WE have to Schedule Better

[JayBell]

You're not drinking the kool aid but you are a verbatim national media sound bite?!

I put in another thread that the SEC 9-4 in head to head competition with a 6 bid league that also has a one seed.

Do a little more research sometime and less licking your finger and sticking it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing to get "YOUR" opinions. It's refreshing.

Somehow you are melding what I am actually saying and what the national media is saying.  I am NOT saying the SEC is a 3-bid league.  I am NOT saying the A10 is a 6-bid league.  I never said either of those things.  I never came close to it and yet you keep trumpeting it as if I have said it numerous times.

Georgia, A&M and Ole Miss lost to the likes of Temple, Davidson, Dayton, Mercer, North Texas and Missouri State in out of conference play.  They then finished 12-6, 9-9 and 8-10 in SEC play.

It's not JUST that top SEC teams lost the bottom teams.  It's that the bottom teams lost to bad teams before conference play even began.  You're trying to say a loss to Oklahoma State in the Big XII is the same as a loss to Ole Miss.  Ok St. finished 12-1 in non-conference play and only lost to Memphis.  You keep arguing against the A10 and yet the third place team in the SEC lost by nearly 20 points at the third place team in the A10.

If the SEC was as good as you thought it was, they would have had a much better non-conference record.  Yes, Arkansas and Missouri had decent non-conference schedules, they then came in and lost to Georgia, Ole Miss, A&M, South Carolina, etc.  The numbers do not back up your argument.

And to emphasize again, I am NOT saying the SEC is a 3-bid league.  I am NOT saying the A10 is a 6-bid league.

[hambone]

Somehow you are melding what I am actually saying and what the national media is saying.  I am NOT saying the SEC is a 3-bid league.  I am NOT saying the A10 is a 6-bid league.  I never said either of those things.  I never came close to it and yet you keep trumpeting it as if I have said it numerous times.

Georgia, A&M and Ole Miss lost to the likes of Temple, Davidson, Dayton, Mercer, North Texas and Missouri State in out of conference play.  They then finished 12-6, 9-9 and 8-10 in SEC play.

It's not JUST that top SEC teams lost the bottom teams.  It's that the bottom teams lost to bad teams before conference play even began.  You're trying to say a loss to Oklahoma State in the Big XII is the same as a loss to Ole Miss.  Ok St. finished 12-1 in non-conference play and only lost to Memphis.  You keep arguing against the A10 and yet the third place team in the SEC lost by nearly 20 points at the third place team in the A10.

If the SEC was as good as you thought it was, they would have had a much better non-conference record.  Yes, Arkansas and Missouri had decent non-conference schedules, they then came in and lost to Georgia, Ole Miss, A&M, South Carolina, etc.  The numbers do not back up your argument.

And to emphasize again, I am NOT saying the SEC is a 3-bid league.  I am NOT saying the A10 is a 6-bid league.

How about the ACC? Are they a 6 bid league.

As a conference they had nearly as many terrible out of conference losses as the SEC. The SEC went 9-4 against them with a 30+ point win against their one seed conference champion.

But YOU think that parity within the SEC somehow is proof of low quality while head to head domination of the ACC is proof of nothing!?

Of their teams with bids, they were 1-2 against the SEC. That means the "bottom" of the SEC 8-2 against everyone else in the ACC.

Yet people like yourself try to claim that the ACC is a deeper conference because the top beats the bottom unlike the SEC.

Call me crazy, but I'll take head to head comparison's any time over RPI proof that one conference is better than another.

[Danny J]

All good points ^^^^ which I have said for the last few years. The SEC is not as bad as the national media makes it out to be. We have MORE titles over the last 20 years than any other conference coming from 3 different teams, only just short of the ACC in terms of players in the NBA, among the highest winning % per bids, etc....yet we are TERRIBLE. How many titles does the vaunted Big ten and 12 have over that 20 year period? Two. How about the A10? WCC?

[razorhead94]

All good points ^^^^ which I have said for the last few years. The SEC is not as bad as the national media makes it out to be. We have MORE titles over the last 20 years than any other conference coming from 3 different teams, only just short of the ACC in terms of players in the NBA, among the highest winning % per bids, etc....yet we are TERRIBLE. How many titles does the vaunted Big ten and 12 have over that 20 year period? Two. How about the A10? WCC?

