2015 Non-conference Schedule

[The Equalizer]

The general expectation seems to be that we will be fighting for a NCAA spot. Maybe we get in, maybe we don't, but this schedule can only hurt us in that regard. The TCU example showed how big a difference a few bad teams can make. The Miami example shows how improving just 2 cupcakes can take you from the NIT to the NCAAs. And we have 7 of those.

Miami doesn't show any such thing, as you're making a huge assumption that they would get in with an RPI of 50. After all, by your own admission, there is no way that TCU would make it with the exact same RPI #50 achieved using the same bogus cupcake adjustment factor. 

At the same time,  Indiana got in with #61 RPI and four dreaded 300+ cupcakes on the schedule--and they didn't get stuck with 13 or 12 seed, but made it to #10.  And LSU made it.  And Purdue, despite the black mark of playing worst-in-the-NCAA Grambling.

That suggests that the committee of real people are smart enough to know that Colorado State boosted their RPI by avoiding 300+ teams, and Indiana's RPI was depressed by playing too many of them--so they ignored the RPI and looked at the body of work.

The day the NCAA announces they're dismissing the committee and seeding the tournament 100% by computer, THEN your argument make sense. 

Meanwhile, for every example you point out that hypothetically suggests cupcakes are important, we have real examples like Colorado State (no bad cupcakes and a #29 RPI & no tournament) or Indiana (four 300+ cupcakes and in the tourney with a #10 seed) that state otherwise.

In other words, the PEOPLE making the decision see the artificial impact of cupcake quality and ignore or adjust for it.

Finally, one consideration you're overlooking in your "math only" approach . . . some of the ADs on the committee represent those 300+ teams.  The last thing they want is for the high-majors to start to feel (as you apparently do) that they have to avoid bad cupcakes in order to make the tourney (or get a good seed).  In other words, Grambling needs the revenue, so its representative on the committee makes it clear that there should be no penalty for scheduling them by inviting teams like Indiana, LSU, Purdue, etc. who DO have a number of those 300+ teams.

[brewcity77]

You misread. TCU would have had an RPI of 90, not 50. 50 would have been their SOS number. That was to illustrate how big a difference playing these cupcakes makes.

I'll look at the rest later.

[wadesworld]

Went with one more comparable going the other way. Let's say that Providence last year had a similar schedule to what we have this year:

2014-15 Providence
22-11 (11-7/1-1 BET)
RPI: 22
SOS: 5

DROP: Albany (Home win), Florida State (Neutral win), Boston College (Road loss), Rhode Island (Home win), Massachusetts (Home win)
ADD: Grambling, Jackson State, San Jose State, Presbyterian, Chicago State

They still have two neutral site games to roughly approximate the Legends Classic, Notre Dame and Miami. They have one big away game at Kentucky, who was far better than Bucky will be this year (kept as a loss). They play the same conference schedule we will play this year. I even kept in the loss to Brown, simulating the horrible "what if" we lose to one of these cupcakes. As far as other comparables, RPI 64 Yale is there to roughly approximate a likely top-100 Iowa and RPI 107 Stony Brook roughly approximates Belmont. So the new numbers?

2014-15 Providence
23-10 (11-7/1-1)
RPI: 46
SOS: 75

Because I dropped the BC loss and replaced it with a home cupcake win, Providence gains a win but drops massively in the other metrics. With 23 wins, playing a schedule similar (Providence's is likely still a bit better) would have had the Friars squarely on the bubble. Their vaunted SOS that helped them secure a 6-seed drops a whopping 70 points, while their RPI also takes a massive hit. Would they get in with that? Possibly, but probably as an 11 or 12 rather than a 6. It would take 24 wins for them to be assured of a bid.

So for anyone predicting MU for a NCAA bid with Henry this year, do you think 23-24 wins are on the cards?

I am 99.9% confident in saying that if you drop 4 okay wins and 1 fairly bad loss and add 5 bad wins that Providence was not going to drop from a 6 seed to out of the Tournament.

[bilsu]

Maybe we are the only ones that think MU has a chance of making the NCAA tournament. The first road game in a season is a very hard game to win. So if Belmont beats us in their first road game, it will be a big indication that we are not an NCAA worthy team.

