RPI Rankings of the Big 12 & CU opponents

[Buffnik]

http://realtimerpi.com/rpi_Men.html

(CU is currently at #92)

#1 Kansas (2 games)
#8 Texas
#27 Missouri (2)
#28 Texas A&M
#38 Colorado State
#40 Kansas State (2)
#41 Georgia
#44 Harvard
#54 Oklahoma State
#64 Baylor
#69 New Mexico
#85 Nebraska (2)
#121 Oklahoma
#127 San Francisco
#141 Iowa State (2)
#149 Texas Tech
#161 Indiana
#224 Oregon State
#276 Citadel
#286 Idaho State
#301 Cal State Bakersfield
#323 Longwood
#330 Maryland Eastern Shore
#334 Alcorn State
#344 Texas Pan American
DII Western New Mexico

What is killing CU's RPI, and deservedly so, are those last 7 teams on the list plus D2 Western New Mexico represent 8 of our 16 wins. The Las Vegas Invitational didn't do us any favors by scheduling us with Citadel and Longwood. And I get Boyle adding the game with WNM to fill in and avoid a long Christmas break layoff. I can kind of see Idaho State, since it was the opener and getting our feet wet with the new season. But that still leaves games against CS Bakersfield, MD Eastern Shore, Alcorn State and TX Pan AM that are really hard to justify for our program.

I know that Boyle pretty much inherited this schedule from Bzdelik. I have also heard Tad talk about playing a tougher schedule that's also more regional. But I look at this and can't help but think how much better our strength of schedule would be if we could have taken those 4 games I have the major problem with (all with RPIs in the 300s) and replaced them with these 4 regional teams that have losing D1 records and would have almost surely been CU wins: Rice (#174), Sam Houston State (#181), Northern Arizona, (#183), Fresno State (#198). Those are just examples.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

We got fortunate that CSU has such a good RPI this year, that is unusual but they got the boost from BYU and SDSU having such good seasons, plus they played KU. Sadly, the CSU has a much better chance at landing an NCAA bid than we do at this point. :huh:

 

[Junction]

I've been curious exactly what it is about K State's schedule that puts them at a #36 RPI ranking with a 15-9 record against D-1 teams, and what puts CU at #91 with a 15-10 D-1 record. For comparison, I looked at Baylor, #61 RPI with a 16-8 D-1 record

This is how their records break down (before tonight):

Overall SOS

KjSU #11
Baylor #59
CU #86

Top 50 RPI teams:

CU 5-5

#1 Kansas L
#26 Texas A&M L
#27 Mizzou W, L
#36 K-State W,W
#37 CSU W
#38 Georgia L
#45 Harvard L
#49 Okie Lite W

Kansas State 0-7

#1 Kansas L
#7 Duke L
#12 Florida L
#26 Texas A&M L
#27 Mizzou L
#28 UNLV L
#49 Okie Lite L

Baylor 2-4

#1 Kansas L
#8 Texas L
#26 Texas A&M W
#36 K-State L
#47 Florida State L
#49 Okie Lite W

RPI 51-100 teams:

CU 0-3

#61 Baylor L
#66 New Mexico L
#83 Nubraska L

Kansas State 6-2

#61 Baylor W
#65 Virginia Tech W
#72 Gonzaga W
#74 Washington St W
#77 James Madison W
#83 Nubraska W
#91 Colorado L, L

Baylor 2-2

#72 Gonzaga L
#74 Washington St L
#83 Nubraska W
#91 Colorado W

RPI Teams #101 - 150


CU 1-2

#112 Oklahoma L
#125 San Francisco L
#136 Iowa State W

Kansas State 2-0

#136 Iowa State W
#148 Texas Tech W

Baylor 3-2

#106 Lipscomb W
#112 Oklahoma W,L
#136 Iowa State L
#148 Texas Tech W

RPI Teams #151-200

CU 1-0

#156 Indiana W

Kansas State 3-0

#165 North Florida W
#185 Presbyterian W
#189 Texas Southern W

Baylor 3-0

#152 Arizona State W
#169 LaSalle W
#189 Texas Southern W

RPI teams #201-250

CU 1-0

#221 Oregon State W

Kansas State 1-0

#207 UMKC W

Baylor 3-0

#222 Bethune Cookman W
#227 Jackson State W
#230 Morgan State W

RPI teams #251-300

CU 3-0

#274 Citadel W
#284 Idaho St W
#298 Cal-State Bakersfield W

Kansas State 1-0

#285 Savannah State W

Baylor N/A

RPI teams #300 +

Colorado 4-0

#321 Longwood W
#330 Maryland Eastern Shore W
#334 Alcorn State W
#340 Texas Pan American W

