- CBSSports.com

Every year the revolving door of discussion brings two parties together to argue the best way to achieve success through non-conference scheduling. One side adopts the theory that scheduling tough games for their non-conference slate raises their RPI and preparedness for the tournament. The other believes that a less strenuous and more balanced non-conference schedule can achieve the same result. Both ideologies preach eventual success, and both have statistical support for their arguments, but to get a better feel for what the effects and advantages of each really are, further examination is required.

What does competition do for a team and its players? Does a team improve by having their abilities and execution challenged against more difficult competition? Are the players and team then given an opportunity to see their faults and make adjustments to become better players with more of a chance to succeed in the future against that more difficult competition? Or does less difficult competition and easier routes to victory teach a team to win, and therefore instill a winning mentality and confidence? Do players improve through untested repetition?

The numbers work both ways. According to kenpom.com, only two of the past ten champions have had a non-conference strength of schedule greater than 50. Duke had the number 17 non-conference SOS in 2001, and Maryland had the 15th-best in 2002. Only one team can win it all, though, and that limits the probe into the effects of a tough or easy non-conference schedule. Take a look at the number of teams that have advanced to the Elite 8 and Final 4 over the last ten years per non-conference SOS rating.

Teams advancing to Elite 8 (SOS rating range: # of teams)

1-25: 30
26-50: 15
51-75 : 8
76-100: 4
101-125: 6
126-150: 2
151-175: 7
176-200: 3
200-225: 2
226-250: 1
251-275: 2
276+: 0

Teams advancing to Final 4

1-25: 16
26-50: 5
51-75: 5
76-100: 2
101-125: 4
126-150: 1
151-175: 5
176-200: 1
201-225: 0
226-250: 0
251-275: 1
276+: 0

There is an obvious correlation between high non-conference SOS ratings and performance in the tournament, but that's not to say it's the main reason teams advance. Talent is a common theme with past champions. There are 30 current NBA players from the rosters of the 10 past champions, and Kansas is likely to add another two or three to that list in June. That's an average of three future NBA players playing for each champion. None had less than two and some had as many as six. Does a tough or weak schedule even matter for teams like that? Maybe.

Quality non-conference matchups usually expose teams to fresh audiences, or at least sporadic ones. Visibility is a big part of recruiting, and these games provide teams an opportunity to showcase themselves and their styles to a host of recruits. Like winning championships, there are other factors involved in landing recruits, such as the coaching staff, style of play, athletic facilities, tradition and academic appeal. However, even those programs rich in tradition or armed with a successful coach need to remain visible. Contemporary society demands recent success and tends to forget about the past. Athletic directors and general managers dismiss coaches like they are burnt-out firecrackers. Why shouldn't players do the same with programs?

The NCAA tournament committee has sent a message, still unclear to self-influentially befuddled fans, that they want teams to play difficult non-conference schedules. While part of that is because they want the best and most tested teams in the tournament, it really shows smart marketing. If teams from different sides of the country are playing each other, not only are recruits tuning in, but so are consumers. People naturally think less of and have less interest in teams they've never seen play before or haven't heard much about. The NCAA doesn't want a group of quiet teams in the tournament. They want teams that have been seen, heard and will hike television ratings. It's all about the money. No surprise.

After taking a closer look, it's apparent that teams have found success on opposite ends of the spectrum. Which is the best way to go? Move in the circles of the Boeheimites and Donovanans, or those of the Olsonians and Fewtans? The truth is that the choice is ultimately contingent. Just another revolving door of discussion.

AZCZTS, I would imagine that most coaches (In so far as they can control scheduling) would first and foremost like to ensure a winning season by locking up 17 division 1 wins. The pressure of having to win your conference tourney every year is not acceptable. Arizona,with or without lute, learned this as they were never going to beat UCLA in order to advance. To me, its not really much of an argument. There is a little bit of a science to gaining a competitive edge but it varies from year to year and from team to team. Playing tough teams and winning is a strong selling point ,but if you can do that you have already earned your season. Playing a tough schedule and losing dosent get you anything,including sympathy. Players do not get fired,coaches do. There is no way a coach can determine the value of any team 3 to 5 years down the road.(Davidson) I, myself, would play as many cupcakes as possible and take my winning % into the tourney and retain my job. People(fans) do not want excuses,they want results.

