At the risk of opening an old can of worms, I was looking at MU's conf. and non-conf. SOS.
http://www.kenpom.com/rpi.php
(the spacing below gets a little off in this post, so it might be easier to just go to the website.)
Anyways, without doing a ton of statistical analysis, it appears like MU's non-conf. SOS is similar to the median of the top 20 teams (107), while MU's overall SOS is above average (24), because the Big East is so tough.
Now, I realize for entertainment purposes, fans would like to have some better teams come to the Bradley Center to play. However, from a basketball perspective, MU is coming in right about "normal" in these 2 categories (non-conf SOS and conf. SOS) for a top 20 program.
Obviously programs like UT and UM have tough schedules and are having great years, but for all of the conjecture and hand ringing that seems to go on with MU's schedule, I'd say MU did a pretty decent job selecting opponents.
Again, I understand the want for entertainment, but from a "basketball competition" perspective, MU did a pretty good job.
IF MU had created a tougher non-conf schedule (even a little tougher), certainly the overall SOS would certainly be in the top 15, which wouldn't be a bad thing, but also isn't really necessary.
Anyways, I'm not trying to start the great debate again (we can live that in Sept./Oct. when the schedule comes out), but I'm trying to take an objective look at what MU did, and I would say that it's right in line with several other top programs that play in very tough conferences.
I know some people will still hate the MU schedule, and that's fine... but when you take a look at the numbers, MU is doing the same thing that a lot of top schools are doing... so it's hard for me to be too critical of what they have done this year.
SOS 1-50 51-100 101-200 201+ Non Conference L10 RD/NT
Rnk Team Conf W-L RPI SOS Rk W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L RPI SOS W-L W-L
1 Tennessee SEC 24-2 .6890 .6079 2 8-1 4-1 10-0 2-0 13-1 1 5 9-1 11-2
2 Memphis CUSA 26-1 .6685 .5769 17 6-1 6-0 9-0 5-0 14-1 2 9 9-1 11-0
3 North Carolina ACC 26-2 .6660 .5879 4 5-1 11-1 5-0 5-0 15-0 3 34 8-2 13-0
4 Duke ACC 23-3 .6618 .5824 9 5-2 8-1 6-0 4-0 13-1 10 74 8-2 9-3
5 Texas B12 22-4 .6581 .5978 3 9-3 3-1 5-0 5-0 12-2 13 21 9-1 8-3
6 Xavier A10 24-4 .6509 .5782 16 7-1 6-3 8-0 3-0 12-3 8 13 10-0 10-3
7 Georgetown BE 22-4 .6416 .5591 44 5-4 2-0 12-0 3-0 10-1 18 119 8-2 8-4
8 Kansas B12 23-3 .6410 .5502 60 4-2 5-1 10-0 4-0 14-0 9 139 7-3 7-3
9 UCLA P10 23-3 .6372 .5634 38 6-2 6-0 5-1 6-0 11-1 26 106 8-2 10-1
10 Vanderbilt SEC 23-4 .6361 .5544 52 2-2 6-2 9-0 6-0 15-0 7 105 7-3 6-4
11 Drake MVC 22-3 .6340 .5484 64 4-2 6-1 7-0 5-0 8-1 14 98 8-2 10-2
12 Connecticut BE 21-6 .6281 .5795 14 6-5 3-0 6-1 6-0 11-2 20 67 9-1 7-5
13 Wisconsin B10 23-4 .6277 .5569 49 3-4 1-0 15-0 4-0 10-2 27 65 8-2 9-2
14 Louisville BE 22-6 .6263 .5786 15 7-4 2-2 8-0 5-0 10-3 29 22 9-1 9-4
15 Michigan St. B10 22-5 .6222 .5524 54 3-3 4-0 10-2 5-0 12-1 5 31 7-3 6-5
16 Arizona P10 16-10 .6180 .6228 1 5-5 5-3 3-2 3-0 9-3 4 7 6-4 6-6
17 Marquette BE 19-6 .6169 .5700 24 3-6 5-0 5-0 6-0 9-1 22 107 7-3 5-5
18 Butler Horz 25-3 .6143 .5166 127 1-1 7-2 9-0 8-0 11-1 15 82 9-1 15-2
19 Indiana B10 23-4 .6128 .5444 75 4-4 3-0 9-0 7-0 11-2 40 91 7-3 8-2
20 Notre Dame BE 21-5 .6121 .5474 67 7-4 2-1 4-0 8-0 10-2 115 284 8-2 5-5
21 Stanford P10 22-4 .6116 .5298 98 4-1 6-3 5-0 7-0 11-1 58 286 9-1 8-3
22 Washington St. P10 21-6 .6032 .5514 57 4-5 4-1 4-0 9-0 12-0 21 234 5-5 13-2
23 Clemson ACC 18-7 .6026 .5667 29 2-5 5-2 6-0 5-0 11-2 51 175 6-4 6-5
24 South Alabama SB 20-5 .6014 .5225 111 1-2 2-1 8-2 9-0 6-3 37 25 8-2 8-5
25 Miami FL ACC 18-7 .6008 .5644 36 3-2 5-3 4-2 6-0 12-1 30 182 5-5 7-5
26 Pittsburgh BE 18-8 .6007 .5702 23 4-6 3-1 6-0 5-1 11-1 12 96 4-6 5-6
27 Brigham Young MWC 21-6 .5998 .5325 94 3-3 3-2 5-1 10-0 11-4 63 132 9-1 7-6
28 Oklahoma B12 18-9 .5981 .5850 6 5-8 3-0 4-1 6-0 12-3 35 66 6-4 6-6
29 Kent St. MAC 23-5 .5968 .5113 135 2-2 5-1 6-0 10-2 12-3 19 69 9-1 8-5
30 Purdue B10 21-6 .5962 .5336 90 4-3 2-1 8-2 7-0 9-4 144 240 9-1 7-5
thanks for the analysis, well done.
