2015 Non-conference Schedule

[brandx]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Suffice to say, seeing 7 sub-300 RPI teams on the schedule is something I'm not happy with. Here's why:

NCAA Hopes

This will tank our RPI and SOS. Forget about scheduling high major teams like Ohio State or Vanderbilt, even scheduling decent mid and low major teams would make a difference. When I ran the numbers to replace 4 sub-300 teams with 4 185-215 RPI teams the other day, the difference was about 20 points in RPI and SOS. RPIWizard doesn't even let you replace 7 games, but looking at TCU (131 RPI/92 SOS), they played 5 teams that were sub-290 last year. Replacing those teams with teams ranked 200, 205, 210, 215, and 220, TCU would have finished with a RPI of 90 and SOS of 50. So for 5 replaced opponents, that's over FORTY points each of RPI and SOS. They play in a similarly strong league and went 18-15 last year. My estimation is that Marquette probably needs to win 22-23 games just to be on the NCAA bubble, and that's assuming they don't lose to one of these teams.

11 or 12 wins in the BE are a must. A 10-8 record in conference will get us in the NIT.

[wadesworld]

so you're an attentive fan when we win and inattentive when we don't...........dare I mumble the word

Nope. Just have no interest in walking through negative wind chills to watch us lose by double digits.

You're a better fan than me though...

[Galway Eagle]

Nobody is arguing for games "we can't win" how about just schedule 4 of these teams from last years 200-220 group per KenPom

Canisius
Marist
Murray St.
South Dakota St.
High Point
Louisiana Lafayette
Air Force
James Madison
Binghamton
Lafayette
South Dakota
UC Davis
Coppin St.
Elon
Western Carolina
Siena
Wofford
Tennessee Tech
Rider
Monmouth

We better be able to beat any one of those at home with the talent we supposedly have coming in.  Schedule 4 of those teams and eliminate 4 of the crapbag we have now improves our SOS by at least 20 points, probably prepares the team better for conference, is at least a more legitimate basketball experience for fans, AND still gives us a very good shot at winning.

The more I think about this the more I think this is really really stupid.

How is it a more legitamate basketball experience? if it's a 20pt game or a 30pt game. I agree it's stupid for if we end up as a bubble team or what not but let's not act like playing a slightly better terrible team is going to have a massive impact on the game day experience.

[mu03eng]

How is it a more legitamate basketball experience? if it's a 20pt game or a 30pt game. I agree it's stupid for if we end up as a bubble team or what not but let's not act like playing a slightly better terrible team is going to have a massive impact on the game day experience.

The difference between a 315 RPI team and a 220 is not slightly less terrible, it is significant from a statistical and talent standpoint.

[Galway Eagle]

For all of you hoping for a harder schedule have you forgotten that we lost to number 248 nebraska omaha? And was that when we were down to next to no players? Nope when we had a full roster still. Not to mention we lost to 167 Depaul. 

I know it's nice to schedule harder mid majors but lets get to that level first. We aren't in the Big 3-Vander 8 year span anymore... we're still back in the dark ages. 

[Galway Eagle]

The difference between a 315 RPI team and a 220 is not slightly less terrible, it is significant from a statistical and talent standpoint.

And howd scheduling say a RPI 248 team work out last year? I know it's great for stat heads but as much as we like to pretend every MU bball fan is as psychotic as us... they aren't.  The crowd isn't going to suddenly get bigger if it's a slightly better mid major.  Heck we played NC State my freshman year (and lost) when they were terrible and the stadium was barely larger than a mid major game.

[brewcity77]

For all of you hoping for a harder schedule have you forgotten that we lost to number 248 nebraska omaha? And was that when we were down to next to no players? Nope when we had a full roster still. Not to mention we lost to 167 Depaul. 

I know it's nice to schedule harder mid majors but lets get to that level first. We aren't in the Big 3-Vander 8 year span anymore... we're still back in the dark ages.

The program is trying to sell us on young talent. They want us to believe that Duane and Luke are legitimate Big East players and that our recruiting class will get us back to playing with the big boys. When you have a player like Ellenson, the bare minimum expectation should be the NCAAs. This schedule could very easily cost us that.

I ran numbers on TCU earlier today, because they played 5 sub-290 teams last year:

2015-16 TCU
18-15 (4-14)
RPI: 131
SOS: 90

I made the following replacements:

OUT: 293 Furman, 326 New Orleans, 341 Tennessee State, 345 Mississippi Valley State, 351 Grambling
IN: 200 Holy Cross, 205 Detroit, 210 Winthrop, 215 IPFW, 220 Western Carolina

RPI: 90
SOS: 50

I don't think that's asking for much. And we have 7 of these games. I understand you need to play some weak teams to guarantee wins. That's fine. A couple of these games, even 3-4 to build confidence, is one thing. But 7? That's just too much. STH's pay good money to watch this team, but they pay to watch them play competitive games. After the first week, our home slate will be garbage until the new year. I'd happily give up 2-for-1 games with the Horizon or MVC to get better teams in. We don't need 20 home games if half of them are going to be hot garbage.

