MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on October 25, 2017, 03:02:29 PM
-
MU at 56.
8 BE teams in top 64. Depaul and Georgetown at 106 and 120, respectively.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ranking-all-351-college-basketball-teams-from-duke-to-alabama-a-m/ (https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ranking-all-351-college-basketball-teams-from-duke-to-alabama-a-m/)
-
Thanks for the link.
Does anyone have a sense as to the track-record of the CBS ranking. I'm curious about how close they've been the last few years on Marquette.
Is there a pre-season ranking that's usually the best on this...I know a lot of the statistical rankings get better with time but I wonder which list is the best now.
What I do know is we beat this prediction if we make the tourney. MU in the Big Dance!
-
Sh!t and this is before the secret scrimmage
-
Sh!t and this is before the secret scrimmage
So you're saying we can help our seeding?
-
So you're saying we can help our seeding?
Wojo only wins the easy scrimmages
-
Winner replaces Coach K?
-
Interesting. I'm very interested in the VCU game as I think we need to win our first game in Maui.
This is the the first ranking I've seen with VCU higher than MU. Kenpom and T-rank have MU way above VCU.
-
Interesting. I'm very interested in the VCU game as I think we need to win our first game in Maui.
This is the the first ranking I've seen with VCU higher than MU. Kenpom and T-rank have MU way above VCU.
Apologies to wades, but VCU is unquestionably the most important game of the year. We would be better off going 1-2 in Maui and beating VCU than going 2-1 with a loss to VCU and wins over Cal and Chaminade/LSU. The SOS difference will likely be the difference of seeing a top-10 (Wichita State) and top-25 (ND or Michigan) team on one side or a sub-75 (Cal) and sub-75 (LSU) or non-counter (Chaminade) on the other.
-
Apologies to wades, but VCU is unquestionably the most important game of the year. We would be better off going 1-2 in Maui and beating VCU than going 2-1 with a loss to VCU and wins over Cal and Chaminade/LSU. The SOS difference will likely be the difference of seeing a top-10 (Wichita State) and top-25 (ND or Michigan) team on one side or a sub-75 (Cal) and sub-75 (LSU) or non-counter (Chaminade) on the other.
Mt. St. Mary’s is the biggest game of the season.
-
Apologies to wades, but VCU is unquestionably the most important game of the year. We would be better off going 1-2 in Maui and beating VCU than going 2-1 with a loss to VCU and wins over Cal and Chaminade/LSU. The SOS difference will likely be the difference of seeing a top-10 (Wichita State) and top-25 (ND or Michigan) team on one side or a sub-75 (Cal) and sub-75 (LSU) or non-counter (Chaminade) on the other.
Sorry but I'd rather go 2-1 even if it means losing to VCU. Winning games is much more enjoyable than fretting about SOS.
-
Sorry but I'd rather go 2-1 even if it means losing to VCU. Winning games is much more enjoyable than fretting about SOS.
I guess it depends on how you want the season to end. If you want the best shot at making the tournament and having the best seed possible, we need to beat VCU. If you'd rather win in the moment and lose out in March, we're better off losing to VCU since it means two very winnable games after (even if one may literally have no more bearing on our season than the Lindenwood game next week).
VCU will not just impact our SOS, it will also give us the chance at getting quality wins, which we won't have the opportunity for if we lose. I'd rather play good teams and be entertained than play bad teams and puff our chests after beating a Hawaiian cupcake.
-
I see two possible outcomes for our path in Maui:
1. Beat VCU, play Wichita State and then Michigan/ND
2. Lose to VCU, play Cal and then LSU
Option 2 is almost a guaranteed 2-1. Both Cal and LSU look like sub 100 KenPom teams to me. Maybe LSU sneaks into the top 100.
Option 3 can range from 1-2 to 3-0. Wichita State will be the favorite but beatable without McDuffie. If Shamet is still out or even limited because of his injury, that becomes at least a 50/50 game, we might even be the favorite. In the third round, I would give Notre Dame the edge but are beatable. I think MU and Michigan are about as close to a toss up as you can get.
I personally like option 1 better. That Wichita State game is going to look a lot better at the end of the season once they get fully healthy. I also think we are significantly better than VCU. They are going to be relying heavily on guys that transferred from Maine and Longwood...both of whom are ranked in the bottom 10 teams in Division 1.
-
VCU will not just impact our SOS, it will also give us the chance at getting quality wins, which we won't have the opportunity for if we lose. I'd rather play good teams and be entertained than play bad teams and puff our chests after beating a Hawaiian cupcake.
Mmmmm... the sweet, sweet taste of plummeting SOS.
(https://img1.etsystatic.com/008/0/6506354/il_570xN.469022783_7gbd.jpg)
-
As far as Maui, we will either have the opportunity for three quality wins by beating VCU or zero quality wins if we lose. There is no upside to losing that game. It helps strength of schedule, it virtually assures us coming out with at least one quality win (VCU themselves), it avoids losing a "counting" game by putting us in the bracket opposite Chaminade, and opens up the door for even more quality wins.
If we beat VCU, then 18 total wins (with a 9-9 or better conference record) is probably enough to get us into the NCAA Tournament, and VCU will have been one of those 18. If we lose, we likely need 19-20 and we don't have the VCU scalp.
As far as quality non-con wins, we will have 1 guaranteed and 6 opportunities if we beat VCU (VCU and Purdue, Wichita State, ND/Michigan, Georgia, Vermont, UW-Madison) or 0 guaranteed and 4 opportunities if we lose to VCU (Purdue, Georgia, Vermont, UW-Madison).
I can't remember the last time we played such a singularly significant non-con game. Looking back at past non-con tournaments, there was always at least one decent team that ended up in that losing half of the bracket to give you a shot at a good win with a first-round loss. Rhode Island in Orlando in 2014, Arizona State and Miami in Anaheim in 2013...I guess maybe if you go back to Maui in 2012, where Texas and USC were the two best teams on the losing side of the bracket (both sub-100, Texas there because they lost to Chaminade).
