Toughest schedule in the Country

[RawdogDX]

SOS is the only schedule rating that matters because it's the one the committee uses. Any other schedule rating -- kenpom, Sagarin, etc -- are absolutely meaningless.

If the topic of this thread was "MU will have played the best schedule possible in the eyes of the selection committee" then I might agree.   But it's not.

[brewcity77]

Is that End-of-Year SOS (i.e. pre-tournament) or End-of-Season SOS? As I recall, MU was in the 30's for SOS at the end of the season.  After playing X, Cuse & UNC, I can believe it would be 19, but is that relevant?

I assume we're only discussing SOS because it's a tournament metric, not because it offers MU bragging rights ("Guess what Notre Dame... your SOS sucks" just doesn't seem like useful smack talk).  As such, shouldn't we focus on what the SOS was at the end of the season, not the year?

The only SOS that matters is the one we have after the conference tournament. Last year our SOS was 30 going into selection. It may have improved after the tourney, but that has no effect on our seeding. Similarly, our RPI was 64 pre-tourney and 50 post-tourney. Great to say we were a top-50 RPI team and all, but it has no bearing on anything. What's important is having the best possible SOS and RPI going into Selection Sunday.

As far as tournament selection, it probably does not matter much whether you overall schedule is 20th or 100th. What does matter is how many top 50 teams you beat and how many 150+ teams you lose to. If you play only two top 50 teams and beat both of them you are fine. If you play only 2 top 50 teams and lose to them, you better win your conference tournament.

Well, only two of the top-25 SOS teams missed the tournament (Seton Hall and USF). In terms of teams from 76-100, only 6 made the field as at-large teams: UAB (77), Florida State (82), Cincinnati (83), VCU (87), George Mason (91), and Temple (92) was the lowest SOS team to get in.

It's a metric that matters, and it's one we can control. We know we're going to play a high number of top-50 teams, so we needed to cut out the chaff, because clearly last year playing a high number of top-50 teams wasn't good enough in the eyes of the Committee, as evidenced by our 11-seed, despite five top-50 wins and zero sub-150 losses (but 6 sub-200 opponents), both numbers of which were as good or better than teams like Penn State, Illinois, Georgia, Kansas State, UNLV, and UCLA, all of whom were seeded higher than we were.

And for Rawdog, while there are many schedule evaluators that attempt to determine which schedule is the "toughest", the only one that counts is the once the SC uses. So if you want to know who has the "toughest" schedule, look at the evaluation that will actually mean something come Selection Sunday, because at the end of the day, the eyes of the Selection Committee are the only ones you need to impress.

[Mr. Nielsen]

The buy games look to be significantly better. What that tells me is that Buzz has confidence in this year's team.

Or it tells me that some of these "buy" team are not very good and it doesn't make MU a better team by playing them.

[HouWarrior]

Wow-- for those that thought MU was soft(in the past) on its Nonconf scheduling...here are the 15 worst over the last 4 years, with their 4 years non conf. opponents avg RPIs...ouch.

Oregon State 318.75
Iowa State 272.75
Stanford 265.00
Nebraska 256.75
Colorado 250.75 187
N.C. State 248.75
Northwestern 248.50
Rutgers 240.75
Auburn 238.75
LSU 232.75
Penn State 226.00
Notre Dame 224.00
Wake Forest 218.75
Miami 213.25
Virginia 211.75

Oregon State shouldnt go to any NCAA tourney, except by buying tickets.
And you thought MU had work to do.....geeez.
I hope LSU(only one of these, on our non conf. schedule) improves this year-- their SOS/RPI may hurt us-yes?
C'mon Rutgers/ND--grow a pair--you play in the BEast, after all..

Because you probably care...here are the top 10 toughest nonconf schedulers over the last 4 years..

Tennessee 19.50 
Georgetown 33.50 
Arizona 36.75 
Duke 44.50
Michigan State 47.50 
Connecticut 52.00
Syracuse 52.00
Michigan 55.75
Wisconsin 59.00
Pitt (T-10th) 61.50
West Virginia 61.50

[Marquette84]

You're being completely myopic here and dodging the question. Of course winning more games helps. But Cincy getting the same seed as Georgetown and St. John's despite having significantly more wins shows that there have to be factors at play beyond simply your W/L record.

