Easy vs Hard

[VC99]

What do people think about scheduling easy versus scheduling hard? I’m becoming more convinced that the move is to schedule as easy as possible—especially if you already have a tough conference schedule. It seems like programs such as Gonzaga, UConn, etc. rack up huge win streaks, play nobody for two months, and gain a ton of confidence and momentum. Plus, they often get seeded higher due to human bias—people just don’t see them lose. Even Indiana football last year played a very easy schedule, which I think set them up well for this year. And Vanderbilt played nobody in the non-con, got extremely high ranked and built confidence. Essentially, if you fake being good, you start to believe you’re good, which can actually make you good—rather than having your confidence torn to shreds every other game.

 

[TuesdayBoost]

What do people think about scheduling easy versus scheduling hard? I’m becoming more convinced that the move is to schedule as easy as possible—especially if you already have a tough conference schedule. It seems like programs such as Gonzaga, UConn, etc. rack up huge win streaks, play nobody for two months, and gain a ton of confidence and momentum. Plus, they often get seeded higher due to human bias—people just don’t see them lose. Even Indiana football last year played a very easy schedule, which I think set them up well for this year. Essentially, if you fake being good, you start to believe you’re good, which can actually make you good—rather than having your confidence torn to shreds every other game.

I’m with ya. We will have to beat the best eventually so why kill yourself on the way.

 

[UKBB4Ever]

We schedule easy then make it hard.

Bellarmine scored 85 points on this defense. But they had an excuse. It was Christmas for UK.

Bellarmine apparently doesn’t have Christmas.

It’s like NIL. Getting paid only makes UK players not play hard.

 

[RedwoodHigh]

What do people think about scheduling easy versus scheduling hard? I’m becoming more convinced that the move is to schedule as easy as possible—especially if you already have a tough conference schedule. It seems like programs such as Gonzaga, UConn, etc. rack up huge win streaks, play nobody for two months, and gain a ton of confidence and momentum. Plus, they often get seeded higher due to human bias—people just don’t see them lose. Even Indiana football last year played a very easy schedule, which I think set them up well for this year. And Vanderbilt played nobody in the non-con, got extremely high ranked and built confidence. Essentially, if you fake being good, you start to believe you’re good, which can actually make you good—rather than having your confidence torn to shreds every other game.

LMFAO - Do your research - Gonzaga & U Conn both played tougher schedules than UK this year. They played Kansas - Maryland- UCLA - Florida - Kentucky - Oklahoma - Az St. - Arizona - Creighton - Texas - Illinois- BYU - Oregon - Michigan - Alabama - among others,
Your post was almost laughably tragic, when BBN is trying to pad the schedule because we can’t handle the deep end of the pool. Sad state of affairs for a once proud BLUE BLOODED PROGRAM.

 

[VC99]

LMFAO - Do your research - Gonzaga & U Conn both played tougher schedules than UK this year. They played Kansas - Maryland- UCLA - Florida - Kentucky - Oklahoma - Az St. - Arizona - Creighton - Texas - Illinois- BYU - Oregon - Michigan - Alabama - among others,
Your post was almost laughably tragic, when BBN is trying to pad the schedule because we can’t handle the deep end of the pool. Sad state of affairs for a once proud BLUE BLOODED PROGRAM.

No. Arizona and Michigan in November is not the same as Arizona and Michigan in February. Gonzaga and Uconn only schedule "tough" teams at the beginning of the schedule when the top ranked teams are all just based off of pre-season hype and nobody is actually good which creates opportunities to steal a win off a "top team" and coast off those wins on your resume. Essentially play "tough" teams at the beginning of the season when nobody is good and then have huge win streaks for the last 2 months. That's how you get Gonzaga playing teams like San Francisco for 2 months and Uconn playing teams like DePaul for 2 months and getting 1 seeds. So neither Gonzaga nor Uconn have to play a peaking Arizona or a peaking Duke or any other top 25 team when it actually matters. Then they get 1 seeds and as we have seen from the statistics, getting a 1 seed almost guarantees you a final four. It's actually exactly similar to how Kentucky beat Duke early in the season last year but that same Duke team went on to play nobody and rack up historically lopsided wins and then they made the final four. Are you seeing my point? Who you play early in the schedule is irrelevant. Those are not the same teams as those in February, which Uconn and Gonzaga get to avoid all together. Since Kentucky doesn't get to play in the Big East or the WCC, they should consider trying to rack up wins and confidence in the early part of the schedule, like we saw Vandy do, and it worked out for them.