Maui is somewhat dangerous in that regard. You always get some powerhouse teams, but them having Chaminade and usually at least two dogs means the losing side of the bracket can be really ugly. Chaminade is out of the main tourney starting next year, so that will help in the future, but for now, it puts a huge amount of importance on that first game, especially if you're the 4/5 game (which we seem to be).
-
Mt. St. Mary’s is the biggest game of the season.
Let's try and keep the stupid to a minimum this year.
I know you've got it in ya
-
I guess it depends on how you want the season to end. If you want the best shot at making the tournament and having the best seed possible, we need to beat VCU. If you'd rather win in the moment and lose out in March, we're better off losing to VCU since it means two very winnable games after (even if one may literally have no more bearing on our season than the Lindenwood game next week).
VCU will not just impact our SOS, it will also give us the chance at getting quality wins, which we won't have the opportunity for if we lose. I'd rather play good teams and be entertained than play bad teams and puff our chests after beating a Hawaiian cupcake.
Marquette has its destiny in its hands regardless of how they perform in Maui.
-
We got Maui.
-
Marquette has its destiny in its hands regardless of how they perform in Maui.
Sure, they could go 0-30 and win four at MSG. But VCU makes a massive difference in the schedule no matter how you slice it, more massive than any other game.
-
Marquette has its destiny in its hands regardless of how they perform in Maui.
Every team has its destiny in its hands. There's a name for that phenomenon. It's called the offseason.
-
Sure, they could go 0-30 and win four at MSG. But VCU makes a massive difference in the schedule no matter how you slice it, more massive than any other game.
From a SOS perspective maybe. But other than that, not really.
-
From a SOS perspective maybe. But other than that, not really.
I specifically said "massive difference in the schedule" in the post you quoted. And yes, more massive than any other game. Last year, had we swapped neutral court games with Pitt (RPI 74) and Seton Hall (RPI 44) with North Carolina (RPI 5) and Minnesota (RPI 20) we would have increased 13 spots in SOS. Cal and LSU will likely be significantly worse than Pitt or Seton Hall, so the VCU game could swing our SOS by 20+ spots come Selection Sunday.
As far as reasons that game is significant:
- Strength of Schedule
- Maximum number of quality non-con win opportunities goes from 4 to 7
- Requisite number of total wins to secure a NCAA berth increases
- No chance of playing Chaminade, which would reduce our D1 win capability by 1
Beat VCU and we have a shot to get in at 18-12 (9-9). Lose to VCU and we likely have to go 20-10 (9-9). Unless we play Chaminade, in which case we likely have to go 21-9 (9-9).
Getting into the NCAA Tournament is generally a simple equation of number of wins measured against strength of schedule. When one game can swing your SOS by 20 points or more, it doesn't get much bigger than that. This is at least the biggest non-con game since we played Butler in Maui in 2012.
-
Getting into the NCAA Tournament is generally a simple equation of number of wins measured against strength of schedule. When one game can swing your SOS by 20 points or more, it doesn't get much bigger than that. This is at least the biggest non-con game since we played Butler in Maui in 2012.
Which we lost, got a three seed, and made the E8 anyway.
You can fret about the SOS. I'm going to watch the games.
-
Rankin’s no matta, hey?
-
brewcity, what if Marquette had beaten Butler in 2012 and lost the next two games? Let's assume that Texas beat Chaminade, so their next two games would have been losses to UNC and Texas. How much different would MU's SOS have been? What impact would that have had on the RPI? The seeding?
-
brewcity, what if Marquette had beaten Butler in 2012 and lost the next two games? Let's assume that Texas beat Chaminade, so their next two games would have been losses to UNC and Texas. How much different would MU's SOS have been? What impact would that have had on the RPI? The seeding?
Texas that year ended up near where USC (our final opponent) did so it was negligible. Texas would have helped minorly as they had a slightly better record. UNC would have made a big difference. We had a great schedule that year due to the Big East with 6 ranked teams along the way and being in a league where 8 teams made the NCAAs, 2 made the NIT, and one only missed (UConn) due to a postseason ban. Had we played UNC, I'm guessing we'd have been top-5. It would've been a massive move from that woeful Mississippi State team that we treated like a cupcake.
Here's the other thing. The assumption that we are better off going 2-1 with a loss to VCU means cheering for a loss to VCU. I think that's ridiculous for many reasons.
First, I'm not cheering for Marquette to lose to anyone anywhere ever. I want to beat VCU.
Second, I want to play good teams because getting a win against a top-10 Wichita State team and possibly a hated Notre Dame team would mean far more than playing Cal and LSU teams that will likely be terrible. I'd rather play the good teams and lose entertaining games than pound the high-major equivalent of Little Sisters of the Poor.
Third, the obvious SOS and tournament ramifications. This game legitimately changes the number of wins we need to get into the NCAA Tournament. Beat VCU and it honestly becomes easier to get in, and not just because we beat VCU but because we will be measured against a tougher SOS. It's either beat VCU and win 17/29 remaining games, or lose to VCU and win 20/29 games.
So in essence, I want Marquette to win against VCU, I want Marquette to play against good teams, and I want Marquette to have the best possible path to make the NCAA Tournament. The only argument with that is if you don't want one or more of those three things, in which case I'd wonder what you were doing posting on a Marquette board.
-
I appreciate the analysis Brew.
SOS is a major component to making the dance. Being an elite program includes doing everything you can to game the numbers so slightly down years result in 7-10 seeds instead of NIT. Once you get in the tourney, record is fairly irrelevant.
-
I appreciate the analysis Brew.
SOS is a major component to making the dance. Being an elite program includes doing everything you can to game the numbers so slightly down years result in 7-10 seeds instead of NIT. Once you get in the tourney, record is fairly irrelevant.
I don't see how it's even debatable. I think we'd all like for Marquette to beat VCU. If we do that, it comes with a ton of other benefits beyond just getting a likely quality win. Not sure why anyone would rather be in the loser's bracket.
-
Brew - not sure how the haters and losers, of which there are many, can disagree. VCU is a must win. It's dumb to think otherwise.
