We played 17 ranked teams this year, but our too many sub 200(?) games still drove our SoS lower than one would expect. It seems reducing the number of games with unknown cupcakes is fixable.
CBS projects us into the field below for the Paradise Jam. does that field help/hurt our SoS? What are your thoughts, on this tourney field, and our Sos next year?
Paradise Jam Dates TBA U.S. Virgin Islands:
Drake, Drexel, Marquette, Mississippi, Norfolk State, Texas Christian, Virginia, Winthrop
Quote from: houwarrior on April 24, 2011, 11:31:32 PM
LAST YEAR'S RPIs/SOS
Drake 215/166
Drexel 74/137
Mississippi 83/75
Norfolk State 271/285
Texas Christian 208/89
Virginia 140/103 (wonder if the scrimmage pays off)
Winthrop 221/183[/size]
Virginia will be much improved.
The problem isn't the Paradise Jam. It's the sub-250 cupcakes. The only thing in our schedule that needs fixing is the bottom end. There's a much bigger difference between Centenary and a top 200 RPI team than there is between Duke and Ole Miss. Fix the cupcakes and you fix the schedule. It's that simple.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 25, 2011, 05:08:04 AM
The problem isn't the Paradise Jam. It's the sub-250 cupcakes. The only thing in our schedule that needs fixing is the bottom end. There's a much bigger difference between Centenary and a top 200 RPI team than there is between Duke and Ole Miss. Fix the cupcakes and you fix the schedule. It's that simple.
Here is what I always thought was funny about this whole system.
Is there really a BIG difference in quality from teams 150-330+? IMO, no. But for some reason the computers think so. Would we have a higher chance losing to a 150-200 team than a 250-300? Probably not.
I realize this post doesn't really answer any questions, and in advance, I know it is disjointed.
In terms of actual quality, probably not much in that we should win against either at home. But the difference of 80 spots in the RPI between a Duke or an Ole Miss is vastly different than the 180 spots between Centenary and #163 RPI, especially when it's a computer calculating the averages.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 25, 2011, 08:21:46 AM
In terms of actual quality, probably not much in that we should win against either at home. But the difference of 80 spots in the RPI between a Duke or an Ole Miss is vastly different than the 180 spots between Centenary and #163 RPI, especially when it's a computer calculating the averages.
I understand the math behind it just fine, I just think that in terms of beatability (word?), there is little difference between 150 and 300.
W/L performance is more important than SOS.
If we wind up with a 3-0 record in the Paradise Jam, it will be better for our RPI than the 2-2 record from the CBE Classic, despite the fact that the strength of our opponents was stronger in the Guardians.
Factor in that our 2 wins only counted as 1.2 total wins (because two games were at home)--playing Duke and Gonzaga to two losses was a negative last year.
Comparing with RealTimeRPI figures (pre-NCAA tournament)
MU: 64 RPI, SOS of 30
Pitt: 10 RPI, SOS of 31
Syr: 18 RPI, SOS of 29
Why was MU rated so much lower than Pitt and Syracuse?
Pitt: 5 losses
Syracuse: 7 losses
MU: 14 losses
Stop obsessing over SOS--in conference play it will take care of itself. The only thing we need to worry about is winning.
Yep, winning is what its really all about. As 84 points out, the BE schedule will take care of SOS.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on April 25, 2011, 08:41:58 AM
I understand the math behind it just fine, I just think that in terms of beatability (word?), there is little difference between 150 and 300.
Agreed, which is why we need to schedule our cupcakes better.
No, assuming we win out. Either way playing in this tournament is a great thing because the 3 games count as 1 game on our schedule so we get to play 2 extra games we wouldn't be able to if we didn't play in the tournament.
2 problems with Paradise Jam 2011:
- No victory in this tournament will be a "quality win" for us
- Anything short of winning this tournament will be a disappointment
But who knows, if UVA or Ole Miss is much improved then both of these statements could be wrong.
The other posts on this thread are right in saying that we're not diluting our SOS by playing in this, but we also aren't moving up the RPI ranks with it either.
Duke and Gonzaga helped the SOS; unfortunately, that was offset by the L's. Win the Paradise games and MU will have more benefit than last year's CBE from an RPI standpoint.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 25, 2011, 09:52:55 AM
W/L performance is more important than SOS.
Stop obsessing over SOS--in conference play it will take care of itself. The only thing we need to worry about is winning.
I dont think one off season thread asking for thoughts on a preseason tourney field and its impact on the SoS, constitutes something requiring of your "Stop obsessing" command.
Think (thought is not obsessing) about the thread point differences to your W/L point. Pre conference Tourneys/Scheduling is something a program and coach can control (witness Duke's mastery of such over the years)....vs W/L is not something as coach controllable.Your conf schedule, including in the BE, largely, is not coach/program controllable.
If a coach tries to hard too fatten up with easy pre conference Ws (viz 200 plus RPIers), the SoS will penalize. Likewise losing to a pre conference cupcake, posts the "bad loss" on the NCAA resume. Your season and seeding can be messed up before conference play begins, by bad losses, and by ill thought voluntary scheduling.
The ideal body of pre conference work includes a decent to very good tourney, and a bunch of better than 200 RPI Ws, with most preferably scheduled at home. Only play the toughies, if possible, on nuetral courts. Give yourself 3-4 games that are likely resume builders.
