[Matt Velazquez] Steve Wojciechowski discusses method behind Marquette's 2015-'16 schedule

[brewcity77]

Okay, let's look at some actual NIT resumes in comparison with Marquette. Not perfect, but using RPIForecast because it's the quickest to do comparisons with.

Marquette 20-13 (8-10)

Record v 1-100: 7-11
Record v 101-200: 3-2
Record v 200+: 10-0
Worst Losses: @106 Georgetown, 198 DePaul
Best Wins: @40 Providence, 40 Providence, @43 Wisconsin
Sub-300 Opponents: 6

Florida 19-14 (9-9)

Record v 1-100: 7-13
Record v 101-200: 7-1
Record v 200+: 5-0
Worst Losses: @143 Tennessee
Best Wins: (N) 22 St. Joseph's, 10 West Virginia
Sub-300 Opponents: 1

Alabama 18-14 (8-10)

Record v 1-100: 7-11
Record v 101-200: 6-3
Record v 200+: 5-0
Worst Losses: @175 Auburn, 154 Mississippi State, 133 Arkansas
Best Wins: 18 Texas A&M, (N) 31 Notre Dame, (N) 47 Wichita State
Sub-300 Opponents: 2

Georgia Tech 19-14 (8-10)

Record v 1-100: 5-13
Record v 101-200: 9-1
Record v 200+: 5-0
Worst Losses: @131 Clemson
Best Wins: 3 Virginia, 31 Notre Dame, 37 VCU
Sub-300 Opponents: 1

Florida State 19-13 (8-10)

Record v 1-100: 6-12
Record v 101-200: 6-1
Record v 200+: 7-0
Worst Losses: @131 Clemson
Best Wins: 3 Virginia, 31 Notre Dame, (N) 37 VCU
Sub-300 Opponents: 3

Washington 18-14 (9-9)

Record v 1-100: 7-13
Record v 101-200: 4-1
Record v 200+: 7-0
Worst Losses: 116 Oakland
Best Wins: (N) 27 Texas, 35 Colorado
Sub-300 Opponents: 0

Creighton 18-14 (9-9)

Record v 1-100: 3-11
Record v 101-200: 8-2
Record v 200+: 7-1
Worst Losses: @106 Georgetown, 110 Marquette, @239 Loyola-Chicago
Best Wins: 7 Xavier, @19 Seton Hall
Sub-300 Opponents: 2

So what in our resume stands out? We have more total wins than any team here. We are equal or within 1 game in terms of league record of everyone here. We have as many or more top-100 wins than any team here. We have the highest top-100 winning percentage of any team on this list. We have as many or more top-50 wins than any team here. We have more top-50 road wins than any team here.

The killer? We played 6 sub-300 opponents, and these 6 teams played an AVERAGE of 1.5 sub-300 teams. At minimum we played double the number of sub-300 opponents and on average 4 times as many sub-300 opponents as any of these NIT bubble teams that got in. You can't tell me our resume on the whole is worse than any of these teams. Hell, we have as many top-50 wins as Creighton does top-100 wins.

I know...RPI doesn't look at the number of the opponent, it looks at the W/L number primarily, but the reality is playing the worst of the worst, teams that are and traditionally have been terrible and were projected this year to be terrible again killed us in the selection. We could compete with any team on this list. Our resume in terms of the top-200 is as good or better than any team on this list.

Our team quality is the reason we aren't in the NCAA, but our schedule is the reason we aren't in the NIT. When you look objectively at the numbers, there's really no two ways about that.

[dgies9156]

This is the part I don't quite understand.  They charge the same flat-fee for season tickets no matter how many home games we play.  In the past few years we've had anywhere between 16-19 home games, and the season-ticket amount has basically been the same.  It seems like they would actually make more money by having slightly fewer home games since they would save the costs of renting the BC and the ticket sales beyond STH for these cupcake games has to be virtually nothing.

I was generally referring to the fact that Marquette announces games with attendance of 12,000 to 14,000 and my sense is that there's less than 10,000 actually in the house. People buy the tickets and avoid going to McNeese State, for example.

While I don't know the economics of a smaller home schedule with massively greater attendance, I have to think that if we limit ourselves to two or three cupcakes a year and schedule a combination of "name" Power Conference teams and a few "name" mid-majors, like say UNCC, Wichita State, Northern Iowa, Murray State, Dayton, Southern Illinois etc., we'd be better off.

