2015 Non-conference Schedule

[brewcity77]

Okay...so we have 10/13 opponents announced so far. With San Jose State and Maine added, we have...

• Nov. 13: Belmont Solid opponent, top-100 RPI last year, tough opening test against a good mid-major. Assigned by Legends Classic.
  
• Nov. 16: IUPUI 257 RPI last year. Not great, but next best opponent in the LC field. Assigned by Legends Classic.
  
• Nov. 19: Iowa 40 RPI last year. Assigned by Gavitt Games.
  
• Nov. 23: LSU 65 RPI last year. Assigned by Legends Classic. (Not official yet)
  
• Nov. 24: NC State/ASU 32/90 RPI last year. Assigned by Legends Classic. (Not official yet)
  
• Nov. 29: Jackson State 317 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
  
• Dec. 2: Grambling 351 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
  
• Dec. 5: Maine 338 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
  
• Dec. 8: San Jose State 336 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
  
• Dec. 12: Wisconsin 2 RPI last year. Scheduled by annual series.
  
• Dec. 22: Chicago State 333 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.

.
The 4 5 games scheduled by Marquette, the true "buy" games, are awful. These 4 5 teams had a combined 18-103 23-127 record last year. When calculating how opponents factor into your RPI, their record is the first thing considered. That's not a good thing.

Three games have yet to be announced. Will they be any better than what we've seen? You almost think they have to be. But still, not good thus far. And if there was another high-major, normally those get leaked before this late in the summer. Maybe we get surprised with a late home-and-home or neutral site announcement, but it feels unlikely at this point.

The old adage will be "win and it takes care of everything" and there's some truth to that, but if we go 2-3 against Belmont and the high majors, the weak buy games could put us behind the 8-ball as far as making the tourney before conference play even starts. A strong non-con schedule will allow for 3-4 losses while still staying in good NCAA position. This schedule, any more than 2 losses and we could be in trouble.

[GGGG]

LSU and ASU/NCState are part of the Legends Classic.  Not the Gavitt Games.

[tower912]

Okay...so we have 10/13 opponents announced so far. With San Jose State and Maine added, we have...

• Nov. 13: Belmont Solid opponent, top-100 RPI last year, tough opening test against a good mid-major. Assigned by Legends Classic.
  
• Nov. 16: IUPUI 257 RPI last year. Not great, but next best opponent in the LC field. Assigned by Legends Classic.
  
• Nov. 19: Iowa 40 RPI last year. Assigned by Gavitt Games.
  
• Nov. 23: LSU 65 RPI last year. Assigned by Gavitt Games. (Not official yet)
  
• Nov. 24: NC State/ASU 32/90 RPI last year. Assigned by Gavitt Games. (Not official yet)
  
• Nov. 29: Jackson State 317 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
  
• Dec. 2: Grambling 351 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
  
• Dec. 5: Maine 338 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
  
• Dec. 8: San Jose State 336 RPI last year. Scheduled by Marquette.
  
• Dec. 11: Wisconsin 2 RPI last year. Scheduled by annual series.

.
The 4 games scheduled by Marquette, the true "buy" games, are awful. These 4 teams had a combined 18-103 record last year. When calculating how opponents factor into your RPI, their record is the first thing considered. That's not a good thing.

Three games have yet to be announced. Will they be any better than what we've seen? You almost think they have to be. But still, not good thus far. And if there was another high-major, normally those get leaked before this late in the summer. Maybe we get surprised with a late home-and-home or neutral site announcement, but it feels unlikely at this point.

The old adage will be "win and it takes care of everything" and there's some truth to that, but if we go 2-3 against Belmont and the high majors, the weak buy games could put us behind the 8-ball as far as making the tourney before conference play even starts. A strong non-con schedule will allow for 3-4 losses while still staying in good NCAA position. This schedule, any more than 2 losses and we could be in trouble.

If MU gets to 21 wins, with double digit wins in the Big East, that is all that matters.   And I want some cupcakes for the young guys to get their feet under them. 

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

I remember at the meeting with Wojo at the end of the year someone asked about the schedule. Wojo was pretty flustered with it so I imagine some things went wrong with scheduling non-conference this year.

[GooooMarquette]

I know buy games can be a challenge to schedule...but would be pretty pathetic if our "best" is against last season's #317 RPI team.  Kinda hard to imagine the last three will be any worse....

[brewcity77]

Another issue here is for season ticket holders. Thus far, the non-conference schedule has one appealing game in Iowa. With no Syracuse, Louisville, Notre Dame, and UConn on the schedule, we need these non-conference games to bolster already diminishing attendance.

Suffice to say, none of the STH's are spending money to see Maine or Grambling.