[Pakuni]

How is it a more legitamate basketball experience? if it's a 20pt game or a 30pt game. I agree it's stupid for if we end up as a bubble team or what not but let's not act like playing a slightly better terrible team is going to have a massive impact on the game day experience.

Agreed.
The vast majority of fans are going to be no more excited about a big matchup with Colgate or New Hampshire (sub-200 RPI teams) than they are about games with Maine or Stetson.

[GoldenWarrior11]

So we are at the point of arguing that games against Marist, Western Carolina, South Dakota State and Tennessee Tech are better for both the team and fans than Belmont, IUPUI, Grambling State and Jackson State?

Yep.  It must be offseason.

[brewcity77]

So we are at the point of arguing that games against Marist, Western Carolina, South Dakota State and Tennessee Tech are better for both the team and fans than Belmont, IUPUI, Grambling State and Jackson State?

Yep.  It must be offseason.

Belmont is great. That's our second best home game. However, had Miami replaced just TWO of their games last year, let's say 331 Savannah State and 298 Charleston with two of the teams you mention, let's say Western Carolina and South Dakota State, this is what happens to their profile:

Miami
21-12 (10-8)
RPI: 65
SOS: 71

New RPI: 50
New SOS: 48

With two changes to the schedule, Miami would have almost certainly gone from the NIT to the NCAAs. And we have 7 of those games. So yeah, it matters, whether it's off-season, in-season, or Selection Sunday.

[Galway Eagle]

The program is trying to sell us on young talent. They want us to believe that Duane and Luke are legitimate Big East players and that our recruiting class will get us back to playing with the big boys. When you have a player like Ellenson, the bare minimum expectation should be the NCAAs. This schedule could very easily cost us that.

I ran numbers on TCU earlier today, because they played 5 sub-290 teams last year:

2015-16 TCU
18-15 (4-14)
RPI: 131
SOS: 90

I made the following replacements:

OUT: 293 Furman, 326 New Orleans, 341 Tennessee State, 345 Mississippi Valley State, 351 Grambling
IN: 200 Holy Cross, 205 Detroit, 210 Winthrop, 215 IPFW, 220 Western Carolina

RPI: 90
SOS: 50

I don't think that's asking for much. And we have 7 of these games. I understand you need to play some weak teams to guarantee wins. That's fine. A couple of these games, even 3-4 to build confidence, is one thing. But 7? That's just too much. STH's pay good money to watch this team, but they pay to watch them play competitive games. After the first week, our home slate will be garbage until the new year. I'd happily give up 2-for-1 games with the Horizon or MVC to get better teams in. We don't need 20 home games if half of them are going to be hot garbage.

TCU wasn't getting in with 18 wins ever. 

But my question is this were you actually happy when in 12-13 we beat UNC-Central by only 9 points because it was a competitive game? Because I'll go back and look at those threads. What about when we lost to UW-GB by two? It was a great competitive game. Last year against Omaha? Real competitive game could've done without the loss.

I agree the coaching staff is trying to sell us on those players and that's great but those players haven't been on a winning team since high school and will have all conference to sell us on themselves. In the non con they'll have some tune ups but I have no problem with them avoiding bad losses in a year where we return four players and one red shirt transfer. 

[brewcity77]

TCU wasn't getting in with 18 wins ever.

No, they weren't. But that illustrates how much of a difference scheduling can make. Last year, if Miami played three fewer dogs in favor of teams in the 180-220 range, they would have been a tourney team. Scheduling costs teams bids almost every year. That's just a reality.

But my question is this were you actually happy when in 12-13 we beat UNC-Central by only 9 points because it was a competitive game? Because I'll go back and look at those threads. What about when we lost to UW-GB by two? It was a great competitive game. Last year against Omaha? Real competitive game could've done without the loss.

I emailed Mike Broeker the day after the GB game and said we should continue the series. My opinion on that changed at one point, but if we can't schedule better than this, we should get GB and UWM back on the schedule, even if it means doing a 2 or 3 for 1 deal. And yes, I'd rather risk losses against better cupcakes than beat bad teams. I'd much rather go 6-1 against teams in the 180-220 RPI range than go 7-0 against sub-300 teams.

I agree the coaching staff is trying to sell us on those players and that's great but those players haven't been on a winning team since high school and will have all conference to sell us on themselves. In the non con they'll have some tune ups but I have no problem with them avoiding bad losses in a year where we return four players and one red shirt transfer.

My hope every year is for the NCAA Tournament. I feel that as a program, that should be the goal. Sometimes we'll come up short. I can accept that. My issue is with the administration seemingly accepting that in July before the first ball is even tipped.

