Pulled this out of Buzz's radio show comments as I thought it was worth its own thread.
-------------------------------------------------
Listen here:
http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/common/page.php?pt=av_marquettebball&id=431#
Buzz said the average RPI of our losses this year has been 34.
Buzz said they were intentional in their November and December schedule (meaning it was hard). Does that matter to the committee? Buzz said they will find out. Reading between the lines, if MU misses the tourney Buzz seems to be saying that next year we will schedule a bunch of 300 RPI teams (hello Centenary and goodbye tOSU) and run up the win/loss record.
Thoughts?
Well were still under contract with OSU and Arizona St so next year wont look too different then this years schedule.
the trick is to be in the middle, not top heavy losses and not bottom feeder wins, if all those teams were top 100 instead of 34 and we won most of those we would be in much better shape. He probably thought we would be better this year then we ended up being when they were doing the scheduling ;)
Quote from: LAMUfan on February 27, 2014, 11:26:49 AM
the trick is to be in the middle, not top heavy losses and not bottom feeder wins, if all those teams were top 100 instead of 34 and we won most of those we would be in much better shape. He probably thought we would be better this year then we ended up being when they were doing the scheduling ;)
The 100 to 150 RPI teams are the hardest to schedule. Everyone wants them so they are in great demand. And they will probably want a home and home as well (see Green Bay in past years).
So it is easier said than done.
Plus the scheduled teams down in Orlando are very solid. Next year's non-con will be challenging.
Quote from: jsglow on February 27, 2014, 11:36:17 AM
Plus the scheduled teams down in Orlando are very solid. Next year's non-con will be challenging.
Thats right. Next years tourney is absolutely loaded.
That'd be a tough sell to season ticket holders .. admittedly spoiled with the Old Big East .. MU lost a lot of "must see' games.
In terms of product, it's helpful to have the AZs and Ohio States come in to supplement the loss of no Louisville, no UConn, no Syracuse, no Notre Dame, etc.
Quote from: Heisenberg on February 27, 2014, 11:14:06 AM
Reading between the lines, if MU misses the tourney Buzz seems to be saying that next year we will schedule a bunch of 300 RPI teams (hello Centenary and goodbye tOSU) and run up the win/loss record.
I hope you're wrong here. 300+ RPI teams are killing MU's RPI this year. Play and beat mediocre teams rather than playing horrific teams. It will make a huge difference in RPI and SOS, whether MU wins their tough games or not.
You aren't going to get rewarded for having a tough schedule unless you win a game or two out of that schedule. If Buzz doesn't think his team can beat those good teams when schedule cupcakes, but if he does then keep scheduling and win a couple of them.
Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on February 27, 2014, 11:42:08 AM
I hope you're wrong here. 300+ RPI teams are killing MU's RPI this year. Play and beat mediocre teams rather than playing horrific teams. It will make a huge difference in RPI and SOS, whether MU wins their tough games or not.
If we finish the season 19-12 with a average RPI loss of 34 and playing in the NIT what should the takeaway be for the non-conference schedule? Schedule more top 50 teams?
Quote from: Heisenberg on February 27, 2014, 11:44:43 AM
If we finish the season 19-12 with a average RPI loss of 34 and playing in the NIT what should the takeaway be for the non-conference schedule? Schedule more top 50 teams?
Have a better team. I'm not looking it up, but while this year was probably a bit tougher, I would say it is fairly similar to past years. Team just wasnt as good this year.
Quote from: Heisenberg on February 27, 2014, 11:14:06 AM
Pulled this out of Buzz's radio show comments as I thought it was worth its own thread.
-------------------------------------------------
Listen here:
http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/common/page.php?pt=av_marquettebball&id=431#
Buzz said the average RPI of our losses this year has been 34.
Buzz said they were intentional in their November and December schedule (meaning it was hard). Does that matter to the committee? Buzz said they will find out. Reading between the lines, if MU misses the tourney Buzz seems to be saying that next year we will schedule a bunch of 300 RPI teams (hello Centenary and goodbye tOSU) and run up the win/loss record.
Thoughts?
I don't understand his logic (or maybe your interpretation of what he said) on scheduling a bunch of 300 RPI teams. Yes, you can improve your RPI that way, but you will hurt your SOS and the committee pays attention to that. I don't disagree with him that our losses are to teams ranked highly in the RPI. The visual problem is that of our SOS, especially compared to other bubble teams, isn't that great. We can argue about how the SOS is calculated in the RPI vs how a Sagarin or Pom does it, but that SOS isn't doing us any favors right now.
