MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: brewcity77 on July 12, 2015, 01:05:27 PM
-
Okay...so we have 10/13 opponents announced so far. With San Jose State and Maine added, we have...
- Nov. 13: Belmont Solid opponent, top-100 RPI last year, tough opening test against a good mid-major. Assigned by Legends Classic.
- Nov. 16: IUPUI 257 RPI last year. Not great, but next best opponent in the LC field. Assigned by Legends Classic.
- Nov. 19: Iowa 40 RPI last year. Assigned by Gavitt Games.
- Nov. 23: LSU 65 RPI last year. Assigned by Legends Classic. (Not official yet)
- Nov. 24: NC State/ASU 32/90 RPI last year. Assigned by Legends Classic. (Not official yet)
- Nov. 29: Jackson State 317 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
- Dec. 2: Grambling 351 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
- Dec. 5: Maine 338 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
- Dec. 8: San Jose State 336 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
- Dec. 12: Wisconsin 2 RPI last year. Scheduled by annual series.
- Dec. 22: Chicago State 333 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
.
The 4 5 games scheduled by Marquette, the true "buy" games, are awful. These 4 5 teams had a combined 18-103 23-127 record last year. When calculating how opponents factor into your RPI, their record is the first thing considered. That's not a good thing.
Three games have yet to be announced. Will they be any better than what we've seen? You almost think they have to be. But still, not good thus far. And if there was another high-major, normally those get leaked before this late in the summer. Maybe we get surprised with a late home-and-home or neutral site announcement, but it feels unlikely at this point.
The old adage will be "win and it takes care of everything" and there's some truth to that, but if we go 2-3 against Belmont and the high majors, the weak buy games could put us behind the 8-ball as far as making the tourney before conference play even starts. A strong non-con schedule will allow for 3-4 losses while still staying in good NCAA position. This schedule, any more than 2 losses and we could be in trouble.
-
LSU and ASU/NCState are part of the Legends Classic. Not the Gavitt Games.
-
Okay...so we have 10/13 opponents announced so far. With San Jose State and Maine added, we have...
- Nov. 13: Belmont Solid opponent, top-100 RPI last year, tough opening test against a good mid-major. Assigned by Legends Classic.
- Nov. 16: IUPUI 257 RPI last year. Not great, but next best opponent in the LC field. Assigned by Legends Classic.
- Nov. 19: Iowa 40 RPI last year. Assigned by Gavitt Games.
- Nov. 23: LSU 65 RPI last year. Assigned by Gavitt Games. (Not official yet)
- Nov. 24: NC State/ASU 32/90 RPI last year. Assigned by Gavitt Games. (Not official yet)
- Nov. 29: Jackson State 317 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
- Dec. 2: Grambling 351 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
- Dec. 5: Maine 338 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
- Dec. 8: San Jose State 336 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
- Dec. 11: Wisconsin 2 RPI last year. Scheduled by annual series.
.
The 4 games scheduled by Marquette, the true "buy" games, are awful. These 4 teams had a combined 18-103 record last year. When calculating how opponents factor into your RPI, their record is the first thing considered. That's not a good thing.
Three games have yet to be announced. Will they be any better than what we've seen? You almost think they have to be. But still, not good thus far. And if there was another high-major, normally those get leaked before this late in the summer. Maybe we get surprised with a late home-and-home or neutral site announcement, but it feels unlikely at this point.
The old adage will be "win and it takes care of everything" and there's some truth to that, but if we go 2-3 against Belmont and the high majors, the weak buy games could put us behind the 8-ball as far as making the tourney before conference play even starts. A strong non-con schedule will allow for 3-4 losses while still staying in good NCAA position. This schedule, any more than 2 losses and we could be in trouble.
If MU gets to 21 wins, with double digit wins in the Big East, that is all that matters. And I want some cupcakes for the young guys to get their feet under them.
-
I remember at the meeting with Wojo at the end of the year someone asked about the schedule. Wojo was pretty flustered with it so I imagine some things went wrong with scheduling non-conference this year.
-
I know buy games can be a challenge to schedule...but would be pretty pathetic if our "best" is against last season's #317 RPI team. Kinda hard to imagine the last three will be any worse....
-
Another issue here is for season ticket holders. Thus far, the non-conference schedule has one appealing game in Iowa. With no Syracuse, Louisville, Notre Dame, and UConn on the schedule, we need these non-conference games to bolster already diminishing attendance.
Suffice to say, none of the STH's are spending money to see Maine or Grambling.
-
I see we'll be continuing our long-standing tradition of leading the Big East and vying for the high-major lead in 300+ RPI teams played. Will the excuse again be "bad luck" when the bad teams turn out to be bad, the calendar presenting limited scheduling opportunities (that our peers can somehow manage), or did our large basketball budget suddenly dry up when it came to scheduling respectable opponents? Time for Scholl to take scheduling away from Broecker, who has proven he can't handle it.
-
When is the last time our out of conference schedule kept us out of the NCAA Tournament?
Until it becomes a deciding factor for us, I think we'll be just fine. Either we'll be good enough and make the Tourney or we won't. Beating Grambling instead of Lipscomb isn't going to cause us to miss the NCAA Tournament.
-
I have also mentioned that MU likely has a budget for these buy games. Balancing budget, BC availability and team availability might not be the easiest task in the world.
-
When is the last time our out of conference schedule kept us out of the NCAA Tournament?
Until it becomes a deciding factor for us, I think we'll be just fine. Either we'll be good enough and make the Tourney or we won't. Beating Grambling instead of Lipscomb isn't going to cause us to miss the NCAA Tournament.
We really haven't been on the bubble very often in recent years, however. The one time we were still on the bubble on Selection Sunday we very nearly did miss the tournament in 2011. That non-con looked very similar to this year -- four high-major games, all of which we lost. However, we had two top-100 wins (Bucknell & UWM) and another top-200 win (Green Bay). There were 4 sub-300 opponents on that schedule, two more sub-250. We went 9-9 in conference and needed two wins at the BET to get in as an 11-seed.
That team barely made the tourney, and thus far, this year's non-conference looks even worse than that one was. And our conference slate likely won't give us the 10 opportunities against top-25 RPI teams we had that year. In recent years, SMU (2014), Iowa (2013), Drexel (2012), and Virginia Tech (2011, 2010) have all missed out with non-conference schedule largely being blamed for their snub.
The tougher these games, the more leeway you get in March. This schedule doesn't give us a lot of flexibility.
-
Alan, I only hope that this team is good enough to warrant worrying about SOS come March.
-
Alan, I only hope that this team is good enough to warrant worrying about SOS come March.
Of course, but the reality is that a team in our position should be preparing for Selection Sunday every year. Sometimes you'll get there and be able to talk seeding, sometimes you'll just be hoping to be in the discussion. The past couple years we've been out of the conversation before March began, but had we been on the bubble, don't you want every controllable advantage on your side?
The Selection Committee has talked about the importance of challenging yourself in non-conference numerous times in recent years. They pay attention to that because they feel it is a controllable factor. When you have the second largest budget in all of NCAA basketball and play every game on national television, it shouldn't be hard to schedule quality cupcakes. The difference between a team 15-16 team in the 200-250 RPI area and a 2-28 team in the 300-350 RPI area may not seem big in terms of name recognition, but it does make a difference come March. So when you have the money to spend and the ability to put anyone you play on TV sets coast to coast, how can it be that hard to get better non-conference opponents?
-
LSU and ASU/NCState are part of the Legends Classic. Not the Gavitt Games.
Thank you, Professor Kingsfield
-
Perfect for our young team. Should get everybody plenty of minutes to see what we have.
-
We really haven't been on the bubble very often in recent years, however. The one time we were still on the bubble on Selection Sunday we very nearly did miss the tournament in 2011. That non-con looked very similar to this year -- four high-major games, all of which we lost. However, we had two top-100 wins (Bucknell & UWM) and another top-200 win (Green Bay). There were 4 sub-300 opponents on that schedule, two more sub-250. We went 9-9 in conference and needed two wins at the BET to get in as an 11-seed.
That team barely made the tourney, and thus far, this year's non-conference looks even worse than that one was. And our conference slate likely won't give us the 10 opportunities against top-25 RPI teams we had that year. In recent years, SMU (2014), Iowa (2013), Drexel (2012), and Virginia Tech (2011, 2010) have all missed out with non-conference schedule largely being blamed for their snub.
The tougher these games, the more leeway you get in March. This schedule doesn't give us a lot of flexibility.
The thing that kept SMU in 2014, Iowa in 2013, Drexel in 2012, and Virginia Tech in 2011 and 2010 is that they had very few quality wins. Their problem was not scheduling a sub 300 RPI team instead of a 250-300 RPI team, it was that they didn't have any quality wins.
Look, if we our only wins are our cupcakes and the bottom half Big East teams this year, we aren't going to the NCAA regardless of whether those cupcakes were Grambling or Belmont. If we beat Wisconsin, LSU, and NC State and finish 5th in the Big East, we are going to the NCAA Tournament regardless of the fact that we had a bunch of Grambling level teams on our schedule.
The NCAA Tournament Committee has come out and praised teams who go out and play tough out of conference games. They are referencing games like Wisconsin, LSU, and NC State, not Lehigh, Western Kentucky, and Central Michigan.
-
The thing that kept SMU in 2014, Iowa in 2013, Drexel in 2012, and Virginia Tech in 2011 and 2010 is that they had very few quality wins. Their problem was not scheduling a sub 300 RPI team instead of a 250-300 RPI team, it was that they didn't have any quality wins.
Look, if we our only wins are our cupcakes and the bottom half Big East teams this year, we aren't going to the NCAA regardless of whether those cupcakes were Grambling or Belmont. If we beat Wisconsin, LSU, and NC State and finish 5th in the Big East, we are going to the NCAA Tournament regardless of the fact that we had a bunch of Grambling level teams on our schedule.
The NCAA Tournament Committee has come out and praised teams who go out and play tough out of conference games. They are referencing games like Wisconsin, LSU, and NC State, not Lehigh, Western Kentucky, and Central Michigan.
In fact, VT's 2010-2011 season is a perfect example of this. Their problem wasn't not scheduling a tough enough out of conference schedule. They played a very tough non-conference schedule. They played at Kansas State, Oklahoma State (neutral), UNLV (neutral), Purdue, Penn State, and Mississippi State (neutral). That's 6 out of 13 non-conference games against high major opponents. There were plenty opportunities for them to prove that they deserve to be in the NCAA Tournament field, especially considering they then played an ACC conference schedule. Their problem? They didn't win a whole lot of those games where they had an opportunity to prove they belonged in the field. They beat Duke at home that year, but beyond that their only other 2 wins against NCAA Tournament teams were against an FSU team that was seeded 10th.
To get into the NCAA Tournament you have to beat quality opponents. Winning just 3 games against NCAA Tournament teams in a nearly 30 game regular season no matter how tough your non-conference schedule is. Beating teams with an RPI of 200-250 does very little to boost a team into the NCAA Tournament.
-
Schedulin' these 300+ RIP games a good way to not have another Omaha, ainah :o
-
To get into the NCAA Tournament you have to beat quality opponents.
Your chances of beating quality opponents go up if you actually, you know, play quality opponents.
-
Can anyone objectively say how much MU's RPI would have improved last year taking out the 300+ opponents and replacing them with say teams that were about 220?
-
Can anyone objectively say how much MU's RPI would have improved last year taking out the 300+ opponents and replacing them with say teams that were about 220?
With a record of 13-19, last year's RPI was a moot point.
It's a much more relevant question to ask about a team that finishes around 20-12.
I just hope this year's team makes your question relevant....
-
We picked the wrong year to have only a 2 game "tournament"
So we only play 4 high major teams? Lame.
Played 6 last year.
-
We picked the wrong year to have only a 2 game "tournament"
So we only play 4 high major teams? Lame.
Played 6 last year.
In fairness, we do have 3 more non con games left to be announced if I'm not mistaken. Add one more high major and a solid mid major and the schedule looks fine. 5 high major games and 2 good mid major tests (Belmont and ?) would be a pretty good non con schedule.
-
Your chances of beating quality opponents go up if you actually, you know, play quality opponents.
See: Big East conference. We play in it. 60% of our teams were in the tourney. 12 games. Compared to 6 against non-tourney teams. That gives us 16 games against tourney teams. That is MORE than enough. Over 50% of our schedule. We need some easy wins.
-
Can anyone objectively say how much MU's RPI would have improved last year taking out the 300+ opponents and replacing them with say teams that were about 220?
Using RPI Wizard:
http://www.rpiforecast.com/wizard/Marquette.html
Replacing the three RPI >300: Nebraska Omaha (loss) (300), Alabama A&M (330), North Dakota (310), and Morgan State (337) with Portland State (loss) (221), Lamar (224), Hampton (226), and North Texas (227):
We were: RPI 147, SOS 31
We would have been: RPI 121, SOS 16
Replacing the same slate with more "local" buy games using the theory that they would be easier to schedule: Green Bay (loss) (60), UWM (209), IPFW (215) IUPUI (258): RPI 115, SOS 14.
A tidbit that I've been a proponent of if we've already failed to schedule "better bad" teams, is at least replacing the very worst with a Division II team. Wouldn't "count" on a tournament resume, would probably draw the same and cost the same or less. Just taking out the worst team, Morgan State and their 337 RPI, to theoretically replace with a Division II opponent that doesn't count, raises the RPI nine places to 138 and the SOS 12 places to 19.
IIRC, pretending Grambling was replaced with a DII opponent in 2013 would have raised our SOS by 24 places.
-
Is the Wisco game at breakfast time again?
-
Using RPI Wizard:
http://www.rpiforecast.com/wizard/Marquette.html
Replacing the three RPI >300: Nebraska Omaha (loss) (300), Alabama A&M (330), North Dakota (310), and Morgan State (337) with Portland State (loss) (221), Lamar (224), Hampton (226), and North Texas (227):
We were: RPI 147, SOS 31
We would have been: RPI 121, SOS 16
Replacing the same slate with more "local" buy games using the theory that they would be easier to schedule: Green Bay (loss) (60), UWM (209), IPFW (215) IUPUI (258): RPI 115, SOS 14.
A tidbit that I've been a proponent of if we've already failed to schedule "better bad" teams, is at least replacing the very worst with a Division II team. Wouldn't "count" on a tournament resume, would probably draw the same and cost the same or less. Just taking out the worst team, Morgan State and their 337 RPI, to theoretically replace with a Division II opponent that doesn't count, raises the RPI nine places to 138 and the SOS 12 places to 19.
IIRC, pretending Grambling was replaced with a DII opponent in 2013 would have raised our SOS by 24 places.
Thank you. That is more significant than I thought it would be.
-
Thank you. That is more significant than I thought it would be.
With Marquette not being close to the bubble, they may not be the best example. Let's look at Miami from last year:
Miami Hurricanes
Record: 21-12 (10-8 ACC)
RPI: 65
SOS: 71
Pros: 6 Top-100 wins, Beat #6 Duke, #39 NC State
Cons: 10 wins v sub-200 teams, 5-4 v 100-200
Worst Wins: 331 Savannah State, 298 Charleston, 275 South Alabama, 255 Howard
So what if we replaced Miami's four worst cupcakes with teams in the 185-215 range? Here are the changes:
255 Howard Out > 185 Northern Illinois In
275 South Alabama Out > 195 UMES In
298 Charleston Out > 205 Detroit In
331 Savannah State Out > 215 IPFW In
Assuming all wins, we get...
Record 21-12 (10-8 ACC)
RPI: 50
SOS: 47
Those are NCAA tourney team numbers. By changing four buy games to teams in the 185-215 range, Miami likely would have been a tourney team. Instead they went to the NIT. This stuff matters.
Especially when you consider how much worse these teams that we are playing are likely to be than Miami's four worst teams. Win 21 games, go 10-8 in the Big East, and that still may not be enough because of how bad our cupcakes are.
-
In fact, VT's 2010-2011 season is a perfect example of this. Their problem wasn't not scheduling a tough enough out of conference schedule. They played a very tough non-conference schedule. They played at Kansas State, Oklahoma State (neutral), UNLV (neutral), Purdue, Penn State, and Mississippi State (neutral). That's 6 out of 13 non-conference games against high major opponents. There were plenty opportunities for them to prove that they deserve to be in the NCAA Tournament field, especially considering they then played an ACC conference schedule. Their problem? They didn't win a whole lot of those games where they had an opportunity to prove they belonged in the field. They beat Duke at home that year, but beyond that their only other 2 wins against NCAA Tournament teams were against an FSU team that was seeded 10th.
To get into the NCAA Tournament you have to beat quality opponents. Winning just 3 games against NCAA Tournament teams in a nearly 30 game regular season no matter how tough your non-conference schedule is. Beating teams with an RPI of 200-250 does very little to boost a team into the NCAA Tournament.
Disagree. Replace their sub-275 wins (they had 4 of those) with teams in the 175-225 range and they would have made the tournament. Va Tech had 4 top-50 and 8 top-100 wins. That's plenty to get in. Their schedule dragged them out of a bid. That would have lifted their SOS and RPI both into the top-50. Seth would have been dancing and it's entirely possible he'd still be coaching there.
-
Is the Wisco game at breakfast time again?
That depends on what time y'all normally eat yo flapjacks, biscuits and gravy, hey?
-
See: Big East conference. We play in it. 60% of our teams were in the tourney. 12 games. Compared to 6 against non-tourney teams. That gives us 16 games against tourney teams. That is MORE than enough. Over 50% of our schedule. We need some easy wins.
Yeah, it'd be awesome if we could win most of those games. But since we might not, more chances would be better than less.
-
Wisky is Dec 12th
-
Yeah, it'd be awesome if we could win most of those games. But since we might not, more chances would be better than less.
Sure, let's just schedule Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, UNC, Wisconsin, Louisville, Syracuse, Florida, Notre Dame, Texas, Virginia, Arizona, and Michigan State in hopes of beating 2 or 3 of them. Our #1 strength of schedule is sure to carry us to the Tourney with our 12 wins each year.
Again, you need some easy wins in there. If we have 15 games every year against NCAA Tournament teams like we did last year, that is more than enough to give us some quality wins.
-
Sure, let's just schedule Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, UNC, Wisconsin, Louisville, Syracuse, Florida, Notre Dame, Texas, Virginia, Arizona, and Michigan State in hopes of beating 2 or 3 of them. Our #1 strength of schedule is sure to carry us to the Tourney with our 12 wins each year.
Again, you need some easy wins in there. If we have 15 games every year against NCAA Tournament teams like we did last year, that is more than enough to give us some quality wins.
First off, I never said to use EVERY open nonconference game for great teams. Problem is, we are currently 0 for 5 in our attempts to get even ONE.
Yes, it's a balance. And in the old BE, we had so many tough games we could have scheduled Grambling for every open nonconference slot. The BE is still good...but not good enough to do that.
-
Sure, let's just schedule Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, UNC, Wisconsin, Louisville, Syracuse, Florida, Notre Dame, Texas, Virginia, Arizona, and Michigan State in hopes of beating 2 or 3 of them. Our #1 strength of schedule is sure to carry us to the Tourney with our 12 wins each year.
Again, you need some easy wins in there. If we have 15 games every year against NCAA Tournament teams like we did last year, that is more than enough to give us some quality wins.
This is usually my biggest issue with people that try to make the pro-cupcake argument. It's always the black or white, absolutes, Duke or Grambling mentality. No one is talking stupid like that. Look at the examples I gave for Miami: Northern Illinois, UMES, Detroit, IPFW. Are any of those unrealistic? No. Are any of them Duke/Virginia/UK like juggernauts? No. But they can be the types of teams that make the difference between earning a ticket to the Dance and playing the Not In Tournament. And even if you do get in, playing those teams will still hurt your seeding.
Looking at our current schedule, if the thought is Marquette will be a tourney team, the only way we play 15 tourney teams is if the Big East gets 6 teams and Wisconsin, Iowa, Belmont, LSU, and our second Legends opponent all make the tournament, or if the Big East gets 7 and three of those five make the tourney.
More likely, the Big East gets 5 and 2 of those listed miss out. So Marquette plays 10 tourney teams. That's not exactly a strong schedule. The heavy crapcake argument only works if we win 22+ games. Otherwise we're putting ourselves on the bubble and hoping that our opponents do well enough to boost our SOS.
-
We played 17 games against NCAA Tournament teams last year. This season it is looking like a fairly similar schedule. 53% of our games were against NCAA Tournament teams last year. If you guys seriously think that us playing Grambling for an easy win is a problem with our scheduling then so be it. Personally, I think you guys are worrying and complaining about something very unnecessary. A SOS of 31 is never going to be the reason that MU is kept out of the NCAA Tournament. 31 is a very solid (not spectacular, but very solid) SOS.
We will just have to agree to disagree here. Our schedule will be just fine. It will come down to us beating some solid teams, just like it does for any and every other team in the country getting into the NCAA Tournament. People can argue that the Big East schedule itself is no longer good enough, but the NCAA Selection Committee and the RPI both seem to disagree with this idea, given that we had the #2 RPI in the country last year and 60% of the teams in the conference (a higher percentage of teams than any other conference in the country) got into the NCAA Tournament.
The next time we miss the NCAA Tournament because of our schedule will be the first. Until that happens I won't worry a whole lot about it.
-
Last year we had 6 non-conference games against high-major opponents. Unless there are at least 2 surprises left in the remaining 3 games, that won't happen.
This year's SOS will likely not be as high as last year's based on what we currently know. If they give us a pleasant surprise with these last three and all of them are high-majors, or at least two high-majors and a quality cupcake (expected 125-175 range) we'll be in much better shape than it looks now. But right now, 40% of our known non-conference opponents are sub-300 teams and of the 4 high-majors, 3 have a decent chance at taking a step back this year (UW, ASU, NC State).
And again, this isn't just about RPI, it's also about selling tickets. STHs have dropped two years running. Attendance is down, and not just because the NCAA counted the game at the Al. We no longer have marquee games like Syracuse, UConn, Notre Dame, Louisville, and Pitt to draw fans. The only traditional Big East powers that will draw fans are Villanova and Georgetown. To offset that, we need to have non-conference games that will attract fans. This year, that's Iowa. That's it.
The 20-game home schedule certainly loses some luster if there's only one high-major home game in November and December. This new Big East is going to require more aggressive scheduling early in the season if we want to keep fans in the seats.
-
And again, this isn't just about RPI, it's also about selling tickets. STHs have dropped two years running. Attendance is down, and not just because the NCAA counted the game at the Al. We no longer have marquee games like Syracuse, UConn, Notre Dame, Louisville, and Pitt to draw fans. The only traditional Big East powers that will draw fans are Villanova and Georgetown. To offset that, we need to have non-conference games that will attract fans. This year, that's Iowa. That's it.
The 20-game home schedule certainly loses some luster if there's only one high-major home game in November and December. This new Big East is going to require more aggressive scheduling early in the season if we want to keep fans in the seats.
