CBS: Rankings Team 1-351

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

I appreciate the analysis Brew.

SOS is a major component to making the dance. Being an elite program includes doing everything you can to game the numbers so slightly down years result in 7-10 seeds instead of NIT. Once you get in the tourney, record is fairly irrelevant.

[brewcity77]

I appreciate the analysis Brew.

SOS is a major component to making the dance. Being an elite program includes doing everything you can to game the numbers so slightly down years result in 7-10 seeds instead of NIT. Once you get in the tourney, record is fairly irrelevant.

I don't see how it's even debatable. I think we'd all like for Marquette to beat VCU. If we do that, it comes with a ton of other benefits beyond just getting a likely quality win. Not sure why anyone would rather be in the loser's bracket.

[TheREALwrk]

Brew - not sure how the haters and losers, of which there are many, can disagree. VCU is a must win. It's dumb to think otherwise.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

Texas that year ended up near where USC (our final opponent) did so it was negligible. Texas would have helped minorly as they had a slightly better record. UNC would have made a big difference. We had a great schedule that year due to the Big East with 6 ranked teams along the way and being in a league where 8 teams made the NCAAs, 2 made the NIT, and one only missed (UConn) due to a postseason ban. Had we played UNC, I'm guessing we'd have been top-5. It would've been a massive move from that woeful Mississippi State team that we treated like a cupcake.

Here's the other thing. The assumption that we are better off going 2-1 with a loss to VCU means cheering for a loss to VCU. I think that's ridiculous for many reasons.

First, I'm not cheering for Marquette to lose to anyone anywhere ever. I want to beat VCU.

Second, I want to play good teams because getting a win against a top-10 Wichita State team and possibly a hated Notre Dame team would mean far more than playing Cal and LSU teams that will likely be terrible. I'd rather play the good teams and lose entertaining games than pound the high-major equivalent of Little Sisters of the Poor.

Third, the obvious SOS and tournament ramifications. This game legitimately changes the number of wins we need to get into the NCAA Tournament. Beat VCU and it honestly becomes easier to get in, and not just because we beat VCU but because we will be measured against a tougher SOS. It's either beat VCU and win 17/29 remaining games, or lose to VCU and win 20/29 games.

So in essence, I want Marquette to win against VCU, I want Marquette to play against good teams, and I want Marquette to have the best possible path to make the NCAA Tournament. The only argument with that is if you don't want one or more of those three things, in which case I'd wonder what you were doing posting on a Marquette board.

So you decided to end with a "if you don't believe my argument you must not really be a fan" angle?  Well whatever.

Again, I am just not going to agree that going 1-2 in Maui with a win v. VCU is better than going 2-1 with a loss v. VCU.  (Like in 2012, beating USC and MSU was better than losing to UNC and Texas.)  Yes it may have an impact on SOS, but other than that, you are simply making guesses as to the seed line, etc.

[Galway Eagle]

So you decided to end with a "if you don't believe my argument you must not really be a fan" angle?  Well whatever.

Again, I am just not going to agree that going 1-2 in Maui with a win v. VCU is better than going 2-1 with a loss v. VCU.  (Like in 2012, beating USC and MSU was better than losing to UNC and Texas.)  Yes it may have an impact on SOS, but other than that, you are simply making guesses as to the seed line, etc.

So it sounds like you would be a bigger proponent of a year like 15-16 where we have more wins despite them being easier over a year like 16-17 where we have less wins but those less wins got us into the NCAA tournament? Is my understanding correct?

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

So it sounds like you would be a bigger proponent of a year like 15-16 where we have more wins despite them being easier over a year like 16-17 where we have less wins but those less wins got us into the NCAA tournament? Is my understanding correct?

No.  Your understanding is not correct.

[Galway Eagle]

No.  Your understanding is not correct.

Then forgive my misunderstanding but you seem to be cheering for an easier route that would guarantee more wins right? But if that were to keep us out of the tournament that would equate to you preferring a larger win total no matter how padded that was right?

