Non conference schedule

[WarriorPride68]

Belmont: 11-6 (106 Kenpom, 109 RPI)
IUPUI: 7-12 (189 kenpom, 165 RPI)
Iowa: 12-3 (11 Kenpom, 16 RPI)
LSU: 10-6 (56 Kenpom, 129 RPI)
ASU: 10-6 (63 Kenpom, 44 RPI)
Jackson State: 8-9 (218 Kenpom, 210 RPI)
Grambling state: 4-12 (347 Kenpom, 301 RPI)
Maine: 5-11 (311 Kenpom, 323 RPI)
San Jose state: 6-11 (305 Kenpom, 336 RPI)
Wisconsin: 9-9 (61 Kenpom, 111 RPI)
Chicago state: 4-14 (333 Kenpom, 324 RPI)
Presbyterian: 7-9 (310 Kenpom, 307 RPI)
Stetson: 6-11 (319 Kenpom, 288 RPI)

Combined opponents record:
99-119

Average opponent Kenpom
202

Average opponent RPI
205

[esotericmindguy]

Makes no sense to schedule 5 teams over 300 RPI. Don't understand that line of thinking. Maybe 1 or 2, but 5? Going to cost them a bid if they're close.

[forgetful]

Makes no sense to schedule 5 teams over 300 RPI. Don't understand that line of thinking. Maybe 1 or 2, but 5? Going to cost them a bid if they're close.

The problem is, who do we replace them with.  We barely beat St. Johns and IUPUI (both just below 200 RPI), if we replace the over 300 RPI teams with 200 RPI teams, there was no guarantee we win those games.  If we lose even one of those, it would hurt our NCAA chances equally as scheduling worse teams.

The key was we needed to beat Belmont or Iowa...that didn't happen.

[WarriorPride68]

The problem is, who do we replace them with.  We barely beat St. Johns and IUPUI (both just below 200 RPI), if we replace the over 300 RPI teams with 200 RPI teams, there was no guarantee we win those games.  If we lose even one of those, it would hurt our NCAA chances equally as scheduling worse teams.

UWGB: 10-6 (Kenpom 131, RPI 161)
UWM: 12-5 (Kenpom 132, RPI 170)

Two instate examples that MU could beat & help the RPI / Kenpom woes

[WarriorPride68]

Marquette in 2011, had the 2nd worst RPI (64) ever to receive an at large bid after going 20-14. The losses aren't as important as some assume. It's about the teams you play.

Marquette is at 114 for RPI right now with only 5 losses

[robmufan]

Are we still on this?

Yes, the Non-Con schedule sucked. Yes, if we end up a bubble team it will hurt. There is nothing we can do about it now, so why keep bringing it up?

[WarriorPride68]

Are we still on this?

Yes, the Non-Con schedule sucked. Yes, if we end up a bubble team it will hurt. There is nothing we can do about it now, so why keep bringing it up?

My apologies Mike Broeker

[GGGG]

1. Marquette knows all of what everyone else here knows about RPI, etc, its importance to the selection committee, and the impact the 300+ teams would have.

2. Marquette chose this schedule anyway.  For competitiveness reasons?  Money reasons?  A little of both?  Who knows.

3. There is really nothing that can be done about it.  We have talked about it repeatedly.  It cannot change. 

[robmufan]

1. Marquette knows all of what everyone else here knows about RPI, etc, its importance to the selection committee, and the impact the 300+ teams would have.

2. Marquette chose this schedule anyway.  For competitiveness reasons?  Money reasons?  A little of both?  Who knows.

3. There is really nothing that can be done about it.  We have talked about it repeatedly.  It cannot change.

If I get to be Mr. B, I will deem you Coach Wojo

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Can we go back to the Derrick vs. Dawson debate?  It was less repetitive

[mubb3434]

These ratings confuse the hell out of me. UW has 9 losses with really no good wins & they have a decent Kenpom rating...I don't get it.

[WarriorPride68]

Can we go back to the Derrick vs. Dawson debate?

13 ppg, 5 reb, 3 ast. 49% FG, 41 % 3P.
28 min per game (for an awful Liberty team)

Forgot about that kid

[GooooMarquette]

UWGB: 10-6 (Kenpom 131, RPI 161)
UWM: 12-5 (Kenpom 132, RPI 170)

Two instate examples that MU could beat & help the RPI / Kenpom woes

MU could beat them...but we also could lose to them.  IUPUI has an RPI of 167 - right between them - and took us to OT.  And UWGB or UWM would have a bit of extra motivation.

And a loss to a team with an RPI of 160-170 might hurt worse than a win over a 300.

