MUScoop

Hadn't really looked at it that closely until now...but MU has BY FAR the lowest non conference RPI(113) (no one else is even close really)of any team projected to get in the field. Kind of odd because their Non conference SOS has risen significantly lately(up to 190). I wonder what the committee is going to think of that??

For comparison's sake, the next closest non conference RPI to MU is Iowa st at 95..that's quite the gap.

Quote from: muguru on March 10, 2017, 10:17:05 PM
Hadn't really looked at it that closely until now...but MU has BY FAR the lowest non conference RPI(113) (no one else is even close really)of any team projected to get in the field. Kind of odd because their Non conference SOS has risen significantly lately(up to 190). I wonder what the committee is going to think of that??

Honest question. Has the ever been part of the selection criteria?

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 10, 2017, 10:18:43 PM
Honest question. Has the ever been part of the selection criteria?

I don't know if it has specifically been part of the equation...but every year you hear the committee say "who have you played and who have you beaten"?? And then qualified by the part of your schedule you can control...meaning non conference. That MAY hurt them a bit. I guess it depends on how much the committee wants to look at it. But then, you also(if your the committee), understand that Howard and Pitt were scheduled for MU. then again, by that criteria, Vanderbilt was too. I just happened to be looking at that column(non conf RPI) On warren Nolan, and that number for MU honestly stood out like a sore thumb unfortunately.

But hey our basketball office is doing a great job of scheduling.

Job 1.  Fill schedule of 31 allowed games :  F
Job 2.  A schedule conducive to making ncaas : F

Two F s for our basketball office

I guess we are making progress tho, it was even worse last year

Quote from: Mr. Sand-Knit on March 10, 2017, 10:32:26 PM
But hey our basketball office is doing a great job of scheduling.

Job 1.  Fill schedule of 31 allowed games :  F
Job 2.  A schedule conducive to making ncaas : F

Two F s for our basketball office

I guess we are making progress tho, it was even worse last year

But we're gonna make the NCAA tourney. So what's your point here?

Quote from: Mr. Sand-Knit on March 10, 2017, 10:32:26 PM
But hey our basketball office is doing a great job of scheduling.

Job 1.  Fill schedule of 31 allowed games :  F
Job 2.  A schedule conducive to making ncaas : F

Two F s for our basketball office

I guess we are making progress tho, it was even worse last year

When we make the NCAAs Sunday how does your analysis change?

Quote from: Mr. Sand-Knit on March 10, 2017, 10:32:26 PM
But hey our basketball office is doing a great job of scheduling.

Job 1.  Fill schedule of 31 allowed games :  F
Job 2.  A schedule conducive to making ncaas : F

Two F s for our basketball office

I guess we are making progress tho, it was even worse last year

I applaud our office for not chasing $$$ at the expense of our tournament chances. If they had scheduled another game it would have been against an RPI sinking cupcake.

Utah backed out of our agreed home and home. Not many options left to schedule. We made the right choice.

Quote from: Mr. Sand-Knit on March 10, 2017, 10:32:26 PM
But hey our basketball office is doing a great job of scheduling.

Job 1.  Fill schedule of 31 allowed games :  F
Job 2.  A schedule conducive to making ncaas : F

Two F s for our basketball office

I guess we are making progress tho, it was even worse last year

Stunned you didn't find a way to blame this on Luke.    You've blamed everything else on him. 

If we make ncaas this year its not because of the schedule it is despite it.  I challenge people defending our schedule to show me where a poorer job was done.  Literally one of the worst schedules in the power 6.

Last year the ooc sos war so horrid that with 20 wins were were not even mentioned as a bubble team for the ncaas and even worse were not even an nit team due to it too. 

The scheduling has been bad guys. There is no way to put a spin on this, I told people after last year it wouldn't happen again and it did. Count me disappointed on that end and for the record I have not been disappointed in the overall play of the team or the coaching.

Thank god, MU schedule Fresno State.

Quote from: Mr. Sand-Knit on March 10, 2017, 11:26:23 PM
I challenge people defending our schedule to show me where a poorer job was done.  Literally one of the worst schedules in the power 6.

UCLA, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Miami (FL), Seton Hall, Virginia Tech, Providence, Kansas State, Utah, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, Texas Tech, St. John's, NC State, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Rutgers, Boston College, Depaul, Missouri, Oregon State.

You'll notice four teams from the Big East, meaning we were in the middle for our own conference.

Quote from: Smokin' Jae on March 10, 2017, 11:30:03 PM
The scheduling has been bad guys. There is no way to put a spin on this, I told people after last year it wouldn't happen again and it did. Count me disappointed on that end and for the record I have not been disappointed in the overall play of the team or the coaching.

Was it the best schedule ever? No. But it is being blown out proportion.

People forget that we have zero control over the campus games for the Legends Classic. Having Howard on our schedule literally drops our non-conference SOS by 34 points. At that point, we have a decidedly average non-conference SOS.

Plus its not the cupcakes that have sunk us as Brew pointed out. Western Carolina and SIUE were a little worse than expected, but Houston Baptist, Fresno State, and St. Francis have all been better than expected. IUPUI, another game outside our control, was also worse than expected.

The thing that sunk us this year was Vandy, Pitt, Georgia, and Wisconsin all losing more games than they were projected to.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 11, 2017, 01:07:54 AM
Was it the best schedule ever? No. But it is being blown out proportion.

People forget that we have zero control over the campus games for the Legends Classic. Having Howard on our schedule literally drops our non-conference SOS by 34 points. At that point, we have a decidedly average non-conference SOS.

