Part of the issue with scheduling to me is when JB tries to do a favor for a former assistant or buddy he has known for years. That’s when we end up with the little sisters of the poor on the schedule.
I agree that we should schedule differently. Where I disagree is with people who say that it has cost us big time, or in many cases, at all. People have a tendency to take disagreements with managers, coaches, etc. in whatever sport and magnify them into disastrous outcomes, whether the disagreements be in game decisions, recruiting and personnel decisions, scheduling decisions, disciplinary decisions, etc. Sometimes, these matter, but IMO, the impact of decisions like these is almost always marginal. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t change–we should, as improving even marginally should be a goal. It’s just not as big a deal as many wish to make it.
1 Like
If you’re referring to the Cazzie Russell matchup this year or the Le Moyne game with his son last year, those are exhibition games. They have no bearing whatsoever on our RPI.
1 Like
Some of the recruiting footprint games may come from what we have to pay teams to come play in Ann Arbor. It may save money to bring in teams that can bus rather than fly.
1 Like
Any merit to the theory that the NJIT and EMU losses factor in here? I’d have to think at some point in the past few years that the bball brass would have looked at the SOS numbers and discussed how to improve things…only to remember those bad losses and pumped the breaks because the roster simply isn’t strong enough to risk bad losses right now.
The schedule still has enough games on it, including conference play, to tally up some nice wins on the resume. If we annually end up a bubble team, then we deserve what we get…and if it drops us from a 3 to a 4 seed, then I think this discussion should be revisited 
Here’s what I don’t get: Why do people presume that U-M isn’t aware of the SOS implications of its choices?
Whenever this issue comes up, people point out how to improve the schedule with mid-100s opponents as if it’s some big secret. The issue isn’t how to do it; that’s obvious. It’s whether Michigan wants to.
In one sense, they did by adding more high-majors, but as far as the filler choices go, it’s quite clear that U-M’s objective is take no chances. We wouldn’t consistently land so many 250+ teams while avoiding local opponents if that weren’t the case.
I think the frustration lies with how easy it is to “game” the RPI system and the Selection Committee resume system. Look, Beilein has brought the program back to a place where NCAA Tourney bids are expected; considering the late '90s and early '00s that is a big step! And if UM is losing to middle of the pack A-10 teams, Michigan shouldn’t be a NCAA contender.
But by “saber metrics-ing” the schedule composition the coaching staff can put the team in a better position at the end of the season. It definitely cost UM seeding this year — the quality of losses and quality of upper end wins was deserving of a better fate than play-in game, but the lack of mid-level wins were an anchor on the resume.
There is a place for the occasional WhoCaresSt buy-in game, especially early in the season or first game back from UCLA or a Holiday Tournament. But I think many people are questioning why we schedule 5/6 a year (that’s different than when one comes in a Holiday Tourney bracket, IMO)
So if the staff knows the ramifications and opts to schedule this way — that just seems like a poor coaching decision, IMO. I would put that at a similar level as a coach who struggles with in-game adjustments or a coach who struggles with recruiting.
So, to answer the question, I guess I would prefer to presume that Beilein is old school and hasn’t had someone run the new-wave schedule math past his desk yet?
1 Like
Is basketball not like every other sport where the general athletic department at the school makes the schedule?
It doesn’t seem like JB and/or the AD agree. Remember, for JB it’s not just a home game W, it’s a potential chance to practice things in a game setting, to try out different line-ups in a game setting, to get young guys experience, etc. You can’t just assume you replace a win over a 250 team with a 150 team and everything else stays exactly the same.
On the whole, I’m with MHoops – it isn’t exactly how I’d do it, and I’d probably schedule things a little more the way you would, but there are reasonable arguments both ways and Michigan is certainly not an outlier in this. And, most importantly, it’s not a big deal and it happens every single year, so why get all up in arms?
(By the way, this is the problem with Mgoblog - they are “numbers guys” who don’t seem to really understand statistics and also don’t understand the game of basketball well.)
I was gonna add that. They like cupcakes so you can iron out some things and get lineups/ players time to groove against an easy w. Basically practice/ scrimmage but in a real setting. I’d schedule bigger mid majors but in the end I don’t think it’s terribly hurt us to often.
1 Like
Bunch of time tv… (USC,UCLA,Texas) info starting to fill in for the schedule.