MU to play New Mexico next year?

[Windyplayer]

According to a local news station is Albuquerque, it's in the works.

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/sports/lobos-mbb-may-play-marquette-in-2013-14

[Silkk the Shaka]

According to a local news station is Albuquerque, it's in the works.

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/sports/lobos-mbb-may-play-marquette-in-2013-14

1.) Would be cool for Dawson if it were a home & home

2.) This might be stupid nitpicking (and I could be wrong to boot), but isn't it "buy" game as opposed to "bye" game like it states in the article?  As in you have to pay for the team to come play at your place.

[bradley center bat]

Great find, but how do find this out of the blue on a New Mexico paper?

[chapman]

1.) Would be cool for Dawson if it were a home & home

2.) This might be stupid nitpicking (and I could be wrong to boot), but isn't it "buy" game as opposed to "bye" game like it states in the article?  As in you have to pay for the team to come play at your place.

Would think it is a home & home.  Doesn't make it seem like it's part of some neutral site event, and UNM is a solid home & home pick for us.  And yes, "bye game" would be an oxymoron.

[bradley center bat]

New Mexico has to be one of the best schools to schedule that isn't in a BCS league. A great RPI school.

[ResidentBrown]

Will New Mexico still be elite without Alford?

[brewcity77]

Will New Mexico still be elite without Alford?

New Mexico will still be very good next year, they return most of their team. Honestly, in the long run they may be better. Alford simply hasn't produced in March, wouldn't surprise me to see their fortunes improve.

[bradley center bat]

Things look to be in good hands with Craig Neal.

[Benny B]

New Mexico has to be one of the best schools to schedule that isn't in a BCS league. A great RPI school.

Let's be careful not to overlook the fact that New Mexico is a "great RPI school" partially because most other MWC schools have been gaming the RPI by scheduling more than their share of D-II teams in non-con (in December and January, not the "exhibition" part of the schedule).  Aside from New Mexico, nearly every other MWC school played two games against D-II opponents during the non-con schedule, instead of the 200+ RPI schools they would typically play.

Now I can't fault MWC for doing so, but take away a collective 15-20 D-II games within the conference and replace them with 200+ or 250+ RPI opponents, and all of the sudden, UNM isn't going to get the RPI bump from its sandbagging conference mates.  The point simply being that the NCAA might catch on to what the MWC is doing in a few years and if they bring the pain, UNM would still be a solid RPI opponent provided they have a good year.  If they were to go 8-8 in the MWC, they're going to be just another run-of-the-mill 100-200 RPI team.

That said, I would happily welcome UNM in a 2:1 or 3:1 arrangement (though I wouldn't commit to more than four years)... as long as the NCAA is allowing the MWC to game the system, MU might as well get a piece of that action while the gettin' is still good.

[brewcity77]

I didn't realize the MWC did that. It's actually pretty clever. They put D2 games that won't hurt their RPI in the middle of the non-con so that the average fans won't realize it's an even-less-meaningless-than-usual buy game. They still get the fan support you'd get at a buy game, flatten the opponent, and even if they lose don't take any RPI hit. I can't see the NCAA finding any way to crack down on it as many teams, including high-majors, schedule these types of teams to start the season and are allowed 2 such games. The only difference with what the MWC is doing is moving games typically played in early November to mid-December. Very smart from a fan support standpoint.

[dwaderoy2004]

Now I can't fault MWC for doing so, but take away a collective 15-20 D-II games within the conference and replace them with 200+ or 250+ RPI opponents, and all of the sudden, UNM isn't going to get the RPI bump from its sandbagging conference mates.  The point simply being that the NCAA might catch on to what the MWC is doing in a few years and if they bring the pain, UNM would still be a solid RPI opponent provided they have a good year.  If they were to go 8-8 in the MWC, they're going to be just another run-of-the-mill 100-200 RPI team.

I don't understand what you mean by bring the pain?  Punish the MWC for doing something completely within the rules?

[brewcity77]

There's really not much the NCAA can do. They could ban playing D2 and D3 exhibitions, but that wouldn't be popular with lower divisions as they like seeing their teams occasionally square off with the local heavy-hitter schools and every now and then one of them pulls off the Le Moyne/Syracuse style upset from 2009.

I guess they could mandate all games take place before the start of the regular season, but I can't see them banning them and I can't see them including D2 and D3 schools in the RPI to punish the teams that play them. Just seems like a smart way to game the system a bit. The only people they are really deceiving are the fans that turn out for the games as though they matter.

[Brewtown Andy]

The only people they are really deceiving are the fans that turn out for the games as though they matter.

And season ticket holders.

[Benny B]

I don't understand what you mean by bring the pain?  Punish the MWC for doing something completely within the rules?

Not necessarily punish (sorry, poor choice of words), but the NCAA could change the rules on paper (per Brew's example by establishing limits/restrictions) or they could incorporate an unwritten rule in committee where some sort of consideration (be it positive or negative) must be given to the results of D-II games.

