2021-2022 Schedule

[MakingPlays]

I don’t think the schedule is bad.  We have a few high majors on there.  Would have liked maybe one more high major team but I don’t think we are that far off.  Gotta place high in our league and beat some of the big dogs.  League overall just needs to do well OOC abe we will get plenty into the dance.

At first look, I thought it wasn't that bad however, after looking at each team's ending NET last year, that non-conference is a little underwhelming based on the expectations for the team this year.  I have no idea why they scheduled Miss Valley State they were the worst team in Division 1 basketball last year with a 347 NET.  

The positives on this schedule is Indiana, Colgate, and Kansas.  These should all be Q1/Q2 games.  Colgate pretty much returns every major contributor minus Jordan Burns, so they'll be favorites in their conference again.  Kansas and Indiana track record speaks for itself they'll always put out quality teams.

Pitt and Monmouth are toss-ups on if they'll be quality games or not.  Monmouth typically is at the top of their conference and competes for a tournament bid and Pitt is completely unknown with all new pieces.  St. Peter's also has the potential to be a decent game, maybe a high Q3 game, they usually have a decent record.

Everybody else it's pretty much low Q3/Q4 games which aren't going to help with anything but letting CMA experiment with lineups, which is fine, it's needed with so many new pieces.  They should finish no worse than 11-2 with this non-conference schedule.

 

[BrooklynRed]

While the level of St. Francis may not add to SOS, I am glad to see this LONG time rival (battle of Brooklyn) on the schedule.  This will be the 80th game between the schools which goes back to our initial season (would also see long time rival Manhattan as our other local for our 88th game).  I guess I am a traditionalist.  Would also like to see long time ECAC rivals Temple and St. Joe's.

Not to be a "Debbie Downer" but hope delta mutation doesn't impact the schedule and the ability to attend games--get those RED masks now.

 

[GardenCity62]

Like BrooklynRed I would love to see St. Joes and Temple on the schedule in place of a FDU or NJIT but I realize that Temple and ST Joes would demand a return game at their arena and at least for this year SJU is sticking with OOC teams that agree to play at SJU without a return game at their facility.

 

[ADORAZ]

Terrible schedule with only 1 away game and 0 neutral games. Our OOC schedule hurt us last year (despite us going 6-1) and for some reason staff thought it'd be a good idea to schedule lightly again. This 
type of schedule is bad for NET and Q1/2 opportunities. Only works  if we go 10-1 with almost all of the wins by 10+ points. That's doable, but it gives very little room for error. 
​​​​​​ 

 

[lawmanfan]

Terrible schedule with only 1 away game and 0 neutral games. Our OOC schedule hurt us last year (despite us going 6-1) and for some reason staff thought it'd be a good idea to schedule lightly again. This 
type of schedule is bad for NET and Q1/2 opportunities. Only works  if we go 10-1 with almost all of the wins by 10+ points. That's doable, but it gives very little room for error. 
​​​​​​ 
 

I don't see it this way. 

First, what we are basically arguing about is the difference between 3 OOC games against power conference opponents versus 4 games.  That isn't nothing, but it isn't monumental either.

Second, the staff has a lot of new pieces to fit together and it's important for them to not lose too many games while they're doing that.  The Kansas game is presumably an L.  The road trip to Indiana early in the season is a crap shoot.  I don't see how they could afford to schedule a third major OOC opponent that early given those two games.

Third, the league is going to be brutal and they have to get an adequate win total one way or another to put themselves in the conversation.  Georgetown and Syracuse for years scheduled a collection of nobodies, then played well enough in conference to get to ~20 wins, and went to the tournament.

If we had 7 or 8 returning players in a rising program I would have said yeah, I'd rather see a Michigan State-type OOC schedule.  But with 3 players coming back and urgency to make the NCAAs this year, I completely understand going with 3 OOC games instead of 4, using the early part of the schedule to sort things out, and counting on playing well enough in the league to lock up a bid.

Of course now we just have to execute that plan.

