[Enlund's Blog] Marquette No. 21 in preseason coaches poll

[StillAWarrior]

At least spell check your post before taking a lame shot at someone's grammar/spelling. 

To quote Lenny's from the post right above this one:  "Just reread my post and I'm afraid that my attempt at humor came out a bit snippy."  I don't use teal, so I hope you recognized that I was kidding...I realize that it's quite possible that you might say the same about your post.

[RawdogDX]

Agreed, completely, but my point is that reporting rumors that YOU MAKE UP out of thin air isn't "reporting".  So, technically, he's not doing his job.  (See:  Miller, Judith; New York Times; "weapons of mass distruction in Iraq"-stories)

I think if you look at most of his 'made up' stuff, you will see that he is reporting on: 'hot prospects that (insert school) could be interested in'. 

I agree that he has a list and i'm annoyed Buzz is on it, but how could he not be?  Espn has 5 channels and a massive website.  Katz is in the entertainment industry, he's paid to write. 

If Buzz leaves it will be to a top 7 or 8 program.  Everything else is a lateral move.

[hoyasincebirth]

Maybe it's just me, but I think the BCS comment was completely in line. Yes, there was exaggeration, hyperbole, and dare I say a touch of sarcasm, but over the past few years, there have been a number of "Buzz to..." rumors that Katz has helped perpetuate. Three this year, I seem to remember a couple last year too. When the same thing happens 5-6 times over a 2-year period, it's safe to say you have a trend.

That said, I usually enjoy Katz and think he does a pretty good job. But in this case, strictly the article in question in this article, he's off base. Trying to say that our non-con SOS is no better than WVU, Georgetown, or Notre Dame is just ridiculous. This is all about top end name teams. Replace Vandy with Duke, Wisconsin with MSU, and Washington with UCLA and we'd be rated higher, even though the teams we're playing are just as tough or tougher.

Georgetown Plays Memphis, @ Bama, and has the Maui invitational where we'll at least play Kansas and at least 1 more ranked team. Why is Vandy, Washington and Wisconsin so much obviously better?

[MUMac]

Georgetown Plays Memphis, @ Bama, and has the Maui invitational where we'll at least play Kansas and at least 1 more ranked team. Why is Vandy, Washington and Wisconsin so much obviously better?

Your lower end is far weaker.

[brewcity77]

Georgetown Plays Memphis, @ Bama, and has the Maui invitational where we'll at least play Kansas and at least 1 more ranked team. Why is Vandy, Washington and Wisconsin so much obviously better?

What MUMac said. Usually the Hoyas do a great job of having a strong schedule throughout. But this year, the bottom end of your schedule is weak. 4 sub-250 RPI teams. Maui should help, but you need to beat KU so you don't play Chaminade, that game won't do your SOS any favors.

By contrast, we only have one sub-250 team in Norfolk State. Those bottom end teams really drag the RPI down, just look at us last year. Our non-con was awful, despite playing Duke, Wisconsin, Gonzaga, and Vanderbilt.

[hoyasincebirth]

I think it's good for our team to have some cupcakes this year, with us being so young. It was by design to have a weaker than usual OOC schedule. And even our "weak" schedule is still pretty darn good.

I guess it depends on what you're looking at for a schedule. Georgetown plays more tough games than marquette:
9/11 Memphis, 17/19 Bama, 13/13 Kansas, (18/18 Michigan or 9/11 Memphis or 6/6 Duke) and possibly 20/17 UCLA vs. 7/7 Vandy, NR/NR Washington, 14/15 Wisconsin. The rest of the games don't really move the needle for either team. Neither school plays a team that is likely in the top 50 of the RPI.

Since a team at 100 RPI and a team at 200 RPI isn't really that big of a difference in terms of challenge. It matter for SOS and RPI but in actual challenge there's a much bigger difference between a top 10 team and a top 25 team and a top 25 team and a top 50 team than there is between the teams ranked 100-200 and 200+.

Again I'm sure you're referring to SOS and RPI and yes your schedule will probably net a higher scores on those things assume each team wins a similar number of games, but that doesn't really mean it was a tougher schedule.

[brewcity77]

I'm just accustomed to a tougher top-to-bottom schedule from Georgetown. Over the past few years, I've thought Georgetown was one of the best in the nation at devising smart schedules. I'll admit, I haven't looked in depth at the rosters of all your non-con opponents, maybe some of those sub-250s have the potential to crack the top-200. But as you point out, the likelihood of beating a 100-200 team isn't much different. Even less so is the likelihood of beating a 200-300 team. That's why I personally believe a smartly designed schedule will minimize the lowest end teams in favor of more middle-heavy schedule.

Honestly, I think the best designed schedule would feature zero top-ten teams. Maybe one top-25 team and one more top-50, along with a few top-100 opponents. Then jam the rest with 100-200 projected teams. It virtually assures no worse than a one-loss non-con schedule while also maintaining a likely top-20 SOS and RPI. Last year I thought we were far too top-heavy (four top-50 opponents) and bottom heavy (6 sub-300 opponents). You're better off when the bulk of the schedule (ideally 8-10 opponents) is in the 50-150 range.