Though, some have speculated that this year the MWC were "punished" in committee for the inordinate number of D-II games, so the pain may have already started.

[bradley center bat]

New Mexico would be H/H, not a 2 for 1 or 3 for 1. This isn't a mid-major.

[JerryWizig]

Did a fourth-grader write that story? I realize it's a TV station, but yikes.

[Jay Bee]

1) I'll give the guy that wrote the article the benefit of the doubt and assume he was high on drugs or incredibly drunk. Wow.

2) If* MU is open to playing in New Mexico because of John Dawson I think that's terrific.

3)

Aside from New Mexico, nearly every other MWC school played two games against D-II opponents during the non-con schedule, instead of the 200+ RPI schools they would typically play.

This is false ((a) "nearly every other...two games" isn't factual and (b) be careful not to lump in all non D-I schools into "D-II").

4)

I can't see the NCAA finding any way to crack down on it as many teams, including high-majors, schedule these types of teams to start the season and are allowed 2 such games. The only difference with what the MWC is doing is moving games typically played in early November to mid-December. Very smart from a fan support standpoint.

This isn't accurate; there is a difference between exempted games and non-exempted games. Look at Colorado State last year as an example. They played three non D-I schools - one was at the beginning of the year and exempted. I believe two additional games were not exempted and thus counted toward the maximum number of games they could play.

The maximum number of games is how the NCAA 'cracks down' - it can hurt you team if you only play (in the Colorado State example) 29 games (that count for purposes of the NCAA selection committee) while others are playing 31.

5)

Now I can't fault MWC for doing so, but take away a collective 15-20 D-II games within the conference and replace them with 200+ or 250+ RPI opponents, and all of the sudden, UNM isn't going to get the RPI bump from its sandbagging conference mates...as long as the NCAA is allowing the MWC to game the system, MU might as well get a piece of that action while the gettin' is still good.

I don't think this is true, but let's try some quick calculations... the RPI is "simple" as in stupid, but if you don't understand how it works it can trip you up easily. I was against trying to fully understand it until this spring... I've got a better grip on it now.. if someone finds an error in my thinking please let me know.. but, let's try something.

OK. We'll take New Mexico. Your claim is if an MWC team that New Mexico plays replaced a non D-I team on its schedule with a crappy D-I opponent, it would hurt Marquette's RPI (if MU played New Mexico).

Marquette's RPI was approximately .6272. Let's assume they had played New Mexico. If Boise St., who New Mexico played twice, would have played and beaten some crappy D-I school that went 10-20 instead of one of their non D-I opponents, what would the impact be to Marquette's RPI?

MU's RPI breakdown:
25% based on adjusted W/L - No change.
50% based on opponents' W/L - No change.
25% based on opponents' opponents W/L - Improves by .000004.

Boise St.'s 19-11 would move to 20-11 because they beat another D-I school. Because New Mexico played them twice, this adds two wins to Marquette's opponents' opponents. However, the combined wins/losses are already at almost 30,000 and there is very little impact. What impact there is = positive.

----------------
Going further.. let's pretend it's New Mexico who plays an additional game against a crappy 10-20 D-I opponent instead of a non D-I team.

MU's RPI breakdown:
25% adj W/L - no change.
50% opponents' W/L - improves by .00021.
improved by 1 win because New Mexico has another D-I victory.
25% opponents' opponents - decreases by .00005.
decrease due to opponents' opponents changing by 10 wins & 20 losses.
NET impact = MU's RPI improves by .00016.

[willie warrior]

A Home and Home would be good for RPI and nice for Dawson, but likely not to start the series in New Mexico, as Dawson will likely not play much his first year or two.
Should we not also then be looking at a similar series with Memphis for JJJ for same reason?
And maybe one for De. Wilson with Alaska Anchorage.

Hell, we could then become UNC.

[mileskishnish72]

What is meant by a "buy" game - does that mean we pay a visiting team a flat fee for coming? And if we're away, do we get bought?

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

And maybe one for De. Wilson with Alaska Anchorage.

Great Alaska Shootout anyone?

[Benny B]

3)
This is false ((a) "nearly every other...two games" isn't factual and (b) be careful not to lump in all non D-I schools into "D-II").

Point b: I may be lumping the non D-I schools into D-II status, but that's irrelevant... RPI only calculates D-I opponents.  So whether they play D-II, D-III, NAIA, the Madagascar National Team makes no difference; none of those games factor into RPI. 

Point a: Revised to "nearly every other MWC played two games against non D-I opponents."  Better?

5)
I don't think this is true, but let's try some quick calculations... the RPI is "simple" as in stupid, but if you don't understand how it works it can trip you up easily. I was against trying to fully understand it until this spring... I've got a better grip on it now.. if someone finds an error in my thinking please let me know.. but, let's try something.

OK. We'll take New Mexico. Your claim is if an MWC team that New Mexico plays replaced a non D-I team on its schedule with a crappy D-I opponent, it would hurt Marquette's RPI (if MU played New Mexico).