 

[paultzman]

Terrible schedule with only 1 away game and 0 neutral games. Our OOC schedule hurt us last year (despite us going 6-1) and for some reason staff thought it'd be a good idea to schedule lightly again. This 
type of schedule is bad for NET and Q1/2 opportunities. Only works  if we go 10-1 with almost all of the wins by 10+ points. That's doable, but it gives very little room for error. 
​​​​​​ 


 

I don't see it this way. 

First, what we are basically arguing about is the difference between 3 OOC games against power conference opponents versus 4 games.  That isn't nothing, but it isn't monumental either.

Second, the staff has a lot of new pieces to fit together and it's important for them to not lose too many games while they're doing that.  The Kansas game is presumably an L.  The road trip to Indiana early in the season is a crap shoot.  I don't see how they could afford to schedule a third major OOC opponent that early given those two games.

Third, the league is going to be brutal and they have to get an adequate win total one way or another to put themselves in the conversation.  Georgetown and Syracuse for years scheduled a collection of nobodies, then played well enough in conference to get to ~20 wins, and went to the tournament.

If we had 7 or 8 returning players in a rising program I would have said yeah, I'd rather see a Michigan State-type OOC schedule.  But with 3 players coming back and urgency to make the NCAAs this year, I completely understand going with 3 OOC games instead of 4, using the early part of the schedule to sort things out, and counting on playing well enough in the league to lock up a bid.

Of course now we just have to execute that plan.

In fairness for Cuse & GT back then there was no NET, Q1, Q2 process.

 

[weathermannyc]

Terrible schedule with only 1 away game and 0 neutral games. Our OOC schedule hurt us last year (despite us going 6-1) and for some reason staff thought it'd be a good idea to schedule lightly again. This 
type of schedule is bad for NET and Q1/2 opportunities. Only works  if we go 10-1 with almost all of the wins by 10+ points. That's doable, but it gives very little room for error. 
​​​​​​ 


 

I don't see it this way. 

First, what we are basically arguing about is the difference between 3 OOC games against power conference opponents versus 4 games.  That isn't nothing, but it isn't monumental either.

Second, the staff has a lot of new pieces to fit together and it's important for them to not lose too many games while they're doing that.  The Kansas game is presumably an L.  The road trip to Indiana early in the season is a crap shoot.  I don't see how they could afford to schedule a third major OOC opponent that early given those two games.

Third, the league is going to be brutal and they have to get an adequate win total one way or another to put themselves in the conversation.  Georgetown and Syracuse for years scheduled a collection of nobodies, then played well enough in conference to get to ~20 wins, and went to the tournament.

If we had 7 or 8 returning players in a rising program I would have said yeah, I'd rather see a Michigan State-type OOC schedule.  But with 3 players coming back and urgency to make the NCAAs this year, I completely understand going with 3 OOC games instead of 4, using the early part of the schedule to sort things out, and counting on playing well enough in the league to lock up a bid.

Of course now we just have to execute that plan.

All the more reason to schedule another meaningful non-conference game.  If Kansas is likely an L and @ Indiana a crapshoot, then you risk heading into conference play with Colgate as your best win if you run the table (and you're going to have to)  That puts a heck of a lot of pressure to do a lot of damage in conference.  Good losses non-conference do not hurt you.  

In other words, if we do not get one of the marquee games, then we have to run the table with the rest of the OOC schedule and may have to win 12 conference games to be on the right side of the bubble unless the conference really performs well. Not a good place to put yourself in.

 

[paultzman]

Terrible schedule with only 1 away game and 0 neutral games. Our OOC schedule hurt us last year (despite us going 6-1) and for some reason staff thought it'd be a good idea to schedule lightly again. This 
type of schedule is bad for NET and Q1/2 opportunities. Only works  if we go 10-1 with almost all of the wins by 10+ points. That's doable, but it gives very little room for error. 
​​​​​​ 



 

I don't see it this way. 

First, what we are basically arguing about is the difference between 3 OOC games against power conference opponents versus 4 games.  That isn't nothing, but it isn't monumental either.