Plus its not the cupcakes that have sunk us as Brew pointed out. Western Carolina and SIUE were a little worse than expected, but Houston Baptist, Fresno State, and St. Francis have all been better than expected. IUPUI, another game outside our control, was also worse than expected.

The thing that sunk us this year was Vandy, Pitt, Georgia, and Wisconsin all losing more games than they were projected to.

You have to account for first year coaches and the inevitable transition that takes place, for part of the explanation.

Take Vandy. They lose two of their best players to early entry NBA. They get a new coach with an entirely new system.  They go from some people prematurely counting them as not a good win for MU.....to now an NCAA tourney team, with 33 RPI,  who, with a win today, can match MU with the same number of RPI top 50 wins.  It takes some time, and often, a lot more time than what they have done. Stallings had to coach a player at Pitt, who, Stallings once coached at Vandy, and transferred to Pitt.  Wisconsin is the one team in that list that in my opinion was less successful so far, than expected. But again, a newer coach in place there.

Vandy benefited from one of the best out of conference schedules in the country. They were always in the mix from a power rating stand point because of heir strong non-conference schedule. They just needed enough wins. They had only two non-conference opponents with an RPI worse than 200.

I would like to see MU tighten up the schedule a bit in the future. Too many RPI opponents in the 200 and 300's. In my opinion Georgia was about what I thought they'd be, and Pitt maybe less so.

Quote from: shoothoops on March 11, 2017, 07:24:21 AM
You have to account for first year coaches and the inevitable transition that takes place, for part of the explanation.

Take Vandy. They lose two of their best players to early entry NBA. They get a new coach with an entirely new system.  They go from some people prematurely counting them as not a good win for MU.....to now an NCAA tourney team, with 33 RPI,  who, with a win today, can match MU with the same number of RPI top 50 wins.  It takes some time, and often, a lot more time than what they have done. Stallings had to coach a player at Pitt, who, Stallings once coached at Vandy, and transferred to Pitt.  Wisconsin is the one team in that list that in my opinion was less successful so far, than expected. But again, a newer coach in place there.

Vandy benefited from one of the best out of conference schedules in the country. They were always in the mix from a power rating stand point because of heir strong non-conference schedule. They just needed enough wins. They had only two non-conference opponents with an RPI worse than 200.

I would like to see MU tighten up the schedule a bit in the future. Too many RPI opponents in the 200 and 300's. In my opinion Georgia was about what I thought they'd be, and Pitt maybe less so.

I don't think you know how scheduling works. Just because they announce the games in May and June doesn't mean the decision to play a team is made then. The negotiations are ongoing and most of these deals are finalized months before they are announced. That's why scheduling news sometimes leaks. These games are made with best guess intentions. Players declaring early (especially from non-NBA factories like Duke and Kentucky), coaching changes, transfers, injuries, none of that can really be accounted for when you are making the schedule. Look again at the teams we played:

• Vanderbilt: Won 20+ in 6 of last 10 seasons, had a 2-year downturn, but Stallings seemed to have them regrouping around talented underclassmen. Failed to meet expectations
  
• Howard: Were expected to win the MEAC (http://www.meacsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=20800&ATCLID=211254190) behind James Daniel, who missed virtually the entire season with injury. Failed to meet expectations
  
• Michigan: Did just fine. Met expectations
  
• Pittsburgh: Had won 20+ in 9/10 seasons, and 19 in the one outlier. Four senior starters. No way to expect a losing record. Failed to meet expectations
  
• IUPUI: Did okay. Picked 5th in the league (http://www.thesummitleague.org/sports/mbkb/2016-17/releases/20161004pg4pqs) but finished 7th. Met expectations
  
• Houston Baptist: Great buy. Picked 5th (http://www.southland.org/news/2016/10/27/MBB_1027162038.aspx?path=mbball), finished 2nd. Exceeded expectations
  
• Western Carolina: Lowest win total in over a decade. Failed to meet expectations
  
• Georgia: It could've been worse, but they were picked to finish 4th (https://www.seccountry.com/sec/sec-media-preseason-basketball-poll-kentucky-picked-to-finish-first-arkansas-moses-kingsley-named-player-of-the-year) and ended up 8th in their league. Failed to meet expectations
  
• Fresno State: Did just fine. Met expectations
  
• Wisconsin: This was a senior laden, top-10 team picked to win their league (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/bigten/2016/10/24/big-ten-conference-college-basketball-rankings-2016-17-season-preview/92680128/). Coming in 2nd may seem okay, but they capitulated down the stretch and what should've been a 27-28 win team stuttered to 23 before the conference tournament. Failed to meet expectations
  
• St. Francis: Picked 9th (http://northeastconference.org/news/2016/10/24/MBB_PreseasonPollRel_1617_NEC_.aspx), tied for 3rd, were 20 minutes from a NCAA bid before a disastrous second half against Mount St. Mary's. Exceeded expectations
  
• SIUE: Picked 10th (http://ovcsports.com/news/2016/10/19/MBB_1019160405.aspx), finished 12th. We knew they'd be bad, but that was more about helping Jon Harris out. Failed to meet expectations

So of our 7 buy games/assigned games, 3 failed to meet expectations, 2 met their expectations, and 2 exceeded expectations. Slightly below average. If not for James Daniel, the nation's leading scorer in 2016, missing the entire season that likely looks a lot better.

But then you come to the 5 high-major opponents. Of those, only Michigan met their expectations and none exceeded them. The rest, Vanderbilt, Pitt, Georgia, Wisconsin, all failed to do what you would expect them to do. You can blame that on coaching changes, players leaving early, or Ethan Happ having a terrible run of games, but those teams simply should've been better. Too bad the Utah game fell through, as they were picked 8th in their league and finished 4th. Would've been the one high-major non-con opponent to exceed expectations.