Teams like UGA didn't help the perception of the league at all this year.  They were merely .500 in non conference losing to teams like Mercer and UC-upstate and then come conference play they finish third place.  That kills the conference RPI.  It always seems like there is at least one team that does this.  SEC has to start winning non conference games and scheduling better.

[Danny J]

Teams like UGA didn't help the perception of the league at all this year.  They were merely .500 in non conference losing to teams like Mercer and UC-upstate and then come conference play they finish third place.  That kills the conference RPI.  It always seems like there is at least one team that does this.  SEC has to start winning non conference games and scheduling better.

Totally agree. My point was it is not as bad a league as it is made out to be. I would certainly put the A10 side by side with the SEC top ten on neutral sites and take the SEC 75% of the time and they have twice as many NCAA berths.

[hambone]

Teams like UGA didn't help the perception of the league at all this year.  They were merely .500 in non conference losing to teams like Mercer and UC-upstate and then come conference play they finish third place.  That kills the conference RPI.  It always seems like there is at least one team that does this.  SEC has to start winning non conference games and scheduling better.

Georgia is a young team though. It's not unusual at all for a young team to struggle early and then come together later in the season.

Anyone who has coached basketball at any level can tell you that it takes time to develop roles and an identity with a team and RARELY happens straight out of the gate.

RPI is a joke. RPI would tell you that the ACC is much better than the SEC. Yet in head to head competition, the ACC was 4-9 versus the SEC this season. Those losses covered the top team to the bottom of the ACC with the matchups including 3 of the ACC's tourney teams.

Weighing early season games more heavily and the touting of RPI as an unbiased tool for comparing teams are two of the biggest frauds being perpetrated by the committee these days.

[Kevin]

i can watch games and form my own opinion, it is not about drinking any kool aid.

the sec is bad basketball. if your league has good teams then a team is not going to go 21-0, including the tournament

[hambone]

i can watch games and form my own opinion, it is not about drinking any kool aid.

the sec is bad basketball. if your league has good teams then a team is not going to go 21-0, including the tournament

If your league is good, does the same team win it 11 years straight? Guess which mighty league this holds true for?

So you are saying that a league that is 4-9 against a lousy league is better than the lousy league? Seriously?! LOL!

[Kevin]

4-9 does not mean anything, who lost to who?
i know
ga tech beat ga
auburn & arkansas beat clemson
i know ga tech lost to someone
nc state beat tennessee
tennessee killed virgina
missouri beat nc state
carolina beat uk
clemson beat south carolina

so i would say tennessee killing uva is about the same as carolina beat uk (without two of their best players)

[joeyself]

  Yes, Arkansas and Missouri had decent non-conference schedules, they then came in and lost to Georgia, Ole Miss, A&M, South Carolina, etc.

I don't think I disagree with the points you're making, but I think you may want to rethink the non-conference strength of schedule.  http://kenpom.com/  has Arkansas at 310 and Missouri at 221 out of 351. 

I realize there may be other rankings that differ, but this guy seems to know what he's doing.

JcS

[hambone]

4-9 does not mean anything, who lost to who?
i know
ga tech beat ga
auburn & arkansas beat clemson
i know ga tech lost to someone
nc state beat tennessee
tennessee killed virgina
missouri beat nc state
carolina beat uk
clemson beat south carolina

so i would say tennessee killing uva is about the same as carolina beat uk (without two of their best players)

Actually 4-9 means a lot. You keep bringing up RPI. RPI says that the ACC is better than the SEC. Yet in head to head to competition, the ACC is winning less than 33% of the time.

If RPI were ACCURATE, then the disparity wouldn't be so great. A 50/50 ish type split would be acceptable..............BUT IT'S LESS THAN 33%!!!!!!!!!!!

Seeing Tenn killing a conf champ as the same as an early season win against five frosh requires squinting so hard your eyeballs are in danger of popping out the back of your head. LOL!!!!!!!!

I also like how you dodged Kansas winning the Big 12 for the 11th straight season but Fla going undefeated with a senior laden, number one ranked team and several extremely close calls is a sign of something bad. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yep, the Big 12 is so deep BECAUSE Kansas, a 9 loss team, dominates the league. That would be like Kentucky winning the SEC 11 straight years! But RPI says the Big 12 is all that so it must be so!