When consider the following SOS of some other teams
MU 65 (it will be stronger in the next two weeks)
Nebraska 26
Tennessee 19
Minnesota 6
Baylor 9
Cal 34
Boise State 50
Richmond 58
Florida State 34
St. John's 33
Providence 55
Maryland 10
Oregon 45
Stanford 37
I'm not sure how adding more 300 teams next year is going to improve that situation. There have been high RPI teams left out of the NCAA tournament before, and the #1 reason given by the committee is that they didn't play a tough schedule. More importantly, win some of these games against OSU (not a great team), New Mexico, SDSU, Nova, Creighton, etc and it goes away.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 27, 2014, 11:48:51 AM
Have a better team. I'm not looking it up, but while this year was probably a bit tougher, I would say it is fairly similar to past years. Team just wasnt as good this year.
Agree 100 percent!! Take care of business and we don't have to worry about any of this crap. While I think having somewhat of a plan for scheduling is important, it comes down to wins and losses. Handle your business and we wouldn't have to speculate.
As others have stated, the problem with our schedule is that the composite rankings don't do it justice because the buy games were way too soft. If you play the number 1 team and the number 301 team your average schedule strength is 151. If you play the 141 team and the 161 team your average schedule strength is 151. It's a lot harder to go 2-0 in the first scenario than the second.
Now, to be fair, we had some trouble with the terrible teams early and we may very well have lost had we been playing teams around 150 instead on UNH, for example.
Bottom line is win your share. If we had won two more games (say ASU and at Xavier) and were sitting at 18-9 and 9-5 we probably wouldn't be complaining about the schedule.
If you listen to IWB's recent podcast, Broecker talks about scheduling, which provides better context for the buy games. They aren't trying to schedule 300+ teams, but they are very limited in terms of dates available, so if they have someone willing to play a buy game, they almost have to take it no matter the RPI.
Also made the point that it shouldn't matter to the committee -- a buy game against a 150 RPI or a 300 RPI is an expected win either way, but that's a separate issue.
300 RPI teams was me, not Buzz. It was intended as a device to explain, not a literal comment.
Let me restate what Buzz said (or at least what I think he said) ...
We played a tough nonconference schedule and even though we have 11 losses the average RPI of these losses was 34. How will the committee view it?
If Buzz/AD conclude that they were hurt because the committee sees "too many losses" (or "not enough wins) then they will have to look at making the nonconference schedule easier (here is when I used the device of "300 RPI"). If they believe the committee took into account all the good teams they lost too, then they will come to a different conclusion.
Here the question ...
Assuming we lose one more game during the regular season and finish 19-12.
Now assume we played the exact same schedule EXCEPT swap home games with 300 RPI teams (or use "buy games we should easily win") instead of losses against AZ st, tOSU and New Mexico. That schedule has a worse RPI but is 22 - 9.
Which is better for getting into the tourney? That is the question Buzz is trying to answer.
Quote from: murara1994 on February 27, 2014, 12:22:27 PM
If you listen to IWB's recent podcast, Broecker talks about scheduling, which provides better context for the buy games. They aren't trying to schedule 300+ teams, but they are very limited in terms of dates available, so if they have someone willing to play a buy game, they almost have to take it no matter the RPI.
Also made the point that it shouldn't matter to the committee -- a buy game against a 150 RPI or a 300 RPI is an expected win either way, but that's a separate issue.
Yes, both 150RPI and 300RPI are expected wins, but the chance of losing to Grambling is 0%. A chance of losing to Nevada (the current 151st ranked team), is a lot higher. Just for giggles, DePaul is ranked 142...we had a hell of a time with them a few days ago. Butler is 148, we already lost to them once this year. So, if they really think it shouldn't matter to the committee, that seems like wishful thinking.
Some of the other programs currently worse than 150
Georgia Tech
Charlotte
Miami (OH)
Colorado State
Auburn
Boston College (just beat Syracuse)
Etc, etc. Dates, of course make it challenging. Plus the fact that every other power school is going after the same mid level RPI teams...supply and demand. Also drives up the "buy" portion of those games as a result. No one said it is easy. Playing 300 RPI teams or DII teams isn't the answer either.
