I wouldn’t call 8 wins “probable”. “Probable” is subject to various definitions, but 50% chance is not one of them. 75% chance? 90%? Either of those could be a reasonable threshold.
Without having run a Monte Carlo simulation or even having checked my very quick math above, I would say a “probable” minimum result is 6-7. An average one 8-5, and anything better is obviously above average.
If you have 6 games with 83% win prob per game, you have about a 66% chance of a loss (.83 ^ 6). Even 4 such games give you about a 50/50 chance of a loss.
The thing I notice most about this schedule is that there are a lot of games where SCU will be favored to win, but could easily lose and at some point they’ll roll a 1. Some games they could lose with a 1 or 2 roll even though 3,4,5,6 would all be wins.
I welcome checking my math above. I’m sure it’s not all right, I did it in 15 minutes on a Friday afternoon. But I figure it’s pretty close.
As far as the commentary about the opponents themselves, the only reason to play those is to get a check.
IMO, the ideal schedule is one where you would be favored every game, but not by too much. Probably you would end up losing a few of them just by the toss of the die, but you’d win most and over credible opponents. And maybe you luck out and win them all.
This schedule is close to that, but there are also real world realities (maybe we’re getting money to go to Boise). Stanford and Cal are games that make sense from a geographic and fan perspective. But most of the games are against programs at a similar level that will give SCU the opportunity to both compete and be pushed, and to have some success.
It’s a pretty brilliant schedule if the results are being judged properly. If people freak out because they expect to win every game you’re favored in, it could be a pretty bad one.
"It’s a pretty brilliant schedule if the results are being judged properly. "
Results??? Those are quite far off.
Aim low… that way you can pretend you achieve.
If SCU goes 8-5 over these 13 games I don’t think any reasonable fan would be doing backflips, but it would be acceptable to most. Then again, if they go 5-8 it’s a different story.
The results will be judged for what they are no matter how you define the proper way to judge them.
What you said there is much closer to reality than saying 8-5 is “probable”. I don’t know what the average backflip threshold (I can’t do one so I’ve had no reason to establish one) is but an expected value result should certainly not be unacceptable.
But the performances to make up a won-lost record are not necessarily equal. If they go 5-8 in which the 5 wins are blowouts, and the 8 losses by 1 point each, that’s a lot different than losing 8 games by double the point spread and winning 5 games by 1-2 points each. And the same is true for 8-5 or any other combination of wins and losses.
That’s what I mean about results being judged properly – that is, not thinking you should be 10-3 just because you were favored in 9 games, many by slim margins, and a pick-em in 2 others. If that’s the way it turns out, which right now looks like it could be. Of course in reality creating a new data influences future market expectations. But we won’t get that information for quite a while.
As far as the math goes, the schedule is a binomial event with probability of 0 to 13 successes out of thirteen events. While the odds of winning six straight games with a .83 likelihood is indeed about .33, ( 6 out of 6), the context of at least 6 wins out of thirteen games with a success rate of a win @ .83 is very high (>.98). You can set this up in Excel using the COMBIN function and map out the likelihoods… 6-9 wins is a very good range.
These are all a priori calcs in a preseason static scenario and fairly artificial, but they give a hint. I think the better question is does this sched get the Broncs up to the competitive level to be successful in WCC play. Seems most of us thinks it does, and I’m very hopeful for this year if the injury bug stays away.
That’s pretty much what I did only I was too lazy to set up an excel document (also my computer has a chiclet for a processor being another reason). So I just took 2/3 of the per 100 possession point differential, then added 3 to the home team and converted that to win probability using boydsbets.
I don’t think it really matters for conference play, to be honest. Last year by far the bigger problem was not having a practice facility or ability to get anything beyond a bare minimum amount of time in the gym.
All of the outside shooters did. Maybe Keyshawn needs more shots to keep in tune with that high arc he has, I don’t know. But you could see the difference just being able to practice normally made toward the end of the year. Obviously there were far bigger problems in the world, but I can’t see what having them live in a hotel room in Santa Cruz for most of the winter accomplished for the county. But it had a big impact on their season.