Personally, I think this is the bigger concern than any RPI effect. Can't keep losing a good chunk of STH every year.
-
Winning is the only thing that matters when it comes to our attendance.
-
Winning is the only thing that matters when it comes to our attendance.
If this were true, schedule all cupcakes at home, stop playing non-conference tournaments, and apply to join the Horizon.
But it's not. Fans want to see a competitive team against the best opposition. Which means scheduling the best teams available in November and December to put us in the position to win in March.
-
Last year we had 6 non-conference games against high-major opponents. Unless there are at least 2 surprises left in the remaining 3 games, that won't happen.
This year's SOS will likely not be as high as last year's based on what we currently know. If they give us a pleasant surprise with these last three and all of them are high-majors, or at least two high-majors and a quality cupcake (expected 125-175 range) we'll be in much better shape than it looks now. But right now, 40% of our known non-conference opponents are sub-300 teams and of the 4 high-majors, 3 have a decent chance at taking a step back this year (UW, ASU, NC State).
And again, this isn't just about RPI, it's also about selling tickets. STHs have dropped two years running. Attendance is down, and not just because the NCAA counted the game at the Al. We no longer have marquee games like Syracuse, UConn, Notre Dame, Louisville, and Pitt to draw fans. The only traditional Big East powers that will draw fans are Villanova and Georgetown. To offset that, we need to have non-conference games that will attract fans. This year, that's Iowa. That's it.
The 20-game home schedule certainly loses some luster if there's only one high-major home game in November and December. This new Big East is going to require more aggressive scheduling early in the season if we want to keep fans in the seats.
Then they will have to play more games on the road. Potentially against teams from the Missouri Valley and the like. If people are OK with that, then so be it, but I do wonder if adding the likes of Northern Iowa to the schedule will have any impact on season tickets.
-
Then they will have to play more games on the road. Potentially against teams from the Missouri Valley and the like. If people are OK with that, then so be it, but I do wonder if adding the likes of Northern Iowa to the schedule will have any impact on season tickets.
To the first part, yes, and I'm fine with that. I would rather a stronger schedule and 16-17 home games than a weak schedule with 18-19 home games and 5-6 sub-250 opponents.
To the second, any time you can market tourney teams and/or ranked teams I feel you'll increase fan interest. I think you're almost certain to draw more with a 25th ranked mid major than a team like Grambling. You also increase the chance of having the game on FS1 as opposed to FS2 or regional networks.
-
To the first part, yes, and I'm fine with that. I would rather a stronger schedule and 16-17 home games than a weak schedule with 18-19 home games and 5-6 sub-250 opponents.
To the second, any time you can market tourney teams and/or ranked teams I feel you'll increase fan interest. I think you're almost certain to draw more with a 25th ranked mid major than a team like Grambling. You also increase the chance of having the game on FS1 as opposed to FS2 or regional networks.
Not sure that's true. I believe adding certain tournament teams might help but a few years ago we played Norfolk state and that game was nearly empty even though they were expected to run away with their conference.
Not everybody cares the way we all do following rpi and preseason predictions etc.
-
Not sure that's true. I believe adding certain tournament teams might help but a few years ago we played Norfolk state and that game was nearly empty even though they were expected to run away with their conference.
Not everybody cares the way we all do following rpi and preseason predictions etc.
Norfolk State was not expected to run away with their conference that year. Here's what I wrote about them in the preseason on Cracked Sidewalks as far as NSU expectations went:
Norfolk State (Home, Low-Major)
Last Year's RPI: 269
Three-Year RPI Average: 275
Key Returning Players: F Kyle O'Quinn (Sr), G Chris McEachin (Sr), G Pendarvis Williams (So)
Key Losses: G Rob Hampton, G Aleek Pauline
Expected RPI: 275
Kyle O'Quinn is a beast. The 6'10" center averaged 16.4 ppg and 11.1 rpg last year, but this team needs help as they lose their top two assist guys in Hampton and Pauline. We probably got the worst of the Paradise Jam teams for our home game, but it's not unthinkable that Norfolk State could crack the top-250 in RPI if someone can emerge at the point, but the Spartans haven't done that since 2001, so it may be asking too much. This will probably be the worst team we play in non-conference, which is an upgrade over last year when we played 5 teams with RPI rankings below 275.
EDIT: Thankfully I was wrong about NSU. They overachieved, largely due to the excellent play of Kyle O'Quinn. But they had a history of being a very bad team and their breakout season wasn't something that was a given by any means, especially as O'Quinn wasn't a newcomer.
Also, Wisconsin and Chicago State announced today. We knew the Badgers were coming on the schedule. Chicago State was RPI 333 last year with a record of 8-24.
-
Here's what I'd love to have Broeker answer some time....is a schedule like the one we have this season a function of philosophy, economics, or a little both.
What I mean by that, is MU scheduling easy teams intentionally knowing they will be young and inexperienced...banking on conference play to earn them a tournament spot
OR
Every other school can do the RPI math that Brew is doing, that makes the Belmont's of the world very popular with the high major schools. They all want 200-250 RPI level teams, so is there a bidding war for those teams that drive up the prices? Combined that with the schedule handicaps (Bucks games, concerts, etc) that makes putting the "ideal" schedule together difficult.
If I had a gun to my head I'd say it's 70% the latter, 30% the former.
-
While I agree with the RPI issue and the desire to play 225's rather than 325's I think it more important this year with a very young team to re-establish the culture of winning. We nearly lost 20 games last season. That can't be repeated and that's the reason season ticket sales have collapsed. I think MU has been purposeful in attempting to get off to a good start and enter conference play with some confidence. I think back to last year when were quite competitive out of the gate in January following a solid ASU win and a handful of cupcakes. Then losing took it's toll. I'm convinced that Wojo wants to minimize losing with these young kids in hopes of building for conference and beyond. Do that and finish 4th or 5th in the BEast and everything will take care of itself.
-
Not sure that's true. I believe adding certain tournament teams might help but a few years ago we played Norfolk state and that game was nearly empty even though they were expected to run away with their conference.
Not everybody cares the way we all do following rpi and preseason predictions etc.
That Norfolk State game was on a Monday while the Packers were playing later that night on MNF.
-
While I agree with the RPI issue and the desire to play 225's rather than 325's I think it more important this year with a very young team to re-establish the culture of winning. We nearly lost 20 games last season. That can't be repeated and that's the reason season ticket sales have collapsed. I think MU has been purposeful in attempting to get off to a good start and enter conference play with some confidence. I think back to last year when were quite competitive out of the gate in January following a solid ASU win and a handful of cupcakes. Then losing took it's toll. I'm convinced that Wojo wants to minimize losing with these young kids in hopes of building for conference and beyond. Do that and finish 4th or 5th in the BEast and everything will take care of itself.
Saying we nearly lost 20 seems glasses half empty. One could argue we nearly won 18 games.
-
While I agree with the RPI issue and the desire to play 225's rather than 325's I think it more important this year with a very young team to re-establish the culture of winning. We nearly lost 20 games last season. That can't be repeated and that's the reason season ticket sales have collapsed. I think MU has been purposeful in attempting to get off to a good start and enter conference play with some confidence. I think back to last year when were quite competitive out of the gate in January following a solid ASU win and a handful of cupcakes. Then losing took it's toll. I'm convinced that Wojo wants to minimize losing with these young kids in hopes of building for conference and beyond. Do that and finish 4th or 5th in the BEast and everything will take care of itself.
And there's the rub. Go 11-2 in non-conference and 11-7 in the Big East and we should be okay. 11-2 and 10-8, we're on the bubble. Any less than 21 wins and we're probably in need of a BET run.
Right now, Villanova, Georgetown, Xavier, and Butler look like the top-4 in the league. After that, I'd assume a dogfight between Providence, Creighton, and Marquette to squeeze into the tourney. If we are better than expected and crack the top-4, we should be fine. If not, any non-con losses or perceived weaknesses in that schedule could keep us out, especially if we are in the 6th or 7th spots in the league.
-
Norfolk State was not expected to run away with their conference that year. Here's what I wrote about them in the preseason on Cracked Sidewalks as far as NSU expectations went:
EDIT: Thankfully I was wrong about NSU. They overachieved, largely due to the excellent play of Kyle O'Quinn. But they had a history of being a very bad team and their breakout season wasn't something that was a given by any means, especially as O'Quinn wasn't a newcomer.
Also, Wisconsin and Chicago State announced today. We knew the Badgers were coming on the schedule. Chicago State was RPI 333 last year with a record of 8-24.
Isn't that a bit of a subjective point of view that you write up? I'm not bashing it since I've been an avid reader since I was a freshman in 2009 but where were they listed in their conference's coaches poll? Also where did you have North Carolina Central and Savannah State the following year? Because didn't they end up as 1 and 2 in their conference respectively?
I agree scheduling chicago state and grambling is bad.
-
Isn't that a bit of a subjective point of view that you write up? I'm not bashing it since I've been an avid reader since I was a freshman in 2009 but where were they listed in their conference's coaches poll? Also where did you have North Carolina Central and Savannah State the following year? Because didn't they end up as 1 and 2 in their conference respectively?
I agree scheduling chicago state and grambling is bad.
They were picked 5th in the MEAC preseason poll in 2011: Article (http://savannahnow.com/sports/2011-07-30/ssu-picked-last-meac-preseason-poll)
The three seasons prior to 2011, the average RPI of the 5th place MEAC team was 260. So not that far off what I predicted.
The next year, John Pudner (bamamarquettefan) handled the expected rankings. Cracked Sidewalks had Savannah State at 150 (finished 166) and NC Central at 218 (finished 155). Again, not that far off. Here's what I posted here about Savannah State:
Marquette announced Savannah State over the weekend. That probably won't get many people excited, but I think it's a huge add. They are a very solid bet to be at least a NIT team, and should be a clear-cut favorite to play in the NCAA Tournament as the auto-bid winner out of the MEAC next year (the same conference that produced Norfolk State).
Savannah State
Returning Players: Rashad Hassan, Deric Rudolph, Arnold Louis, Preston Blackmon, Joshua Montgomery
3-Year RPI Average: 264
3-Year Kenpom Average: 249.3
2012-13 Outlook: What the average numbers don't show is that Savannah State has improved markedly with this class that will now be seniors, from 318 in the RPI as freshmen to 191 last year as juniors and from 309 per Kenpom as freshmen to 173 as juniors. Savannah State finished ahead of Norfolk State in both rankings last year despite losing in the conference tournament. What makes the Tigers interesting is that they start five seniors and all of their bench players will be seniors or juniors as they return literally everyone from last year. Rashad Hassan is a dynamic player that can play inside and out. The real question is if they can beat a top-200 team as they've only beaten one (per kenpom) the previous 3 seasons.
Couldn't find my own comments about NC Central, but they had 3 years of improvement in RPI and were top-250 the year before. They were a much better buy game than any of these five look on paper.
-
If this were true, schedule all cupcakes at home, stop playing non-conference tournaments, and apply to join the Horizon.
But it's not. Fans want to see a competitive team against the best opposition. Which means scheduling the best teams available in November and December to put us in the position to win in March.
Lol. If you think attendance was down last season because we were playing Grambling rather than Southern or Hampton then fine. Personally, I'd say it had much more to do with our team going 13-19. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
The fact that we had the 21st highest attendance when we were 13-19 and 9th in the 10 team Big East is a testament to the support Marquette fans give. If and when they start to win again the attendance will go up, even if Texas Southern isn't on our schedule (gasp!).
-
Arizona State had a paid crowd of over 12,000 plus. Winning has a lot to do with attendance.
-
When is the last time our out of conference schedule kept us out of the NCAA Tournament?
Until it becomes a deciding factor for us, I think we'll be just fine. Either we'll be good enough and make the Tourney or we won't. Beating Grambling instead of Lipscomb isn't going to cause us to miss the NCAA Tournament.
It didn't matter in years past because we played Uconn, syracuse, Notre dame, and 10 other good teams during the conference season. Now we play 3 decent teams.
-
Lol. If you think attendance was down last season because we were playing Grambling rather than Southern or Hampton then fine. Personally, I'd say it had much more to do with our team going 13-19. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
The fact that we had the 21st highest attendance when we were 13-19 and 9th in the 10 team Big East is a testament to the support Marquette fans give. If and when they start to win again the attendance will go up, even if Texas Southern isn't on our schedule (gasp!).
Attendance was down for myriad reasons. Losing certainly doesn't help. Playing a weaker schedule also doesn't help.
This new league requires a new focus. As theburreffect2 noted, we don't have the likes of UConn, Syracuse, ND, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and West Virginia on the schedule anymore. You need to offset those losses with more home-and-homes and buy games that will attract a little more attention. I never wanted to renew the UWM or UWGB series, but creating local interest could be a positive. Trying to get involved with better mid-majors like UNI, Valpo, or Kent State that regularly win 20+ games are a better look. And bringing in low-major tournament teams and conference contenders will help our RPI, the league's RPI, and draw more interest from fans.
I'd happily sacrifice three home games for a neutral court game and two home-and-homes that ensured we see better quality opponents, even if two more of the games were away from the BC.
-
When is the last time our out of conference schedule kept us out of the NCAA Tournament?
We won only four conference games last year, so our conference schedule kept us out of the tournament. :'(
-
We played 17 games against NCAA Tournament teams last year. This season it is looking like a fairly similar schedule.
Except that the BE exceeded the expectations of many by sending 6 teams. If we send 5 or - gasp! - 4, that's 2-4 fewer games. Pretty implausible in the old BE, but not so implausible anymore.
And last season, we had UW@Madison, OSU and MSU as our three "best" NC games. This season, we have UW@Madison, Iowa and NC State.
Fairly similar? We could easily go from 17 tournament opponents to about 13 or 14. Adding one or two teams with a decent shot at making it could be the difference.
-
Except that the BE exceeded the expectations of many by sending 6 teams. If we send 5 or - gasp! - 4, that's 2-4 fewer games. Pretty implausible in the old BE, but not so implausible anymore.
And last season, we had UW@Madison, OSU and MSU as our three "best" NC games. This season, we have UW@Madison, Iowa and NC State.
Fairly similar? We could easily go from 17 tournament opponents to about 13 or 14. Adding one or two teams with a decent shot at making it could be the difference.
And if the league only sends 4 teams and we hope to be one of them, that's only 6 conference games against tourney teams as opposed to 12 from a year ago.
-
Except that the BE exceeded the expectations of many by sending 6 teams. If we send 5 or - gasp! - 4, that's 2-4 fewer games. Pretty implausible in the old BE, but not so implausible anymore.
And last season, we had UW@Madison, OSU and MSU as our three "best" NC games. This season, we have UW@Madison, Iowa and NC State.
Fairly similar? We could easily go from 17 tournament opponents to about 13 or 14. Adding one or two teams with a decent shot at making it could be the difference.
Don't forget the tournament games, like LSU....those count as NC games. We will have a decent non-conference schedule when it's all said and done....assuming we win the majority.
I really think at the end of the day, if the margin between getting in and not getting is because we played 4 300+ RPI teams versus playing 4 225+ RPI teams, we weren't very good anyway.
-
Except that the BE exceeded the expectations of many by sending 6 teams. If we send 5 or - gasp! - 4, that's 2-4 fewer games. Pretty implausible in the old BE, but not so implausible anymore.
And last season, we had UW@Madison, OSU and MSU as our three "best" NC games. This season, we have UW@Madison, Iowa and NC State.
Fairly similar? We could easily go from 17 tournament opponents to about 13 or 14. Adding one or two teams with a decent shot at making it could be the difference.
LSU will be far and away better than UW@Madison and Iowa this season, and will have a better regular season this season than OSU and MSU had last season (yes, I know MSU went to the Final Four, but they weren't great in the regular season). NC State will also be better than those 2 were in the regular season. Neither of them will be as good as Wisconsin was. At least 3 of Iowa, Wisconsin, LSU, and NC State will be NCAA Tournament teams, just like 3 non-conference teams we played last year were in the NCAA Tournament (I think my original numbers accidentally included Tennessee, so 16 NCAA Tournament teams is the right number rather than the 17 I previously said). All 4 of them could get into the Tournament.
The Big East will get at least 5 teams in the tournament.
Our schedule will be plenty tough enough to give us an opportunity to get into the NCAA Tournament. It will come down to whether we win games against quality opponents (which we have more than enough opportunity to do so) or not.
-
LSU will be far and away better than UW@Madison and Iowa this season, and will have a better regular season this season than OSU and MSU had last season (yes, I know MSU went to the Final Four, but they weren't great in the regular season). NC State will also be better than those 2 were in the regular season. Neither of them will be as good as Wisconsin was. At least 3 of Iowa, Wisconsin, LSU, and NC State will be NCAA Tournament teams, just like 3 non-conference teams we played last year were in the NCAA Tournament (I think my original numbers accidentally included Tennessee, so 16 NCAA Tournament teams is the right number rather than the 17 I previously said). All 4 of them could get into the Tournament.
The Big East will get at least 5 teams in the tournament.
Our schedule will be plenty tough enough to give us an opportunity to get into the NCAA Tournament. It will come down to whether we win games against quality opponents (which we have more than enough opportunity to do so) or not.
I agree with you on LSU. They should be the best team on the schedule, and it looks like we'll see them opening night of the LC. I think Iowa is also very good. Aaron White is a huge loss but they return a lot of experienced senior talent.
As far as the rest of the non-con, it depends. I'd put UW and Belmont in the maybe category. Both could get in, both could just as easily miss the tournament (I know, blasphemy to say that about a Bo Ryan team). Our second game in the LC will also depend. If we get NC State, I think they look like a tourney team (though Lacey leaves some big shoes to fill) but Arizona State probably not.
Say we get 3 in the non-conference and the Big East gets 5 in. If we are one of those 5, that's 11 total games against tourney teams. If we're on the bubble, our record against those teams, our RPI, and our overall SOS will be very important come Selection Sunday. Playing 5+ sub-300 teams could very well come into play.
I admit, I haven't dug deep into all our sub-300 teams just yet. I do think Jackson State has a decent chance to be much improved. They were very young and added a solid JUCO guard that should at least have them in the top half of the SWAC. Maine might also be improved, they started two freshmen in the backcourt for a rookie coach. With luck, those two might get into the 250-300 range. Still a small help if you end up with 5 sub-250 teams.
-
Pretty disappointing schedule so far. There is really no reason to schedule so many horrible teams with the likes of Grambling, Maine, Chicago State and Jackson State. San Jose State is bad but they play in MWC so I can live with that. It has been covered in depth in this thread, but scheduling matters. Grambling, Maine, Chicago State and Jackson State are going to kill MU's RPI. Yeah, I agree this team needs to rack up wins in the early going, but lets do it again teams in the 200's versus some of the worst college basketball has to offer. Grambling is the most puzzling - you 100% know what you're getting there - it is sort of mind boggling to me.
-
I agree with you on LSU. They should be the best team on the schedule, and it looks like we'll see them opening night of the LC. I think Iowa is also very good. Aaron White is a huge loss but they return a lot of experienced senior talent.
As far as the rest of the non-con, it depends. I'd put UW and Belmont in the maybe category. Both could get in, both could just as easily miss the tournament (I know, blasphemy to say that about a Bo Ryan team). Our second game in the LC will also depend. If we get NC State, I think they look like a tourney team (though Lacey leaves some big shoes to fill) but Arizona State probably not.
Say we get 3 in the non-conference and the Big East gets 5 in. If we are one of those 5, that's 11 total games against tourney teams. If we're on the bubble, our record against those teams, our RPI, and our overall SOS will be very important come Selection Sunday. Playing 5+ sub-300 teams could very well come into play.
I admit, I haven't dug deep into all our sub-300 teams just yet. I do think Jackson State has a decent chance to be much improved. They were very young and added a solid JUCO guard that should at least have them in the top half of the SWAC. Maine might also be improved, they started two freshmen in the backcourt for a rookie coach. With luck, those two might get into the 250-300 range. Still a small help if you end up with 5 sub-250 teams.
I know Simmons is good but lets not forget that LSU lost Jarrell Martin and Jordan Mickey.
Robertson has far from lived up to his ranking with only .5ppg and 1.5rpg so it's either start him at C where Luke will demolish him or they'll swing Simmons over to C where Henry will walk over their backup PF.
Patterson and Gray are serviceable PGs and will do good against us unless Traci Carter, or whomever runs point, does incredible out of the gate at least on D.
Quarterman returns a decent 11ppg, 5rpg, 4apg at 3. So I'm nervous there hopefully JJJ or Sandy really put in some work this off season, I will say we're deeper here than them in terms of talent.
The only returning player I can say I think is really good is Hornsby who'll start at 2 over Blackeney. But I'm not sure he's much better than Duane.
I think it'll be a closer game than expected.
-
I'm expecting the announcement of at least one high major team in tomorrow's tweet.
-
I'm expecting the announcement of at least one high major team in tomorrow's tweet.
I sure hope so. Also wouldn't be surprised by a January non-conference game.
-
I sure hope so. Also wouldn't be surprised by a January non-conference game.
At this point, you almost have to right? If the Chicago State game is 12/22, then break for Christmas, you really only have time for one more game before a 12/31 start.
-
Except that the BE exceeded the expectations of many by sending 6 teams. If we send 5 or - gasp! - 4, that's 2-4 fewer games. Pretty implausible in the old BE, but not so implausible anymore.
And last season, we had UW@Madison, OSU and MSU as our three "best" NC games. This season, we have UW@Madison, Iowa and NC State.
Fairly similar? We could easily go from 17 tournament opponents to about 13 or 14. Adding one or two teams with a decent shot at making it could be the difference.
Though we probably shouldn't have played MSU last year. Wake Forest hands down outplayed us, but Carlino refused to lose.
-
You mean Georgia Tech?
-
At this point, you almost have to right? If the Chicago State game is 12/22, then break for Christmas, you really only have time for one more game before a 12/31 start.
The only alternative is if they aren't really announcing two tomorrow. There's time between UW and CSU, but if they're going in order, definitely January or February seem like a must. My money is on another cupcake game December 28th -- since 2002, our last game before the conference schedule was a cupcake 12/14 times with the exception being the ill-fated Vandy series in 2010 & 2011. Then maybe a high or mid-major, most likely starting on the road (not ideal, but otherwise looking at a 20 game home slate with VCSU). My dream addition would be Notre Dame. They haven't announced their full schedule yet, though I think it's unlikely. Gonzaga, Cincy, and Louisville, three other seemingly good fits, have all finalized their schedules already, so no dice there.
-
Presbyterian on 12/27, Stetson on 1/27.
Woooooo.
-
Seriously, my heart goes out to you season ticket holders. A load of crap this year.
Belmont, Iowa, and a handful of decent conference opponents.
