[Cracked Sidewalks] Early Look at the 2012-13 Schedule

[CrackedSidewalksSays]

Early Look at the 2012-13 Schedule

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (Alan Bykowski)

About 11 months ago, Marquette was finalizing their non-conference schedule, and I posited that the quality of opponents could result in the Warriors finishing in the top-20 in both RPI and SOS. According to RealTimeRPI.com, I was being a bit modest, as Marquette finished #9 in RPI and #13 in SOS. Over the next month, we'll get a much better idea of the 13 teams Marquette will face in the non-conference in 2012-13. Here's an early look at the teams we know we'll be playing, and ideas for what Marquette should do with their open dates.

Teams We Know

Wisconsin (Home) -- The Badgers come to the BC this year. They'll be a quality opponent, as they have finished as a RPI top-20 team 3 years in a row. Despite losing Jordan Taylor, they return almost everyone else and should be near the top of the B1G yet again.

LSU (Home) -- Head coach Trent Johnson left, but as of right now, the top five scorers are returning to a top-100 RPI team. Over the past 4 years, 89.6% of SEC teams have finished in the RPI top-150, so even if LSU has a down year, they should be a decent opponent.

UW-Green Bay (Away) -- The Phoenix return their top four scorers including star big man Alec Brown. While they may not compete with Butler and Valpo for the Horizon League crown, this should still be a solid RPI team and a good (and possibly dangerous) road game.

Maui Invitational (1 Home, 3 Neutral) -- We will get 4 games out of Maui, with one mainland home game. Last year's mainland teams included two top-100 RPI teams, Belmont and MTSU, and two sub-200 teams, UNC-Greensboro and Towson. We'll hope for one of the upper-level teams. When we get there, it looks like the four top teams will be UNC, Marquette, Texas, and Butler, all of whom boast some quality talent and could be tournament teams. Then there's Illinois, USC, Mississippi State, and Chaminade, all of whom most likely will not have very good seasons. Of those four, Illinois is probably the best bet at a decent opponent. The ideal path would be Illinois, Texas/Butler, North Carolina. Hopefully they don't pair Texas and Butler in the first round feeding to UNC, because a scenario of Chaminade, USC/MSU, UNC could hurt our RPI more than help it if we didn't win the tournament.

The Other Six Games

UW-Milwaukee (Home) -- I feel like this one is almost inevitable. If we continue this series, it should be on a buy basis only, or if we have to play there, no less than a 5-for-1. The game at the Cell was too close for comfort last year, and while Milwaukee is a solid bet to finish in the 100-150 RPI range, that's hardly worth risking local bragging rights on a road game. I think the fans expect the series to continue, but this (and honestly, Green Bay as well) should be done as buy games only. There's no need to go there.

High-Major One-And-One (Away) -- Over the past few years, we've had some nice series with teams like NC State, Vanderbilt, and LSU. Right now, we don't have a true high-major road game, which would be a good boost to the schedule. So who should we schedule? The ideal foe would be one that is a middle of the pack squad and potential tournament team from the B1G, SEC, ACC, or Big 12 that will be better in 2013-14 (when we get them at home). Here are some ideal foes, two teams from each league: Purdue, Minnesota, Georgia, Ole Miss, Maryland, Miami, Oklahoma State, or Kansas State.

Big East/SEC Challenge (Home or Away) -- After not being picked as one of the 12 Big East representatives last year, I have to imagine we'll get the call this year. I'm not picky in terms of who we get, though how cool would Marquette/Kentucky at the Bradley Center be?

Mid-Major Two-For-One (Home) -- This is a bit of a dream, but I think getting a solid mid-major program on a two-for-one would be better than the standard cupcake. I doubt this happens this year because at a glance, our non-conference looks stacked, but I think Murray State would be perfect for this. Let us get Isaiah Canaan at home in a game we should win, then after he graduates, we go play at their place. One more at home against a quality mid-major in 2014. Other good candidates for this would be Davidson, Xavier, Butler, and St. Louis.

The Cupcakes (2 Home) -- With the last two games, all I'd hope for would be teams that won't be sub-300 next year. What made our 2011 non-con schedule so great was that teams like Mount St. Mary's, Jacksonville, and Northern Colorado stayed in the top-300 RPI. Lesser teams are okay, just not god-awful teams. The best way to do that is to buy games by conference rather than team expectations. I would start by trying to get a game with a team from the Colonial Athletic Association. In the past four years, they have only had one sub-300 RPI team. Next I would look at the improving Summit League, which had zero sub-300 teams last year, and of the six in the past four years, two were Centenary, a team that is no longer in D1. Other leagues with teams worth a look include the MAC, Horizon, and Patriot Leagues, or if we want to spend a bit more, the Missouri Valley, West Coast, or WAC. If we end the Milwaukee deal, add one more of these cupcakes to round out the schedule.

After watching what Mike Broeker and Buzz Williams managed with the schedule last year, I have great faith in their scheduling. Despite losing Jae and DJO, this is a largely veteran team that can handle a heavy load, and I think 7 high-major opponents (if Maui's kind) would be not only realistic, it'd be manageable. I also still feel the best way to build a schedule is by limiting the truly top-level and bottom-level teams. With UW and possibly UNC, we don't need to go after any more big fish. Take what the Big East/SEC challenge gives us and aim for teams that we should beat from conferences that promise solid RPI numbers. Our 3-seed this past year wasn't by accident, and continued aggressive scheduling will allow us to continue earning top-5 seeds on Selection Sunday.

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2012/04/early-look-at-2012-13-schedule.html

edited - Just because the formatting got interpreted so horribly....