[esotericmindguy]

These ratings confuse the hell out of me. UW has 9 losses with really no good wins & they have a decent Kenpom rating...I don't get it.

Yeah, that's my problem with all the rankings. It all starts at a baseline, much of which is based off the previous year. My guess is UW started in top 20 of RPI and KenPom and Marquette probably around 75.

I don't read all the threads like many buts its a topic that should be discussed repetitively. Margin of victory doesn't matter with RPI, you shouldn't schedule anyone over 250, makes no sense.

[brewcity77]

UWGB: 10-6 (Kenpom 131, RPI 161)
UWM: 12-5 (Kenpom 132, RPI 170)

Two instate examples that MU could beat & help the RPI / Kenpom woes

Not going to happen. I've broached the subject with the athletic department. Marquette is not interested in giving up away games if they are not getting a high major in return. Doesn't matter if it's a 2-for-1, 3-for-1, or 4-for-1 exchange, if the other team wants us to play at their gym, they need to be a high-major team (or equivalent) for us to be interested. Neither UW-Green Bay nor UW-Milwaukee are willing to play us unless we are willing to play at their place every 3 or 4 years. Until they change that requirement and are willing to come here as a buy game, these won't happen.

Are we still on this?

Yes, the Non-Con schedule sucked. Yes, if we end up a bubble team it will hurt. There is nothing we can do about it now, so why keep bringing it up?

This is where I'm at. Yes, the schedule sucks. I've definitely laid out all the reasons for it in the past. At this point, there's nothing to be done about it. If you still have issues with the schedule, email or call the athletic department and talk to them about your concerns. Express your displeasure to the people that are the decision makers. It can't be fixed for this year, but maybe a concerted effort can let them know that the STHs care about the level of competition we see come to the BC in the future.

The athletic department elected to go with this schedule for whatever reason. I definitely feel it was done to give a young team a number of games in friendly confines that they would be virtually assured of winning. In that regard, it's been a success. Come March, we'll see if it pays off.

[Jay Bee]

Belmont: 11-6 (106 Kenpom, 109 RPI)
IUPUI: 7-12 (189 kenpom, 165 RPI)
Iowa: 12-3 (11 Kenpom, 16 RPI)
LSU: 10-6 (56 Kenpom, 129 RPI)
ASU: 10-6 (63 Kenpom, 44 RPI)
Jackson State: 8-9 (218 Kenpom, 210 RPI)
Grambling state: 4-12 (347 Kenpom, 301 RPI)
Maine: 5-11 (311 Kenpom, 323 RPI)
San Jose state: 6-11 (305 Kenpom, 336 RPI)
Wisconsin: 9-9 (61 Kenpom, 111 RPI)
Chicago state: 4-14 (333 Kenpom, 324 RPI)
Presbyterian: 7-9 (310 Kenpom, 307 RPI)
Stetson: 6-11 (319 Kenpom, 288 RPI)

Combined opponents record:
99-119

Average opponent Kenpom
202

Average opponent RPI
205

It's worse than this shows.. remember, the opponents W-L % against others is what matters the most... and 'others' is defined as other D-I teams. Grambling has only 2 such wins... SJSU's 6 doesn't sound too bad.. but 3 of them don't count... Chicago St. with 4 wins? Nope. They only have 1.

[Herman Cain]

Not going to happen. I've broached the subject with the athletic department. Marquette is not interested in giving up away games if they are not getting a high major in return. Doesn't matter if it's a 2-for-1, 3-for-1, or 4-for-1 exchange, if the other team wants us to play at their gym, they need to be a high-major team (or equivalent) for us to be interested. Neither UW-Green Bay nor UW-Milwaukee are willing to play us unless we are willing to play at their place every 3 or 4 years. Until they change that requirement and are willing to come here as a buy game, these won't happen.

This is where I'm at. Yes, the schedule sucks. I've definitely laid out all the reasons for it in the past. At this point, there's nothing to be done about it. If you still have issues with the schedule, email or call the athletic department and talk to them about your concerns. Express your displeasure to the people that are the decision makers. It can't be fixed for this year, but maybe a concerted effort can let them know that the STHs care about the level of competition we see come to the BC in the future.

The athletic department elected to go with this schedule for whatever reason. I definitely feel it was done to give a young team a number of games in friendly confines that they would be virtually assured of winning. In that regard, it's been a success. Come March, we'll see if it pays off.

