Debunking The College Basketball Road Game Myth
by Sean Keeley on Jan 3, 2012 4:42 PM EST
Email
Print
Syracuse Orange fans know better than anyone how important it is to play true road games.
Or, at least, we know how often we're TOLD it's important to play true road games.
The way some people take schools like Syracuse, Louisville, Duke and UConn to task you'd think there was some direct correlation between the number of true road games you play and whether or not you have a shot at winning the national title.
The Sporting News' Mike DeCourcy (via Syracuse.com) wants you to know there is absolutely none. Specifically, he looks at what Syracuse, Connecticut, Duke, Kentucky, Louisville and North Carolina are doing in terms of their scheduling, poll placement and results. And he finds that, ultimately, the number of road games you schedule means absolutely nothing.
Their teams have played a combined 78 non-conference basketball games to date. Only six of those were on the road – an average of one per [team].
How has it damaged them to be so timorous? Not at all. Their teams have won 91.7 percent of their games overall, 93.5 percent of their non-conference games and 100 percent of the home games they arranged for themselves. None is ranked lower than No. 11 in the most recent Associated Press poll.
That last item is most illuminating, because no one agitates more for programs to increase the difficulty of their schedules than people in the media, be they reporters or commentators. That these teams mostly choose to play non-league games at home doesn’t hurt them in the least in the court of public opinion.
Neither will it damage them when it comes to NCAA Tournament seeding.
As DeCourcy points out, there's no reason to collect impressive road games on your non-con schedule because all of those programs will notch impressive road game slates through their conference schedule. Sure, it makes sense that Gonzaga and Long Beach State load their non-conference schedule with road games against elite talent, but Syracuse and Duke are already playing dozens of elite programs whether they want to or not.
DeCourcy points out that Pitt did not play even one road non-con game last year and only two teams on their non-Big East schedule even made it to the NCAA Tournament. They were a No. 1 seed.
If anything, it's a good reminder not just to the critics but also to us as fans of an elite basketball program. Let the folks at ESPN or whoever complain about our (perfectly reasonable) schedule, it just goes to show they don't understand the sport they get paid to cover. And we'll do our best to appreciate the schedule we have instead of worrying about who we don't play. Besides, any self-respecting Big East fan knows we play our fair share of tough opponents. That goes for future ACC fans as well...
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
all true
If other conferences, even the ACC in some years, had to play a league with 5 or more top20 teams, they’d powder puff the first 15 games.
Have OSU play #8 UConn/#9 Georgetown/#11 Louisville/#20 Marquette, some of them twice.
Who’s UNC playing this year in conference? Duke and #21 Virginia?
and Kentucky plays who? Florida? that’s it?
Utahns for Orange
The SEC is atrocious
and really kind of has been for the better part of a decade. It just seems like there are no consistently good programs besides Kentucky and Florida in recent history (last decade or so)
LSU went to the Final Four with Big Baby but they stunk before and have since, Tennessee was good under Pearl but obviously all that was garbage and they’ll be bad for a long time now, Alabama had a few good years with Gottfried but they’re never any good, Vandy can’t seem to win a big game, South Carolina had maybe one decent year, Arkansas hasn’t been good since 40 Minutes of Hell, we played Miss State in the Final Four around the same time, Georgia hasn’t been relevant since Harrick, Auburn has the occasional decent year but they’re miserable right now, Ole Miss stinks.
One or two teams a year outside Florida/Kentucky will put together good enough seasons to be ranked, once in a while one (like LSU) will have an outstanding year, but… I dunno. That’s a crappy basketball conference right now.
Still not as bad as the Pac 12.
It's the most bullshit thing I've seen in thirty years.
by Girardi Party on Jan 3, 2012 5:34 PM EST up reply actions
It's a football conference
If I was a high school basketball prodigy, I’d much rather go play in the ACC, BE, Big 12 before the SEC. I’d probably rate the A10 above the SEC in desire to play. They have good teams year in and year out.
Without Gerry McNamara we wouldn't have won 10 f-- games, not 10
by PoetryInMoten on Jan 3, 2012 6:51 PM EST up reply actions
You can say the same about the ACC, really
The ACC is consistently Duke, UNC and whatever random upstart is good in any given year. when Chris Paul was there, it was Wake. A couple years ago it was NC State. There’s never any consistent threat for the ACC title other than those Duke/UNC.
Which is why I think they’re going to be in for a shock when ’Cuse and Pitt arrive and its no longer a two horse race every year.
"If I ain't gonna be part of the greatest, I gotta be the greatest myself." Busta Rhymes
by FeloniousPhunk on Jan 3, 2012 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
From Lunardi's latest Bracketology (Insider)
Syracuse (15-0) has emerged as No. 1 in the polls and the clear No. 1 overall seed for NCAA tournament projection purposes. More importantly, the Orange boast the nation’s best slate of quality wins
Didn’t Lunardi get the memo? Syracuse doesn’t play ANYBODY. He’d better fall in step with the company line or he might find himself one unemployed Bracketologist.
"If I ain't gonna be part of the greatest, I gotta be the greatest myself." Busta Rhymes
Lunardi is always fair to Syracuse
People just don’t like it when anyone has anything negative to say about us.
