Buzz Said This About Our Non-Conference Schedule And If We Dont Make The Tourney

[Tugg Speedman]

Pulled this out of Buzz's radio show comments as I thought it was worth its own thread.


-------------------------------------------------

Listen here:

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/common/page.php?pt=av_marquettebball&id=431#

Buzz said the average RPI of our losses this year has been 34.

Buzz said they were intentional in their November and December schedule (meaning it was hard).  Does that matter to the committee?  Buzz said they will find out.  Reading between the lines, if MU misses the tourney Buzz seems to be saying that next year we will schedule a bunch of 300 RPI teams (hello Centenary and goodbye tOSU) and run up the win/loss record. 

Thoughts?

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Well were still under contract with OSU and Arizona St so next year wont look too different then this years schedule.

[LAMUfan]

the trick is to be in the middle, not top heavy losses and not bottom feeder wins, if all those teams were top 100 instead of 34 and we won most of those we would be in much better shape.  He probably thought we would be better this year then we ended up being when they were doing the scheduling

[Tugg Speedman]

the trick is to be in the middle, not top heavy losses and not bottom feeder wins, if all those teams were top 100 instead of 34 and we won most of those we would be in much better shape.  He probably thought we would be better this year then we ended up being when they were doing the scheduling

The 100 to 150 RPI teams are the hardest to schedule.  Everyone wants them so they are in great demand.  And they will probably want a home and home as well (see Green Bay in past years).

So it is easier said than done.

[jsglow]

Plus the scheduled teams down in Orlando are very solid.  Next year's non-con will be challenging.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Plus the scheduled teams down in Orlando are very solid.  Next year's non-con will be challenging.

Thats right. Next years tourney is absolutely loaded.

[mu_hilltopper]

That'd be a tough sell to season ticket holders .. admittedly spoiled with the Old Big East .. MU lost a lot of "must see' games.  

In terms of product, it's helpful to have the AZs and Ohio States come in to supplement the loss of no Louisville, no UConn, no Syracuse, no Notre Dame, etc.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Reading between the lines, if MU misses the tourney Buzz seems to be saying that next year we will schedule a bunch of 300 RPI teams (hello Centenary and goodbye tOSU) and run up the win/loss record.  

I hope you're wrong here. 300+ RPI teams are killing MU's RPI this year.  Play and beat mediocre teams rather than playing horrific teams.  It will make a huge difference in RPI and SOS, whether MU wins their tough games or not.  

[CreightonWarrior]

You aren't going to get rewarded for having a tough schedule unless you win a game or two out of that schedule. If Buzz doesn't think his team can beat those good teams when schedule cupcakes, but if he does then keep scheduling and win a couple of them.

[Tugg Speedman]

I hope you're wrong here. 300+ RPI teams are killing MU's RPI this year.  Play and beat mediocre teams rather than playing horrific teams.  It will make a huge difference in RPI and SOS, whether MU wins their tough games or not.  

If we finish the season 19-12 with a average RPI loss of 34 and playing in the NIT what should the takeaway be for the non-conference schedule?  Schedule more top 50 teams?

[NavinRJohnson]

If we finish the season 19-12 with a average RPI loss of 34 and playing in the NIT what should the takeaway be for the non-conference schedule?  Schedule more top 50 teams?

Have a better team. I'm not looking it up, but while this year was probably a bit tougher, I would say it is fairly similar to past years. Team just wasnt as good this year.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pulled this out of Buzz's radio show comments as I thought it was worth its own thread.


-------------------------------------------------

Listen here:

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/common/page.php?pt=av_marquettebball&id=431#

Buzz said the average RPI of our losses this year has been 34.

Buzz said they were intentional in their November and December schedule (meaning it was hard).  Does that matter to the committee?  Buzz said they will find out.  Reading between the lines, if MU misses the tourney Buzz seems to be saying that next year we will schedule a bunch of 300 RPI teams (hello Centenary and goodbye tOSU) and run up the win/loss record.  

Thoughts?

I don't understand his logic (or maybe your interpretation of what he said) on scheduling a bunch of 300 RPI teams.  Yes, you can improve your RPI that way, but you will hurt your SOS and the committee pays attention to that.   I don't disagree with him that our losses are to teams ranked highly in the RPI.  The visual problem is that of our SOS, especially compared to other bubble teams, isn't that great.  We can argue about how the SOS is calculated in the RPI vs how a Sagarin or Pom does it, but that SOS isn't doing us any favors right now.