[The Equalizer]

Too much worry about the non-conference schedule.

Look no further than Missouri, who with the #69 ranked SOS was seeded one line ahead of us in the NCAA tournament.

Somehow, they managed this accomplishment despite scheduling three seed-killing non-conference opponents that were ranked 300+ (and a fourth bubbling under at  #298).  Combine that that with zero top 25 opponents, on

ly two top 50 and three top 100, and that's supposedly the formula for NCAA tournament seed punishment.

Give the committee credit to know that going 14-4 in major conference like the Big 12 to finish 2nd, and winning the league tournament, is what's truly important. 

And that completely meaningless games against cupcakes---whether they're ranked 100th, 200th or 300th---are still completely meaningless and rightfully ignored.

[brewcity77]

Too much worry about the non-conference schedule.

Look no further than Missouri, who with the #69 ranked SOS was seeded one line ahead of us in the NCAA tournament.

Somehow, they managed this accomplishment despite scheduling three seed-killing non-conference opponents that were ranked 300+ (and a fourth bubbling under at  #298).  Combine that that with zero top 25 opponents, on

ly two top 50 and three top 100, and that's supposedly the formula for NCAA tournament seed punishment.

Give the committee credit to know that going 14-4 in major conference like the Big 12 to finish 2nd, and winning the league tournament, is what's truly important.  

And that completely meaningless games against cupcakes---whether they're ranked 100th, 200th or 300th---are still completely meaningless and rightfully ignored.

Uhh...that's incredibly ignorant of the past 2 years seeding process. Missouri also had FIVE MORE WINS than we did. Missouri was the last 2-seed because of their weak non-conference schedule. They were the first 30-win team from a Power-6 conference to not get a 1-seed, and pretty much any time you have a 30-4 team that won their conference tournament, they are going to be a 1. Instead, Missouri was nearly a 3-seed. The full S-Curve released by the committee coupled with what the director said in interviews immediately after the bracket came out was evidence that Missouri, based on record and accomplishments, was dropped down because of their pathetic schedule.

If you really think this stuff doesn't matter, you obviously don't pay any attention on Selection Sunday. Especially not this year, when the committee specifically said Missouri was dropped down because of their weak schedule and Drexel missed the field because they didn't play anyone. Look at Iona. Did they deserve an at-large? The ONLY reason they got one was because of their non-conference schedule.

The job done by Mike Broeker when it comes to scheduling is the second most important job in terms of our seeding after only Buzz Williams.

[The Equalizer]

Uhh...that's incredibly ignorant of the past 2 years seeding process. Missouri also had FIVE MORE WINS than we did.

Talk about circular logic.

I claim that Missouri got seeded higher DESPITE their schedule becuase they WON MORE GAMES than we did.  

You then turn around and call me "ignorant" and then use my exact argument to claim that the only reason Missouri was seeded higher than we were is because they WON MORE GAMES than we did!

Duh!  

Guess what, sherlock? Had it been US that won five more games than Missouri (including the BET), we'd have been seeded higher. Because we WON--not becuase our schedule. No doubt, however, you'd probably be running around telling the world it wasn't becasue we won the BET, but instead we earned that high seed because we we smartly scheduled East Bumblefart (#187 RPI) and rejected Upper Suckovia (#322 RPI)--as if that has any meaning.

Whats amaing is that in a comparision that so plainly shows that winning trumps schedule strength, you're STILL trying to argue that schedule is more important.

You know what you didn't hear the committee say this year?  You didn't hear them explain that they had to put Marquette (#17 SOS) and Baylor (#10 SOS) and Florida State (#4 SOS) and Louisville (#8 SOS) and Georgetown (#14 SOS) ahead of Missouri in recognition of relative strenght of schedule.    

[brewcity77]

Okay, why was Missouri seeded behind Michigan State, North Carolina, Duke, Ohio State, and Kansas, despite winning more games?

Had we won 5 more games, we'd have been a 1-seed. Guaranteed. Because of our SOS. And that's why Missouri was barely a 2-seed. You're acting as though these teams all had the same record. Had any of those teams you listed won 30 games, they'd have been a 1-seed. Had Missouri scheduled teams like Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Norfolk State instead of Binghamton, Kennesaw State, and Navy, they would have been a 1-seed, instead of the first-ever 30-game winner from a power-6 league to NOT get a 1-seed.

Missouri is the EXACT reason why this stuff matters. Because when you schedule crap teams, you get a crap seed, and considering Missouri's record, conference record, and conference championship, being seeded as the 8th overall team was far and away the worst a team with their profile ever got. And why? Drumroll please...because of their non-conference SOS! (Cue audience cheers)

So yes, if you think it doesn't matter, you are ignorant. Because there's a vast difference between 1-2 wins and 5. And it's ridiculous to try to argue that the difference between a top-200 RPI team and sub-300 RPI team is irrelevant in the SC's eyes. Just look at who makes the tourney and who doesn't, or that all of the teams you listed were seeded ahead of Cincinnati, Notre Dame, and Kansas State despite similar W/L records, or mid-majors with significantly weaker SOS numbers but more wins like Murray State, VCU, Creighton, Drexel, New Mexico, Wichita State, and UNLV.

After W/L record, SOS is probably the most important metric in terms of where teams are seeded in the tournament. The committee said as much on Selection Sunday, and anyone actually watching who makes it, who doesn't, and where teams end up seedwise would have to be blind not to see it.

[bamamarquettefan]

Talk about circular logic.