[Stretchdeltsig]

It's always good to be under estimated.  I think this team will surprise a lot of people this year.j

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

Then forgive my misunderstanding but you seem to be cheering for an easier route that would guarantee more wins right? But if that were to keep us out of the tournament that would equate to you preferring a larger win total no matter how padded that was right?

I am not "cheering for an easier route."  I want Marquette to beat VCU and play the toughest schedule they can in the tournament.

But if they lose to VCU and win the next two, I am not worried about how that will impact the NCAA tournament and seeding.  I would rather see two wins in Maui than one.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

So you decided to end with a "if you don't believe my argument you must not really be a fan" angle?  Well whatever.

Again, I am just not going to agree that going 1-2 in Maui with a win v. VCU is better than going 2-1 with a loss v. VCU.  (Like in 2012, beating USC and MSU was better than losing to UNC and Texas.)  Yes it may have an impact on SOS, but other than that, you are simply making guesses as to the seed line, etc.

Dude, you're wrong here. 

I am not "cheering for an easier route."  I want Marquette to beat VCU and play the toughest schedule they can in the tournament.

But if they lose to VCU and win the next two, I am not worried about how that will impact the NCAA tournament and seeding.  I would rather see two wins in Maui than one.

We'd all prefer to see 2 wins versus 1.  We can all agree there.  If we lose to VCU, we're all going to want to win the next two games whether they be against Cal, LSU, Chaminade, whoever.  But MU's chances of making the tournament greatly improve with playing Wichita State and ND/Michigan versus Cal/LSU/Chaminade, regardless of results.  That is just a fact. 

[brewcity77]

So you decided to end with a "if you don't believe my argument you must not really be a fan" angle?  Well whatever.

No, that's not how I ended my argument. I ended it with a summary of why we should want to beat VCU, with a further explanation of why beating VCU is better than losing to VCU.

Like it or not, every season getting into the NCAA Tournament is a mathematical equation. In 2016, 20 wins was not enough to get in (probably needed 23, at least 22). In 2017, 19 wins was enough. If we beat VCU, it gets us one of those wins while also lessening the requisite amount of total wins.

Simply, it's better to be +1 on a smaller scale than +0 on a bigger scale.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

We'd all prefer to see 2 wins versus 1.  We can all agree there.  If we lose to VCU, we're all going to want to win the next two games whether they be against Cal, LSU, Chaminade, whoever.  But MU's chances of making the tournament greatly improve with playing Wichita State and ND/Michigan versus Cal/LSU/Chaminade, regardless of results.  That is just a fact. 

Oh really?  It's a "fact" that our odds "greatly" improve?  That is quite a bold statement.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Oh really?  It's a "fact" that our odds "greatly" improve?  That is quite a bold statement.

Not really. But that's already been explained to you. Trading out 2 sub-100 RPI teams with 2 top 30 RPI teams can make an enormous difference in SOS and RPI, which are key components to the equation of getting into the tournament.  It quite literally is the difference between making the tournament and not.

MU could lose to VCU, beat Cal and LSU and still make the tournament.  But they probably will need to go 11-7 in BE play to do it. 

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

Not really. But that's already been explained to you. Trading out 2 sub-100 RPI teams with 2 top 30 RPI teams can make an enormous difference in SOS and RPI, which are key components to the equation of getting into the tournament.  It quite literally is the difference between making the tournament and not.

MU could lose to VCU, beat Cal and LSU and still make the tournament.  But they probably will need to go 11-7 in BE play to do it. 

How much do our odds "greatly" improve?

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

How much do our odds "greatly" improve?

Brew has already explained this to you in detail.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

Brew has already explained this to you in detail.

Brew explained in great detail why SOS is important.  He also said that it would mean we would need to have more wins over the course of the rest of the schedule.  I understand both of those concepts.

You are the one who says our odds "greatly" improve.  I am asking you to define "greatly."  How much to our odds "greatly" improve?

