RPI

[Windyplayer]

Given the weight still given to RPI by the Committee and the amount of dollars flowing in and out of power conference programs based on tourney appearances, why don't universities employ statisticians (or do they) to--and I'm spit-balling here--run projections for all DI teams for the next year, pooling them into likely RPI spots (i.e. 1-50, 50-100, etc.) and then share that data with the program to schedule accordingly. It seems like it's just a numbers game and you keep on the schools from certain pools until your non-conference schedule is RPI proof.

When I run through some of these teams in the top 25-30 in RPI right now while we sit outside the top 100, it's appalling. We should never find ourselves in this position provided the resources bestowed upon our program (crappy RPI based in large part on scheduling not on-court play)

Curious to hear thoughts. Is this topic played out? Is MU considering this? Have they tried something similar?

[nathanziarek]

Search around th board for this. Other people have done it much better justice than I will.

As I recall, it comes down to two big things:

1. EVERYONE wants to schedule teams with high RPIs a low chances of winning. That makes them expensive (either as a buy game or wanting a return visit) and not readily available.

2. Renting out a shared space like the BC means the dates available to you are limited.

I'm sure there's more, but it's certainly not that they don't know who to schedule.

[We R Final Four]

I thought this thread was going to be about Schneider from One Day at a Time. Rest in peace.....or RPI.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Given the weight still given to RPI by the Committee and the amount of dollars flowing in and out of power conference programs based on tourney appearances, why don't universities employ statisticians (or do they) to--and I'm spit-balling here--run projections for all DI teams for the next year, pooling them into likely RPI spots (i.e. 1-50, 50-100, etc.) and then share that data with the program to schedule accordingly. It seems like it's just a numbers game and you keep on the schools from certain pools until your non-conference schedule is RPI proof.

When I run through some of these teams in the top 25-30 in RPI right now while we sit outside the top 100, it's appalling. We should never find ourselves in this position provided the resources bestowed upon our program (crappy RPI based in large part on scheduling not on-court play)

Curious to hear thoughts. Is this topic played out? Is MU considering this? Have they tried something similar?

They do. 

[Windyplayer]

Any idea of the extent of their diligence regarding schedule? How many employed? Methodology? How does MU stack up against blue bloods in this department? Any innovative methods out there?

With the money doled out for advanced statistics and analysis in baseball and most other professional sports, I'm curious to know how far universities are behind.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

They do all of this and more. We just knew we had a young team abd scheduled accordingly. That abd some of our tough games like Belmont, Wisconsin, and LSU ended up not being as good as expected. Next year the schedule will be tougher.

[PaintTouches]

The reason people like Brew (and me) were so upset with the schedule was that Broeker and co. are VERY good at creating schedules. They don't just pick teams out of a hat. I went into a bit more detail in this post http://painttouches.com/2015/07/17/historically-how-weak-is-marquettes-schedule/ 

Here is the relevant graph


"Since 2011, Marquette's average non-con opponent ranking going into the season has been almost identical to the average final ranking of those opponents. What that means is the staff has a very good feel for which teams will be good and which teams won't, and schedule accordingly.

The predict column is the average of the ranking of all the Non-Con opponents from the year before (so the numbers we are currently discussing for the 2016 season). The actual is where that average ended up. Although we see fluctuations every year, on the whole, they don't overestimate or underestimate by much, if at all." 

Having seen the level of play though, I admit, and have admitted, that I was wrong. Though it may lead to diabetes, this team needed the cupcakes it could get.

[Windyplayer]

The reason people like Brew (and me) were so upset with the schedule was that Broeker and co. are VERY good at creating schedules. They don't just pick teams out of a hat. I went into a bit more detail in this post http://painttouches.com/2015/07/17/historically-how-weak-is-marquettes-schedule/ 

Here is the relevant graph


"Since 2011, Marquette's average non-con opponent ranking going into the season has been almost identical to the average final ranking of those opponents. What that means is the staff has a very good feel for which teams will be good and which teams won't, and schedule accordingly.