-
I think this is the easiest conference schedule we have had in recent memory. I count four teams who I think are in the top 25 teams in the nation this year (Villanova, Butler, Georgetown, and LSU). The only other teams that I think are at large tournament teams are Xavier and Wisconsin. That's 10 games against probable at large tournament teams. Throw in NC State (who we may not play), Providence, and Creighton and you have 5 more games against teams that have a prayer of making the tournament.
-
Seriously, my heart goes out to you season ticket holders. A load of crap this year.
Belmont, Iowa, and a handful of decent conference opponents.
I hope MU appreciate's my blind loyalty. This sked blows. As a STH I can even handle season's like 2013-2014 where we are playing a bunch of good away games and cupcakes at home. I understand the greater good. This is clearly not that.
-
Embarrassing schedule.
-
I hope MU appreciate's my blind loyalty.
MU has been banking on our blind loyalty for years now.
-
Only way to fix this with the season ticket holders is to have a yearly ND scheduled opposite of the Madison game so that no matter what you're guaranteed a game against one of those two every year.
-
This is pitiful. I wouldn't blame the casual fan for not getting season tickets this year. What is the 7 teams with a 300+ RPI?
-
This is pitiful. I wouldn't blame the casual fan for not getting season tickets this year. What is the 7 teams with a 300+ RPI?
If I hadn't renewed last week I would have given serious thought to cancelling for a year. Really just a miserable schedule.
Realistically have to go 3-2 vs. Belmont, Iowa, UW, NC State/LSU/ASU and avoid any other slip ups, which shouldn't be an issue with this schedule. Disappointing.
Does anyone know when the Big East schedule is to be released?
-
Does anyone know when the Big East schedule is to be released?
Early September, usually.
-
So not a single home game that was actually scheduled by MU against a team with an RPI better than 300. Wow, this is beyond bad.
-
Also, with the schedule being so crapty, you have to wonder about how many of these crap games will be televised for the out-of-towners. I think I've only missed one game in the past 5 or so years, and that was Omaha last year since it was not televised at all (maybe glad I missed it), but who knows if any of the eastern sports networks that typically show the MU non-con games will pick up these cupcakes games. I have to assume FS1/FS2 won't pick up many.
-
You know if we sweep every team we should, manage to take out all but maybe LSU I think we're in a fine spot entering the conference. I know it sucks that they're crappy teams but not one of these players truly knows how to win at a high level and you've gotta start somewhere.
-
Also, with the schedule being so crapty, you have to wonder about how many of these crap games will be televised for the out-of-towners. I think I've only missed one game in the past 5 or so years, and that was Omaha last year since it was not televised at all (maybe glad I missed it), but who knows if any of the eastern sports networks that typically show the MU non-con games will pick up these cupcakes games. I have to assume FS1/FS2 won't pick up many.
Fox Sports needs content so they will pick up the games, but there is no way the Fox mother ship is happy with this nonsense.
I have to say, I'm a relative schil for the program and try to see the bright side of things, but as a season ticket holder this is terrible. Especially the super crap non-con Stetson game in the middle of conference season.
I'm going to have to hope my wife doesn't see this schedule any time soon as the season ticket check just went out the door and she will not be happy.....also a lot more games I'd likely be going to by myself
-
You know if we sweep every team we should, manage to take out all but maybe LSU I think we're in a fine spot entering the conference. I know it sucks that they're crappy teams but not one of these players truly knows how to win at a high level and you've gotta start somewhere.
There are two issues at play, getting into the tournament and putting out a quality product for STH and casual fans. You are addressing item 1 and I completely agree with you. However this "schedule" is so bad, especially coming off a losing season that it could run fans off, especially the non-STHs which hurts this year. Also, this puts a bad taste in STH mouths(can't do anything about it this year) and if the team under performs they are really going to take a hit on STH renewals next season.
This team better make the tournament with this schedule otherwise MU might be putting itself in a significant financial hole next season. And they better be doing something spectacular to improve the game day experience cause the games themselves will be crap.
-
I'd like to hear Wojo and Broeker's comments on this schedule. What is the motive? Does Broeker not understand how RPI works?
-
There are two issues at play, getting into the tournament and putting out a quality product for STH and casual fans. You are addressing item 1 and I completely agree with you. However this "schedule" is so bad, especially coming off a losing season that it could run fans off, especially the non-STHs which hurts this year. Also, this puts a bad taste in STH mouths(can't do anything about it this year) and if the team under performs they are really going to take a hit on STH renewals next season.
This team better make the tournament with this schedule otherwise MU might be putting itself in a significant financial hole next season. And they better be doing something spectacular to improve the game day experience cause the games themselves will be crap.
I agree I'm only addressing item 1 and that if it doesn't work it ruins item 2. However, I liken this schedule to 2011 Cincinnati. They to were coming off some terrible seasons and had to take a shot and teach their guys to win before conference play. It worked for them and now they're back to being at least a threatening team in the country.
-
I agree I'm only addressing item 1 and that if it doesn't work it ruins item 2. However, I liken this schedule to 2011 Cincinnati. They to were coming off some terrible seasons and had to take a shot and teach their guys to win before conference play. It worked for them and now they're back to being at least a threatening team in the country.
Awful big gamble with future revenues.....have we really fallen as far as 2011 Cinncy? If the Athletic department thinks so (and they seem to with this effort) I am really depressed for this season and really think those that said we could have a losing season again this year could be right.
Several other facts of note....of the games that MU had the choice to schedule(not Gavitt, tournament, @UW, etc) ALL OF THEM ARE 300+ RPI. They rolled this crappy schedule out like it was something to be proud of, do they really think this is a good schedule? I would have looked at it and just said, push it out on the Friday July 3rd and be done with it.
-
I agree I'm only addressing item 1 and that if it doesn't work it ruins item 2. However, I liken this schedule to 2011 Cincinnati. They to were coming off some terrible seasons and had to take a shot and teach their guys to win before conference play. It worked for them and now they're back to being at least a threatening team in the country.
There is no way that you can know that a soft 2011 schedule caused them to improve up to now. What concerns me is that they may have done this more for financial reasons than anything else.
-
There is no way that you can know that a soft 2011 schedule caused them to improve up to now. What concerns me is that they may have done this more for financial reasons than anything else.
Educated guess or basis in fact?
I agree that's likely why....but then WTF are we all about Wojo's vision if we are going to penny pinch on buy games?
-
I am not sure what would bring in more casual fans. Certainly a game against Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina or Kansas is likely to sell tickets. A game against several other major conferences teams probably would not make much difference. I think the attendance will depend on Henry. It just may be Henry being able to put up big numbers against 300+ teams might do more for attendance than only scoring 10-12 points against other major teams. Throw in the fact, while fans want to watch competitive games, they rather attend a winning game than a losing game. Losing a lot of games against a tougher schedule will not bring in fans. At least we can pretend to be good by beating 300+ teams.
-
I don't know what MU's plan is, or what the outcome will be. But as a long-time season ticket holder, this schedule is very disappointing.
-
Educated guess or basis in fact?
I agree that's likely why....but then WTF are we all about Wojo's vision if we are going to penny pinch on buy games?
I don't know if MU is having money issues, but I am struggling to figure out what their motivations for this crappy a schedule might be. I don't care about a couple 300+ RPI opponents...but THIS many?
Another concern is that MU had a nice stretch of neutral games v. quality opponents. Coaches v. Cancer against Washington, the Carrier game v. OSU, the Vegas game against New Mexico... Last two years - nothing. They are playing in a ho-hum tournament, two marquee non-conference games (one is a rival we play every year), a less interesting BE, and a bunch of crap.
As someone who isn't a STH, I still like to work my schedule around these games. But I might have trouble even doing that this year.
-
I'd like to hear Wojo and Broeker's comments on this schedule. What is the motive? Does Broeker not understand how RPI works?
+100--someone needs to answer for this sheet.
-
I just took a look at Depauls schedule and it made me sad that I would swith non-conference schedules with them in a heartbeat. Theirs is actually pretty nice. No super marquee games bit a good mix. I showed my dad the schedule and he just laughed.
-
Could this crappy schedule be related to the Italy trip? Maybe they're spending a chunk of their annual budget on that trip, which leaves less for getting decent buy games?
-
Saving money this year so we can afford big name opponents next year when we will be better. Maybe....?
-
As someone who isn't a STH, I still like to work my schedule around these games. But I might have trouble even doing that this year.
I'm in the same boat. Looks like I have a few more free days than usual this Nov-Dec.
The program in general needs a shot in the arm. Better scheduling, revamp the marketing and gameday experience. Obviously making it back to the postseason will help, as will the new arena should it get built. But in the meantime, hopefully ticket sales don't fall off a cliff.
-
I am not sure what would bring in more casual fans. Certainly a game against Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina or Kansas is likely to sell tickets. A game against several other major conferences teams probably would not make much difference. I think the attendance will depend on Henry. It just may be Henry being able to put up big numbers against 300+ teams might do more for attendance than only scoring 10-12 points against other major teams. Throw in the fact, while fans want to watch competitive games, they rather attend a winning game than a losing game. Losing a lot of games against a tougher schedule will not bring in fans. At least we can pretend to be good by beating 300+ teams.
Thank you. Somebody here gets it.
We can leave the "we're going to lose season ticket holders" discussion behind. That simply isn't true. Losing basketball games is what has caused a drop in attendance, and if it continues to drop, it'll be because we're losing.
Look, I get it. There are a ton of horrible teams on the schedule. But outside of maybe 5% of Marquette fanbase that come here or to MU's Scout site, how many MU fans are really going to think "Oh baby, we have Belmont coming to the BC tomorrow!" while thinking "No way I'm leaving home to see Stetson." To a large, large, large majority of season ticket holders, there are 2 categories of home games. First is big names like Wisconsin, games you can't miss. The other is basically anybody else, whether it's an RPI of 150 or RPI of 360. It doesn't matter. If they want to watch Marquette play they'll go to the game, and if it's too cold or snowing or whatever they won't, regardless of it being Belmont, Grambling, North Dakota State etc. To the average MU fan and season ticket holder, the games they will be getting this year in non-conference are no different than any other year. Everyone understands every other year we'll get Wisconsin, and then we'll have 1 other big game at home (Iowa). 95% of fans don't understand that Belmont is actually a good game for Marquette.
Scheduling more Belmonts and less Gramblings will sell maybe 100 more season tickets per year. Winning 23 games instead of winning 13 will sell thousands more, even if 10 of them are against Gramblings.
-
I posted this to twitter, but a little food for thought. This is MU's NCSOS and total SOS from 2002 through 2014 per KenPom.
-
The program in general needs a shot in the arm. Better scheduling, revamp the marketing and gameday experience. Obviously making it back to the postseason will help, as will the new arena should it get built. But in the meantime, hopefully ticket sales don't fall off a cliff.
It sure does. The marketing and gameday experience have really gotten stale.
-
Thank you. Somebody here gets it.
We can leave the "we're going to lose season ticket holders" discussion behind. That simply isn't true. Losing basketball games is what has caused a drop in attendance, and if it continues to drop, it'll be because we're losing.
Look, I get it. There are a ton of horrible teams on the schedule. But outside of maybe 5% of Marquette fanbase that come here or to MU's Scout site, how many MU fans are really going to think "Oh baby, we have Belmont coming to the BC tomorrow!" while thinking "No way I'm leaving home to see Stetson." To a large, large, large majority of season ticket holders, there are 2 categories of home games. First is big names like Wisconsin, games you can't miss. The other is basically anybody else, whether it's an RPI of 150 or RPI of 360. It doesn't matter. If they want to watch Marquette play they'll go to the game, and if it's too cold or snowing or whatever they won't, regardless of it being Belmont, Grambling, North Dakota State etc. To the average MU fan and season ticket holder, the games they will be getting this year in non-conference are no different than any other year. Everyone understands every other year we'll get Wisconsin, and then we'll have 1 other big game at home (Iowa). 95% of fans don't understand that Belmont is actually a good game for Marquette.
Scheduling more Belmonts and less Gramblings will sell maybe 100 more season tickets per year. Winning 23 games instead of winning 13 will sell thousands more, even if 10 of them are against Gramblings.
I disagree. When you combine last year's results, the gameday experience AND a schedule that the casual fan looks at and goes who?!?!? that will generate a drop of significance in single game tickets this year and ST next year potentially. Also, I'd argue that STHs are going to be among the more knowledgeable of the fans that will recognize the difference between average and terrible.
Yes winning will cure a lot of things, but you are banking a lot of winning against crappy teams being the cure. If MU is looking to build excitement around the program they are doing a good job of doing the opposite of that.
Lastly, this is (on paper of course) arguably the worst non-conference schedule in 13 years, the only year close was 2010 with a bunch of new pieces...that was 308, I think this one will be worse. And we played in the old Big East so our overall SOS was 49 that year....no way we get there with this years Big East
-
Scheduling more Belmonts and less Gramblings will sell maybe 100 more season tickets per year. Winning 23 games instead of winning 13 will sell thousands more, even if 10 of them are against Gramblings.
But it kills our RPI and greatly hurts our chances of making the tournament. There's a decent shot we're a bubble team this year, and having a RPI of 80 vs. 50 could make the difference of getting in or not.
-
But it kills our RPI and greatly hurts our chances of making the tournament. There's a decent shot we're a bubble team this year, and having a RPI of 80 vs. 50 could make the difference of getting in or not.
Right. I get the need for a better schedule for NCAA Tournament (bubble and seeding) purposes, but in regards to season ticket sales the fact that we aren't scheduling IUPUIs and Texas States and are scheduling Gramblings and Stetsons is going to have a very, very miniscule effect. Wins will have a much, much larger effect.
-
Right. I get the need for a better schedule for NCAA Tournament (bubble and seeding) purposes, but in regards to season ticket sales the fact that we aren't scheduling IUPUIs and Texas States and are scheduling Gramblings and Stetsons is going to have a very, very miniscule effect. Wins will have a much, much larger effect.
Right up until we don't get a tourny bid because our SOS is too low. Let's say we go 20-11 and miss out on an at-large bid....some STH are likely to jump.
-
What's this terrible game day experience argument about? What's the issue people have? What are gameday experience suggestions people want to see? Not that I would disagree I am just looking for clarification as to what the issue is. I suppose I just don't get a feeling that it stinks? I suppose it could be rough when you're in the BMO and there's 8 k people and not a ton of students there, but what are we talking about here? the swag? replays? intermission entertainment? this kiss cam?
help me out
-
Right up until we don't get a tourny bid because our SOS is too low. Let's say we go 20-11 and miss out on an at-large bid....some STH are likely to jump.
I guess it depends on how those season ticket holders view what we have coming back. If we go 20-11 and miss the tourney but Hank comes back I think season tickets are likely to jump. We went from a 13 win team to a 20 win team and return everything the next season. Chances are we make another win total jump and are a tourney team the next season.
I don't think I'm alone in being excited for Madness and disappointed I couldn't be there in person, watching it on live stream on my computer, going to the WLC exhibition, and a few other early season games, and then not watching games like Nova. Why? If fans just want to see other big names then all eyeballs should be on the Nova game. But I had no interest in watching. Why? Because I knew what was coming. A loss. Early in the year there was excitement no matter who we played (ourselves, Wisconsin Lutheran, etc.). Later on there was no excitement no matter what. Why? We were losing far more than we were winning.
-
Right. I get the need for a better schedule for NCAA Tournament (bubble and seeding) purposes, but in regards to season ticket sales the fact that we aren't scheduling IUPUIs and Texas States and are scheduling Gramblings and Stetsons is going to have a very, very miniscule effect. Wins will have a much, much larger effect.
Success and the publicity it brings sells tickets. If we're getting in the NCAA tournament, or at least being talked about as a bubble team, people are more invested in the team. Scheduling garbage 300+ teams holds us back from that. There are lots of tiers of middle ground between Duke and Northwest Garbage State Tech, and that includes teams that should be easily beatable without dragging our numbers to the ground.
-
so you're an attentive fan when we win and inattentive when we don't...........dare I mumble the word
-
I guess it depends on how those season ticket holders view what we have coming back. If we go 20-11 and miss the tourney but Hank comes back I think season tickets are likely to jump. We went from a 13 win team to a 20 win team and return everything the next season. Chances are we make another win total jump and are a tourney team the next season.
I don't think I'm alone in being excited for Madness and disappointed I couldn't be there in person, watching it on live stream on my computer, going to the WLC exhibition, and a few other early season games, and then not watching games like Nova. Why? If fans just want to see other big names then all eyeballs should be on the Nova game. But I had no interest in watching. Why? Because I knew what was coming. A loss. Early in the year there was excitement no matter who we played (ourselves, Wisconsin Lutheran, etc.). Later on there was no excitement no matter what. Why? We were losing far more than we were winning.
I don't think anyone disagrees that winning cures all, but MU is better off beating slightly less horrible teams than the worst of the worst. It will matter in the end, win or don't win.
-
I don't think anyone disagrees that winning cures all, but MU is better off beating slightly less horrible teams than the worst of the worst. It will matter in the end, win or don't win.
And I'd bet WAY more people would show up to see a loss to Duke than a win over Grambling.
-
Could this crappy schedule be related to the Italy trip? Maybe they're spending a chunk of their annual budget on that trip, which leaves less for getting decent buy games?
Interesting theory. I wouldn't think so given how much revenue the program brings in, but with a new administration, and with layoffs less than 18 months ago? Might be on to something.
-
The more I think about the schedule the more pissed off I get. Time for a new scoop letter writing campaign?
-
If we go 20-11 and miss the tourney but Hank comes back I think season tickets are likely to jump. We went from a 13 win team to a 20 win team and return everything the next season. Chances are we make another win total jump and are a tourney team the next season.
The master plan revealed: HE returns for unfinished bidness
-
And I'd bet WAY more people would show up to see a loss to Duke than a win over Grambling.
But in April of 2016 you can't sell "hey, we may have lost 19 times but 12 of them were to the likes of Duke!" whereas you can reasonably sell "hey, we won 20 games last year with children so imagine winning more with them grown up!".
-
But in April of 2016 you can't sell "hey, we may have lost 19 times but 12 of them were to the likes of Duke!" whereas you can reasonably sell "hey, we won 20 games last year with children so imagine winning more with them grown up!".
I never said anything about scheduling 12 games with schools like Duke - we only have 8 games that weren't determined by the BE or a tournament. But out of those 8 games, one or two interesting opponents would be nice....
-
Another important thing to remember, before everyone jumps off the bridge due to the non-conference schedule, the Big East had one of the top RPI's of any conference (I can't recall if it was 2nd or 5th). We have 18 games against conference opponents, all of whom will be a tough challenge.
Get the wins while you can. The schedule boost will arrive once conference play begins.
-
Another important thing to remember, before everyone jumps off the bridge due to the non-conference schedule, the Big East had one of the top RPI's of any conference (I can't recall if it was 2nd or 5th). We have 18 games against conference opponents, all of whom will be a tough challenge.
Get the wins while you can. The schedule boost will arrive once conference play begins.
Don't have evidence of this yet, but I think the Big East RPI will be lower as a conference this year....combination of less talent in the conference and weaker scheduling. Also remember last year the Big East non-con results were hugely in the Big East favor, one could argue they were statistically improbable given the rest of the season. The conference will likely regress to the mean this next season. Combine that with a weak NCSOS and the margin if very thin for an at-large bid. Can't lose more than 9 games with this schedule IMHO to get an at large bid.
As someone pointed out....MU only had control of 8 non-con games this season. However, they choose to schedule an 300+ RPI team for every one of them. That is intentional, whether it's cost or philosophy driven I don't know.
-
Can someone explain where we are with Notre Dame scheduling in the near future? is Brey the hammer that's not allowing this to work? Has Wojo or Broeker commented on Notre Dame scheduling? As others have suggested--the off year of the UW game is a void that could be filled by this game.
-
This is absolutely ridiculous. Suffice to say, seeing 7 sub-300 RPI teams on the schedule is something I'm not happy with. Here's why:
NCAA Hopes
This will tank our RPI and SOS. Forget about scheduling high major teams like Ohio State or Vanderbilt, even scheduling decent mid and low major teams would make a difference. When I ran the numbers to replace 4 sub-300 teams with 4 185-215 RPI teams the other day, the difference was about 20 points in RPI and SOS. RPIWizard doesn't even let you replace 7 games, but looking at TCU (131 RPI/92 SOS), they played 5 teams that were sub-290 last year. Replacing those teams with teams ranked 200, 205, 210, 215, and 220, TCU would have finished with a RPI of 90 and SOS of 50. So for 5 replaced opponents, that's over FORTY points each of RPI and SOS. They play in a similarly strong league and went 18-15 last year. My estimation is that Marquette probably needs to win 22-23 games just to be on the NCAA bubble, and that's assuming they don't lose to one of these teams.
Big East
The entire league will suffer from this. Yes, they will get an RPI boost because we should have a good record, but opponent's opponents record is the second factor, and we have 8 opponents on our schedule that lost 20+ games a year ago. That means when Villanova, Georgetown, Xavier, Butler, and the rest of the league play us, their RPI is damaged because the schedule we play is so abysmal. If someone is on the bubble, two games against Marquette and our woeful SOS (especially if we're only around .500 ourselves) could keep the league from getting more NCAA credits.
Fan Support
When I ask friends if they want to go to see Ohio State or LSU or NC State, I never have a problem finding someone to come. Grambling, Presbyterian, and Stetson? Not so much. Attendance is already dropping and having games that people don't want to go see isn't going to help that. I would rather give up some home games to play tougher competition than have 20 home dates, 9 of which no one will be remotely interested in. If the diehard fans aren't excited by this schedule, what's the odds they'll have any luck selling it to the average fan? With Syracuse, Louisville, Notre Dame, and others already off the home slate, we need better opponents to bring fans in and drive ticket sales. There is a method to the madness of scheduling in this new Big East, and this isn't it. For the first time I can remember, I'm REALLY JEALOUS of DePaul because their non-con is WAY BETTER than ours is. That's freaking pathetic.
Preparing for Big East Play
How does playing this schedule get us ready for the Big East? Because we get "used to winning?" Please. Beating Grambling in December isn't going to get us ready to go into Philly in January to upset 'Nova. A good non-conference schedule should prepare you for what you will see. Play teams with different styles of play, play teams that can give you some challenge, and play teams that might still be standing in March (if you have any remote aspirations of still playing in that month). These home games (Belmont/Iowa excluded) offer none of that.
The "High-Major" Games
We play only 4 high-major teams in non-conference, and it's not like they're going to be the cream of the crop. Wisconsin will be way down. I'd be very surprised if Bo's top-4 streak didn't end this year. They look like a mid-tier Big Ten team and are the least experienced team he's ever coached. Iowa is still pretty good, but look more like a 6-8 seed than a top-4 seed. Personally, just the type of team I like to see in non-conference, as long as you see 7-8 teams like that. LSU and NC State are probably tourney teams, but they're unlikely to compete for conference crowns. And ASU probably won't be any better than last year, which was a below average high-major. So not only do we have a crappy slate of buy games, we have a crappy slate of buy games with 4 marginal high-majors to offset them. There is nothing not disappointing about the schedule.