Regretably, in today's college game, it is riverboat gambling to ignore controllable points (like voluntary scheduling/SoS) which can give your team an edge,.....
.... in favor of your simpler approach, that....'the ONLY thing we need to worry about is winning'.
Here is something I put together around tournament time. It's much more about Ws and Ls than SOS.
Our Non Conf SOS was 282 this year. But before we suggest that was our biggest problem, let's look at some other team's numbers.
Ohio State 245 32-2 Seed 1
Pitt 242 27-5 Seed 1
ND 246 26-6 Seed 2
Louisville 286 25-9 Seed 4
Cinn 337 25-8 Seed 6
Clemson 243 21-11 Seed 12
MU 282 20-14 Seed 11
Only 4 selected teams had 14 losses and were invited. All of their records were 19-14.
Penn State 148 19-14 Seed 10
MichSt 32 19-14 Seed 10
USC 55 19-14 Seed 11
Tenn 31 19-14 Seed 9
Obviously our 14 losses had much more to do with our seed than the Non Conf SOS. At best we could have moved up to a 9 but the real damage was done by our numerous losses. Let's not agonize about playing Centenary. We just need to win more games.
Quote from: houwarrior on April 25, 2011, 01:49:49 PM
I dont think one off season thread asking for thoughts on a preseason tourney field and its impact on the SoS, constitutes something requiring of your "Stop obsessing" command.
I guess the question is why you'd worry about the SOS and not the more important RPI?
3 - 0 in this tournament, even if the field isn't a strong, is going to be FAR better for our RPI than the 2-2 (really only 1.2 wins) we saw in a pre-season tournament last year.
The easier field should greatly improve our chances to win the tournament.
Quote from: houwarrior on April 25, 2011, 01:49:49 PM
Think (thought is not obsessing) about the thread point differences to your W/L point. Pre conference Tourneys/Scheduling is something a program and coach can control (witness Duke's mastery of such over the years)....vs W/L is not something as coach controllable.Your conf schedule, including in the BE, largely, is not coach/program controllable.
If a coach tries to hard too fatten up with easy pre conference Ws (viz 200 plus RPIers), the SoS will penalize. Likewise losing to a pre conference cupcake, posts the "bad loss" on the NCAA resume. Your season and seeding can be messed up before conference play begins, by bad losses, and by ill thought voluntary scheduling.
The ideal body of pre conference work includes a decent to very good tourney, and a bunch of better than 200 RPI Ws, with most preferably scheduled at home. Only play the toughies, if possible, on nuetral courts. Give yourself 3-4 games that are likely resume builders.
Regretably, in today's college game, it is riverboat gambling to ignore controllable points (like voluntary scheduling/SoS) which can give your team an edge,.....
.... in favor of your simpler approach, that....'the ONLY thing we need to worry about is winning'.
If we go 32-0, we're going to be a #1 seed, regardless of whether our 5 worst non-conference games were ranked in the 300s, 200's or 100's.
If we go 15-15, we're not making the tournament at all, even if we played the #1 most difficult non-conference schedule in college basketball.
The experience of Cincinnati (SOS rank of 86 / 6 seed) would suggest that our tougher non-conference schedule (SOS rank of 30 / 11 seed) did not help us much, and their weaker non-conference schedule did not hurt them much.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 25, 2011, 04:11:17 PM
I guess the question is why you'd worry about the SOS and not the more important RPI?
3 - 0 in this tournament, even if the field isn't a strong, is going to be FAR better for our RPI than the 2-2 (really only 1.2 wins) we saw in a pre-season tournament last year.
The easier field should greatly improve our chances to win the tournament.
If we go 32-0, we're going to be a #1 seed, regardless of whether our 5 worst non-conference games were ranked in the 300s, 200's or 100's.
If we go 15-15, we're not making the tournament at all, even if we played the #1 most difficult non-conference schedule in college basketball.
The experience of Cincinnati (SOS rank of 86 / 6 seed) would suggest that our tougher non-conference schedule (SOS rank of 30 / 11 seed) did not help us much, and their weaker non-conference schedule did not hurt them much.
You're right-- lets pursue the Mad Magazine, What me worry? approach, blow off scheduling concerns, and things we can actually control, play 15 cupcakes (300 plus RPIers), and simply plan on going undefeated...no one can argue , (or should obsess) with that, as undefeated equals a national championship. The analysis depth astounds.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 25, 2011, 05:08:04 AM
The problem isn't the Paradise Jam. It's the sub-250 cupcakes. The only thing in our schedule that needs fixing is the bottom end. There's a much bigger difference between Centenary and a top 200 RPI team than there is between Duke and Ole Miss. Fix the cupcakes and you fix the schedule. It's that simple.
I totally agree. With this limited schedule resource, I needed something for the thread starter point...but yours is closer to the point.
Especially if we arent in a Maui, or similar, and we are due to play in this apparently softer tourney field, its imperative the sub 250s get stiffened with better replacements. We shouldnt have to argue our way into a ranking, heading into conf. play, lets earn one...on the court.
Centenary level games do so little good, and one of these years we'll stumble on such a game...giving ourselves the bad loss tag. These arent even mid majors. In FB, they'd penalize by saying the win doesnt figure in your bowl eligible total. I guess my rule of thumb would be if the conference didnt place an at larger , or two, in the NCAA field over the last 2 years, we should try to avoid scheduling any team in such a conference(example Prarie View is in SWAC--no Swac teams, please).