Kansas State 1-0

#334 Alcorn State W

Baylor 3-0

#315 San Diego W
#338 Grambling W
#340 Prairie View W


If you look at the top, CU has the best mark against top 50 teams. But they've played the fewest top 25 teams, by a slim margin (CU 0-1, Baylor 0-2, KjSU 0-3 before tonight). Top 100 is fairly comparable (CU 5-9, KjSU 6-9, Baylor 4-6), but Baylor has quite a few fewer top 100 games than either of the other 2 teams.

Between #101-200 CU lags behind (KjSU 5-0, Baylor 6-2, CU 2-2). Beyond #200, everybody is undefeated (CU 8-0, Baylor 6-0, KjSU 3-0).

Based on all that, and the fact that KjSU is rated much higher than the other teams and Baylor is well ahead of CU, it leads me to believe that there is a pretty severe penalty for playing lower ranked teams, and that games against mediocre (100-300 RPI) teams are given a great deal of weight - enough to bury the fact that all 3 teams have really performed pretty similarly against top 50 teams. To me that doesn't make sense. If we're deciding who deserves to play in the tournament, shouldn't it matter more who has done well against other tournament quality teams and less how many games teams have played against teams they should beat anyway? Does it really make much difference if an opponent is at #201 or #350, when teams above #200 are 6-246 against top 50 RPI teams this year? BTW, Oregon State has 2 of those 6 wins (Arizona, Washington). The other 4 are Fordham (St. John's), Auburn (Florida State), Illinois - Chicago (Illinois) and Youngstown State (Butler). Playing a low RPI team doesn't mean you can't beat a good team. Record against good teams is the better indicator of that.

Not saying that CU should be ranked higher than KjSU or Baylor. Just saying that I really don't see enough difference in their resume's to justify those teams being ranked so far above CU....

 

[Buffnik]

Junc, this is why the RPI math is so important when crafting a schedule. The idea is to load up on cupcakes likely to finish in the 120-200 range.

It's also why the NCAA Tourney selection committee looks at more than RPI. Jay Bilas has a great line about this that goes something like, "I don't care who you played, I want to know who you can beat" when he's pointing out that those teams that have taken down heavyweights have done more to show they're worth of the tourney than teams that may have a better RPI but don't have big wins.

 

[Junction]

Junc, this is why the RPI math is so important when crafting a schedule. The idea is to load up on cupcakes likely to finish in the 120-200 range.

It's also why the NCAA Tourney selection committee looks at more than RPI. Jay Bilas has a great line about this that goes something like, "I don't care who you played, I want to know who you can beat" when he's pointing out that those teams that have taken down heavyweights have done more to show they're worth of the tourney than teams that may have a better RPI but don't have big wins.

Yeah, that Bilas quote is kind of what I was thinking. Not saying CU's record is tourney worthy even on that criteria, but until tonight I would think KjSU's 0-7 record against the top 50 would be a huge mark against them.

On the scheduling 101-200 type teams, it's not as if CU had a lot fewer of those games than the other two. CU is 2-2, KjSU is 5-0, Baylor 6-2. The problem for CU (and Baylor) is that they lost a couple of those. There is also some luck involved there. Would Lipscomb, Presbyterian, Texas Southern, North Florida and LaSalle have figured to be in that range? (Maybe so, but I would have only guessed LaSalle might have been...) OTOH, teams like CSU and Harvard might have figured to be there, but CU has been a bit lucky that they've actually played above that level. But your overall point is good - we've got to replace a bunch of those teams in the 300s with some better teams if we want the RPI to come up. Oh, and win those games....

 

[Junction]

One other note - by my count there are 14 of 346 D-1 teams that have played at least 10 games against top 50 RPI teams, including CU. They're all top 100 RPI teams, and only NC State #96 is ranked below CU.

7 of those 14 teams are in the Big East, btw...