I think the Athletic Department needs to take a more strategic approach to scheduling and promoting and marketing the schedule .  There are three local teams that would be far preferable to types we are consistently scheduling. Those would be UWM , UW Green Bay and Loyola Chicago. All three would generate some incremental fan interest and attendance and would be perfect for the periods when the kids are out of school.  Having the required road game every 3 or 4 years actually helps our cause. Yes every once in a while we risk a loss but the PR benefits are worth it.  A UWM road game would likely be filled with MU fans. The other two would be fun games that local Mu alumni will attend. If you take those three add in Wisconsin, a Thanksgiving tournament , a  Gavitt  big Ten Tip off, A true high major home and home, your left with a small handful of cupcakes, which could then be filled in with local directionals  such as North Illinois or Drake Bradley  University of Detroit etc.

[Dawson Rental]

Can we go back to the Derrick vs. Dawson debate?  It was less repetitive

13 ppg, 5 reb, 3 ast. 49% FG, 41 % 3P.
28 min per game (for an awful Liberty team)

Forgot about that kid

TSmith, be careful what you ask for and who you ask it of.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Why do we keep talking about UW-milwaukee and UW green bay?  Sure, we could play them and we would be giving up games like Iowa.  They want return games in their buildings.

We under scheduled this year.  It is what it is.

The loss to Belmont is hurting us about 15 to 20 positions right now.

On the Ken Pom ratings question, Wisconsin has always seemed to get a plus up in how he constructs his algorhythmn.  To the point that Pomeroy has had to address it several times over the years.  No system is perfect, his included and he clearly has said a number of times that some teams are overanked, but to "fix" it, would mean doing more harm to the ratings overall for other teams.

As for the comment that these systems start based on last year, not always true.  Some start with a completely clean slate (RPI, for example).  While others include last year's performance for a little while, but after about 8 to 10 games that starting crutch data is removed completely.

[bilsu]

Marquette in 2011, had the 2nd worst RPI (64) ever to receive an at large bid after going 20-14. The losses aren't as important as some assume. It's about the teams you play.

Marquette is at 114 for RPI right now with only 5 losses

That team won two games in Big East tournament,

[brewcity77]

I think the Athletic Department needs to take a more strategic approach to scheduling and promoting and marketing the schedule .  There are three local teams that would be far preferable to types we are consistently scheduling. Those would be UWM , UW Green Bay and Loyola Chicago.

First of all, there are many reasons those are non-starters. I think especially when talking about in-state teams, there's no interest. The problem is that these games are lose/lose propositions. When you beat them, no one cares and (in UWM's case) we look like the bully, stretching our unbeaten run against them. When we lose, everyone acts like it's the end of the world and we get mocked for sucking. Just go back and look at the reactions when we lost to UWGB. You'd think we should have just folded the program. Instead we went to the Elite 8.

All three would generate some incremental fan interest and attendance and would be perfect for the periods when the kids are out of school.  Having the required road game every 3 or 4 years actually helps our cause.

I fully get where you're coming from. You can try to address the athletic department about your feelings. I'm just saying that right now, I was told directly by Mike Broeker that MU has no interest in those types of games. I suggested the idea of finding four teams all willing to do 3-for-1 deals and signing simultaneous contracts so we would get one low/mid-major road game every year while getting three home games that are of a higher quality than our usual buy games. Better teams coming to the BC, hopefully increasing fan interest and helping RPI, and a winnable true road game. But MU doesn't want to do that.

Yes every once in a while we risk a loss but the PR benefits are worth it.  A UWM road game would likely be filled with MU fans. The other two would be fun games that local Mu alumni will attend.

Okay...here's the part I really disagree with. I was at the Cell for the UWM road game. Right across from the BC, figure it'll sell out and we'll have half the fans, right? Wrong. UWM fans were actually mad at us for not selling their building out. To prevent it from being a Marquette home game, UWM forced fans to buy a package to get the MU game. You had to buy I think 2, but maybe 3 tickets to get the MU game (I know Butler was in the package). Because of that, Marquette fans were maybe 20% of the attendees and the building was probably only 75-80% full. Some local MU alums will always attend road games, but it's a very small minority.

If you take those three add in Wisconsin, a Thanksgiving tournament , a  Gavitt  big Ten Tip off, A true high major home and home, your left with a small handful of cupcakes, which could then be filled in with local directionals  such as North Illinois or Drake Bradley  University of Detroit etc.

Again, you don't have to convince me. Two high-majors in Gavitt and UW. Four games through the Thanksgiving tournament, hopefully at least one quality low-major at home. Then four more that are on 3-for-1 deals, giving you three more home games. That would be 10 total games, 5 at home, 3 neutral site, 2 on the road (assuming Gavitt/UW alternate home/away). Would allow for 3 more games, could do two buy games (ensuring a minimum of 16 home games) and one high-major home-and-home to give an average of 16.5 home games per year.