The reason Memphis has a tough OOC schedule is because their C-USA schedule is very very bad.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 25, 2008, 01:42:46 PM
The reason Memphis has a tough OOC schedule is because their C-USA schedule is very very bad.
however some teams in Conf USA (UAB, Houston) have RPIs better then most big conference schools
watched a clip of Calipari on First Take last week when they were talking about this, and he brought up the bias towards Conf USA... and that everyone thought the 2 point win @ UAB was a bad win by Memphis, however that UABs RPI is better then Wak Forest (who beat Duke that week as well)... all is on perspective, however a lot of Conf USA is bad, along with a lot of Big Ten is bad, a lot of ACC is bad, a lot of many conferences are bad. Not sticking up for Conf USA as much as looking at it from both sides, and that I am pretty sick of people bad mouthing their conference schedule, and then let a loss from Duke to Wake Forest go because of the name... if Memphis would have lost to UAB, they would have dropped quite a few... where as Duke dropped 1, maybe 2?
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 25, 2008, 01:42:46 PM
The reason Memphis has a tough OOC schedule is because their C-USA schedule is very very bad.
agreed...
They are in opposite "boat" as MU, (weak conf. SOS and strong non-conf. SOS) but have a very similar overall SOS.
I only called them out because UT and Memphis are the #1 and #2 RPI teams while having tough non-conf. schedules... which would inevitably lead to somebody stating that MU should schedule that way because it works for UT and Memphis.
However, MU and Memphis' overall SOS is similar.
Like Memphis though, the top of CUSA gets a pretty nice RPI bump just by have so many winnable games. If 25% of your RPI is your winning %, than a CUSA schedule will help that portion of the math for the better teams more so than a Wake. Also compared to a lot of smaller schools, CUSA teams don't have a terrible W-L record. You'd expect them to win their OOC games against the smaller schools and even most mid-majors, but there is a clear gap between them and the major conferences.
RPI: 25% your Winning%, 50% your Opp W%, 25% Opponents Opp W%
In the end if Wake played UAB on a neutral floor, who would you take?
Quote from: TheManInGold on February 25, 2008, 04:17:37 PM
Like Memphis though, the top of CUSA gets a pretty nice RPI bump just by have so many winnable games. If 25% of your RPI is your winning %, than a CUSA schedule will help that portion of the math for the better teams more so than a Wake. Also compared to a lot of smaller schools, CUSA teams don't have a terrible W-L record. You'd expect them to win their OOC games against the smaller schools and even most mid-majors, but there is a clear gap between them and the major conferences.
RPI: 25% your Winning%, 50% your Opp W%, 25% Opponents Opp W%
In the end if Wake played UAB on a neutral floor, who would you take?
UAB.
Quote from: Mayor McCheese on February 25, 2008, 08:19:21 PM
Quote from: TheManInGold on February 25, 2008, 04:17:37 PM
Like Memphis though, the top of CUSA gets a pretty nice RPI bump just by have so many winnable games. If 25% of your RPI is your winning %, than a CUSA schedule will help that portion of the math for the better teams more so than a Wake. Also compared to a lot of smaller schools, CUSA teams don't have a terrible W-L record. You'd expect them to win their OOC games against the smaller schools and even most mid-majors, but there is a clear gap between them and the major conferences.
RPI: 25% your Winning%, 50% your Opp W%, 25% Opponents Opp W%
In the end if Wake played UAB on a neutral floor, who would you take?
UAB.