I claim that Missouri got seeded higher DESPITE their schedule becuase they WON MORE GAMES than we did.  

You then turn around and call me "ignorant" and then use my exact argument to claim that the only reason Missouri was seeded higher than we were is because they WON MORE GAMES than we did!

Duh!  


For this argument to make sense, you have to make the absurd assumption that if mizzou had played teams ranked say 150, instead of 300, they would have Los all those games Nd thus not had more wins than us.  They certainly could have lost one of those games, but 5 more losses?

Guess what, sherlock? Had it been US that won five more games than Missouri (including the BET), we'd have been seeded higher. Because we WON--not becuase our schedule. No doubt, however, you'd probably be running around telling the world it wasn't becasue we won the BET, but instead we earned that high seed because we we smartly scheduled East Bumblefart (#187 RPI) and rejected Upper Suckovia (#322 RPI)--as if that has any meaning.

Whats amaing is that in a comparision that so plainly shows that winning trumps schedule strength, you're STILL trying to argue that schedule is more important.

You know what you didn't hear the committee say this year?  You didn't hear them explain that they had to put Marquette (#17 SOS) and Baylor (#10 SOS) and Florida State (#4 SOS) and Louisville (#8 SOS) and Georgetown (#14 SOS) ahead of Missouri in recognition of relative strenght of schedule.    

[bradley center bat]

The year Marquette won at Milwaukee, it was MU's second best road win of the season.

[bamamarquettefan]

Brewcity is so right on this.  Equalizer says Mizzou won 5 more games.  But that's only relevant to the argument if your claim is that if Mizzou had played a tougher schedule - they would NOT have won more games.  So let's say Mizzou upgraded their schedule to play MU's 5 worst non-conference opponents:

played Green Bay 148 instead of SE Missouri St 248 (RPI rankings)
played N. Colorado 262 instead of William and Mary 299
played Jacksonville 264 instead of Navy 327,
played Winthrop 272 instead of Kennesaw 331
played Mt St. Mary's 292 instead Binghamton 344

Does anyone think Mizzou would have lost any of those games at home? Let's say the were upset by one of these teams - they still would have won four more games than Marquette.

The fact is that Mizzou won more games than any other BCS team entering the tournament except for Kentucky and Syracuse, so normally that makes you a No. 1 seed, but because they scheduled these terrible teams - as well as 217 NW State and 201 Niagra, they slipped all the way to barely clinging onto the last No. 2 seed.

As for front rows point that UWM was MUs 2nd best road win last year, EVERY road win is huge.  And the year before Wisconsin's win at UW-Green Bay was only it's - oh wait they LOST that game.

And that year some people attacked MU for not having a top 50 road win with several weeks left in the season, and I pointed out that Kansas didn't have a road win against a top 50 team either and was projected as a 2-seed.  Road teams win less than 10% of the time vs. the top 25, and it's probably not a whole lot better against the top 50.

The big point BrewCity and a few of us have made in the past is that if you play several teams ranked below No. 250, each game kills your RPI and your standing even if you beat them all by 50 points.

If you are a strong team you should be able to beat five teams ranked around 150 rather than try to schedule five teams rated around 300.  I realize there are logistical issues sometimes with getting those teams for a home-and-home, but Brew is right on.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Talk about circular logic.

I claim that Missouri got seeded higher DESPITE their schedule becuase they WON MORE GAMES than we did.  

You then turn around and call me "ignorant" and then use my exact argument to claim that the only reason Missouri was seeded higher than we were is because they WON MORE GAMES than we did!

Duh!  

Guess what, sherlock? Had it been US that won five more games than Missouri (including the BET), we'd have been seeded higher. Because we WON--not becuase our schedule. No doubt, however, you'd probably be running around telling the world it wasn't becasue we won the BET, but instead we earned that high seed because we we smartly scheduled East Bumblefart (#187 RPI) and rejected Upper Suckovia (#322 RPI)--as if that has any meaning.

Whats amaing is that in a comparision that so plainly shows that winning trumps schedule strength, you're STILL trying to argue that schedule is more important.

You know what you didn't hear the committee say this year?  You didn't hear them explain that they had to put Marquette (#17 SOS) and Baylor (#10 SOS) and Florida State (#4 SOS) and Louisville (#8 SOS) and Georgetown (#14 SOS) ahead of Missouri in recognition of relative strenght of schedule.    

You couldn't be more inaccurate.

[The Equalizer]

Okay, why was Missouri seeded behind Michigan State, North Carolina, Duke, Ohio State, and Kansas, despite winning more games?

You're Wrong.  Missouri wasn't seeded behind all those teams.  They were seeded behind only MSU, Syracuse, Kentucky and North Carolina.

They were on the same seed line as Duke, Ohio State and Kansas. 

Second, you ignore:
--Missouri's "downgrade" enabled them to play their first round game at the closest venue to campus. 
--Missouri actually got the most favorable first round opponent of any 2 seed--Duke drew #92 Lehigh (60 on the S--curve), Ohio State drew #78 Loyola (MD) (59 on the S-Curve), Kansas drew #127 Detroit (61 on the S-curve) and Missouri drew the weakest 15 seed with #129 Norfolk State (62 on the S-curve). 
--Missouri's first round opponent was actually more favorable than MSU's (#80 Long Island).
--Had both teams reached the regional final, the 1 versus 2 matchup would have pitted Missouri not against Kentucky (the toughest #1 seed), but Michigan State (the weakest).

The committee may have "said" Missouri were 8th overall, But actions speak as loudly as words--and the committee's actions were to treated them as if they were 4th overall.

