Should good teams schedule more good nonconference opponents?

[pgb-ohio]

I've posted similar questions before and they got no replies, so I opted for a more discussion-spurring title and expanded in the body of the post.

I have a lot of sympathy for this specific point. No doubt "All 17" of us have had the experience of putting a lot of effort into a post, then getting crickets in response. Re-doubling our efforts to respond to legitimate questions is something all of us should take to heart.

At the same time, there is a fine line between discussion-spurring and trolling. Navigating that fine line doesn't really matter to the troll, but it's a real challenge for those who are sincerely hoping for good discussion.

To the Western ear, the idea that Western teams are dodging Eastern teams is pretty jarring. Our experience is that the exact opposite has been true for a long time. Our grievance probably has more to do with NCAA pairings over the years, rather than regular season scheduling. But in both cases we've faced resistance from teams not wanting to travel West of the Alleghenies.

Take a couple of shifts in our skates. With an open mind. I hope you can get of glimpse of why the thread-starting post felt like trolling to many Westerners.


Footnote: It's really cool that you were adventuresome enough to relocate to Seattle. Still, in the world of College Hockey, whether one is an Easterner or Westerner is usually a function of school loyalties rather than current residence. And of course readers will factor in school loyalty when digesting posts.

[Lindsay]

I can imagine. Even those of us who started out with little in the way of an imagination now understand that we live in a world where a six-year-old student can shoot a teacher. It helps me to remember that the same world also produces people like Sydney McLaughlin, Anna Shcherbakova, and those we follow on the ice.

I believe I see a version of the best in humanity when I watch kids play, usually at public spaces. Inevitably there is always some big kid helping the little ones, or they’ve all organized themselves into some inclusive game that has no restraints on who can play. Or their reaction when someone gets a minor hurt etc is just so compassionate and frankly better than what some adults can muster.

[TitleIXHockey]

I realize y'all don't want to read that, but I think that when someone comes at me repeatedly I have a right to push back and wondering if it's going to escalate is justified. RobertEarle's posts started as a decent pushback and then he quickly escalated and made it ugly. I am editing his posts quoted below for brevity, scroll back if you want to read the full ones.

At the point when I called him out, RobertEarle had 12 of 51 replies in the thread by my count, several of them sarcastic, aggressive, personal, or all three. RobertEarle can point out his responses to ARM and others as evidence that he was operating in good faith, but I think that juxtaposition makes it even more clear that his replies were unnecessarily personal and agressive towards me.

After the last one I decided I wasn't going to tolerate RobertEarle's bullying anymore and pushed back, which he responded poorly to. I suppose I could have tried harder to deescalate, but I'm not sure how you deescalate something like that without outright capitulation. I felt that the number and content of RobertEarle's posts were a bit of a red flag and, considering that I make myself easy to find at women's hockey events, I became concerned that RobertEarle's aggressive online conduct would spill over into real life if he noticed me. It's like geez, if he comes at me this much online, what happens if he recognizes me in Duluth or something?

I don't know if he follows my Twitter or not to the point where he'd be able to do that, but I prefer not to take chances. It's a lot easier to address things now by asking if I have to worry than it is to dodge a fist I might not see coming in Duluth or wherever. I asked him point blank if I had to worry, and he made a snarky comment, for what it's worth. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but I think in cases like these, prevention is key and cure is too late. We've seen gamergate, swatting, and Kyle Rittenhouse. Online aggression spills over into real life all the time and I would rather make certain I'm not going to be a statistic of it than assume "eh, he's probably fine" even though he probably is.

Even if we accept the absurd notion that neutral site games "don't count" and home games "don't count" as "good nonconference opponents"

I think your premise is absurd, and I think UW's record under that absurd premise is actually pretty good.

This is uncalled for and a complete fabrication. I never said certain games did or didn't count, I highlighted a specific subset of games for discussion.

Your premise is absurd, and your 'methodology' as to what 'counts' and doesn't 'count' is ridiculous.

This came after I explained which games I was looking at further. Unnecessarily aggressive. At this point, RobertEarle has replied several times to where it felt like he was drowning out the rest of the thread.

Yup, that's it. Mark Johnson is worried about getting to 20 wins, so as to keep his job safe. You've nailed it.
SMH....

I personally didn't completely agree with the post RobertEarle is responding to here, but it didn't warrant such an unnecessarily and aggressive answer, especially to someone I haven't seen post very often. If this is the type of response they get, they're not going to want to come here.

Sorry, but according to "the rules" such four-team weekends don't "count".

If they did, then Wisconsin games vs Northeastern and BU and Robert Morris would have to be acknowledged, and then the premise looks even worse.

Another sarcastic jab at something I never said.

[robertearle]

What I actually said was:
"if you're going to constantly make personal attacks then it's less likely I'm going to reply to you."

Your response suggests a tacit acknowledgement that that's what you were doing.

Only if you're, you know, insane.

No, it does no such thing.

[TitleIXHockey]

"so I opted for a more discussion-spurring title"; some might call that "trolling". I'd agree.