You're twisting my argument. 

The fact of the matter is that Cincy did not have significantly more wins in conference--both St. Johns and Georgetown were both within just one game of Cincy--one slighly better, one slightly worse.

Look, I'm not saying that Cincy was rewarded for winning more games with their weak schedule.  Likewise, neither St. Johns nor Georgetown were rewarded for playing a tougher schedule.

As I see it, all three teams were roughly equivalent where they could be directly compared--in conference play.  And all three teams received the same seed.   That tells me the non conference schedule strength--where there was admittedly a huge difference--was simply not a factor. 

You can't point to the NCAA seedings and make the case that Cincy was penalized for their weak non-conference.  They got exactly what you'd expect a team tied for 6th to get.

And you can't point to the seed of GU and St. Johns and make the case they were rewarded for their strong non-conference.  They also got the seed you would expect they would get.

They all finished about the same in Big East league play.  And they all got the same seed in the NCAA tournament.

I'm saying that if everything else is equal. OOC record, conference record, performance in Big East tourney, if all of that is the same, would you rather have the #1 SOS or the #83 SOS? Which do you think would result in a better seed? Or do you really, honestly, truly believe that it would make no difference?

First off, I cannot believe a team would have the same record against the #83 SOS and the #1 SOS, unless they were so good (or so bad) that it wouldn't make much of a difference.  If we're 18-0 and BET champions, it won't matter if our non-conference SOS is weak, we're going to be a #1 seed regardless.  DePaul could have played the #1 SOS schedule, and they wouldn't have made the tournament.

More importantly, think about what you're proposing--We have to run the gauntlet of Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, WVU, Georgetown, Villanova, Cincinnati, Notre Dame, St. Johns, Cincinnati. 

The committee is not stupid.  If we come out of that gauntlet with 12 or 14 Big East wins, do you really think that the more meaningful indicator of our true tournament worthiness in the committee's eyes will be that we played Norfolk State and Jacksonville instead of Prairie View and Centenary?

Come on.  Micromanaging SOS is something that Missouri State has to do in case they don't win their conference tournament.   Its not something a Big East team has to do. 

[brewcity77]

They all finished about the same in Big East league play.  And they all got the same seed in the NCAA tournament.

Utter hogwash. UConn, Villanova, and Marquette all finished about the same in Big East league play. And one got a 3-seed, one got a 9-seed, and one got an 11-seed. Not to mention the comparisons of other high-majors like Tennessee, Illinois, Georgia, and Penn State to Marquette.

The committee is not stupid.  If we come out of that gauntlet with 12 or 14 Big East wins, do you really think that the more meaningful indicator of our true tournament worthiness in the committee's eyes will be that we played Norfolk State and Jacksonville instead of Prairie View and Centenary?

Come on.  Micromanaging SOS is something that Missouri State has to do in case they don't win their conference tournament.   Its not something a Big East team has to do.

Again, the facts don't support any of this. Had we lost to West Virginia, we don't make the tournament. We barely got in. We're a Big East team. Our non-conference schedule nearly cost us. We were about as close as you can get to not making the tourney. Had we scheduled better we would have had a better seed. It's that simple. Teams like Virginia Tech and Colorado didn't get in despite being ACC and Big 12 teams. Just because you're a high-major doesn't mean that a 10-8 record in conference play will guarantee you a place in the dance. Especially in a conference where everyone is saying we're already getting too many bids.

And this isn't just about getting in. It's getting the best seed we can possibly get. If you want an 11 or 12 every year and left to sweat it out on Selection Sunday, then our current scheduling is fine. But if we want to become a high-level program and compete for 4-seeds and better, we have to start scheduling like them. Anything less is just asking for our NCAA streak to end.

[Silkk the Shaka]

What a schedule like this does is prepare you for a deep tournament run. Playing tough teams on the road and neutral courts sets you up for pretty much anything thrown your way in March, which is all that really matters. Saying you want "tons of conference wins every year, but the NCAA's is just a crapshoot" is loser talk. I don't care if a schedule like this results in a slightly worse regular season record. No team will be better prepared come tourney time.