 

[buffsyko]

CSU is at 38 and cu at 92? Doesn't seem right...

 

[Junction]

CSU is at 38 and cu at 92? Doesn't seem right...

I agree.

For the record, CSU is 2-3 against top 50 teams (beat #28 UNLV and #44 Southern Miss), 3-2 against 51-100 (including the CU loss), 3-1 against #101-150, 2-1 against 151-200 (lost to Sam Houston State), 3-0 against 201-250, 2-0 against 251-300 and 1-0 against 300 +. Again, it looks like their advantage over CU is not playing as many cupcakes. But their resume' is seriously short on marquee wins.

BTW, if you really want one that will blow your mind, Air Force is at #93 with a 12-9 record against D-1 teams. They are 0-7 against top 100 teams, and their "best" win is against #115 Evansville, and a loss to #178 Northern Arizona (compare that to CU's "worst" loss being to #125 San Francisco). I have no idea how they are virtually even with CU....

 

[Tractor]

BTW, if you really want one that will blow your mind, Air Force is at #93 with a 12-9 record against D-1 teams. They are 0-7 against top 100 teams, and their "best" win is against #115 Evansville, and a loss to #178 Northern Arizona (compare that to CU's "worst" loss being to #125 San Francisco). I have no idea how they are virtually even with CU....

WTF?!?! That makes absolutely no sense....

 

[Darth Snow]

WTF?!?! That makes absolutely no sense....

gives me hope for the tourney. especially if we can snag another big win. Ya we struggled early with the coaching change, but hopefully our competitive record against the better teams gets us a shot.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

I don't think there is anything wrong with loading up on cupcakes. What is important is to WIN THOSE GAMES when you play cupcakes. Losing to San Francisco and Harvard, and then dropping winnable games against Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Baylor -- those are the differences between an NIT team and an NCAA team.

If CU had just won those six games -- they would be 22-4 right now, 9-2 in the Big 12 conference, and they would practically be a shoe-in for the NCAA tournament, RPI be damned.

 

[sackman]

I don't think there is anything wrong with loading up on cupcakes. What is important is to WIN THOSE GAMES when you play cupcakes. Losing to San Francisco and Harvard, and then dropping winnable games against Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Baylor -- those are the differences between an NIT team and an NCAA team.

If CU had just won those six games -- they would be 22-4 right now, 9-2 in the Big 12 conference, and they would practically be a shoe-in for the NCAA tournament, RPI be damned.

I agree. Beat Baylor, OU, and A&M like we should have and none of this is an issue.

 

[Mick Ronson]

simply playing teams that are 300 (even 250+) in the rpi is very damaging to the overall rating...because win or lose, all their SOS data (which sucks exponentially) is directly on your sheet. we have 7 of those, KSU has 2. 7 games is about about 25% of our schedule thus far. that hurts CU and CU is 1-5 (!!!!) against rpi 50-150 teams. that's terrible. hard to justify (or statistically demonstrate) you are better than teams in your rpi range when your record against them is awful. KSU is 8-2.

that's why, within the rubric you can show that KSU belongs in the top 50 or so....because they and Baylor to a lesser degree (as Bilas says) are beating comparable teams. CU simply isn't. we have a nice record against top 50 but not enough to offset the dismal record 50-150 and the 300+ teams we play (which i've been bitching about forever and posted many times about this year). in a much longer post earlier this year i suggested Bohn hire someone (moving forward into the Pac) and generate some serious data sets on what RPI it takes a Pac team to make the NCAA over the last decade....and breakdown THOSE schedules with a view toward ratios of top 50, 100, 150, etc. teams those Pac teams played. and start scheduling with that in mind as a place to start. our schedule is haphazard and detrimental to our success.....why? part of it is because 1. as a bad team over the last 5 years we are hung up on total wins which is pretty meaningless and 2. it doesn't take the RPi in mind. i heard Kelvin Sampson on the radio in the early 00's talk about how he built a schedule...there was a logic to it. some of these kinds of teams, top teams, middle teams.....with a view towards making the NCAA. it made a lot of sense. and empirically, our end result on paper schedule is kind of a joke by comparison.

everybody plays cupcakes, but we play TOO many and our marquee games aren't "marquee". we get jumpy to play UGA? in fact our scheduling has nearly always been a handicap in the RPI. going back to Ricardo. it's a perfect example of the logic (if you want to call it that) that hamstrings our AD....this is something WE can change...but, we don't. supposedly Boyle wants to step up scheduling and i'll believe it when i see it since every CU coach for the last 20 years has said the same thing. Ricardo and Tharp got comfortable in the excuse that teams didn't want to plays us....come on?