(I thought you weren't going to respond to me...)

What I actually said was:
"if you're going to constantly make personal attacks then it's less likely I'm going to reply to you."

Your response suggests a tacit acknowledgement that that's what you were doing. I feel like the way you act online, you're a potential safety threat in person. I don't know if you go to events or not, but like I said, I do and I'm easy to find so I'll be taking steps at events in the near future to ensure my personal safety. Thanks.

[robertearle]

I'm not going to let you bully me or anyone else here. Responding with constant digs the way you did drives off other posters. I can understand that it's a bit tough when there aren't that many people to begin with and any time you post it is going to be a large percentage of the small number overall replies, but you went over the line again and again with personal attacks. I've posted similar questions before and they got no replies, so I opted for a more discussion-spurring title and expanded in the body of the post.

A number of people have replied, many of them taking a bit of chagrin at my choices, but you're the only one who's made it personal and been a bully and a problem. I don't know if you follow me on Twitter a lot, but I post my picture and generally try to meet people when I go to WoHo events. I am not that hard to find at the Frozen Four. Do I need to worry about you assaulting me?

"so I opted for a more discussion-spurring title"; some might call that "trolling". I'd agree.

(I thought you weren't going to respond to me...)

[TitleIXHockey]

Works for me.

I'm not going to let you bully me or anyone else here. Responding with constant digs the way you did drives off other posters. I can understand that it's a bit tough when there aren't that many people to begin with and any time you post it is going to be a large percentage of the small number overall replies, but you went over the line again and again with personal attacks. I've posted similar questions before and they got no replies, so I opted for a more discussion-spurring title and expanded in the body of the post.

A number of people have replied, many of them taking a bit of chagrin at my choices, but you're the only one who's made it personal and been a bully and a problem. I don't know if you follow me on Twitter a lot, but I post my picture and generally try to meet people when I go to WoHo events. I am not that hard to find at the Frozen Four. Do I need to worry about you assaulting me?

[robertearle]

and if you're going to constantly make personal attacks then it's less likely I'm going to reply to you.

[/B]

Works for me.

[TitleIXHockey]

From his user profile:
TitleIXHockey
Golden Knight
"2 important things: I am furthest west of anyone and therefore have no eastern bias. I don't turn up my nose at any team just because mine h"

The guy is absurd on his face.

Well I thought it was funny. I'm near Seattle, by the way. Also, did that really get cut off? It should read something like "I don't turn my nose up at any team just because mine has won a championship." which was a response to a poster unnecessarily belittling Syracuse during last year's tournament.

Edit: "2 important things:
I am furthest west of anyone and therefore have no eastern bias.
I don't turn up my nose at any team just because mine has won 3 national titles."

Let me type it all in the bio but it gets cut off when you look at my profile.

[TitleIXHockey]

Yes it is!!

I asked you like three times why the 'title' of the post didn't match the qualifications/restrictions you then put on what did and did not 'count'. This is the first time, I think, you've at least acknowledged the difference.

Wisconsin plays plenty of "good nonconference opponents". Just not the way YOU want those games to occur. Well, too effing bad for you.

The entire second paragraph should have been your clue that the entire premise of the thread was about Wisconsin playing good teams on the road. Yes, I could have been more explicit, but there was plenty there for you to understand what I meant. I did not put any restrictions on after the fact, this is just a fabrication.

I don't log on every day so I didn't see your replies right away and if you're going to constantly make personal attacks then it's less likely I'm going to reply to you. You definitely didn't need to fly off the handle multiple times in basically every reply you've made in this thread.

Not accurate, see quoted tweets below.

Or basically, should WCHA teams come east more?
"Geography" is partially to blame here, but it seems like the WCHA is just depriving the eastern schools of quality nonconference matchups to pad their PWR. They'll travel east for bad teams or for neutral site games, but if you want to see a WCHA team play a top nonconference school, you've got to watch it happen out there, and subscribe to BTN+.

Specifically that they don't play more road games against top eastern teams. Wisconsin played 8 in 13 years (between nonconf losses to RMU in 09 and Penn State in 2022)(and a number of neutral site games which is good, but not the same). Clarkson, for comparison, played 9 in 08-09 and 09-10 alone.

If you're an eastern fan, or maybe a midwestern fan that doesn't get BTN, you should be able to watch Wisconsin play a team like Quinnipiac more than roughly once every other year.

Toxic, unnecessary.

[robertearle]

Edit: I could have more clearly said "road" in my first post. I do say "come east" and some other things earlier which provide some clues, but that's my bad.

Yes it is!!

I asked you like three times why the 'title' of the post didn't match the qualifications/restrictions you then put on what did and did not 'count'. This is the first time, I think, you've at least acknowledged the difference.

Wisconsin plays plenty of "good nonconference opponents". Just not the way YOU want those games to occur. Well, too effing bad for you.

[TitleIXHockey]

I'll look a bit closer at that 'allegation' later, but if today was the "2022" loss to a non-conference team with a winning record, then the last one before that was in 2022, to Penn State.