Season Ticket Holders
Personally, I roughly tripled my expenditure on tickets this year to improve my seats. This isn't what I thought I was paying for. Had I known this a month ago, I wouldn't have spent what I did this year. We're already losing STH's and teams like this will only encourage more people to say "I would rather spend money on the 4-5 games I want than pay for 20 games, most of which I don't." I've talked to a few STH's today and I'm far from the only one disappointed with this. These are your primary donors and the people most invested in the program. Why alienate them by serving them veritable crap on a silver platter?
-
Don't have evidence of this yet, but I think the Big East RPI will be lower as a conference this year....combination of less talent in the conference and weaker scheduling. Also remember last year the Big East non-con results were hugely in the Big East favor, one could argue they were statistically improbable given the rest of the season. The conference will likely regress to the mean this next season. Combine that with a weak NCSOS and the margin if very thin for an at-large bid. Can't lose more than 9 games with this schedule IMHO to get an at large bid.
As someone pointed out....MU only had control of 8 non-con games this season. However, they choose to schedule an 300+ RPI team for every one of them. That is intentional, whether it's cost or philosophy driven I don't know.
How can we have less talent, when there was only one Big East player drafted and that was in the second round?
-
Again, a full 18-game schedule against Big East opponents (who, in turn, via the B1G challenge and OOC games, play Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, and Nebraska, among others like Syracuse and UConn- thus raising conference RPI and our's when we play them), as well as the Legends Classic (who we could play NC State, LSU or ASU), as well as Iowa and Wisconsin in our OOC, a lot of these concerns are much ado about nothing.
Could we have scheduled harder OOC games with our 8-game slate? Of course. But with this team, considering the youth and inexperience, the priority should be development and chemistry. You don't do that by scheduling numerous games you can't win. Build their confidence up and develop the team with these games.
We also will get at minimum a Big East Tournament game, hopefully 4 :), but to say our schedule will prevent us from reaching the tournament is a bit extreme. Win games and we will be right there.
-
I'd like to hear Wojo and Broeker's comments on this schedule. What is the motive? Does Broeker not understand how RPI works?
I do not know what their thoughts are on this schedule. However, I think it was Crean that said you schedule weak teams when you have a young team and go for a tougher schedule when you have a well seasoned team. Young players need to learn to win, before they take on the big boys. O'Neal started out with a tough schedule with a young team. His theory was, if you want to be the best you have to schedule the best. We looked really bad against Kansas and that changed O'Neal's mind on how to schedule. Getting the crap beat out of you does not help team confidence and it does not being in fans.
-
What's this terrible game day experience argument about? What's the issue people have? What are gameday experience suggestions people want to see? Not that I would disagree I am just looking for clarification as to what the issue is. I suppose I just don't get a feeling that it stinks? I suppose it could be rough when you're in the BMO and there's 8 k people and not a ton of students there, but what are we talking about here? the swag? replays? intermission entertainment? this kiss cam?
help me out
I agree. Obviously theres some things that could be included, but for the most part if you aren't having fun it's because you expect the fun to come to you instead of making it yourself.
-
I'm sure not all of you who are complaining about the schedule have sent in payment yet. If you haven't, then don't send it. If this schedule upsets you so much, put your tickets where your mouth (or typing fingers) is and back out of season tickets. I'm willing to bet no one does.
I wish the competition was better, but oh well. I'm excited for some Marquette basketball.
-
Could we have scheduled harder OOC games with our 8-game slate? Of course. But with this team, considering the youth and inexperience, the priority should be development and chemistry. You don't do that by scheduling numerous games you can't win. Build their confidence up and develop the team with these games.
Nobody is arguing for games "we can't win" how about just schedule 4 of these teams from last years 200-220 group per KenPom
Canisius
Marist
Murray St.
South Dakota St.
High Point
Louisiana Lafayette
Air Force
James Madison
Binghamton
Lafayette
South Dakota
UC Davis
Coppin St.
Elon
Western Carolina
Siena
Wofford
Tennessee Tech
Rider
Monmouth
We better be able to beat any one of those at home with the talent we supposedly have coming in. Schedule 4 of those teams and eliminate 4 of the crapbag we have now improves our SOS by at least 20 points, probably prepares the team better for conference, is at least a more legitimate basketball experience for fans, AND still gives us a very good shot at winning.
The more I think about this the more I think this is really really stupid.
-
Again, a full 18-game schedule against Big East opponents (who, in turn, via the B1G challenge and OOC games, play Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, and Nebraska, among others like Syracuse and UConn- thus raising conference RPI and our's when we play them), as well as the Legends Classic (who we could play NC State, LSU or ASU), as well as Iowa and Wisconsin in our OOC, a lot of these concerns are much ado about nothing.
Could we have scheduled harder OOC games with our 8-game slate? Of course. But with this team, considering the youth and inexperience, the priority should be development and chemistry. You don't do that by scheduling numerous games you can't win. Build their confidence up and develop the team with these games.
Again, no one's saying we have to be scheduling Duke and Kentucky or that we shouldn't schedule cupcakes. The problem is that there are 350 D1 teams and 7 of our games are against teams that were 315th or worse in RPI last season. If those teams are similarly awful this year, it knocks down our RPI by anywhere between 20-40 spots, as opposed to if we scheduled teams in the 150-250 range. That's a big difference if we're on the bubble come March.
-
This is absolutely ridiculous. Suffice to say, seeing 7 sub-300 RPI teams on the schedule is something I'm not happy with. Here's why:
NCAA Hopes
This will tank our RPI and SOS. Forget about scheduling high major teams like Ohio State or Vanderbilt, even scheduling decent mid and low major teams would make a difference. When I ran the numbers to replace 4 sub-300 teams with 4 185-215 RPI teams the other day, the difference was about 20 points in RPI and SOS. RPIWizard doesn't even let you replace 7 games, but looking at TCU (131 RPI/92 SOS), they played 5 teams that were sub-290 last year. Replacing those teams with teams ranked 200, 205, 210, 215, and 220, TCU would have finished with a RPI of 90 and SOS of 50. So for 5 replaced opponents, that's over FORTY points each of RPI and SOS. They play in a similarly strong league and went 18-15 last year. My estimation is that Marquette probably needs to win 22-23 games just to be on the NCAA bubble, and that's assuming they don't lose to one of these teams.
11 or 12 wins in the BE are a must. A 10-8 record in conference will get us in the NIT.
-
so you're an attentive fan when we win and inattentive when we don't...........dare I mumble the word
Nope. Just have no interest in walking through negative wind chills to watch us lose by double digits.
You're a better fan than me though...
-
Nobody is arguing for games "we can't win" how about just schedule 4 of these teams from last years 200-220 group per KenPom
Canisius
Marist
Murray St.
South Dakota St.
High Point
Louisiana Lafayette
Air Force
James Madison
Binghamton
Lafayette
South Dakota
UC Davis
Coppin St.
Elon
Western Carolina
Siena
Wofford
Tennessee Tech
Rider
Monmouth
We better be able to beat any one of those at home with the talent we supposedly have coming in. Schedule 4 of those teams and eliminate 4 of the crapbag we have now improves our SOS by at least 20 points, probably prepares the team better for conference, is at least a more legitimate basketball experience for fans, AND still gives us a very good shot at winning.
The more I think about this the more I think this is really really stupid.
How is it a more legitamate basketball experience? if it's a 20pt game or a 30pt game. I agree it's stupid for if we end up as a bubble team or what not but let's not act like playing a slightly better terrible team is going to have a massive impact on the game day experience.
-
How is it a more legitamate basketball experience? if it's a 20pt game or a 30pt game. I agree it's stupid for if we end up as a bubble team or what not but let's not act like playing a slightly better terrible team is going to have a massive impact on the game day experience.
The difference between a 315 RPI team and a 220 is not slightly less terrible, it is significant from a statistical and talent standpoint.
-
For all of you hoping for a harder schedule have you forgotten that we lost to number 248 nebraska omaha? And was that when we were down to next to no players? Nope when we had a full roster still. Not to mention we lost to 167 Depaul.
I know it's nice to schedule harder mid majors but lets get to that level first. We aren't in the Big 3-Vander 8 year span anymore... we're still back in the dark ages.
-
The difference between a 315 RPI team and a 220 is not slightly less terrible, it is significant from a statistical and talent standpoint.
And howd scheduling say a RPI 248 team work out last year? I know it's great for stat heads but as much as we like to pretend every MU bball fan is as psychotic as us... they aren't. The crowd isn't going to suddenly get bigger if it's a slightly better mid major. Heck we played NC State my freshman year (and lost) when they were terrible and the stadium was barely larger than a mid major game.
-
For all of you hoping for a harder schedule have you forgotten that we lost to number 248 nebraska omaha? And was that when we were down to next to no players? Nope when we had a full roster still. Not to mention we lost to 167 Depaul.
I know it's nice to schedule harder mid majors but lets get to that level first. We aren't in the Big 3-Vander 8 year span anymore... we're still back in the dark ages.
The program is trying to sell us on young talent. They want us to believe that Duane and Luke are legitimate Big East players and that our recruiting class will get us back to playing with the big boys. When you have a player like Ellenson, the bare minimum expectation should be the NCAAs. This schedule could very easily cost us that.
I ran numbers on TCU earlier today, because they played 5 sub-290 teams last year:
2015-16 TCU
18-15 (4-14)
RPI: 131
SOS: 90
I made the following replacements:
OUT: 293 Furman, 326 New Orleans, 341 Tennessee State, 345 Mississippi Valley State, 351 Grambling
IN: 200 Holy Cross, 205 Detroit, 210 Winthrop, 215 IPFW, 220 Western Carolina
RPI: 90
SOS: 50
I don't think that's asking for much. And we have 7 of these games. I understand you need to play some weak teams to guarantee wins. That's fine. A couple of these games, even 3-4 to build confidence, is one thing. But 7? That's just too much. STH's pay good money to watch this team, but they pay to watch them play competitive games. After the first week, our home slate will be garbage until the new year. I'd happily give up 2-for-1 games with the Horizon or MVC to get better teams in. We don't need 20 home games if half of them are going to be hot garbage.
-
How is it a more legitamate basketball experience? if it's a 20pt game or a 30pt game. I agree it's stupid for if we end up as a bubble team or what not but let's not act like playing a slightly better terrible team is going to have a massive impact on the game day experience.
Agreed.
The vast majority of fans are going to be no more excited about a big matchup with Colgate or New Hampshire (sub-200 RPI teams) than they are about games with Maine or Stetson.
-
So we are at the point of arguing that games against Marist, Western Carolina, South Dakota State and Tennessee Tech are better for both the team and fans than Belmont, IUPUI, Grambling State and Jackson State?
Yep. It must be offseason.
-
So we are at the point of arguing that games against Marist, Western Carolina, South Dakota State and Tennessee Tech are better for both the team and fans than Belmont, IUPUI, Grambling State and Jackson State?
Yep. It must be offseason.
Belmont is great. That's our second best home game. However, had Miami replaced just TWO of their games last year, let's say 331 Savannah State and 298 Charleston with two of the teams you mention, let's say Western Carolina and South Dakota State, this is what happens to their profile:
Miami
21-12 (10-8)
RPI: 65
SOS: 71
New RPI: 50
New SOS: 48
With two changes to the schedule, Miami would have almost certainly gone from the NIT to the NCAAs. And we have 7 of those games. So yeah, it matters, whether it's off-season, in-season, or Selection Sunday.
-
The program is trying to sell us on young talent. They want us to believe that Duane and Luke are legitimate Big East players and that our recruiting class will get us back to playing with the big boys. When you have a player like Ellenson, the bare minimum expectation should be the NCAAs. This schedule could very easily cost us that.
I ran numbers on TCU earlier today, because they played 5 sub-290 teams last year:
2015-16 TCU
18-15 (4-14)
RPI: 131
SOS: 90
I made the following replacements:
OUT: 293 Furman, 326 New Orleans, 341 Tennessee State, 345 Mississippi Valley State, 351 Grambling
IN: 200 Holy Cross, 205 Detroit, 210 Winthrop, 215 IPFW, 220 Western Carolina
RPI: 90
SOS: 50
I don't think that's asking for much. And we have 7 of these games. I understand you need to play some weak teams to guarantee wins. That's fine. A couple of these games, even 3-4 to build confidence, is one thing. But 7? That's just too much. STH's pay good money to watch this team, but they pay to watch them play competitive games. After the first week, our home slate will be garbage until the new year. I'd happily give up 2-for-1 games with the Horizon or MVC to get better teams in. We don't need 20 home games if half of them are going to be hot garbage.
TCU wasn't getting in with 18 wins ever.
But my question is this were you actually happy when in 12-13 we beat UNC-Central by only 9 points because it was a competitive game? Because I'll go back and look at those threads. What about when we lost to UW-GB by two? It was a great competitive game. Last year against Omaha? Real competitive game could've done without the loss.
I agree the coaching staff is trying to sell us on those players and that's great but those players haven't been on a winning team since high school and will have all conference to sell us on themselves. In the non con they'll have some tune ups but I have no problem with them avoiding bad losses in a year where we return four players and one red shirt transfer.
-
TCU wasn't getting in with 18 wins ever.
No, they weren't. But that illustrates how much of a difference scheduling can make. Last year, if Miami played three fewer dogs in favor of teams in the 180-220 range, they would have been a tourney team. Scheduling costs teams bids almost every year. That's just a reality.
But my question is this were you actually happy when in 12-13 we beat UNC-Central by only 9 points because it was a competitive game? Because I'll go back and look at those threads. What about when we lost to UW-GB by two? It was a great competitive game. Last year against Omaha? Real competitive game could've done without the loss.
I emailed Mike Broeker the day after the GB game and said we should continue the series. My opinion on that changed at one point, but if we can't schedule better than this, we should get GB and UWM back on the schedule, even if it means doing a 2 or 3 for 1 deal. And yes, I'd rather risk losses against better cupcakes than beat bad teams. I'd much rather go 6-1 against teams in the 180-220 RPI range than go 7-0 against sub-300 teams.
I agree the coaching staff is trying to sell us on those players and that's great but those players haven't been on a winning team since high school and will have all conference to sell us on themselves. In the non con they'll have some tune ups but I have no problem with them avoiding bad losses in a year where we return four players and one red shirt transfer.
My hope every year is for the NCAA Tournament. I feel that as a program, that should be the goal. Sometimes we'll come up short. I can accept that. My issue is with the administration seemingly accepting that in July before the first ball is even tipped.
-
No, they weren't. But that illustrates how much of a difference scheduling can make. Last year, if Miami played three fewer dogs in favor of teams in the 180-220 range, they would have been a tourney team. Scheduling costs teams bids almost every year. That's just a reality.
I emailed Mike Broeker the day after the GB game and said we should continue the series. My opinion on that changed at one point, but if we can't schedule better than this, we should get GB and UWM back on the schedule, even if it means doing a 2 or 3 for 1 deal. And yes, I'd rather risk losses against better cupcakes than beat bad teams. I'd much rather go 6-1 against teams in the 180-220 RPI range than go 7-0 against sub-300 teams.
My hope every year is for the NCAA Tournament. I feel that as a program, that should be the goal. Sometimes we'll come up short. I can accept that. My issue is with the administration seemingly accepting that in July before the first ball is even tipped.
Just responding to the third paragraph: I believe that is where we disagree. It seems, correct me if I am wrong, you have a standard for the schedule that you believe we should adhere to and it'll work and get us in or it will not and you can accept that. I believe when scheduling we must look at what we have and try and set ourselves up to be in a minimal risk situation relative to talent and experience on our team. Next year if this was our schedule I'd be livid like yourself as I believe we should be tested and relative to our talent and experience we can overcome those tests. This year I disagree and find it adequate.
-
The program is trying to sell us on young talent. They want us to believe that Duane and Luke are legitimate Big East players and that our recruiting class will get us back to playing with the big boys. When you have a player like Ellenson, the bare minimum expectation should be the NCAAs. This schedule could very easily cost us that.
I ran numbers on TCU earlier today, because they played 5 sub-290 teams last year:
2015-16 TCU
18-15 (4-14)
RPI: 131
SOS: 90
I made the following replacements:
OUT: 293 Furman, 326 New Orleans, 341 Tennessee State, 345 Mississippi Valley State, 351 Grambling
IN: 200 Holy Cross, 205 Detroit, 210 Winthrop, 215 IPFW, 220 Western Carolina
RPI: 90
SOS: 50
I don't think that's asking for much. And we have 7 of these games. I understand you need to play some weak teams to guarantee wins. That's fine. A couple of these games, even 3-4 to build confidence, is one thing. But 7? That's just too much. STH's pay good money to watch this team, but they pay to watch them play competitive games. After the first week, our home slate will be garbage until the new year. I'd happily give up 2-for-1 games with the Horizon or MVC to get better teams in. We don't need 20 home games if half of them are going to be hot garbage.
I'm not sure what this proves, though.
Are you suggesting an 18-15 TCU team (that went 4-14 in conference) would have been on the bubble had they only played a tougher non-conference schedule?
Why not compare the schedule to Notre Dame's last year, which featured five games against sub-300 opponents, three more in the 200s, and only one non-con game in the top 50? Obviously didn't put them anywhere close to the bubble because they 1) won those games and 2) played well in their conference.
I'm not suggesting this isn't a terrible non-conference slate. It is.
And if I paid for season tickets, I too would be unhappy.
But it's not the apocalyptic scenario you're laying out here. Bottom line is that if MU wins these games and, far more importantly, plays well in conference, they'll be fine. And if they don't play well in conference, it won't matter who they played on the non-conference schedule.
-
I don't love the schedule either but I think but I think its impact is being overstated. I do think it could screw us over if we end up a bubble team. The rest is just noise. Season ticket holders don't see a difference between IPFW and IUPUI. Despite nearly 100 point difference in RPI, most fans just see them as another cupcake. I am very skeptical that this will actually impact season ticket sales. Hell, it could help ticket sales. If we go undefeated in non-con (unlikely but not impossible with this schedule), people will be fighting for tickets.
Try to look at the bright side. We can probably expect to come out of non-con with only 2-3 losses. Maybe even less.
-
I'm not sure what this proves, though.
Are you suggesting an 18-15 TCU team (that went 4-14 in conference) would have been on the bubble had they only played a tougher non-conference schedule?
Why not compare the schedule to Notre Dame's last year, which featured five games against sub-300 opponents, three more in the 200s, and only one non-con game in the top 50? Obviously didn't put them anywhere close to the bubble because they 1) won those games and 2) played well in their conference.
I'm not suggesting this isn't a terrible non-conference slate. It is.
And if I paid for season tickets, I too would be unhappy.
But it's not the apocalyptic scenario you're laying out here. Bottom line is that if MU wins these games and, far more importantly, plays well in conference, they'll be fine. And if they don't play well in conference, it won't matter who they played on the non-conference schedule.
The general expectation seems to be that we will be fighting for a NCAA spot. Maybe we get in, maybe we don't, but this schedule can only hurt us in that regard. The TCU example showed how big a difference a few bad teams can make. The Miami example shows how improving just 2 cupcakes can take you from the NIT to the NCAAs. And we have 7 of those.
If we go 29-5 like Notre Dame did, we'll be fine. But if we win 18-21 games, our schedule will probably keep us out of the tournament, whereas a tougher schedule could get us in with the same win total.
And yes, part of it is being a STH that feels he paid a good chunk of money for what should be a much, much better product than this.
-
Belmont is great. That's our second best home game. However, had Miami replaced just TWO of their games last year, let's say 331 Savannah State and 298 Charleston with two of the teams you mention, let's say Western Carolina and South Dakota State, this is what happens to their profile:
Miami
21-12 (10-8)
RPI: 65
SOS: 71
New RPI: 50
New SOS: 48
With two changes to the schedule, Miami would have almost certainly gone from the NIT to the NCAAs. And we have 7 of those games. So yeah, it matters, whether it's off-season, in-season, or Selection Sunday.
And if Miami didn't lay eggs against the likes of Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Green Bay, or Eastern Kentucky, they may have went dancing too. Winning gets you into the tournament, period.
-
And if Miami didn't lay eggs against the likes of Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Green Bay, or Eastern Kentucky, they may have went dancing too. Winning gets you into the tournament, period.
I'm talking about things you can control in the offseason. I feel that if Marquette wins 21+ games like Miami did, they should be in the tournament every year. If we win 21 games this year, we will most likely be out.
-
I'm talking about things you can control in the offseason. I feel that if Marquette wins 21+ games like Miami did, they should be in the tournament every year. If we win 21 games this year, we will most likely be out.
I think that's the key. It's plausible that we could win 20 games and still miss the tournament by beating 17 or 18 cupcakes, and only having 2 or 3 "good" wins. That should never happen to a team in a major conference.
-
In 2013/14 we played
Ohio State
@UW
@ASU
Wooden Classic
Wooden Classic
Wooden Classic
(N) New Mexico in Las Vegas
That's 7 solid game (admittedly Cal-State Fullerton was not but it did count as a road game)
Now for 2015/16 we're
Iowa
Legends
Legends
@UW
Even if you count Belmont we still went from 7 to 5. There has to be a decent Home and Home we could have signed up for.
-
The general expectation seems to be that we will be fighting for a NCAA spot. Maybe we get in, maybe we don't, but this schedule can only hurt us in that regard. The TCU example showed how big a difference a few bad teams can make. The Miami example shows how improving just 2 cupcakes can take you from the NIT to the NCAAs. And we have 7 of those.
If we go 29-5 like Notre Dame did, we'll be fine. But if we win 18-21 games, our schedule will probably keep us out of the tournament, whereas a tougher schedule could get us in with the same win total.
Of course, you're making an assumption here that tougher schedule = same win total. That's probably not a safe bet with this team. A win against a 310 RPI team probably is better than a loss against 210.
And yes, part of it is being a STH that feels he paid a good chunk of money for what should be a much, much better product than this.
Sure, but ultimately people go to games (or choose not to go to games) because of the home team, not the opponent, and this is even more so the case with season ticket buyers. Nobody is making their season-ticket buying decisions on whether a MAC or Horizon team is on the schedule instead of Maine.
-
Sure, but ultimately people go to games (or choose not to go to games) because of the home team, not the opponent.
If that is true, why is attendance almost always considerably higher for "marquee" games than it is for weaker opponents?
-
I think that's the key. It's plausible that we could win 20 games and still miss the tournament by beating 17 or 18 cupcakes, and only having 2 or 3 "good" wins. That should never happen to a team in a major conference.
I think it would be impossible to win 20 games and have only 2 or 3 "good" wins.
-
If that is true, why is attendance almost always considerably higher for "marquee" games than it is for weaker opponents?