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

RPI only matters in seeding and bubble teams. CU is not a bubble team and if they just won the games they should have it wouldn't matter.

When CU starts getting into the NCAA tournament every year then I will start worrying about RPI. Until then it should be all cupcakes all the time for CU.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

BTW, if you really want one that will blow your mind, Air Force is at #93 with a 12-9 record against D-1 teams. They are 0-7 against top 100 teams, and their "best" win is against #115 Evansville, and a loss to #178 Northern Arizona (compare that to CU's "worst" loss being to #125 San Francisco). I have no idea how they are virtually even with CU....

Nice job on putting all these numbers together.

AF's RPI number relative to ours is a bit curious to say the least, I'm guessing it has to do with the amount of low-ranked (200 and lower) RPI teams we have played compared to them. Which seems to make it apparent that a team's RPI is as much about the schedule itself as it is about whether you actually won some of those games. A team's RPI isn't necessarily a big factor when it comes to determining who gets in and who doesn't, but of course it's going to be more of a factor if you're one of those last 8-10 teams vying for the last 4 available spots in the field.

All that aside, our RPI should go up significantly after we play KU and Texas.

 

[tante]

I think it is safe to say that if we win out AND win the Big 12 tourney we should have an RPI around 20.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

All that aside, our RPI should go up significantly after we play KU and Texas.

Maybe so, but, so what?? We lose two more games, who cares if the RPI goes up? We could have the #1 RPI in the country, but if our record is 8-25, what difference does RPI make? There is no RPI award.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

I think it is safe to say that if we win out AND win the Big 12 tourney we should have an RPI around 20.

If we win the Big 12 tourney it won't matter what our RPI is. :lol:

 

[Junction]

I don't think there is anything wrong with loading up on cupcakes. What is important is to WIN THOSE GAMES when you play cupcakes. Losing to San Francisco and Harvard, and then dropping winnable games against Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Baylor -- those are the differences between an NIT team and an NCAA team.

Calling Harvard a "cupcake" is pretty silly, considering their RPI is in the 40s. The losses that are hurting them are San Francisco, OU and the Nubs, to a lesser extent. And all the games against the 300+ teams, which still makes no sense to me. They could replace them against teams ranked around 200, should still have almost guaranteed wins, but RPI would give them a lot more credit apparently.

Going back to the point I made above about records against top 50 teams - there are 20 teams with at least 5 top 50 wins out of 346 teams total. Texas A&M at #26 is the 19th highest RPI ranked team of that group. CU at #91 is 20th...

 

[BlackNGold]

everybody plays cupcakes, but we play TOO many and our marquee games aren't "marquee". we get jumpy to play UGA? in fact our scheduling has nearly always been a handicap in the RPI. going back to Ricardo. it's a perfect example of the logic (if you want to call it that) that hamstrings our AD....this is something WE can change...but, we don't. supposedly Boyle wants to step up scheduling and i'll believe it when i see it since every CU coach for the last 20 years has said the same thing. Ricardo and Tharp got comfortable in the excuse that teams didn't want to plays us....come on?

There is truth in that people do not want to play us but it is not coming from any fear with what we can do on the court. It has to do with money. The best teams (North Carolina, Duke, Kentucky) have no financial incentive to play a home and home with CU. No real money in it unless you can get a big TV pay day and CU will not produce that in BB. It is the same for a lot of the good teams.. and when you get to the teams in the 100 to 200 range that are not in BCS conferences - they can get a better payday other places than CU for a one and done and CU cannot afford a home and home with them.

So it really becomes a chicken and egg situation. CU needs to improve the basketball program and interest so CU is a more attractive team for a home and home match and also can afford better paydays for one and done contracts to attract a little better team.

 

[Buffnik]

Excuses. There are mid-major programs with fewer resources that manage to play a solid RPI schedule.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Excuses. There are mid-major programs with fewer resources that manage to play a solid RPI schedule.

Like who?

 

[Buffnik]

Like who?