[JayBell]

I don't think I disagree with the points you're making, but I think you may want to rethink the non-conference strength of schedule.  http://kenpom.com/  has Arkansas at 310 and Missouri at 221 out of 351. 

I realize there may be other rankings that differ, but this guy seems to know what he's doing.

JcS

Definitely.  I would amend it to say that Missouri and Arkansas did what they needed to in non-conference play.  Arkansas didn't have the toughest non-conference schedule, but only lost to an NCAA tourney team and an NIT team from a major conference.  Missouri had an even better non-conference record, but didn't take care of business in the SEC.

[JayBell]

i can watch games and form my own opinion, it is not about drinking any kool aid.

the sec is bad basketball. if your league has good teams then a team is not going to go 21-0, including the tournament

This is the key.  It's bad basketball, as a whole, but there are always some great pieces in place.  The league produces a ton of pro players and wins as many national championships as anyone, but it lacks top coaches throughout and the teams are often less than the sum of their parts.  LSU for years has had problems keeping top young players long enough to develop a good team.

[hambone]

But leagues that are won by the same team for a decade straight, those are great leagues!



I think you guys need glasses.

[avatar]

No, we need to win SEC games that we have no business losing . Beat Florida and missou at home, beat bama and Georgia on the road, South Carolina in the SECT...we are discussing seeding.

you are making too much sense. what are you doing on hogville?

[JayBell]

But leagues that are won by the same team for a decade straight, those are great leagues!



I think you guys need glasses.

So your argument that the SEC, which had a team roll to a 21-0 record in conference this year, is better is to criticize another conference because its elite team has stayed elite for a decade?  As opposed to the inconsistency of Kentucky and Florida, which I have pointed out numerous times is the biggest weakness of SEC basketball?

The SEC has been won by Kentucky or Florida 7 times in the last decade.  Ooooooo, parity there.  You think it speaks of the greatness of the SEC when Georgia wins the conference tournament with a record of 17-16?

SEC teams often pass the eye test.  They can play great basketball.  But far too often you see an SEC team like Arkansas blast Ole Miss one game and lay an absolute egg in the next.  That's why you have four SEC teams in the NIT.  They all had potential, but they didn't take care of business.

It's about consistency.  It doesn't matter how good they played at times if they can't keep it up throughout the season.  Consistency and resilience mark a quality team, and Florida is the only team in the SEC to show those qualities this year.

[Danny J]

So your argument that the SEC, which had a team roll to a 21-0 record in conference this year, is better is to criticize another conference because its elite team has stayed elite for a decade?  As opposed to the inconsistency of Kentucky and Florida, which I have pointed out numerous times is the biggest weakness of SEC basketball?

The SEC has been won by Kentucky or Florida 7 times in the last decade.  Ooooooo, parity there.  You think it speaks of the greatness of the SEC when Georgia wins the conference tournament with a record of 17-16?

SEC teams often pass the eye test.  They can play great basketball.  But far too often you see an SEC team like Arkansas blast Ole Miss one game and lay an absolute egg in the next.  That's why you have four SEC teams in the NIT.  They all had potential, but they didn't take care of business.

It's about consistency.  It doesn't matter how good they played at times if they can't keep it up throughout the season.  Consistency and resilience mark a quality team, and Florida is the only team in the SEC to show those qualities this year.

I know your post was directed at hambone but I don't believe he is making the case the SEC is better or even equal to those other conferences but simply the SEC is not as bad as people(mainly main stream east coast and other national pundits) claim over the last several years. Remember that a lot of those leagues success is also driven by one or two schools at the top much like the SEC so that is pretty normal. Take the Big  12. Really there is Kansas and then everybody else. Nobody else in that league has won a title in the last God knows how long. Same goes for the Big Ten. It is MSU and the last time they won it all was 2000. When was the last time another school from that conference won a title? How about the Pac 12? They have only 2 titles in the last 20 years as well so it really is UCLA, Arizona and then everybody else. My point is that all leagues have some teams at the top and then some drop off so that is not unique to the SEC.


The SEC has among if not the best winning % in the NCAA over the last several years maybe even going back a decade or more. It has the most national titles going back 20 years with 3 different teams winning it all and the only other 2 conferences that can bost of that is the ACC and Big east who each had 3 teams win it all and right behind the ACC in number of players in the NBA and the % per school player in the NBA is spread out almost as evenly as the ACC but not quite as diverse.