[Galway Eagle]

No, they weren't. But that illustrates how much of a difference scheduling can make. Last year, if Miami played three fewer dogs in favor of teams in the 180-220 range, they would have been a tourney team. Scheduling costs teams bids almost every year. That's just a reality.

I emailed Mike Broeker the day after the GB game and said we should continue the series. My opinion on that changed at one point, but if we can't schedule better than this, we should get GB and UWM back on the schedule, even if it means doing a 2 or 3 for 1 deal. And yes, I'd rather risk losses against better cupcakes than beat bad teams. I'd much rather go 6-1 against teams in the 180-220 RPI range than go 7-0 against sub-300 teams.

My hope every year is for the NCAA Tournament. I feel that as a program, that should be the goal. Sometimes we'll come up short. I can accept that. My issue is with the administration seemingly accepting that in July before the first ball is even tipped.

Just responding to the third paragraph: I believe that is where we disagree.  It seems, correct me if I am wrong, you have a standard for the schedule that you believe we should adhere to and it'll work and get us in or it will not and you can accept that. I believe when scheduling we must look at what we have and try and set ourselves up to be in a minimal risk situation relative to talent and experience on our team.  Next year if this was our schedule I'd be livid like yourself as I believe we should be tested and relative to our talent and experience we can overcome those tests. This year I disagree and find it adequate. 

[Pakuni]

The program is trying to sell us on young talent. They want us to believe that Duane and Luke are legitimate Big East players and that our recruiting class will get us back to playing with the big boys. When you have a player like Ellenson, the bare minimum expectation should be the NCAAs. This schedule could very easily cost us that.

I ran numbers on TCU earlier today, because they played 5 sub-290 teams last year:

2015-16 TCU
18-15 (4-14)
RPI: 131
SOS: 90

I made the following replacements:

OUT: 293 Furman, 326 New Orleans, 341 Tennessee State, 345 Mississippi Valley State, 351 Grambling
IN: 200 Holy Cross, 205 Detroit, 210 Winthrop, 215 IPFW, 220 Western Carolina

RPI: 90
SOS: 50

I don't think that's asking for much. And we have 7 of these games. I understand you need to play some weak teams to guarantee wins. That's fine. A couple of these games, even 3-4 to build confidence, is one thing. But 7? That's just too much. STH's pay good money to watch this team, but they pay to watch them play competitive games. After the first week, our home slate will be garbage until the new year. I'd happily give up 2-for-1 games with the Horizon or MVC to get better teams in. We don't need 20 home games if half of them are going to be hot garbage.

I'm not sure what this proves, though.
Are you suggesting an 18-15 TCU team (that went 4-14 in conference) would have been on the bubble had they only played a tougher non-conference schedule?

Why not compare the schedule to Notre Dame's last year, which featured five games against sub-300 opponents, three more in the 200s, and only one non-con game in the top 50? Obviously didn't put them anywhere close to the bubble because they 1) won those games and 2) played well in their conference.

I'm not suggesting this isn't a terrible non-conference slate. It is.
And if I paid for season tickets, I too would be unhappy.

But it's not the apocalyptic scenario you're laying out here. Bottom line is that if MU wins these games and, far more importantly, plays well in conference, they'll be fine. And if they don't play well in conference, it won't matter who they played on the non-conference schedule.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I don't love the schedule either but I think but I think its impact is being overstated. I do think it could screw us over if we end up a bubble team. The rest is just noise. Season ticket holders don't see a difference between IPFW and IUPUI. Despite nearly 100 point difference in RPI, most fans just see them as another cupcake. I am very skeptical that this will actually impact season ticket sales. Hell, it could help ticket sales. If we go undefeated in non-con (unlikely but not impossible with this schedule), people will be fighting for tickets.

Try to look at the bright side. We can probably expect to come out of non-con with only 2-3 losses. Maybe even less.

[brewcity77]

I'm not sure what this proves, though.
Are you suggesting an 18-15 TCU team (that went 4-14 in conference) would have been on the bubble had they only played a tougher non-conference schedule?

Why not compare the schedule to Notre Dame's last year, which featured five games against sub-300 opponents, three more in the 200s, and only one non-con game in the top 50? Obviously didn't put them anywhere close to the bubble because they 1) won those games and 2) played well in their conference.

I'm not suggesting this isn't a terrible non-conference slate. It is.
And if I paid for season tickets, I too would be unhappy.

But it's not the apocalyptic scenario you're laying out here. Bottom line is that if MU wins these games and, far more importantly, plays well in conference, they'll be fine. And if they don't play well in conference, it won't matter who they played on the non-conference schedule.