Second, the staff has a lot of new pieces to fit together and it's important for them to not lose too many games while they're doing that.  The Kansas game is presumably an L.  The road trip to Indiana early in the season is a crap shoot.  I don't see how they could afford to schedule a third major OOC opponent that early given those two games.

Third, the league is going to be brutal and they have to get an adequate win total one way or another to put themselves in the conversation.  Georgetown and Syracuse for years scheduled a collection of nobodies, then played well enough in conference to get to ~20 wins, and went to the tournament.

If we had 7 or 8 returning players in a rising program I would have said yeah, I'd rather see a Michigan State-type OOC schedule.  But with 3 players coming back and urgency to make the NCAAs this year, I completely understand going with 3 OOC games instead of 4, using the early part of the schedule to sort things out, and counting on playing well enough in the league to lock up a bid.

Of course now we just have to execute that plan.

All the more reason to schedule another meaningful non-conference game.  If Kansas is likely an L and @ Indiana a crapshoot, then you risk heading into conference play with Colgate as your best win if you run the table (and you're going to have to)  That puts a heck of a lot of pressure to do a lot of damage in conference.  Good losses non-conference do not hurt you.  

In other words, if we do not get one of the marquee games, then we have to run the table with the rest of the OOC schedule and may have to win 12 conference games to be on the right side of the bubble unless the conference really performs well. Not a good place to put yourself in.

Exactly, well said.

 

[mm52]

Terrible schedule with only 1 away game and 0 neutral games. Our OOC schedule hurt us last year (despite us going 6-1) and for some reason staff thought it'd be a good idea to schedule lightly again. This 
type of schedule is bad for NET and Q1/2 opportunities. Only works  if we go 10-1 with almost all of the wins by 10+ points. That's doable, but it gives very little room for error. 
​​​​​​ 

 

I don't see it this way. 

First, what we are basically arguing about is the difference between 3 OOC games against power conference opponents versus 4 games.  That isn't nothing, but it isn't monumental either.

Second, the staff has a lot of new pieces to fit together and it's important for them to not lose too many games while they're doing that.  The Kansas game is presumably an L.  The road trip to Indiana early in the season is a crap shoot.  I don't see how they could afford to schedule a third major OOC opponent that early given those two games.

Third, the league is going to be brutal and they have to get an adequate win total one way or another to put themselves in the conversation.  Georgetown and Syracuse for years scheduled a collection of nobodies, then played well enough in conference to get to ~20 wins, and went to the tournament.

If we had 7 or 8 returning players in a rising program I would have said yeah, I'd rather see a Michigan State-type OOC schedule.  But with 3 players coming back and urgency to make the NCAAs this year, I completely understand going with 3 OOC games instead of 4, using the early part of the schedule to sort things out, and counting on playing well enough in the league to lock up a bid.

Of course now we just have to execute that plan.
 

fair points about the need to incorporate many new pieces.  I do think, however, many teams are in similar positions though.  I hope that we go 2-1 against Kansas, Pitt and Indiana to aid us in SOS/NET ranking at the end of the season for a bid.

 

[lawmanfan]

 

All the more reason to schedule another meaningful non-conference game.  If Kansas is likely an L and @ Indiana a crapshoot, then you risk heading into conference play with Colgate as your best win if you run the table (and you're going to have to)  That puts a heck of a lot of pressure to do a lot of damage in conference.  Good losses non-conference do not hurt you.  

In other words, if we do not get one of the marquee games, then we have to run the table with the rest of the OOC schedule and may have to win 12 conference games to be on the right side of the bubble unless the conference really performs well. Not a good place to put yourself in.

I hear you, but there's a timing element here.  The late-season OOC slot is filled by Pitt.  So any other OOC game that you schedule is going to be before league play starts, which means early in the season.  I can certainly understand why the staff would trade an early-season game with a power conference opponent they can lose to while they're getting things sorted out for a sure(ish) win and a bet that by the time league play rolls around they will be better positioned to win 11 or 12 games.
 