Dictated, but not read.
http://atlanticcoastconfidential.wordpress.com/
WAAAAAAH, WE'D HAVE NO BIG GAMES TO TELEVISE BEFORE JANUARY!!!
Time for ESPN to stop beating this drum.
It's the most bullshit thing I've seen in thirty years.
Well
DeCourcy points out that Pitt did not play even one road non-con game last year and only two teams on their non-Big East schedule even made it to the NCAA Tournament. They were a No. 1 seed.
Except Pitt went on to lose in the 2nd round. So I guess their schedule didn’t prepare them for the Big Dance. Not sure that is the best argument someone can make.
Meanwhile, why are we validating schedules in January? Let’s validate them in April.
Frankly, I think our win against NC State was more impressive than beating Providence tomorrow. If we lose to Providence… so what? Everyone gets upset during conference play each year. “The teams know each other.” “Any given night.” And so on. If we had lost to NC State—that’s in an environment we don’t always play in, with all the pressure of the first true road game, and against a team that doesn’t see our zone every year. If they can solve it, anyone can. We overcame that to win.
Strange, new locations. Teams we don’t normally play. Non-supportive environment. We learned more about what this team can do in March against NC State than we will playing even tough games against UConn or Georgetown. If we play well, we can beat anyone. But how will we do in a game where it will take 20 minutes for our team to “feel out” our opponent?
Dictated, but not read.
http://atlanticcoastconfidential.wordpress.com/
non-supportive environment
Hardly. I was at the NCSU game. You could hear chants of “Let’s Go Orange” and “D-Fense” when we were on D. Lot’s of transplants down here in NC.
Now, when we play at Cameron Indoor, where tickets are a little tougher to come by, that will be a non-supportive environment.
I'm not exactly convinced by this analysis
If ESPN’s premise were correct, and true road wins were the biggest indicator of quality for teams with neutral/home wins being much easier, you’d expect the teams that scheduled mostly home games to be undefeated at home. Not to mention the fact that this analysis would only make sense if the goal for college basketball coaches was to be in the top 15 in early January. Which I’m pretty sure it isn’t. As far as I can tell, this article doesn’t actually do anything to disprove ESPN.
I think the value of true road wins OOC is vastly overstated by the media, but the way to prove this would be to get retrospective data from the 64/66 team era and see if there was a correlation between number of true road games/number of true road wins and performance in the NCAA tournament. Then you would probably want to incorporate neutral site games in some way and see if you can tell whether winning/playing true road games is predictive or just winning/playing on the road. This analysis really does nothing.
'Cuse 2010, Michigan 2012
I just had an interesting revelation:
Who has UConn played?
Who has Pitt played?
How come ESPN never gave them any flack?
Ooooh! Oooooh, pick me! I know!
Pitt’s played RADFORD!
It's the most bullshit thing I've seen in thirty years.
by Girardi Party on Jan 4, 2012 1:11 AM EST up reply actions
Oops, WAGNER
Both have two syllables and are horrible. As is Pittsburgh.
It's the most bullshit thing I've seen in thirty years.
by Girardi Party on Jan 4, 2012 1:12 AM EST up reply actions
The whole "true road game" thing
Is really just a way to split hairs when trying to compare teams what wouldn’t play each other until maybe the NCAA Tourney. The pundits have to have SOMETHING to talk about.
"If I ain't gonna be part of the greatest, I gotta be the greatest myself." Busta Rhymes
Do non-con true road games lead to a national championship?
DeCourcy kind of missed the point, so let me do it for him. It’s about National Championships.
See for yourself. Note that any games listed are NON-CONFERENCE true road games ONLY:
2011 Champ: UCONN: 1, Texas (W) (note: this was during the conference schedule)
2010 Champ: DUKE: 2, Wisconsin (L), GTown (L)
2009 Champ: UNC: 2, UC Santa Barbara (W), Nevada (W)
2008 Champ: KANSAS: 3, USC (W), GTech (W), BC (W)
2007 Champ: FLORIDA: 2, FSU (L), FL A&M (W) (here’s your “out of state” argument…)
Small sample size? Yup. But clearly in recent history there is no correlation between “True Non-Conference Road Games” and “Ability to Win National Championship” when the most any champion has played in 5 years is THREE True non-conf road games.
Can we put this baby to bed now?
To add to this
Watching Sports Center and they highlights of Temple’s win over Duke last night. During the clip of the post game presser, they put up this graphic:
Duke 2-6 in last 8 non-conference road games.
What’s the point of playing non-conference road games if you’re going to lose most fo them?
"If I ain't gonna be part of the greatest, I gotta be the greatest myself." Busta Rhymes
by FeloniousPhunk on Jan 5, 2012 10:30 AM EST up reply actions
Ahh yes,
The daily ‘Defend our Joke Schedule’ article.
Why do you twist everything that is written about SU?
Nobody said scheduling true road games makes a difference in how you do, but facts are facts. Look at any teams home vs road record. Florida and Duke haven’t lost at home, but neither has won a road game either.
The point being made is that any team can go undefeated in their first 14 games if they schedule hand picked teams and play them all at home. It doesn’t mean you deserve a #1 ranking.
it does however get you a better seeding in the tournament when you rack up cupcake wins. Or gets you in the hall of fame apparently.
The bottom line is that you play more home games, you win more games. That should be a factor considered when voting in the polls.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
