way. On the surface it looks weak but maybe they feel confident in winning that tournament and having 3 good wins? I don't know. I'm not mad about it. 11 non conference games, can't play 11 good teams. Gotta have some buy games in there. What's the best number for that? You already have 20 conference games where it's basically going to be Q1 and Q2. Should you only have 5 buy games out of 11? 3? Zero? Would 6 have been just that much better?It’s a dangerous game to play. Really betting on your team blowing out those bad teams and if you lose one or only win by a little, it screws your NET. Also banking on picking up Q1s in B1G….i dunno I’d be a bit upset from a fans perspective if this is what my team did…especially with the history IU has. Yes I give them a lot of crap, but cmon, this scheduling is pathetic and shows they have little confidence that they can beat better teams.
I’d painter did this, I’d be equally as disappointed. Test your team bit, too. Beating cupcakes by 30 doesn’t help.
But….
I get how they’re playing the system, but if you recruit/play a certain style and expect to win games, this non conf schedule is pathetic. It’s to guarantee woody a fast track to 20 wins. It’s not testing his team whatsoever.
We have heard for years how the B1G doesn’t prepare teams for the tournament (didn’t impact Purdue last year)/“is a down year” (that’s only when Purdue wins apparently). So, now all of a sudden, the B1G is really good? Why? Cuz Oregon and UCLA joined?
What would have been good for non conf is actually challenge your team…have at least 2-3 games vs potential top 30 teams. If IU doesn’t win their first game in Atlantis, they won’t have any quality wins outside their conference.
Again, I get that they’re playing the game/system, just if I were a fan I’d be super disappointed that the team isn’t challenged and won’t be on any network besides Big Ten + for the rest of 2024 (except for Atlantis obviously). It shows me woody isnt confident in his teams ability and his coaching ability to play well/pick up wins against quality teams. Guess that’s fine, but it’s quite laughable how fans of a team that considers itself a “blue blood” are rushing to defend this schedule.
Last edited:
Hope the ones you are referring to, are talking another sport other than basketball?
In basketball, best you can say there currently imo........The B10 is really deep
(As it has no top 15 teams in ranking above.)
If you're going to lose some anyway, might as well be against power conference competition. We've played with Vanderbilt, Oregon State, Virginia Tech and other power conference teams over the past several years. Some people act like we're scheduling Alabama and Florida State every year.
I really think we do a good mix on the football side. Some people complain that a non-conference schedule is too tough, particularly this year, but those people don't understand what goes into making a schedule. It's all about contracts and filling gaps, for BOTH teams involved. We have games scheduled as far out as 2033 I think right now, Ole Miss? How are we to know what kind of team we're going to have transitioning from 2032 to 2033? Simple, we can't. But this is the way schedules are done in college football. Why it's so different from basketball is a question I have never gotten an answer to. It's similar to why the BTN can have overflow channels for football but not for basketball. Why are the 2 sports different?
But overall, my first point is that I think we have done a decent job of scheduling over the years. The cupcake every now and then. Middle of the road G5 teams (Fresno, Nevada, Rice, Marshall) every now and then. Comparable P5 (VaTech, Oregon St, Wake Forest) teams every now and then. And now Notre Dame back in the mix on occasion. It's not embarrassingly easy ever, and it's not normally debilitatingly difficult.
Because Purdue should do that in football. Just the same as Indiana should. We aren't Ohio State and Michigan.
It's a clear reflection on the state of the program for them IMO.
It's NCAA or bust for Woodson and he's clearly taking the easier road to keep his job. If your goal is to make Final 4 or win a B1G title you don't schedule like this. You want to play the best as much as possible to get better. The goal is clearly just to get in the big dance here.
No basketball in the B1G will still be down. But it'll still give plenty of Q1 and Q2 opportunities. Michigan State normally loads up and it hasn't helped them a lick recently. Gonzaga plays most of their season against what's considered buy games and they have been just fine.
Gonzaga plays a tougher non conf and also has one of the best coaches in the country. IU doesn’t fall under either of those categories.
Yep. I would love to see Purdue get back to the level of Jack Mollenkopf, Jim Young, and Joe Tiller teams. It's been done. It can be done again. Wisconsin and Nortwestern used to be B10 doormats, battling for the bottom of the league. It isn't written in stone that Purdue is destined for all time to be a middle-of-the-pack team.
Cuz they aren’t scared
Illinois right there after losing 4 starters and 2 first team all conference players.A top 20 ranking after losing a 2 time NPOY? I'll take that. Indinia is ranked too high though
And Underwood isn’t scared of playing people like Woodson is. Illinois has Tennessee, Duke, Alabama, Arkansas on its schedule plus an improved Missouri team and NCAA darling Oakland.
We aren't FCS or G5 either. The gap between BT/SEC teams and everyone else only continues to grow. If we can't beat other teams at our level, that's a Purdue problem. I think, at most, one G5 teams as a warmup is appropriate. Our stadium should be completely empty if we schedule FCS. That's a complete joke and nobody should bother watching it.
Hopefully we bump up the number of conference games again since the conference keeps expanding. That would take care of at least one more game of potential coward scheduling.
We'll probably never be perennial contenders for the conference title game but I think, with the right coach, we can be in the mix and land there every decade or two.
We were competitive in many big games with Brohm. Even won a number of them. I don't know whether we have that high-end capability under the current regime. We certainly haven't seen it yet but the first year set a baseline that we can use to judge progress going forward.
I'll go to my grave saying that the Purdue job is a really good coaching job. 6+ wins a year will keep fans happy as long as you're competitive. I mean, we weren't great last year by any means and our season ticket sales appear to be very good for this upcoming season. You get alot of rope and very realistic expectations here. Might be harder to recruit top talent here traditionally but that seems to be strictly a money issue in the era of NIL.
One more thing regarding college football scheduling.
Someone needs to think up a better post-season format than dozens of meaningless bowl games that top players aren't even remotely interested in playing in. Expanding the playoffs creates a few more meaningful games, but in a way it will only make the non-playoff games more of an afterthought. We have already seen teams opt out of some of these games due to lack of player interest in playing them.
Speaking of which, if players are going to now get paid by the university should they be allowed to opt out of playing in a bowl?
Someone needs to think up a better post-season format than dozens of meaningless bowl games that top players aren't even remotely interested in playing in. Expanding the playoffs creates a few more meaningful games, but in a way it will only make the non-playoff games more of an afterthought. We have already seen teams opt out of some of these games due to lack of player interest in playing them.
Speaking of which, if players are going to now get paid by the university should they be allowed to opt out of playing in a bowl?
Even if they lose a couple, they still dominate their conference and get a bid. That said, I have a lot of respect for their program.
Exactly. I get what IU is doing, but it shows theyre not confident in winning big non conf games. Just a pathetic mentality.
Lol. Yea. It's because their conference is so weak. They have to make it up with some good out of conference games.
Gonzaga last year...
Purdue, Syracuse, UCLA, USC, Washington, UConn, San Diego State and Kentucky.
They still played 6 but games against Yale, Eastern Oregon, CSU Bakersfield, Army Pine Bluff, Miss Valley St and Jackson State and then their 16 game conference schedule.
So they played 15 non conference games. So they have more opportunities to play more. Indiana doesn't have that. They play 20 conference games and 11 non conference. If the Big Ten didn't play 20 conference games, then they could play more teams in the non conference.
I hear ya.
Purdue has a losing record against G5 opponents since Tiller retired. And a lot of those games were at Ross-Ade.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't be playing them.
I'm indifferent on the scheduling strategy. But losing to a bunch of G5 teams over the past decade and a half can't possibly be a good look.
Similar threads