[The Equalizer]

I am 99.9% confident in saying that if you drop 4 okay wins and 1 fairly bad loss and add 5 bad wins that Providence was not going to drop from a 6 seed to out of the Tournament.

When you look at the actual results, this is made quite obvious:

Because I dropped the BC loss and replaced it with a home cupcake win, Providence gains a win but drops massively in the other metrics. With 23 wins, playing a schedule similar (Providence's is likely still a bit better) would have had the Friars squarely on the bubble. Their vaunted SOS that helped them secure a 6-seed drops a whopping 70 points, while their RPI also takes a massive hit. Would they get in with that? Possibly, but probably as an 11 or 12 rather than a 6. It would take 24 wins for them to be assured of a bid.

So if the only thing changed about Providence is the quality of their cupcakes, RPI would fall to 46, they would still finish 4th in the BE, but would fall all the way to an 11 or 12 seed?   Yet looking at actual (not hypothetical) results:

Indiana #61 RPI
20-13
10 seed

Ole Miss #60 RPI
20-12
11 seed

LSU #58 RPI
22-10
9 seed

Providence #46
23-10
Would hypothetically fall to 11 or 12 seed? 

BTW, 5th place/44 RPI St Johns was a 9 seed.  But 4th place Providence with a nearly identical RPI rank  and 2 more Big East wins would be 2 or 3 seeds lower? 

Or #43 Iowa is a 7? But #46 Providence is a 11 or 12?  3 places in the RPI explains a 4 or 5 seed difference?

[Pakuni]

You are really blind to just how awful the big east really is. We might be lucky if we have more then 3 teams in the top 100.

As Bagpiper already pointed out, that's a really dumb statement.
Last year the conference had six teams in the top 52. St. John's is the only team of those six that might fall out, and they could easily be replaced by MU or even Seton Hall if Whitehead and Delgado keep their heads on straight.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

NM.

[Galway Eagle]

Don't they schedule these games like 2 years in advance? Or is that a misconception?

[mu03eng]

Don't they schedule these games like 2 years in advance? Or is that a misconception?

Big names are several years in advance, especially the home and home....the buy games are usually after the NCAA tournament is over.

[Marquette_g]

I understand that part of getting season tickets is supporting the team and school, but it is very tempting to kill the season package and just pay a premium and get really good seats for the handful of meaningful games each year.

[jsglow]

I understand that part of getting season tickets is supporting the team and school, but it is very tempting to kill the season package and just pay a premium and get really good seats for the handful of meaningful games each year.

Judging by our season ticket sales I suspect many are opting for that.

[MUfan12]

Judging by our season ticket sales I suspect many are opting for that.

How bad has it gotten?

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Judging by our season ticket sales I suspect many are opting for that.

This is why the schedule matters. It will hit Marquette right in the pocket book. Also, I really don't think people are blowing it out of proportion. I usually laugh at the sky is falling characters on scoop but intententional or not, this non-conference schedule is embarrassing.

[jsglow]

How bad has it gotten?

Our peak attendance was 16.2K average in 2008.  Last year we were at 13.6K average albeit impacted by the Al game which artificially depresses the total.  Last year our season ticket base was off by about 1500 compared to '13-'14.  I suspect that this year's drop is comparable or maybe a bit worse.  To get an accurate gauge, find the announced attendance figure for the worst weekday Buy game.  I tried to quickly find Omaha's last year but couldn't come up with it.  It's around 12,000 (including students) and dropping.

[jsglow]

Okay, I found it.  MU/Omaha = 12,575.  That'll be within 100 seats of actual season tickets.  (Almost nobody walks up and purchases tickets for that.)

[Galway Eagle]

Our peak attendance was 16.2K average in 2008.  Last year we were at 13.6K average albeit impacted by the Al game which artificially depresses the total.  Last year our season ticket base was off by about 1500 compared to '13-'14.  I suspect that this year's drop is comparable or maybe a bit worse.  To get an accurate gauge, find the announced attendance figure for the worst weekday Buy game.  I tried to quickly find Omaha's last year but couldn't come up with it.  It's around 12,000 (including students) and dropping.