[Litehouse]

The RPI/SOS calculation obviously has a lot of flaws, but it's the main tool used for comparison.  This schedule will clearly improve our SOS compared to last year because the buy games aren't as bad, and we add the UW game at MSG.  The biggest thing this does is increase our margin for error in making the tourny, but now we still need to go win the games.

[jsglow]

I can't begin to match any of the statistical analysis you guys have come up with.  My view is that the biggest drag on our tourney seed was that number on the loss line on the day of selection . . .14.  One more, and we were out.  A single win over Gonzaga, WI or Vandy plus one more in conference (maybe Cincy at home?) and there's nothing to worry about.  Probably about a 7 seed then.

[Marquette84]

Utter hogwash. UConn, Villanova, and Marquette all finished about the same in Big East league play. And one got a 3-seed, one got a 9-seed, and one got an 11-seed. Not to mention the comparisons of other high-majors like Tennessee, Illinois, Georgia, and Penn State to Marquette.

Gee, maybe UConn winning the BET had something to do with it?  Nah--thats not nearly as impressive as UConn getting ough with their non-conference play, opting to take on the powers of Vermont and Harvard, while Villanova took the easy path of playing Monmouth and Marist, and Marquette played South Dakota and Centenary. 

MU, Villanova, Illinois, Penn State and Tennessee did not win their league title, and all wound up in the same 9 to 11 range. 

If SOS was an issue, our schedule (ranked 30th) was ALREADY slightly better than Villanova (ranked 33rd).  And yet, they were a 9 seed while we were an 11.  How do you explain that if SOS is so important?  You wanna bet that their head-to-head victory trumped SOS?

Again, the facts don't support any of this. Had we lost to West Virginia, we don't make the tournament. We barely got in. We're a Big East team. Our non-conference schedule nearly cost us.

And had we lost to West Virginia, our SOS would have been slightly higher, because WVU's record would have been slightly better.

If SOS is that important, wouldn't losing to WVU have enhanced our tourney chances? Of course not!  So this point seems to suggest that you agree with me that winning the games actually matters more than engineering a slightly better SOS.

We were about as close as you can get to not making the tourney. Had we scheduled better we would have had a better seed. It's that simple.

Not if we don't win the games. 

if we do win the games that matter, our SOS is a non-issue.  Cincy had a much worse schedule, and had a much better seed.  Villanova had a slightly worse schedule--and a slightly better seed.  The seeding of MU relative to Villanova and Cincy isn't consistent with the priority of SOS that you seem to apply.

I think they gave far greater credence to the fact that Villanova beat us head-to-head, and Cincy not only beat us head-to-head but had two more wins in conference play.  SOS was a non-factor.

Teams like Virginia Tech and Colorado didn't get in despite being ACC and Big 12 teams. Just because you're a high-major doesn't mean that a 10-8 record in conference play will guarantee you a place in the dance. Especially in a conference where everyone is saying we're already getting too many bids.

And this isn't just about getting in. It's getting the best seed we can possibly get. If you want an 11 or 12 every year and left to sweat it out on Selection Sunday, then our current scheduling is fine. But if we want to become a high-level program and compete for 4-seeds and better, we have to start scheduling like them. Anything less is just asking for our NCAA streak to end.

Our SOS was ranked 30th.  Pitt--a #1 seed--was ranked 31st.

I'm satisfied that we don't have to toughen up our schedule in order to earn a #1 seed.  All we have to do is win more Big East games.

[brewcity77]

Gee, maybe UConn winning the BET had something to do with it?  Nah--thats not nearly as impressive as UConn getting ough with their non-conference play, opting to take on the powers of Vermont and Harvard, while Villanova took the easy path of playing Monmouth and Marist, and Marquette played South Dakota and Centenary.

84, your ignorance is simply screaming here. Vermont and Harvard were both top-100 RPI teams! Those are quality wins! And you're comparing that to South Dakota and Centenary? And yes, Villanova played Monmouth and Marist, but if you want to compare them to Marquette's cupcakes, don't forget to include Prairie View, Longwood, Mississippi Valley State, and TAMU-CC. We played 6 sub-250 teams. 'Nova played 2. That's immense.

Quite simply, our RPI has sucked and it's because we played so many pathetic cupcakes. That's what's killing our seeding. And that's why SOS is so important, because the teams you play directly link to your RPI. When we beat those six teams, our RPI goes down. When UConn beats Vermont and Harvard, their RPI goes up. See the difference?