So for instance, what would a potential 20 point swing in SOS mean?  I honestly don't know the answer to that.

[brewcity77]

How much do our odds "greatly" improve?

How on earth are you still on about this? It's not freaking difficult. Okay...let's go through a quick review of the past two seasons:

2015-16 Marquette

Record: 20-13
Strength of Schedule: 104
Postseason: None

2016-17 Marquette

Record: 19-13
Strength of Schedule: 48
Postseason: NCAA

So first of all, we know that 20 wins with a SOS of 104 was not sufficient to get Marquette into the NIT. At the minimum, we needed 21 wins to make the NIT with a SOS of 104. There is no way that 1 win was going to jump us from out of both tournaments to NCAA (33 spots assuming we were the first team out of the NIT). The closest comparison team for us in 2016 was Wichita State. They had a SOS of 107, nearly identical to ours, and made it in as one of the Last Four In with a record of 24-8. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that playing in a tougher conference with a slightly tougher schedule meant Marquette needed 23 wins to be in the Last Four In. So we know the following:

104 SOS for Postseason Bid:

20 wins: No Postseason
21 wins: Possible NIT
22 wins: Certain NIT, likely high NIT seed
23 wins: NCAA Tournament

Next, we look to 2017. 19 wins with a 48 SOS was enough to get us into the NCAA Tournament with a 10 seed. So at the bare minimum, the 56 point improvement in SOS was worth 4 wins. That says to me that every time you increase your SOS by 14 points, it is the equivalent of winning another game. As I have said repeatedly, this is all just a big math equation. So knowing that 19 got us in, we can assume the following:

48 SOS for Postseason Bid:

16 wins: No Postseason
17 wins: Possible NIT
18 wins: Certain NIT, likely high seed
19 wins: NCAA Tournament

Again, it's math, so the consideration that Wichita State's 24 wins got them the Last Four In in 2016 and our 19 wins got us a 10-seed in 2017 indicates that the value of SOS is actually greater than 1 win = 14 points. But for sake of ease, we'll stick with the 14 points that is clearly established by the above figures.

So now we move on to the difference of the teams we played. To do that, we'll look at our old buddy Buzz Williams. Last year his Virginia Tech team had an RPI of 48 and SOS of 65. But that's not why they're ideal. They also had neutral court wins against a 17-14 New Mexico squad RPI 86 and a 11-19 Nebraska squad RPI 107. That should be fairly comparable to what the pundits would expect from Cal and LSU. What if we replace those with teams to replicate Wichita State and Notre Dame? For the comp, I will use 2016 SMU (American champs) and 2016 Notre Dame (top-4 ACC team).

2016 Virginia Tech Normal:

Record: 22-10
RPI: 48
SOS: 65

2016 Virginia Tech Adjusted:

Record: 20-12
RPI: 52
SOS: 42

Now this is likely an underestimation, but what we establish is that the computer number of RPI barely changes, but SOS improves by 23. Knowing that 14 points is worth a win, we can see that Virginia Tech losing those games actually doesn't lose out. I think it's important to note that most likely, SOS spots are worth more than the 14 points (as explained above) and New Mexico and Nebraska will be better than Cal and LSU so the actual SOS impact would likely be greater than that.

Also, these numbers are not going to be exact because SOS is actually looking at percentages and not simply rankings and RPI accounts records and not simply where your ranking falls, but for the sake of a quick estimation, this is close enough to accurate that I would stand behind the findings.

So what does this ultimately mean to Marquette? It's basically the exact thing I said from the start. If we beat VCU, we guarantee ourselves 1 quality win while establishing a baseline of 18 wins to reach the NCAA Tournament, meaning we need to go 17-12 in our other 29 games with 6 other opportunities for quality non-conference wins. If we lose to VCU, we guarantee ourselves 0 quality wins while establishing a baseline of 20 wins to reach the NCAA Tournament, meaning we need to go 20-9 in our other 29 games with 4 other opportunities for quality non-conference wins.