The general expectation seems to be that we will be fighting for a NCAA spot. Maybe we get in, maybe we don't, but this schedule can only hurt us in that regard. The TCU example showed how big a difference a few bad teams can make. The Miami example shows how improving just 2 cupcakes can take you from the NIT to the NCAAs. And we have 7 of those.

If we go 29-5 like Notre Dame did, we'll be fine. But if we win 18-21 games, our schedule will probably keep us out of the tournament, whereas a tougher schedule could get us in with the same win total.

And yes, part of it is being a STH that feels he paid a good chunk of money for what should be a much, much better product than this.

[GoldenWarrior11]

Belmont is great. That's our second best home game. However, had Miami replaced just TWO of their games last year, let's say 331 Savannah State and 298 Charleston with two of the teams you mention, let's say Western Carolina and South Dakota State, this is what happens to their profile:

Miami
21-12 (10-8)
RPI: 65
SOS: 71

New RPI: 50
New SOS: 48

With two changes to the schedule, Miami would have almost certainly gone from the NIT to the NCAAs. And we have 7 of those games. So yeah, it matters, whether it's off-season, in-season, or Selection Sunday.

And if Miami didn't lay eggs against the likes of Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Green Bay, or Eastern Kentucky, they may have went dancing too.  Winning gets you into the tournament, period.

[brewcity77]

And if Miami didn't lay eggs against the likes of Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Green Bay, or Eastern Kentucky, they may have went dancing too.  Winning gets you into the tournament, period.

I'm talking about things you can control in the offseason. I feel that if Marquette wins 21+ games like Miami did, they should be in the tournament every year. If we win 21 games this year, we will most likely be out.

[GooooMarquette]

I'm talking about things you can control in the offseason. I feel that if Marquette wins 21+ games like Miami did, they should be in the tournament every year. If we win 21 games this year, we will most likely be out.

I think that's the key.  It's plausible that we could win 20 games and still miss the tournament by beating 17 or 18 cupcakes, and only having 2 or 3 "good" wins.  That should never happen to a team in a major conference.

[The Lens]

In 2013/14 we played

Ohio State
@UW
@ASU
Wooden Classic
Wooden Classic
Wooden Classic
(N) New Mexico in Las Vegas

That's 7 solid game (admittedly Cal-State Fullerton was not but it did count as a road game)

Now for 2015/16 we're

Iowa
Legends
Legends
@UW

Even if you count Belmont we still went from 7 to 5.  There has to be a decent Home and Home we could have signed up for.

[Pakuni]

The general expectation seems to be that we will be fighting for a NCAA spot. Maybe we get in, maybe we don't, but this schedule can only hurt us in that regard. The TCU example showed how big a difference a few bad teams can make. The Miami example shows how improving just 2 cupcakes can take you from the NIT to the NCAAs. And we have 7 of those.

If we go 29-5 like Notre Dame did, we'll be fine. But if we win 18-21 games, our schedule will probably keep us out of the tournament, whereas a tougher schedule could get us in with the same win total.

Of course, you're making an assumption here that tougher schedule = same win total. That's probably not a safe bet with this team.  A win against a 310 RPI team probably is better than a loss against 210.

And yes, part of it is being a STH that feels he paid a good chunk of money for what should be a much, much better product than this.

Sure, but ultimately people go to games (or choose not to go to games)  because of the home team, not the opponent, and this is even more so the case with season ticket buyers. Nobody is making their season-ticket buying decisions on whether a MAC or Horizon team is on the schedule instead of Maine.

[GooooMarquette]

Sure, but ultimately people go to games (or choose not to go to games)  because of the home team, not the opponent.

If that is true, why is attendance almost always considerably higher for "marquee" games than it is for weaker opponents?

[Pakuni]

I think that's the key.  It's plausible that we could win 20 games and still miss the tournament by beating 17 or 18 cupcakes, and only having 2 or 3 "good" wins.  That should never happen to a team in a major conference.

I think it would be impossible to win 20 games and have only 2 or 3 "good" wins.

[Galway Eagle]

If that is true, why is attendance almost always considerably higher for "marquee" games than it is for weaker opponents?

Well the couple hundred opposing fans who are local alumni and families.  Then of course there's the casual fans who just want to see the bigger games, when you were a student did you go to every smaller game as well? I only did as a freshman.

But I think Pakuni was referring moreso to the games against say 200s to 300s opponents. 

[Pakuni]

If that is true, why is attendance almost always considerably higher for "marquee" games than it is for weaker opponents?

I appreciate how you edited out the second part of my sentence and left out season ticket holders.

That said, yes, games against bigger-name opponents can occasionally draw more casual fans, but not always, and not if the home team isn't playing well.

Case in point: During the 2012-13 season, MU had better attendance for games against Savannah State, Colgate and  North Carolina State than they did last year for major-conference opponent Arizona State.

But that's not really relevant to the season ticket holders we were discussing.