 

[lawmanfan]

  

fair points about the need to incorporate many new pieces.  I do think, however, many teams are in similar positions though.  I hope that we go 2-1 against Kansas, Pitt and Indiana to aid us in SOS/NET ranking at the end of the season for a bid.
 

I think that's what the staff is banking on.  Win the Indiana and Pitt games, probably lose to Kansas, sweep the rest of the OOC schedule, win 11 or 12 in the league.  That's an NCAA bid.  If you schedule another tough OOC game it's going to be early in the season when it's less likely to go well and it doesn't you could be in an even bigger hole.

 

[Windy City Johnny Fan]

Terrible schedule with only 1 away game and 0 neutral games. Our OOC schedule hurt us last year (despite us going 6-1) and for some reason staff thought it'd be a good idea to schedule lightly again. This 
type of schedule is bad for NET and Q1/2 opportunities. Only works  if we go 10-1 with almost all of the wins by 10+ points. That's doable, but it gives very little room for error. 
​​​​​​ 




 

I don't see it this way. 

First, what we are basically arguing about is the difference between 3 OOC games against power conference opponents versus 4 games.  That isn't nothing, but it isn't monumental either.

Second, the staff has a lot of new pieces to fit together and it's important for them to not lose too many games while they're doing that.  The Kansas game is presumably an L.  The road trip to Indiana early in the season is a crap shoot.  I don't see how they could afford to schedule a third major OOC opponent that early given those two games.

Third, the league is going to be brutal and they have to get an adequate win total one way or another to put themselves in the conversation.  Georgetown and Syracuse for years scheduled a collection of nobodies, then played well enough in conference to get to ~20 wins, and went to the tournament.

If we had 7 or 8 returning players in a rising program I would have said yeah, I'd rather see a Michigan State-type OOC schedule.  But with 3 players coming back and urgency to make the NCAAs this year, I completely understand going with 3 OOC games instead of 4, using the early part of the schedule to sort things out, and counting on playing well enough in the league to lock up a bid.

Of course now we just have to execute that plan.

All the more reason to schedule another meaningful non-conference game.  If Kansas is likely an L and @ Indiana a crapshoot, then you risk heading into conference play with Colgate as your best win if you run the table (and you're going to have to)  That puts a heck of a lot of pressure to do a lot of damage in conference.  Good losses non-conference do not hurt you.  

In other words, if we do not get one of the marquee games, then we have to run the table with the rest of the OOC schedule and may have to win 12 conference games to be on the right side of the bubble unless the conference really performs well. Not a good place to put yourself in.

Exactly, well said.

Our scheduling has been awful the last handful of seasons.  Not sure why that is.

We aren't properly preparing ourselves for Big East competition, as evidenced by our 1-5 start in BE play last season, 2-9 the year before that (yes I know we were just bad that year in MA year 1), 3-5 the year before that (after going 12-0 OOC) and 0-11 the year before that.

The "we need time to gel" narrative doesn't resonate with me as every team, including whoever we are playing, is likely dealing with similar turnover in the current college hoops landscape, so we are on the same footing as everyone else.

In addition to the problems noted at the top of the schedule, there is a problem at the bottom - for whatever reason, we seem to target Kenpom 300+ opponents and play at least 3-4 a year, which weighs down the SOS.

 

[mjmaherjr]

Our 2021-22 schedule sponsored by butter cookie bakery “ where we specialize in cakes and cream puffs “ that being said I like the schedule more than last year. 

 

[SJU61982]

Terrible schedule with only 1 away game and 0 neutral games. Our OOC schedule hurt us last year (despite us going 6-1) and for some reason staff thought it'd be a good idea to schedule lightly again. This 
type of schedule is bad for NET and Q1/2 opportunities. Only works  if we go 10-1 with almost all of the wins by 10+ points. That's doable, but it gives very little room for error. 
​​​​​​ 





 

I don't see it this way. 

First, what we are basically arguing about is the difference between 3 OOC games against power conference opponents versus 4 games.  That isn't nothing, but it isn't monumental either.