MU, Villanova, Illinois, Penn State and Tennessee did not win their league title, and all wound up in the same 9 to 11 range.

Tennessee was an 8-seed. But regardless, being an 8 or 9 like Tennessee, Illinois, and 'Nova means you were very safely in the field. Being an 11-seed means that a single misstep would have kept us out. We were one of the last 6 teams in. We left ourselves no margin for error. If our cupcakes are against teams like Vermont and Harvard, our RPI is 20 spots better and we're safe. But because we played crapcakes we almost missed. Your logic is basically asking the committee to keep us out. I'm sorry if I don't think that's a good idea.

If SOS was an issue, our schedule (ranked 30th) was ALREADY slightly better than Villanova (ranked 33rd).  And yet, they were a 9 seed while we were an 11.  How do you explain that if SOS is so important?  You wanna bet that their head-to-head victory trumped SOS?

Because it directly impacts RPI. Our SOS will end up top-40 regardless because we play in the Big East. But what matters is our non-conference SOS because that's where you have the chance to play teams that drag your RPI down into the mid-60s, which puts you on the verge of missing the tournament. Two teams with sub-60 RPIs got at-large bids, us and USC. We were lucky to make the field. You have to be blind to not understand how SOS is so important, or simply ignoring the teams that made the field.

Why did 'Nova get a 9 when we got an 11? It wasn't the head-to-head win, it was the 26 RPI spots they finished ahead of us.

And had we lost to West Virginia, our SOS would have been slightly higher, because WVU's record would have been slightly better.

If SOS is that important, wouldn't losing to WVU have enhanced our tourney chances? Of course not!  So this point seems to suggest that you agree with me that winning the games actually matters more than engineering a slightly better SOS.

I never said winning games doesn't matter. I'm talking about the games we choose to schedule. But had we lost to UW-M, Bucknell, or USF, we probably also would have been out. Those were all games that were far closer than anyone was comfortable with. That's why we need to boost our OOC SOS. That's why we need to schedule teams like Jacksonville and Northern Colorado rather than Centenary and Prairie View (and Longwood and TAMU-CC and South Dakota and Mississippi Valley State).

It's not just winning, it's who you beat.

Not if we don't win the games. 

if we do win the games that matter, our SOS is a non-issue.  Cincy had a much worse schedule, and had a much better seed.  Villanova had a slightly worse schedule--and a slightly better seed.  The seeding of MU relative to Villanova and Cincy isn't consistent with the priority of SOS that you seem to apply.

And yet Cincy played fewer sub-300 teams than we did. And fewer sub-250 teams. So did 'Nova. The seeding is absolutely consistent. It's all about playing better cupcakes. If we only end up with 1 or 2 sub-200 teams, we will likely have a top-5 SOS, which will lead to a top-20 RPI as long as we still win 20 or so games. Georgetown won 21 games and finished with a 13 RPI because they scheduled well. Despite falling apart at the end of the season, they still got a 6-seed. Imagine if they don't lose Wright and don't lose their last 4, they're probably a 3-seed.

Tell me honestly, why would you NOT want Marquette to put themselves in that position?

I think they gave far greater credence to the fact that Villanova beat us head-to-head, and Cincy not only beat us head-to-head but had two more wins in conference play.  SOS was a non-factor.

Ignorance. SOS was a huge factor because it led to them having a better RPI. It's because they played fewer crapcakes than we did (even Cincy) that drained their RPI into the mid-60s. Yes, you have to win, but if you win against top-200 teams instead of sub-250 teams, your RPI stays in the mid-30s and keeps you in single-digit seeding.

Our SOS was ranked 30th.  Pitt--a #1 seed--was ranked 31st.

I'm satisfied that we don't have to toughen up our schedule in order to earn a #1 seed.  All we have to do is win more Big East games.

And I never said SOS was the only factor. But Pitt had a top-10 RPI, produced by only playing 3 sub-250 teams. Of course their record and winning the regular season title also contributed immensely.

The bottom line is that we need to be beating teams ranked 100-200 in RPI rather than 200+. I've spent hours pouring over the numbers and that is one of the biggest factors in seeding. Yes, winning always matters, but if we had beaten Jacksonville, Mount St. Mary's, and Northern Colorado instead of Centenary, Prairie View, and Longwood, we would have been a 9-seed or better, guaranteed. And I don't think that's much of a stretch.