Quote from: houwarrior on April 25, 2011, 04:23:18 PM
You're right-- lets pursue the Mad Magazine, What me worry? approach, blow off scheduling concerns, and things we can actually control, play 15 cupcakes (300 plus RPIers), and simply plan on going undefeated...no one can argue , (or should obsess) with that, as undefeated equals a national championship. The analysis depth astounds.
No, no, you're right after all. Lets schedule our non-conference games all on the road--and lets play at UNC, Duke, Kansas, UCLA, Arizona, Washington, Texas, Kentucky, Florida, Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Ohio State. Let's blow off concerns over whether we actually win any of those games, and just plan on the committee being so impressed with our willingness to play an schedule of unprecedented strength that we are awarded the national championship trophy by default.
In the meantime, I stand behind the comment that 3 neutral court wins in the Paradise Jam would result in a stronger RPI than the weighted 1.2 wins and 2 losses we had in a similar tournament last year even after accounting for the marginal difference in schedule strenght.
Therefore, I believe worrying about whether the SOS in this particular tournament will hurt is the worrying about the wrong thing.
As we saw last year, having a strong SOS does not get rewarded by the committee with a high seed (we only got an 11). We also saw that having a poorer SOS but more wins actually DOES get rewarded.
How about this--instead of getting snarky with a response, you go out and find all those examples of 14 loss teams that received high seed based on their strength of schedule.
And if you can't put a list of such examples together, then maybe its time to admit that perhaps and its more important to actually win games than try to engineer an SOS that would mask a higher number of losses.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 25, 2011, 06:00:12 PM
No, no, you're right after all. Lets schedule our non-conference games all on the road--and lets play at UNC, Duke, Kansas, UCLA, Arizona, Washington, Texas, Kentucky, Florida, Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Ohio State. Let's blow off concerns over whether we actually win any of those games, and just plan on the committee being so impressed with our willingness to play an schedule of unprecedented strength that we are awarded the national championship trophy by default.
In the meantime, I stand behind the comment that 3 neutral court wins in the Paradise Jam would result in a stronger RPI than the weighted 1.2 wins and 2 losses we had in a similar tournament last year even after accounting for the marginal difference in schedule strenght.
Therefore, I believe worrying about whether the SOS in this particular tournament will hurt is the worrying about the wrong thing.
As we saw last year, having a strong SOS does not get rewarded by the committee with a high seed (we only got an 11). We also saw that having a poorer SOS but more wins actually DOES get rewarded.
How about this--instead of getting snarky with a response, you go out and find all those examples of 14 loss teams that received high seed based on their strength of schedule.
And if you can't put a list of such examples together, then maybe its time to admit that perhaps and its more important to actually win games than try to engineer an SOS that would mask a higher number of losses.
No one will argue with your repetitive point that we should try to win the games we play, and that winning helps. Its an excellent point, and one that was needed to be made. Your hypothetical extreme does not coincide withe ideal scheduling formula I noted, so we wont digress there.
If i can glean one point you make is that you are happy with the weaker p Jam field. I too can accept that, but only if we tighten/toughen the Rpi of the other voluntary games, as in Brewcity's point, and as my above concurring post references.
The Centenarys of the schedule need to go.
We seem to differ on whether it helps to fatten up on sub 300 RPi teams, especially as to the degree/amount of those games. Dont presume that means I support a bunch of top 25 away games...but there are literally hundreds of teams to play/voluntarily schedule between such extremes(see my ideal--above, and again, below....).
....."The ideal body of pre conference work includes a decent to very good tourney, and a bunch of better than 200 RPI Ws, with most preferably scheduled at home. Only play the toughies, if possible, on nuetral courts. Give yourself 3-4 games that are likely resume builders. ...."
Also, @ DaCoach, I disagree. If you want to figure out why those teams were seeded like that, look at how many sub-250 teams they played. How did UT get a 9 when we got an 11? Why were we seeded 2.5 lines lower than the bracketologists had us? Why were Va Tech and Colorado snubbed? Just count the number of sub-250 opponents.
Saying that winning more games will help us is about as insightful as saying your odds of winning a game improve when you outscore the other team. While true, it's not exactly a revelation.
There was a straight line correlation between the number of sub-250 opponents (regardless of W/L record) among teams in the bottom at-large seed lines. I'm not saying we should schedule more Dukes, North Carolinas, or Ohio States. On the contrary, we should schedule less of them. Our powerhouse opponents should be in the 35-80 range. Higher win probability and in terms of RPI not much different than playing top 25 teams. But our cupcakes should be in the 150-225 range, not the 245-345 range. If you want to see masterful non-con scheduling, look at Villanova, Tennessee, or Georgetown. It's brilliant. And while we complain about how much it costs to bring in a RPI 160 team instead of a RPU 320 team, let me remind everyone that we have the second-largest basketball budget in the NCAA.
Plain and simple, our scheduling sucks, and it nearly cost us a tourney bid this year. The idea that you can offset 6 awful crapcakes with 4 games against ranked teams is simply incorrect. Play better cupcakes and lesser top-100 teams and not only will our win total and RPI go up, so will are SOS.