Second, the staff has a lot of new pieces to fit together and it's important for them to not lose too many games while they're doing that.  The Kansas game is presumably an L.  The road trip to Indiana early in the season is a crap shoot.  I don't see how they could afford to schedule a third major OOC opponent that early given those two games.

Third, the league is going to be brutal and they have to get an adequate win total one way or another to put themselves in the conversation.  Georgetown and Syracuse for years scheduled a collection of nobodies, then played well enough in conference to get to ~20 wins, and went to the tournament.

If we had 7 or 8 returning players in a rising program I would have said yeah, I'd rather see a Michigan State-type OOC schedule.  But with 3 players coming back and urgency to make the NCAAs this year, I completely understand going with 3 OOC games instead of 4, using the early part of the schedule to sort things out, and counting on playing well enough in the league to lock up a bid.

Of course now we just have to execute that plan.

All the more reason to schedule another meaningful non-conference game.  If Kansas is likely an L and @ Indiana a crapshoot, then you risk heading into conference play with Colgate as your best win if you run the table (and you're going to have to)  That puts a heck of a lot of pressure to do a lot of damage in conference.  Good losses non-conference do not hurt you.  

In other words, if we do not get one of the marquee games, then we have to run the table with the rest of the OOC schedule and may have to win 12 conference games to be on the right side of the bubble unless the conference really performs well. Not a good place to put yourself in.

Exactly, well said.

Our scheduling has been awful the last handful of seasons.  Not sure why that is.

We aren't properly preparing ourselves for Big East competition, as evidenced by our 1-5 start in BE play last season, 2-9 the year before that (yes I know we were just bad that year in MA year 1), 3-5 the year before that (after going 12-0 OOC) and 0-11 the year before that.

The "we need time to gel" narrative doesn't resonate with me as every team, including whoever we are playing, is likely dealing with similar turnover in the current college hoops landscape, so we are on the same footing as everyone else.

In addition to the problems noted at the top of the schedule, there is a problem at the bottom - for whatever reason, we seem to target Kenpom 300+ opponents and play at least 3-4 a year, which weighs down the SOS.

I do buy the "time to gel" narrative, because learning this defense, is similar to learning an offense.  Most coaches tell the team what kind of defense to play, who the individual players are guarding, and then just tell them to play all out. 

That's not how this style works.  You have to know when to double, who to double, when to pick them up, who to help out, etc.  And that can be different with each combination you have on the court.  So, even if every team in the country had nothing but all new players, we'd probably still need more time then most.

Anderson's history (with a few exceptions) is for soft, home focused, non-conference scheduling.  It may have cost us last year (though I give it a pass due to covid), but it obviously has worked for him.  Once he establishes a program, they're in the NCAAs more often then not (maybe there seeding gets hurt because of it, but they're usually in pretty solidly).

Also, what the schedule looks like, and how it actually winds up, usually has some differences.

As an aside, I forgot how good Colgate was last year.  If they have most of that team back (which appears to be the case), then I'm glad we're playing them later on in the non-conference schedule.

 

[NCJohnnie]

Also simply not true that most BE teams had the kind of turnover we did other than perhaps Creighton. We only have 3 guys returning from last year's team and that is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination.  

 

[bamafan]

How many returnees does Colgate have? That might be tougher game than it looks like on a screen shot.

Do believe they have their big 3 players back, Per Oxide, Flo Ride and Baking Soda. Basically out of conference schedule boils down to 3 teams from major conferences and 8 no names.

 

[Mean Gene]

Terrible schedule with only 1 away game and 0 neutral games. Our OOC schedule hurt us last year (despite us going 6-1) and for some reason staff thought it'd be a good idea to schedule lightly again. This 
type of schedule is bad for NET and Q1/2 opportunities. Only works  if we go 10-1 with almost all of the wins by 10+ points. That's doable, but it gives very little room for error. 
​​​​​​ 





 

I don't see it this way. 

First, what we are basically arguing about is the difference between 3 OOC games against power conference opponents versus 4 games.  That isn't nothing, but it isn't monumental either.