When consider the following SOS of some other teams

MU 65 (it will be stronger in the next two weeks)

Nebraska 26
Tennessee 19
Minnesota 6
Baylor 9
Cal 34
Boise State 50
Richmond 58
Florida State 34
St. John's 33
Providence 55
Maryland 10
Oregon 45
Stanford 37

I'm not sure how adding more 300 teams next year is going to improve that situation.  There have been high RPI teams left out of the NCAA tournament before, and the #1 reason given by the committee is that they didn't play a tough schedule.    More importantly, win some of these games against OSU (not a great team), New Mexico, SDSU, Nova, Creighton, etc and it goes away.

[Wojo'sMojo]

Have a better team. I'm not looking it up, but while this year was probably a bit tougher, I would say it is fairly similar to past years. Team just wasnt as good this year.

Agree 100 percent!! Take care of business and we don't have to worry about any of this crap. While I think having somewhat of a plan for scheduling is important, it comes down to wins and losses. Handle your business and we wouldn't have to speculate.

[CTWarrior]

As others have stated, the problem with our schedule is that the composite rankings don't do it justice because the buy games were way too soft.  If you play the number 1 team and the number 301 team your average schedule strength is 151.  If you play the 141 team and the 161 team your average schedule strength is 151.  It's a lot harder to go 2-0 in the first scenario than the second. 

Now, to be fair, we had some trouble with the terrible teams early and we may very well have lost had we been playing teams around 150 instead on UNH, for example.

Bottom line is win your share.  If we had won two more games (say ASU and at Xavier) and were sitting at 18-9 and 9-5 we probably wouldn't be complaining about the schedule.

[murara1994]

If you listen to IWB's recent podcast, Broecker talks about scheduling, which provides better context for the buy games.  They aren't trying to schedule 300+ teams, but they are very limited in terms of dates available, so if they have someone willing to play a buy game, they almost have to take it no matter the RPI.

Also made the point that it shouldn't matter to the committee -- a buy game against a 150 RPI or a 300 RPI is an expected win either way, but that's a separate issue.

[Tugg Speedman]

300 RPI teams was me, not Buzz.  It was intended as a device to explain, not a literal comment.

Let me restate what Buzz said (or at least what I think he said) ...

We played a tough nonconference schedule and even though we have 11 losses the average RPI of these losses was 34.  How will the committee view it?  

If Buzz/AD conclude that they were hurt because the committee sees "too many losses" (or "not enough wins) then they will have to look at making the nonconference schedule easier (here is when I used the device of "300 RPI").  If they believe the committee took into account all the good teams they lost too, then they will come to a different conclusion.

Here the question ...

Assuming we lose one more game during the regular season and finish 19-12.

Now assume we played the exact same schedule EXCEPT swap home games with 300 RPI teams (or use "buy games we should easily win") instead of losses against AZ st, tOSU and New Mexico.  That schedule has a worse RPI but is 22 - 9.

Which is better for getting into the tourney?  That is the question Buzz is trying to answer.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If you listen to IWB's recent podcast, Broecker talks about scheduling, which provides better context for the buy games.  They aren't trying to schedule 300+ teams, but they are very limited in terms of dates available, so if they have someone willing to play a buy game, they almost have to take it no matter the RPI.

Also made the point that it shouldn't matter to the committee -- a buy game against a 150 RPI or a 300 RPI is an expected win either way, but that's a separate issue.

Yes, both 150RPI and 300RPI are expected wins, but the chance of losing to Grambling is 0%.  A chance of losing to Nevada (the current 151st ranked team), is a lot higher.  Just for giggles, DePaul is ranked 142...we had a hell of a time with them a few days ago.  Butler is 148, we already lost to them once this year.  So, if they really think it shouldn't matter to the committee, that seems like wishful thinking.  

Some of the other programs currently worse than 150

Georgia Tech
Charlotte
Miami (OH)
Colorado State
Auburn
Boston College (just beat Syracuse)

Etc, etc.    Dates, of course make it challenging.  Plus the fact that every other power school is going after the same mid level RPI teams...supply and demand.  Also drives up the "buy" portion of those games as a result.  No one said it is easy.  Playing 300 RPI teams or DII teams isn't the answer either.

Don't get me wrong, the teams listed above are not "buy" programs and would never agree to a buy game, but my point is that a 150ish RPI team is a lot lot better than a 300 RPI team.  We need to find teams that are going to finish in the top 2 or 3 of their conferences, which means they ratchet up wins, helps the RPI that willing to do buy games.  Grambling doesn't fit that bill...I know its just one team, but it is a perception issue and sticks out as an easy target.

[JTBMU7]

300 RPI teams was me, not Buzz.  It was intended as a device to explain, not a literal comment.

Let me restate what Buzz said (or at least what I think he said) ...

We played a tough nonconference schedule and even though we have 11 losses the average RPI of these losses was 34.  How will the committee view it?  

