2016-17 Schedule

[brewcity77]

Obviously, last year's results don't impact this season's RPI. But until the season actually begins, they're one of the best indicators of schedule strength we have.

Look at Ken Pomeroy's season-end rankings for Marquette over the past 15 years. Our average ranking was 46.6 — meaning that, on average, we've been a top 50 program. MU finished in the top 50 in 10 out of 15 seasons. We were still top 100 (76th, 93rd and 95th) in 3 others, just missing the top 100 (106th and 110th) in 2.

Now compare that to Chicago State, for example. Their average ranking: 286.0. They've finished 250th or worse in 9 out of the past 15 seasons — including the past 7 years. Since 2001-02, Pomeroy hasn't ranked Chicago St. higher than 200th.

My point is, if a team finished top 50 or 300th a year ago, it's reasonable to project they'll be similarly competitive this year — in the absence of any other information, of course. Even when we finished dead last in the Big East two seasons ago, we still ranked in the top third of all Division I teams. And even when Chicago St. had its best season of the millennium, it didn't come close to being considered for postseason play.

Granted, it's a crude measure. But that doesn't make it useless.

It is, to a point. Honestly, while I won't disagree that to date this is probably the best way to look at this, I think it's a terrible way to look at it. Look at a team like Norfolk State years ago, or any other team that "comes from nowhere". Thing is, these teams don't come from nowhere. It's just a matter of identifying what qualities will lead to a breakout year. For Norfolk State, it was an experienced team led by an absolute beast in senior and future NBA player Kyle O'Quinn. This year, it could be Howard, who has the nation's leading scorer coming back, a key member returning from injury, and returns most of their team. By the same token, who would have seen us falling from being a regular top-50, tournament lock to three seasons of missing the dance and ratings around 100?

There have to be better ways to analyze, but no one has put it in a nice, compact package for the public yet. Basketball is far too stats oriented to not be at least a bit more predictable than last year's (or the last 5-10 years) numbers.

[GGGG]

It is, to a point. Honestly, while I won't disagree that to date this is probably the best way to look at this, I think it's a terrible way to look at it. Look at a team like Norfolk State years ago, or any other team that "comes from nowhere". Thing is, these teams don't come from nowhere. It's just a matter of identifying what qualities will lead to a breakout year. For Norfolk State, it was an experienced team led by an absolute beast in senior and future NBA player Kyle O'Quinn. This year, it could be Howard, who has the nation's leading scorer coming back, a key member returning from injury, and returns most of their team. By the same token, who would have seen us falling from being a regular top-50, tournament lock to three seasons of missing the dance and ratings around 100?

There have to be better ways to analyze, but no one has put it in a nice, compact package for the public yet. Basketball is far too stats oriented to not be at least a bit more predictable than last year's (or the last 5-10 years) numbers.

Of course, to analyze who might be better RPI wise from the previous year and match it up in terms of availability of the school, the BC, etc. is probably a little too much to ask.

[Herman Cain]

The only grievance I have with the schedule is we have 30 games and not 31. I would prefer we have more chances to get to the 20 win mark.  I think we need to win at least 3 out of the 5 quality opponent games and then win all the rest. That would put us 10-2 going into conference play.

[Jay Bee]

Of course, to analyze who might be better RPI wise from the previous year and match it up in terms of availability of the school, the BC, etc. is probably a little too much to ask.

Oh, it's not too much to ask. There's work being done by a number of people. That info just doesn't get provided to the public. 

[GGGG]

Oh, it's not too much to ask. There's work being done by a number of people. That info just doesn't get provided to the public. 

Ah OK.  Got it.

[mu03eng]

The only grievance I have with the schedule is we have 30 games and not 31. I would prefer we have more chances to get to the 20 win mark.  I think we need to win at least 3 out of the 5 quality opponent games and then win all the rest. That would put us 10-2 going into conference play.

Really depends on what that 31st game would have been. My guess is that between BC availability, rational scheduling from a rest standpoint, and availability of other teams the 31st would have been a 300+ team. Better to not play them then risk getting a team that won't win much and drag down the RPI.

20 wins isn't the magic number it once was.

[GGGG]

Really depends on what that 31st game would have been. My guess is that between BC availability, rational scheduling from a rest standpoint, and availability of other teams the 31st would have been a 300+ team. Better to not play them then risk getting a team that won't win much and drag down the RPI.

20 wins isn't the magic number it once was.

Because of the conference season starting early on December 28, the only two choices were scheduling a game during Finals week or scheduling a buy-game in the middle of conference season.  The Stetson game was dreadful.  Giving the guys a week off is much better than playing some doormat on a Tuesday in January.

[Jay Bee]

Because of the conference season starting early on December 28, the only two choices were scheduling a game during Finals week or scheduling a buy-game in the middle of conference season.  The Stetson game was dreadful.  Giving the guys a week off is much better than playing some doormat on a Tuesday in January.

Jan/February game could help real up a losing streak, haiiiina??