[chapman]

I see we'll be continuing our long-standing tradition of leading the Big East and vying for the high-major lead in 300+ RPI teams played.  Will the excuse again be "bad luck" when the bad teams turn out to be bad, the calendar presenting limited scheduling opportunities (that our peers can somehow manage), or did our large basketball budget suddenly dry up when it came to scheduling respectable opponents?  Time for Scholl to take scheduling away from Broecker, who has proven he can't handle it.

[wadesworld]

When is the last time our out of conference schedule kept us out of the NCAA Tournament?

Until it becomes a deciding factor for us, I think we'll be just fine.  Either we'll be good enough and make the Tourney or we won't.  Beating Grambling instead of Lipscomb isn't going to cause us to miss the NCAA Tournament.

[GGGG]

I have also mentioned that MU likely has a budget for these buy games.  Balancing budget, BC availability and team availability might not be the easiest task in the world.

[brewcity77]

When is the last time our out of conference schedule kept us out of the NCAA Tournament?

Until it becomes a deciding factor for us, I think we'll be just fine.  Either we'll be good enough and make the Tourney or we won't.  Beating Grambling instead of Lipscomb isn't going to cause us to miss the NCAA Tournament.

We really haven't been on the bubble very often in recent years, however. The one time we were still on the bubble on Selection Sunday we very nearly did miss the tournament in 2011. That non-con looked very similar to this year -- four high-major games, all of which we lost. However, we had two top-100 wins (Bucknell & UWM) and another top-200 win (Green Bay). There were 4 sub-300 opponents on that schedule, two more sub-250. We went 9-9 in conference and needed two wins at the BET to get in as an 11-seed.

That team barely made the tourney, and thus far, this year's non-conference looks even worse than that one was. And our conference slate likely won't give us the 10 opportunities against top-25 RPI teams we had that year. In recent years, SMU (2014), Iowa (2013), Drexel (2012), and Virginia Tech (2011, 2010) have all missed out with non-conference schedule largely being blamed for their snub.

The tougher these games, the more leeway you get in March. This schedule doesn't give us a lot of flexibility.

[tower912]

Alan, I only hope that this team is good enough to warrant worrying about SOS come March. 

[brewcity77]

Alan, I only hope that this team is good enough to warrant worrying about SOS come March.

Of course, but the reality is that a team in our position should be preparing for Selection Sunday every year. Sometimes you'll get there and be able to talk seeding, sometimes you'll just be hoping to be in the discussion. The past couple years we've been out of the conversation before March began, but had we been on the bubble, don't you want every controllable advantage on your side?

The Selection Committee has talked about the importance of challenging yourself in non-conference numerous times in recent years. They pay attention to that because they feel it is a controllable factor. When you have the second largest budget in all of NCAA basketball and play every game on national television, it shouldn't be hard to schedule quality cupcakes. The difference between a team 15-16 team in the 200-250 RPI area and a 2-28 team in the 300-350 RPI area may not seem big in terms of name recognition, but it does make a difference come March. So when you have the money to spend and the ability to put anyone you play on TV sets coast to coast, how can it be that hard to get better non-conference opponents?

[Loose Cannon]

LSU and ASU/NCState are part of the Legends Classic.  Not the Gavitt Games.

   Thank you, Professor Kingsfield

[WarhawkWarrior]

Perfect for our young team.  Should get everybody plenty of minutes to see what we have.

[wadesworld]

We really haven't been on the bubble very often in recent years, however. The one time we were still on the bubble on Selection Sunday we very nearly did miss the tournament in 2011. That non-con looked very similar to this year -- four high-major games, all of which we lost. However, we had two top-100 wins (Bucknell & UWM) and another top-200 win (Green Bay). There were 4 sub-300 opponents on that schedule, two more sub-250. We went 9-9 in conference and needed two wins at the BET to get in as an 11-seed.

That team barely made the tourney, and thus far, this year's non-conference looks even worse than that one was. And our conference slate likely won't give us the 10 opportunities against top-25 RPI teams we had that year. In recent years, SMU (2014), Iowa (2013), Drexel (2012), and Virginia Tech (2011, 2010) have all missed out with non-conference schedule largely being blamed for their snub.

The tougher these games, the more leeway you get in March. This schedule doesn't give us a lot of flexibility.

The thing that kept SMU in 2014, Iowa in 2013, Drexel in 2012, and Virginia Tech in 2011 and 2010 is that they had very few quality wins.  Their problem was not scheduling a sub 300 RPI team instead of a 250-300 RPI team, it was that they didn't have any quality wins.

Look, if we our only wins are our cupcakes and the bottom half Big East teams this year, we aren't going to the NCAA regardless of whether those cupcakes were Grambling or Belmont.  If we beat Wisconsin, LSU, and NC State and finish 5th in the Big East, we are going to the NCAA Tournament regardless of the fact that we had a bunch of Grambling level teams on our schedule.