Had we won 5 more games, we'd have been a 1-seed. Guaranteed. Because of our SOS.

How?  MSU STILL would have had 8 wins against top 25 opponnets compared to our 4.  We wouldn't have leapfrogged Syracuse, Kentucky or UNC.  So no, had we won 5 more games we would not have been a 1-seed guaranteed.  We'd have probably become a 2 seed. .

Oh, wait!  In your worldview, the quality of the cupcakes is oh, so much more imporant than winning games agains top 25 teams.  Doesn't matter that MSU has 8 top 25 wins to our 4--dammit, we Played UWM!! We played Green Bay!! We played Norfolk State!!!   That HAS GOT to trump meaningless top 25 wins.

And that's why Missouri was barely a 2-seed. You're acting as though these teams all had the same record. Had any of those teams you listed won 30 games, they'd have been a 1-seed.
Had Missouri scheduled teams like Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Norfolk State instead of Binghamton, Kennesaw State, and Navy, they would have been a 1-seed, instead of the first-ever 30-game winner from a power-6 league to NOT get a 1-seed.

Pure conjecture without merit.   MSU had 8 wins against top 25 opponents.  Missouri had 4.  Had they upgraded their non-conference scheule with Norfolk State, UWM and Green Bay, they still would have 4 fewer top 25 wins than Michigan State. 

Next, without a doubt, Syracuse, UK and UNC would have been #1 seeds even if Missouri had played the #1 schedule in the country.  Those three teams earned their positions not on the basis of their SOS, but based on who they beat.

So that leaves the ONLY possible argument that Missouri might have been a #1 over MSU--but that would require you to ignore the fact that their 2 seed put them 200 miles closer to home.  Sort of like when Wisconsin was seeded down one line to get the opeining round in the Bradley Center. 

Your whole "missouri was punished for their crap SOS" falls apart when you consider the fact that MSU--as the supposely better #1 seed--actually drew a tougher first round opponent (#80 Long Island).

So while you pretend that the comittee paid more attention to SOS, in reality, it was favorable for both  MSU and Missouri to swap seeds.  And its consistet with years of NCAA committee comments that teams are often moved up or down a seed line to keep them closer to campus.
 
Which brings us back to the original question.  If schedule strength was more imporant, why did Missouri get seeded ahead of us?  Yes, they won more games, but that's at least somewhat due to their weaker schedule.  We didnt' win as many games, but that's at least in part a result of playing a tougher schedule.

Marquette traded wins for a stronger SOS.
Missouri traded storonger SOS for more wins.

Who got the better end of the tradeoff?

Where was the committee to make all right with the world and give us our 2 seed in recognition of our significantly stronger schedule?  It didn't happen, did it?

[brewcity77]

Equalizer, I don't know what to tell you other than you're utterly clueless. If we win 5 more games, but what's most laughable is your assertion that MSU would have been ahead of a 30-win MU team. If we came in 30-2 we would have at worst added 2 top-25 wins (our only losses outside the top 25 were LSU, UC, & ND). Or if we add three wins in the BET, we add 1 top-25 win (UL), finish 30-4, and (taking away our two worst losses) have zero sub-50 losses and only one 25-50 loss.

A 30-win MU team would have been ahead of everyone except Kentucky and maybe Syracuse...unless our 30-4 takes away 3 of our 4 BE losses, including Syracuse, and results in a Big East regular season title and title game appearance.

There is no combination of 5 wins you could add to our resume that wouldn't have put us ahead of not only Michigan State but also most likely UNC.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Equalizer, I don't know what to tell you other than you're utterly clueless. If we win 5 more games, but what's most laughable is your assertion that MSU would have been ahead of a 30-win MU team. If we came in 30-2 we would have at worst added 2 top-25 wins (our only losses outside the top 25 were LSU, UC, & ND). Or if we add three wins in the BET, we add 1 top-25 win (UL), finish 30-4, and (taking away our two worst losses) have zero sub-50 losses and only one 25-50 loss.

A 30-win MU team would have been ahead of everyone except Kentucky and maybe Syracuse...unless our 30-4 takes away 3 of our 4 BE losses, including Syracuse, and results in a Big East regular season title and title game appearance.

There is no combination of 5 wins you could add to our resume that wouldn't have put us ahead of not only Michigan State but also most likely UNC.

You can't argue with 84.  Would have thought you'd have figured that out by now.

[bamamarquettefan]

You're Wrong.  Missouri wasn't seeded behind all those teams.  They were seeded behind only MSU, Syracuse, Kentucky and North Carolina.

They were on the same seed line as Duke, Ohio State and Kansas. 


The committee may have "said" Missouri were 8th overall, But actions speak as loudly as words--and the committee's actions were to treated them as if they were 4th overall.

Equalizer -when you are wrong and your only defense is that really the selection committee lied to the world - in other words they really agreed with you that Missouri was the 5th best team but didn't want anyone else to know - you are really struggling.

We also know that the committee viewed Norfolk State as better than the 16-seeds.  I don't know why - their only loss in their last 10 games was in overtime.  However, they did a pretty good job of seeding when you look at how the results played out for the tournament with the higher seeds going 48-15 I believe.

They viewed Norfolk State as better than the 16-seeds - probably because their non-conference RPI was 74th in the country - obviously a big emphasis.

So your basic contention is that the Selection Committee lied to us and secretly had Missouri as the 5th best team, and then lied to us and really had Norfolk State as a 16th seed instead of the publicly announced 15th seed ahead of teams.  Wouldn't it have been easier for them to skip the lying and just have Missouri play Norfolk State at their natural positions?