[Mr. Nielsen]

Some of the seeding was odd, like Michigan getting a 8 seed and Florida a 2 seed. Anyways, moving on.

We will find out starting July 5 as gomarquette.com will release a game each day. If something doesn't change in the rumor mill from twitter, how do we sell the fact that Northern Colorado and Jacksonville are not cupcakes to the season-ticket holders and have more people who have tickets to show up at the Bradley Center? Those two schools were 99 and 142 in the RPI.

[Marquette84]

Quite simply, our RPI has sucked and it's because we played so many pathetic cupcakes. That's what's killing our seeding. And that's why SOS is so important, because the teams you play directly link to your RPI. When we beat those six teams, our RPI goes down. When UConn beats Vermont and Harvard, their RPI goes up. See the difference?

Our RPI sucked because we lost 14 games.  If we only lost 5 games (like Pitt), our RPI would have been in the top 10 as well.

Tennessee was an 8-seed. But regardless, being an 8 or 9 like Tennessee, Illinois, and 'Nova means you were very safely in the field. Being an 11-seed means that a single misstep would have kept us out. We were one of the last 6 teams in. We left ourselves no margin for error. If our cupcakes are against teams like Vermont and Harvard, our RPI is 20 spots better and we're safe. But because we played crapcakes we almost missed. Your logic is basically asking the committee to keep us out. I'm sorry if I don't think that's a good idea.

There were zero at-large teams with a sub-.500 conference record. If Villanova, Illinois or Tennessee lost one more conference game, they're out of the tourney.  Just as we would have been.

If we only end up with 1 or 2 sub-200 teams, we will likely have a top-5 SOS, which will lead to a top-20 RPI as long as we still win 20 or so games. Georgetown won 21 games and finished with a 13 RPI because they scheduled well. Despite falling apart at the end of the season, they still got a 6-seed. Imagine if they don't lose Wright and don't lose their last 4, they're probably a 3-seed.

You're suggesting that if Georgetown had finished 14-4 instead of 10-8, their seed would have been better?   Wow, really going out on a limb on that one.

How about this--imagine if MU beat Louisville, Villanova, St. Johns, Cincy and Seton Hall.  We probably get a 3 seed as well with our 14-4 record.  Even with our "lousy" SOS.

Imagine if Cincy won four more games.  Think a 15-3 record in the Big East might get them a 3 seed?

Ignorance. SOS was a huge factor because it led to them having a better RPI. It's because they played fewer crapcakes than we did (even Cincy) that drained their RPI into the mid-60s. Yes, you have to win, but if you win against top-200 teams instead of sub-250 teams, your RPI stays in the mid-30s and keeps you in single-digit seeding.

What about your ignorance, ignoring that RPI is affected by head to head games?   If we beat Villanova and Cincy head to head--adding two more wins to our total, taking one away from each of theirs, our RPI would surpass theirs--without trading out a single cupcake opponent.

We had an RPI of .5683, ranked us 65th overall
Our winning % on a record of 20-14 was .5882--25% of that number is .1471. 

If we had gone 22-12 (beating Nova and Cincy), winning percentage is .6471.  25% of that is .1618.

The difference of .0147 may not seem like much--but add it to our RPI, and it improves to .5830. 

Now go to realtimerpi.com and look at where a team with an RPI of .5830 would be ranked.  (Hint:  44th).  Using the same calculation, one more Villanova loss drops their RPI from 38 to 47th.   

And I never said SOS was the only factor. But Pitt had a top-10 RPI, produced by only playing 3 sub-250 teams.

Pitt's SOS was 31st.  Ours was 30th. That comparison already factors in the fact that Pitt played only 3 sub-250 teams!  When you include ALL non-conference games, our non-conference SOS still came out to be slightly tougher.  Therefore the difference in RPI this year between us and Pitt had nothing at all to do with schedule strength (which was nearly identical) and everything to do with wins and losses.

Of course their record and winning the regular season title also contributed immensely.

I think this qualifies as understatement of the year.
 

[brewcity77]

Our RPI sucked because we lost 14 games...