The buy games came out about as you'd hope, but the high major teams were terrible. There were a number of factors, but losing to Michigan (meaning we played Pitt instead of SMU) was a killer as was 4/5 high-majors having uncharacteristically bad seasons. The buy games may not have been great, but they were certainly not the problem.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 11, 2017, 08:27:43 AM
I don't think you know how scheduling works. 

Once upon a time, this is where the thread would take that right turn toward the light of knowledge and righteousness, as Chicos would illuminate us all on how as a 17 year old intern in the athletic department he'd advise the powers that be on critical issues such as this and facilitate decisions that would affect the way scheduling would be approached for years to come. 
Gosh I miss that big lug......

Quote from: muguru on March 10, 2017, 10:17:05 PM
Hadn't really looked at it that closely until now...but MU has BY FAR the lowest non conference RPI(113) (no one else is even close really)of any team projected to get in the field. Kind of odd because their Non conference SOS has risen significantly lately(up to 190). I wonder what the committee is going to think of that??

For comparison's sake, the next closest non conference RPI to MU is Iowa st at 95..that's quite the gap.

You seem intent in finding a wart wherever possible. Every team has them.  Non conference RPI means far less than SOS.   ESPN last night had us a lock.

Decent RPI.  Solid SOS, better than a number of schools like UCLA, Wichita State, WVU, Cincinnati, Wisconsin, SMU, Purdue.  Top 50 wins.

Those complaining about beating Xavier and Creighton when they had guys down, Creighton is playing for the Big East crown today.  Other schools received wins playing teams hurt, do they penalize Providence, Seton Hall, or schools in other conferences facing the same situations?

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 11, 2017, 08:27:43 AM
I don't think you know how scheduling works. Just because they announce the games in May and June doesn't mean the decision to play a team is made then. The negotiations are ongoing and most of these deals are finalized months before they are announced. That's why scheduling news sometimes leaks. These games are made with best guess intentions. Players declaring early (especially from non-NBA factories like Duke and Kentucky), coaching changes, transfers, injuries, none of that can really be accounted for when you are making the schedule. Look again at the teams we played:

• Vanderbilt: Won 20+ in 6 of last 10 seasons, had a 2-year downturn, but Stallings seemed to have them regrouping around talented underclassmen. Failed to meet expectations
  
• Howard: Were expected to win the MEAC (http://www.meacsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=20800&ATCLID=211254190) behind James Daniel, who missed virtually the entire season with injury. Failed to meet expectations
  
• Michigan: Did just fine. Met expectations
  
• Pittsburgh: Had won 20+ in 9/10 seasons, and 19 in the one outlier. Four senior starters. No way to expect a losing record. Failed to meet expectations
  
• IUPUI: Did okay. Picked 5th in the league (http://www.thesummitleague.org/sports/mbkb/2016-17/releases/20161004pg4pqs) but finished 7th. Met expectations
  
• Houston Baptist: Great buy. Picked 5th (http://www.southland.org/news/2016/10/27/MBB_1027162038.aspx?path=mbball), finished 2nd. Exceeded expectations
  
• Western Carolina: Lowest win total in over a decade. Failed to meet expectations
  
• Georgia: It could've been worse, but they were picked to finish 4th (https://www.seccountry.com/sec/sec-media-preseason-basketball-poll-kentucky-picked-to-finish-first-arkansas-moses-kingsley-named-player-of-the-year) and ended up 8th in their league. Failed to meet expectations
  
• Fresno State: Did just fine. Met expectations
  
• Wisconsin: This was a senior laden, top-10 team picked to win their league (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/bigten/2016/10/24/big-ten-conference-college-basketball-rankings-2016-17-season-preview/92680128/). Coming in 2nd may seem okay, but they capitulated down the stretch and what should've been a 27-28 win team stuttered to 23 before the conference tournament. Failed to meet expectations
  
• St. Francis: Picked 9th (http://northeastconference.org/news/2016/10/24/MBB_PreseasonPollRel_1617_NEC_.aspx), tied for 3rd, were 20 minutes from a NCAA bid before a disastrous second half against Mount St. Mary's. Exceeded expectations
  
• SIUE: Picked 10th (http://ovcsports.com/news/2016/10/19/MBB_1019160405.aspx), finished 12th. We knew they'd be bad, but that was more about helping Jon Harris out. Failed to meet expectations

So of our 7 buy games/assigned games, 3 failed to meet expectations, 2 met their expectations, and 2 exceeded expectations. Slightly below average. If not for James Daniel, the nation's leading scorer in 2016, missing the entire season that likely looks a lot better.

But then you come to the 5 high-major opponents. Of those, only Michigan met their expectations and none exceeded them. The rest, Vanderbilt, Pitt, Georgia, Wisconsin, all failed to do what you would expect them to do. You can blame that on coaching changes, players leaving early, or Ethan Happ having a terrible run of games, but those teams simply should've been better. Too bad the Utah game fell through, as they were picked 8th in their league and finished 4th. Would've been the one high-major non-con opponent to exceed expectations.

The buy games came out about as you'd hope, but the high major teams were terrible. There were a number of factors, but losing to Michigan (meaning we played Pitt instead of SMU) was a killer as was 4/5 high-majors having uncharacteristically bad seasons. The buy games may not have been great, but they were certainly not the problem.

I don't think you understood my post. Perhaps re-read it again more slowly.

I am well aware how scheduling works. I gave an explanation as to why some things turned out the way they did this year.  In the end, Vandy, Georgia, etc...in my opinion were not far off of expectations of several years prior, especially from power ratings standpoint. And, also in my opinion, there are more moving parts with these types of schools. Vandy has a 33 RPI, Georgia 52.....and their season were about as expected.....whether those expectations were years ago or this year.