Please, no UWM!

[MerrittsMustache]

Okay, let's look at some actual NIT resumes in comparison with Marquette. Not perfect, but using RPIForecast because it's the quickest to do comparisons with.

Marquette 20-13 (8-10)

Record v 1-100: 7-11
Record v 101-200: 3-2
Record v 200+: 10-0
Worst Losses: @106 Georgetown, 198 DePaul
Best Wins: @40 Providence, 40 Providence, @43 Wisconsin
Sub-300 Opponents: 6
.
.
.
.

We can't ignore that all of those teams have multiple wins that are better than MU's best win. Also, only Creighton has a loss as bad as MU's loss to DePaul but they have 2 top 20 wins to balance it out. MU had no signature wins and one inexcusable loss. Even if you swap the wins vs 300+ teams with wins vs 200+ teams, all of the other numbers you posted would remain the same.

Bottom line: Marquette didn't get it done on the court. Why can't people accept that?

[brewcity77]

Because Marquette didn't get it done off the court.

If Marquette makes the 4 changes I previously recommended and goes 3-1 in those games we would be a stone cold lock for the NIT.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Well done Brew. Sobering to look at. I agree with Merritt's that our play would of kept us out of the NCAAs regardless of schedule. But we did plenty to make the NIT. Seriously, if I had told you at the beginning of the season that we would get 20 wins this season but not be invited to the NIT would anyone have believed me?

[BallBoy]

Last year we were at 173 OOC SOS.
Northwestern was at 217 OOC SOS.

Did the Duke formula only start this year?

Just for giggles, Bert's last year....209 OOC SOS

I mentioned this early in the year that the school doesn't know how to schedule in the new Big East and many scoopers stated MU knows how to schedule.  This season represents that lack of understanding.  In the first years of the Big East, you could play a mediocre OOC as your overall RPI would skyrocket when we got in conference playing Pitt, Ville, ND, Cuse, WV, et al and non-power conferences started to play their conference brethren.  With a .500 record in that Big East we are a lock. 

Going forward MU needs to elevate their OOC schedule as we won't get the uplift we did in the past.  If we are OOC isn't in the <200 and minimize the 300+ RPI teams, we won't have the horsepower to get into the bubble range. 

[brewcity77]

Bottom line: Marquette didn't get it done on the court. Why can't people accept that?

Every team loses games they shouldn't lose and wins games they shouldn't win. Every team on that list had losses they shouldn't. Had we played a schedule on par with those teams, however, we would be in the NIT. Yes, had we beat DePaul and Creighton we would also be in the NIT, but it shouldn't take 22 wins in this league just to get into the NIT.

Quite simply, for us to get in, we needed to win 22 games. Every team I listed only needed 18-19 games. Our weak schedule put us in a position where we needed to win three more games than any other team on the list to make that tournament.

Further, if you consider top-200 games to be competitive, we needed to win 52.2% of our top-200 games to get in. The next highest percentage required to get in (because of the lower win total bar and fewer weak opponents) was Creighton needing 45.8% of their top-200 games. So we had to win more games against the top-200 with fewer opportunities.

[MerrittsMustache]

Every team loses games they shouldn't lose and wins games they shouldn't win. Every team on that list had losses they shouldn't. Had we played a schedule on par with those teams, however, we would be in the NIT. Yes, had we beat DePaul and Creighton we would also be in the NIT, but it shouldn't take 22 wins in this league just to get into the NIT.

Quite simply, for us to get in, we needed to win 22 games. Every team I listed only needed 18-19 games. Our weak schedule put us in a position where we needed to win three more games than any other team on the list to make that tournament.

Further, if you consider top-200 games to be competitive, we needed to win 52.2% of our top-200 games to get in. The next highest percentage required to get in (because of the lower win total bar and fewer weak opponents) was Creighton needing 45.8% of their top-200 games. So we had to win more games against the top-200 with fewer opportunities.

I appreciate you pulling all this data and I understand what you're saying but, at the end of the day, all that matters is that Marquette didn't make the NIT because they weren't good enough.

[mu03eng]

I appreciate you pulling all this data and I understand what you're saying but, at the end of the day, all that matters is that Marquette didn't make the NIT because they weren't good enough.