Don't get me wrong, the teams listed above are not "buy" programs and would never agree to a buy game, but my point is that a 150ish RPI team is a lot lot better than a 300 RPI team. We need to find teams that are going to finish in the top 2 or 3 of their conferences, which means they ratchet up wins, helps the RPI that willing to do buy games. Grambling doesn't fit that bill...I know its just one team, but it is a perception issue and sticks out as an easy target.
Quote from: Heisenberg on February 27, 2014, 12:28:27 PM
300 RPI teams was me, not Buzz. It was intended as a device to explain, not a literal comment.
Let me restate what Buzz said (or at least what I think he said) ...
We played a tough nonconference schedule and even though we have 11 losses the average RPI of these losses was 34. How will the committee view it?
If Buzz/AD conclude that they were hurt because the committee sees "too many losses" (or "not enough wins) then they will have to look at making the nonconference schedule easier (here is when I used the device of "300 RPI"). If they believe the committee took into account all the good teams they lost too, then they will come to a different conclusion.
Here the question ...
Assuming we lose one more game during the regular season and finish 19-12.
Now assume we played the exact same schedule EXCEPT swap home games with 300 RPI teams (or use "buy games we should easily win") instead of losses against AZ st, tOSU and New Mexico. That schedule has a worse RPI but is 22 - 9.
Which is better for getting into the tourney? That is the question Buzz is trying to answer.
based on the projections i see for teams like Pitt, etc, might as well schedule all the cupcakes possible and pile up the wins early. Schedule 2 tough non-cons (Wisc and whomever) and play in a good holiday tournament. where's the benefit of ASU, NMU, etc...?
that being said, had we won just ONE of those friggin games, we'd be in a much different situation overall i believe... at some point it's not enough to just lose to good teams, also have to win a few too...
Do you prefer the current model of scheduling or the old? Toss out this season, it is an outlier in many ways. Under Coach Crean, MU would play 2-3 tough teams, and/or a tournament, and schedule patsies for the rest. The argument was made that MU needed 18 home games to make a profit. Apparently, under the new payment plan, MU can be profitable with fewer home cupcakes. This year, MU has played a tough schedule. Unfortunately, MU lost its tough OOC games. So, this year it sucks. But, going forward, which model would you prefer?
Quote from: tower912 on February 27, 2014, 12:59:21 PM
Do you prefer the current model of scheduling or the old? Toss out this season, it is an outlier in many ways. Under Coach Crean, MU would play 2-3 tough teams, and/or a tournament, and schedule patsies for the rest. The argument was made that MU needed 18 home games to make a profit. Apparently, under the new payment plan, MU can be profitable with fewer home cupcakes. This year, MU has played a tough schedule. Unfortunately, MU lost its tough OOC games. So, this year it sucks. But, going forward, which model would you prefer?
Buzz would argue "the model that gives us the best chance of making the tourney."
Personally, I find it more enjoyable to watch us play a difficult schedule and struggle than to feast on cupcakes. I think it is beneficial for team development moving towards the conference season.
That being said....I want them to at least win one of their tough non-cons....preferably Bucky
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 27, 2014, 01:13:56 PM
Personally, I find it more enjoyable to watch us play a difficult schedule and struggle than to feast on cupcakes. I think it is beneficial for team development moving towards the conference season.
That being said....I want them to at least win one of their tough non-cons....preferably Bucky
As noted in other threads, this year has been a pretty good year for attendance and MUscoop traffic has never been higher. But this is not the question. The question is what schedule puts us in a better position to
make the tourney? Harder with less victories or easier with more victories.
Quote from: Heisenberg on February 27, 2014, 11:44:43 AM
If we finish the season 19-12 with a average RPI loss of 34 and playing in the NIT what should the takeaway be for the non-conference schedule? Schedule more top 50 teams?
No, the takeaway should be to not schedule the likes of Grambling, IUPUI, New Hampshire, Ball State and Samford. Obviously part of it is chance, luck, etc. But the bottom line is, if MU finishes 3-1, they'll probably have an RPI and SOS in the high 40's. If Grambling, IUPUI, New Hampshire, Ball State and Samford (or at least a few of them) had RPI's in the mid-200's instead of mid-300's, we'd likely have an RPI in the low 30's and a SOS in the teens. That team is not being left out on selection sunday.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 27, 2014, 01:13:56 PM
Personally, I find it more enjoyable to watch us play a difficult schedule and struggle than to feast on cupcakes. I think it is beneficial for team development moving towards the conference season.