Anyway, Norfolk's State's non-conference RPI of 74 did mean something as they pulled off a  great upset, and it is quite possible that if Missouri had played a tougher schedule they actually would have gotten one of the teams with a worst non-conference RPI and managed to escape a poor opening round performance.

[The Equalizer]

Equalizer -when you are wrong and your only defense is that really the selection committee lied to the world - in other words they really agreed with you that Missouri was the 5th best team but didn't want anyone else to know - you are really struggling.

We also know that the committee viewed Norfolk State as better than the 16-seeds.  I don't know why - their only loss in their last 10 games was in overtime.  However, they did a pretty good job of seeding when you look at how the results played out for the tournament with the higher seeds going 48-15 I believe.

They viewed Norfolk State as better than the 16-seeds - probably because their non-conference RPI was 74th in the country - obviously a big emphasis.

So your basic contention is that the Selection Committee lied to us and secretly had Missouri as the 5th best team, and then lied to us and really had Norfolk State as a 16th seed instead of the publicly announced 15th seed ahead of teams.  Wouldn't it have been easier for them to skip the lying and just have Missouri play Norfolk State at their natural positions?

Anyway, Norfolk's State's non-conference RPI of 74 did mean something as they pulled off a  great upset, and it is quite possible that if Missouri had played a tougher schedule they actually would have gotten one of the teams with a worst non-conference RPI and managed to escape a poor opening round performance.

Since you introduced the "lied to us" meme, I guess you're saying that the committee secretely lied to us about Kentucky.  You seem to think the committee was 100% truthful about Missouri being 8th on the S-curve--if so, you must believe the committee lied to us about MSU and Kentucky as to who the real #1 overall team was.

Or maybe, as I said, geographic considerations were a bigger factor than an arbitrary "S-curve".  But don't take my word--look at what Jerry Palm has to say:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/jerry-palm/17735274/bracket-scurve-released

"I have been in a few of the NCAA mock selection committee meetings and one of the things they talked about was how they were willing to move teams up and down solely for geograhic reasons. Geography drives the bracketing process because coaches and administrators consistently tell the NCAA that they would rather have a tougher draw and play close to home than the other way around." (emphasis added)

Maybe you've also been in the NCAA's mock selection committee meetings and can personally attest to the fact that Palm is lying about what they said. But otherwise, he says the committee routinely seeds teams based on geographic considerations.  And he debunks the notion that NCAA attempts to create a perfect 1-through-68 S-curve. Maybe--just maybe--the committee felt that putting Missouri in Omaha as a #2 was preferrable to sending them to Columbus, OH as a #1--not some attempt to "punish" them with a "crap seed."

Finally, I'll ask once again:  If we did the right thing by upgrading our schedule, and Missouri did the wrong thing by making theirs too easy, why didn't the committee notice it?  Why didn't they give us the 2 seed over Missouri?  If they committee took time to compare the non-conference SOS of of Norfolk State versus Long Island (as you claim), certainly they compared the non-conference SOS of Marquette versus Missouri.

Maybe you don't answer because you'd have to admit the obvious: Missouri's weak non-conference schedule didn't hurt them compared to us.  And our tougher schedule didn't help us compared to them.

[The Equalizer]

Equalizer, I don't know what to tell you other than you're utterly clueless. If we win 5 more games, but what's most laughable is your assertion that MSU would have been ahead of a 30-win MU team. If we came in 30-2 we would have at worst added 2 top-25 wins (our only losses outside the top 25 were LSU, UC, & ND). Or if we add three wins in the BET, we add 1 top-25 win (UL), finish 30-4, and (taking away our two worst losses) have zero sub-50 losses and only one 25-50 loss.

A 30-win MU team would have been ahead of everyone except Kentucky and maybe Syracuse...unless our 30-4 takes away 3 of our 4 BE losses, including Syracuse, and results in a Big East regular season title and title game appearance.

There is no combination of 5 wins you could add to our resume that wouldn't have put us ahead of not only Michigan State but also most likely UNC.

Speaking of clueless, first, off you don't know how to count.  We would not have reached a 30-2 record--we still would have been 30-4.
--Match Missouri's undefeated non-conference schedule, we would have beaten LSU and Vanderbilt. 2 wins.
--We already matched Missouri in conference play, with identical 14-4 records and 2nd place finishes.-
--Match Missouri's conference tourney (3 wins)

So that takes us to FIVE top 25 wins overall (Vanderbilt in non-conference, and Louisville in the conference tournament).  Compared to EIGHT for Michigan State.

I think that would warrant a comparision of the Body of Work.

Michigan State top 25 wins:
#11 Florida State
@#25 Gonzaga
#17 Indiana
@#7 Ohio State
@#23 Wisconsin
#13 Michigan
#23 Wisconsin (Big 10 tourney)
#7 Ohio State (Big 10 tourney)

Marquette (5 top 25 wins):
@#23 Wisconsin
#18 Vanderbilt
#14 UL
#15 Georgetown
#14 UL (BET)

Not only does MU have fewer impressive wins, we only had one top 25 road win (compared to 3 for MSU), no top 10 wins (2 for MSU), and MSU would have 4 wins that were better than our best overall win.

Frankly, I'm surprised you woudn't have ceded the #1 seed to MSU solely on their stronger non-conference schedule!

So no, I don't think its "utterly clueless" or "laughable" to think that MSU would have still been ahead of us ahd we won five more games.

[PGsHeroes32]

It's official. I am now dumber having read this garabe. I still have no clue what the hell kind of point Equalizer was trying to make.