 

[Eastkybball]

An easy schedule would’ve done this team wonders this year. Other teams with lots of young talent need a chip on the shoulder to perform or they just come overlooking competition. The win over Purdue killed this team imo.

 

[VC99]

.

 

[VC99]

LMFAO - Do your research - Gonzaga & U Conn both played tougher schedules than UK this year. They played Kansas - Maryland- UCLA - Florida - Kentucky - Oklahoma - Az St. - Arizona - Creighton - Texas - Illinois- BYU - Oregon - Michigan - Alabama - among others,
Your post was almost laughably tragic, when BBN is trying to pad the schedule because we can’t handle the deep end of the pool. Sad state of affairs for a once proud BLUE BLOODED PROGRAM.

And actually, as you saw during our five-game win streak—when we played worse teams—confidence, program stability, and Kentucky’s tournament seeding all rose dramatically. Now we have 10 Quad 1 games left, and the vibes are already back down. So I’d say my theory has proved itself.

 

[Ukwazoo3]

Gotta play at least a couple tough games, but with the SEC being tough nowdays, I definitely wouldn't be loading up in the early season.

 

[RedwoodHigh]

And actually, as you saw during our five-game win streak—when we played worse teams—confidence, program stability, and Kentucky’s tournament seeding all rose dramatically. Now we have 10 Quad 1 games left, and the vibes are already back down. So I’d say my theory has proved itself.

I’m actually a Gonzaga fan too & see them play a lot of games.
I cheered for Ky when they were embarrassed by the Zags 2 of last 3 years.
Big East plays a 20 game schedule & don’t think it’s a weak league at your peril. Ky would not be in the top 3 of BIG EAST this year. Gonzaga is joining the new PAC 12 next year so the competition will get better but again don’t sleep on the WCC teams considering that POPE & BYU never finished higher than 4th in his years there.
Go play a weak schedule & get put on SEC+ or ESPN+ & see how many good players will sign with Ky. Recruit the best - Play the best - Be the Best.Go CATS⭐️

 

[Cats_2010]

And actually, as you saw during our five-game win streak—when we played worse teams—confidence, program stability, and Kentucky’s tournament seeding all rose dramatically. Now we have 10 Quad 1 games left, and the vibes are already back down. So I’d say my theory has proved itself.

Sorry not buying what you’re selling. Our rising confidence? We got boat raced by Vandy which had lost 3 of 4. We were never competitive, we will not be competitive on Saturday, we will lose by 40. Why? Because we are a flawed basketball team with no leadership on or off the court.

 

[VC99]

Sorry not buying what you’re selling. Our rising confidence? We got boat raced by Vandy which had lost 3 of 4. We were never competitive, we will not be competitive on Saturday, we will lose by 40. Why? Because we are a flawed basketball team with no leadership on or off the court.

That's not my point.

 

[Artlaibesghost]

Not a solution. Have better coaches and players and the schedule takes care of itself. Lack of confidence from early BEATINGS is not this teams problem, lack of talent by coaching and players is. We go the tomato can route we truly have become Indiana

 

[mhs1964]

What do people think about scheduling easy versus scheduling hard? I’m becoming more convinced that the move is to schedule as easy as possible—especially if you already have a tough conference schedule. It seems like programs such as Gonzaga, UConn, etc. rack up huge win streaks, play nobody for two months, and gain a ton of confidence and momentum. Plus, they often get seeded higher due to human bias—people just don’t see them lose. Even Indiana football last year played a very easy schedule, which I think set them up well for this year. And Vanderbilt played nobody in the non-con, got extremely high ranked and built confidence. Essentially, if you fake being good, you start to believe you’re good, which can actually make you good—rather than having your confidence torn to shreds every other game.