Well the couple hundred opposing fans who are local alumni and families. Then of course there's the casual fans who just want to see the bigger games, when you were a student did you go to every smaller game as well? I only did as a freshman.
But I think Pakuni was referring moreso to the games against say 200s to 300s opponents.
-
If that is true, why is attendance almost always considerably higher for "marquee" games than it is for weaker opponents?
I appreciate how you edited out the second part of my sentence and left out season ticket holders.
That said, yes, games against bigger-name opponents can occasionally draw more casual fans, but not always, and not if the home team isn't playing well.
Case in point: During the 2012-13 season, MU had better attendance for games against Savannah State, Colgate and North Carolina State than they did last year for major-conference opponent Arizona State.
But that's not really relevant to the season ticket holders we were discussing.
-
I think it would be impossible to win 20 games and have only 2 or 3 "good" wins.
It all depends on the schedule....
-
I appreciate how you edited out the second part of my sentence and left out season ticket holders.
That said, yes, games against bigger-name opponents can occasionally draw more casual fans, but not always, and not if the home team isn't playing well.
Case in point: During the 2012-13 season, MU had better attendance for games against Savannah State, Colgate and North Carolina State than they did last year for major-conference opponent Arizona State.
But that's not really relevant to the season ticket holders we were discussing.
I edited it out to indicate he part I was addressing. ::)
But if you want to address season ticket holders, please explain why the lower bowl is always more crowded for big games than it is for cupcakes.
-
I edited it out to indicate he part I was addressing. ::)
But if you want to address season ticket holders, please explain why the lower bowl is always more crowded for big games than it is for cupcakes.
Because more people go to those games?
Which doesn't change or contradict anything I've written.
-
I think it would be impossible to win 20 games and have only 2 or 3 "good" wins.
Good is usually considered top-100 wins. Interesting question, but...
- 9 wins: The home games against low major teams
- 1 win: Arizona State (may very well be outside top-100)
- 6 wins: Seton Hall (97 last year), Creighton (151 last year), DePaul (197 last year)
So that would be 20 wins with only 4 good wins if SHU dropped out of the top-100 and the other two stayed status quo. If one more Big East team dropped (maybe St. John's) we could get to 18 wins without beating a single top-100 team.
-
Because more people go to those games?
Which doesn't change or contradict anything I've written.
Yes it does. You said:
"Sure, but ultimately people go to games (or choose not to go to games) because of the home team, not the opponent, and this is even more so the case with season ticket buyers."
That's about as direct a contradiction as you can have.
-
Yes it does. You said:
"Sure, but ultimately people go to games (or choose not to go to games) because of the home team, not the opponent, and this is even more so the case with season ticket buyers."
That's about as direct a contradiction as you can have.
More selective editing ....
-
Good is usually considered top-100 wins. Interesting question, but...
- 9 wins: The home games against low major teams
- 1 win: Arizona State (may very well be outside top-100)
- 6 wins: Seton Hall (97 last year), Creighton (151 last year), DePaul (197 last year)
So that would be 20 wins with only 4 good wins if SHU dropped out of the top-100 and the other two stayed status quo. If one more Big East team dropped (maybe St. John's) we could get to 18 wins without beating a single top-100 team.
I count 16 wins above, not 20. What am I missing?
Look, even if MU beats only the cupcakes on its non-conference schedule, that's nine wins. That means they're going to need 11 more wins via conference play. I don't see how that's possible by beating only sub-100 teams unless the Big East is brutally terrible this year.
-
More selective editing ....
You are becoming quite funny.
First you said people go because of the home team, not the opponent. Now you're acknowledging that many season ticket holders don't go to the lesser games. And you still don't see the conflict.
-
I count 16 wins above, not 20. What am I missing?
Look, even if MU beats only the cupcakes on its non-conference schedule, that's nine wins. That means they're going to need 11 more wins via conference play. I don't see how that's possible by beating only sub-100 teams unless the Big East is brutally terrible this year.
You're correct, but you said you felt it was impossible to get to 20 wins with only 2-3 "good" wins.
So 16 wins, which means to get to 20, we would have only 4 good wins. If another Big East team fell flat (say St. John's replaced us in the sub-100 RPI range) that could be 18 wins, which would mean we could get to 20 wins with only 2 top-100 wins. That's assuming 4 Big East teams outside the top-100 RPI.
EDIT: Last year, the Big East had 3 sub-100 teams and one more at 97 (Seton Hall). If Seton Hall fell 4 spots in the RPI and St. John's swapped spots with Marquette being outside the top-100, that's 8 potential league wins that would all be sub-100. So the 9 home cupcakes, 8 in the Big East, and Arizona State (102 RPI last year).
-
You are becoming quite funny.
First you said people go because of the home team, not the opponent. Now you're acknowledging that many season ticket holders don't go to the lesser games. And you still don't see the conflict.
They go to competitive games, doesn't mean they're there for the other team. Just means that if they're going to set aside a very large portion of their day (even larger for those of us from Chicago) they want to see a game of value. I'll go for belmont, I won't go to maine, that doesn't mean I'm there to see belmont. It means I want to see MU play belmont. It certainly doesn't mean I think we should play teams like Belmont every single game, heck even in the Pros I'm quite certain they're happy when they get to have their occasional night off against the Lakers or 76ers.
-
You are becoming quite funny.
First you said people go because of the home team, not the opponent. Now you're acknowledging that many season ticket holders don't go to the lesser games. And you still don't see the conflict.
Because by editing out portions of what I wrote you're removing context ... in this case the context of how the strength non-conference schedule affects season-ticket buying decisions.
With all due respect, it's more than a little misleading on your part to do that.
-
You're correct, but you said you felt it was impossible to get to 20 wins with only 2-3 "good" wins.
So 16 wins, which means to get to 20, we would have only 4 good wins. If another Big East team fell flat (say St. John's replaced us in the sub-100 RPI range) that could be 18 wins, which would mean we could get to 20 wins with only 2 top-100 wins. That's assuming 4 Big East teams outside the top-100 RPI.
EDIT: Last year, the Big East had 3 sub-100 teams and one more at 97 (Seton Hall). If Seton Hall fell 4 spots in the RPI and St. John's swapped spots with Marquette being outside the top-100, that's 8 potential league wins that would all be sub-100. So the 9 home cupcakes, 8 in the Big East, and Arizona State (102 RPI last year).
So, basically even if the Big East is historically bad, it's still not possible.
I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but I still see no way what was said - 20 wins with only 2-3 qualifying as "good" - is feasible.
-
So, basically even if the Big East is historically bad, it's still not possible.
I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but I still see no way what was said - 20 wins with only 2-3 qualifying as "good" - is feasible.
Uhh...I think your math is wrong. Historically bad? Last year, Marquette, DePaul, and Creighton were all sub-100. Seton Hall was 97. It wouldn't have taken much (1 more loss or one more bad cupcake) for Seton Hall to be below 100. If St. John's and Marquette swap and SHU drops 4 spots, that's 8 Big East wins possible without a single good win. Add in the 9 home games, that's 17 total wins without a single good win. If ASU is again below 100 RPI (like last year) that's 18 total wins without a single good win.
It wouldn't take historically bad from the Big East, it would take a season virtually identical to last season. That pretty easily gets us to 17-18 wins, and the only two differences between this year and last year would be SHU dropping 4 spots in RPI and St. John's replacing Marquette in the sub-100 area.
Like you, really not trying to be pedantic, just demonstrating that exactly what you said would be completely possible based on our current schedule if things from last year are virtually status quo.
-
Don't remember what was written, but..read this re: last year's non conf sked vs. the previous year.. (http://painttouches.com/2014/12/15/marquette-sees-improvement-in-non-conference-strength-of-schedule/)
-
No other high major team will have more 300+ RPI teams on their schedule, and we'll have five or more with the next most in the BE being two. Not sure if it's Broeker's continuing ineptitude for scheduling or Scholl actually pushing for this. Guess it'll take missing the tournament and seeing a net loss in tournament shares vs. the pennies saved for scheduling middle school teams.
-
This stuff is getting absurdly blown out of proportion.
-
No other high major team will have more 300+ RPI teams on their schedule, and we'll have five or more with the next most in the BE being two. Not sure if it's Broeker's continuing ineptitude for scheduling or Scholl actually pushing for this. Guess it'll take missing the tournament and seeing a net loss in tournament shares vs. the pennies saved for scheduling middle school teams.
lol
-
Win the bunnies and be in the top 4 of the Big Easy and you are tourney
bound.
-
Horrible non-conference schedule
-
If that is true, why is attendance almost always considerably higher for "marquee" games than it is for weaker opponents?
Maybe Marquette said screw it, when Arizona State had 12,000 plus.
-
No other high major team will have more 300+ RPI teams on their schedule, and we'll have five or more with the next most in the BE being two. Not sure if it's Broeker's continuing ineptitude for scheduling or Scholl actually pushing for this. Guess it'll take missing the tournament and seeing a net loss in tournament shares vs. the pennies saved for scheduling middle school teams.
Maybe Wojo wants this.
-
Because by editing out portions of what I wrote you're removing context ... in this case the context of how the strength non-conference schedule affects season-ticket buying decisions.
With all due respect, it's more than a little misleading on your part to do that.
Sorry I hurt your feelings by using your exact words.
Peace.
-
I count 16 wins above, not 20. What am I missing?
Look, even if MU beats only the cupcakes on its non-conference schedule, that's nine wins. That means they're going to need 11 more wins via conference play. I don't see how that's possible by beating only sub-100 teams unless the Big East is brutally terrible this year.
You are really blind to just how awful the big east really is. We might be lucky if we have more then 3 teams in the top 100.
-
You are really blind to just how awful the big east really is. We might be lucky if we have more then 3 teams in the top 100.
Well that's a dumb statement. I hope it's sarcasm. Nova, GTown, X and Providence will certainly be there. Butler and us will be there as well. Yes SJU is terrible, seton hall is facing tons of issues but if whitehead is legit they'll be fine, if Billy Garrett and Hamilton can play under Dave Letaeo (I can't remember spelling) DePaul will jump up, creightons probably still down in the dumps.
-
Went with one more comparable going the other way. Let's say that Providence last year had a similar schedule to what we have this year:
2014-15 Providence
22-11 (11-7/1-1 BET)
RPI: 22
SOS: 5
DROP: Albany (Home win), Florida State (Neutral win), Boston College (Road loss), Rhode Island (Home win), Massachusetts (Home win)
ADD: Grambling, Jackson State, San Jose State, Presbyterian, Chicago State
They still have two neutral site games to roughly approximate the Legends Classic, Notre Dame and Miami. They have one big away game at Kentucky, who was far better than Bucky will be this year (kept as a loss). They play the same conference schedule we will play this year. I even kept in the loss to Brown, simulating the horrible "what if" we lose to one of these cupcakes. As far as other comparables, RPI 64 Yale is there to roughly approximate a likely top-100 Iowa and RPI 107 Stony Brook roughly approximates Belmont. So the new numbers?
2014-15 Providence
23-10 (11-7/1-1)
RPI: 46
SOS: 75
Because I dropped the BC loss and replaced it with a home cupcake win, Providence gains a win but drops massively in the other metrics. With 23 wins, playing a schedule similar (Providence's is likely still a bit better) would have had the Friars squarely on the bubble. Their vaunted SOS that helped them secure a 6-seed drops a whopping 70 points, while their RPI also takes a massive hit. Would they get in with that? Possibly, but probably as an 11 or 12 rather than a 6. It would take 24 wins for them to be assured of a bid.
So for anyone predicting MU for a NCAA bid with Henry this year, do you think 23-24 wins are on the cards?
-
The general expectation seems to be that we will be fighting for a NCAA spot. Maybe we get in, maybe we don't, but this schedule can only hurt us in that regard. The TCU example showed how big a difference a few bad teams can make. The Miami example shows how improving just 2 cupcakes can take you from the NIT to the NCAAs. And we have 7 of those.
Miami doesn't show any such thing, as you're making a huge assumption that they would get in with an RPI of 50. After all, by your own admission, there is no way that TCU would make it with the exact same RPI #50 achieved using the same bogus cupcake adjustment factor.
At the same time, Indiana got in with #61 RPI and four dreaded 300+ cupcakes on the schedule--and they didn't get stuck with 13 or 12 seed, but made it to #10. And LSU made it. And Purdue, despite the black mark of playing worst-in-the-NCAA Grambling.
That suggests that the committee of real people are smart enough to know that Colorado State boosted their RPI by avoiding 300+ teams, and Indiana's RPI was depressed by playing too many of them--so they ignored the RPI and looked at the body of work.
The day the NCAA announces they're dismissing the committee and seeding the tournament 100% by computer, THEN your argument make sense.
Meanwhile, for every example you point out that hypothetically suggests cupcakes are important, we have real examples like Colorado State (no bad cupcakes and a #29 RPI & no tournament) or Indiana (four 300+ cupcakes and in the tourney with a #10 seed) that state otherwise.
In other words, the PEOPLE making the decision see the artificial impact of cupcake quality and ignore or adjust for it.
Finally, one consideration you're overlooking in your "math only" approach . . . some of the ADs on the committee represent those 300+ teams. The last thing they want is for the high-majors to start to feel (as you apparently do) that they have to avoid bad cupcakes in order to make the tourney (or get a good seed). In other words, Grambling needs the revenue, so its representative on the committee makes it clear that there should be no penalty for scheduling them by inviting teams like Indiana, LSU, Purdue, etc. who DO have a number of those 300+ teams.
-
You misread. TCU would have had an RPI of 90, not 50. 50 would have been their SOS number. That was to illustrate how big a difference playing these cupcakes makes.
I'll look at the rest later.
-
Went with one more comparable going the other way. Let's say that Providence last year had a similar schedule to what we have this year:
2014-15 Providence
22-11 (11-7/1-1 BET)
RPI: 22
SOS: 5
DROP: Albany (Home win), Florida State (Neutral win), Boston College (Road loss), Rhode Island (Home win), Massachusetts (Home win)
ADD: Grambling, Jackson State, San Jose State, Presbyterian, Chicago State
They still have two neutral site games to roughly approximate the Legends Classic, Notre Dame and Miami. They have one big away game at Kentucky, who was far better than Bucky will be this year (kept as a loss). They play the same conference schedule we will play this year. I even kept in the loss to Brown, simulating the horrible "what if" we lose to one of these cupcakes. As far as other comparables, RPI 64 Yale is there to roughly approximate a likely top-100 Iowa and RPI 107 Stony Brook roughly approximates Belmont. So the new numbers?
2014-15 Providence
23-10 (11-7/1-1)
RPI: 46
SOS: 75
Because I dropped the BC loss and replaced it with a home cupcake win, Providence gains a win but drops massively in the other metrics. With 23 wins, playing a schedule similar (Providence's is likely still a bit better) would have had the Friars squarely on the bubble. Their vaunted SOS that helped them secure a 6-seed drops a whopping 70 points, while their RPI also takes a massive hit. Would they get in with that? Possibly, but probably as an 11 or 12 rather than a 6. It would take 24 wins for them to be assured of a bid.
So for anyone predicting MU for a NCAA bid with Henry this year, do you think 23-24 wins are on the cards?
I am 99.9% confident in saying that if you drop 4 okay wins and 1 fairly bad loss and add 5 bad wins that Providence was not going to drop from a 6 seed to out of the Tournament.
-
Maybe we are the only ones that think MU has a chance of making the NCAA tournament. The first road game in a season is a very hard game to win. So if Belmont beats us in their first road game, it will be a big indication that we are not an NCAA worthy team.
-
I am 99.9% confident in saying that if you drop 4 okay wins and 1 fairly bad loss and add 5 bad wins that Providence was not going to drop from a 6 seed to out of the Tournament.
When you look at the actual results, this is made quite obvious:
Because I dropped the BC loss and replaced it with a home cupcake win, Providence gains a win but drops massively in the other metrics. With 23 wins, playing a schedule similar (Providence's is likely still a bit better) would have had the Friars squarely on the bubble. Their vaunted SOS that helped them secure a 6-seed drops a whopping 70 points, while their RPI also takes a massive hit. Would they get in with that? Possibly, but probably as an 11 or 12 rather than a 6. It would take 24 wins for them to be assured of a bid.
So if the only thing changed about Providence is the quality of their cupcakes, RPI would fall to 46, they would still finish 4th in the BE, but would fall all the way to an 11 or 12 seed? Yet looking at actual (not hypothetical) results:
Indiana #61 RPI
20-13
10 seed
Ole Miss #60 RPI
20-12
11 seed
LSU #58 RPI
22-10
9 seed
Providence #46
23-10
Would hypothetically fall to 11 or 12 seed?
BTW, 5th place/44 RPI St Johns was a 9 seed. But 4th place Providence with a nearly identical RPI rank and 2 more Big East wins would be 2 or 3 seeds lower?
Or #43 Iowa is a 7? But #46 Providence is a 11 or 12? 3 places in the RPI explains a 4 or 5 seed difference?
-
You are really blind to just how awful the big east really is. We might be lucky if we have more then 3 teams in the top 100.
As Bagpiper already pointed out, that's a really dumb statement.
Last year the conference had six teams in the top 52. St. John's is the only team of those six that might fall out, and they could easily be replaced by MU or even Seton Hall if Whitehead and Delgado keep their heads on straight.
-
NM.
-
Don't they schedule these games like 2 years in advance? Or is that a misconception?
-
Don't they schedule these games like 2 years in advance? Or is that a misconception?
Big names are several years in advance, especially the home and home....the buy games are usually after the NCAA tournament is over.
-
I understand that part of getting season tickets is supporting the team and school, but it is very tempting to kill the season package and just pay a premium and get really good seats for the handful of meaningful games each year.
-
I understand that part of getting season tickets is supporting the team and school, but it is very tempting to kill the season package and just pay a premium and get really good seats for the handful of meaningful games each year.
Judging by our season ticket sales I suspect many are opting for that.
-
Judging by our season ticket sales I suspect many are opting for that.
How bad has it gotten?
-
Judging by our season ticket sales I suspect many are opting for that.
This is why the schedule matters. It will hit Marquette right in the pocket book. Also, I really don't think people are blowing it out of proportion. I usually laugh at the sky is falling characters on scoop but intententional or not, this non-conference schedule is embarrassing.
-
How bad has it gotten?
Our peak attendance was 16.2K average in 2008. Last year we were at 13.6K average albeit impacted by the Al game which artificially depresses the total. Last year our season ticket base was off by about 1500 compared to '13-'14. I suspect that this year's drop is comparable or maybe a bit worse. To get an accurate gauge, find the announced attendance figure for the worst weekday Buy game. I tried to quickly find Omaha's last year but couldn't come up with it. It's around 12,000 (including students) and dropping.
-
Okay, I found it. MU/Omaha = 12,575. That'll be within 100 seats of actual season tickets. (Almost nobody walks up and purchases tickets for that.)
-
Our peak attendance was 16.2K average in 2008. Last year we were at 13.6K average albeit impacted by the Al game which artificially depresses the total. Last year our season ticket base was off by about 1500 compared to '13-'14. I suspect that this year's drop is comparable or maybe a bit worse. To get an accurate gauge, find the announced attendance figure for the worst weekday Buy game. I tried to quickly find Omaha's last year but couldn't come up with it. It's around 12,000 (including students) and dropping.
If we peaked in attendance does that mean that people aren't as impacted by success as we like to believe? Really our greatest regular season teams were 08-09 and 11-12 and everybody saw those years coming. Or does it show that Crean was great at getting people to buy season tickets? Or what?
-
Our peak attendance was 16.2K average in 2008. Last year we were at 13.6K average albeit impacted by the Al game which artificially depresses the total. Last year our season ticket base was off by about 1500 compared to '13-'14. I suspect that this year's drop is comparable or maybe a bit worse. To get an accurate gauge, find the announced attendance figure for the worst weekday Buy game. I tried to quickly find Omaha's last year but couldn't come up with it. It's around 12,000 (including students) and dropping.
So it should come as no surprise that our attendance is dropping as the team's...schedule gets worse? No, no, no, no. As the team's on court performance is worse.
-
When you look at the actual results, this is made quite obvious:
So if the only thing changed about Providence is the quality of their cupcakes, RPI would fall to 46, they would still finish 4th in the BE, but would fall all the way to an 11 or 12 seed? Yet looking at actual (not hypothetical) results:
Indiana #61 RPI
20-13
10 seed
Ole Miss #60 RPI
20-12
11 seed
LSU #58 RPI
22-10
9 seed
Providence #46
23-10
Would hypothetically fall to 11 or 12 seed?
BTW, 5th place/44 RPI St Johns was a 9 seed. But 4th place Providence with a nearly identical RPI rank and 2 more Big East wins would be 2 or 3 seeds lower?
Or #43 Iowa is a 7? But #46 Providence is a 11 or 12? 3 places in the RPI explains a 4 or 5 seed difference?
Exactly. This whole issue is getting so blown out of proportion it is beyond laughable.
Marquette will either be good and make the NCAA Tournament or they will not be good and not make the NCAA Tournament. It's that simple. Our schedule will not be the reason we miss the Tournament.
If we take 4th in the Big East and, just for argument's sake, DePaul finishes a game behind us at 5th, and we split our regular season meetings with us, I guarantee that DePaul doesn't make the NCAA Tournament while we miss it, despite what some here have said is an absurdly better out of conference schedule.
-
So much for scheduling quality teams...
https://youtu.be/m-GQsRovcWo (https://youtu.be/m-GQsRovcWo)
-
http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/14/marquettes-non-conference-schedule-leaves-much-to-be-desired/
We've gone national!
-
All right folks, bear with me on this post....it's gonna be a bit of a data crunch and a fair number of assumptions.
First a quick walk through on how RPI is calculated.
RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)
WP= Marquette's winning percentage
OWP= Our opponents winning percentage
OOWP=Our opponents opponents winning percentage
Winning percentage is calculated based on wins/total games with home, road, and neutral games weighted (0.6W for home win, 1.4 loss for home loss, 1.4W for road win, 0.6 for road loss, 1W for neutral win, 1L for neutral loss)
The bolded portion of the equation above, I acting as if this is an opponent constant. So now if I know a team's RPI and winning percentage, I can calculate their "opponent constant". This allows me to use various "opponent constants" based on strength of schedule to simulate Marquette's total RPI this year.
So what does this all mean, and why am I posting about it? I believe this will show what a detrimental impact the 8 300+ games will have on our ability to make the tournament before we even play a game.