If Buzz/AD conclude that they were hurt because the committee sees "too many losses" (or "not enough wins) then they will have to look at making the nonconference schedule easier (here is when I used the device of "300 RPI").  If they believe the committee took into account all the good teams they lost too, then they will come to a different conclusion.

Here the question ...

Assuming we lose one more game during the regular season and finish 19-12.

Now assume we played the exact same schedule EXCEPT swap home games with 300 RPI teams (or use "buy games we should easily win") instead of losses against AZ st, tOSU and New Mexico.  That schedule has a worse RPI but is 22 - 9.

Which is better for getting into the tourney?  That is the question Buzz is trying to answer.

based on the projections i see for teams like Pitt, etc, might as well schedule all the cupcakes possible and pile up the wins early. Schedule 2 tough non-cons (Wisc and whomever) and play in a good holiday tournament. where's the benefit of ASU, NMU, etc...?
that being said, had we won just ONE of those friggin games, we'd be in a much different situation overall i believe... at some point it's not enough to just lose to good teams, also have to win a few too...

[tower912]

Do you prefer the current model of scheduling or the old?    Toss out this season, it is an outlier in many ways.    Under Coach Crean, MU would play 2-3 tough teams, and/or a tournament, and schedule patsies for the rest.   The argument was made that MU needed 18 home games to make a profit.    Apparently, under the new payment plan, MU can be profitable with fewer home cupcakes.    This year, MU has played a tough schedule.   Unfortunately, MU lost its tough OOC games.   So, this year it sucks.    But, going forward, which model would you prefer?

[Tugg Speedman]

Do you prefer the current model of scheduling or the old?    Toss out this season, it is an outlier in many ways.    Under Coach Crean, MU would play 2-3 tough teams, and/or a tournament, and schedule patsies for the rest.   The argument was made that MU needed 18 home games to make a profit.    Apparently, under the new payment plan, MU can be profitable with fewer home cupcakes.    This year, MU has played a tough schedule.   Unfortunately, MU lost its tough OOC games.   So, this year it sucks.    But, going forward, which model would you prefer?

Buzz would argue "the model that gives us the best chance of making the tourney."

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Personally, I find it more enjoyable to watch us play a difficult schedule and struggle than to feast on cupcakes. I think it is beneficial for team development moving towards the conference season.

That being said....I want them to at least win one of their tough non-cons....preferably Bucky

[Tugg Speedman]

Personally, I find it more enjoyable to watch us play a difficult schedule and struggle than to feast on cupcakes. I think it is beneficial for team development moving towards the conference season.

That being said....I want them to at least win one of their tough non-cons....preferably Bucky

As noted in other threads, this year has been a pretty good year for attendance and MUscoop traffic has never been higher.  But this is not the question.  The question is what schedule puts us in a better position to make the tourney?  Harder with less victories or easier with more victories.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

If we finish the season 19-12 with a average RPI loss of 34 and playing in the NIT what should the takeaway be for the non-conference schedule?  Schedule more top 50 teams?

No, the takeaway should be to not schedule the likes of Grambling, IUPUI, New Hampshire, Ball State and Samford.  Obviously part of it is chance, luck, etc.  But the bottom line is, if MU finishes 3-1, they'll probably have an RPI and SOS in the high 40's. If Grambling, IUPUI, New Hampshire, Ball State and Samford (or at least a few of them) had RPI's in the mid-200's instead of mid-300's, we'd likely have an RPI  in the low 30's and a SOS in the teens.  That team is not being left out on selection sunday.  

[Wojo'sMojo]

Personally, I find it more enjoyable to watch us play a difficult schedule and struggle than to feast on cupcakes. I think it is beneficial for team development moving towards the conference season.

That being said....I want them to at least win one of their tough non-cons....preferably Bucky

Playing the devils advocate, when you do this you also open yourself up to getting in a hole that's hard to get out of.

[jsglow]

Even before the season I was worried that the tough non-cons might be a bit too tough while the buy games might have been a bit too soft.  Of course everyone is shooting for that 200 RPI team at a reasonable buy price.  I think when we were doing the scheduling, we thought we had the makings of a Top 10 team.  Things didn't work out.

Next year necessitates some sacrifice.  With another large crop of Freshmen AND the fact that Luke won't play until after December exams, I'd argue that we've already got a slate of tough non-cons.  Bucky (H), tOSU (A), ASU (H) plus a great field in Orlando where 2 out of 3 would be a major accomplishment.  I'd do my very best to schedule that ASU game in the slot prior to conference.

Perhaps buy games per se aren't the total answer.  I wonder how things look in a 3-1 Green Bay contract or a 4-1 Loyola relationship?  At least there's some interest.