The bigger issue for me is when scheduling in advance, do better with the bottom level teams on the schedule. Tighten that up a bit.  MU winning more games helps too. Also, it is more about power ratings of a team and less about finishing slightly better or worse than expectations in league play. Those slight variations of a non-comference opponent do not matter much if those teams are 200's and 300's RPI etc....Schedule a few less 200's and 300's RPi caliber teams is what I am saying.

Quote from: Mr. Sand-Knit on March 10, 2017, 11:26:23 PM
If we make ncaas this year its not because of the schedule it is despite it.  I challenge people defending our schedule to show me where a poorer job was done.  Literally one of the worst schedules in the power 6.

Last year the ooc sos war so horrid that with 20 wins were were not even mentioned as a bubble team for the ncaas and even worse were not even an nit team due to it too.

You have been blasting our players, blasting the coach, blasting the administration.  You were wrong about MU reaching #2 ranking in soccer a few years ago.  You are wrong here.  When do you give up and go home for a nap?

Great analysis, Brew.

Although .. there's failing to meet expectations, and then there's *failing* to meet expectations.

Like Wisconsin .. it'd be nice to have them top 10, but top 40 isn't materially a big deal. 

It's the RPI 200s that turn out to be 300s that hurt.

Next year's schedule will be vastly improved. MU has the Badgers away against a team in a rebuild. Maui tournament has no cupcake pre-games, with equal level but not elite teams. Georgia and a Gavitt Game at home. Maybe a PAC 12 game on the way to Maui, thanks to Fox, like Utah.

MU will be young next year, especially early season, but has some depth. Would have been better to have Froling available, but still two slots to fill to add skill and experience. Not sure on the Gavitt Games schedule with the BIG starting conference play early.

Quote from: shoothoops on March 11, 2017, 09:08:32 AM
I don't think you understood my post. Perhaps re-read it again more slowly.

I am well aware how scheduling works. I gave an explanation as to why some things turned out the way they did this year.  In the end, Vandy, Georgia, etc...in my opinion were not far off of expectations of several years prior, especially from power ratings standpoint. And, also in my opinion, there are more moving parts with these types of schools. Vandy has a 33 RPI, Georgia 52.....and their season were about as expected.....whether those expectations were years ago or this year.

Vanderbilt and Georgia's RPI rankings have zero impact on our RPI. Absolutely none. Vandy was probably about 4-5 wins off expectations in the regular season. Georgia was 2-3 wins off expectation. It may seem small, but that, along with Wisconsin and Pitt being well off expectations, is huge.

Quote from: shoothoops on March 11, 2017, 09:08:32 AMThe bigger issue for me is when scheduling in advance, do better with the bottom level teams on the schedule. Tighten that up a bit.  MU winning more games helps too. Also, it is more about power ratings of a team and less about finishing slightly better or worse than expectations in league play. Those slight variations of a non-comference opponent do not matter much if those teams are 200's and 300's RPI etc....Schedule a few less 200's and 300's RPi caliber teams is what I am saying.

Again, the opponent's RPI does not impact your RPI. RPI cares about your opponent's record. You are generally better off playing a team with a winning record and low RPI than a team with a losing record and high RPI. Yes, the higher RPI team will help you more in the "opponents' opponents" factor, but that's a lesser factor than the team's individual record.

The only really bad team scheduled this past year was SIUE and that was because of the Jon Harris connection. Howard and Western Carolina failed miserably to reach expectations. IUPUI, Houston Baptist, St. Francis, Fresno State, they all did fine.

So really, where's the complaint? Because Western Carolina had their worst season in over a decade? Because Howard lost the nation's leading scorer a month before the season started? Because they tried to help out a former Marquette alum at SIUE?

Who should they have not had on the schedule that was on the schedule this year? Everyone plays sub-200 teams. Marquette tried to minimize that this year. Two of the buy-level games that didn't exceed expectations were assigned by the 2K Classic.

Houston Baptist, Fresno State, and St. Francis were all good buys that met or exceeded expectations. SIUE disappointed but we all knew preseason that they weren't there as an RPI boost.

The only game left to complain about was Western Carolina, who had their worst season in recent memory. Is Western Carolina really worth complaining about? Each of the past 8 years, they won at least 13 games. If they reach their minimum of the past 8 years, they are a fine buy opponent. They didn't, but one team is hardly something worth griping about.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 11, 2017, 09:27:22 AM
Next year's schedule will be vastly improved. MU has the Badgers away against a team in a rebuild. Maui tournament has no cupcake pre-games, with equal level but not elite teams. Georgia and a Gavitt Game at home. Maybe a PAC 12 game on the way to Maui, thanks to Fox, like Utah.

MU will be young next year, especially early season, but has some depth. Would have been better to have Froling available, but still two slots to fill to add skill and experience. Not sure on the Gavitt Games schedule with the BIG starting conference play early.

Maui does have one pre-game. This year they had Army, Central Arkansas, Arkansas State, and Chattanooga. Of the 7 teams in Maui, only UConn didn't get a pre-game. After that, just hope you don't get Chaminade (though they are RPI-neutral) on the island. So most likely...

• Maui pre-game (H)
  
• Gavitt Big 10 team (H)
  
• Maui: 3 of Cal, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, VCU, Wichita State (N)
  
• Georgia (H)
  
• Wisconsin (A)

So that's 7/13 games that we know about already. My guess is we add one more high-major like you said, either a home-and-home starting on the road or a neutral site game, then have 5 buy opponents. As long as Maui doesn't screw us with a poor opponent (3/4 this year were decent to good) and we do okay on the buy games, we should be fine. Not necessarily great, but fine.