*keep in mind this is all based on 2014-2015 results....if our 8 buy game opponents exceed last years performance(like Grambling actually wins a game) the results would be different
Assumptions
-To simulate Marquette's opponent constant I generously assumed our final SOS would be 90th in the country(Tulsa in 2014) and Tulsa's opponent constant was 0.39725
-RPI tiers are also based on 2014 data so to be a Top 80 RPI MU would need to get 0.546 or better, Top 60 RPI=0.564 or better, Top 40 RPI=0.581, Top 30 RPI=0.592
-I assumed all RPI rankings from last year to be the same as this coming year except Wisconsin. Wisconsin will not be #2 RPI this year and I assumed them to be 51 in the country. (this only matters when I'm doing wins and losses based on RPI ranking)
-A top 60 RPI is critical to getting an at-large bid
Calculations
RPI tier MU's WP requirement(assuming Tulsa opponent constant)
Top 80 0.595
Top 60 0.667
Top 40 0.734
Top 30 0.780
Analysis
I started doing some win/loss assumptions on the schedule(we know all opponents and locations just not dates for conference)
Scenario: MU will beat all RPI 40+ teams and lose to all teams with an RPI 39 or better (Iowa was 40 last year)
-MU has a winning percentage of 0.597 (total record = 20-11, conference = 8-10)
-75th RPI and 8-10 in conference doesn't get us in
Scenario: MU loses to Iowa and LSU but beats Xavier, Providence and Butler at home(all else same as above)
-MU has a winning percentage of 0.643 (total record = 21-10, conference = 11-7)
-64th RPI and we are squarely on the bubble
Scenario: All the same as above but MU beats Iowa and LSU as well
-MU has a winning percentage of 0.728 (total record = 23-8, conference =11-7)
-Almost Top 40 RPI, and 8 wins over RPI top 6....definitely dancing
Scenario: MU beats non-con RPI 60+ teams, loses rest. Wins all home games and wins RPI 60+ road games
-MU has a winning percentage of 0.708 (total record = 22-9, conference = 12-6)
-RPI top 50, but 7-9 against RPI top 100, solidly on the bubble
Conclusion
We are asking a very talented but youthful and inexperienced team to win at least 20 games including multiple road victories against RPI top 60 competition to get an at-large bid to the tournament. That ignores any chance of an early season hiccup and that our SOS is at least 90th in the country.
If we move back even to an SOS of 100(Oregon State), the last scenario nets us an RPI of 65 and most likely out of the dance with a 22-9 record and a 12-6 conference record.
Thoughts? Any scenarios you want run just let me know I've got the spreadsheet all put together and it'll take me 30 seconds to run it.
-
Okay, so watching Wojo I'd argue that this year's schedule is on purpose. We've got a super young team that needs to learn how to win. Losing to the likes of Omaha again can't happen. Getting our butts whipped 5-6 games in a row during conference was extra hard on the kids and it showed. Wojo has decided to go the Cincinnati route this year and pile up some success. I can live with it. Really hate driving 100 miles home at midnight after another BC loss. I'd rather remember a Wally soaring dunk in garbage time.
-
I think these non conference games have not been well thought out for a long time. I have felt for years it would be more in our interest to be playing lower tier teams from MAC, Missouri Valley and Horizon where we could have reasonable competition with a decent probability of winning. In addition, some games could have decent fan/media interest and help our recruiting exposure in basketball hotbeds. Why not do a 2 and 1 series with a Loyola or a Detroit? Also UWM and Green Bay are a lot more interesting than Jackson State and Grambling. I am willing to risk a loss to them in the spirit of building the rivalry nature of the games. Having consistent rivalries are very much in our interest.
Obviously after going 13-19 Wojo is in no position to pound the table on better pre season opponents. Hopefully this year with a better record he can have some more influence.
-
Okay, so watching Wojo I'd argue that this year's schedule is on purpose. We've got a super young team that needs to learn how to win. Losing to the likes of Omaha again can't happen. Getting our butts whipped 5-6 games in a row during conference was extra hard on the kids and it showed. Wojo has decided to go the Cincinnati route this year and pile up some success. I can live with it. Really hate driving 100 miles home at midnight after another BC loss. I'd rather remember a Wally soaring dunk in garbage time.
I agree and it's what I've been saying all along.
-
I love your analysis 03eng but here's what I'll say. MU's chances of beating some upper tier BEast teams is enhanced by the kids learning to win together in November and December. It makes practice more fun, etc. I think Wojo believes that he'll make more progress with 18 y/o kids if they're upbeat. I think he's thinking longer term. If this year's team goes 20-11 and makes a good NIT run I believe we'll all consider that progress.
-
Okay, so watching Wojo I'd argue that this year's schedule is on purpose. We've got a super young team that needs to learn how to win. Losing to the likes of Omaha again can't happen. Getting our butts whipped 5-6 games in a row during conference was extra hard on the kids and it showed. Wojo has decided to go the Cincinnati route this year and pile up some success. I can live with it.
Yes, this.
-
Schedule is pathetic and there's no excuse for it. Georgetown has the same limitations in terms of a professional stadium and a similar budget. Georgetown is also going to Italy this summer so that excuse is also gone.
Yet Georgetown is playing Syracuse, @Uconn, 2 of Duke/Wisconsin/VCU, @ Maryland, Radford(RPI 151), Bryant(RPI 189), @ UNC Charlotte (RPI 204). Obviously we don't know our whole schedule yet, but even if the last 3 games are all sub 300 it's still far and away better.
-
Schedule is pathetic and there's no excuse for it. Georgetown has the same limitations in terms of a professional stadium and a similar budget. Georgetown is also going to Italy this summer so that excuse is also gone.
Yet Georgetown is playing Syracuse, @Uconn, 2 of Duke/Wisconsin/VCU, @ Maryland, Radford(RPI 151), Bryant(RPI 189), @ UNC Charlotte (RPI 204). Obviously we don't know our whole schedule yet, but even if the last 3 games are all sub 300 it's still far and away better.
Good for Georgetown.
-
I love your analysis 03eng but here's what I'll say. MU's chances of beating some upper tier BEast teams is enhanced by the kids learning to win together in November and December. It makes practice more fun, etc. I think Wojo believes that he'll make more progress with 18 y/o kids if they're upbeat. I think he's thinking longer term. If this year's team goes 20-11 and makes a good NIT run I believe we'll all consider that progress.
If I buy this logic, then we have to assume at that the staff wants "guaranteed" wins that even a 250-300 RPI team at home puts at risk. So how much are they going to improve from the beginning of the season that an RPI 250 team at home is shaky to beating an RPI top 50 team on the road??? These guys have all played basketball, its not like we are taking really talented football players and teaching them basketball. The new player learning curve is significant but its not that insane.
Based on this evaluation of the team, then we should lose the first 4 out of 5 games with IUPUI being "iffy".
If Wojo and Broeker are this hestiant on the team, we don't win 20 games and we definitely don't make the tournament. This is a schedule set to make the NIT and that is a major disappointment to me given what the program is suppose to be.
-
A tidbit that I've been a proponent of if we've already failed to schedule "better bad" teams, is at least replacing the very worst with a Division II team.
IIRC, pretending Grambling was replaced with a DII opponent in 2013 would have raised our SOS by 24 places.
[/quote]
I think losing or even beating a division II game would end up costing you, if you are one of the bubble teams. It may not figure in the RPI, but when you are being compared to other bubble teams for the final few spots it is going to be noticed by the committee.
-
Look if the is Wojo's plan fine. I don't agree with it and don't like it but whatever. But it's gonna be hard pressed for me to go to a game in the middle of December against these teams. What's that gonna be for the casual fan or student. The BC is going to be empty and silent. Frankly these games are just boring and people aren't going to care about them.
Lets not forget Wojo had that meeting with the students about getting more fans to the game and involved. Doing this doesn't help in the slightest, it only hurts it.
-
I understand that part of getting season tickets is supporting the team and school, but it is very tempting to kill the season package and just pay a premium and get really good seats for the handful of meaningful games each year.
I think that call gets closer every year.
I understand the need for a couple of buy-game cupcakes, but this is getting silly. It is tough to get fired up for a Wed night game--probably starting at 8pm, in the middle of January, against Stetson.
-
If I buy this logic, then we have to assume at that the staff wants "guaranteed" wins that even a 250-300 RPI team at home puts at risk. So how much are they going to improve from the beginning of the season that an RPI 250 team at home is shaky to beating an RPI top 50 team on the road??? These guys have all played basketball, its not like we are taking really talented football players and teaching them basketball. The new player learning curve is significant but its not that insane.
Based on this evaluation of the team, then we should lose the first 4 out of 5 games with IUPUI being "iffy".
If Wojo and Broeker are this hestiant on the team, we don't win 20 games and we definitely don't make the tournament. This is a schedule set to make the NIT and that is a major disappointment to me given what the program is suppose to be.
I'll agree that RPI 250s would have been preferable. I'd also be interested in any midwestern 3 for 1 deals we could ink. Let's play Loyola that way for example.
-
Look if the is Wojo's plan fine. I don't agree with it and don't like it but whatever. But it's gonna be hard pressed for me to go to a game in the middle of December against these teams. What's that gonna be for the casual fan or student. The BC is going to be empty and silent. Frankly these games are just boring and people aren't going to care about them.
Lets not forget Wojo had that meeting with the students about getting more fans to the game and involved. Doing this doesn't help in the slightest, it only hurts it.
I tend to agree with this, but that's not even the worst part. We will not make the tournament with this schedule and that will have a far more significant impact on next year.
-
I'll agree that RPI 250s would have been preferable.
Right so they willfully made a choice to schedule those 8 teams....was it money or "fear of competition" or both?
-
Look if the is Wojo's plan fine. I don't agree with it and don't like it but whatever. But it's gonna be hard pressed for me to go to a game in the middle of December against these teams. What's that gonna be for the casual fan or student. The BC is going to be empty and silent. Frankly these games are just boring and people aren't going to care about them.
Lets not forget Wojo had that meeting with the students about getting more fans to the game and involved. Doing this doesn't help in the slightest, it only hurts it.
You aren't a student anymore, now even a crappy game is an excuse to go to the Schoolyard and get a decent buzz on and meet other young alumni... if you're in Chicago. It's not just about going anymore.
-
I tend to agree with this, but that's not even the worst part. We will not make the tournament with this schedule and that will have a far more significant impact on next year.
No the WORST part is that ratings for your podcast go down. ;)
-
Right so they willfully made a choice to schedule those 8 teams....was it money or "fear of competition" or both?
Be nice to know, wouldn't it.
-
No the WORST part is that ratings for your podcast go down. ;)
That is true, all the ad revenue we lose!!!!
(https://ontheleftnz.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/3rnvk6.jpg?w=620)
-
You aren't a student anymore, now even a crappy game is an excuse to go to the Schoolyard and get a decent buzz on and meet other young alumni... if you're in Chicago. It's not just about going anymore.
Couple problems with that for me personally is I don't drink during games. Ever.
-
Schedule is pathetic and there's no excuse for it. Georgetown has the same limitations in terms of a professional stadium and a similar budget. Georgetown is also going to Italy this summer so that excuse is also gone.
Yet Georgetown is playing Syracuse, @Uconn, 2 of Duke/Wisconsin/VCU, @ Maryland, Radford(RPI 151), Bryant(RPI 189), @ UNC Charlotte (RPI 204). Obviously we don't know our whole schedule yet, but even if the last 3 games are all sub 300 it's still far and away better.
...and Georgetown went to the NCAA tournament last year, and returns a much higher percentage of their team, and doesn't pay rent in their professional stadium because an alum owns it...
-
Look if the is Wojo's plan fine. I don't agree with it and don't like it but whatever. But it's gonna be hard pressed for me to go to a game in the middle of December against these teams. What's that gonna be for the casual fan or student. The BC is going to be empty and silent. Frankly these games are just boring and people aren't going to care about them.
Lets not forget Wojo had that meeting with the students about getting more fans to the game and involved. Doing this doesn't help in the slightest, it only hurts it.
Yet you (and evidently many other people here) think that the BC will be an absolutely rocking environment if Texas Southern comes to the BC instead of Grambling? Sorry, but I am absolutely, positively not buying that one bit. If the casual fan is going to think Stetson is a boring game, won't care about it, and won't show up for Stetson, then they won't show up for Middle Tennessee State, Charleston Southern, Lehigh, Indiana State (unless Larry Bird suits back up for them), Norfolk State, etc.
Sorry, but no matter how many people say this on here and no matter how convincingly people try to say it, scheduling these teams aren't going to change the amount of season tickets Marquette University sells and it isn't going to change paid attendance more than maybe, absolute tops, 250 extra tickets to any given game or season tickets.
Now if we're bringing in Duke, Notre Dame, Kentucky, or UNC then we can talk about selling more season tickets because of the teams we bring to the BC. But that's not happening.
Winning 20-25 games a year against awful competition will do much more for selling tickets than losing 20 games a year but playing a top 35 strength of schedule. There is absolutely, positively no doubt about that in my mind whatsoever.
-
Yet you (and evidently many other people here) think that the BC will be an absolutely rocking environment if Texas Southern comes to the BC instead of Grambling? I don't think I've seen anyone claim that. Please point it out if I'm wrong.
Sorry, but I am absolutely, positively not buying that one bit. If the casual fan is going to think Stetson is a boring game, won't care about it, and won't show up for Stetson, then they won't show up for Middle Tennessee State, Charleston Southern, Lehigh, Indiana State (unless Larry Bird suits back up for them), Norfolk State, etc.
Sorry, but no matter how many people say this on here and no matter how convincingly people try to say it, scheduling these teams aren't going to change the amount of season tickets Marquette University sells and it isn't going to change paid attendance more than maybe, absolute tops, 250 extra tickets to any given game or season tickets. Some here would disagree with you, but I agree that the difference in ticket sales this yearis minimal. The main point is what it does for our chance at an NCAA bid. NCAA bid or close to it means more eyeballs and more butts next year.
Now if we're bringing in Duke, Notre Dame, Kentucky, or UNC then we can talk about selling more season tickets because of the teams we bring to the BC. But that's not happening.
Winning 20-25 games a year against awful competition will do much more for selling tickets than losing 20 games a year but playing a top 35 strength of schedule. There is absolutely, positively no doubt about that in my mind whatsoever. That's a false choice. Which I think you get by now.
-
Couple problems with that for me personally is I don't drink during games. Ever.
It's like you're speaking mormon to me but anyways you're bound to be very disappointed with your seats post college when cheering isn't as fun in the upper level and you're around people who give you dirty looks if you scream bull sh*t at a call around their kids.
-
We're going to have 20 home games this year, including the exhibition. That's more than normal, so I don't know if that's to generate more revenue. Maybe we could have scrapped one of these 300+ RPI home games and started a home-and-home on the road with a high major that would help the home slate next year. Or maybe even agree to start on the road as part of a 2 or 3 for 1 with a decent mid-major like Loyola, Bradley, UWM or UWGB that would have helped out with home games in the future.
-
It's like you're speaking mormon to me but anyways you're bound to be very disappointed with your seats post college when cheering isn't as fun in the upper level and you're around people who give you dirty looks if you scream bull sh*t at a call around their kids.
That second part is what I'm most worried about ;D That and the fact that I can't have nice one sided chats with Mrs. Dekker or Mrs. Cooley anymore.
-
Wojo is all bark and no bite
-
For your first point I guess I don't get why people are screaming or crying for more teams like Belmont and less teams like Grambling and then reference the horrible crowd we are going to have at our non conference home games. Seems to me that the logic here is that if we schedule Grambling (or Texas Southern, or other 150-250 RPI teams) that people seem to think that the BC would be packed as opposed to our sub 300 RPI games. I tend to think the crowd for a middle of the non-conference season game will be the same if it's Southern or if it's Lehigh.
Your second point, yup. And again, our schedule is not going to be what keeps us out of the tournament. If we're a good enough team, we'll get in. If not, we won't. Which means butts will be in the seats if we're in, and butts won't if we're not. Not because of a tough schedule or not, but because we're a good team or a bad team.
Your last point, I never made any kind of choice, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.
-
That second part is what I'm most worried about ;D That and the fact that I can't have nice one sided chats with Mrs. Dekker or Mrs. Cooley anymore.
Hey Chitown, it's perfectly acceptable to go visit friends over in the student section with your $125 season ticket. It only gets weird when they don't remember you anymore. Then you have to sit with us old guys because........... well, you'll be an old guy. (Same thing sort of happens at Cafs too.)
And cheer as much as you want. Chick and I sit around some fun folks and some fuddy duddies. But I'll be darned if we'll become fossils ourselves.
-
Wojo is all bark and no bite
#bringbackshaka
-
I think losing or even beating a division II game would end up costing you, if you are one of the bubble teams. It may not figure in the RPI, but when you are being compared to other bubble teams for the final few spots it is going to be noticed by the committee.
A DII game isn't going to be noticed by the committee, because they aren't even to consider it. Doesn't count in the RPI, doesn't count in the SOS, doesn't count in the W/L for tournament consideration/seeding.
So is a 20-11 record with one more win against Grambling better than a 19-11 record to the committee? I really doubt it. The "blind resume" would look exactly the same in terms of quality wins, conference record, quality wins and bad losses. Except the 19-11 team would show an RPI ~9 spots higher and an SOS up to 20 spots higher, which will look far more appealing than one more win that's buried out of the quality wins or conference win metrics.
-
Your second point, yup. And again, our schedule is not going to be what keeps us out of the tournament. If we're a good enough team, we'll get in. If not, we won't.
This is where I disagree with your argument. The past few years of the "soft bubble", there are probably about 20 teams in bubble territory that are all pretty close. The teams that are good enough to get in are not much different than those that don't. A lot of craziness takes place as a college basketball season unfolds, and your non-conference schedule is one of the few things you have control over. People have already shown that being more selective in the cupcakes you schedule can improve your RPI by about 30 points, which can make a huge difference when fighting with all the other similar teams on the bubble. Coaches usually do everything possible to get a slight edge over the competition. However, scheduling like this is only handicapping our chances of getting in the tournament or getting a better seed.
-
...and Georgetown went to the NCAA tournament last year, and returns a much higher percentage of their team, and doesn't pay rent in their professional stadium because an alum owns it...
I wish that last part were true. Georgetown does pay rent for our stadium and I doubt we even get a better deal than Marquette does. Just because leonsis is an alum doesn't mean he's not a businessman first and foremost.
yes we have different teams so it's not entirely fair to say Georgetown has a great schedule so Marquette should too. But I never bought the logic of piling up wins against nobody to build confidence. That was fine back when JTjr was running things and RPI wasn't a huge part of the selection process, but it is now and there are consequences. I don't buy money as an issue for the schedule because as I said Georgetown has the same restrictions if not more. So it's clear that these games were scheduled either because they want a bunch of easy wins and no competition or because they're scared of playing a harder schedule.
-
This isn't a money issue. Wojo wants to build this young team's confidence up before conference play starts. I'm not saying I agree with it but that's the reason. Not money, scheduling conflicts, etc.
-
This is where I disagree with your argument. The past few years of the "soft bubble", there are probably about 20 teams in bubble territory that are all pretty close. The teams that are good enough to get in are not much different than those that don't. A lot of craziness takes place as a college basketball season unfolds, and your non-conference schedule is one of the few things you have control over. People have already shown that being more selective in the cupcakes you schedule can improve your RPI by about 30 points, which can make a huge difference when fighting with all the other similar teams on the bubble. Coaches usually do everything possible to get a slight edge over the competition. However, scheduling like this is only handicapping our chances of getting in the tournament or getting a better seed.
Where do you find any evidence to support this?
I look at the field last year and see this:
Indiana, LSU, Ole Miss, and Purdue had poor RPIs relative to the bubble, for the most part didn't bother to avoid bad cupcakes (each except Ole Miss had at least 4 or 5 250+ ranked non-conf opponents), and yet they all still got in.
Colorado State, ODU, Tulsa, and Iona had good RPIs relative to the bubble, largely avoided cupcakes (collectively had 4 250+ non-conf opponents), and none of them got in.
You'd be able to make the highlighted point if CSU, Iona, Temple and ODU were in, while Ole MIss, IU, Purdue and LSU missed the tourney.
If RPI made a "huge difference", wouldn't CSU be in the tourney ahead of Indiana? Wouldn't Iona be in ahead of Purdue? You can easily find 8 teams that go counter to the conventional wisdom that cupcakes make a "huge difference" come NCAA tournament time.
-
Where do you find any evidence to support this?
I look at the field last year and see this:
Indiana, LSU, Ole Miss, and Purdue had poor RPIs relative to the bubble, for the most part didn't bother to avoid bad cupcakes (each except Ole Miss had at least 4 or 5 250+ ranked non-conf opponents), and yet they all still got in.
Colorado State, ODU, Tulsa, and Iona had good RPIs relative to the bubble, largely avoided cupcakes (collectively had 4 250+ non-conf opponents), and none of them got in.
You'd be able to make the highlighted point if CSU, Iona, Temple and ODU were in, while Ole MIss, IU, Purdue and LSU missed the tourney.
If RPI made a "huge difference", wouldn't CSU be in the tourney ahead of Indiana? Wouldn't Iona be in ahead of Purdue? You can easily find 8 teams that go counter to the conventional wisdom that cupcakes make a "huge difference" come NCAA tournament time.
I think it is pretty obvious that your examples have more to do with conference affiliation than strength of cupcakes. Just by nature of playing in much tougher conferences, Indiana, LSU, Ole Miss and Purdue had much more difficult schedules that CSU, Iona and ODU.
-
I think it is pretty obvious that your examples have more to do with conference affiliation than strength of cupcakes. Just by nature of playing in much tougher conferences, Indiana, LSU, Ole Miss and Purdue had much more difficult schedules that CSU, Iona and ODU.
So then if the big east is as strong (or actually even a big less strong) as last year then we should be fine since it's about conference affiliation
-
So then if the big east is as strong (or actually even a big less strong) as last year then we should be fine since it's about conference affiliation
Assuming we can go at leat 10-8 in said conference perhaps....but we're afraid of a 250 RPI team at our house in December, what makes you think we can finish 10-8 in the big east?
-
Assuming we can go at leat 10-8 in said conference perhaps....but we're afraid of a 250 RPI team at our house in December, what makes you think we can finish 10-8 in the big east?
Well mostly the fact that December isn't January, or february or March makes me pretty convinced. We'll have a fairly unheralded freshman playing point guard, I have no doubt he'll adapt or the three big time players will carry the team but it'll take some time to figure that system out against 250 RPI teams.
Sweeps Creighton, St Johns, and Depaul/Seton Hall gets us 6. Split Butler, Depaul/seton hall whichever we don't sweep and xavier gets us 9. That's one win away for us against Providence Georgetown or Nova.
-
I get where Wojo is coming from on playing a different schedule this year for experience... but either way, I think this picture speaks for many of the STH's when it comes to Wojo right now... (Also my favorite Wojo pic for when we screw something up! And I love Wojo so far, so it hasn't been too frequently!)
(https://coedbc.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/krzyzewski-face.jpg?quality=85&strip=all)
-
I think it is pretty obvious that your examples have more to do with conference affiliation than strength of cupcakes. Just by nature of playing in much tougher conferences, Indiana, LSU, Ole Miss and Purdue had much more difficult schedules that CSU, Iona and ODU.