-
Texas that year ended up near where USC (our final opponent) did so it was negligible. Texas would have helped minorly as they had a slightly better record. UNC would have made a big difference. We had a great schedule that year due to the Big East with 6 ranked teams along the way and being in a league where 8 teams made the NCAAs, 2 made the NIT, and one only missed (UConn) due to a postseason ban. Had we played UNC, I'm guessing we'd have been top-5. It would've been a massive move from that woeful Mississippi State team that we treated like a cupcake.
Here's the other thing. The assumption that we are better off going 2-1 with a loss to VCU means cheering for a loss to VCU. I think that's ridiculous for many reasons.
First, I'm not cheering for Marquette to lose to anyone anywhere ever. I want to beat VCU.
Second, I want to play good teams because getting a win against a top-10 Wichita State team and possibly a hated Notre Dame team would mean far more than playing Cal and LSU teams that will likely be terrible. I'd rather play the good teams and lose entertaining games than pound the high-major equivalent of Little Sisters of the Poor.
Third, the obvious SOS and tournament ramifications. This game legitimately changes the number of wins we need to get into the NCAA Tournament. Beat VCU and it honestly becomes easier to get in, and not just because we beat VCU but because we will be measured against a tougher SOS. It's either beat VCU and win 17/29 remaining games, or lose to VCU and win 20/29 games.
So in essence, I want Marquette to win against VCU, I want Marquette to play against good teams, and I want Marquette to have the best possible path to make the NCAA Tournament. The only argument with that is if you don't want one or more of those three things, in which case I'd wonder what you were doing posting on a Marquette board.
So you decided to end with a "if you don't believe my argument you must not really be a fan" angle? Well whatever.
Again, I am just not going to agree that going 1-2 in Maui with a win v. VCU is better than going 2-1 with a loss v. VCU. (Like in 2012, beating USC and MSU was better than losing to UNC and Texas.) Yes it may have an impact on SOS, but other than that, you are simply making guesses as to the seed line, etc.
-
So you decided to end with a "if you don't believe my argument you must not really be a fan" angle? Well whatever.
Again, I am just not going to agree that going 1-2 in Maui with a win v. VCU is better than going 2-1 with a loss v. VCU. (Like in 2012, beating USC and MSU was better than losing to UNC and Texas.) Yes it may have an impact on SOS, but other than that, you are simply making guesses as to the seed line, etc.
So it sounds like you would be a bigger proponent of a year like 15-16 where we have more wins despite them being easier over a year like 16-17 where we have less wins but those less wins got us into the NCAA tournament? Is my understanding correct?
-
So it sounds like you would be a bigger proponent of a year like 15-16 where we have more wins despite them being easier over a year like 16-17 where we have less wins but those less wins got us into the NCAA tournament? Is my understanding correct?
No. Your understanding is not correct.
-
No. Your understanding is not correct.
Then forgive my misunderstanding but you seem to be cheering for an easier route that would guarantee more wins right? But if that were to keep us out of the tournament that would equate to you preferring a larger win total no matter how padded that was right?
-
It's always good to be under estimated. I think this team will surprise a lot of people this year.j
-
Then forgive my misunderstanding but you seem to be cheering for an easier route that would guarantee more wins right? But if that were to keep us out of the tournament that would equate to you preferring a larger win total no matter how padded that was right?
I am not "cheering for an easier route." I want Marquette to beat VCU and play the toughest schedule they can in the tournament.
But if they lose to VCU and win the next two, I am not worried about how that will impact the NCAA tournament and seeding. I would rather see two wins in Maui than one.
-
So you decided to end with a "if you don't believe my argument you must not really be a fan" angle? Well whatever.
Again, I am just not going to agree that going 1-2 in Maui with a win v. VCU is better than going 2-1 with a loss v. VCU. (Like in 2012, beating USC and MSU was better than losing to UNC and Texas.) Yes it may have an impact on SOS, but other than that, you are simply making guesses as to the seed line, etc.
Dude, you're wrong here.
I am not "cheering for an easier route." I want Marquette to beat VCU and play the toughest schedule they can in the tournament.
But if they lose to VCU and win the next two, I am not worried about how that will impact the NCAA tournament and seeding. I would rather see two wins in Maui than one.
We'd all prefer to see 2 wins versus 1. We can all agree there. If we lose to VCU, we're all going to want to win the next two games whether they be against Cal, LSU, Chaminade, whoever. But MU's chances of making the tournament greatly improve with playing Wichita State and ND/Michigan versus Cal/LSU/Chaminade, regardless of results. That is just a fact.
-
So you decided to end with a "if you don't believe my argument you must not really be a fan" angle? Well whatever.
No, that's not how I ended my argument. I ended it with a summary of why we should want to beat VCU, with a further explanation of why beating VCU is better than losing to VCU.
Like it or not, every season getting into the NCAA Tournament is a mathematical equation. In 2016, 20 wins was not enough to get in (probably needed 23, at least 22). In 2017, 19 wins was enough. If we beat VCU, it gets us one of those wins while also lessening the requisite amount of total wins.
Simply, it's better to be +1 on a smaller scale than +0 on a bigger scale.
-
We'd all prefer to see 2 wins versus 1. We can all agree there. If we lose to VCU, we're all going to want to win the next two games whether they be against Cal, LSU, Chaminade, whoever. But MU's chances of making the tournament greatly improve with playing Wichita State and ND/Michigan versus Cal/LSU/Chaminade, regardless of results. That is just a fact.
Oh really? It's a "fact" that our odds "greatly" improve? That is quite a bold statement.
-
Oh really? It's a "fact" that our odds "greatly" improve? That is quite a bold statement.
Not really. But that's already been explained to you. Trading out 2 sub-100 RPI teams with 2 top 30 RPI teams can make an enormous difference in SOS and RPI, which are key components to the equation of getting into the tournament. It quite literally is the difference between making the tournament and not.
MU could lose to VCU, beat Cal and LSU and still make the tournament. But they probably will need to go 11-7 in BE play to do it.
-
Not really. But that's already been explained to you. Trading out 2 sub-100 RPI teams with 2 top 30 RPI teams can make an enormous difference in SOS and RPI, which are key components to the equation of getting into the tournament. It quite literally is the difference between making the tournament and not.