I could see a marquee home-and-home starting on the road, with a return game planned for the opening of the Silk Exotic Entertainment Center.

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 11, 2017, 09:18:37 AM
Great analysis, Brew.

Although .. there's failing to meet expectations, and then there's *failing* to meet expectations.

Like Wisconsin .. it'd be nice to have them top 10, but top 40 isn't materially a big deal. 

It's the RPI 200s that turn out to be 300s that hurt.

Thanks, 'topper. Howard was a killer, no doubt. They should've been a 17 win team, instead they couldn't crack double digits. But hard to blame Marquette when they got what looked like, on paper, the best opponent in the 2K assignment field.

Otherwise, really Western Carolina was the only team I can see quibbling over. They lost a lot from last year, and I expected them to have a down season, but their worst season in over a decade without any coaching turnover isn't one I'm going to blame on Broeker. I suppose we could gripe about SIUE, because we knew they'd be bad and maybe you shouldn't do anyone favors, but I can live with that one.

Personally, when it comes to buy games, my hope is they win 12+ games. As long as they're within a few games of .500, you will be fine. We had three stinkers this year, which was far better than years past.

Quote from: Smokin' Jae on March 10, 2017, 11:30:03 PM
The scheduling has been bad guys. There is no way to put a spin on this, I told people after last year it wouldn't happen again and it did. Count me disappointed on that end and for the record I have not been disappointed in the overall play of the team or the coaching.

This. I am generally really positive all things MU hoops, but we really need to schedule better. End of story.

Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on March 11, 2017, 10:10:46 AM
This. I am generally really positive all things MU hoops, but we really need to schedule better. End of story.

You've stated similar many times regarding which teams should be ahead of Marquette. My question is which teams should we have not scheduled this year, and why?

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 11, 2017, 10:11:46 AM
You've stated similar many times regarding which teams should be ahead of Marquette. My question is which teams should we have not scheduled this year, and why?

Not sure I follow your first sentence. What do you mean which teams should be ahead of Marquette?

We need to schedule better buy games. I am willing to give them a pass on losing the Utah game this year, but IIRC, we've burned 1 non con game in 2 of the past 3 seasons. May even be 3 of last 4. So I take all that with a grain of salt.

On my phone right now so hard to respond with anything in depth. I don't give two sh**s about relationship games - no trason SIU Edwardsville would have been on the schedule. Western Carolina as well. Understand Howard was given to us. I've done the analysis on RPI wizard and simply replacing W, Carolina and SIU with teams around 150 RPI jumps our RPo significantly. Just schedule more traditionally decent mid major teams as buy games. Easier said than done - I know - but other teams find a way to do it quite easily. A stinker or two each season is expected, but we've been good for 3 or 4 per season last few.

I'd also like to see try and get a 2 or 3 for 1 with a blue blood.  A loss on the road in those games early in the year is never going to hurt you, and you'll reap the benefits all year.

Actually..since we are engaged in this conversation..despite what anyone thinks about how the non conf opponents affected MU's RPI, the single biggest thing MU could have done last year and this year to increase their RPI has NOTHING to do with scheduling..its winning at home. The RPI doesnt reward you for winning at home(they expect you too), but they sure do punish you for losing at home..even against good opponents..you can drop 8-15 spots for a home loss against a good opponent..and once you do that..its hard to recover from.

Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on March 11, 2017, 10:24:35 AM
Not sure I follow your first sentence. What do you mean which teams should be ahead of Marquette?

When discussing seeding and Marquette's inclusion in the tournament, you have frequently asked for people to say who deserves to be in ahead of us (which I fully agree with).

Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on March 11, 2017, 10:24:35 AMWe need to schedule better buy games. I am willing to give them a pass on losing the Utah game this year, but IIRC, we've burned 1 non con game in 2 of the past 3 seasons. May even be 3 of last 4. So I take all that with a grain of salt.

We haven't burned a non-con game. In 2014 we were not given a home game from the Old Spice Classic (or whatever the Orlando tournament is called) and this year we had Utah fall through. I agree we should fill the schedule with quality opponents, but both of those seasons were circumstances beyond our control.

Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on March 11, 2017, 10:24:35 AMOn my phone right now so hard to respond with anything in depth. I don't give two sh**s about relationship games - no trason SIU Edwardsville would have been on the schedule. Western Carolina as well. Understand Howard was given to us. I've done the analysis on RPI wizard and simply replacing W, Carolina and SIU with teams around 150 RPI jumps our RPo significantly. Just schedule more traditionally decent mid major teams as buy games. Easier said than done - I know - but other teams find a way to do it quite easily. A stinker or two each season is expected, but we've been good for 3 or 4 per season last few.

That's fair about SIUE. However, Western Carolina has averaged a 196 RPI the past 8 seasons, with winning records in 4/8 seasons. This season is a complete outlier, and they've had the same coach the entire time, so I find it hard to blame MU too much for scheduling what should've been a team at worst 30 spots better than they were.

Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on March 11, 2017, 10:24:35 AMI'd also like to see try and get a 2 or 3 for 1 with a blue blood.  A loss on the road in those games early in the year is never going to hurt you, and you'll reap the benefits all year.

We won't be doing a 2/3 for 1 any time soon. No way we will give up two home games to anyone for one in return, nor should we. That's a huge revenue loss. It's important to use your schedule to both build revenue and improve tournament odds. The best way we can get better teams is to win. After the Final Four, we got a home-and-home with Arizona. The Vanderbilt and Ohio State home-and-homes were really big events. We got those by being a regular tournament team and winning once we got there. I think we can get those marquee games, but it will take a few years of Wojo winning to turn names like Utah and Georgia into UCLA and Florida.