I tend to agree with you particularly in football. Even in basketball was it simply coincidence that Cal’s early young teams that surprised in the post season not helped by a then extremely weak SEC?

 

[peterpiper09]

A lot of teams figured this out a long time ago but what you do is schedule teams in the 150 to 250 range instead of teams in the 250+ range. You still get the wins and your metrics look a lot better. I would like to see Gonzaga or Connecticut go through the SEC gauntlet.

 

[Johnnie Africa]

Look at Florida’s OOC schedule last year and then you tell me.

 

[Rainmaker]

Louisville, Gonzaga, State Farm classic and CBS sports classic, combine that with Indiana and maybe another power 4 middle ranked team with cupcakes and that more than enough before conference play. I’d love to see the cupcakes be 100-200 ranked teams and not 250+ though as it helps immensely with the metrics.

 

[peterpiper09]

Look at Florida’s OOC schedule last year and then you tell me.

Exactly
It’s not a sexy, but in the end it didn’t matter

 

[peterpiper09]

I think a lot of the problem is the fact that the SEC is now a lot tougher than it used to be because of all the good athletes these days. Used to, we needed the big games because we could roll through the conference. Now if you have a very tough out of conference schedule you have it tough all year. Doesn’t really set up well for the tournament.

 

[Johnnie Africa]

I think a lot of the problem is the fact that the SEC is now a lot tougher than it used to be because of all the good athletes these days. Used to, we needed the big games because we could roll through the conference. Now if you have a very tough out of conference schedule you have it tough all year. Doesn’t really set up well for the tournament.

Or injuries

 

[Blue Jesus]

What do people think about scheduling easy versus scheduling hard? I’m becoming more convinced that the move is to schedule as easy as possible—especially if you already have a tough conference schedule. It seems like programs such as Gonzaga, UConn, etc. rack up huge win streaks, play nobody for two months, and gain a ton of confidence and momentum. Plus, they often get seeded higher due to human bias—people just don’t see them lose. Even Indiana football last year played a very easy schedule, which I think set them up well for this year. And Vanderbilt played nobody in the non-con, got extremely high ranked and built confidence. Essentially, if you fake being good, you start to believe you’re good, which can actually make you good—rather than having your confidence torn to shreds every other game.

UConn played absolutely nobody in non-con last year except the Maui tournament where they went 0-3, but this year they had a very competitive non-con slate. Their only loss is to #1 Arizona. And the Big East is always competitive and they keep pulling out tough wins. I think they have a real shot to win again, unfortunately.

 

[Blue Jesus]

No. Arizona and Michigan in November is not the same as Arizona and Michigan in February. Gonzaga and Uconn only schedule "tough" teams at the beginning of the schedule when the top ranked teams are all just based off of pre-season hype and nobody is actually good which creates opportunities to steal a win off a "top team" and coast off those wins on your resume. Essentially play "tough" teams at the beginning of the season when nobody is good and then have huge win streaks for the last 2 months. That's how you get Gonzaga playing teams like San Francisco for 2 months and Uconn playing teams like DePaul for 2 months and getting 1 seeds. So neither Gonzaga nor Uconn have to play a peaking Arizona or a peaking Duke or any other top 25 team when it actually matters. Then they get 1 seeds and as we have seen from the statistics, getting a 1 seed almost guarantees you a final four. It's actually exactly similar to how Kentucky beat Duke early in the season last year but that same Duke team went on to play nobody and rack up historically lopsided wins and then they made the final four. Are you seeing my point? Who you play early in the schedule is irrelevant. Those are not the same teams as those in February, which Uconn and Gonzaga get to avoid all together. Since Kentucky doesn't get to play in the Big East or the WCC, they should consider trying to rack up wins and confidence in the early part of the schedule, like we saw Vandy do, and it worked out for them.

I don't understand your point. In the original post you say to "schedule as easy as possible" early in the season, then in this reply you say "who you play early in the schedule is irrelevant," and "nobody is good" at the beginning of the season. If that's the case then play every non-con game against top 25 teams to make your strength of schedule immaculate, without ever playing anybody good before conference play?