Oh, well then let's just schedule the 13 worst RPI teams in non-con for home games every year. Let's ignore all the numbers and facts in regards to seeding (and the number of sub-200 teams on a team's OOC schedule with similar profiles is a direct correlation line) and play the worst teams possible so that when the Big East starts, we just have to win 9 more games to go 22-9 and even if we bow out of the Big East tourney in our first game we're 22-10 and good enough to get in. Give me a break.

You really think Tennessee goes from an 8-seed to out of the tourney with one more loss?

And if OOC SOS is so unimportant, why even play non-conference games?

All things being equal, are we better off beating the #150 team or the #340 team?

What you aren't getting is that it's more than just SOS. The number of sub-200 teams is just as important. You're better off playing the one OOC tourney (3 games), the one rivalry like Wisconsin, and nine teams with RPI from 100-200 than you are playing Duke, Gonzaga, Vandy and six teams with RPI 200+. That's the improvement Marquette made this offseason.

[hoyasincebirth]

The point about Georgetown is that we gave ourselves room for error. If we had cinci's schedule and finished the season the way we did we would've missed the tournament. A tough schedule allows you to lose more games and still make the tournament. A weak schedule means you better rack up 25+ wins or you're not worthy.

[brewcity77]

The point about Georgetown is that we gave ourselves room for error. If we had cinci's schedule and finished the season the way we did we would've missed the tournament. A tough schedule allows you to lose more games and still make the tournament. A weak schedule means you better rack up 25+ wins or you're not worthy.

+1,000

I love the way you guys schedule. I hope we follow that track.

[Marquette84]

Oh, well then let's just schedule the 13 worst RPI teams in non-con for home games every year. Let's ignore all the numbers and facts in regards to seeding (and the number of sub-200 teams on a team's OOC schedule with similar profiles is a direct correlation line) and play the worst teams possible so that when the Big East starts, we just have to win 9 more games to go 22-9 and even if we bow out of the Big East tourney in our first game we're 22-10 and good enough to get in. Give me a break.

You've forced me to list all bubble teams, RPI 40 to 65, and look up how many non-conference games against sub-200 opponents.

The facts show that the committee ALREADY ignores the number of sub-200 teams, and the "direct correlation line" you refer to just doesn't exist (or actually implies just the opposite of what you would like).

NCAA teams in bold (with their seed listed).  Grouped by number of sub-200 foes:

42. Cleveland State: 2 sub-200 non-conference opponents
43. Missouri State: 2 sub-200 non-conference opponents

45. Michigan State:  10 seed - 3 sub-200 non-conference opponents
58. Boston College:  3 sub-200 non-conference opponents

48. Illinois:  9 seed - 4 sub-200 non-conference opponents
50. Colorado State: 4 sub-200 teams and didn't make
59. UTEP: 4 sub-200 non-conference opponents
63. Southern Miss:  4 sub-200 non-conference opponents

44. UCLA:  7 seed - 5 sub-200 non-conference opponents
46. St. Marys:  5 sub-200 non-conference opponents
52. Michigan:  8 seed - 5 sub-200 non-conference opponents
57. Clemson:  5 sub-200 non-conference opponents
60. Wichita State: 5 sub-200 non-conference opponents
61. Oklahoma State: 5 sub-200 non-conference opponents
62. Virginia Tech:  5 sub-200 non-conference opponents
64. Marquette:  11 seed - 5 sub-200 non-conference opponents

47. Georgia:  10 seed -  6 sub-200 non-conference opponents
49. VCU:  11 seed - 6 sub-200 non-conference opponents
54. Marshall:  6 sub-200 non-conference teams

55. Florida State:  10 seed - 7 sub-200 non-conference teams

65. Colorado: 8 sub-500 non-conference opponents

When you actually see it laid out like this, I think it becomes rather obvious that the number of sub-200 opponents does not only doesn't drive NCAA bids and seeds--there isn't even a measurable correlation.

You really think Tennessee goes from an 8-seed to out of the tourney with one more loss?

First, Tennessee was a 9 seed--they played 8th seeded Michigan.
Second, there has never been an at-large team with 15 losses.
Third, no team with a sub .500 conference record was invited at-large this year.

So yeah, I think one more conference loss (18-15 overall, 8-10 in conference) puts them out.