The predict column is the average of the ranking of all the Non-Con opponents from the year before (so the numbers we are currently discussing for the 2016 season). The actual is where that average ended up. Although we see fluctuations every year, on the whole, they don't overestimate or underestimate by much, if at all." 

Having seen the level of play though, I admit, and have admitted, that I was wrong. Though it may lead to diabetes, this team needed the cupcakes it could get.

Thank you.

[Windyplayer]

I do wonder how much of the soft schedule can be attributed to Broeker and co. recognizing a youthful team and to that group just not getting what they wanted.

I get that the team is young, but arguably two of their best players already had 1+ years of experience under their belts (Fisher and D. Wilson--both also had ample practice time against DI competition during their redshirt years). Further, the freshmen class included what many think to be an NBA ready stretch 4 so the handicap certainly wasn't for him. Lastly,Wojo already had a year under his belt at the helm, too.

Broeker seems to know how important scheduling is so I have to think he just ran into some bad luck and poor timing.

[LAMUfan]

It sucks that our RPI is suffering but it does seem like we needed time to beat up on some teams, at least we look to be improving.  We could have 6+ losses if we scheduled even some marginally better teams because of our inconsistency.

[Windyplayer]

It sucks that our RPI is suffering but it does seem like we needed time to beat up on some teams, at least we look to be improving.  We could have 6+ losses if we scheduled even some marginally better teams because of our inconsistency.

No doubt, it's just a matter of striking that balance. We appear to be off the mark this year. That's not to say we won't dance, but we made it more difficult to gain entry.

[MU82]

At one point, I was in the "we need cupcakes cuz we're young" camp. But I've changed my mind.

In general, we have played to the level of our competition. When playing decent teams, only against Iowa and Seton Hall did we look bad (and against SH, it really was only a bad 15 minutes or so). Otherwise we looked bad in beating some crap teams because we played down to their level and developed some bad habits.

Aside from Iowa and Hall, the other decent to good to very good teams we've played -- Providence, Wisconsin, Arizona State, LSU, even Georgetown and Belmont -- it's not as if we were cowed by them.

In retrospect (and yes, it's always easy to do these things in retrospect), I wish we would have played several more teams at least the caliber of Wis, ASU, LSU and Iowa.

Either the lads would have risen to the occasion, as they did in several of those, or we would have lost. In the case of the latter, we wouldn't have made the tournament, but it appears we won't now anyway having feasted on cupcakes. Had the former occurred -- had we risen to the occasion against most of our better opponents -- we would be in the tourney mix.

I'm confident that in future years we will play more representative schedules, even if it means giving up a home date or two.

[Windyplayer]

In the case of the latter, we wouldn't have made the tournament, but it appears we won't now anyway having feasted on cupcakes.

We went 10-2 in non-conference beating Wiscy, LSU, and ASU and we may very well be doomed because of that. That's terrible. The RPI is a joke.

[bilsu]

I am not sure how much it will change. However, I am assuming our final RPI is going to be effected by how our bunnies do in their own conference. In that case we do not yet know how weak the schedule is. I would think there is a difference between a bunny going 2-16 in conference vs. going 10-8. Am I right in thinking that if a majority of our bunnies finish with a winning conference record our RPI would improve? On the flip side, if they are finishing last in their conference our RPI is going to get worse.

[Windyplayer]

I am not sure how much it will change. However, I am assuming our final RPI is going to be effected by how our bunnies do in their own conference. In that case we do not yet know how weak the schedule is. I would think there is a difference between a bunny going 2-16 in conference vs. going 10-8. Am I right in thinking that if a majority of our bunnies finish with a winning conference record our RPI would improve? On the flip side, if they are finishing last in their conference our RPI is going to get worse.

Take a look at that Paint Touches post above though. The variance between predicted and actual non-conference RPI in past years is minimal.

[oldwarrior81]

through 1/7 the projected RPI (http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Marquette.html) of the non-conf opponents is at 205.6. 
Assuming the 218.8 mentioned previously used the same metric, that's a 6% improvement in a little over a week.

[Jay Bee]

The RPI of your opponents isn't what matters. Cripes.