Personally, I think we should try to have two home-and-homes or neutral site games in addition to Wisconsin each year. We were moving in that direction until the program fell off a bit. Washington/LSU in 2011, LSU/Florida in 2012, Ohio State/Arizona State in 2013 and 2014. I think we'll be back to that (this year should've been Georgia, Vanderbilt, and Utah) and feel it's encouraging that we even had that Utah game lined up. But if you want the marquee games, you need to earn them (like 'Nova playing Virginia, Xavier playing Baylor, Butler playing Cincy, etc).

Quote from: muguru on March 11, 2017, 10:28:34 AM
Actually..since we are engaged in this conversation..despite what anyone thinks about how the non conf opponents affected MU's RPI, the single biggest thing MU could have done last year and this year to increase their RPI has NOTHING to do with scheduling..its winning at home. The RPI doesnt reward you for winning at home(they expect you too), but they sure do punish you for losing at home..even against good opponents..you can drop 8-15 spots for a home loss against a good opponent..and once you do that..its hard to recover from.

Winning at home is paramount. That say, we were 14-3 at home this year and all three losses were to tournament teams. That's our best home record since 2013's Big East Champions. It's not perfect, but it's certainly an improvement.

Quote from: Mr. Sand-Knit on March 10, 2017, 10:32:26 PM
But hey our basketball office is doing a great job of scheduling.

Job 1.  Fill schedule of 31 allowed games :  F
Job 2.  A schedule conducive to making ncaas : F

Two F s for our basketball office

I guess we are making progress tho, it was even worse last year

Job 1 was to fill the schedule. Which they did. How do they receive a failing grade?
Job 2, if we make the NCAAs tomorrow (which we will), how is that receiving a failing grade? 

Our schedule is ranked 49th in the country.

Quote from: 4or5yearstojudge on March 11, 2017, 11:16:30 AM
Job 1 was to fill the schedule. Which they did. How do they receive a failing grade?
Job 2, if we make the NCAAs tomorrow (which we will), how is that receiving a failing grade? 

Our schedule is ranked 49th in the country.

Our non-con schedule wasn't good enough to get us a 1-seed, but we were never playing for a 1-seed. Filling the schedule after Utah backed out would have been detrimental to our bid hopes.

And exactly, getting in is all that matters. Our schedule could be better, but this year is just about having a schedule good enough to get in. This schedule accomplished that. Had our opponents played to form, it would've been closer to top-25 than top-50, but either way it's good enough.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 11, 2017, 11:07:32 AM
When discussing seeding and Marquette's inclusion in the tournament, you have frequently asked for people to say who deserves to be in ahead of us (which I fully agree with).

We haven't burned a non-con game. In 2014 we were not given a home game from the Old Spice Classic (or whatever the Orlando tournament is called) and this year we had Utah fall through. I agree we should fill the schedule with quality opponents, but both of those seasons were circumstances beyond our control.

That's fair about SIUE. However, Western Carolina has averaged a 196 RPI the past 8 seasons, with winning records in 4/8 seasons. This season is a complete outlier, and they've had the same coach the entire time, so I find it hard to blame MU too much for scheduling what should've been a team at worst 30 spots better than they were.

We won't be doing a 2/3 for 1 any time soon. No way we will give up two home games to anyone for one in return, nor should we. That's a huge revenue loss. It's important to use your schedule to both build revenue and improve tournament odds. The best way we can get better teams is to win. After the Final Four, we got a home-and-home with Arizona. The Vanderbilt and Ohio State home-and-homes were really big events. We got those by being a regular tournament team and winning once we got there. I think we can get those marquee games, but it will take a few years of Wojo winning to turn names like Utah and Georgia into UCLA and Florida.

Personally, I think we should try to have two home-and-homes or neutral site games in addition to Wisconsin each year. We were moving in that direction until the program fell off a bit. Washington/LSU in 2011, LSU/Florida in 2012, Ohio State/Arizona State in 2013 and 2014. I think we'll be back to that (this year should've been Georgia, Vanderbilt, and Utah) and feel it's encouraging that we even had that Utah game lined up. But if you want the marquee games, you need to earn them (like 'Nova playing Virginia, Xavier playing Baylor, Butler playing Cincy, etc).

I agree with all of this, so I don't think we're too far from on the same page.

Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on March 11, 2017, 11:37:35 AM
I agree with all of this, so I don't think we're too far from on the same page.

Agreed. Actually, if I have problems with anyone we scheduled, it's St. Francis and Houston Baptist. They did better than expected, but I thought they would be dogs. At the end of the day, they probably need to improve it a bit, but if you are going to have 5 buy games, I think the hope is for two in the 100-200 range, two in the 200-250 range, and one dog (because that always happens). I can live with what they did this year.

Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on March 11, 2017, 10:24:35 AM
On my phone right now so hard to respond with anything in depth. I don't give two sh**s about relationship games - no trason SIU Edwardsville would have been on the schedule. Western Carolina as well. Understand Howard was given to us. I've done the analysis on RPI wizard and simply replacing W, Carolina and SIU with teams around 150 RPI jumps our RPo significantly. Just schedule more traditionally decent mid major teams as buy games. Easier said than done - I know - but other teams find a way to do it quite easily. A stinker or two each season is expected, but we've been good for 3 or 4 per season last few.

Just about every high major has a dog like SIU-E on their schedule. Helping out a former player is a good reason to have one IMHO. And as Brew has pointed out, Western Carolina had their worst season in over a decade. That's something you can't predict. They have their normal, minimal year of 13 wins and they are a great buy game.

Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on March 11, 2017, 10:24:35 AM
I'd also like to see try and get a 2 or 3 for 1 with a blue blood.  A loss on the road in those games early in the year is never going to hurt you, and you'll reap the benefits all year.

You may want that, but Blue Bloods don't. From what I can tell, not a single Blue Blood scheduled a true road game against a non-conference high major opponent this season unless it was another blue blood or a traditional rivalry. A couple did schedule them with mid-majors, Louisville went to Grand Canyon of all places, but no high majors. There is no upside for them to schedule a road game with a team like Marquette. Either they win and no one cares because they were supposed to. Or they lose and it hurts them for seeding later.

Schedules aren't carte blanche. You don't just pick what you want and get it. Its a difficult and complicated process with lots of money involved. Plus you have to compete with other high majors. I agree about last year, the scheduling was abysmal. The scheduling this year was decidedly average.

Plus, I think scheduling is going to matter less and less every year. The committee supposedly is wising up and moving away from RPI. If true, tournament bids will no longer be impacted by whether you blew out Howard or won by double digits against Albany.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 11, 2017, 11:42:43 AM
Just about every high major has a dog like SIU-E on their schedule. Helping out a former player is a good reason to have one IMHO. And as Brew has pointed out, Western Carolina had their worst season in over a decade. That's something you can't predict. They have their normal, minimal year of 13 wins and they are a great buy game.

You may want that, but Blue Bloods don't. From what I can tell, not a single Blue Blood scheduled a true road game against a non-conference high major opponent this season unless it was another blue blood or a traditional rivalry. A couple did schedule them with mid-majors, Louisville went to Grand Canyon of all places, but no high majors. There is no upside for them to schedule a road game with a team like Marquette. Either they win and no one cares because they were supposed to. Or they lose and it hurts them for seeding later.

Schedules aren't carte blanche. You don't just pick what you want and get it. Its a difficult and complicated process with lots of money involved. Plus you have to compete with other high majors. I agree about last year, the scheduling was abysmal. The scheduling this year was decidedly average.

Plus, I think scheduling is going to matter less and less every year. The committee supposedly is wising up and moving away from RPI. If true, tournament bids will no longer be impacted by whether you blew out Howard or won by double digits against Albany.

Again, I'm fine with a dog or two. We've had more than our fair share last several years, and frankly got lucky with HBU and St Francis this year. I don't disagree with your assertion that our schedule was decidedly average. In my mind, that means it needs to improve.

I get that blue bloods don't want to (don't have to) play on the road. And I get a 3 for 1 doesn't make much sense for MU, but then figure out a way to add another neutral site game against a top half P5 team. I don't have the time or means to look it up at the moment, but I can find lots of P6 teams that had schedules that I feel we should emulate moving forward.

Lastly, I think the de-emphasis of RPI is a great thing for all parties.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 11, 2017, 09:48:28 AM
Maui does have one pre-game. This year they had Army, Central Arkansas, Arkansas State, and Chattanooga. Of the 7 teams in Maui, only UConn didn't get a pre-game. After that, just hope you don't get Chaminade (though they are RPI-neutral) on the island. So most likely...

• Maui pre-game (H)
  
• Gavitt Big 10 team (H)
  
• Maui: 3 of Cal, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, VCU, Wichita State (N)
  
• Georgia (H)
  
• Wisconsin (A)

So that's 7/13 games that we know about already. My guess is we add one more high-major like you said, either a home-and-home starting on the road or a neutral site game, then have 5 buy opponents. As long as Maui doesn't screw us with a poor opponent (3/4 this year were decent to good) and we do okay on the buy games, we should be fine. Not necessarily great, but fine.

I could see a marquee home-and-home starting on the road, with a return game planned for the opening of the Silk Exotic Entertainment Center.

Brew, lots of great stuff In this post and throughout the thread. Thanks for the insight.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 11, 2017, 11:42:43 AM
Just about every high major has a dog like SIU-E on their schedule. Helping out a former player is a good reason to have one IMHO. And as Brew has pointed out, Western Carolina had their worst season in over a decade. That's something you can't predict. They have their normal, minimal year of 13 wins and they are a great buy game.

You may want that, but Blue Bloods don't. From what I can tell, not a single Blue Blood scheduled a true road game against a non-conference high major opponent this season unless it was another blue blood or a traditional rivalry. A couple did schedule them with mid-majors, Louisville went to Grand Canyon of all places, but no high majors. There is no upside for them to schedule a road game with a team like Marquette. Either they win and no one cares because they were supposed to. Or they lose and it hurts them for seeding later.

Schedules aren't carte blanche. You don't just pick what you want and get it. Its a difficult and complicated process with lots of money involved. Plus you have to compete with other high majors. I agree about last year, the scheduling was abysmal. The scheduling this year was decidedly average.

Plus, I think scheduling is going to matter less and less every year. The committee supposedly is wising up and moving away from RPI. If true, tournament bids will no longer be impacted by whether you blew out Howard or won by double digits against Albany.

Tamu i think u have been in academia too long.  No one ever said schedule making was carte blanche or easy.  But its a world if absolutes, trying tet failing doesnt award u a participation ribbon or an atta boy in the real world.  No one said it was easy.
Lets just look at our perrs in the middle if the BE that our in our same situation.  X, prov, creighton, and seton hall all managed to 1. Fill out the schedule and have a sos a goid bit harder than ours.  They did it last year also.  You can defend failure all you want.  Apart from Depaul and SJu we had the worst schedule in the conference, and last year it was prolly the worst.  They failed n they put our team in a really bad place.  I know academics like to congrstulate everyone n tell them they are doing a wonderful job.  In the real world and when something stinks we say it stinks.  And when someone is bad at their job over n over again they get replaced.  Its time we start getting performance from that department.  All losses have reasons n excuses, i guess i want a winner or an over achiever in our scheduling department.  Not one we need to make stretches and bs excuses for each year! Get it done or gtfo

Sand knit, all you do is bitch. Which teams, specifically, should've been replaced? Why should they have been replaced? And if we end up in the tournament with the schedule as constructed, how is it a failure?