But there's risk with that as well. The risk of losing to a mid/low major in a road game, the risk that 2-3 of your 3-for-1 deal programs take a turn for the worse before the contract runs out, and the risk that fans have no more interest in the 3-for-1 teams than they do the sub-300 teams so we don't see a marketable increase in ticket sales.

[Jay Bee]

You cats be clueless.

at UWM is $$$$$$$$$$$$. RPI-wise.

Use ya noggins.

[Herman Cain]

First of all, there are many reasons those are non-starters. I think especially when talking about in-state teams, there's no interest. The problem is that these games are lose/lose propositions. When you beat them, no one cares and (in UWM's case) we look like the bully, stretching our unbeaten run against them. When we lose, everyone acts like it's the end of the world and we get mocked for sucking. Just go back and look at the reactions when we lost to UWGB. You'd think we should have just folded the program. Instead we went to the Elite 8.

I fully get where you're coming from. You can try to address the athletic department about your feelings. I'm just saying that right now, I was told directly by Mike Broeker that MU has no interest in those types of games. I suggested the idea of finding four teams all willing to do 3-for-1 deals and signing simultaneous contracts so we would get one low/mid-major road game every year while getting three home games that are of a higher quality than our usual buy games. Better teams coming to the BC, hopefully increasing fan interest and helping RPI, and a winnable true road game. But MU doesn't want to do that.

Okay...here's the part I really disagree with. I was at the Cell for the UWM road game. Right across from the BC, figure it'll sell out and we'll have half the fans, right? Wrong. UWM fans were actually mad at us for not selling their building out. To prevent it from being a Marquette home game, UWM forced fans to buy a package to get the MU game. You had to buy I think 2, but maybe 3 tickets to get the MU game (I know Butler was in the package). Because of that, Marquette fans were maybe 20% of the attendees and the building was probably only 75-80% full. Some local MU alums will always attend road games, but it's a very small minority.

Again, you don't have to convince me. Two high-majors in Gavitt and UW. Four games through the Thanksgiving tournament, hopefully at least one quality low-major at home. Then four more that are on 3-for-1 deals, giving you three more home games. That would be 10 total games, 5 at home, 3 neutral site, 2 on the road (assuming Gavitt/UW alternate home/away). Would allow for 3 more games, could do two buy games (ensuring a minimum of 16 home games) and one high-major home-and-home to give an average of 16.5 home games per year.

But there's risk with that as well. The risk of losing to a mid/low major in a road game, the risk that 2-3 of your 3-for-1 deal programs take a turn for the worse before the contract runs out, and the risk that fans have no more interest in the 3-for-1 teams than they do the sub-300 teams so we don't see a marketable increase in ticket sales.

I would say there is interest in the home state teams. The last time we played UW GB at home 14,208 attendance and there were actually butts in the seat at the game not just ticket sales. UWM games always have had good attendence. Remember, I am saying to substitute these games for the really lousy cupcakes not the high major games with Iowa , LSU etc

MU alumni are really good at supporting road games. When we play DePaul we are half the arena. A Loyola road game in Lincoln Park would be very well attended. When we play  St. Johns in the garden a very good crowd comes out. Heck I have even seen substantial turnouts in places like Hartford when we played U Conn

Our program is strong enough to survive an occasional loss to a mid major.

One of my models for this type of scheduling is Michigan State. They play some super high majors but also due to their geography have scheduled the directionals plus an Oakland or U of D has worked well for them.


I think they did the right thing this year with the team they had. In the future I think they can be more creative. I don't have high confidence in Mr. Broeker in that regard, the push will have to come from his boss.

[GGGG]

I am all for playing a higher caliber of mid-major including 3 for 1 deals.

But f*ck UWM.  They can go piss in a pot. 

[Litehouse]

I am all for playing a higher caliber of mid-major including 3 for 1 deals.

But f*ck UWM.  They can go piss in a pot.

Yep.  There's no way to win with this whole scenario, and their fans wil complain and find ways to bitch about us no matter what happens, so screw it.  They complain we're afraid of them, so we play and beat them 5 more times.  They complain they never get to play at their place, so we play there and beat them and they complain we didn't have enough of our fans show up to sell out the game (attendance was 7,120 out of 10,783).  If UWM would actually happen to win a game, we'd never hear the end of it.

I'd rather do a 3-1 with Loyola and get an extra game for our Chicago area fans, or even UWGB or Detroit.