I will also add the SEC is 6-0 in post season play thus far so no worse than .500 from here on out. I don't think the A10 is twice as good as the SEC top to bottom as bids would suggest. I would put the SEC against the A10 and feel comfortable on a neutral court we would take 7 maybe 8 out of 10 wins.

The main thing the league needs to do is schedule better cupcakes as a whole to help drive the OOC SOS up which in turn drives up RPI. I also believe that home court officiating needs to improve and that will help as well. I also believe that the overlap of SEC football and basketball causes some rather lazy play to start the season especially at schools where football is really the only concern of the school such as Bama, UGA, LSU, etc...

So my opinion is the SEC while not great is certainly not as bad as people perceive. The league does a poor job of promoting basketball which also hurts.

[SPAL]

It was the extremely low RPI teams we playedLOST TO  in the nonconference.

THIS

[Sharky]

The main thing the league needs to do is schedule better cupcakes as a whole to help drive the OOC SOS up which in turn drives up RPI. I also believe that home court officiating needs to improve and that will help as well. I also believe that the overlap of SEC football and basketball causes some rather lazy play to start the season especially at schools where football is really the only concern of the school such as Bama, UGA, LSU, etc...

So my opinion is the SEC while not great is certainly not as bad as people perceive. The league does a poor job of promoting basketball which also hurts.

Indeed. The SEC is not as bad as people perceive. I think it's important to note that it's not perception of a weak SEC that hurts us come NCAA tournament time--it's RPI. The weak RPIs, due to the weak scheduling (too many cupcakes all around), create the perception of a weak conference.

Want to change the perception, achieve a higher RPI by winning more games (winning percentage), especially on the road (weighted 1.4), against teams that win more games (opponent winning percentages) that play teams that win more games (opponent's opponents winning percentage).

Some have bashed Wichita State's SOS of 129, but they really only have control over their non-conference schedule, which was ranked 29 (and yet very winnable) compared to our 202 (which hurt both us and the conference). I think it's a brilliant non-con schedule. With similar scheduling the SEC could get 4-6 teams in the tournament on a regular basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating_Percentage_Index

[JayBell]

I know your post was directed at hambone but I don't believe he is making the case the SEC is better or even equal to those other conferences but simply the SEC is not as bad as people(mainly main stream east coast and other national pundits) claim over the last several years. Remember that a lot of those leagues success is also driven by one or two schools at the top much like the SEC so that is pretty normal. Take the Big  12. Really there is Kansas and then everybody else. Nobody else in that league has won a title in the last God knows how long. Same goes for the Big Ten. It is MSU and the last time they won it all was 2000. When was the last time another school from that conference won a title? How about the Pac 12? They have only 2 titles in the last 20 years as well so it really is UCLA, Arizona and then everybody else. My point is that all leagues have some teams at the top and then some drop off so that is not unique to the SEC.


The SEC has among if not the best winning % in the NCAA over the last several years maybe even going back a decade or more. It has the most national titles going back 20 years with 3 different teams winning it all and the only other 2 conferences that can bost of that is the ACC and Big east who each had 3 teams win it all and right behind the ACC in number of players in the NBA and the % per school player in the NBA is spread out almost as evenly as the ACC but not quite as diverse.

I will also add the SEC is 6-0 in post season play thus far so no worse than .500 from here on out. I don't think the A10 is twice as good as the SEC top to bottom as bids would suggest. I would put the SEC against the A10 and feel comfortable on a neutral court we would take 7 maybe 8 out of 10 wins.

The main thing the league needs to do is schedule better cupcakes as a whole to help drive the OOC SOS up which in turn drives up RPI. I also believe that home court officiating needs to improve and that will help as well. I also believe that the overlap of SEC football and basketball causes some rather lazy play to start the season especially at schools where football is really the only concern of the school such as Bama, UGA, LSU, etc...

So my opinion is the SEC while not great is certainly not as bad as people perceive. The league does a poor job of promoting basketball which also hurts.

Agree with all of those points.

I just don't think the case for saying the SEC is better is to ride down other conferences who, by plenty of objective measures, are better.