If we peaked in attendance does that mean that people aren't as impacted by success as we like to believe? Really our greatest regular season teams were 08-09 and 11-12 and everybody saw those years coming. Or does it show that Crean was great at getting people to buy season tickets? Or what?

[wadesworld]

Our peak attendance was 16.2K average in 2008.  Last year we were at 13.6K average albeit impacted by the Al game which artificially depresses the total.  Last year our season ticket base was off by about 1500 compared to '13-'14.  I suspect that this year's drop is comparable or maybe a bit worse.  To get an accurate gauge, find the announced attendance figure for the worst weekday Buy game.  I tried to quickly find Omaha's last year but couldn't come up with it.  It's around 12,000 (including students) and dropping.

So it should come as no surprise that our attendance is dropping as the team's...schedule gets worse?  No, no, no, no.  As the team's on court performance is worse.

[wadesworld]

When you look at the actual results, this is made quite obvious:

So if the only thing changed about Providence is the quality of their cupcakes, RPI would fall to 46, they would still finish 4th in the BE, but would fall all the way to an 11 or 12 seed?   Yet looking at actual (not hypothetical) results:

Indiana #61 RPI
20-13
10 seed

Ole Miss #60 RPI
20-12
11 seed

LSU #58 RPI
22-10
9 seed

Providence #46
23-10
Would hypothetically fall to 11 or 12 seed? 

BTW, 5th place/44 RPI St Johns was a 9 seed.  But 4th place Providence with a nearly identical RPI rank  and 2 more Big East wins would be 2 or 3 seeds lower? 

Or #43 Iowa is a 7? But #46 Providence is a 11 or 12?  3 places in the RPI explains a 4 or 5 seed difference?

Exactly.  This whole issue is getting so blown out of proportion it is beyond laughable.

Marquette will either be good and make the NCAA Tournament or they will not be good and not make the NCAA Tournament.  It's that simple.  Our schedule will not be the reason we miss the Tournament.

If we take 4th in the Big East and, just for argument's sake, DePaul finishes a game behind us at 5th, and we split our regular season meetings with us, I guarantee that DePaul doesn't make the NCAA Tournament while we miss it, despite what some here have said is an absurdly better out of conference schedule.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

So much for scheduling quality teams...

https://youtu.be/m-GQsRovcWo

[Galway Eagle]

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/14/marquettes-non-conference-schedule-leaves-much-to-be-desired/

We've gone national!

[mu03eng]

All right folks, bear with me on this post....it's gonna be a bit of a data crunch and a fair number of assumptions.

First a quick walk through on how RPI is calculated.

RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)
WP= Marquette's winning percentage
OWP= Our opponents winning percentage
OOWP=Our opponents opponents winning percentage

Winning percentage is calculated based on wins/total games with home, road, and neutral games weighted (0.6W for home win, 1.4 loss for home loss, 1.4W for road win, 0.6 for road loss, 1W for neutral win, 1L for neutral loss)

The bolded portion of the equation above, I acting as if this is an opponent constant.  So now if I know a team's RPI and winning percentage, I can calculate their "opponent constant".  This allows me to use various "opponent constants" based on strength of schedule to simulate Marquette's total RPI this year.

So what does this all mean, and why am I posting about it?  I believe this will show what a detrimental impact the 8 300+ games will have on our ability to make the tournament before we even play a game.

*keep in mind this is all based on 2014-2015 results....if our 8 buy game opponents exceed last years performance(like Grambling actually wins a game) the results would be different

Assumptions
-To simulate Marquette's opponent constant I generously assumed our final SOS would be 90th in the country(Tulsa in 2014) and Tulsa's opponent constant was 0.39725
-RPI tiers are also based on 2014 data so to be a Top 80 RPI MU would need to get 0.546 or better, Top 60 RPI=0.564 or better, Top 40 RPI=0.581, Top 30 RPI=0.592
-I assumed all RPI rankings from last year to be the same as this coming year except Wisconsin.  Wisconsin will not be #2 RPI this year and I assumed them to be 51 in the country. (this only matters when I'm doing wins and losses based on RPI ranking)
-A top 60 RPI is critical to getting an at-large bid