MU could lose to VCU, beat Cal and LSU and still make the tournament. But they probably will need to go 11-7 in BE play to do it.
How much do our odds "greatly" improve?
-
How much do our odds "greatly" improve?
Brew has already explained this to you in detail.
-
Brew has already explained this to you in detail.
Brew explained in great detail why SOS is important. He also said that it would mean we would need to have more wins over the course of the rest of the schedule. I understand both of those concepts.
You are the one who says our odds "greatly" improve. I am asking you to define "greatly." How much to our odds "greatly" improve?
So for instance, what would a potential 20 point swing in SOS mean? I honestly don't know the answer to that.
-
How much do our odds "greatly" improve?
How on earth are you still on about this? It's not freaking difficult. Okay...let's go through a quick review of the past two seasons:
2015-16 Marquette
Record: 20-13
Strength of Schedule: 104
Postseason: None
2016-17 Marquette
Record: 19-13
Strength of Schedule: 48
Postseason: NCAA
So first of all, we know that 20 wins with a SOS of 104 was not sufficient to get Marquette into the NIT. At the minimum, we needed 21 wins to make the NIT with a SOS of 104. There is no way that 1 win was going to jump us from out of both tournaments to NCAA (33 spots assuming we were the first team out of the NIT). The closest comparison team for us in 2016 was Wichita State. They had a SOS of 107, nearly identical to ours, and made it in as one of the Last Four In with a record of 24-8. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that playing in a tougher conference with a slightly tougher schedule meant Marquette needed 23 wins to be in the Last Four In. So we know the following:
104 SOS for Postseason Bid:
20 wins: No Postseason
21 wins: Possible NIT
22 wins: Certain NIT, likely high NIT seed
23 wins: NCAA Tournament
Next, we look to 2017. 19 wins with a 48 SOS was enough to get us into the NCAA Tournament with a 10 seed. So at the bare minimum, the 56 point improvement in SOS was worth 4 wins. That says to me that every time you increase your SOS by 14 points, it is the equivalent of winning another game. As I have said repeatedly, this is all just a big math equation. So knowing that 19 got us in, we can assume the following:
48 SOS for Postseason Bid:
16 wins: No Postseason
17 wins: Possible NIT
18 wins: Certain NIT, likely high seed
19 wins: NCAA Tournament
Again, it's math, so the consideration that Wichita State's 24 wins got them the Last Four In in 2016 and our 19 wins got us a 10-seed in 2017 indicates that the value of SOS is actually greater than 1 win = 14 points. But for sake of ease, we'll stick with the 14 points that is clearly established by the above figures.
So now we move on to the difference of the teams we played. To do that, we'll look at our old buddy Buzz Williams. Last year his Virginia Tech team had an RPI of 48 and SOS of 65. But that's not why they're ideal. They also had neutral court wins against a 17-14 New Mexico squad RPI 86 and a 11-19 Nebraska squad RPI 107. That should be fairly comparable to what the pundits would expect from Cal and LSU. What if we replace those with teams to replicate Wichita State and Notre Dame? For the comp, I will use 2016 SMU (American champs) and 2016 Notre Dame (top-4 ACC team).
2016 Virginia Tech Normal:
Record: 22-10
RPI: 48
SOS: 65
2016 Virginia Tech Adjusted:
Record: 20-12
RPI: 52
SOS: 42
Now this is likely an underestimation, but what we establish is that the computer number of RPI barely changes, but SOS improves by 23. Knowing that 14 points is worth a win, we can see that Virginia Tech losing those games actually doesn't lose out. I think it's important to note that most likely, SOS spots are worth more than the 14 points (as explained above) and New Mexico and Nebraska will be better than Cal and LSU so the actual SOS impact would likely be greater than that.
Also, these numbers are not going to be exact because SOS is actually looking at percentages and not simply rankings and RPI accounts records and not simply where your ranking falls, but for the sake of a quick estimation, this is close enough to accurate that I would stand behind the findings.
So what does this ultimately mean to Marquette? It's basically the exact thing I said from the start. If we beat VCU, we guarantee ourselves 1 quality win while establishing a baseline of 18 wins to reach the NCAA Tournament, meaning we need to go 17-12 in our other 29 games with 6 other opportunities for quality non-conference wins. If we lose to VCU, we guarantee ourselves 0 quality wins while establishing a baseline of 20 wins to reach the NCAA Tournament, meaning we need to go 20-9 in our other 29 games with 4 other opportunities for quality non-conference wins.
VCU is unquestionably the biggest game of the season. It makes our road to the NCAAs easier, it assures us a quality win while providing opportunities for more, and mathematically "greatly" improves our odds as you asked. I don't know that I can make it any more clear than this.
-
Brew explained in great detail why SOS is important. He also said that it would mean we would need to have more wins over the course of the rest of the schedule. I understand both of those concepts.
You are the one who says our odds "greatly" improve. I am asking you to define "greatly." How much to our odds "greatly" improve?
So for instance, what would a potential 20 point swing in SOS mean? I honestly don't know the answer to that.
A 20 point swing in SOS would be monumental. The difference between Wichita State and ND/Michigan and LSU/Cal/Chaminade could very well be over 20 slots in SOS, and perhaps even more in RPI.
RPI is a silly stat, but unfortunately the committee continues to use it. Having an RPI outside of the top 60 is near death-kneel for a bubble team. What Brew stated is the same thing I am stating - losing the VCU and playing the next two games against teams outside of the top 100 is going to hurt MU's computer numbers....alot (win or lose). It will greatly downgrade their non-conference SOS, and therefore require MU to "make it up" in BE play. With a 9-3 or even 8-4 non-con record with games against Purdue, VCU, Wichita State, ND/Mich, Georgia, Vermont and Wisconsin, MU's got a decent change to get into the big dance at 9-9 in BE play, likely a lock at 10-8 or better. 9-9 or even 10-8 more than likely does NOT get the job done if you remove Wichita State and ND/Michigan from the schedule and replace with Cal and LSU.
-
I can make it a little easier. Okay, let's just take Maui based on what I established earlier.
