How far away were we? [to the NCAA tourney...]

[Jay Bee]

It's March 6 and we're hoping* for an NIT invite.  Were we really that far from being in the NCAA tourney discussion? I'd tell you no.[Note: RPI calcs are moving targets - this is as of 3pm on 3/6/16 and the figures will differ slightly after all games are played today.]

Our opponents' win-loss records hurt us a lot. As a reminder, our opponents' RPI is NOT a direct impact on our RPI. What hurts most are teams like Chicago St. (1-26 vs. non-MU D-I teams) and Grambling St. (4-22).

Jackson St. is a cupcake in my book. They are the #246 KenPom team with an atrocious offense and very little height. With 10 minutes left, MU led by 25 and eventually won by 19 in undramatic fashion.

Sub in Jackson St. (15-13) for Chicago St. and Grambling and MU gets a ~.0130 boost to the RPI of .5375 (#107 in the nation). You still get a couple of 'easy' games you should win, but without the crushing impact to your RPI.

Next, let's just say Marquette survived it's home opener vs. Belmont and one-point defeat to DePaul. MU's actual adjusted win-loss this season is 16.2-12.8, or .5586. Win the two games above and we're at 17.4-10.0, or .6350. Take .6350 less .5586, multiply it by .25 and you have an RPI impact of .0191.

Component 3 (opponents' opponents' unadjusted win-loss) would suffer slightly under the scenario, however just these changes would result in an RPI in or around the low-to-mid 60's heading into the BEast tournament, making our performance there very relevant to our NCAA tourney chances.

This is a 19-12 team with arguably only one bad loss. There were many challenging games on the schedule. The easy games were simply the easiest of easy.

Team sheet heading into today, for a visual perspective:

[MU82]

Thanks for this interesting study.

I'm trying to decide if this makes me feel better or if it makes me feel worse!

[tower912]

Marquette beats Belmont, DePaul, and Creighton at home and they are a 10 seed.   

[CountryRoads]

Marquette beats Belmont, DePaul, and Creighton at home and they are a 10 seed.   

It's been stated countless times here that the schedule left no margin for error. The team needed to win these games to have a chance. Unfortunately, they crapped the bed in all of them. Even 2 of the 3 would have given them a chance.

[tower912]

They lost close games.    They won a number of other close games.   It evens out and you can't expect any team to win every close game. 

[brandx]

They lost close games.    They won a number of other close games.   It evens out and you can't expect any team to win every close game.

This.

We were never really in the discussion for the Dance.

[jsglow]

They lost close games.    They won a number of other close games.   It evens out and you can't expect any team to win every close game.

Exactly.  We were actually very good in close games winning more than our share.  I'll choose to remember blocking the shot of an elite college PG (Dunn) and Luke's incredible drive and free throws.

[CountryRoads]

This.

We were never really in the discussion for the Dance.

Knowing what we know now about the schedule, I'd go as far to say this statement was true before the season even started. Incredibly poor job by those in charge.

[muguru]

Win your games at home, and this discussion is irrelevant. With the heavy weighted RPI calculations for a home loss, you simply cannot lose as many games at home as MU did, and expect to have a chance. It was only a few years ago this program would lose maybe 1-2 home games every couple years...now it's 4 or more in a single season.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Basically exactly what I've been saying for a few months minus all the calcs for RPI. But the point remains the same - this team is a bubble team w better  scheduling even w the Belmont and Depaul losses. Had those two one point games gone the other way, in addition to the changes to the schedule, and MU is comfortably in the field.

It's a damn shame.

[Dawson Rental]

Marquette beats Belmont, DePaul, and Creighton at home and they are a 10 seed.   

Except in that world, MU doesn't beat Providence either time or beat Butler at home.

[tower912]

Except in that world, MU doesn't beat Providence either time or beat Butler at home.

Fair enough.

[Dawson Rental]

Basically exactly what I've been saying for a few months minus all the calcs for RPI. But the point remains the same - this team is a bubble team w better  scheduling even w the Belmont and Depaul losses. Had those two one point games gone the other way, in addition to the changes to the schedule, and MU is comfortably in the field.

It's a damn shame.

Kid yourself all you want.  MU going to the dance this year would have been miraculous (very low probability).  I believe that MU actually overperformed nicely.  I'm happy with that.

[4everwarriors]

If Uncle Joe had a vagina, he'd be Aunt Josephine, ai na?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Basically exactly what I've been saying for a few months minus all the calcs for RPI. But the point remains the same - this team is a bubble team w better  scheduling even w the Belmont and Depaul losses. Had those two one point games gone the other way, in addition to the changes to the schedule, and MU is comfortably in the field.

It's a damn shame.

Here's the thing though. When I look at our team, I don't see a tournament team. Tournament teams don't lose at home to Depaul. Tournament teams don't go 0-6 against the top 3 teams in their conference. If Marquette was a tournament team, the scheduling wouldn't have mattered. They would have gotten in despite it. We can complain about the schedule, but the reality is, our team wasn't good enough this season to make the NCAAs. The scheduling doesn't change that fact.

[Babybluejeans]

They lost close games.    They won a number of other close games.   It evens out and you can't expect any team to win every close game.