[brewcity77]

I appreciate you pulling all this data and I understand what you're saying but, at the end of the day, all that matters is that Marquette didn't make the NIT because they weren't good enough.

You are correct, but that applies to both on and off the court. The team didn't do enough on the court to merit inclusion and the athletic department didn't do enough in terms of scheduling to merit inclusion. Had one or the other done a better job, we'd be in the NIT. Had both done a better job, we'd be in the NCAAs.

[mu_hilltopper]

Rock star analysis, Brew.

[The Equalizer]

Okay, let's look at some actual NIT resumes in comparison with Marquette. Not perfect, but using RPIForecast because it's the quickest to do comparisons with.

Marquette 20-13 (8-10)

Record v 1-100: 7-11
Record v 101-200: 3-2
Record v 200+: 10-0
Worst Losses: @106 Georgetown, 198 DePaul
Best Wins: @40 Providence, 40 Providence, @43 Wisconsin
Sub-300 Opponents: 6

Florida 19-14 (9-9)

Record v 1-100: 7-13
Record v 101-200: 7-1
Record v 200+: 5-0
Worst Losses: @143 Tennessee
Best Wins: (N) 22 St. Joseph's, 10 West Virginia
Sub-300 Opponents: 1

Alabama 18-14 (8-10)

Record v 1-100: 7-11
Record v 101-200: 6-3
Record v 200+: 5-0
Worst Losses: @175 Auburn, 154 Mississippi State, 133 Arkansas
Best Wins: 18 Texas A&M, (N) 31 Notre Dame, (N) 47 Wichita State
Sub-300 Opponents: 2

Georgia Tech 19-14 (8-10)

Record v 1-100: 5-13
Record v 101-200: 9-1
Record v 200+: 5-0
Worst Losses: @131 Clemson
Best Wins: 3 Virginia, 31 Notre Dame, 37 VCU
Sub-300 Opponents: 1

Florida State 19-13 (8-10)

Record v 1-100: 6-12
Record v 101-200: 6-1
Record v 200+: 7-0
Worst Losses: @131 Clemson
Best Wins: 3 Virginia, 31 Notre Dame, (N) 37 VCU
Sub-300 Opponents: 3

Washington 18-14 (9-9)

Record v 1-100: 7-13
Record v 101-200: 4-1
Record v 200+: 7-0
Worst Losses: 116 Oakland
Best Wins: (N) 27 Texas, 35 Colorado
Sub-300 Opponents: 0

Creighton 18-14 (9-9)

Record v 1-100: 3-11
Record v 101-200: 8-2
Record v 200+: 7-1
Worst Losses: @106 Georgetown, 110 Marquette, @239 Loyola-Chicago
Best Wins: 7 Xavier, @19 Seton Hall
Sub-300 Opponents: 2

So what in our resume stands out? We have more total wins than any team here. We are equal or within 1 game in terms of league record of everyone here. We have as many or more top-100 wins than any team here. We have the highest top-100 winning percentage of any team on this list. We have as many or more top-50 wins than any team here. We have more top-50 road wins than any team here.

The killer? We played 6 sub-300 opponents, and these 6 teams played an AVERAGE of 1.5 sub-300 teams. At minimum we played double the number of sub-300 opponents and on average 4 times as many sub-300 opponents as any of these NIT bubble teams that got in. You can't tell me our resume on the whole is worse than any of these teams. Hell, we have as many top-50 wins as Creighton does top-100 wins.

I know...RPI doesn't look at the number of the opponent, it looks at the W/L number primarily, but the reality is playing the worst of the worst, teams that are and traditionally have been terrible and were projected this year to be terrible again killed us in the selection. We could compete with any team on this list. Our resume in terms of the top-200 is as good or better than any team on this list.

Our team quality is the reason we aren't in the NCAA, but our schedule is the reason we aren't in the NIT. When you look objectively at the numbers, there's really no two ways about that.

There's two more significant differences that you overlook:

First: Our best win was against #40 Providence. 

Other teams' best wins:

Florida:  #10 West Virgina
Alabama: #18 Texas A&M
Georgia Tech: #3 Virginia
Florida State: #3 Virginia
Washington: #27 Texas
Creighton: #7 Xavier

You're suggesting that beating a top 10 team is less relevant than the RPI rank of cupcakes. At some point, real people when trying to determine which team actually has the better body of work are going to look at this. 