Beat VCU and go 1-2:
SOS boost about 25, reduces NCAA win threshold by 2, meaning Marquette needs to go 17-10 in non-Maui games.
Lose to VCU and go 2-1:
SOS drop by 25, increase NCAA win threshold by 2, meaning Marquette needs to go 18-9 in non-Maui games.
So if we beat VCU, we need fewer wins on the mainland to make the tournament than we do if we lose to VCU and win our next two games. Also, if one of those next two is Chaminade, we would have to go 19-8 in non-Maui games because playing a D2 school doesn't impact your NCAA resume.
-
I can make it a little easier. Okay, let's just take Maui based on what I established earlier.
Beat VCU and go 1-2:
SOS boost about 25, reduces NCAA win threshold by 2, meaning Marquette needs to go 17-10 in non-Maui games.
Lose to VCU and go 2-1:
SOS drop by 25, increase NCAA win threshold by 2, meaning Marquette needs to go 18-9 in non-Maui games.
So if we beat VCU, we need fewer wins on the mainland to make the tournament than we do if we lose to VCU and win our next two games. Also, if one of those next two is Chaminade, we would have to go 19-8 in non-Maui games because playing a D2 school doesn't impact your NCAA resume.
Thank you.
-
I see two possible outcomes for our path in Maui:
1. Beat VCU, play Wichita State and then Michigan/ND
2. Lose to VCU, play Cal and then LSU
Option 2 is almost a guaranteed 2-1. Both Cal and LSU look like sub 100 KenPom teams to me. Maybe LSU sneaks into the top 100.
Option 3 can range from 1-2 to 3-0. Wichita State will be the favorite but beatable without McDuffie. If Shamet is still out or even limited because of his injury, that becomes at least a 50/50 game, we might even be the favorite. In the third round, I would give Notre Dame the edge but are beatable. I think MU and Michigan are about as close to a toss up as you can get.
I personally like option 1 better. That Wichita State game is going to look a lot better at the end of the season once they get fully healthy. I also think we are significantly better than VCU. They are going to be relying heavily on guys that transferred from Maine and Longwood...both of whom are ranked in the bottom 10 teams in Division 1.
And their head coach is new although he's got some head coaching experience at Rice and previous experience at VCU as an assistant. Only 4 returning players and the team and the coach need to get to know each other. If we can't beat that team at the start of the season, trouble lies ahead.
-
I don't see how it's even debatable. I think we'd all like for Marquette to beat VCU. If we do that, it comes with a ton of other benefits beyond just getting a likely quality win. Not sure why anyone would rather be in the loser's bracket.
Some people feel more comfortable there. ;)
-
So it sounds like you would be a bigger proponent of a year like 15-16 where we have more wins despite them being easier over a year like 16-17 where we have less wins but those less wins got us into the NCAA tournament? Is my understanding correct?
I would have been a bigger proponent of winning more Big East games in 2015-16 before I started worrying about our SOS.
15-16 we were 8-10 and alone in 7th place in the Big East
16-17 we were 10-8 and tied for 3rd place in the Big East
That's your difference. Not non-conference SOS.
MU didn't have a performance worthy of making the tournament in 2015-16. They proved it in conference by losing more than they won.
A tougher SOS wouldn't have made up for the fact that we lost too damn many games.
-
A 20 point swing in SOS would be monumental. The difference between Wichita State and ND/Michigan and LSU/Cal/Chaminade could very well be over 20 slots in SOS, and perhaps even more in RPI.
RPI is a silly stat, but unfortunately the committee continues to use it. Having an RPI outside of the top 60 is near death-kneel for a bubble team. What Brew stated is the same thing I am stating - losing the VCU and playing the next two games against teams outside of the top 100 is going to hurt MU's computer numbers....alot (win or lose). It will greatly downgrade their non-conference SOS, and therefore require MU to "make it up" in BE play. With a 9-3 or even 8-4 non-con record with games against Purdue, VCU, Wichita State, ND/Mich, Georgia, Vermont and Wisconsin, MU's got a decent change to get into the big dance at 9-9 in BE play, likely a lock at 10-8 or better. 9-9 or even 10-8 more than likely does NOT get the job done if you remove Wichita State and ND/Michigan from the schedule and replace with Cal and LSU.
What are the actual wins and losses in your scenarios?
Say we beat VCU but don't get a win against Purdue, Georgia, Vermont or Wisconsin. Are you suggesting that the SOS benefit of the two "good losses" to WSU and ND/Mich will make the committee ignore the fact that we would have 1-6 record against quality non-conference teams?
And are you further suggesting that if MU beats Purdue, Georgia, Vermont and Wisconsin, but we lose to VCU--and that's our only non-conference loss--are you saying the committee will argue that we don't deserve a bid because of "poor" strength of schedule?
I could argue that beating Purdue, Georgia and Vermont are all more important than VCU because they're all home games--devastating in the RPI should we lose.
I could argue that beating Wisconsin is more critical than VCU, because its our only chance for a signature road win and more helpful in the RPI than a neutral court win.
I can look at our schedule holistically, and the reality is that if we can't take at least two or three games from Purdue, Georgia, Vermont and Wisconsin, beating VCU to get a better SOS isn't going to help us. We're not going to sneak win with a .500 conference record and six non-conference losses, regardless of SOS.
And if we do take at least two or three games from that group, VCU and our SOS won't matter.
-
What are the actual wins and losses in your scenarios?
Say we beat VCU but don't get a win against Purdue, Georgia, Vermont or Wisconsin. Are you suggesting that the SOS benefit of the two "good losses" to WSU and ND/Mich will make the committee ignore the fact that we would have 1-6 record against quality non-conference teams?
Actual wins and losses are irrelevant. If you want the explanation, see my lengthy post above.
Beating VCU reduces our win requirement total and offsets the benefit of winning an extra game. We need one less win outside Maui if we beat VCU and lose the next two than if we lose to VCU and win two in the loser's bracket.
Who it is doesn't matter. It never matters. Because if you get enough wins, enough will have to be quality due to our SOS to offset any bad losses.
-
Actual wins and losses are irrelevant. If you want the explanation, see my lengthy post above.