Marquette's RPI was approximately .6272. Let's assume they had played New Mexico. If Boise St., who New Mexico played twice, would have played and beaten some crappy D-I school that went 10-20 instead of one of their non D-I opponents, what would the impact be to Marquette's RPI?

MU's RPI breakdown:
25% based on adjusted W/L - No change.
50% based on opponents' W/L - No change.
25% based on opponents' opponents W/L - Improves by .000004.

Boise St.'s 19-11 would move to 20-11 because they beat another D-I school. Because New Mexico played them twice, this adds two wins to Marquette's opponents' opponents. However, the combined wins/losses are already at almost 30,000 and there is very little impact. What impact there is = positive.

----------------
Going further.. let's pretend it's New Mexico who plays an additional game against a crappy 10-20 D-I opponent instead of a non D-I team.

MU's RPI breakdown:
25% adj W/L - no change.
50% opponents' W/L - improves by .00021.
improved by 1 win because New Mexico has another D-I victory.
25% opponents' opponents - decreases by .00005.
decrease due to opponents' opponents changing by 10 wins & 20 losses.
NET impact = MU's RPI improves by .00016.

The marginal RPI benefit of playing UNM (as opposed to any other team in the 50-150 RPI range) is minimal; the true benefit is having another Top 50 or 100 RPI win in non-con for your resume.  So my concern is with the OWP for UNM affecting UNM's RPI, not the OOWP for MU.

[Jay Bee]

Point a: Revised to "nearly every other MWC played two games against non D-I opponents."  Better?

Better, but I'd prefer "75% of the other MWC teams played two games against..." instead of "nearly every".

The marginal RPI benefit of playing UNM (as opposed to any other team in the 50-150 RPI range) is minimal; the true benefit is having another Top 50 or 100 RPI win in non-con for your resume.  So my concern is with the OWP for UNM affecting UNM's RPI, not the OOWP for MU.

Still doesn't make sense especially when you're saying this:

Now I can't fault MWC for doing so, but take away a collective 15-20 D-II games within the conference and replace them with 200+ or 250+ RPI opponents, and all of the sudden, UNM isn't going to get the RPI bump from its sandbagging conference mates.  The point simply being that the NCAA might catch on to what the MWC is doing in a few years and if they bring the pain, UNM would still be a solid RPI opponent provided they have a good year.  If they were to go 8-8 in the MWC, they're going to be just another run-of-the-mill 100-200 RPI team.

Let's look at a team that went 8-8 in the MWC this year and played a couple of non D-I teams.

Air Force. Their RPI was around 74. You're saying in a scenario where MU played them, the concern would be that their RPI would be hurt and potentially move them out of the top 50 or top 100 RPI if they had played D-I teams instead of non D-I teams. However I don't think the math works out there.

If Air Force had played another D-I team - let's say #205 RPI Arkansas Pine Bluff (who they actually did play.. so we'll pretend they played them twice)... instead of one of their non D-I games... the result is:

WP +.0032
OWP -.0008
OOWP less than -.0001

So you've got a +.0024.

It can work either way, but the impact is usually going to be small and is not something that will move teams up and down dozens of spots. Under a scenario where New Mexico is a middling, .500 type MWC team, you'd often see their RPI improve by playing another weak D-I opponent instead of a non D-I opponent.

[bradley center bat]

What is meant by a "buy" game - does that mean we pay a visiting team a flat fee for coming? And if we're away, do we get bought?

yes

[Benny B]

Let's look at a team that went 8-8 in the MWC this year and played a couple of non D-I teams.

Air Force. Their RPI was around 74. You're saying in a scenario where MU played them, the concern would be that their RPI would be hurt and potentially move them out of the top 50 or top 100 RPI if they had played D-I teams instead of non D-I teams. However I don't think the math works out there.

If Air Force had played another D-I team - let's say #205 RPI Arkansas Pine Bluff (who they actually did play.. so we'll pretend they played them twice)... instead of one of their non D-I games... the result is:

WP +.0032
OWP -.0008
OOWP less than -.0001

So you've got a +.0024.

It can work either way, but the impact is usually going to be small and is not something that will move teams up and down dozens of spots. Under a scenario where New Mexico is a middling, .500 type MWC team, you'd often see their RPI improve by playing another weak D-I opponent instead of a non D-I opponent.

Question: Does the +.0032 take into account 1, 0.6, or 1.4 additional wins?

Follow-up: What is the RPI consequence of Air Force losing to AR-PB?

[Jay Bee]

Question: Does the +.0032 take into account 1, 0.6, or 1.4 additional wins?

Follow-up: What is the RPI consequence of Air Force losing to AR-PB?

Good grief.

re: Question: 0.6 (assumes a home win).
Air Force at 11.4 - 9.8 actual (.53774)... with a 0.6 win it's 12.0 - 9.8 (.55046); .55046 - .53774 = .01272; .01272 x .25 = .00318, say .0032.

re Follow-up: Depends on where the game is played, but a home loss would be rough (-.0083).