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 11, 2017, 08:27:43 AM
I don't think you know how scheduling works. Just because they announce the games in May and June doesn't mean the decision to play a team is made then. The negotiations are ongoing and most of these deals are finalized months before they are announced. That's why scheduling news sometimes leaks. These games are made with best guess intentions. Players declaring early (especially from non-NBA factories like Duke and Kentucky), coaching changes, transfers, injuries, none of that can really be accounted for when you are making the schedule. Look again at the teams we played:

• Vanderbilt: Won 20+ in 6 of last 10 seasons, had a 2-year downturn, but Stallings seemed to have them regrouping around talented underclassmen. Failed to meet expectations

Stallings isn't there anymore.  Bryce Drew is.  And IMO they have more than exceeded expectations this year.

Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on March 11, 2017, 05:16:55 PM

Stallings isn't there anymore.  Bryce Drew is.  And IMO they have more than exceeded expectations this year.[/list]

You haven't kept up with the conversation. Stallings was there when the game was scheduled. And 17-14 regular season from a team that is more often than not a 20+ win team is failing to meet expectations, largely because two players declared early and the coach left.

Drew has done okay, but based on 16 months or so ago when this was scheduled, it's failing to meet expectations.

Quote from: Mr. Sand-Knit on March 11, 2017, 05:11:35 PM
Tamu i think u have been in academia too long.  No one ever said schedule making was carte blanche or easy.  But its a world if absolutes, trying tet failing doesnt award u a participation ribbon or an atta boy in the real world.  No one said it was easy.
Lets just look at our perrs in the middle if the BE that our in our same situation.  X, prov, creighton, and seton hall all managed to 1. Fill out the schedule and have a sos a goid bit harder than ours.  They did it last year also.  You can defend failure all you want.  Apart from Depaul and SJu we had the worst schedule in the conference, and last year it was prolly the worst.  They failed n they put our team in a really bad place.  I know academics like to congrstulate everyone n tell them they are doing a wonderful job.  In the real world and when something stinks we say it stinks.  And when someone is bad at their job over n over again they get replaced.  Its time we start getting performance from that department.  All losses have reasons n excuses, i guess i want a winner or an over achiever in our scheduling department.  Not one we need to make stretches and bs excuses for each year! Get it done or gtfo

First, I can barely read what ever that first paragraph is supposed to say. So I apologize if I missed something relavent in there.

You also missed this exchange:

Quote from: Mr. Sand-Knit on March 10, 2017, 11:26:23 PM
If we make ncaas this year its not because of the schedule it is despite it.  I challenge people defending our schedule to show me where a poorer job was done.  Literally one of the worst schedules in the power 6.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 11, 2017, 12:58:11 AM
UCLA, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Miami (FL), Seton Hall, Virginia Tech, Providence, Kansas State, Utah, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, Texas Tech, St. John's, NC State, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Rutgers, Boston College, Depaul, Missouri, Oregon State.

You'll notice four teams from the Big East, meaning we were in the middle for our own conference.

We actually had better non-conferences than Seton Hall. Seton Hall's schedule was ranked 30 spots below ours. Providence was all of 9 spots higher than us. See in academia, I learned how to back up claims with actual facts instead of just angrily yelling.

The carte blanche comment was directed at the idea that we should schedule non-conference games against blue bloods. We can't just call up Duke and say let's play each other. They will always say no.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 11, 2017, 05:14:30 PM
Sand knit, all you do is bitch. Which teams, specifically, should've been replaced? Why should they have been replaced? And if we end up in the tournament with the schedule as constructed, how is it a failure?

How is it a failure?  Well its arguably the worst schedule of any at large bid hopeful schools and was even worse last year.  Look at all the sub .500 conference teams with less than 20 wins that have been discussed in bubble discussion.  Last year we had 20 wins n were 8-10.  Never even considered because the schedule was hoooorendous!.  This year it is a little better but we cant even fill it iut.  Its simply bad, u really need me to expkain why its bad. Really, well we have too many crap 250+ games.  Rpi n sos development has been done by schools since it became a stressed criteria.  Its like MU misses the memo every year.  We need to beat teams tha consistanly ginish above 200 in the rankings.  Maybe the walkons dont get in til the ladt minute.  But we are better served than scheduling the historically 250 n worse programs.
Again defend all you want, done schools are really good about it.  Apparently we r struggling to fill the schefule n who we get iis just gravy.  Pretty pathetic

The worst, except for the 23 other schools TAMU mentioned?

Last year is irrelevant. That schedule was designed specifically to build wins and confidence, not for a postseason berth.

And you didn't answer any of the questions I posed, so the only failure I see is yours.

Quote from: brewcity77 on March 11, 2017, 08:05:48 PM
The worst, except for the 23 other schools TAMU mentioned?

Last year is irrelevant. That schedule was designed specifically to build wins and confidence, not for a postseason berth.

And you didn't answer any of the questions I posed, so the only failure I see is yours.

Not to mention basic spelling, grammar and sentence structure...

Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on March 11, 2017, 08:09:43 PM

Not to mention basic spelling, grammar and sentence structure...

Maybe he needs to spend some time in academia. 

Mr. Sand Knit

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTverfBaRI8yjtjfzfXTg-DRjfggH60Gw0cN4vXdlUbUDdk61T9)