Toughest schedule in the Country

[Canadian Dimes]

With the mirror opponents having been announced for the BE and the info we already have for MU's OOC schedule I dont think it is much of a stretch to say MU will have one of , if not the toughest schedule in the country next year. 


ps. MU's 3 repeat games are really tough.  The other top division teams typically have two tough teams and one softy.  MU has 6 tough games.

[NersEllenson]

Agree - but that SOS will get pulled down due to some of the Buy games we have - though I don't think we have as many 275+ RPI teams scheduled this year..

[ChicosBailBonds]

With the mirror opponents having been announced for the BE and the info we already have for MU's OOC schedule I dont think it is much of a stretch to say MU will have one of , if not the toughest schedule in the country next year.  


ps. MU's 3 repeat games are really tough.  The other top division teams typically have two tough teams and one softy.  MU has 6 tough games.

I'll bet MU doesn't have even top 4 overall (conf and non-conf) schedule in our own conference, let alone the country, when all is said and done.  Of course none of this can be proven until the season ends.  Friendly wager?

[muhs03]

With the mirror opponents having been announced for the BE and the info we already have for MU's OOC schedule I dont think it is much of a stretch to say MU will have one of , if not the toughest schedule in the country next year. 


ps. MU's 3 repeat games are really tough.  The other top division teams typically have two tough teams and one softy.  MU has 6 tough games.

I dont think many people are expecting much out of GTown next year.

[kmwtrucks]

chicos last year we ended up #19 and in front of us was #1 GTOWN, #3 UCONN, #5 WV, #10 STJOHN, #14 Ville.

We could have the 4th strongest in the Conf, and still have a top 10 SOS.  Which is what I expect considering the Strenght of our Buy games and the fact we have less of them. 

[Canadian Dimes]

Agree - but that SOS will get pulled down due to some of the Buy games we have - though I don't think we have as many 275+ RPI teams scheduled this year..

that staement does not really make any sense.

Are we they only team with buy games?  Furthermore, we will play fewer of them this year than in the past  with those buy games being replaced by teams like Washington and as u admit the buy games that we have are seemingly against stronger teams. 

Throw in our mirror opponents being very good teams that historically play very challenging schedules.  With our SOS where it has been the last few years, it would not take much to put us over the top. 

[brewcity77]

Agree - but that SOS will get pulled down due to some of the Buy games we have - though I don't think we have as many 275+ RPI teams scheduled this year..

This is almost guaranteed to be a false statement. We will be helped by our buy games. The only sub-250 RPI team from last year is Norfolk State, which wasn't a buy but rather part of the Paradise Jam. Our buy games are Jacksonville, Mount St. Mary's, and Northern Colorado. All of them have been top-150 RPI teams on average over the past 3 years.

Our schedule will be a juggernaut, including the buy games.

[bilsu]

I think the schedule will be very good. However, Georgetown and Villanova are stronger in reputation than their expected 2011-2012 teams. However, we only play the five Big East teams that did not make the NCAA tournamnet last year once.

[NersEllenson]

that staement does not really make any sense.

Are we they only team with buy games?  Furthermore, we will play fewer of them this year than in the past  with those buy games being replaced by teams like Washington and as u admit the buy games that we have are seemingly against stronger teams. 

Throw in our mirror opponents being very good teams that historically play very challenging schedules.  With our SOS where it has been the last few years, it would not take much to put us over the top. 

Good point - and as KMW/Brew point out - even though we had (as I recall 6 games against sub 275 RPI teams last year) we still finished 19th in the country in SOS...and our buy games this year are against much better RPI teams than last year (I hadn't looked at our 2011-2012 schedule of buy game opponent yet).  My bad guys..

[bilsu]

This is almost guaranteed to be a false statement. We will be helped by our buy games. The only sub-250 RPI team from last year is Norfolk State, which wasn't a buy but rather part of the Paradise Jam. Our buy games are Jacksonville, Mount St. Mary's, and Northern Colorado. All of them have been top-150 RPI teams on average over the past 3 years.

Our schedule will be a juggernaut, including the buy games.

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

[Benny B]

Last year we played five NCAA teams OOC: Gonzaga, Duke, @Vandy, Wisconsin, & Bucknell.  Had UW-M pulled the trifecta against Butler, it would have been six.  Then they had the most - if not, second most - difficult BE conference schedules, IMO.

Overall SOS was in the 30's & OOC SOS was over 100 IIRC.  If I am remembering correctly, it goes to show the extreme downside of playing multiple RPI 300+ teams.