That being said....I want them to at least win one of their tough non-cons....preferably Bucky
Playing the devils advocate, when you do this you also open yourself up to getting in a hole that's hard to get out of.
Even before the season I was worried that the tough non-cons might be a bit too tough while the buy games might have been a bit too soft. Of course everyone is shooting for that 200 RPI team at a reasonable buy price. I think when we were doing the scheduling, we thought we had the makings of a Top 10 team. Things didn't work out.
Next year necessitates some sacrifice. With another large crop of Freshmen AND the fact that Luke won't play until after December exams, I'd argue that we've already got a slate of tough non-cons. Bucky (H), tOSU (A), ASU (H) plus a great field in Orlando where 2 out of 3 would be a major accomplishment. I'd do my very best to schedule that ASU game in the slot prior to conference.
Perhaps buy games per se aren't the total answer. I wonder how things look in a 3-1 Green Bay contract or a 4-1 Loyola relationship? At least there's some interest.
Bottom line is this team has had plenty of opportunities to get a quality win and it has not happened. WIS, OSU,SDSU, Creighton twice, Nova, New Mex etc. Struck out every time. Every analyst I have heard discuss MU articulates that is the glaring weakness in MU's case for the NCAA bid. We can argue cupcakes all day, the reality is we are almost done with the regular season and we are scrambling to make an argument for inclusion in the tourney. IMO, hope we go 3-1 down the stretch and make it to Saturday night in NYC.
It is an interesting discussion, in the end. If your goal is to make the tourney, more wins seem to get you in regardless of the competition. A better record is a better record. You might not get the highest seed, but you will get in. If you don't think your team can win those tough non-con games (like MU this season), schedule the cupcakes and hope the team improves enough throughout the season to make noise in the tourney. Rather get in and have a chance than not make it.
I hardly think we can blame the committee if we miss the tournament this year.
It's difficult to play a worse slate of buy games than we did. Maybe subbing one or two of the challenging games for games we win would have been an improvement, if they were against Horizon-quality so they help RPI as much or more than losing to an elite team.
Losing to Ohio State, UW, etc. still didn't hurt our RPI. Beating Grambling will drop us seven places in the RPI rankings at the end of the year vs. scheduling a D2 team that wouldn't have "counted". It comes down to: 1) Not pretending we're in the poorhouse and scheduling the cheapest of the cheap buy games that kill RPI, and 2) actually winning one of the challenging games...they don't hurt RPI even with a loss, they really help when you win.
And as far as next year, @OSU, vs. UW, vs. ASU, and the Old Spice are already committed. With the Old Spice field, the elite part of the non-con is as good as this year. The non-committed part that can help us is not bringing in the worst of the worst buy game competition. With more television revenue and tournament shares than ever and attendance actually up from last year, there is no excuse to bring in half the SWAC again.
It's always a challenge. As others have said, we needed to win at least one or two of those tougher non-con games to make up for the fact that we had a softer BE this year (and haven't beaten Creighton or 'Nova either). Part of the difficulty was also that the only true home game we had against a quality opponent was Ohio State and we got whipped.
For the stats guys....is the Big East really 'softer' this year? Didn't I read somewhere that this combination is more highly ranked than if it still looked like last year?
I am totally fine with this year's schedule.
OSU
UW
SDSU
NM
Creighton x2
Nova x2
If we won two of the above games this year, had the same record in the other games +2 or 3 wins out of our last four, we would be in the tourney.
Any team that can't accomplished what I just described isn't good enough to be in the tournament. The problem isn't the schedule it's the quality of our team.
Quote from: MUSF on February 27, 2014, 03:38:47 PM
I am totally fine with this year's schedule.
OSU
UW
SDSU
NM
Creighton x2
Nova x2
If we won two of the above games this year, had the same record in the other games +2 or 3 wins out of our last four, we would be in the tourney.
Any team that can't accomplished what I just described isn't good enough to be in the tournament. The problem isn't the schedule it's the quality of our team.
Maybe. But they've still gotta fill the field with 68 teams.
if we played up to half our ability and maybe made 40% of our shots we should have beat ohio state and az state. i remember being at that ohio state game almost walking out with 7 minutes to go and giving the rest of my tix away. that was how disappointed i was...but then realized we just aren't that good. my fault for being too pumped, however, i believe next year and then the year after, we'll be much improved
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 27, 2014, 03:51:45 PM
Maybe. But they've still gotta fill the field with 68 teams.