Calculations
RPI tier        MU's WP requirement(assuming Tulsa opponent constant)
Top 80         0.595
Top 60         0.667
Top 40         0.734
Top 30         0.780

Analysis
I started doing some win/loss assumptions on the schedule(we know all opponents and locations just not dates for conference)

Scenario: MU will beat all RPI 40+ teams and lose to all teams with an RPI 39 or better (Iowa was 40 last year)
-MU has a winning percentage of 0.597 (total record = 20-11, conference = 8-10)
-75th RPI and 8-10 in conference doesn't get us in

Scenario: MU loses to Iowa and LSU but beats Xavier, Providence and Butler at home(all else same as above)
-MU has a winning percentage of 0.643 (total record = 21-10, conference = 11-7)
-64th RPI and we are squarely on the bubble

Scenario:  All the same as above but MU beats Iowa and LSU as well
-MU has a winning percentage of 0.728 (total record = 23-8, conference =11-7)
-Almost Top 40 RPI, and 8 wins over RPI top 6....definitely dancing

Scenario: MU beats non-con RPI 60+ teams, loses rest.  Wins all home games and wins RPI 60+ road games
-MU has a winning percentage of 0.708 (total record = 22-9, conference = 12-6)
-RPI top 50, but 7-9 against RPI top 100, solidly on the bubble


Conclusion
We are asking a very talented but youthful and inexperienced team to win at least 20 games including multiple road victories against RPI top 60 competition to get an at-large bid to the tournament.  That ignores any chance of an early season hiccup and that our SOS is at least 90th in the country.

If we move back even to an SOS of 100(Oregon State), the last scenario nets us an RPI of 65 and most likely out of the dance with a 22-9 record and a 12-6 conference record.

Thoughts?  Any scenarios you want run just let me know I've got the spreadsheet all put together and it'll take me 30 seconds to run it.

[jsglow]

Okay, so watching Wojo I'd argue that this year's schedule is on purpose.  We've got a super young team that needs to learn how to win.  Losing to the likes of Omaha again can't happen.  Getting our butts whipped 5-6 games in a row during conference was extra hard on the kids and it showed.  Wojo has decided to go the Cincinnati route this year and pile up some success.  I can live with it.  Really hate driving 100 miles home at midnight after another BC loss.  I'd rather remember a Wally soaring dunk in garbage time.   

[Herman Cain]

I think these non conference games have not been well thought out for a long time.  I have felt for years it would be more in our interest to be playing lower tier teams from MAC, Missouri Valley and Horizon where we could have reasonable competition with a decent probability of winning. In addition, some games could have decent fan/media interest and help our recruiting exposure in basketball hotbeds. Why not do a 2 and 1 series with a Loyola or a Detroit?  Also UWM and Green Bay are a lot more interesting than  Jackson State and Grambling. I am willing to risk a loss to them in the spirit of building the rivalry nature of the games. Having consistent rivalries are very much in our interest.

Obviously after going 13-19 Wojo is in no position to pound the table on better pre season opponents. Hopefully this year with a better record he can have some more influence.

[Galway Eagle]

Okay, so watching Wojo I'd argue that this year's schedule is on purpose.  We've got a super young team that needs to learn how to win.  Losing to the likes of Omaha again can't happen.  Getting our butts whipped 5-6 games in a row during conference was extra hard on the kids and it showed.  Wojo has decided to go the Cincinnati route this year and pile up some success.  I can live with it.  Really hate driving 100 miles home at midnight after another BC loss.  I'd rather remember a Wally soaring dunk in garbage time.   

I agree and it's what I've been saying all along. 

[jsglow]

I love your analysis 03eng but here's what I'll say.  MU's chances of beating some upper tier BEast teams is enhanced by the kids learning to win together in November and December.  It makes practice more fun, etc.  I think Wojo believes that he'll make more progress with 18 y/o kids if they're upbeat.  I think he's thinking longer term.  If this year's team goes 20-11 and makes a good NIT run I believe we'll all consider that progress.