Oh, and the reason non-con SOS is so important is because the committee knows it's the one thing a team can control. It's the one place Marquette, Virginia Tech, Virginia Commonwealth, and Missouri State are all equal. Get a top-20 non-con SOS along with the other measureables and our average seeding will improve vastly. We have to prove two things, that we can win out of conference and that we aren't ducking teams. This year, Va Tech and Colorado thought they were in, but weak non-con SOS's kept them out. It had us in the last 6 in. Improved scheduling would fix that. Proper scheduling could have easily had us going into the tourney with a 22-12 record, a top-20 non-con SOS, and a top-10 overall SOS, which probably would have earned us a 5 or 6 seed.
nvm
Quote from: houwarrior on April 25, 2011, 11:23:47 PM
No one will argue with your repetitive point that we should try to win the games we play, and that winning helps. Its an excellent point, and one that was needed to be made. Your hypothetical extreme does not coincide withe ideal scheduling formula I noted, so we wont digress there.
If i can glean one point you make is that you are happy with the weaker p Jam field. I too can accept that, but only if we tighten/toughen the Rpi of the other voluntary games, as in Brewcity's point, and as my above concurring post references.
The Centenarys of the schedule need to go.
We seem to differ on whether it helps to fatten up on sub 300 RPi teams, especially as to the degree/amount of those games. Dont presume that means I support a bunch of top 25 away games...but there are literally hundreds of teams to play/voluntarily schedule between such extremes(see my ideal--above, and again, below....).
....."The ideal body of pre conference work includes a decent to very good tourney, and a bunch of better than 200 RPI Ws, with most preferably scheduled at home. Only play the toughies, if possible, on nuetral courts. Give yourself 3-4 games that are likely resume builders. ...."
I think we differ on whether anybody is going to be lulled into thinking we're a better team simply because we beat a team ranked 175th in the RPI instead of one ranked 300th.
My view is that if we play well in conference, it won't matter who our non-conference opponents were--just like it didn't matter for Cincinnati this year.
And this wasn't an isolated case. Go back and look at 2010. Louisville did exactly what you propose--no non-conference opponents with an SOS over 300, only three above 250. (and one more at 250). Their SOS was ranked 7th.
MU played 4 opponents worse than 300, 6 worse than 250. Our SOS was ranked 40th
MU and UL both finished in a tie for 5th place with an 11-7 record.
Despite our significantly easier non-conference schedule, and UL's approach to schedule more "resume builders" in 2010--we wound up with the 6 seed. They got a 9 seed.
So when I suggest that we don't have to worry about "beefing up" the five worst teams on our schedule, I'm not doing so out of some idle disregard for the marginal improvement in SOS. I'm doing so based on observed history.
I just can't see why so many people matter-of-factly state that we HAVE to improve the schedule or we'll somehow be harmed with respect to our tournament chances. I don't see it, and I've got examples (MU '10, UL '10, UC '11) to support my argument.
As I see it, strengthening the cupcakes offers zero tangible added benefit, at the increased risk of an additional loss which WILL have a negative effect on our seed.
So you're saying that nobody with any basketball sense pays attention to a stupid system like RPI which punishes playing lower level cupcakes. I concurr.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 26, 2011, 12:18:02 AM
you want to see masterful non-con scheduling, look at Villanova, Tennessee, or Georgetown. It's brilliant.
Only if you win.
Look at Syracuse schedule in 2007. Seems to fit your definition of masterful.
Not a single non-conference opponent ranked worse than 173. None better than 40th.
6 non-conference games to teams between 40 and 100. 7 more between 100 and 175. Couple that with a 10-6 Big East record.
Recipe for a high seed, right?
Well, those 3 non-conference losses probably cost Syracuse a bid.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 26, 2011, 12:18:02 AM
Plain and simple, our scheduling sucks, and it nearly cost us a tourney bid this year. The idea that you can offset 6 awful crapcakes with 4 games against ranked teams is simply incorrect. Play better cupcakes and lesser top-100 teams and not only will our win total and RPI go up, so will are SOS.
I agree on fewer top 100 teams--we don't have to load up on non-conference opponents. Since we're going to play Wisconsin every year, and looks like we'll be in the BE/SEC challenge for the foreseeable future and an exempt tournament, that should be it.
I disagree on the second--too many examples that run counter (MU vs. UL last year, UC compared to MU this year) to conclude that the committee pays much attention to the five worst teams on the non-conference schedule.
Quote from: houwarrior on April 24, 2011, 11:31:32 PM
Drake, Drexel, Marquette, Mississippi, Norfolk State, Texas Christian, Virginia, Winthrop
TCU? Another Big East team in non-conference tournament? How does that work?
Quote from: sixstrings03 on April 27, 2011, 08:33:52 AM
TCU? Another Big East team in non-conference tournament? How does that work?
TCU is not joining the BE until the 2012-2013 Acadmic Year.
Quote from: MUMac on April 27, 2011, 08:45:21 AM
TCU is not joining the BE until the 2012-2013 Acadmic Year.
got it - thanks! Was hoping there was some kind of change going on... my Perfect World consists of an annual all-Jesuit BBall early-season tourney. Maybe someday....
Quote from: sixstrings03 on April 27, 2011, 08:48:01 AM
got it - thanks! Was hoping there was some kind of change going on... my Perfect World consists of an annual all-Jesuit BBall early-season tourney. Maybe someday....
YES! I've been saying that for years. MU, G-town, Xavier, Gonzaga, Boston College, Loyola-Chicago, Detroit, Loyola-Marymount, Seattle U, Canisius.
It's got plenty of decent teams and would be well-attended. Have different schools in the tourney host it each year.