And if OOC SOS is so unimportant, why even play non-conference games?

Its not unimportant for teams in conferences like the Horizon, A10, MWC, etc.  Its just not important for us--with 18 Big East games, the BET and and 4 high-major non-conference opponents to give the committee more than enough data to evaluate our body of work.

[brewcity77]

How can I trust any number you put up when you can't even get Marquette's total right?Mississippi Valley State, TAMU-CC, Longwood, South Dakota, Prairie View A&M, Centenary. That's six.

[Marquette84]

How can I trust any number you put up when you can't even get Marquette's total right?Mississippi Valley State, TAMU-CC, Longwood, South Dakota, Prairie View A&M, Centenary. That's six.

For the same reason I should trust any number you put up when you can't even get Tennessee's seed right. 

But I do have to thank you for pointing it out, because it actually strengthens the argument that the number of sub-200 teams is irrelevant. As you point out, Marquette had not just five, but six sub-200 opponents.  Per realtimeRPI, we had an RPI of 64. 

Boston College's RPI was 58 RPI (6 spots better than us). Only three sub-200 opponents.  They weren't invited to the tournament at all. Explain that one, while holding onto your theory that the number of sub-200 opponents is important.   

Marquette actually played more sub-300 opponents (334 Prairie View, 316 South Dakota, 318 Longwood, 342 Centenary) than Boston College played sub-200 (213 St. Francis, 285 Holy Cross, 254 Bryant)!

Wasn't Boston College's schedule exactly the type you claim would prevent us from missing the tourney when we're on the bubble?  What makes you think it would work for us when it didn't work for them?

[brewcity77]

I've said there's more to it than just SOS. I'm not saying that it will be the only factor, but I still feel this is pretty conclusive:

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/03/scheduling-and-seeding-where-marquette.html

And I think it's pretty clear based on Marquette's schedule next year that Mike Broeker and Buzz Williams agree based on the types of teams we'll be playing.

Regarding BC, they had one top-50 win, and that was in November. That win against Texas A&M was their only win against a tourney team*. They offset that with 2 bad losses (Yale and Rhode Island). Their problem was simply a lack of performing against tourney quality teams. In addition, they have the drawback of playing in the ACC. While it's one of the better conferences in the country, it only got them six games against tourney teams (they went 0-6). In the Big East, we're nearly locked into playing 8-10 games against tourney teams, giving us far more opportunities to make hay.

That's why I look so often at the Georgetown and Villanova schedules. They do a great job of taking advantage of what our conference offers and doing exactly what they need to in the OOC.

Yes, there are more factors than OOC opponents, but it certainly makes a difference. Last year, it came up numerous times that the Committee would be looking at how teams scheduled their non-conference. If they're looking at it, don't we owe it to ourselves to do the same? As I mentioned, Buzz and Broeker seem to think so. A tougher OOC schedule with more winnable games (both of which are attainable by scheduling like G'Town and 'Nova do and we did next year) combined with the meat-grinder we expect in the Big East gives us a chance to get a top-4 seed even if we slip up a bit, and at worst stay as a single-digit seed if we win 9-10 Big East games.

Though all things considered...I'm guessing we're getting to that "agree to disagree" point. I think we're both spinning our same arguments and digging deeper into them, but that they aren't really going to allow either of us to convince the other. Of course...I'm enough of a stats geek that I'll be happy to keep going, but I'm also content to admit I won't convince you of anything any more than you will me

*EDIT: I forgot about Bucknell, but to be fair, is a win over the Bison going to make or break anyone's at-large bid hopes?

[bilsu]

Getting drilled by Seton hall the last regular season game probably cost us at least 2 seed positions.

[muhs03]

That's why I look so often at the Georgetown and Villanova schedules. They do a great job of taking advantage of what our conference offers and doing exactly what they need to in the OOC.

Whats so great about Nova's scheduling? Based on the list pulled from espn insider, Nova's schedule, at best, is no better than 6th in the BE. Georgetown, UConn, Cuse, Pitt and WVU have all scheduled better over the last 4 years.

Top 10 toughest nonconf schedulers over the last 4 years..