Would it be fair to call anyone outside the Big 6 conferences a mid-major? That's generally the way it's done. Here's the list of all of them that have played a Top 100 schedule despite not getting the in-conference matchups that are almost always against RPI 100 teams.

#15 Brigham Young
#24 Utah
#28 Xavier
#30 UNLV
#33 St. Louis
#35 San Diego State
#43 Colorado State
#45 Tulsa
#47 Butler
#48 Memphis
#59 Marshall
#60 Dayton
#61 Miami (OH)
#62 Northeastern
#63 Old Dominion
#67 Central Florida
#68 Gonzaga
#69 UAB
#71 East Carolina
#73 San Francisco
#75 George Mason
#76 Air Force
#77 St. Joseph's
#78 TCU
#79 New Mexico State
#84 Rice
#86 Nevada
#87 Rhode Island
#90 St. Bonaventure
#91 Fordham
#92 Indiana State
#93 Valparaiso
#94 William & Mary
#95 UMass
#98 North Florida
#99 Southern Miss

I believe CU was at #303 after our non-conference schedule (345 teams). Here's how we are now as compared to the rest of the Big 12 and Pac-10:

#08 Kansas State
#11 Kansas
#12 Cal
#20 Texas
#41 UCLA
#46 Texas Tech
#49 USC
#50 Oregon
#52 Texas A&M
#53 Missouri
#54 Arizona State
#55 Arizona
#56 Washington
#57 Oklahoma
#64 Baylor
#66 Oklahoma State
#80 Stanford
#83 Colorado
#89 Nebraska
#96 Washington State
#117 Iowa State
#121 Oregon State

We should be in the 50s. And we would be there if we just replaced our cupcakes in the 300s with cupcakes between 150 and 250. We didn't play the type of schedule that a team that expected to be in an NCAA bubble year should be playing.

 

[BuffAlum2007]

The best teams (North Carolina, Duke, Kentucky)...

Well...a Coach K Duke team has taken on the Buffs at least once in the CEC:



Nevermind that it was before their heyday but still...

 

[Mick Ronson]

i think the issue of not being able to get home-homes with top teams is a straw-man argument that "appears" to succeed by virtue of overstatement. we should be willing to go on the road at this point or go 2 away; 1 at home. no reason why a quality (most of the time) regional team like New Mexico or UNLV shouldn't be on our schedule. pre Pac 10, same with Utah, BYU or even Utah State. Gonzaga plays everybody under the sun the last few years OOC (because they have to). sign a 4 year deal, 2 here, 2 there. schools do that all the time. we don't have the bargaining position to request equal status with the Dukes or Kentuckys (which makes the staw-man argument appear to succeed)....much like it's very rare for a team like Texas to travel to Wyoming in football. we are the lesser team in that comparison but there are far more schools like CU out there who need to fill a 12-13 game OOC. no reason we can't approach Creighton (good mid major) instead of Maryland-Eastern Shore. Put together a Sat-Mon trip to the East Coast...lotta teams out there. kids dig the trip, schedule St. Johns...play in the Garden. use it in recruiting. lot of CU alums on the East Coast. almost nothing is gained by playing Stetson at the CEC 2 days after finals in front of 4200 people in terms of building a program. and we have decades of that kind of game on the books.

i think the mindset in the AD has been to salvage a "respectable" OOC W-L as the appearance of a successful program rather than doing what it takes to actually HAVE a successful program. Ricardo backed away from signing incentive laced contracts in the 90's....I think the schedule was part of the same psychology....get some wins, don't get fired, don't get held to a higher standard thereby...

 

[Junction]

Well...a Coach K Duke team has taken on the Buffs at least once in the CEC:

View attachment 6257

Nevermind that it was before their heyday but still...

The big "L" on that ticket isn't exactly inspiring.... :lol:

Back to the scheduling, if the idea is to schedule teams #120-200 and get rid of teams rated 250+ we would need to replace 7 teams from this year's schedule. With 80 teams to draw from, it seems like that should be doable with a little creativity. And realistically you could stretch that range at least 10 teams on either side (preferrably up). Also, most teams seemed to have one real bottom feeder on the schedule. So we could probably get by with replacing 6 teams out of a pool of 80-90 teams. If we can't do that, we've got major issues to deal with.... :huh:

 

[whatthebuff]

Scheduling CSU plus these teams makes sense to me. Would help with RPI. Less travel costs. Going to the east coast kills us. Actually, any road game does but that's not the point! I hope we play a few ex big 12 schools in the future too.