AZCATSFAN Reputation: 96 Level: Superstar Since: Aug 16, 2006	Posted on: April 26, 2008 3:45 am Score: 94 Log-in to rate: Log-in to rate: Log-in to rate: Non-conference scheduling: a difficult decision? Much thanks to the illustrative roverfish for his findings that led me to my own. [ Reply to Comment ]
huskyonspeed Reputation: 99 Level: Superstar Since: Aug 19, 2006	Posted on: April 27, 2008 10:22 pm Score: 96 Log-in to rate: Log-in to rate: Log-in to rate: Non-conference scheduling: a difficult decision? Nice post AZCATS. Lots of fans and coaches think that with a young team especially, an easy schedule helps the team gain confidence, but from circumstancial evidence that doesn't appear to work. 2 years ago my dawgs had a young, talented team and played a realtively easy schedule. They did all right but weren't ready for the rigors of conference play, and lost a lot of close games. That probably applies to Florida this year as well. I think that having a tough schedule just gives a team more of a margin for error with the committee. When a team plays about 12 nonconference games per year, i don't think it is unreasonable to play at least 5 or 6 good teams, with a few on the road. [ Reply to Comment ]
TheKansasComet Reputation: 96 Level: Superstar Since: Dec 21, 2007	Posted on: April 28, 2008 10:26 am Score: 92 Log-in to rate: Log-in to rate: Log-in to rate: Non-conference scheduling: a difficult decision? AZCZTS, I would imagine that most coaches (In so far as they can control scheduling) would first and foremost like to ensure a winning season by locking up 17 division 1 wins. The pressure of having to win your conference tourney every year is not acceptable. Arizona,with or without lute, learned this as they were never going to beat UCLA in order to advance. To me, its not really much of an argument. There is a little bit of a science to gaining a competitive edge but it varies from year to year and from team to team. Playing tough teams and winning is a strong selling point ,but if you can do that you have already earned your season. Playing a tough schedule and losing dosent get you anything,including sympathy. Players do not get fired,coaches do. There is no way a coach can determine the value of any team 3 to 5 years down the road.(Davidson) I, myself, would play as many cupcakes as possible and take my winning % into the tourney and retain my job. People(fans) do not want excuses,they want results. [ Reply to Comment ]
o_hoolix Reputation: 98 Level: Superstar Since: Apr 4, 2007	Posted on: May 2, 2008 1:47 pm Score: 91 Log-in to rate: Log-in to rate: Log-in to rate: Non-conference scheduling: a difficult decision? As a stats freak myself, I always tend to immediately look for the reasons behind the numbers. As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's obvious from the stats here that the teams with a high SOS rating tend to make it further in the tourney. The question is why. On the surface, the argument "playing tougher competition better prepares you for the tournament atmosphere" would seem to explain it. And while that's probably true to an extent, I would consider the following factors as well. You can't just schedule any team you want to play. If I'm coaching at, say, Utah State, I can't just schedule NC, Arizona, Duke, and Kansas - even if I wanted to. Those schools most likely have no interest in playing me. So I'm left scheduling the best schools that I can. Maybe I get UNLV, Baylor, Gonzaga, teams like that. But that's not going to get me the high RPI I'd like to have - especially if I lose a few of those games. The schools that can pretty much dictate their schedules are the major powers. Those major powers are also getting the best recruits. Therefore, those schools are going to be more talented and ultimately go farther in the tournament because of that talent. And while they are playing tougher competition, they also continue to bring in the best talent. So it's not entirely fair to make a direct correlation between tournament performance and RPI/SOS. I think most of the big boys have come out on the side of tough scheduling. If for no other reason, to rake in TV revenues. And even a loss to a top school helps your RPI in the end (as Arizona proved this year). The few holdouts like Syracuse and Florida are rapidly coming to the realization that they must schedule tougher non-conference opponents or risk missing the tourney. So I think the answer here is that, for the schools who really have a choice, it's really not even an argument anymore. You schedule the best teams you can and hope for the best. As for the smaller schools who may not have a choice of opponents, you just have to play a lot of road games, take on all comers, and hope to win a few. That is the proven and time tested way to build a major power out of a mid-level program. [ Reply to Comment ]
NE2WA Reputation: 97 Level: Superstar Since: Mar 13, 2008	Posted on: May 2, 2008 6:12 pm Score: 78 Log-in to rate: Log-in to rate: Log-in to rate: Non-conference scheduling: a difficult decision? I look at this in a similar manner as the Comet. If you've got a team with some talent and you think you're going to be competitive, scheduling tough opponents is definitely the way to go. You increase your RPI and your SOS while making your players battle-hardened, which pays off at tournament time when the pressure builds. Players who have been through tough games on the road against good teams in hostile environments respond a lot differently than the players who don't venture far from the friendly confines of home and cupcake city. Those guys look like deer in the headlights. But if you've got a team that doesn't look like a lock to get the Ws needed to get in the tournament and you worry about matching up against Kansas, Duke, North Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, etc. it makes sense to bring the team along slower. Going on the road to get blown out, especially if it happens more than once can demoralize a team rather than strengthen it. This is why a coach has to have a good feel for his team and Lute Olson is terrific in this area for Arizona. If you're an elite program, you take on all comers. If you're not quite ready for prime time, you've got some decisions to make about how many tough games you put on the schedule, especially road games. [ Reply to Comment ]
dolphinollie Reputation: 99 Level: Superstar Since: Dec 16, 2006	Posted on: May 3, 2008 9:58 am Score: 96 Log-in to rate: Log-in to rate: Log-in to rate: Non-conference scheduling: a difficult decision? Azcat, nice post the facts speak volumes. [ Reply to Comment ]

AZCATSFAN

Clever name withheld

Non-conference scheduling: a difficult decision?

Non-conference scheduling: a difficult decision?

Non-conference scheduling: a difficult decision?

Non-conference scheduling: a difficult decision?

Non-conference scheduling: a difficult decision?

Non-conference scheduling: a difficult decision?

Non-conference scheduling: a difficult decision?