Second, the staff has a lot of new pieces to fit together and it's important for them to not lose too many games while they're doing that.  The Kansas game is presumably an L.  The road trip to Indiana early in the season is a crap shoot.  I don't see how they could afford to schedule a third major OOC opponent that early given those two games.

Third, the league is going to be brutal and they have to get an adequate win total one way or another to put themselves in the conversation.  Georgetown and Syracuse for years scheduled a collection of nobodies, then played well enough in conference to get to ~20 wins, and went to the tournament.

If we had 7 or 8 returning players in a rising program I would have said yeah, I'd rather see a Michigan State-type OOC schedule.  But with 3 players coming back and urgency to make the NCAAs this year, I completely understand going with 3 OOC games instead of 4, using the early part of the schedule to sort things out, and counting on playing well enough in the league to lock up a bid.

Of course now we just have to execute that plan.

All the more reason to schedule another meaningful non-conference game.  If Kansas is likely an L and @ Indiana a crapshoot, then you risk heading into conference play with Colgate as your best win if you run the table (and you're going to have to)  That puts a heck of a lot of pressure to do a lot of damage in conference.  Good losses non-conference do not hurt you.  

In other words, if we do not get one of the marquee games, then we have to run the table with the rest of the OOC schedule and may have to win 12 conference games to be on the right side of the bubble unless the conference really performs well. Not a good place to put yourself in.

Exactly, well said.

Our scheduling has been awful the last handful of seasons.  Not sure why that is.

We aren't properly preparing ourselves for Big East competition, as evidenced by our 1-5 start in BE play last season, 2-9 the year before that (yes I know we were just bad that year in MA year 1), 3-5 the year before that (after going 12-0 OOC) and 0-11 the year before that.

The "we need time to gel" narrative doesn't resonate with me as every team, including whoever we are playing, is likely dealing with similar turnover in the current college hoops landscape, so we are on the same footing as everyone else.

In addition to the problems noted at the top of the schedule, there is a problem at the bottom - for whatever reason, we seem to target Kenpom 300+ opponents and play at least 3-4 a year, which weighs down the SOS.

The NCAA Selection Committee has shown in recent years that they will reward the teams that scheduled aggressively and punish the teams that did not challenge themselves. I don’t know what CMA and Cragg are thinking with these soft schedules. It doesn’t benefit us in any way. The time to gel argument is soft in my opinion. The only way this doesn’t hurt us is if by the time conference play starts the conference has four Top 25 teams or something like that. Then we will get enough quad 1 opportunities to help our strength of schedule. The schedule is better this year but still not aggressive enough to have it work to our advantage come selection time.

 

[Amaseinyourface]

Like others noted, game @Indiana is huge.  Lose that and it will be tough to have a successful ooc resume. 

 

[Amaseinyourface]

Deeper look at the Carnesecca opponents and how they finished last 3 years. Used the NET for last season & RPI for previous 2. 

Colgate: last 30 / best 30 / ave. 69

Monmouth: last 195 / best 160 / Ave. 193 

Miss V ST: last 347 / best 347 /  Ave. 350 

St. Peter’s: last 192 / best 171 / Ave. 228

FDU: last 256 / best 177 / Ave. 238

St.. Francis: last 247 / best 238 / Ave. 256

NJIT: last 267 / best 137 / Ave. 238

Fordham: last 327 / best 288 / Ave. 313

 

 

[panther2]

Our 2021-22 schedule sponsored by butter cookie bakery “ where we specialize in cakes and cream puffs “ that being said I like the schedule more than last year. 
 

I love Buttercooky Bakery on Jericho Turnpike.

In regards to the schedule, I am not very concerned. We just need to win games. We have a lot of new players and it is going to take some time for them to come together as a cohesive unit. If we can get through the OOC schedule with only 1 loss and have a winning record in the Big East, we should be good on Selection Sunday.

This is our year. Rooting hard for Coach Anderson and the team.

Let's Go St Johns.