Would a rational person skip past the highlights of a team's schedule to immedeately zero in on which cupcakes they played?  I don't think so--and when you peel back the actual body of work, every single team you list has had a more significant accomplishment than we had, cupcakes be damned.

And not only was our best win not as impressive as this group,  our worst loss was worse than every team but one:
Marquette: #198 DePaul
Florida:  #143 Tennesse
Alabama: #175 Auburn
Georgia Tech: #131 Clemson
Florida State: #131 Clemson
Washington: #116 Oakland
Creighton: #239 Loyola


How about worst non-conference loss
Marquette: #95 Belmont
Florida: #15 Purdue
Alabama: #22 Dayton
Georgia Tech: #86 E. Tennessee State
Florida State: #54 Hofstra
Washington: #116 Oakland
Creighton: #239 Loyola


So among your list, every team had at least one better win than we did. Our worst non-conference loss was worse than 4 of the 6 teams on your list. 

And overall, only Creighton had a worse loss, but ameliorated that by finishing a game ahead of us in the Big East standings, with wins against #7 Xavier and #19 Seton Hall.

You're making a false assumption that we would have been chosen ahead of any of these teams if not for our schedule--we were not chosen ahead of these teams because we didn't win enough of the games that mattered. 

And I don't believe anyone came close to a 28 point non-conference loss, as we did to #29 Iowa.

The fact of the matter is that our body of work in the games that matter simply didn't measure up.

You can't make up for a poor body of work with better cupcakes--at the end of the day, they're still cupcakes.  If our best win isn't as good, and our worst loss is more embarrassing, and we're behind in the standings (euphemistically characterized here as "within one game"), we're not getting a bid--NCAA or NIT.

[MerrittsMustache]

There's two more significant differences that you overlook:

First: Our best win was against #40 Providence. 

Other teams' best wins:

Florida:  #10 West Virgina
Alabama: #18 Texas A&M
Georgia Tech: #3 Virginia
Florida State: #3 Virginia
Washington: #27 Texas
Creighton: #7 Xavier

You're suggesting that beating a top 10 team is less relevant than the RPI rank of cupcakes. At some point, real people when trying to determine which team actually has the better body of work are going to look at this. 

Would a rational person skip past the highlights of a team's schedule to immedeately zero in on which cupcakes they played?  I don't think so--and when you peel back the actual body of work, every single team you list has had a more significant accomplishment than we had, cupcakes be damned.

And not only was our best win not as impressive as this group,  our worst loss was worse than every team but one:
Marquette: #198 DePaul
Florida:  #143 Tennesse
Alabama: #175 Auburn
Georgia Tech: #131 Clemson
Florida State: #131 Clemson
Washington: #116 Oakland
Creighton: #239 Loyola


How about worst non-conference loss
Marquette: #95 Belmont
Florida: #15 Purdue
Alabama: #22 Dayton
Georgia Tech: #86 E. Tennessee State
Florida State: #54 Hofstra
Washington: #116 Oakland
Creighton: #239 Loyola


So among your list, every team had at least one better win than we did. Our worst non-conference loss was worse than 4 of the 6 teams on your list. 

And overall, only Creighton had a worse loss, but ameliorated that by finishing a game ahead of us in the Big East standings, with wins against #7 Xavier and #19 Seton Hall.

You're making a false assumption that we would have been chosen ahead of any of these teams if not for our schedule--we were not chosen ahead of these teams because we didn't win enough of the games that mattered. 

And I don't believe anyone came close to a 28 point non-conference loss, as we did to #29 Iowa.

The fact of the matter is that our body of work in the games that matter simply didn't measure up.

You can't make up for a poor body of work with better cupcakes--at the end of the day, they're still cupcakes.  If our best win isn't as good, and our worst loss is more embarrassing, and we're behind in the standings (euphemistically characterized here as "within one game"), we're not getting a bid--NCAA or NIT.

[bilsu]

Maybe, maybe not. Were the last two years "normal years"? We missed the NIT in 2014 with a 92 RPI and last year the lowest RPI was 90 for Arizona State. Perhaps most shocking this year is that Creighton not only made the field, but will get a home game. With their 100 RPI, they are the lowest in the field by 12 spots. Hmm...maybe the NIT knows they will pack 19,000 in for that game?