Is the knock that they don't play more such games, or that they don't lose them more often? Because if it is that they don't lose more often... that's ridiculous.

Could you list the "eight' that you're counting? Because I listed all their non-conference games earlier, and I think that "eight" might be, shall we say, debatable?

Even if we accept the absurd notion that neutral site games "don't count" and home games "don't count" as "good nonconference opponents", the 2016-17 Syracuse team was over .500 and 14-4-2 in conference. That they weren't as good the next year when Wisconsin travelled there is hardly Mark Johnson's fault; he booked an above-500 'east' team. So that's a fifth series. After you take out the neutral site games, and the LIU and Lindenwood trips to help bolster new programs, how many opportunities did they have for such east coast trips, anyway?

Is "66" the entirety of their non-conference scheduling? Because, again, if you are discounting the neutral site gams as "good", they shouldn't be part of the total you cite, either way. And again, the title of the post does not specify only road, it just says "good nonconference opponents".

(And let's also point out that what you're asking in wanting UW to come east instead of staying home is giving up two dates of 2000 tickets sold per game to pack everyone onto a private jet to fly east to play in front of, what?, 200 people per date? That costs money.)

I think your premise is absurd, and I think UW's record under that absurd premise is actually pretty good.

Your premise is absurd, and your 'methodology' as to what 'counts' and doesn't 'count' is ridiculous.

Yup, that's it. Mark Johnson is worried about getting to 20 wins, so as to keep his job safe. You've nailed it.

SMH....

Sorry, but according to "the rules" such four-team weekends don't "count".

Emphasis: mine. Just unnecessary. No wonder this place is dead.

[TitleIXHockey]

LOL!!

Are you serious?!?

You started with "Should good teams schedule more good nonconference opponents?" and then immediately went to "Or basically, should WCHA teams come east more?" and "Specifically that they don't play more road games against top eastern teams." Then "[Wisconsin plays] a number of neutral site games which is good, but not the same"

That is, WCHA home games don't count.

Then "[Wisconsin plays] a number of neutral site games which is good, but not the same"

That is, neutral site games don't count.

Simply quoting the premise, and then how YOU limited what does and does not get included in the "good nonconference opponents" count.

Your words, not mine.

I am sorry I didn't put the entirety of the initial post in the thread title and instead chose to explicitly outline a linear train of though, clearly describing which games I was talking about from the very beginning that you misread and then flew off the handle about. My premise is very clear in the body of the first post from the very beginning. I didn't move the goalposts like you're describing. You can be mad, you don't have to be dishonest though.

You misread the post and then got mad from the very first reply, and then came at me multiple times throughout the thread. I don't know what to tell you other than to calm down and grow up.

Edit: I could have more clearly said "road" in my first post. I do say "come east" and some other things earlier which provide some clues, but that's my bad.

[robertearle]

I never said anything objectively counted or didn't count. You don't have to lie about what I said to be mad. I highlighted a very specific type of game and how many Wisconsin played compared to the first team I thought of. Yes, some games fit that criteria and many, many more do not. I do not know why this came as such a shock to you.

LOL!!

Are you serious?!?

You started with "Should good teams schedule more good nonconference opponents?" and then immediately went to "Or basically, should WCHA teams come east more?" and "Specifically that they don't play more road games against top eastern teams." Then "[Wisconsin plays] a number of neutral site games which is good, but not the same"

That is, WCHA home games don't count.

Then "[Wisconsin plays] a number of neutral site games which is good, but not the same"

That is, neutral site games don't count.

Simply quoting the premise, and then how YOU limited what does and does not get included in the "good nonconference opponents" count.

Your words, not mine.

[TitleIXHockey]

I'll give you that might be what motivated it, but in general, I agree with its basic sentiment. As a fan, I would prefer if we saw more games matching championship contenders from all leagues.

It was really two things:

1. Seeing many mention Wisconsin's nonconference unbeaten streak on other media and putting it into better perspective.
2. Wanting to watch more WCHA games because even when Clarkson goes west, I usually don't and don't care to buy BTN+, nor did I watch any Giguere UMD games until NCAAs.


The title is admittedly a bit oversimplified and in a way to be more eye-catching. It's really a combination of several thoughts/questions:

How much can we blame geography for WCHA scheduling?

What is a fair distribution of traveling / hosting considering geography?

How do we solve the WCHA teams being prohibitively harder to watch for an Eastern fan who can get probably 25 or so teams between free streams and (much cheaper) ESPN+? Or do we just not, I guess, and keep the WCHA in its bubble.

Secondarily to the above, how much is the PWR manipulable through scheduling, OR, what is the minimum intraconference diversity needed for it to be a trustworthy ranking metric. We know from the Covid season, which had just 1 (I think) intraconference series, that there is a certain point where PWR is useless. What is that point, what drives it - is it diversity of games for a specific team? Specific conference? In general? How close do we get in a given season to the PWR approaching Covid-year level uselessness? (The WCHA gets highlighted here despite playing just one more conference game than Hockey East because of Lindenwood essentially acting as an eighth conference opponent for most of the teams.)