I don't care what the numbers said... MU had a rough road last year, probably one of the roughest in the nation.  As for this year, OOC is shaping up to be less difficult on the top end & a bit more challenging on the cupcake end, but the BE schedule could put MU into the top 20 SOS depending on how Nova and GTown fare this year.

[bilsu]

One of the reasons the Big East got so many bids last year was that the conference as a whole won 80+% of non-conference games. The conference was strong early when it matters for determining strength of schedule. For MU to come close to having the No. 1 schedule the Big East will again have to win 80% of their non-conference games. That part is out of MU's control.

[ChicosBailBonds]

chicos last year we ended up #19 and in front of us was #1 GTOWN, #3 UCONN, #5 WV, #10 STJOHN, #14 Ville.

We could have the 4th strongest in the Conf, and still have a top 10 SOS.  Which is what I expect considering the Strenght of our Buy games and the fact we have less of them.  

Yup....which is why I said I'm all for a bet if there are takers.  We will not be the toughest in the country and I don't think the top 4 in our own conference (that's OVERALL schedule I'm talking about, not just conference schedule).  Nowhere did I say we won't have a tough schedule, we certainly will.  It just won't be as tough as CD is making it out to be.

It also depends on what criteria one is using.  Some services had us as the #2 Big East schedule last year.  Others had us at #5.  That's a big spread.  All depends on what the data source is (Ken Pom, RPI, Warren Nolan, Sagarin, etc, etc) and what formulas they use for home and away, etc.

But yes, we will have a tough schedule, I don't think anyone is saying that won't be the case.

[79Warrior]

With the mirror opponents having been announced for the BE and the info we already have for MU's OOC schedule I dont think it is much of a stretch to say MU will have one of , if not the toughest schedule in the country next year. 


ps. MU's 3 repeat games are really tough.  The other top division teams typically have two tough teams and one softy.  MU has 6 tough games.

It is way to premautre to say that. I think our schedule is better for sure, but among the top in the country?

[RawdogDX]

'Toughest' <> #1 SOS

Sos is a bs rating and is treated as such by most experts.

[brewcity77]

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.

While I wouldn't guarantee it, and certainly wouldn't bet it because of how much things can change, we are in very good position to have a top 5 SOS, and possibly #1. We have among the toughest mirrors in the conference (rivaling Cincy) and while our top-level non-con opposition is similar to last year (Duke, Wisconsin, Vandy vs Washington, Wisconsin, Vandy) the lower-tier teams are vastly improved. Consider this, our worst projected opponent, Norfolk State, had a better RPI last year (270) than 5 of our opponents last year. I would say the odds are very good that Norfolk State ends up being the only team we play outside the top-200 RPI when the year is over. That's in line with what last year's #1 SOS team did -- Georgetown played only 2 such opponents, and one was DePaul, who will have a chance to be top-200 this year.

Looking at our schedule right now, we should be in line for top-5 in the country if all breaks as expected. If things go bad, we'll be in the 10-20 range. Anything less than 20 would absolutely shock me.

[Marquette84]

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.

While I wouldn't guarantee it, and certainly wouldn't bet it because of how much things can change, we are in very good position to have a top 5 SOS, and possibly #1. We have among the toughest mirrors in the conference (rivaling Cincy) and while our top-level non-con opposition is similar to last year (Duke, Wisconsin, Vandy vs Washington, Wisconsin, Vandy) the lower-tier teams are vastly improved. Consider this, our worst projected opponent, Norfolk State, had a better RPI last year (270) than 5 of our opponents last year. I would say the odds are very good that Norfolk State ends up being the only team we play outside the top-200 RPI when the year is over. That's in line with what last year's #1 SOS team did -- Georgetown played only 2 such opponents, and one was DePaul, who will have a chance to be top-200 this year.

Looking at our schedule right now, we should be in line for top-5 in the country if all breaks as expected. If things go bad, we'll be in the 10-20 range. Anything less than 20 would absolutely shock me.

Georgetown had the toughest schedule in the conference (#1 nationally).  St. Johns was 2nd toughest in the conference (and 3rd nationally).   Cincy had the easiest in the conference (83rd nationally).  All 3 wound up with 6 seeds in the tournament.  

I'm not saying we have to go as soft as Cincy did--but I do think people spend far too much time worrying about SOS-- a 26-8 record and an SOS ranked in the 30's would do far more for our NCAA seed than a 20-14 record but a top 5 most difficult schedule.