94 Air Force 12-9 0.5468 76 0.5418 Mwest 4-6

215 Denver 12-13 0.4722 206 0.4814 Sbelt 8-4
263 Wyoming 7-16 0.4404 127 0.5151 Mwest 2-9
130 Northern Colorado 12-10 0.5218 191 0.4864 Bsky 10-3

 

[BlackNGold]

i think the issue of not being able to get home-homes with top teams is a straw-man argument that "appears" to succeed by virtue of overstatement. we should be willing to go on the road at this point or go 2 away; 1 at home. no reason why a quality (most of the time) regional team like New Mexico or UNLV shouldn't be on our schedule. pre Pac 10, same with Utah, BYU or even Utah State. Gonzaga plays everybody under the sun the last few years OOC (because they have to). sign a 4 year deal, 2 here, 2 there. schools do that all the time. we don't have the bargaining position to request equal status with the Dukes or Kentuckys (which makes the staw-man argument appear to succeed)....much like it's very rare for a team like Texas to travel to Wyoming in football. we are the lesser team in that comparison but there are far more schools like CU out there who need to fill a 12-13 game OOC. no reason we can't approach Creighton (good mid major) instead of Maryland-Eastern Shore. Put together a Sat-Mon trip to the East Coast...lotta teams out there. kids dig the trip, schedule St. Johns...play in the Garden. use it in recruiting. lot of CU alums on the East Coast. almost nothing is gained by playing Stetson at the CEC 2 days after finals in front of 4200 people in terms of building a program. and we have decades of that kind of game on the books.

i think the mindset in the AD has been to salvage a "respectable" OOC W-L as the appearance of a successful program rather than doing what it takes to actually HAVE a successful program. Ricardo backed away from signing incentive laced contracts in the 90's....I think the schedule was part of the same psychology....get some wins, don't get fired, don't get held to a higher standard thereby...

I agree with you to some extent but why do you continue to blame Ricardo and Tharp - Patton has been gone for 4 years and Tharp has been gone 6 years. Plus basketball schedules are made up not too far in advance so I would put the onus more on the present administration. But even in our good years CU struggles to get 6000 per home game into CEC and considering that a good portion of those are cheap student tickets - CU is challenged to make money on ticket sales. So how do you make money on those contracts...not easily. We brought Utah in here last year - a solid team in most years and we had 2400 people in the stands. Gonzaga sells out every game and if you look closely a lot of their schedule OOC has tournaments with a nice TV payday.

 

[Mick Ronson]

i'm not blaming Ricardo and Tharp but more pointing to a continuum of bad scheduling and a desire (repeated by many posters here throughout the season)....that they'd rather have W's (no matter how cupcake or damaging to the RPI SOS) than quality opponents. i don't think the RPI is God, it's just a stat, but that's the rubric that's used to determine a team's quality not being 13-2 heading into conference play with an SOS of 288. i also knwo that "20 wins" doesn't mean what it did 15 years ago....an automatic pass into the NCAA. it's nice, but it's cosmetic. i think that's 100% the wrong way to build a program. we've done that for a long time and OOC attendance is lousy, we've been a lower-middle Big XII team for 15 years, and when we do have good teams we are at a severe disadvantage in being in the discussion re: the NCAA.

i do think Ricardo and Tharp latched on to an easy, circumstantial belief that justified how they did things and as a result didn't set the bar very high and propagated a status quo thinking that is residual today. hopefully, that's changing. heck, when it's all said and done....i liked Ricardo. he stayed a year or two longer than he should have and never had any offensive identity...but, he had some decent teams and players that were fun to pull for. went to the NCAA twice (should have been 3 times). which isn't great, but better than last in the conference.

 

[Buffnik]

We did not host Utah last year. The following was our non-conference home schedule:

Arkansas Pine Bluff
Coppin State
Texas Southern
San Francisco
Colorado Christian
Cal State Northridge
Yale
Miami (OH)

The Patton schedules were juggernauts compared to the Bzdelik schedules. In basketball, the coaches make the schedule, not the AD.