MU could have done a better job of playing crappy teams that won't have as horrendous of records as some of their opponents this year will have. The 'why's' I have heard don't make sense. I think they just weren't able to schedule some teams they should have for any number of reasons, or didn't do the work needed to avoid the super-craptastic teams.

[The Lens]

I think if we get to 10 wins in conf, we'll be fine.   Our RPI will only affect seeding and personally, all I care about in 2016 is making it.

9-9 is where it could come into play but I'm not sure .500 teams totally deserve the Dance.

In short, I believe our horrific RPI will hurt our seeding more than anything.

[Windyplayer]

The RPI of your opponents isn't what matters. Cripes.

MU could have done a better job of playing crappy teams that won't have as horrendous of records as some of their opponents this year will have. The 'why's' I have heard don't make sense. I think they just weren't able to schedule some teams they should have for any number of reasons, or didn't do the work needed to avoid the super-craptastic teams.

As a refresher, per Wiki...

"In its current formulation, the index comprises a team's winning percentage (25%), its opponents' winning percentage (50%), and the winning percentage of those opponents' opponents (25%). The opponents' winning percentage and the winning percentage of those opponents' opponents both comprise the strength of schedule (SOS). Thus, the SOS accounts for 75% of the RPI calculation and is 2/3 its opponents' winning percentage and 1/3 its opponents' opponents' winning percentage."

[brewcity77]

The RPI is a decent indicator, but what actually matters is the W/L records of your opponents and your opponents' opponents. That's why I hate seeing SWAC teams on the schedule, because most end the season with losing records no matter their conference record and most of their opponents also have losing records. On the contrary, a team like San Jose State is a decent buy because while their record will likely suck, their MWC opponents will have better records.

Grambling and SJSU may finish with identical 2-28 records, but SJSU will have a more positive impact on our RPI. Similarly, you could play a team that has a tough schedule that leaves them with a 13-17 record but a 120 RPI or a team with a weak schedule that wind and has a 17-13 record but a 250 RPI. In that case, playing the 250 opponent would be far more beneficial.

[brewcity77]

I think if we get to 10 wins in conf, we'll be fine.   Our RPI will only affect seeding and personally, all I care about in 2016 is making it.

9-9 is where it could come into play but I'm not sure .500 teams totally deserve the Dance.

In short, I believe our horrific RPI will hurt our seeding more than anything.

On my mobile so I can't check, but 10 conference wins would leave us around 100 in the RPI. Between conference and the BET, here's the scenario...

13+ wins: Virtual lock for NCAA Tournament
12 wins: Bubble
11 wins: Bubble, likely out
10- wins: Virtually no chance, need to win conference tourney

[oldwarrior81]

10-8 in conf could put MU with a projected ending rpi of 70.  Probably a first round bye in the BET and then a matchup with the 4-5 conf seed.

conf 8-10 projects out to 100, 9-9 around 85.

[Windyplayer]

On my mobile so I can't check, but 10 conference wins would leave us around 100 in the RPI. Between conference and the BET, here's the scenario...

13+ wins: Virtual lock for NCAA Tournament
12 wins: Bubble
11 wins: Bubble, likely out
10- wins: Virtually no chance, need to win conference tourney

No way in hell are we "likely out" with 11 wins in conference.

[bilsu]

No way in hell are we "likely out" with 11 wins in conference.

Lose our last non-conference game and first game of Big East tournament 10-3, 11-7 and 0-1 puts us at 21-11 and a bid would be very questionable.
Win our last non-conference game and first game of Big East tournament 11-2,11-7 and 1-1 puts us at 23-10 and I like our chances.
11-2, 11-7 and 0-1 puts us at 22-10 and we are either last four in or first four out.

[Windyplayer]

Lose our last non-conference game and first game of Big East tournament 10-3, 11-7 and 0-1 puts us at 21-11 and a bid would be very questionable.
Win our last non-conference game and first game of Big East tournament 11-2,11-7 and 1-1 puts us at 23-10 and I like our chances.
11-2, 11-7 and 0-1 puts us at 22-10 and we are either last four in or first four out.

This is a far cry from "likely out."