Beating VCU reduces our win requirement total and offsets the benefit of winning an extra game. We need one less win outside Maui if we beat VCU and lose the next two than if we lose to VCU and win two in the loser's bracket.
Who it is doesn't matter. It never matters. Because if you get enough wins, enough will have to be quality due to our SOS to offset any bad losses.
Your length post is based on a flawed assumption--that we missed the tournament in 2015-16 because of poor SOS, and we made it in 2016-17 because of better SOS.
I already pointed out that SOS was irrelevant in both seasons.
Our 8-10 record and standalone 7th place in the BE in 2016 wasn't tournament worthy. There was no possible SOS improvement that would have got us into the tournament that year. We didn't have a tournament worthy body of work.
Just try to make the argument that we were tournament worthy but for a stronger strength of schedule. Our most impressive non-conference win was #46 RPI Wisconsin, offset by bad losses to #100 Creighton, #106 Georgetown, #201 DePaul and a near bad loss to #95 Belmont (at home). We also had a home loss to #29 Iowa. We had one conference win against an NCAA tournament team.
I just don't see it. There is no history of 7th place/8-10 Bit East teams making the tournament. It didn't happen for Georgetown in 2014, and their SOS was ranked 25th.
On the other hand, our 10-8/tied for 3rd place performance in 2017 was clearly tournament worthy, as has been the case for every 3rd place finisher in Big East play as far back as I can recall.
Look, I'm not saying we should tank the game against VCU--but we build a tournament worthy body of work by winning two to three games against Wisconsin, Purdue, Vermont, Georgia AND VCU--and it doesn't matter which two or three teams the wins come against.
-
You're missing the key component that it's the measure of results vs SOS. We had enough wins in 2016, but the body of work wasn't adequate specifically because of the SOS.
And my argument isn't solely that SOS makes you worthy, but it does make the road easier.
Also, 7th placed Xavier from 2017 and the Elite Eight would disagree with you.
-
You're missing the key component that it's the measure of results vs SOS. We had enough wins in 2016, but the body of work wasn't adequate specifically because of the SOS.
And my argument isn't solely that SOS makes you worthy, but it does make the road easier.
Also, 7th placed Xavier from 2017 and the Elite Eight would disagree with you.
I'd love to hear your case as to how our body of work in 2016 was tournament worthy. Ignore SOS. make the case based on the wins you think demonstrated we were one of the top 64 teams, that would have caught the attention of the committee. Highlight what you thought were the good losses, and why you think our bad losses weren't that bad.
-
I'd love to hear your case as to how our body of work in 2016 was tournament worthy. Ignore SOS. make the case based on the wins you think demonstrated we were one of the top 64 teams, that would have caught the attention of the committee. Highlight what you thought were the good losses, and why you think our bad losses weren't that bad.
This is willful ignorance and I'm not bothering explaining what has already been thoroughly explained above. If you can't understand my argument to the rudimentary level I already broke it down to, then you are beyond my ability to educate.
-
Didn’t somebody run a calculation that changed out the gramblimg and a couple other teams with average mid majors in the high 100s or low 200s and our sos bumped up to a point where we would have had an outside as a bubble team or for sure have been in the NIT?
-
This is willful ignorance and I'm not bothering explaining what has already been thoroughly explained above. If you can't understand my argument to the rudimentary level I already broke it down to, then you are beyond my ability to educate.
Why are you always so hostile? Not everyone shares your viewpoint. It’s a message board for God sakes.
-
Why are you always so hostile? Not everyone shares your viewpoint. It’s a message board for God sakes.
I've had similar discussions with said poster over the years and it's always the same. How else would one respond to a discussion about the importance of SOS where the responder says "Ignore SOS"?
I'm willing to discuss actual counter points, but I fail to see how we can discuss the importance of SOS by ignoring it.
-
Didn’t somebody run a calculation that changed out the gramblimg and a couple other teams with average mid majors in the high 100s or low 200s and our sos bumped up to a point where we would have had an outside as a bubble team or for sure have been in the NIT?
Kind of...
http://latenighthoops.com/marquettes-schedule-improved-2016-17/#.Wfbsu4VOmEc
Before last season, we commented on the fact that our path to the tourney was much more favorable due to improved scheduling.
Maybe I'll post projections on 2017-18 at some point..
-
Fortunately there is Teamcast on Trank.
Beat VCU and lose to WSU and Michigan. Move up one seed line.
Lose to VCU and beat LSU and Cal, go down 3 seed lines.
-
Didn’t somebody run a calculation that changed out the gramblimg and a couple other teams with average mid majors in the high 100s or low 200s and our sos bumped up to a point where we would have had an outside as a bubble team or for sure have been in the NIT?
I did. I don't have the time or energy to go find the post, but we played a pitiful non-con schedule in 15-16. Replace the dreadful teams (Grambling, Chicago State, Presbyterian) with teams around 200 in RPI (that are still easy wins) and we were a bubbly team. We probably still needed another win in the BET to make the dance, but we would have been 1-2 seed in the NIT, a probably 1 BE (league or tournament) win from being in the dance.
Now that is a slightly different discussion that the one we're having here. But the importance on SOS/RPI remains the same.
-
This is willful ignorance and I'm not bothering explaining what has already been thoroughly explained above. If you can't understand my argument to the rudimentary level I already broke it down to, then you are beyond my ability to educate.
I'm just asking a simple question.
You apparently believe that our 2015-16 body of work--outside the quality of the half-dozen cupcakes-- is a strong, tournament-worthy performance.
I don't think you ever explained why you think we deserved a bid independent of SOS.
Make the case.
I already told you why i don't think we deserved it
- 8-10 / 7th place finish
- 3 conference losses to teams outside the top 100, including #201 DePaul
- Home losses to Iowa, Belmont
- Best win overall to #40 Providence
- Best nonconfernce win to Wisconsin
Not worthy. Replacing our 300+ cupcakes with teams 150 to 200 would not have changed our body of work.
-
I'm just asking a simple question.
You apparently believe that our 2015-16 body of work--outside the quality of the half-dozen cupcakes-- is a strong, tournament-worthy performance.