VCU is unquestionably the biggest game of the season. It makes our road to the NCAAs easier, it assures us a quality win while providing opportunities for more, and mathematically "greatly" improves our odds as you asked. I don't know that I can make it any more clear than this.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Brew explained in great detail why SOS is important.  He also said that it would mean we would need to have more wins over the course of the rest of the schedule.  I understand both of those concepts.

You are the one who says our odds "greatly" improve.  I am asking you to define "greatly."  How much to our odds "greatly" improve?

So for instance, what would a potential 20 point swing in SOS mean?  I honestly don't know the answer to that.

A 20 point swing in SOS would be monumental.  The difference between Wichita State and ND/Michigan and LSU/Cal/Chaminade could very well be over 20 slots in SOS, and perhaps even more in RPI. 

RPI is a silly stat, but unfortunately the committee continues to use it.  Having an RPI outside of the top 60 is near death-kneel for a bubble team.  What Brew stated is the same thing I am stating - losing the VCU and playing the next two games against teams outside of the top 100 is going to hurt MU's computer numbers....alot (win or lose).  It will greatly downgrade their non-conference SOS, and therefore require MU to "make it up" in BE play.  With a 9-3 or even 8-4 non-con record with games against Purdue, VCU, Wichita State, ND/Mich, Georgia, Vermont and Wisconsin, MU's got a decent change to get into the big dance at 9-9 in BE play, likely a lock at 10-8 or better.  9-9 or even 10-8 more than likely does NOT get the job done if you remove Wichita State and ND/Michigan from the schedule and replace with Cal and LSU. 

[brewcity77]

I can make it a little easier. Okay, let's just take Maui based on what I established earlier.

Beat VCU and go 1-2:

SOS boost about 25, reduces NCAA win threshold by 2, meaning Marquette needs to go 17-10 in non-Maui games.

Lose to VCU and go 2-1:

SOS drop by 25, increase NCAA win threshold by 2, meaning Marquette needs to go 18-9 in non-Maui games.

So if we beat VCU, we need fewer wins on the mainland to make the tournament than we do if we lose to VCU and win our next two games. Also, if one of those next two is Chaminade, we would have to go 19-8 in non-Maui games because playing a D2 school doesn't impact your NCAA resume.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

I can make it a little easier. Okay, let's just take Maui based on what I established earlier.

Beat VCU and go 1-2:

SOS boost about 25, reduces NCAA win threshold by 2, meaning Marquette needs to go 17-10 in non-Maui games.

Lose to VCU and go 2-1:

SOS drop by 25, increase NCAA win threshold by 2, meaning Marquette needs to go 18-9 in non-Maui games.

So if we beat VCU, we need fewer wins on the mainland to make the tournament than we do if we lose to VCU and win our next two games. Also, if one of those next two is Chaminade, we would have to go 19-8 in non-Maui games because playing a D2 school doesn't impact your NCAA resume.

Thank you. 

[Dawson Rental]

I see two possible outcomes for our path in Maui:

1. Beat VCU, play Wichita State and then Michigan/ND
2. Lose to VCU, play Cal and then LSU

Option 2 is almost a guaranteed 2-1. Both Cal and LSU look like sub 100 KenPom teams to me. Maybe LSU sneaks into the top 100.

Option 3 can range from 1-2 to 3-0. Wichita State will be the favorite but beatable without McDuffie. If Shamet is still out or even limited because of his injury, that becomes at least a 50/50 game, we might even be the favorite. In the third round, I would give Notre Dame the edge but are beatable. I think MU and Michigan are about as close to a toss up as you can get.

I personally like option 1 better. That Wichita State game is going to look a lot better at the end of the season once they get fully healthy. I also think we are significantly better than VCU. They are going to be relying heavily on guys that transferred from Maine and Longwood...both of whom are ranked in the bottom 10 teams in Division 1.