This is exactly the point.
People keep trying to make the case that RPI from cupcakes makes a huge difference. Reality is that conference affiliation and conference performance easily outweigh any cupcake-driven negative RPI impact.
Based on their B1G performance, Indiana deserved about a 10 seed. Their five 300+ cupcakes didn't affect that one bit. It didn't knock them out of the tournament. It didn't reduce their seed. Ditto with each of the other teams mentioned. And it happens both ways. CSU avoided 300+ cupcakes and improved their RPI rank to 29. Didn't matter--they weren't in because they didn't win enough conference games despite playing in a weak conference. Boosting non-conference cupcake strength did nothing for them.
-
Your second point, yup. And again, our schedule is not going to be what keeps us out of the tournament. If we're a good enough team, we'll get in. If not, we won't. Which means butts will be in the seats if we're in, and butts won't if we're not. Not because of a tough schedule or not, but because we're a good team or a bad team.
Your last point, I never made any kind of choice, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.
Lighthouse has already responded to the beginning of this, so I'll leave it at that.
You said, "Winning 20-25 games a year against awful competition will do much more for selling tickets than losing 20 games a year but playing a top 35 strength of schedule. There is absolutely, positively no doubt about that in my mind whatsoever." That suggests there are two choices--playing awful competition and winning or playing great competition and losing. It ignores the gigantic middle ground of mediocrity where we should be picking up relatively easy (but not ridiculously easy) wins over teams with RPI's around 200.
-
Worst schedule ever. You want respect, you need to earn it.
-
The opposition's RPI doesn't directly affect our RPI and their RPI last season certainly doesn't do a thing to this season's RPI.
That said, you want to be playing relatively weak teams that will at least pick up some wins in their conference and not have a horrendous W-L record. That will play out.
Need to analyze the individual opponents for a projected Win-Loss in 2014-15... that's the key.
Certainly it looks like it'll project to something ugly for many of these teams.. but need to do that work.
-
Worst schedule ever. You want respect, you need to earn it.
Which team ever earned respect by beating 200 RPI teams in December?
Were you impressed by DePaul last December because they beat UWM (207), Drake (269) and UIC (297)?
-
Assuming we can go at leat 10-8 in said conference perhaps....but we're afraid of a 250 RPI team at our house in December, what makes you think we can finish 10-8 in the big east?
That's a good question. I personally don't expect us to go 10-8 in the Big East. I don't think we will be near the tournament at all. I know it's not what people want to hear but unless several players exceed reasonable expectations then we won't be dancing this year. The NIT could even be a reach. We are scheduling cupcakes so we can feel good about winning some games. 2016-2017 is the year we should be excited about.
I hope I am wrong but stats say we won't be very good.
-
Which team ever earned respect by beating 200 RPI teams in December?
Were you impressed by DePaul last December because they beat UWM (207), Drake (269) and UIC (297)?
What are you talking about? I never mentioned DePaul.
-
A DII game isn't going to be noticed by the committee, because they aren't even to consider it. Doesn't count in the RPI, doesn't count in the SOS, doesn't count in the W/L for tournament consideration/seeding.
So is a 20-11 record with one more win against Grambling better than a 19-11 record to the committee? I really doubt it. The "blind resume" would look exactly the same in terms of quality wins, conference record, quality wins and bad losses. Except the 19-11 team would show an RPI ~9 spots higher and an SOS up to 20 spots higher, which will look far more appealing than one more win that's buried out of the quality wins or conference win metrics.
I disagree with your counter argument. The selection is not made by computer. It is made by human beings, who at this point are looking for a reason to vote for the last team to get in or a reason to not vote for a team. The fact that you scheduled a division 2 team is a negative.
-
This is exactly the point.
People keep trying to make the case that RPI from cupcakes makes a huge difference. Reality is that conference affiliation and conference performance easily outweigh any cupcake-driven negative RPI impact.
Based on their B1G performance, Indiana deserved about a 10 seed. Their five 300+ cupcakes didn't affect that one bit. It didn't knock them out of the tournament. It didn't reduce their seed. Ditto with each of the other teams mentioned. And it happens both ways. CSU avoided 300+ cupcakes and improved their RPI rank to 29. Didn't matter--they weren't in because they didn't win enough conference games despite playing in a weak conference. Boosting non-conference cupcake strength did nothing for them.
Right. The other point that you're seemingly dismissing is that MU isn't doing itself any favors scheduling the worst of the worst. I think everyone here after discussing it for a day or two agrees that this team needs some early cupcakes this season.
The difficult thing with the schedule is that most of the early nonconference games are actually against the better teams MU will play in the nonconference season (sans Wisconsin). The overall point is that if MU scheduled teams with RPIs in the 200s rather than teams with RPIs in the 300s, by the end of the year, our RPI and SOS would be better no matter how they do in the Big East.
Of course teams that play in power conferences have better strength of schedules by the end of the year than the teams that play in low major conferences. Most simply stated, Marquette has virtually no room for error with this schedule - the numbers that some have ran in this thread exhibit that quite clearly.
-
Of course teams that play in power conferences have better strength of schedules by the end of the year than the teams that play in low major conferences. Most simply stated, Marquette has virtually no room for error with this schedule - the numbers that some have ran in this thread exhibit that quite clearly.
(http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-06/15/10/enhanced/webdr01/anigif_enhanced-buzz-6469-1434378125-6.gif)
-
I disagree with your counter argument. The selection is not made by computer. It is made by human beings, who at this point are looking for a reason to vote for the last team to get in or a reason to not vote for a team. The fact that you scheduled a division 2 team is a negative.
I'd believe in the K-State scrimmage conspiracy before that. Let me know the next time you hear anyone credible bring up a DII game from November in March. Or see a game of "blind resume" in which they put an asterisk next to the team to note their record has removed a DII win.
-
Right. The other point that you're seemingly dismissing is that MU isn't doing itself any favors scheduling the worst of the worst. I think everyone here after discussing it for a day or two agrees that this team needs some early cupcakes this season.
The difficult thing with the schedule is that most of the early nonconference games are actually against the better teams MU will play in the nonconference season (sans Wisconsin). The overall point is that if MU scheduled teams with RPIs in the 200s rather than teams with RPIs in the 300s, by the end of the year, our RPI and SOS would be better no matter how they do in the Big East.
Of course teams that play in power conferences have better strength of schedules by the end of the year than the teams that play in low major conferences. Most simply stated, Marquette has virtually no room for error with this schedule - the numbers that some have ran in this thread exhibit that quite clearly.
Scheduling bunnies, which will include teams in the 200's takes away a chance to get a quality win. If you do not have any quality wins or very few quality wins it does not matter whether you play a team ranked 200 or 300. The 200 team is more likely to give you a bad loss. The three hundred ranked teams assuming we will not tlose to one of them will not cost MU a bid. Not winning some games against Belmont, Iowa, LSU, NC ST, UW, Villanova, Georgetown and Providence is what will cost MU a bid. MU needs 4/5 quality wins and no bad losses.
-
Right. The other point that you're seemingly dismissing is that MU isn't doing itself any favors scheduling the worst of the worst. I think everyone here after discussing it for a day or two agrees that this team needs some early cupcakes this season.
And you're seemingly dismissing the point that MU certainly IS doing themselves some favors, as Wojo himself points out. Its the same view that Kevin O'Neill adopted (look at his non-conference schedule coming off his 11-18 2nd season). The schedule is intended to build confidence, gives Wojo a chance to experiment with lineups, rotations, etc with greatly reduced fear of losing. And it won't have any impact on the team's NCAA chances or seed if they prove themselves in conference.
The difficult thing with the schedule is that most of the early nonconference games are actually against the better teams MU will play in the nonconference season (sans Wisconsin).
It would be ideal, but there are two constraints beyond our control:
A. Teams can't dictate when tournaments like the Legends or Gavitt are run--TV largely dictates those dates.
B. Most teams want their better games at home when students are on campus. Therefore, mid to late December is when you schedule your cupcakes.
The overall point is that if MU scheduled teams with RPIs in the 200s rather than teams with RPIs in the 300s, by the end of the year, our RPI and SOS would be better no matter how they do in the Big East.
And my response to that is "So what?" RPI is a factor--but not the only factor, and certainly not the most important factor. People constantly try to make the case that RPI impacts of these cupcakes affects a team's NCAA appearance or seed.
The 8 examples from the 2015 tournament suggest otherwise.
Of course teams that play in power conferences have better strength of schedules by the end of the year than the teams that play in low major conferences. Most simply stated, Marquette has virtually no room for error with this schedule - the numbers that some have ran in this thread exhibit that quite clearly.
You mean like Indiana last year? Certainly you'd agree that they had no room for error with their 9-9 B1G record. The question is, do you think that if they had lost one more B1G game, that a higher quality of their cupcakes would ameliorate that?
I don't think anybody on that committee is going to say "Well, I know Indiana was only 8-10 in conference which ordinarily wouldn't be good enough, but, you know, they DID take on #123 Loyola and beat them--therefore, they should be in. And with at least a 10 seed! Loyola is *that* good, you know."
Indiana last year got consideration despite their RPI because they were at least .500 in the Big Ten, warranting a discussion by the committee, which ultimately decided they were deserving.
-
And you're seemingly dismissing the point that MU certainly IS doing themselves some favors, as Wojo himself points out. Its the same view that Kevin O'Neill adopted (look at his non-conference schedule coming off his 11-18 2nd season). The schedule is intended to build confidence, gives Wojo a chance to experiment with lineups, rotations, etc with greatly reduced fear of losing. And it won't have any impact on the team's NCAA chances or seed if they prove themselves in conference.
It would be ideal, but there are two constraints beyond our control:
A. Teams can't dictate when tournaments like the Legends or Gavitt are run--TV largely dictates those dates.
B. Most teams want their better games at home when students are on campus. Therefore, mid to late December is when you schedule your cupcakes.
And my response to that is "So what?" RPI is a factor--but not the only factor, and certainly not the most important factor. People constantly try to make the case that RPI impacts of these cupcakes affects a team's NCAA appearance or seed.
The 8 examples from the 2015 tournament suggest otherwise.
You mean like Indiana last year? Certainly you'd agree that they had no room for error with their 9-9 B1G record. The question is, do you think that if they had lost one more B1G game, that a higher quality of their cupcakes would ameliorate that?
I don't think anybody on that committee is going to say "Well, I know Indiana was only 8-10 in conference which ordinarily wouldn't be good enough, but, you know, they DID take on #123 Loyola and beat them--therefore, they should be in. And with at least a 10 seed! Loyola is *that* good, you know."
Indiana last year got consideration despite their RPI because they were at least .500 in the Big Ten, warranting a discussion by the committee, which ultimately decided they were deserving.
You are kind of proving our point by comparing to Indiana and them getting into the tournament, Yes, they played a couple of 300+ opponents, I have no issue with that. They did not play 8 300+ opponents. Indiana's average RPI for opponents in the non-con was 166, MU is projecting to 217 with Wisconsin as an RPI #2. Our RPI opponent average is almost what some teams have as their lowest RPI for a single opponent in their schedule.
Opponent RPI
Miss. Valley St 345
Texas Southern 118
SMU 12
Lamar 219
Eastern Wash 75
N.C. Greensboro 309
Pittsburgh 76
Savannah St. 329
Louisville 21
Grand Canyon 274
Butler 31
New Orleans 326
Georgetown 25
RPI
Belmont 100
IUPUI 258
Iowa 40
LSU-neutral 65
NC State -neutral 32
Jackson State 317
Grambling St 351
Maine 338
San Jose State 336
@Wisconsin 51
Chicago State 333
Presbyterian 314
Stetson 335
I haven't figured out a way to definitively calculate it, but MU's schedule is so bad that if we had scheduled half of the 8 for 225-275 RPI opponents we could have afforded 2 additional losses in the Big East. Basically our schedule requires us to go 11-7 to make the tournament. If we are scared of playing 250 RPI in the non-con how is their anyway we go 11-7 in the vaunted Big East everyone keeps talking about it's great RPI building capability?
-
My first impression of this schedule is a vote of no confidence in the team. Having four or five 300+ rpi teams is typical of an MU schedule. (The zero 300+ rpi teams in both 2011-12 and 2012-13 is atypical.) Having 7 is absurd! This schedule is basically setup to go 10-3 in non-conf and hope to get 8 wins in BE play plus one in the BE Tourney. Then hope that 19-14 record is good enough to get into the NIT. And that might be the best case scenario.
I know the team is young, but even some slightly tougher cupcakes would give me more confidence. Not that the team can't surprise us. But I think the schedule is reflective of the expectations the staff has for the team. A team with high expectations schedules tougher than a team with low expectations. This year's schedule tells me to have low expectations.
-
There are a lot of reasons for optimism. However, there are just as many reasons or more for not being optimistic. The top two options at point guard are freshmen. That alone can spell disaster. At this point we have no idea, if our star recruit, will be a foul a minute player like so many freshmen are? How far along is Fischer in recovering from shoulder surgery? Will all the players still be here starting the second semester? Will Duane be healthy the whole year? The talent is there, but a lot of things can go wrong. The discussion should probably center around does the NIT care how many 300+ teams we are playing.
-
I digress. Bottom line, the schedule sucks. I can see one's argument that Wojo wants his guys to get reps against poor competition, but they overdid it if that was the plan. End of story.
-
I think the schedule is fantastic.
Cuse did this for nearly two decades (at least MU is leaving Milwaukee) gambling on their conference performance. Cincinnati under that leprechaun has done so the last half decade to rip roaring success of piling wins in their back pocket.
All hail Wojo's Warriors and I look forward to their 11-2 record entering the home game against Providence on the night before New Year's Day 2016.
-
People keep trying to make the case that RPI from cupcakes makes a huge difference. Reality is that conference affiliation and conference performance easily outweigh any cupcake-driven negative RPI impact.
Yes, conference matters more, but you don't control your conference schedule, it is what it is. Your non-conference games are the only thing within your control, so why not use that opportunity to maximize your chances of getting in the tournament.
Based on their B1G performance, Indiana deserved about a 10 seed. Their five 300+ cupcakes didn't affect that one bit. It didn't knock them out of the tournament. It didn't reduce their seed. Ditto with each of the other teams mentioned. And it happens both ways. CSU avoided 300+ cupcakes and improved their RPI rank to 29. Didn't matter--they weren't in because they didn't win enough conference games despite playing in a weak conference. Boosting non-conference cupcake strength did nothing for them.
The point is that Indiana and CSU were both in the discussion. A few things break either way for Indiana or CSU and the end results could have been very different. If Indiana had a better RPI from avoiding the 300+ teams maybe they get a better seed, or if 1 or 2 of their conference games go the other way maybe they're out. If CSU played some more 300+ games their RPI would be significantly higher and they probably wouldn't have even been in the discussion. You need to at least get yourself close to have a chance, and playing all these games will hurt our chances.
-
Yes, conference matters more, but you don't control your conference schedule, it is what it is. Your non-conference games are the only thing within your control, so why not use that opportunity to maximize your chances of getting in the tournament.
The point is that Indiana and CSU were both in the discussion. A few things break either way for Indiana or CSU and the end results could have been very different. If Indiana had a better RPI from avoiding the 300+ teams maybe they get a better seed, or if 1 or 2 of their conference games go the other way maybe they're out. If CSU played some more 300+ games their RPI would be significantly higher and they probably wouldn't have even been in the discussion. You need to at least get yourself close to have a chance, and playing all these games will hurt our chances.
That's true of any team in the country. That's the point. You have to win games against the teams on your schedule, and the most important thing is that you have to beat some quality opponents. We will have plenty of quality opponents on our schedule. If IU wins less conference games they're out. Yup. Just like if UW won less conference games they would've been out, or Kansas, or Duke, or Kentucky, etc. They didn't lose those games though, so they were in. Just like we only won 13 games so we were out, but if we had taken 8 of our losses and turned them into wins, we're in. It's about winning basketball games.
-
Whatever the point of this horrific schedule is I think we can all agree that Marquette basketball games are gonna be an absolute snoozefest until January. I wanna see Henry play against the big boys. Not some 6'5" power forward from Stenson.
-
Whatever the point of this horrific schedule is I think we can all agree that Marquette basketball games are gonna be an absolute snoozefest until January. I wanna see Henry play against the big boys. Not some 6'5" power forward from Stenson.
Not totally true. Belmont and Iowa will be quality home games. Otherwise, well....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
That's true of any team in the country. That's the point. You have to win games against the teams on your schedule, and the most important thing is that you have to beat some quality opponents. We will have plenty of quality opponents on our schedule. If IU wins less conference games they're out. Yup. Just like if UW won less conference games they would've been out, or Kansas, or Duke, or Kentucky, etc. They didn't lose those games though, so they were in. Just like we only won 13 games so we were out, but if we had taken 8 of our losses and turned them into wins, we're in. It's about winning basketball games.
But we're giving ourselves a much smaller margin for error with something that is within our control. I think someone else guessed that we'll have to win 2 more conference games to make up for the RPI hit of all these 300+ RPI games, and that sounds about right. Go 12-6 in conference and we're in no problem, it's just a question of seeding. Go 10-8 and we're all really nervous on selection day.
Looking at it the other way, go 10-8 in conference with an RPI at 40 and we're probably in, go 10-8 with an RPI of 70 and we're probably out.
-
But we're giving ourselves a much smaller margin for error with something that is within our control. I think someone else guessed that we'll have to win 2 more conference games to make up for the RPI hit of all these 300+ RPI games, and that sounds about right. Go 12-6 in conference and we're in no problem, it's just a question of seeding. Go 10-8 and we're all really nervous on selection day.
Looking at it the other way, go 10-8 in conference with an RPI at 40 and we're probably in, go 10-8 with an RPI of 70 and we're probably out.
Depends on what else goes with that 10-8.
Lose all five games to Belmont, Iowa, LSU, ASU/NCState and Wisconsin, plus lose in the first round of the BET, plus no wins against the 1st 2nd or 3rd place teams in the Big East standings, then we're not going. Not because of a low RPI, but because our body of work simply doesn't reflect being worthy of a bid.
On the other hand, if we sweep Belmont, Iowa, LSU, ASU/NCState and Wisconsin, plus win 2 in the BET, plus the 10 conference wins includes a couple against the contenders like Villanova and Georgetown, then 10-8 is not only going to get us in, we're in with a favorable seed.
Or we do something in the middle--10-8 with 2 or 3 quality non-conference wins, and 1-1 in the BET. And we know what that profile looks like--Indiana in 2015 (actually Indiana was only 9-9 and not 10-8). And we know the NCAA does not exclude those teams due to cupcakes.
So it comes down to winning., specifically:
We have to get some quality wins--and at least two of the five non-conference.
We have to get .500+ in the Big East.
We have to avoid a first round exit in the BET.
Do those three things, and the cupcakes don't matter.
Don't do those three things, and the cupcakes don't matter.
-
Depends on what else goes with that 10-8.
Lose all five games to Belmont, Iowa, LSU, ASU/NCState and Wisconsin, plus lose in the first round of the BET, plus no wins against the 1st 2nd or 3rd place teams in the Big East standings, then we're not going. Not because of a low RPI, but because our body of work simply doesn't reflect being worthy of a bid.
On the other hand, if we sweep Belmont, Iowa, LSU, ASU/NCState and Wisconsin, plus win 2 in the BET, plus the 10 conference wins includes a couple against the contenders like Villanova and Georgetown, then 10-8 is not only going to get us in, we're in with a favorable seed.
This scenario nets us an RPI of ~55 in the country with a record against RPI top 100 of 11-6. That would put us in, my guess would be a 4 or 5 seed. But again, do we really think a team that can't schedule a better than 300 RPI team in non-con is going to go 11-6 against top 100 including our 5 very first games. And if we are capable of beating Belmont, LSU,, etc early in the season why schedule 8 300+ games???
Or we do something in the middle--10-8 with 2 or 3 quality non-conference wins, and 1-1 in the BET. And we know what that profile looks like--Indiana in 2015 (actually Indiana was only 9-9 and not 10-8). And we know the NCAA does not exclude those teams due to cupcakes.
This actually puts us out more than likely. Wins over Belmont, LSU and Wisconsin in the non-con and 10-8 in conference gives us an RPI of 0.670 which would have been good for 75th best RPI. Our record against RPI top 100 would be 9-8.
So it comes down to winning., specifically:
We have to get some quality wins--and at least two of the five non-conference.
We have to get .500+ in the Big East.
We have to avoid a first round exit in the BET.
Do those three things, and the cupcakes don't matter.
Don't do those three things, and the cupcakes don't matter.
I ran your specific examples and they prove our point, see bold
-
I ran your specific examples and they prove our point, see bold
Thanks for running all the math 03. I think most of us get that part now. So why do you think Wojo did this? I think we can all agree that it was on purpose. For my dollar, I'm thinking that he feels the need to have some sustained success this year as he continues to build on a multi year plan. If that means the NIT, he's fine with that. Think about it. We have exactly zero kids with NIT/NCAA experience. Crazy, I know. Weren't we just in Louisville and Lexington?
-
I ran your specific examples and they prove our point, see bold
Did you use ASU or NC State in the Legends?
Which two Big East opponents did you use for the BET?
I'm not sure how this proves your point.
The first scenario (losing all five quality non-conference games), I'm assuming the lack of comment reflects that you apparently agree with me that we wouldn't get consideration regardless of our cupcake selection.
In the second scenario, you also apparently agree with me. A 55 RPI would seemingly equate to a deserved 12 or 13 seed, but even you admit that with the body of work I described would get us a 4 or 5 seed. Despite the cupcakes. My answer to your question as to why schedule the 300+ opponents is the same as its been: Because it doesn't matter.
For the third, I'm curious as to who you chose from the ASU/NC State to include as well as who you picked for the BET games. Plus, a .6700 RPI would have been 2nd in the country, between UK's .6779 and Vilanova's .6686, so there's obviously something wrong there.
So in at least two of my three scenarios, in reality you agree with me, even though you're stating disagreement.
And in the third, you rely solely on a calculator, and can only bring yourself to say "more than likely out," not absolutely out. Which means that a 22-12 (10-8) record and 4th or 5th place Big East team would would be getting discussion from the committee.
So the question is which logic on the committee would prevail.
a) Screw the body of work, the RPI overrides anything else MU actually did.
b) The RPI doesn't accurately reflect MU's body of work so we should compare them in relation to the other teams on the bubble.
I think what you'd have to admit is that my 3rd scenario is a very unique situation. In similar situations in the past, the committee has been shown to override the RPI and more heavily weight the actual body of work--just like it did to MU's benefit in 2011 when we were ranked 64th.