I don't think you ever explained why you think we deserved a bid independent of SOS.
Make the case.
I already told you why i don't think we deserved it
- 8-10 / 7th place finish
- 3 conference losses to teams outside the top 100, including #201 DePaul
- Home losses to Iowa, Belmont
- Best win overall to #40 Providence
- Best nonconfernce win to Wisconsin
Not worthy. Replacing our 300+ cupcakes with teams 150 to 200 would not have changed our body of work.
You're creating an argument I didn't make at any point in here. That's why this is willful ignorance. You're ignoring what I posted in regards to the importance of SOS and why winning the VCU game is so singularly important.
We've had the 2015-16 discussion more than enough times. I'm not rehashing that. Jay Bee, JJJJJ, and others went through it then and again now. Sorry, but I'm not banging my head against that wall again. If you want to understand that, go read the posts that were made ad nauseum at the time.
The comparison regarding 2015-16 is simply one of the win equation. 2015-16 proves that you can win more games (20) than we did in 2016-17 (19) and yet the higher win total did not yield a NCAA berth while the lower one did. The reason for that is because those wins are rated in comparison to the SOS we played.
The further comparison is made to Wichita State, who did make the tourney with a nearly identical SOS in 2015-16, but needed 4 more wins to get in as one of the last four teams. Marquette needed to win 23-24 games in 2015-16.
I would refer you back to this from my lengthy post that you claim to have read but clearly did not comprehend:
104 SOS for Postseason Bid:
20 wins: No Postseason
21 wins: Possible NIT
22 wins: Certain NIT, likely high NIT seed
23 wins: NCAA Tournament
I said specifically we needed 23 wins to get into the tournament. I said specifically that our 20 wins did not result in a postseason result. I laid it out clearly. Any further failure of comprehension is on your behalf, not mine. Reading is Fundamental.
-
You're creating an argument I didn't make at any point in here. That's why this is willful ignorance. You're ignoring what I posted in regards to the importance of SOS and why winning the VCU game is so singularly important.
We've had the 2015-16 discussion more than enough times. I'm not rehashing that. Jay Bee, JJJJJ, and others went through it then and again now. Sorry, but I'm not banging my head against that wall again. If you want to understand that, go read the posts that were made ad nauseum at the time.
The comparison regarding 2015-16 is simply one of the win equation. 2015-16 proves that you can win more games (20) than we did in 2016-17 (19) and yet the higher win total did not yield a NCAA berth while the lower one did. The reason for that is because those wins are rated in comparison to the SOS we played.
The further comparison is made to Wichita State, who did make the tourney with a nearly identical SOS in 2015-16, but needed 4 more wins to get in as one of the last four teams. Marquette needed to win 23-24 games in 2015-16.
I would refer you back to this from my lengthy post that you claim to have read but clearly did not comprehend:
I said specifically we needed 23 wins to get into the tournament. I said specifically that our 20 wins did not result in a postseason result. I laid it out clearly. Any further failure of comprehension is on your behalf, not mine. Reading is Fundamental.
Breathe.
-
I again went to Teamcast for the 2016 Season.
Dropped Grambling, Maine, Chicago St. and Presbyterian.
Added Southern, New Hampshire, UMKC and Radford.
RPI went from 111 to 93.
-
I will also say the UW game will also be huge this year. Looking at some of the analytical sites, we are near the bubble with them. It would be tough to put them ahead of us on same seed line with a win in Madison. SI has MU and UW as 11 seeds, with MU in the play in game, for example.
-
I again went to Teamcast for the 2016 Season.
Dropped Grambling, Maine, Chicago St. and Presbyterian.
Added Southern, New Hampshire, UMKC and Radford.
RPI went from 111 to 93.
I went to Teamcast and ran 4 scenarios for 3 different opponents, accepting the Teamcast default projections in all other games. I wanted to see if the data backed up the idea that the VCU game carries outsized importance in our NCAA chances.
Lose to Wisconsin, lose to VCU (followed by 2 wins): RPI is 48
Lose to Wisconsin, beat VCU (followed by 2 losses): RPI of 37
Beat Wisconsin, lose to VCU (followed by 2 wins): RPI of 37
Beat Wisconsin, Beat VCU (followed by 2 losses) : RPI of 29
Then 4 scenarios with Purdue (accepting their projections, which returns Wisconsin to a Loss)
Lose to Purdue, lose to VCU - RPI is 56
Lose to Purdue, beat VCU - RPI is 42
Beat Purdue, Lose to VCU - RPI is 41
Beat Purdue, beat VCU - RPI is 32
BTW, its not just Purdue or Wisconsin--avoiding home losses and getting road wins have the same impact. For example, here's DePaul.
Lose to DePaul at home, Lose to VCU - RPI of 55
Lose to DePaul at home, Beat VCU - RPI of 40
Beat DePaul at home, lose to VCU - RPI of 40
Beat DePaul at Home, Beat VCU - RPI of 32
In each of three opponent selections, its obviously best case to beat both teams, (and worst to lose to both teams). But the interesting thing is if you compare any opponent to VCU--all other things being equal--it makes no difference to our RPI which team we beat.
Of course, this doesn't incorporate any of the adjustments that the committee makes. We know that they penalize teams for bad losses. So if DePaul is sub 200 in the RPI rank again, even though the RPI is equivalent between the choices of beating them and losing to VCU or the reverse--avoiding a loss to DePaul actually is more important to our tournament chances because we'd avoid the bad loss penalty.
Teamcast disproves the notion that VCU is singularly important to our tournament chances. At face value, it is no more or less important than any other game on the schedule. And arguably less important than avoiding bad losses or getting good wins.
-
I went to Teamcast and ran 4 scenarios for 3 different opponents, accepting the Teamcast default projections in all other games. I wanted to see if the data backed up the idea that the VCU game carries outsized importance in our NCAA chances.