My main point is that inconsistency has cost the SEC dearly both this year and in years past.  IMO, Arkansas, Georgia, LSU and Missouri are all NCAA quality teams.  The problem was they didn't prove it.  Whether it was in conference or out of conference, all four just didn't take care of business.  With several teams like South Carolina and Ole Miss playing bad basketball so often this season, you can't afford to have those teams beat Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. as often as they did.  You can't have a team like Georgia bomb in non-conference play and then roll through the conference like they did.

Promotion, refereeing and scheduling definitely need to be top priorities next season, but it will be all for naught if the league's best teams continue be so frustratingly inconsistent.

[tomw]

playing all the cream puffs makes your record look falsely better....you can boast we won x amount of games, but they are all worthless opponents...need to play some mid majors up to the big boys for it to mean anything

[Danny J]

Agree with all of those points.

I just don't think the case for saying the SEC is better is to ride down other conferences who, by plenty of objective measures, are better.

My main point is that inconsistency has cost the SEC dearly both this year and in years past.  IMO, Arkansas, Georgia, LSU and Missouri are all NCAA quality teams.  The problem was they didn't prove it.  Whether it was in conference or out of conference, all four just didn't take care of business.  With several teams like South Carolina and Ole Miss playing bad basketball so often this season, you can't afford to have those teams beat Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. as often as they did.  You can't have a team like Georgia bomb in non-conference play and then roll through the conference like they did.

Promotion, refereeing and scheduling definitely need to be top priorities next season, but it will be all for naught if the league's best teams continue be so frustratingly inconsistent.

I agree and hopefully you are either Mike Slive or Jeff Long in disguise and do something about it! 

[joeyself]

playing all the cream puffs makes your record look falsely better....you can boast we won x amount of games, but they are all worthless opponents...need to play some mid majors up to the big boys for it to mean anything

This.

When you look at the schedule and you see a bunch that you have NO doubt as to the outcome, there's a problem.  And while I understand the economics of playing all the home games we can, a team only gets better playing on the road by, oddly enough, playing on the road.  A few deals with some schools for a 2 home for us, 1 for them wouldn't be a bad thing from a "prep for the season" standpoint.

JcS

[UNCLE BACK]

I truly think we will be a much better team this year and I like this team. OOC schedule is pretty darn good but I hate the way the SEC Schedule sets up because we really don't have 1 chance for an eye popping victory at Bud Walton. I could see us biting fingernails on selection Sunday and this time we can't blame Mike's scheduling because he can't control the conference schedule. I might be totally off base but when I saw it, it instantly bothered me. Honestly, besides Dayton, will we have any other opportunities at a Home top 50 RPI victory? Remember, nobody wanted coach A more than me and I still love him. This is not trying to be nagative, this is a legitimate concern. What does Hogville Nation think?

[-Blu]

I truly think we will be a much better team this year and I like this team. OOC schedule is pretty darn good but I hate the way the SEC Schedule sets up because we really don't have 1 chance for an eye popping victory at Bud Walton. I could see us biting fingernails on selection Sunday and this time we can't blame Mike's scheduling because he can't control the conference schedule. I might be totally off base but when I saw it, it instantly bothered me. Honestly, besides Dayton, will we have any other opportunities at a Home top 50 RPI victory? Remember, nobody wanted coach A more than me and I still love him. This is not trying to be nagative, this is a legitimate concern. What does Hogville Nation think?

Well, the goal is with our OOC SOS, we shouldn't need a bunch of marquee home wins to solidify our resume.  We should be able to rack up a lot of wins in the RPI 50-150 range.  If we take care of business and do that, we'll be fine come selection Sunday.  Even if we only have a couple of top 50 RPI wins, and have 15+ wins around the RPI top 150ish area we will have a very impressive resume according to the committee.

And as far as good wins in Bud Walton arena, most people expect LSU to be a tournament team, that should be a top 50 win at home if we beat them.  We also got Dayton like you stated, which if we beat them should be another top 50ish RPI win.  Then you got other teams like Wake Forest, with Danny Manny should be improved, they may end up being a much better win than we expect right now.  Then as far as other teams in our conference some people expect Ole Miss to be a solid team this year, Alabama had a pretty good recruit class, so they should be improved.  Then you know there's always a team that just has a much better year than you expect, could be Mizzou or Tennessee, never know.  But, I wouldn't worry about this schedule, if we take care of business we'll be where we need to be.