Looks like the matchups for the SoCal Challenge are set! As we all hoped for, SCU will play TCU on Nov 22nd and then Fresno State on Nov 24th! Big matchups!!!
Awesome! Best case scenario.
And it appears our home game w/ Cal Poly on 11/19 is technically part of this event. The 4 better teams (us, Pepp, TCU and Fresno St.) are considered hosts against the 4 weaker teams in the 1st round. Pepp also plays both TCU and Fresno St. in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. The 4 weaker teams play each other in rounds 2 and 3 in their own bracket.
Don’t know if we’ll be favored in those games but spreads will be small if we aren’t…these will be very winnable games. Just glad we didn’t get stuck playing additional games vs. UofI or Nicholls St.
The first respectable non-conference schedule since Sendek’s arrival. I wouldn’t call it great, but finally something that resembles a D1 program trying to ascend.
By the way, for everyone who isn’t rooting for failure…
Last year was the last season SCU had an SOS (per basketball reference) higher than 2.0 (2.16 in 2020-21) and a winning record since 2016-17 (2.03, so both lower and with a worse record than last year). The last time before that was 2000-01.
Only 4 schedules have ranked higher than 2.2 since 2001.
So as usual, the reality is much different than the person who is desperate to see a coaching change portrays it.
And last year covid threw a wrench into every schedule across the country… kind of ridiculous to draw any meaningful conclusions when every D1 team had a schedule that was essentially up in the air day to day and so many games cancelled.
There’s your reality.
The conclusion is that despite all of what happened, SCU had a credible season against a stronger than typical schedule – stronger than about 75% of the schedules in the last two decades.
And this year’s looks by all accounts to be stronger still, both in and out of conference.
This is nowhere near the first sign of a program building and improving. But I have too much going on to rehash that.
A 4th straight winning season against a progressively strengthened schedule really would tell its own story, though, to be honest.
Sendek’s winning seasons at SCU to this point have largely been a function of stacking W’s against the worst teams in D1 outside of WCC play.
The evidence of that is league play where he has finished 7th, 5th, 7th, and 6th discounting that 1st season where he had his most talented squad, (the one KK left him).
However you want to spin that into some positive story of progression just depends on how much you are willing to lie to yourself.
We’ve gone through how unusual 3 straight winning seasons has been at SCU. And we’ve covered how last year’s SOS stacks up relatively speaking. I think 19-20 was better, as it was, but the 20-21 team could have been better obviously if circumstances were different. But still they achieved pretty much the same record against a tougher schedule, just with a lower margin for error.
4 straight winning seasons is rare air for an SCU coach. hasn’t happened since 1994-1998. And the conference wasn’t anywhere near as tough then as now. That’s just reality, unvarnished.
'noob, it is amazing how you can ignore facts to suit your narrative. You say how “rare” it has been for SCU to have 3 consecutive winning seasons. Literally EVERY SINGLE COACH who ever coached at SCU for at least 3 seasons had streaks of 3 or more winning seasons during their respective tenures. Some had 4, 5, and 6 season winning streaks. Carroll Williams had a 5-streak AND a 3-streak. It wasn’t until KK that the 3-streak minimum was broken. Your recency bias is exactly what betterer means when he talks about lowering expectations. And please save your “woe is me, everyone is picking on me” schtick, it is old and tired, so don’t even bother. You bring it on yourself. I’ve disagreed with plenty of other users on this board over the years, but they were always civil disagreements. You are the only one who has been disagreeable while disagreeing with others on this board. Stop acting like a pompous know-it-all. Seriously, I have been on a version of this board since near the beginning, and the only time it stopped being fun is when you showed up. I used to look forward to visiting the board, now I just dread it. The only reason I come back is (1) to chat with all the other long-timers on this board; and (2) to regularly school you.
To the board admin(s): can we PLEASE add an ignore function, so that I don’t have to seen this guy’s posts any longer?