Thankfully he wasnt around here during the season

[brewcity77]

Speaking of clueless, first, off you don't know how to count.  We would not have reached a 30-2 record--we still would have been 30-4.
--Match Missouri's undefeated non-conference schedule, we would have beaten LSU and Vanderbilt. 2 wins.
--We already matched Missouri in conference play, with identical 14-4 records and 2nd place finishes.-
--Match Missouri's conference tourney (3 wins)

So that takes us to FIVE top 25 wins overall (Vanderbilt in non-conference, and Louisville in the conference tournament).  Compared to EIGHT for Michigan State.

I think that would warrant a comparision of the Body of Work.

Michigan State top 25 wins:
#11 Florida State
@#25 Gonzaga
#17 Indiana
@#7 Ohio State
@#23 Wisconsin
#13 Michigan
#23 Wisconsin (Big 10 tourney)
#7 Ohio State (Big 10 tourney)

Marquette (5 top 25 wins):
@#23 Wisconsin
#18 Vanderbilt
#14 UL
#15 Georgetown
#14 UL (BET)

Not only does MU have fewer impressive wins, we only had one top 25 road win (compared to 3 for MSU), no top 10 wins (2 for MSU), and MSU would have 4 wins that were better than our best overall win.

Frankly, I'm surprised you woudn't have ceded the #1 seed to MSU solely on their stronger non-conference schedule!

So no, I don't think its "utterly clueless" or "laughable" to think that MSU would have still been ahead of us ahd we won five more games.

I didn't realize who you were before hand, if I had, I would have stopped before starting, because it seems that logical discussion is beyond you.

As far as 30-2...it all depends on where the games are lost. We came into the Big East tournament 25-6. What if we won 5 more regular season games, say our only loss was to Syracuse? That gets us to 30-1, and if we lose our first BET game, we're 30-2. So before you say I can't count, maybe realize that in winning 5 more games, there are consequences, and depending on when you win them, it would change the number of games we would play.

Next, quality wins is only one part of the consideration. So you're saying that if we had 2 losses all year, to #2 overall Syracuse and 4-seed Louisville, MSU's top-25 wins would trump them having losses to a god-awful Illinois team and a Northwestern team that didn't make the tournament, while at the same time having 7 total losses? Yeah...clueless.

Bottom line, this stuff matters. Not my fault if you don't follow basketball enough to realize that.

[The Equalizer]

I didn't realize who you were before hand, if I had, I would have stopped before starting, because it seems that logical discussion is beyond you.

As far as 30-2...it all depends on where the games are lost. We came into the Big East tournament 25-6. What if we won 5 more regular season games, say our only loss was to Syracuse? That gets us to 30-1, and if we lose our first BET game, we're 30-2. So before you say I can't count, maybe realize that in winning 5 more games, there are consequences, and depending on when you win them, it would change the number of games we would play.

Next, quality wins is only one part of the consideration. So you're saying that if we had 2 losses all year, to #2 overall Syracuse and 4-seed Louisville, MSU's top-25 wins would trump them having losses to a god-awful Illinois team and a Northwestern team that didn't make the tournament, while at the same time having 7 total losses? Yeah...clueless.

Bottom line, this stuff matters. Not my fault if you don't follow basketball enough to realize that.

Your earlier argument implied that if we had the SAME record as Missouri, we'd have been a #1 seed over Michigan State--thus "proving" that our superior SOS makes a difference.  As I pointed out, I don't think that would be the case, and provided the analyis above.

I guess you agree with me, becuause you now have to handicap the argument by inventing a vastly superior 30-2 record--with the two losses both to top 15 teams--that you now claim would have received a #1 seed.

Let's look at how you attempted to game the comparision:

--The losses (#1 and #14) in your fantasy MU would be a vastly superior performance to the losses posted by both Missouri (lost to #49 Kansas State twice, #120 Oklahoma State, #6 Kansas), and Michigan State (lost to a "god-awful Illinois team and a Northwestern team that didn't make the tournament").  

If you ignore the non-conference SOS, I'd say your 30-2 team sounds like they earned a #1 seed on their record--not their non-conference schedule.

But I can play that game too. Lets pretend that Missouri had a 30-2 record (say a loss to Kansas during the regular season, and a loss to Baylor in the Big 12 tournament).  Think they might get seeded ahed of MSU?  You bet.

Which brings us back to the question that you keep dodging:

If the committee cares as much about non-conference SOS as you claim, why did they give Missouri a 2 seed instead of us?  

I think its obvious that the commitee doesn't care as much about non-conference SOS as you claim--as evidenced by the fact that we had a much better SOS, but Missouri won more non-conference games (largely due to their easier schedule), as well as their conference tournament.

[brewcity77]

I'm not bothering anymore. You're a hopeless case. If you'd rather we were 30-5 with wins over Syracuse, Georgetown, Louisville, Notre Dame, and Cincy along with a Big East tourney title, we suddenly have just as many top-25 wins as MSU and are still a #1 seed over Sparty. But I'm sure you have some argument against that only a blind man could clearly see, so have at it. Trying to have a discussion with you isn't worth the bandwidth this post will take up.

[The Equalizer]

I'm not bothering anymore. You're a hopeless case. If you'd rather we were 30-5 with wins over Syracuse, Georgetown, Louisville, Notre Dame, and Cincy along with a Big East tourney title, we suddenly have just as many top-25 wins as MSU and are still a #1 seed over Sparty. But I'm sure you have some argument against that only a blind man could clearly see, so have at it. Trying to have a discussion with you isn't worth the bandwidth this post will take up.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I kind of enjoy the challenge of finding the data to refute the successive arguments you've marched out.