[brewcity77]

Georgetown had the toughest schedule in the conference (#1 nationally).  St. Johns was 2nd toughest in the conference (and 3rd nationally).   Cincy had the easiest in the conference (83rd nationally).  All 3 wound up with 6 seeds in the tournament.  

I'm not saying we have to go as soft as Cincy did--but I do think people spend far too much time worrying about SOS-- a 26-8 record and an SOS ranked in the 30's would do far more for our NCAA seed than a 20-14 record but a top 5 most difficult schedule.

It's really not fair to compare only one metric and try to use it as a determining factor, especially when you're considering NCAA selection. Georgetown was 20-5 and on their way to a likely 2-3 seed before Chris Wright's injury and four straight losses (and 5 of 6) torpedoed their seed. St. John's got about what they deserved, but maybe dropped a line or two because of the DJ Kennedy injury. And while Cincy was on the same line, imagine if you gave their 25-8 record to Georgetown or St. John's. Either likely would have been a 3-seed at worst. With that record, Marquette probably would have been a 5-seed or better.

SOS alone doesn't determine seeding, but it's one of the most important metrics because it is one of the only things a team can control. Why did teams like Colorado and Virginia Tech miss the tourney last year? All you have to do is look at the number of sub-250 RPI teams they scheduled. Why was Marquette one of the last teams in when most bracketologists had us safe? Again, too many sub-250 RPI teams.

You still have to win games. You still have to show up in conference play. But if we were to go 26-8 like you suggested, say broken down to 11-2 in non-con play, 13-5 that's good enough for 3rd in the Big East, and a 2-1 tourney record that ends in a loss in the Big East tourney final, would you rather have a SOS like Georgetown or Cincy? It'd probably be the difference between a 2-3 seed and a 5-6. And if it's in the 30s, we're probably in that 4-seed range.

SOS isn't everything, but it is still important, and considering the job Marquette has done in upgrading their SOS for next year, they deserve recognition for it. Crafting a non-con as tough as ours will be next year, not just in terms of the high end teams like Vandy and Washington but also in terms of the "cupcakes" like Northern Colorado (tourney team from last year) and Jacksonville (top-150 RPI last year), is not easy, and Mike Broeker and Buzz have done a great job of it.

[Marquette84]

It's really not fair to compare only one metric and try to use it as a determining factor, especially when you're considering NCAA selection. Georgetown was 20-5 and on their way to a likely 2-3 seed before Chris Wright's injury and four straight losses (and 5 of 6) torpedoed their seed. St. John's got about what they deserved, but maybe dropped a line or two because of the DJ Kennedy injury. And while Cincy was on the same line, imagine if you gave their 25-8 record to Georgetown or St. John's. Either likely would have been a 3-seed at worst. With that record, Marquette probably would have been a 5-seed or better.

You seem to be saying that if MU, St. Johns and Georgetown had simply won more games, they might have received higher seeds. 

Well guess what?  If Cincy had won more games--say they won a couple more games and went 13-5 or 14-4 in conference--THEY would have received a higher seed as well.

SOS alone doesn't determine seeding, but it's one of the most important metrics because it is one of the only things a team can control. Why did teams like Colorado and Virginia Tech miss the tourney last year? All you have to do is look at the number of sub-250 RPI teams they scheduled. Why was Marquette one of the last teams in when most bracketologists had us safe? Again, too many sub-250 RPI teams.

I'll suggest the losses to #173 Sam Houston, #153 Hampton, and #110 Air Force (and 12 overall losses) had more to do with them not getting a bid than their SOS (which was stronger than the SOS of at large teams Clemson, Florida State, VCU, Georgia, UCLA, Missouri, Cincy, UAB Texas A&M, Temple, George Mason, Xavier, and Arizona).

The difference to me isn't the number of +250 teams played--is the number of 100+ games lost. 

You still have to win games. You still have to show up in conference play. But if we were to go 26-8 like you suggested, say broken down to 11-2 in non-con play, 13-5 that's good enough for 3rd in the Big East, and a 2-1 tourney record that ends in a loss in the Big East tourney final, would you rather have a SOS like Georgetown or Cincy? It'd probably be the difference between a 2-3 seed and a 5-6. And if it's in the 30s, we're probably in that 4-seed range

I have a hard time buying your argument given that in 2011 a team with Cincy's exact SOS but only 6th place in conference (instead of 3rd), an 11-7 record in conference (instead of 13-5), and only a 1-1 tourney record (instead of reaching the final) actually DID earn that same 5-6 seed.