The NCAA Tournament Committee has come out and praised teams who go out and play tough out of conference games.  They are referencing games like Wisconsin, LSU, and NC State, not Lehigh, Western Kentucky, and Central Michigan.

[wadesworld]

The thing that kept SMU in 2014, Iowa in 2013, Drexel in 2012, and Virginia Tech in 2011 and 2010 is that they had very few quality wins.  Their problem was not scheduling a sub 300 RPI team instead of a 250-300 RPI team, it was that they didn't have any quality wins.

Look, if we our only wins are our cupcakes and the bottom half Big East teams this year, we aren't going to the NCAA regardless of whether those cupcakes were Grambling or Belmont.  If we beat Wisconsin, LSU, and NC State and finish 5th in the Big East, we are going to the NCAA Tournament regardless of the fact that we had a bunch of Grambling level teams on our schedule.

The NCAA Tournament Committee has come out and praised teams who go out and play tough out of conference games.  They are referencing games like Wisconsin, LSU, and NC State, not Lehigh, Western Kentucky, and Central Michigan.

In fact, VT's 2010-2011 season is a perfect example of this.  Their problem wasn't not scheduling a tough enough out of conference schedule.  They played a very tough non-conference schedule.  They played at Kansas State, Oklahoma State (neutral), UNLV (neutral), Purdue, Penn State, and Mississippi State (neutral).  That's 6 out of 13 non-conference games against high major opponents.  There were plenty opportunities for them to prove that they deserve to be in the NCAA Tournament field, especially considering they then played an ACC conference schedule.  Their problem?  They didn't win a whole lot of those games where they had an opportunity to prove they belonged in the field.  They beat Duke at home that year, but beyond that their only other 2 wins against NCAA Tournament teams were against an FSU team that was seeded 10th.

To get into the NCAA Tournament you have to beat quality opponents.  Winning just 3 games against NCAA Tournament teams in a nearly 30 game regular season no matter how tough your non-conference schedule is.  Beating teams with an RPI of 200-250 does very little to boost a team into the NCAA Tournament.

[DienerTime34]

Schedulin' these 300+ RIP games a good way to not have another Omaha, ainah 

[GooooMarquette]

To get into the NCAA Tournament you have to beat quality opponents.

Your chances of beating quality opponents go up if you actually, you know, play quality opponents.

[GGGG]

Can anyone objectively say how much MU's RPI would have improved last year taking out the 300+ opponents and replacing them with say teams that were about 220?

[GooooMarquette]

Can anyone objectively say how much MU's RPI would have improved last year taking out the 300+ opponents and replacing them with say teams that were about 220?

With a record of 13-19, last year's RPI was a moot point.

It's a much more relevant question to ask about a team that finishes around 20-12.

I just hope this year's team makes your question relevant....

[PGsHeroes32]

We picked the wrong year to have only a 2 game "tournament"

So we only play 4 high major teams? Lame.

Played 6 last year.

[BM1090]

We picked the wrong year to have only a 2 game "tournament"

So we only play 4 high major teams? Lame.

Played 6 last year.

In fairness, we do have 3 more non con games left to be announced if I'm not mistaken. Add one more high major and a solid mid major and the schedule looks fine. 5 high major games and 2 good mid major tests (Belmont and ?) would be a pretty good non con schedule.

[wadesworld]

Your chances of beating quality opponents go up if you actually, you know, play quality opponents.

See: Big East conference. We play in it. 60% of our teams were in the tourney. 12 games. Compared to 6 against non-tourney teams. That gives us 16 games against tourney teams. That is MORE than enough. Over 50% of our schedule. We need some easy wins.

[chapman]

Can anyone objectively say how much MU's RPI would have improved last year taking out the 300+ opponents and replacing them with say teams that were about 220?

Using RPI Wizard:

http://www.rpiforecast.com/wizard/Marquette.html

Replacing the three RPI >300: Nebraska Omaha (loss) (300), Alabama A&M (330), North Dakota (310), and Morgan State (337) with Portland State (loss) (221), Lamar (224), Hampton (226), and North Texas (227):

We were: RPI 147, SOS 31
We would have been: RPI 121, SOS 16

Replacing the same slate with more "local" buy games using the theory that they would be easier to schedule:  Green Bay (loss) (60), UWM (209), IPFW (215) IUPUI (258): RPI 115, SOS 14. 

A tidbit that I've been a proponent of if we've already failed to schedule "better bad" teams, is at least replacing the very worst with a Division II team.  Wouldn't "count" on a tournament resume, would probably draw the same and cost the same or less.  Just taking out the worst team, Morgan State and their 337 RPI, to theoretically replace with a Division II opponent that doesn't count, raises the RPI nine places to 138 and the SOS 12 places to 19.   

IIRC, pretending Grambling was replaced with a DII opponent in 2013 would have raised our SOS by 24 places.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Is the Wisco game at breakfast time again?