You're upset because instead of me blindly saying "good post!", I've actually dared to point out the flaws in each one of your alternate arguments and bring you back to the Marquette/Missouri comparision I raised in the initial post.  I've been patient with each of your posts, which consists of you calling me names and then throwing out some new argument.

I pointed out was that your precious attrraction to non-conference SOS is blown away by a simple and inconvertible fact:  
Despite identical 14-4 2nd place finishes in very similar top 3 conferences:
--Missouri got a 2 seed despite the 69th ranked SOS
--Marquette got a 3 seed, even though our 17th ranked SOS was much higher.

In other words, Missouri proved that you can earn a very high seed with your play in conference--without the type of cupcake engnineering you've advocated quite some time

I think deep down you're not giving up becuase you think I'm "hopeless" or its a "waste of bandwith" but becuase you know that my point is valid, but you don't want to admit it.

So in the end, I'd like to offer you this advice:  Take the time to read Thomas Gilovich's book How We Know What Isn't So. Gilovich is a PhD in Psychology at Cornell, and he explains exactly what you're going through with this whole SOS debate. 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0029117062
  

[brewcity77]

No, your point is being made in a vacuum. You are using SOS as though it is the only metric of merit, which no one else is asserting. Oklahoma State had one of the toughest schedules in the country, you don't see me or anyone championing them for a 2-seed. Missouri was undefeated in non-con and won their conference tournament. 5 wins is a lot. Yet despite those 5 wins, they were what, 2-3 spots ahead of Marquette? Give us any 2 losses on our schedule and we'd have been ahead of them despite the win differential still being in their favor.

Okay, if it's so meaningless, answer one question: why was Missouri the first ever Power-6 conference team to win 30 games and not get a 1-seed?

[The Equalizer]

No, your point is being made in a vacuum. You are using SOS as though it is the only metric of merit, which no one else is asserting.

You have me wrong.  And I'll be clear on this:  I'm suggesting that SOS is not a metric of merit at all.

I think that when trying to determine a comparison of, say, Michigan State to Missouri, there is no value whatsoever in looking at a generic statistic like SOS.  I think one has to delve into the meaningful games--other tournamnt teams, top 25 opponents, conference opponents, etc.

I reject the notion that anybody cares whether you beat the 125th ranked team versus the 300th ranked teams. Neither are impressive wins, both would be bad losses.

Oklahoma State had one of the toughest schedules in the country, you don't see me or anyone championing them for a 2-seed.

However, Oklahoma State's RPI was 120, which means that Missouri's loss to them was a "Bad Loss" to the committee.  For the record, no other #1 seed this year had a "Bad Loss".

So did you ever consider that Missouri missed out on a #1 seed because of that Bad Loss?  Obviously not, because you stopped looking when you saw their SOS number. 

You didn't actually compare bodies of work.  You didn't look at things like top 25 wins or Bad Losses.  You essentially stopped looking for any other possible reason Missouri was a 2 insted of a 1 as soon as you saw a reason that fit your argument.  You then compounded your logical mistake by concluding it was the ONLY reason.

Missouri was undefeated in non-con and won their conference tournament. 5 wins is a lot. Yet despite those 5 wins, they were what, 2-3 spots ahead of Marquette? Give us any 2 losses on our schedule and we'd have been ahead of them despite the win differential still being in their favor.

But that's my whole argument.  Winning games matters.  SOS doesn't.

Assume for a moment that Missouri's non-conference SOS this year was exactly the same as ours.  They'd still be a 2 seed, one line ahead of us.  Why?  Because they won more games!  So their result with a #17 SOS = 2 seed.  Their record with a 69 SOS?  2 seed. 

If we won the BET tourney and they lost the B12 tourny, we finish ahead of them--not becuase of SOS, but beccause WE would have won more games.

But since you put forth the hypothetical, and given me the option of ANY two losses, lets say we beat LSU and Cinnninati.  With that in mind, let's compare the the body of work for both teams:

MU:
--14-4 in Big East, 2nd place 3 games behind the winner.
--SOS of 17 (or lower--we would drop slighly because LSU and Cincy now have worse records) with top 100 non-conference wins over #23 Wisconsin, #61 Miss, #84 LSU*, #70 Washignton
--3 Top 25 wins: #14 Lousville, #15 Georgetown, #23 Wisconsin
--RPI 8
--Worst loss to #84 LSU
--10 wins to teams ranked 26-100 (8 we actually had, plus 2 more)
--Good (RPI top 100) road wins @23 Wisconsin, @57 West Virginia, @32 UConn
--Good neutral wins: 61 Miss, 70 Wash

Missouri
--14-1 in Big 12, 2nd place, 2 games behind the winner
--Big 12 tournament champion
--4 Top 25 wins over #6 Kansas, #9 Baylor (x3)
--SOS of 69, with top 100 non-conference wins over #37 Notre Dame, #39 Cal, #94 Illinois
--Non-confece wins over ND, Cal, Illinois
--RPI 10
--Worst loss to #120 Oklahoma State
--8 wins to teams 25-100
--Good Road Wins @33 Iowa State, @51 Texas, @9 Baylor
--Good Neutra wins 37 Notre Dame, 39 Cal, 94 Illnois, 51 Texas, 9 Baylor

Common opponents:
--Notre Dame:  Missouri won, Marquette lost
--Vllanova:  Marquette wins--4 points each time, Missouri win 10 points.