Tennessee 19.50 
Georgetown 33.50 
Arizona 36.75 
Duke 44.50
Michigan State 47.50 
Connecticut 52.00
Syracuse 52.00
Michigan 55.75
Wisconsin 59.00
Pitt (T-10th) 61.50
West Virginia 61.50

[brewcity77]

Whats so great about Nova's scheduling? Based on the list pulled from espn insider, Nova's schedule, at best, is no better than 6th in the BE. Georgetown, UConn, Cuse, Pitt and WVU have all scheduled better over the last 4 years.

Good scheduling isn't just about having the toughest schedule. It's about maximizing the number of wins you can attain while minimizing the number of negative RPI hits you take. Villanova has been good at doing just that in non-conference.

Last year, 'Nova played just 3 sub-200 opponents (one was #305 Marist, who they had to play because of the NIT Tipoff Tournament). They also played 3 top-50 opponents, going 2-1 against teams all rated from 30-50. The year before, 4 sub-200 opponents, while playing 3 top-50 teams, going 2-1 (the one loss to #11 Temple). The bulk of their non-conference schedule is composed of teams between 100-200. Those are the teams that will help your RPI while giving a good chance at winning.

At the top, 'Nova got 4 quality wins (compared to 2 losses, their only non-con losses the past two years) against teams in the 30-50 range. Those are the teams you want to play, rather than the Duke, Vandy, or Wisconsin type teams. When it comes to RPI, there isn't much separating 1 from 50. But in terms of likelihood of winning, there's a much better chance of beating a team in the 40-50 range than there is beating a team in the 1-10 range. So if there's not much difference between 1 and 50 in the SC's eyes, but there is a difference between 1 and 50 in the W/L column's eyes, who would you rather play?

At the other end, there isn't much difference in likelihood of winning between the 150 team and the 340 team. If you're a quality program like Marquette or Villanova, you should handle either of those teams in fairly routine fashion. However, there is an immense difference between them when it comes to how it effects your RPI and how the SC views the games. #150 will help your RPI, while #340 will actually lower it, even if you win. And as RPI doesn't factor in margin of victory, you get more from beating #150 by 1 than you do beating #340 by 53.

If I could design the perfect schedule for Marquette, I'd try to do something like this:

• Mid-level tourney that provides 3-4 games against teams that will likely be in the 75-200 RPI range. This year's Paradise Jam is perfect. High percentage of winning the tournament, not many teams that will hurt your RPI.
• 3 games against teams in the top-50, but hopefully none in the top 25. Even with home-and-homes, you should be able to go 2-1 in these most of the time, and 1-2 is still a positive result.
• 6-7 games against teams in the 100-200 range. The types of teams that are good enough to win conference tourneys but are unlikely to steal wins on your home court.

A schedule like that should reliably provide a 10-3 non-conference record at absolute worst, but won't give opportunities for more than 1-2 bad losses even in a down year. Most years, 11-2 or 12-1 should be the expectation. In addition, this type of schedule will ensure a high OOC RPI (important, but you don't have to be top-10 like MU seems to be aiming for in 2011-12, being in the 30-50 range is just fine) and won't give the SC much to pick apart when the year is over.

Right now, we are looking like a team that could very well have one of the toughest schedules in the country. Vandy, Wisconsin, and Washington should all be very good teams. LSU, Ole Miss, and Virginia are the types of teams that are in position to surprise some people. And all of our cupcakes save maybe Norfolk State look to have a very good chance to be top-200 RPI teams. That might be a bit better than we need. If things go poorly, we could end up 9-4 or 8-5 in our non-conference (say we lose all 3 against Vandy, Wisky, Washington, get upset in the Paradise Jam, and have one surprising bad loss). It's a bit more risky than I like. But if we manage to go 11-2 or 12-1 in the non-conference (very possible) we'll be in position to get a top-4 seed as long as we go 11-7 or better in the Big East. I do like that as a payoff.

[bilsu]

I do not think we play Virginia. We scrimage against them. A game against a 150 ranked team does not help your RPI. It just does not hurt it as much as a team ranked 300.

[Mr. Nielsen]

MU will scrimmage vs. USC & Kansas State

MU will play Winthrop in the Paradise Jam, than Drake or Ole Miss. The third game in the Jam will be versus Norfolk State/Drexel/TCU or Virginia.

The Paradise Jam is Nov.18 thru Nov.21, the weekend before Thanksgiving.