jonriv wrote:Old Darter wrote:Your answer can be found by looking at the Cathedral City schedule. Rarely do you see PAC v PAC, SEC v SEC or PAC v SEC teams play one another before conference play (the Cal-Tenn game is an anomaly). Makes sense based on the high RPI value of their intra-conference play. Lower RPI teams seek tougher pre-conference games because of the high RPI factor, something they cannot get during their own intra-conference play. They really don't have much to lose and everything to gain. If I'm in a weak conference in which I know I will run the table and get say, 25 wins, I can lose 10-15 games to high RPI teams and come out with with a winning 25-15 record with hopefully a higher RPI based on the pre-conference schedule strength, even though I lost those games. Theoretically, of course.
But if a team is in a weaker conference- most likely the only team making it would be the conference champion? Would it be better to have a gaudy win-loss record or a decent record with a better RPI. Obviously higher RPI would help in rankings, but I am talking about just getting in? Also- do you risk hurting a team pysche by playing powerhouses and getting your head handed to you?
That's why scheduling is a bit of an art form, and shows there is more to a successful coach than just having once played the game. At the end of the day, RPI is the biggest factor if you are a not a conference champion with an automatic berth. The only way to get a high RPI is to play higher RPI teams. How many spots above you? Great question. The answer depends on your current RPI, I would think. Maybe I play 3 top 10 teams and 15 top 30 teams? I can lose to the top ten teams, but just having played them boosts my strength of schedule, and my RPI! Now if I can play .500 against the others (top 30), and wipe up my conference, I most likely make the tourney. The committee wants the highest competition possible. You've proven you're not afraid of playing the top teams, and can hang with at least half of them. In theory, of course.