I'm not going to presume to know what the committee would do--but I don't agree that this tips far in Marquette's favor--I'd argue it's still in Missoui's favor.

Okay, if it's so meaningless, answer one question: why was Missouri the first ever Power-6 conference team to win 30 games and not get a 1-seed?

That's an easy one:  Because this is the first time a team from a power-6 conference won 30 games in the same season when there were 4 better teams overall.

There isn't a rule that says "30 games/Power6 Conference/MUST give the team a #1 seed".  The committee actually makes the team by team comparisions on the body of work.  Let's comapre to MSU:

MSU:  8 top 25 wins
Missouri 4 top 25 wins

MSU:  No bad Losses
Missouri: Bad loss to Oklahoma State

MSU:  Regular Season champion in the #1 RPI ranked conference (tied with Ohio State)
Missouri:  2nd place in #3 RPI ranked conference

I think this shows that MSU deserved to be a #1 seed ahead of Missouri without getting into a comparison of Kennesaw State versus Idaho or Arkansas Pine Bluff vs. IUPUI-Fort Wayne.

And that's where your fixation on the Non-conference schedule runs awry. You seem to think that by trading out Kennesaw State or Arkansas Pine Bluff for the equivalent of UWM or UWGB, Missouri would be magically transformed into a #1 seed. Yet, adding UWM and UWGB would still leave them with only 4 top 25 wins (4 behind MSU), still leave them in 2nd place in the Big 12, still leave them wth the bad loss to Oklahoma State.  And still leave them as a #2 seed.

They'd have a stronger "SOS" number, but all the MEANINGFUL comparisions still tip in Michigan State's favor (25 wins, bad losses, 1st place vs. 2nd place finish). 

[brewcity77]

So the Selection Committee was lying when they said Missouri was dropped down because of their non-conference SOS? Why would they lie about that? Why not just say it was because of top-25 wins?

[jmayer1]

there is no value whatsoever in looking at a generic statistic like SOS.

The people setting the seedings vehemently disagree with you, but what does it matter what they think?

From the article:

When CBS talked to the selection committee chair, Jeff Hathaway, after the brackets were announced, they brought up the case of Missouri. The Tigers, Big 12 champions, got a 2 seed, as was expected. However, they had such a good year (30-4 overall, Big 12 tournament champions, 14-4 in-league during the regular season, undefeated out of conference) that some wondered whether they might sneak up and grab a 1 seed.

Hathaway revealed, though, that Missouri was closer to a three seed than 1 – he said the committee ranked them eighth. The reason: non-conference strength of schedule, which was considered weak enough that the RPI put their overall strength of schedule rating at 86th in the country, the lowest of any of this year’s No. 1 or No. 2 seeds by a fairly wide margin.

http://www.sportsgrid.com/ncaa-basketball/ncaa-tournament-2012-selection-controversy/

[tower912]

We can expect Marquette84, er... Equalizer to now produce 500 words about how the person in the room who made the decision actually factored things the opposite of what he said publicly.

[The Equalizer]

The people setting the seedings vehemently disagree with you, but what does it matter what they think?

From the article:

When CBS talked to the selection committee chair, Jeff Hathaway, after the brackets were announced, they brought up the case of Missouri. The Tigers, Big 12 champions, got a 2 seed, as was expected. However, they had such a good year (30-4 overall, Big 12 tournament champions, 14-4 in-league during the regular season, undefeated out of conference) that some wondered whether they might sneak up and grab a 1 seed.

Hathaway revealed, though, that Missouri was closer to a three seed than 1 – he said the committee ranked them eighth. The reason: non-conference strength of schedule, which was considered weak enough that the RPI put their overall strength of schedule rating at 86th in the country, the lowest of any of this year’s No. 1 or No. 2 seeds by a fairly wide margin.

http://www.sportsgrid.com/ncaa-basketball/ncaa-tournament-2012-selection-controversy/

Hathaway's statement this seems to confirm what I've been saying all along.

"Missouri was closer to a 3 seed than a 1".  
He did not say--as Brew has been trying to spin-- "They would have been #1 seed except we downgraded them because of their SOS"

There's no way to interpret his curious phrasing other than Missouri was always considered as a 2. And if SOS were actually a factor, maybe they actually would have been a 3  

But this next part is equally imporant:  THEY WEREN'T!!!!    

And then the committee proceeded to place them in the closest venue to campus in the region with the weakest #1 seed.  

Some punishment.

[cheebs09]

Based on the show after the Selection Show, I thought Hathaway pretty much said that. He said they put a lot of weight on non-conference strength of schedule when asked about the Missouri case. To me that seems that they would have been much closer to a 1-seed with a better non-conference schedule. I don't think Missouri was a certain one seed going into the selection show. They were mostly thought of as the top 2 seed or last 1 seed. When pressed on the reasoning, it really seemed like they were down-graded due to their non-conference schedule.

[brewcity77]

We can expect Marquette84, er... Equalizer to now produce 500 words about how the person in the room who made the decision actually factored things the opposite of what he said publicly.

That's why it's pointless trying to say something to 84. Seems like all the other posters on the site disagree with him, the track record of the SC the past two years disagrees with him, and the chairman of the SC disagrees with him. Yet somehow, he's the ONLY person in the whole entire world who knows how the committee really works, and somehow the RPI difference of playing a top-150 team and sub-300 team, as well as the SOS implications, have absolutely nothing to do with seeding.

[Lennys Tap]

 SJS/84/Equalizer will massage, twist and fabricate facts to fit his argument and cares nothing about truth. Before Hoop came along he was Pancho to Chico's Cisco. Enough said.