This logic is based on a false premise. Just because MU won close games doesn't mean they were somehow "due" for a proportional number of close losses to even things out. The basketball universe does not operate like this. There is no inherent "balance."

In reality, teams can and do win a "disproportionate" number of close games all the time.  The ability to consistently win close games is precisely what puts certain teams in the tournament while leaving others at home. The fact that MU is in this latter group (because it failed to close out a few wins sitting on the table) can't be rationalized merely by pointing to the fact that they also won some close games.

[Lennys Tap]

This logic is based on a false premise. Just because MU won close games doesn't mean they were somehow "due" for a proportional number of close losses to even things out. The basketball universe does not operate like this. There is no inherent "balance."

In reality, teams can and do win a "disproportionate" number of close games all the time.  The ability to consistently win close games is precisely what puts certain teams in the tournament while leaving others at home. The fact that MU is in this latter group (because it failed to close out a few wins sitting on the table) can't be rationalized merely by pointing to the fact that they also won some close games.

Maybe truly elite teams win more than their fair share of close games. There is some logic to that. We were anything but elite. We were an average or slightly below average (8-10) power conference team in an average or slightly above average power conference. That type of middle of the road team should win 50% of their coin flips. We've done better than that. What does that mean? In assessing our season we need to accept the fact that we've been a little lucky and that the true measure of our team is probably slightly worse than our actual record. Wish it were not so but there it is.

[bilsu]

Marquette beats Belmont, DePaul, and Creighton at home and they are a 10 seed.   

I have played this game also. What would we be, if we won these games? I think we still would of needed to win the first game in the Big East tournamnet to get in. This is based on the impression of Creighton not being considered in when they were 9-7 in the Big East, because of their weak schedule.

[brandx]

Basically exactly what I've been saying for a few months minus all the calcs for RPI. But the point remains the same - this team is a bubble team w better  scheduling even w the Belmont and Depaul losses. Had those two one point games gone the other way, in addition to the changes to the schedule, and MU is comfortably in the field.

It's a damn shame.

You are assuming we would have won against better teams. Better scheduling would have meant more losses. This is not a tournament team.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Here's the thing though. When I look at our team, I don't see a tournament team. Tournament teams don't lose at home to Depaul. Tournament teams don't go 0-6 against the top 3 teams in their conference. If Marquette was a tournament team, the scheduling wouldn't have mattered. They would have gotten in despite it. We can complain about the schedule, but the reality is, our team wasn't good enough this season to make the NCAAs. The scheduling doesn't change that fact.

Perhaps.  I don't completely disagree.  But you have to fill the field, and I don't see a tournament team when I watch Texas Tech, or Oregon State, or USC either.

You are assuming we would have won against better teams. Better scheduling would have meant more losses. This is not a tournament team.

I don't see MU losing to the likes of Mercer, Wofford, East Carolina, Miami Ohio, Gardner Webb, St. Peters...I could on and on.  All teams between 180-210 in RPI.  Change those out with the dregs on our schedule, record is the same, RPI/SOS is in bubble territory.

But whatever, it is what it is.  I am done talking about it.  Just hoping next year's schedule doesn't give MU virtually zero room for error, which is exactly what this years schedule did. 

[MerrittsMustache]

Perhaps.  I don't completely disagree.  But you have to fill the field, and I don't see a tournament team when I watch Texas Tech, or Oregon State, or USC either.

I don't see MU losing to the likes of Mercer, Wofford, East Carolina, Miami Ohio, Gardner Webb, St. Peters...I could on and on.  All teams between 180-210 in RPI.  Change those out with the dregs on our schedule, record is the same, RPI/SOS is in bubble territory.

But whatever, it is what it is.  I am done talking about it.  Just hoping next year's schedule doesn't give MU virtually zero room for error, which is exactly what this years schedule did.

The DePaul and Creighton losses were killers. Those put MU under .500 in the conference. If MU is sitting at 21-10, 10-8 in conf, they're in bubble range. The fact that MU slipped in those games (and against Belmont and at Gtwon), confirms that this simply isn't a Tourney team.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

The DePaul and Creighton losses were killers. Those put MU under .500 in the conference. If MU is sitting at 21-10, 10-8 in conf, they're in bubble range. The fact that MU slipped in those games (and against Belmont and at Gtwon), confirms that this simply isn't a Tourney team.

Yep.  That was the margin for error they didn't have. 

[MU82]

You are assuming we would have won against better teams. Better scheduling would have meant more losses.

Well, we'll never know. We might have won those games and not only would our RPI be better, but the superior non-con competition might have helped us prepare for the BE schedule better.

Or we might have fallen on our faces in a few of those, gotten demoralized and had an even worse season.

Or something in between.

It's fun (or funnish, anyway) to do all this speculatin', and you know I loves ya brand, but I have to laugh a little when folks treat their opinions as facts.

[Hubert Davis]

Wojo and crew crapped the bed in the games they needed to win. Belmont at HOME, Depaul at HOME, and Creighton at HOME.

Not good Wojo. Your seat is on fire.

Just win baby

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Not good Wojo. Your seat is on fire.

Did he eat too much real chili?

Guy just got an extension. His seat is ice cold