Quote from: Stuckin1977 on April 27, 2011, 09:33:14 AM
YES! I've been saying that for years. MU, G-town, Xavier, Gonzaga, Boston College, Loyola-Chicago, Detroit, Loyola-Marymount, Seattle U, Canisius.
It's got plenty of decent teams and would be well-attended. Have different schools in the tourney host it each year.
also Saint Joe's, Holy Cross, Fordham, SLU.... Really a mini-NCAA tourney; High-Majors to lower-level programs. Follow me on this one: The concern is that, if MU played Georgetown (for example), we would have an extra conference game and corrupt any BEast rankings. Two workarounds:
1) Don't count the pre-conference game towards the conference schedule (in the GU/MU example, an MU win counts as non-conference on the BEast record)
2) In the event GU/MU play in the early-season tourney (sticking with the same example), both teams would sign up for having that count toward their conference record, and cancel the regularly-scheduled game later on.
- A few concerns on this are sure to be revenue from home games and TV airing rights, so #1 would seem maybe a bit more realistic
It would be a great opportunity year in and year out to play quality teams and coaches, and would elevate the play of many of our Jesuit brethren.
I'd imagine an "every year" tourney with teams from all over the USA would help recruiting as well. More playing/games televised in your home town and region
Definitely scenario #1. Good call on those 4 other schools.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 26, 2011, 07:45:25 PMOnly if you win.
Look at Syracuse schedule in 2007. Seems to fit your definition of masterful.
Not a single non-conference opponent ranked worse than 173. None better than 40th.
6 non-conference games to teams between 40 and 100. 7 more between 100 and 175. Couple that with a 10-6 Big East record.
Recipe for a high seed, right?
Well, those 3 non-conference losses probably cost Syracuse a bid.
Beg to differ. First of all, because your facts are wrong.
None worse than 173? How about...
186 Northeastern
210 UTEP
243 Canisius
261 Colgate
277 St. Bonaventure
281 St. Francis (NY)
Now Northeastern is fine, UTEP isn't bad, but that's four teams with sub-240 RPI ratings. These all hurt your final RPI and SOS. But that's not the real reason Syracuse missed the tournament.
Syracuse was cost a bid because they didn't have enough quality wins. Their non-conference and conference schedules, taken individually, were okay. But Georgetown was their only really big win. And with three quality wins (G'Town, Villanova, Marquette) and two bad losses (St. John's, Wichita State) they simply didn't have the overall resume.
The thing is, you can offset bad losses if you have a quality non-conference schedule. Look at Tennessee. Two seed-lines higher than us despite three bad losses, including one sub-200 loss. Only if you win? Clearly their performance and seeding proves otherwise. And they had just as many losses (14) as we did with one less win. There has to be a reason they were seeded higher. Was it their work in conference? Can't be, because they had a .500 record in an inferior conference. The only thing left is the non-conference schedule, where they suffered a bad loss (Charlotte) and had a mediocre 10-5 record that included three losses (USC, Charleston, Charlotte) that were worse than our worst non-con loss (Gonzaga). The reason they were seeded ahead of us is because they played a bold non-conference schedule with only three teams having a sub-200 RPI and zero that had a sub-300 RPI.
Or Villanova, seeded higher than us despite an identical conference record and limping into the tournament. But they only played one sub-300 team and two others that were sub-200. And zero top-25 RPI non-conference opponents.
And Georgetown...all I can say is wow. One sub-200 opponent and only two top-25, but both were mid-majors. You don't have to go powerhouse in your non-conference opponents. Oh, and they finished with the #1 SOS in the country.
To get a truly elite SOS, you need to offset every sub-200 opponent with a top-50 opponent. So unless we're willing to play half our non-conference against top-50 teams, we can't schedule half our non-conference against sub-200 teams. Play against two or three sub-200s, two or three top-50s (but try to avoid top 10s, high loss probability) and bolster the rest with teams in the 100-200 range that should be beatable but aren't disastrous if you lose. Aim for potential mid and low-major conference champs that may be dangerous, but will give a nice RPI boost because of a good overall record and potentially add to the number of tourney teams you beat at the end of the year, and if you lose, they are still possibly tourney teams (Oakland, Belmont, Wichita State, Iona).
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 27, 2011, 02:58:22 PM
Beg to differ. First of all, because your facts are wrong.
None worse than 173? How about...
186 Northeastern
210 UTEP
243 Canisius
261 Colgate
277 St. Bonaventure
281 St. Francis (NY)
http://realtimerpi.com/2007-2008/rpi_164_Men.html (http://realtimerpi.com/2007-2008/rpi_164_Men.html)
64 Siena
50 St. Joseph
172 Fordham
46 Ohio State (LOSS)
122 Washington
41 UMass (LOSS)
158 Tulane
127 Virginia
74 Rhode Island (LOSS)
170 Colgate
173 Northeastern
This seems to be the "masterful" non-conference schedule you seek. No truly difficult teams. None worse than 173.
It did not result in an NCAA bid for the Orange.
If they had gone undefeated with an easier schedule, would they have received an NCAA bid? I don't know. What is certain is that DID schedule exactly as you suggested.