[popcornhog]

I truly think we will be a much better team this year and I like this team. OOC schedule is pretty darn good but I hate the way the SEC Schedule sets up because we really don't have 1 chance for an eye popping victory at Bud Walton. I could see us biting fingernails on selection Sunday and this time we can't blame Mike's scheduling because he can't control the conference schedule. I might be totally off base but when I saw it, it instantly bothered me. Honestly, besides Dayton, will we have any other opportunities at a Home top 50 RPI victory? Remember, nobody wanted coach A more than me and I still love him. This is not trying to be nagative, this is a legitimate concern. What does Hogville Nation think?

It does suck that our three marquee games are on the road, UK/UF in conference and ISU on the road. But if we can beat SMU in Dallas and go 1-2 in the aforementioned big road games -- I think we could be looking at a top 15 finish.

[Hawg Red]

I truly think we will be a much better team this year and I like this team. OOC schedule is pretty darn good but I hate the way the SEC Schedule sets up because we really don't have 1 chance for an eye popping victory at Bud Walton. I could see us biting fingernails on selection Sunday and this time we can't blame Mike's scheduling because he can't control the conference schedule. I might be totally off base but when I saw it, it instantly bothered me. Honestly, besides Dayton, will we have any other opportunities at a Home top 50 RPI victory? Remember, nobody wanted coach A more than me and I still love him. This is not trying to be nagative, this is a legitimate concern. What does Hogville Nation think?

I agree that it sucks we don't have any major opponents at home, but we'll start off with much better footing in the RPI with our non-con schedule. As long as we take care of business in BWA and win one on the road in the non-con and 3-4 on the road in conference play, we'll be resting comfortably.

Our best case is that LSU has a really good year and are ranked when they come to BWA (which I believe is at the end of the season). Would also help if Dayton was able to make the tournament again (slipped in last year and lost some scoring).

[Pork Twain]

Seems like once selection time rolls around, they are much more concerned with quality road wins than quality home wins.  Since we will likely not be playing any home games in the NCAA tourny

[litmachog]

That's ok.  Get a win against the upper level teams in the SEC on the road will mean more than a win against them at home.  Lets just go beat them on the road.

[Adam Stokes]

Seems like once selection time rolls around, they are much more concerned with quality road wins than quality home wins.  Since we will likely not be playing any home games in the NCAA tourny

This is what I was thinking while I was reading the OP.  You never hear pundits say, "They don't have any quality home wins."  Usually they care more about neutral and road wins.  That said, you could make the argument that we are more likely to go undefeated at home this season than that we will lose even one game.  This season will rise and fall based on our road performances, and that is a large factor in what the committee looks when seeding.

[HF#1]

Best schedule we've seen in some time.  Non-conf and conference...

[TheRazorbackGuy]

Looks like Arkansas scheduled pretty solidly in Out of conference games this upcoming season. So we did schedule better.

Wake Forest
Deleware State
@SMU
North Texas
Iona
@Iowa State
@Clemson
Dayton
ULM
UW-Milwaulkee
Northwestern State
Utah Valley State

[popcornhog]

we would be a 8-9 seed in the tounry if we had losses on our resume to real teams non conference versus wins against cream puffs

this is what we don't get in.  we play darn non conference schedules against cream puffs all year while everyone else is playing real games that matter and come march we are having to be perfect in conference to have a shot. 


we won't make the tounry until we have a real non conference schedule

Frankly, the biggest reason that we didn't get in was because of the bad losses. If we simply take care of business against mediocre SC and Bama teams at the end of the year, we're in.

But I agree, the SOS hurt too. I like this season's OOC schedule though. Nice road tests at SMU and Clemson and a really tough road game at ISU.

We're a tourney team in 2014-2015.

[TheRazorbackGuy]

Frankly, the biggest reason that we didn't get in was because of the bad losses. If we simply take care of business against mediocre SC and Bama teams at the end of the year, we're in.

But I agree, the SOS hurt too. I like this season's OOC schedule though. Nice road tests at SMU and Clemson and a really tough road game at ISU.

We're a tourney team in 2014-2015.

I agree on all points Popcorn. I think this schedule is pretty solid this year. Hogs reach the tournament