Lose to Wisconsin, lose to VCU (followed by 2 wins): RPI is 48
Lose to Wisconsin, beat VCU (followed by 2 losses): RPI of 37
Beat Wisconsin, lose to VCU (followed by 2 wins): RPI of 37
Beat Wisconsin, Beat VCU (followed by 2 losses) : RPI of 29
Then 4 scenarios with Purdue (accepting their projections, which returns Wisconsin to a Loss)
Lose to Purdue, lose to VCU - RPI is 56
Lose to Purdue, beat VCU - RPI is 42
Beat Purdue, Lose to VCU - RPI is 41
Beat Purdue, beat VCU - RPI is 32
BTW, its not just Purdue or Wisconsin--avoiding home losses and getting road wins have the same impact. For example, here's DePaul.
Lose to DePaul at home, Lose to VCU - RPI of 55
Lose to DePaul at home, Beat VCU - RPI of 40
Beat DePaul at home, lose to VCU - RPI of 40
Beat DePaul at Home, Beat VCU - RPI of 32
In each of three opponent selections, its obviously best case to beat both teams, (and worst to lose to both teams). But the interesting thing is if you compare any opponent to VCU--all other things being equal--it makes no difference to our RPI which team we beat.
Of course, this doesn't incorporate any of the adjustments that the committee makes. We know that they penalize teams for bad losses. So if DePaul is sub 200 in the RPI rank again, even though the RPI is equivalent between the choices of beating them and losing to VCU or the reverse--avoiding a loss to DePaul actually is more important to our tournament chances because we'd avoid the bad loss penalty.
Teamcast disproves the notion that VCU is singularly important to our tournament chances. At face value, it is no more or less important than any other game on the schedule. And arguably less important than avoiding bad losses or getting good wins.
Who did you use for the games after VCU?
Fortunately there is Teamcast on Trank.
Beat VCU and lose to WSU and Michigan. Move up one seed line.
Lose to VCU and beat LSU and Cal, go down 3 seed lines.
That's the simple analysis. I can run it again if you want.
-
Who did you use for the games after VCU?
That's the simple analysis. I can run it again if you want.
I meant seed lines, as in the S curve.
-
Who did you use for the games after VCU?
Win: lossees to WSU and Michigan
Loss: Wins over LSU and Cal
-
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/21238280/ranking-every-team-college-basketball-1-351
-
imagine if we play Wichita, i really feel like they are a little overrated except their PG Landry Shamet who is really good
-
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/21238280/ranking-every-team-college-basketball-1-351
#36? THE OUTRAGE!!! ESPN CLEARLY HATES THE BIG EAST!!!
Actually, seems about right, maybe even higher than what I would have predicted.
Rest of the Big East and MU opponents for everyone's easy viewing pleasure:
#2 Wichita State
#5 Villanova
#12 Purdue
#18 Xavier
#20 Notre Dame
#23 Michigan
#24 Seton Hall
#29 Providence
#32 Butler
#43 Wisconsin
#44 Creighton
#57 Georgia
#63 St. John's
#74 Vermont
#81 VCU
#88 LSU
#92 Georgetown
#100 California
#118 DePaul
#218 Eastern Illinois
#234 Northern Illinois
#263 Mount St. Mary's
#289 American
#328 Chicago State
-
Obviously these polls are all figured out in different ways; how else could a CBS writer have MU at 64 and an ESPN one have them at 36? For more data points, here are the most recent AP and USA today polls:
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings)
Neither are as bullish on Wichita State as John Gasaway is, but both have them highly ranked. It would be great to play them.
-
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/21238280/ranking-every-team-college-basketball-1-351
Kentucky only returning 7% of possession-minutes from last year.
-
Would it help our RPI and other stuff if we go 3-0 in Maui?
Cuz that's what we're gonna do!
-
Would it help our RPI and other stuff if we go 3-0 in Maui?
Cuz that's what we're gonna do!
I prefer 4-0
-
Would it help our RPI and other stuff if we go 3-0 in Maui?
Cuz that's what we're gonna do!
I like that thought!
-
I prefer 4-0
I like it. Blitz through VCU and Wichita State and tell Michigan/Notre Dame to not bother playing the semi-final game. We'll just beat them both and call it a tournament.
-
Your length post is based on a flawed assumption--that we missed the tournament in 2015-16 because of poor SOS, and we made it in 2016-17 because of better SOS.
I already pointed out that SOS was irrelevant in both seasons.
Our 8-10 record and standalone 7th place in the BE in 2016 wasn't tournament worthy. There was no possible SOS improvement that would have got us into the tournament that year. We didn't have a tournament worthy body of work.
Just try to make the argument that we were tournament worthy but for a stronger strength of schedule. Our most impressive non-conference win was #46 RPI Wisconsin, offset by bad losses to #100 Creighton, #106 Georgetown, #201 DePaul and a near bad loss to #95 Belmont (at home). We also had a home loss to #29 Iowa. We had one conference win against an NCAA tournament team.
I just don't see it. There is no history of 7th place/8-10 Bit East teams making the tournament. It didn't happen for Georgetown in 2014, and their SOS was ranked 25th.
On the other hand, our 10-8/tied for 3rd place performance in 2017 was clearly tournament worthy, as has been the case for every 3rd place finisher in Big East play as far back as I can recall.
Look, I'm not saying we should tank the game against VCU--but we build a tournament worthy body of work by winning two to three games against Wisconsin, Purdue, Vermont, Georgia AND VCU--and it doesn't matter which two or three teams the wins come against.
I believe St. John's went 10-8 and missed the NCAA in the New Big East's first season. The league ended up with only four bids that year. Some early preseason predictions have the Big East only getting 4 bids this year, which if happens the fifth place team with a 10-8 record is not getting a bid. 10-8 in big East does not get you in. Quality wins do.
-
I believe St. John's went 10-8 and missed the NCAA in the New Big East's first season. The league ended up with only four bids that year. Some early preseason predictions have the Big East only getting 4 bids this year, which if happens the fifth place team with a 10-8 record is not getting a bid. 10-8 in big East does not get you in. Quality wins do.
10-8 in the BE is going to get you in UNLESS you had just an pitiful non-con.
-
10-8 in the BE is going to get you in UNLESS you had just an pitiful non-con.
10-8 would get anyone in except Georgetown, who probably needs to win the Big East Tournament even if they go 30-0.