Quote from: Marquette84 on April 27, 2011, 04:32:12 PM
http://realtimerpi.com/2007-2008/rpi_164_Men.html (http://realtimerpi.com/2007-2008/rpi_164_Men.html)
64 Siena
50 St. Joseph
172 Fordham
46 Ohio State (LOSS)
122 Washington
41 UMass (LOSS)
158 Tulane
127 Virginia
74 Rhode Island (LOSS)
170 Colgate
173 Northeastern
This seems to be the "masterful" non-conference schedule you seek. No truly difficult teams. None worse than 173.
It did not result in an NCAA bid for the Orange.
If they had gone undefeated with an easier schedule, would they have received an NCAA bid? I don't know. What is certain is that DID schedule exactly as you suggested.
That's not 2007 Syracuse, as you said, that's 2008. The non-con occurred in 2007, but year is usually dictated not by the start, but by the year in which the tournament occurs. Regardless, semantics. That Syracuse team went 9-9 in conference play (19-13 overall) and again, they didn't have enough quality wins. Their only quality wins were Georgetown and Marquette while they had two bad losses to South Florida and Cincinnati.
The non-conference schedule in 2008 was fine (and they clearly learned from their 2007 snub). The problem was a .500 conference record and not enough quality wins to offset their bad losses, not their non-con scheduling.
Quote from: Stuckin1977 on April 27, 2011, 09:33:14 AMYES! I've been saying that for years. MU, G-town, Xavier, Gonzaga, Boston College, Loyola-Chicago, Detroit, Loyola-Marymount, Seattle U, Canisius.
It's got plenty of decent teams and would be well-attended. Have different schools in the tourney host it each year.
As was pointed out, the problem would be same-conference teams playing. NCAA rules require those games to count as part of the conference schedule, which wouldn't go over well with the Big East or any of the conferences. I think the best bet would be to invite 4-8 Jesuit schools from different conferences. So you could have a pool of teams and invite one from each conference.
Atlantic 10: Xavier, St. Louis, St. Joseph's, Fordham
ACC: Boston College
Big East: Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova
Independent: Seattle
Horizon: Detroit, Loyola-Chicago
MAAC: Fairfield, St. Peter's, Canisius, Loyola-Maryland,
Missouri Valley: Creighton
Patriot League: Holy Cross
West Coast: Gonzaga, San Francisco, Loyola Marymount, Santa Clara
The only problem is that while you have multiple teams to draw from in the A-10, Big East, Horizon, MAAC, and West Coast, that's only a rotation of 5 conferences, while needing three of BC, Seattle, Creighton, and Holy Cross. So somehow you need more teams to rotate in.
How about if they invited some NAIA or NCAA DII teams? It works for the Maui Invitational, which Chaminade plays in every year. Loyola-New Orleans and Spring Hill both play in the NAIA, while Regis and Le Moyne could represent DII. It'd make for 2-4 teams playing true cupcakes a year, but if the NCAA counted Michigan State's win over Chaminade this year, why not include a Marquette win over Le Moyne (or Georgetown loss to Spring Hill ;D )?
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 26, 2011, 12:18:02 AM
Also, @ DaCoach, I disagree. If you want to figure out why those teams were seeded like that, look at how many sub-250 teams they played. How did UT get a 9 when we got an 11? Why were we seeded 2.5 lines lower than the bracketologists had us? Why were Va Tech and Colorado snubbed? Just count the number of sub-250 opponents.
Saying that winning more games will help us is about as insightful as saying your odds of winning a game improve when you outscore the other team. While true, it's not exactly a revelation.
There was a straight line correlation between the number of sub-250 opponents (regardless of W/L record) among teams in the bottom at-large seed lines. I'm not saying we should schedule more Dukes, North Carolinas, or Ohio States. On the contrary, we should schedule less of them. Our powerhouse opponents should be in the 35-80 range. Higher win probability and in terms of RPI not much different than playing top 25 teams. But our cupcakes should be in the 150-225 range, not the 245-345 range. If you want to see masterful non-con scheduling, look at Villanova, Tennessee, or Georgetown. It's brilliant. And while we complain about how much it costs to bring in a RPI 160 team instead of a RPU 320 team, let me remind everyone that we have the second-largest basketball budget in the NCAA.
Plain and simple, our scheduling sucks, and it nearly cost us a tourney bid this year. The idea that you can offset 6 awful crapcakes with 4 games against ranked teams is simply incorrect. Play better cupcakes and lesser top-100 teams and not only will our win total and RPI go up, so will are SOS.
Do you really think we can schedule 4-6 prior to season and have a good take on everyone else's RPI? With 14 losses, the best we could have hoped for was a #10. That's reality, not fantasy. Clearly, as the numbers prove, SOS has verry little to do when you have double digit losses. You may believe that other teams are just waiting to schedule us, but it's a free market. Scheduling #200s as opposed to #300s is a crap shot depending on how other teams season plays out. We win games and we get ranked high. We lose 14 games and we're lucky to be in the tourney. And it has nothing to do with our non-conf schedule.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 27, 2011, 05:43:16 PM
As was pointed out, the problem would be same-conference teams playing. NCAA rules require those games to count as part of the conference schedule, which wouldn't go over well with the Big East or any of the conferences. I think the best bet would be to invite 4-8 Jesuit schools from different conferences. So you could have a pool of teams and invite one from each conference.