And their head coach is new although he's got some head coaching experience at Rice and previous experience at VCU as an assistant.  Only 4 returning players and the team and the coach need to get to know each other.  If we can't beat that team at the start of the season, trouble lies ahead.

[Dawson Rental]

I don't see how it's even debatable. I think we'd all like for Marquette to beat VCU. If we do that, it comes with a ton of other benefits beyond just getting a likely quality win. Not sure why anyone would rather be in the loser's bracket.

Some people feel more comfortable there.   

[The Equalizer]

So it sounds like you would be a bigger proponent of a year like 15-16 where we have more wins despite them being easier over a year like 16-17 where we have less wins but those less wins got us into the NCAA tournament? Is my understanding correct?

I would have been a bigger proponent of winning more Big East games in 2015-16 before I started worrying about our SOS.

15-16 we were 8-10 and alone in 7th place in the Big East
16-17 we were 10-8 and tied for 3rd place in the Big East

That's your difference.  Not non-conference SOS.

MU didn't have a performance worthy of making the tournament in 2015-16. They proved it in conference by losing more than they won. 

A tougher SOS wouldn't have made up for the fact that we lost too damn many games.
 

[The Equalizer]

A 20 point swing in SOS would be monumental.  The difference between Wichita State and ND/Michigan and LSU/Cal/Chaminade could very well be over 20 slots in SOS, and perhaps even more in RPI. 

RPI is a silly stat, but unfortunately the committee continues to use it.  Having an RPI outside of the top 60 is near death-kneel for a bubble team.  What Brew stated is the same thing I am stating - losing the VCU and playing the next two games against teams outside of the top 100 is going to hurt MU's computer numbers....alot (win or lose).  It will greatly downgrade their non-conference SOS, and therefore require MU to "make it up" in BE play.  With a 9-3 or even 8-4 non-con record with games against Purdue, VCU, Wichita State, ND/Mich, Georgia, Vermont and Wisconsin, MU's got a decent change to get into the big dance at 9-9 in BE play, likely a lock at 10-8 or better.  9-9 or even 10-8 more than likely does NOT get the job done if you remove Wichita State and ND/Michigan from the schedule and replace with Cal and LSU.

What are the actual wins and losses in your scenarios?

Say we beat VCU but don't get a win against Purdue, Georgia, Vermont or Wisconsin.  Are you suggesting that the SOS benefit of the two "good losses" to WSU and ND/Mich will make the committee ignore the fact that we would have 1-6 record against quality non-conference teams?

And are you further suggesting that if MU beats Purdue, Georgia, Vermont and Wisconsin, but we lose to VCU--and that's our only non-conference loss--are you saying the committee will argue that we don't deserve a bid because of "poor" strength of schedule?

I could argue that beating Purdue, Georgia and Vermont are all more important than VCU because they're all home games--devastating in the RPI should we lose. 

I could argue that beating Wisconsin is more critical than VCU, because its our only chance for a signature road win and more helpful in the RPI than a neutral court win.

I can look at our schedule holistically, and the reality is that if we can't take at least two or three games from Purdue, Georgia, Vermont and Wisconsin, beating VCU to get a better SOS isn't going to help us.  We're not going to sneak win with a .500 conference record and six non-conference losses, regardless of SOS.

And if we do take at least two or three games from that group, VCU and our SOS won't matter.

[brewcity77]

What are the actual wins and losses in your scenarios?

Say we beat VCU but don't get a win against Purdue, Georgia, Vermont or Wisconsin.  Are you suggesting that the SOS benefit of the two "good losses" to WSU and ND/Mich will make the committee ignore the fact that we would have 1-6 record against quality non-conference teams?

Actual wins and losses are irrelevant. If you want the explanation, see my lengthy post above.

Beating VCU reduces our win requirement total and offsets the benefit of winning an extra game. We need one less win outside Maui if we beat VCU and lose the next two than if we lose to VCU and win two in the loser's bracket.

Who it is doesn't matter. It never matters. Because if you get enough wins, enough will have to be quality due to our SOS to offset any bad losses.