Sure, but my overall point is still valid. It's not the schedule, it's the quality of the team.
MU's current schedule, and next year's schedule, provide ample opportunities to prove that the team is good enough to be in the NCAAs. We shouldn't build a schedule to give us the best chance to be one of the lucky few to sneak into the field of 68. We should build a schedule that gives us the most opportunities to prove that we are a tourney worthy team with just enough buy games to allow for confidence building and player/coach development early in the season. We have that balance now, IMO. We just haven't been good enough get quality wins.
Don't agree with Buzz on this. Schedule the toughest NC schedule you can. Forget about the 300 RPI cupcakes. If the team is good enough, the record will take care of itself. It also toughens the team quicker than playing cupcakes.
Quote from: MUSF on February 27, 2014, 04:11:47 PM
Sure, but my overall point is still valid. It's not the schedule, it's the quality of the team.
MU's current schedule, and next year's schedule, provide ample opportunities to prove that the team is good enough to be in the NCAAs. We shouldn't build a schedule to give us the best chance to be one of the lucky few to sneak into the field of 68. We should build a schedule that gives us the most opportunities to prove that we are a tourney worthy team with just enough buy games to allow for confidence building and player/coach development early in the season. We have that balance now, IMO. We just haven't been good enough get quality wins.
Can I ask why you shouldn't build a schedule to get us into the tourney, in your opinion? The conference season is set, no way to change that. Why would you not want to build the non-con around our team expectations and give us the best chance to get in?
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 27, 2014, 05:15:09 PM
Can I ask why you shouldn't build a schedule to get us into the tourney, in your opinion? The conference season is set, no way to change that. Why would you not want to build the non-con around our team expectations and give us the best chance to get in?
I'm not saying that you shouldn't build schedules to get us in the tourney. I'm saying you shouldn't build schedules expecting to be one of the last teams in the tourney. Like I said, the schedule should provide max opportunities for quality wins while still providing enough buy/expected win games to develop the team for success in conference. The balance of quality opponents to buy/expected win games might change slightly based on expectations, but that shouldn't be the sole focus.
Schedules start getting built a few years out. It's pretty hard to predict how good a team will be with all of the potential variables. Case in point, the expectations were pretty high for MU this season.
Quote from: MUSF on February 27, 2014, 05:35:20 PM
I'm not saying that you shouldn't build schedules to get us in the tourney. I'm saying you shouldn't build schedules expecting to be one of the last teams in the tourney. Like I said, the schedule should provide max opportunities for quality wins while still providing enough buy/expected win games to develop the team for success in conference. The balance of quality opponents to buy/expected win games might change slightly based on expectations, but that shouldn't be the sole focus.
Schedules start getting built a few years out. It's pretty hard to predict how good a team will be with all of the potential variables. Case in point, the expectations were pretty high for MU this season.
That's fair. I misinterpreted your last post, which is why I asked for clarification
Quote from: murara1994 on February 27, 2014, 12:22:27 PM
If you listen to IWB's recent podcast, Broecker talks about scheduling, which provides better context for the buy games. They aren't trying to schedule 300+ teams, but they are very limited in terms of dates available, so if they have someone willing to play a buy game, they almost have to take it no matter the RPI.
Also made the point that it shouldn't matter to the committee -- a buy game against a 150 RPI or a 300 RPI is an expected win either way, but that's a separate issue.
Lame excuses from Broecker. We have six wins with lower RPIs than Villanova's worst, six wins with lower RPIs than Georgetown's worst, and Xavier, Creighton, and Bucky all have only one win in the 300+ category to our five. That isn't bad luck, it's a terrible job scheduling. On him, unless someone decided that despite taking in more revenue than ever it was necessary to be cheap with our buy games and gave him limited budget.
Quote from: tower912 on February 27, 2014, 03:31:40 PM
For the stats guys....is the Big East really 'softer' this year? Didn't I read somewhere that this combination is more highly ranked than if it still looked like last year?
Vs the other conferences in each given year? Yes, weaker this year. Ultimately you have to grade the conference in a given year vs other conferences in that same year. In that regard, the Big East is softer this year vs other conferences this year as opposed to how the Big East has done in other years vs other conferences in those other years.
If Jake or anybody on the team had been able to shoot the ball early in the season we would have beat Ohio State and a few others and we wouldn't be having this discussion.