-
I do not really think whether we schedule eight 200-299 or 8 300+ games matters much. What would matter is if we changed some of them to top 100 games. Besides that in the end the rankings are determined by how a specific team does. One or more of our 300+ games could turn out to be better than 300. On the flip side a young team is almost for sure going to lose to at least one team in an 8 game 200-300 schedule and that would be a very bad loss. Avoiding the bad loss is just as important as getting a quality win. Either way we have to show significant success against our better opponents.
-
Thanks for running all the math 03. I think most of us get that part now. So why do you think Wojo did this? I think we can all agree that it was on purpose. For my dollar, I'm thinking that he feels the need to have some sustained success this year as he continues to build on a multi year plan. If that means the NIT, he's fine with that. Think about it. We have exactly zero kids with NIT/NCAA experience. Crazy, I know. Weren't we just in Louisville and Lexington?
If I look at it objectively I get Wojo's perspective(assuming this wasn't a money thing, which I would have a HUGE issue with) he wants to try and make sure they can have some kind of post season opportunity. I just think the logic is flawed. The only significant difference between an RPI 275 and RPI 315 is going to be how the numbers count in a calculation. I don't see how we can be afraid of an RPI 275 in December but expect to go at least 9-9 in the Big East.
Mostly, I'm reacting so negatively to this because I am disappoint in Wojo. The only conclusion I can make is that he doesn't believe this team can make the NCAA and he is clearly playing for NIT. I get it, but this team is suppose to be filled with talent, why are we hedging bets before we even get to the season? I really don't want to go into yet another year thinking it won't end well....that makes 3 years now.
-
If I look at it objectively I get Wojo's perspective(assuming this wasn't a money thing, which I would have a HUGE issue with) he wants to try and make sure they can have some kind of post season opportunity. I just think the logic is flawed. The only significant difference between an RPI 275 and RPI 315 is going to be how the numbers count in a calculation. I don't see how we can be afraid of an RPI 275 in December but expect to go at least 9-9 in the Big East.
Mostly, I'm reacting so negatively to this because I am disappoint in Wojo. The only conclusion I can make is that he doesn't believe this team can make the NCAA and he is clearly playing for NIT. I get it, but this team is suppose to be filled with talent, why are we hedging bets before we even get to the season? I really don't want to go into yet another year thinking it won't end well....that makes 3 years now.
I've agreed with you all along here..and I still do. One minor wrinkle...the RPIs of these teams last year are no guarantee to be their RPI this year. Stranger things have happened than teams with 300+ RPIs one year moving into the 200s the next year. That said, many of these teams are annually the nation's worst, and most likely won't improve much.
The logic behind the schedule is indeed very flawed.
-
Did you use ASU or NC State in the Legends?
Which two Big East opponents did you use for the BET?
I'm not sure how this proves your point.
The first scenario (losing all five quality non-conference games), I'm assuming the lack of comment reflects that you apparently agree with me that we wouldn't get consideration regardless of our cupcake selection.
Agreed we would not get in
In the second scenario, you also apparently agree with me. A 55 RPI would seemingly equate to a deserved 12 or 13 seed, but even you admit that with the body of work I described would get us a 4 or 5 seed. Despite the cupcakes. My answer to your question as to why schedule the 300+ opponents is the same as its been: Because it doesn't matter.
Your right, in the event that we can win all these hard games having 300 vs 200 makes no difference. Do you think this is even remotely possible? We may be lucky to start the season 2-3 let alone win all 5 of our first games. This scenario seems pretty improbable and that still only gets us an RPI of 55
For the third, I'm curious as to who you chose from the ASU/NC State to include as well as who you picked for the BET games. Plus, a .6700 RPI would have been 2nd in the country, between UK's .6779 and Vilanova's .6686, so there's obviously something wrong there.
Typo on my part, I posted what the opponent constant was not RPI. I used NC State as our loss in the Legends and the RPI at the end of the season would be 0.551 in that scenario. I haven't added anything for the BET because that gets really speculative. Additionally, in my calculation its a neutral impact unless you win more games than you lose, 1 loss = 1 win and the difference in quality of opponent balances out to a very minimal net impact
So in at least two of my three scenarios, in reality you agree with me, even though you're stating disagreement. I'm in agreement in the middle scenario that we get in but its high improbable so not a thing and yes in the first scenario I agree we don't get in.
And in the third, you rely solely on a calculator, and can only bring yourself to say "more than likely out," not absolutely out. Which means that a 22-12 (10-8) record and 4th or 5th place Big East team would would be getting discussion from the committee.
So the question is which logic on the committee would prevail.
a) Screw the body of work, the RPI overrides anything else MU actually did.
b) The RPI doesn't accurately reflect MU's body of work so we should compare them in relation to the other teams on the bubble.
I think what you'd have to admit is that my 3rd scenario is a very unique situation. In similar situations in the past, the committee has been shown to override the RPI and more heavily weight the actual body of work--just like it did to MU's benefit in 2011 when we were ranked 64th.
You are absolutely correct this could happen, but that's not my point. My point is by scheduling the way we did we are more likely than not forced into this very scenario. If we schedule better we don't have to rely on a bubble decision. Basically we have a 5% of getting in out right, 50% chance that we're bubble at less than 50/50 we get in and 45% chance we are out all together. Better schedule shifts it to 10% chance we're in out right, 10% chance we're bubble at better than 50/50, 30% chance we're bubble less than 50/50 and 50% chance we out all together
-
I've agreed with you all along here..and I still do. One minor wrinkle...the RPIs of these teams last year are no guarantee to be their RPI this year. Stranger things have happened than teams with 300+ RPIs one year moving into the 200s the next year. That said, many of these teams are annually the nation's worst, and most likely won't improve much.
The logic behind the schedule is indeed very flawed.
This is the only thing that keeps me from totally jumping off the bridge. We very well could end up with 1 250+, 3 275+ and 4 300+ teams, which would be just fine. I hope that's how it works out.
I'm too lazy to do the research but I'd be curious to know how many teams that are RPI 315+ one year have been RPI 250-300 the next year
-
This is the only thing that keeps me from totally jumping off the bridge. We very well could end up with 1 250+, 3 275+ and 4 300+ teams, which would be just fine. I hope that's how it works out.
I'm too lazy to do the research but I'd be curious to know how many teams that are RPI 315+ one year have been RPI 250-300 the next year
03eng, I just think you're getting too worked up about it. First, we simply can't afford a 'bad loss' and Wojo's plan seemingly prevents it. Second, our fate will be determined by our ability to generate some good wins, likely at home. Worry about our home dates with GTown and Butler. That is what determines the season. And I think Wojo believes that our chances go up dramatically in those games if he can spend November and December teaching/adjusting coupled with overall general success that helps to build confidence. I'm sorry that your calculator simply can't measure that.
-
03eng, I just think you're getting too worked up about it. First, we simply can't afford a 'bad loss' and Wojo's plan seemingly prevents it. Second, our fate will be determined by our ability to generate some good wins, likely at home. Worry about our home dates with GTown and Butler. That is what determines the season. And I think Wojo believes that our chances go up dramatically in those games if he can spend November and December teaching/adjusting coupled with overall general success that helps to build confidence. I'm sorry that your calculator simply can't measure that.
Right, like I said, my ultimate issue is what this schedule says about the teams mindset; they are planning to not make the NCAA. That's where I'm disappointed.
-
I get the argument for having a young team and needing to get them pulling in the same direction.
Would anyone really have a problem with a schedule of these cupcakes:
Navy
Grand Canyon
Samford
Niagara
Campbell
South Alabama
Florida Atlantic
All I did was boost the KenPom ranks of the teams MU is playing 50 spots up the chart, with two exceptions: One of them would have been IUPUI, which is already on the schedule, and another was South Florida, so I went one spot higher to get a lower conference than the AAC.
Teams that finished between 266 & 301 on KenPom last year. Bad, but not bottom 50 bad.
Not saying WHY AREN'T WE PLAYING NOTRE DAME, just saying it's possible to play *slightly* better teams.
-
I get the argument for having a young team and needing to get them pulling in the same direction.
Would anyone really have a problem with a schedule of these cupcakes:
Navy
Grand Canyon
Samford
Niagara
Campbell
South Alabama
Florida Atlantic
Too challenging. We would be unable to work through any early season kinks in execution against this caliber of competition, and it would hurt our young players' fee fees if they only win by 10 points. Also, heaven forbid they have to deal with losing to a bad team that isn't DePaul we would incur the extra expense of having to fly all their moms to campus to comfort them.
-
Right, like I said, my ultimate issue is what this schedule says about the teams mindset; they are planning to not make the NCAA. That's where I'm disappointed.
I don't want to quarrel with you my friend but I believe that Wojo believes that the schedule as outlined gives him the best chance to get these guys to the NCAA despite the calculated RPI drain precisely because he thinks it'll improve our conference prospects after he's been able to experiment/teach for 2 months.
I know that I can't get you off the math. It's okay; I have lots of engineering friends that think the same way. You can still buy chick and me a beer at the 'craft corner'. Or perhaps we can come up with a beer bet on this.
-
I don't want to quarrel with you my friend but I believe that Wojo believes that the schedule as outlined gives him the best chance to get these guys to the NCAA despite the calculated RPI drain precisely because he thinks it'll improve our conference prospects after he's been able to experiment/teach for 2 months.
I know that I can't get you off the math. It's okay; I have lots of engineering friends that think the same way. You can still buy chick and me a beer at the 'craft corner'. Or perhaps we can come up with a beer bet on this.
ooohhh, you have my attention with the beer bet. What would the terms of such a bet be?
At the same time, I hate to be in the pessimistic role...I'm a nearly eternal optimist so if I "win" the bet I'm gonna have to get drunk to overcome my sad feelings ;)
-
ooohhh, you have my attention with the beer bet. What would the terms of such a bet be?
At the same time, I hate to be in the pessimistic role...I'm a nearly eternal optimist so if I "win" the bet I'm gonna have to get drunk to overcome my sad feelings ;)
Maybe non-con record? Your supposition is that this shows weakness. Then we'll lose more of the 'big 5' non-con games, correct? But I'd hate to make you bet against us. That's no fun.
-
Right, like I said, my ultimate issue is what this schedule says about the teams mindset; they are planning to not make the NCAA. That's where I'm disappointed.
If you look at our team on paper, we shouldn't even make the NIT. Expectations should be low. Being a realist sucks but it gets you better results in the end.
Fortunately, games aren't played on paper. I'm optimistic that several things that cannot be predicted on paper will happen. I think JjJ has a break out year, I think Wally will vastly outplay what one should reasonably expect from a transfer who averaged under 2 ppg at Minnesota, I think Carter is a lot better than his sub 100 ranking would have us believe, and I think one or more of the other freshmen will vastly outplay their ranking. If most of those things happen, then we have a shot at being a bubble team. But objectively, we have no proof to say that it will.
-
We have the best front court in the Big East and one of the best guards in the Big East. This team should be playing meaningful games come the end of February.
-
I haven't added anything for the BET because that gets really speculative.
Really? You can speculate on us getting an RPI rank of 75, but you can't speculate on who a 10-8 Big East team might face in the conference tournament?
How about this: 2015 St. Johns at 10-8 was 5th place. 2014 10-8 was a 3-way tie for 3rd. So split the difference and assume 10-8 means a 4th place Big East finish.
In that case, we get a first round bye, play our first game against #5, and a 2nd game against #1. That doesn't seem terribly speculative. But two more game against 21-12 St. Johns and 33-3 Villanova just might improve our SOS just a teeny bit, don't you think?
You are absolutely correct this could happen, but that's not my point. My point is by scheduling the way we did we are more likely than not forced into this very scenario. If we schedule better we don't have to rely on a bubble decision. Basically we have a 5% of getting in out right, 50% chance that we're bubble at less than 50/50 we get in and 45% chance we are out all together. Better schedule shifts it to 10% chance we're in out right, 10% chance we're bubble at better than 50/50, 30% chance we're bubble less than 50/50 and 50% chance we out all together
All I can do is put this on the table for discussion;
--22-11 overall
--10-8 / 4th place in the Big East
--3 good wins in the non-conference
--No bad losses
--1-1 in the tournament
Is that body of work worthy of tournament discussion?
If it came down to it do you think someone could rationally argue that a team with maybe only 9 wins in a power conference, maybe without a tournament win, maybe one less good non-conference win, maybe with a a bad loss or two--are you going to argue that the true judge of THAT team is that they beat 7 teams ranked 200 to 225, while MU's cupcakes were in the 300s.
-
The point is that if Marquette doesn't go at least 3-2 in their big 5 OOC games and get at least 10 wins in BE play they will not be dancing. The 300 vs. 200 thing is part of it because it means the overall RPI will be lower than it could be, but the other part of it is that Marquette only has 5 OOC games of note and that's being generous. In reality none of those teams are locks for the NCAA tournament. Iowa is the closest to a lock. So we don't even know how much help Marquette will get from those games. There's a good chance Marquette won't play a ranked team until BE play.
I think Marquette on Paper should be an NCAA tournament team. Not sure they get there though because the games aren't played on paper and the schedule certainly hurts things.
-
Here's a thought...what if last years RPI doesn't mean ANYTHING for next year? I mean, just look at our team. Unless someone is gonna break down all of our "weak" mid-major teams and promise me they haven't improved one bit in comparison to their conference, I'm gonna chill and enjoy the season. Some of you guys just get bored and need to read into something no matter how speculative and impossible to predict it will be.
-
All I can do is put this on the table for discussion;
--22-11 overall
--10-8 / 4th place in the Big East
--3 good wins in the non-conference
--No bad losses
--1-1 in the tournament
Is that body of work worthy of tournament discussion?
If it came down to it do you think someone could rationally argue that a team with maybe only 9 wins in a power conference, maybe without a tournament win, maybe one less good non-conference win, maybe with a a bad loss or two--are you going to argue that the true judge of THAT team is that they beat 7 teams ranked 200 to 225, while MU's cupcakes were in the 300s.
Except you can't put that on the table for discussion because it doesn't add up. 11 total league wins plus 3 quality non league wins adds to 14. We play 9 low major opponents, so 22 wins in that scenario guarantees at least 2 bad losses, assuming we don't take any additional bad losses in league play.
This schedule will obviously hurt RPI and SOS. Clearly not the only factors, but still important factors in NCAA inclusion and seeding. This schedule will hurt walk up attendance, as few will make a special trip for a December weeknight game against Grambling.
I get the idea of just winning games, and this should guarantee some wins, but I'm skeptical that beating Presbyterian's brains in in December will help this team beat Georgetown and Xavier in February.
And as a STH, honestly, I feel I paid for a better schedule than this. I could care less about the volume of home dates when the quality is this poor. I'd much rather see some 2-for-1 series with mediocre mid majors, a decent neutral court game, or a new home and home started. And as a fan of the game, I'd much rather see better low majors. Everyone gripes about UNO but it was an entertaining game. Watching a team get beat by forty, even when your team is doing the beating, gets boring.
Well, unless it's Bucky or ND.
-
We have the best front court in the Big East and one of the best guards in the Big East. This team should be playing meaningful games come the end of February.
With a big ol question mark at PG. If the last two years have taught me anything, its to not have a question mark at PG.
You are right about the frontcourt. I think the only team that can legitimately compete is Villanova with Jenkins and Ochefu. Duane is one of the best guards but there are lot of those in the BEast. Jalen Brunson, Ryan Arcidiacono, Josh Hart, Tyler Lewis, Kellen Dunham, DV Smith-Rivera, L.J. Peak, Trevon Bluiett, Mo Watson Jr., Kris Dunn, Isaiah Whitehead, and Billy Garrett Jr. are all guards I would put at the same level as Duane or better.
-
Except you can't put that on the table for discussion because it doesn't add up. 11 total league wins plus 3 quality non league wins adds to 14. We play 9 low major opponents, so 22 wins in that scenario guarantees at least 2 bad losses, assuming we don't take any additional bad losses in league play.
I think its your totals that don't add up
We don't play 9 low major opponents. We play 8.
So, in the win column. 10 conference + 3 quality non-conference + 1 BET + 8 cupcakes = 22 wins, with zero bad losses--which is what I had. Not sure where the other two bad losses you claim the scenario "guarantees."
The 11 losses are:
2 good non-conference losses among Belmont, Iowa, Wisconsin, and the two Legends games
8 conference losses
1 BET loss
11 total losses
That means:
22-11 overall record
Plays in a major conference
no bad losses
3 quality non-conference wins
10 conference wins
1 win in the BET
All I'm saying is that's the type of team that historically gets a serious look in the NCAAs. And teams with similar bodies of work have made the tournament in years past despite a lot of 300+ opponents among their non-conference slate.
-
I think the mistake is that to say that none of the eight conference losses are not a bad loss. Let's say that you get to the ten wins by sweeping the 5 lowest finishing teams. That means you would not had a bad conference loss, but it also means you have not gotten a win against the best Big East teams. You could also get there by winning all nine home games, which means you only go 1-8 on the road, which is not impressive. Realistically MU has to go more than 10-8 to get into the tournament. Last year Xavier got in with a 9-9 record. However, the Big East as a whole had a very impressive non-conference record, which resulted in overstating the strength of the conference as reflected by the early exit of all 6 teams from the NCAA tournament. MU's strength of schedule will largely be determined by how well the other Big East teams do in the non-conference games. While they can, we simply cannot assume the Big East will duplicate last year's non-conference success.
-
Really? You can speculate on us getting an RPI rank of 75, but you can't speculate on who a 10-8 Big East team might face in the conference tournament?
How about this: 2015 St. Johns at 10-8 was 5th place. 2014 10-8 was a 3-way tie for 3rd. So split the difference and assume 10-8 means a 4th place Big East finish.
In that case, we get a first round bye, play our first game against #5, and a 2nd game against #1. That doesn't seem terribly speculative. But two more game against 21-12 St. Johns and 33-3 Villanova just might improve our SOS just a teeny bit, don't you think?
All I can do is put this on the table for discussion;
--22-11 overall
--10-8 / 4th place in the Big East
--3 good wins in the non-conference
--No bad losses
--1-1 in the tournament
Is that body of work worthy of tournament discussion?
If it came down to it do you think someone could rationally argue that a team with maybe only 9 wins in a power conference, maybe without a tournament win, maybe one less good non-conference win, maybe with a a bad loss or two--are you going to argue that the true judge of THAT team is that they beat 7 teams ranked 200 to 225, while MU's cupcakes were in the 300s.
[/quote]
I have no doubt what you provided as a possibility would put us in the discussion, but a 22-11 record should more than put us in the discussion. 22-11 should give us a top 40 RPI but with our schedule it will likely give us a top 60...which means we could be in or out.
-
Last year our season ticket base was off by about 1500 compared to '13-'14. I suspect that this year's drop is comparable or maybe a bit worse. To get an accurate gauge, find the announced attendance figure for the worst weekday Buy game. I tried to quickly find Omaha's last year but couldn't come up with it. It's around 12,000 (including students) and dropping.
MU just opened up season tickets for general sale, and the map is interesting. Looks like a lot of people opted not to renew. https://oss.ticketmaster.com/aps/marquette/EN/buy/details/MBFS1516
This is a really big season for the program. Have to show some positive momentum.
-
MU just opened up season tickets for general sale, and the map is interesting. Looks like a lot of people opted not to renew. https://oss.ticketmaster.com/aps/marquette/EN/buy/details/MBFS1516
This is a really big season for the program. Have to show some positive momentum.
I opted to leave my seats in Row Z of Section 205 this year for a better location. Turns out I would have been almost completely alone in that row.
-
NC State's schedule indicating that we'll be playing LSU in the semi finals of the november tournament.
-
The more I think about it this is a very good schedule for us. There are ample opportunities for quality wins. However, if we can't put any quality wins on the board, the cupcakes will at least carry us to a 9-4 non conference. Although as I have said before, I think we can get some cupcakes with more appeal.
No matter what, in order to make a tournament, we will need to go 9-9 in conference. If we go 2-2 in the quality non conference we may have a shot at the NCAA if we can get one win in the BET.
-
I would plan on 8-5, if we lose to Belmont.
-
The more I think about it this is a very good schedule for us. There are ample opportunities for quality wins. However, if we can't put any quality wins on the board, the cupcakes will at least carry us to a 9-4 non conference. Although as I have said before, I think we can get some cupcakes with more appeal.
No matter what, in order to make a tournament, we will need to go 9-9 in conference. If we go 2-2 in the quality non conference we may have a shot at the NCAA if we can get one win in the BET.
I wrote out the schedule yesterday and tried to figure out what games we could reasonably expect to win and lose. I think 9-9 in conference is a reasonable expectation. This non-conference could get us 7-10 victories. I don't think it will get us into the tournament, but I think our OOC schedule will make sure we are an above .500 team.
-
I wrote out the schedule yesterday and tried to figure out what games we could reasonably expect to win and lose. I think 9-9 in conference is a reasonable expectation. This non-conference could get us 7-10 victories. I don't think it will get us into the tournament, but I think our OOC schedule will make sure we are an above .500 team.
I came to 9-9 as well. Which really means all we need is an injury or few bad calls or strong be tournament showing to push us in
-
MU just opened up season tickets for general sale, and the map is interesting. Looks like a lot of people opted not to renew. https://oss.ticketmaster.com/aps/marquette/EN/buy/details/MBFS1516
This is a really big season for the program. Have to show some positive momentum.
Did some examining of the individual 400 level sections. The $132 seats have done reasonably well selling very high up in the various sections. It's the 'middle class' seats that have suffered terribly. I'd argue that represents a fairly typical fan. The $275 seats are in terrible shape right now. It's not scoopers and those sweater vests that have had tickets since 1965 but rather the folks who casually follow the program. I'm disappointed that my own section 400 is only 1/3 full right now. Tough times indeed.
-
I wonder why there is a ticketmaster fee on season tickets? The section listed at $132 is $125. I would skip ticketmaster and call the MU Ticket Office.
-
Just for sh**s and giggles, and I decided to compare our non-conference opponents' 2015 RPIs (a main topic of discussion in this thread) to CBS Sports pre-season ranking of all 351 teams. I in no way think CBS sports rankings are the end all be all, but it is something, and they know more about the low majors than I do. And this obviously isn't apples to apples as ranking does not equal RPI, but I am bored and need November 13th to be here, so I did it anyway.
Opponent / 2015 RPI / CBS Sports Preseason 15-16 Ranking
Belmont / 100 / 58
IUPUI / 257 / 254
Iowa / 40 / 44
LSU / 65 / 38
Arizona State / 90 / 88 or NC State / 32 / 32
Jackson State / 317 / 218
Grambling State / 351 / 351
Maine / 338 / 310
San Jose State / 336 / 331
Wisconsin / 2 / 17
Chicago State / 333 / 339
Presbyterian / 314 / 292
Stetson / 335 / 317
Significant improvements bolded. What this means? Likely nothing, but yep, the schedule still sucks, and our RPI at the end of the season is likely going to be greatly affected.