Atlantic 10: Xavier, St. Louis, St. Joseph's, Fordham
ACC: Boston College
Big East: Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova
Independent: Seattle
Horizon: Detroit, Loyola-Chicago
MAAC: Fairfield, St. Peter's, Canisius, Loyola-Maryland,
Missouri Valley: Creighton
Patriot League: Holy Cross
West Coast: Gonzaga, San Francisco, Loyola Marymount, Santa Clara
The only problem is that while you have multiple teams to draw from in the A-10, Big East, Horizon, MAAC, and West Coast, that's only a rotation of 5 conferences, while needing three of BC, Seattle, Creighton, and Holy Cross. So somehow you need more teams to rotate in.
How about if they invited some NAIA or NCAA DII teams? It works for the Maui Invitational, which Chaminade plays in every year. Loyola-New Orleans and Spring Hill both play in the NAIA, while Regis and Le Moyne could represent DII. It'd make for 2-4 teams playing true cupcakes a year, but if the NCAA counted Michigan State's win over Chaminade this year, why not include a Marquette win over Le Moyne (or Georgetown loss to Spring Hill ;D )?
It's a good idea. Didn't realize it was an NCAA-level rule that those games would have to count toward conference records... doesn't the Big East determine it's own system for ordering teams (in the event of tie breakers at least)?
I'll take your word for it - Seems a reasonable request (should the schools think it a priority) to have this amended. What is the worst-cast scenario?
Quote from: DaCoach on April 27, 2011, 11:46:56 PMDo you really think we can schedule 4-6 prior to season and have a good take on everyone else's RPI? With 14 losses, the best we could have hoped for was a #10. That's reality, not fantasy. Clearly, as the numbers prove, SOS has verry little to do when you have double digit losses. You may believe that other teams are just waiting to schedule us, but it's a free market. Scheduling #200s as opposed to #300s is a crap shot depending on how other teams season plays out. We win games and we get ranked high. We lose 14 games and we're lucky to be in the tourney. And it has nothing to do with our non-conf schedule.
If it's best case, why did Tennessee get a 9-seed?
And that's why you have to craft your non-con schedule better, so you don't have 4 losses. All of those were to ranked teams that we simply weren't ready for at the time. And sandwiching those around sub-300 teams didn't prepare us any better. You think you can't predict it? Please. That's simple ignorance. No, you can't predict a team's RPI to the number, but you can predict it within about 40-50 spots. Look at a team historically, track them over the past five years. If they are consistently in the 180-220 range, it's a good bet that the worst you'll end up with is a 230 or so. Teams like Centenary and Longwood peak in the 290s. You simply know that they are going to suck, and that they are going to be an RPI drain. In addition, you look at teams by league. Pretty much any SWAC team is going to be 250 or worse, unless they win the title, which won't get them much higher than that anyway. Either target perennial low-major contenders or mid-major bottom feeders. It isn't by accident that Georgetown has a top-10 in the nation schedule pretty much every year despite playing the same conference schedule we do.
Scheduling can be fixed, and to act as though it is simply luck is foolish. What, do you think TAMU-CC or Prairie View were ever going to compete for their conference title and a possible NCAA automatic berth? Of course not. They knew that and so did we when we scheduled them. Scheduling is the most important factor a team can control in creating their tournament resume. We need wins, which come with not scheduling so many top-25 caliber teams, and we need a high RPI, which comes with scheduling higher-level cupcakes. Both of which can be achieved with better scheduling, and believe me, the NCAA knows teams schedule whom they choose, and that goes a long way in determining where they are seeded come March and if a team even gets into the tourney in the first place.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 28, 2011, 06:24:42 AM
If it's best case, why did Tennessee get a 9-seed?
And that's why you have to craft your non-con schedule better, so you don't have 4 losses. All of those were to ranked teams that we simply weren't ready for at the time. And sandwiching those around sub-300 teams didn't prepare us any better. You think you can't predict it? Please. That's simple ignorance. No, you can't predict a team's RPI to the number, but you can predict it within about 40-50 spots. Look at a team historically, track them over the past five years. If they are consistently in the 180-220 range, it's a good bet that the worst you'll end up with is a 230 or so. Teams like Centenary and Longwood peak in the 290s. You simply know that they are going to suck, and that they are going to be an RPI drain. In addition, you look at teams by league. Pretty much any SWAC team is going to be 250 or worse, unless they win the title, which won't get them much higher than that anyway. Either target perennial low-major contenders or mid-major bottom feeders. It isn't by accident that Georgetown has a top-10 in the nation schedule pretty much every year despite playing the same conference schedule we do.
Scheduling can be fixed, and to act as though it is simply luck is foolish. What, do you think TAMU-CC or Prairie View were ever going to compete for their conference title and a possible NCAA automatic berth? Of course not. They knew that and so did we when we scheduled them. Scheduling is the most important factor a team can control in creating their tournament resume. We need wins, which come with not scheduling so many top-25 caliber teams, and we need a high RPI, which comes with scheduling higher-level cupcakes. Both of which can be achieved with better scheduling, and believe me, the NCAA knows teams schedule whom they choose, and that goes a long way in determining where they are seeded come March and if a team even gets into the tourney in the first place.
I agree.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 27, 2011, 05:43:16 PM
As was pointed out, the problem would be same-conference teams playing. NCAA rules require those games to count as part of the conference schedule, which wouldn't go over well with the Big East or any of the conferences. I think the best bet would be to invite 4-8 Jesuit schools from different conferences. So you could have a pool of teams and invite one from each conference.