[rocky_warrior]

It is way to premautre to say that. I think our schedule is better for sure, but among the top in the country?

I know it's not CD's argument, but given that we ended up #19 SOS last year, and you admit it should be better this year, it certainly seems both years should be considered "among the top in the country"

Despite all the bitching and moaning that goes on around here, there are hundreds of fan-bases in the country (300+ div 1 teams) that would love to boast a SOS as high Marquette.

Here's the teams last year that had a better SOS than Marquette (the number following the team is their NCAA seed)

Michigan St. 10
Penn St. 10
Illinois 9
West Virginia 5
Georgetown 6
Michigan 8
Connecticut 3
North Carolina 2
Minnesota
Wisconsin 4
St. John's 6
Seton Hall
Purdue 3
Kentucky 4
South Florida
Tennessee 9
Iowa
Ohio St. 1

I think it's time for MU fan's to stop hoping for a better SOS, and rather hope for a better winning %.

[bilsu]

The goal should always be to make the NCAA tournament. With a young team you need to play some 300+ teams to get confidence. With a more expereince team you need to play a tougher schedule to prepare you to hopefully have a good run in the NCAA tournament. Either way you need quality wins to make it and you do not want to lose to a 200+ team, especially at home. If you are going to lose 10+ games during the season, you better have a very strong strength of schedule or you will not get in the tournament. Besides that I would think strength of schedule would be a good recruiting tool.

[kmwtrucks]

Also playing 3 games in the NCAA, X, Cuse and NC help as well compared to playing one game. 

[Benny B]

I know it's not CD's argument, but given that we ended up #19 SOS last year, and you admit it should be better this year, it certainly seems both years should be considered "among the top in the country"

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?

[brewcity77]

You seem to be saying that if MU, St. Johns and Georgetown had simply won more games, they might have received higher seeds. 

Well guess what?  If Cincy had won more games--say they won a couple more games and went 13-5 or 14-4 in conference--THEY would have received a higher seed as well.

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.

I'll make it simple. Pick one from category A and one from category B:

Category A (W/L Record): 25-8, 21-10, 21-11, 20-14
Category B (SOS): 1, 9, 30, 83

Clearly the best possible scenario is 25-8 with the #1 SOS. Numerous metrics are used by the selection committee. I'm of the opinion that you want to be as good as possible in every metric. I want the best record we can attain, the highest RPI we can get, and the best SOS we can schedule. Honestly, I think shooting for anything less than that makes no sense.

I'll suggest the losses to #173 Sam Houston, #153 Hampton, and #110 Air Force (and 12 overall losses) had more to do with them not getting a bid than their SOS (which was stronger than the SOS of at large teams Clemson, Florida State, VCU, Georgia, UCLA, Missouri, Cincy, UAB Texas A&M, Temple, George Mason, Xavier, and Arizona).

The difference to me isn't the number of +250 teams played--is the number of 100+ games lost.

Easy to say, but the seedings don't agree. Tennessee had 3 sub-100 losses (one was sub-200) yet were seeded three lines higher than we were. But they also only played 3 sub-200 teams. They had a .500 conference record (like us) and a 19-13 record going into the tournament (very similar to our 20-14). Illinois had two sub-190 losses, a .500 conference record, and a 19-13 record, but they only played 4 sub-200 teams. Nearly identical resume, 2 seed lines higher. Penn State only lost once to a sub-200 team, but also only played 3 sub-200 teams. Another .500 conference record, another 19-13 overall, and 1 seed line higher.

Then look at the two teams that didn't get in. Virginia Tech had zero sub-200 losses, 3 sub-100 losses (like Tennessee), but a better conference record and overall record than any of the teams in question. However they also played 6 sub-200 teams and had the #74 SOS. Colorado also had 3 sub-100 losses, a better conference record and overall record, but played against 8 sub-200 teams.

I'm assuming you're talking about Colorado State rather than Colorado. Easy mistake to make, but CSU isn't part of my argument. They have a number of problems with their resume beyond 8 sub-200 teams, starting with not being in a high-major conference, making them an apples to oranges comparison.

I have a hard time buying your argument given that in 2011 a team with Cincy's exact SOS but only 6th place in conference (instead of 3rd), an 11-7 record in conference (instead of 13-5), and only a 1-1 tourney record (instead of reaching the final) actually DID earn that same 5-6 seed.

So you're saying if all other things are equal and Georgetown finishes 25-8 with their SOS they still would have received a 6-seed?

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?

[bilsu]

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.