Atlantic 10: Xavier, St. Louis, St. Joseph's, Fordham
ACC: Boston College
Big East: Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova
Independent: Seattle
Horizon: Detroit, Loyola-Chicago
MAAC: Fairfield, St. Peter's, Canisius, Loyola-Maryland,
Missouri Valley: Creighton
Patriot League: Holy Cross
West Coast: Gonzaga, San Francisco, Loyola Marymount, Santa Clara
The only problem is that while you have multiple teams to draw from in the A-10, Big East, Horizon, MAAC, and West Coast, that's only a rotation of 5 conferences, while needing three of BC, Seattle, Creighton, and Holy Cross. So somehow you need more teams to rotate in.
How about if they invited some NAIA or NCAA DII teams? It works for the Maui Invitational, which Chaminade plays in every year. Loyola-New Orleans and Spring Hill both play in the NAIA, while Regis and Le Moyne could represent DII. It'd make for 2-4 teams playing true cupcakes a year, but if the NCAA counted Michigan State's win over Chaminade this year, why not include a Marquette win over Le Moyne (or Georgetown loss to Spring Hill ;D )?
'Nova isn't Jesuit. But if they were, that would create a lot more problems for this type of tourney. I guess they'd just have to rotate which schools can enter from each conference.
Or how about if MU and G-town are in the finals, G-town forfeits automatically ;D
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 27, 2011, 05:13:23 PM
That's not 2007 Syracuse, as you said, that's 2008. The non-con occurred in 2007, but year is usually dictated not by the start, but by the year in which the tournament occurs. Regardless, semantics. That Syracuse team went 9-9 in conference play (19-13 overall) and again, they didn't have enough quality wins. Their only quality wins were Georgetown and Marquette while they had two bad losses to South Florida and Cincinnati.
The non-conference schedule in 2008 was fine (and they clearly learned from their 2007 snub). The problem was a .500 conference record and not enough quality wins to offset their bad losses, not their non-con scheduling.
Fair enough on the year indication.
However, I question what lesson they learned from their 2007 snub. Seems to me that the lesson is that beefing up the bottom end of the non-conference schedule is irrelevant. It simply won't overcome a basic loss of wins.
That non-conference schedule i highlighted for Syracuse was exactly the type of masterful scheduling you advocate, and it simply wasn't enough to get Syracuse into the tournament that year despite a .500 Big East record.
We played a worse schedule (per the RPI/SOS rank) this year, and still got into the tourney (as did UConn and Villanova) with the same .500 record.
Therefore, I'm of the opinion that improving the strength of the bottom five teams on the schedule does not result in a tournament bid. Syracuse played all decent teams, zero terrible teams and didn't get a bid. We played a bunch of terrible teams, a handful of good teams (but lost them all) and barely snuck in with a .500 record. Cincinnati played a terrible non-conference schedule, won them all, played the Big East only slightly better than we did, and received a relatively high seed.
I simply don't see that efforts to engineer the bottom end of the non-conference schedule to optimize for SOS has any predictable result.
Stated differently, I don't think the committee puts a whole lot of weight into the decision to schedule and relative performance against #181 Canisius versus #342 Centenary--a tournament-worthy team should beat them both, period.
The determination of which teams get off the bubble, and where teams are seeded, will be based on performance against the better team--and it doesn't seem to matter if you play 17 ranked opponents or only 2 or three--perform well in those games and you get a high seed--perform poorly, and you don't get a bid.
My contention is that it's all about stacking the deck as much in your favor as possible. Yes, that Syracuse team missed the Dance, but this is a different year. The Big East got 11 teams in a field of 68. Would 'Cuse in 08 have earned a bid in a 68-team field? We can't say for certain, but it's probably likely.
Before this year, SC members stated they'd be looking more closely at non-con schedules and how teams were scheduling. I did a piece for CS that showed a direct correlation between the number of sub-200 teams on a team's schedule (win or lose) and their seed, while comparing all the 14-loss teams, Big East and Big Ten "bubbleish" teams, others with similar profiles and seeds to MU, and the first few teams out. The seeding numbers made a straight line in regards to the number of sub-200 non-con opponents, from teams like Tennessee and Michigan down to Colorado and Virginia Tech.
It's all about stacking the deck as much as possible in your favor. Play and succeed in a tough conference? As long as we stay over .500 in the Big East, that will give us enough quality wins to get in. Get enough non-con wins? Play 10 opponents that are in the 100-225 range, no more than 2 away from home (assuming 1 neutral) and we should get at least 9 wins. Then play 3 top 100 teams, preferably in the 26-50 range with no more than 1 true road game. That should get at least 1 more win most years, taking us to 20 wins minimum going into the Big East tourney. And finally, it will result in a tough non-con and a likely top-30 RPI and SOS. It's the recipe for at worst a 6-seed pretty much every year.
You can junk up on crap like Cincy, but if they lost 2-3 non-con games and had our conference record they'd have been on the verge of missing the tournament. A strong non-con only requires a majority of middling foes and a high end of middle-of-the-pack tourney teams. My plan also likely results in more wins thanks to fewer Dukes, and Vanderbilts on our schedule and more Gonzagas and NC States (let's face it, we should have beat Gonzaga). And a few more UW-GBs and Bucknells, too.
The RPI and SOS would both get a big boost from this method of scheduling. And clearly, the SC uses these numbers for selection and seeding. So if there's not much difference between 181 and 343 at home, why not play 181? We will still get the win, and our resume will be improved because if it.