My conclusion is that the NIT took the next team in the major conferences. They took Creighton and no one else. They took Ohio St and I as far as I remember took no one else. Had we beat DePaul we would of tied Creighton in Big East and they probably would of taken us and left Creighton out, because 21-12 is better than 18-14.

[jaygall31]

Can we expect a better schedule next season?

[jsglow]

My conclusion is that the NIT took the next team in the major conferences. They took Creighton and no one else. They took Ohio St and I as far as I remember took no one else. Had we beat DePaul we would of tied Creighton in Big East and they probably would of taken us and left Creighton out, because 21-12 is better than 18-14.

I think it was as simple as that.

[keefe]

I have to laugh that people were touting Broeker as AD material during the last search. I have met the guy and while he is sincere and amiable he is hardly senior executive caliber talent.

The scheduling fiasco only underscores how utterly awful he would have been as AD.

 

[Hubert Davis]

I have to laugh that people were touting Broeker as AD material during the last search. I have met the guy and while he is sincere and amiable he is hardly senior executive caliber talent.

The scheduling fiasco only underscores how utterly awful he would have been as AD.

Mike Broeker is a Fn joke. Nice guy... that's where I'll leave it.

[jaygall31]

What is the wiki link for our schedule next season? Having a brain fart and cant find it. Thanks!

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have to laugh that people were touting Broeker as AD material during the last search. I have met the guy and while he is sincere and amiable he is hardly senior executive caliber talent.

The scheduling fiasco only underscores how utterly awful he would have been as AD.

Only a few were....because "he's a cool guy" and someone they can talk to. 

[mu_hilltopper]

What is the wiki link for our schedule next season? Having a brain fart and cant find it. Thanks!

Wiki link:

http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_basketball/2016

Still needs some work.  Do we have a pre-season tourney scheduled?

Not sure if incoming guys are inserted.    Maybe someone can add.

[1990Warrior]

Wiki link:

http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_basketball/2016

Still needs some work.  Do we have a pre-season tourney scheduled?

Not sure if incoming guys are inserted.    Maybe someone can add.

2K Classic:  http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/371268071.html

Part of the field is set and will help.  I don't think the other teams are assigned yet.

I hope that they are looking to add some home and homes with legitimate teams.  I think they will do Gavitt tipoff games.  I would really like to see them try to collaborate with old big east foes UCONN and Cinci.

I would also hope that they would try to get some upper tier "mid majors."  I would rather lose in November than March.  They should definitely start something with Green Bay.

[brewcity77]

2K Classic:  http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/371268071.html

Part of the field is set and will help.  I don't think the other teams are assigned yet.

I hope that they are looking to add some home and homes with legitimate teams.  I think they will do Gavitt tipoff games.  I would really like to see them try to collaborate with old big east foes UCONN and Cinci.

I would also hope that they would try to get some upper tier "mid majors."  I would rather lose in November than March.  They should definitely start something with Green Bay.

The 2K is fully set. We will get two home games against IUPUI, Gardner-Webb, Eastern Michigan, or Howard. We will play two of Michigan, Pitt, and SMU in NYC.

The expectation was that we would be playing a road game in the Gavitt this year. I know Marquette's hope is to play Gavitt games alternating home and road opposite of the Badger game.

My guess is we will see some home-and-homes start this year, or neutral court games. The athletic department has to understand the impact the weak scheduling had on both postseason hopes and BC attendance.

As far as higher profile mid-majors...we'll see. Clearly playing the worst of the worst didn't work. However I can virtually guarantee that unless the Horizon changes its scheduling practices, you won't see Green Bay or Milwaukee on the schedule. Marquette has zero interest in giving up home games against teams that aren't high major, and both of those schools desire 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 deals.

[Herman Cain]

The 2K is fully set. We will get two home games against IUPUI, Gardner-Webb, Eastern Michigan, or Howard. We will play two of Michigan, Pitt, and SMU in NYC.

The expectation was that we would be playing a road game in the Gavitt this year. I know Marquette's hope is to play Gavitt games alternating home and road opposite of the Badger game.

My guess is we will see some home-and-homes start this year, or neutral court games. The athletic department has to understand the impact the weak scheduling had on both postseason hopes and BC attendance.

As far as higher profile mid-majors...we'll see. Clearly playing the worst of the worst didn't work. However I can virtually guarantee that unless the Horizon changes its scheduling practices, you won't see Green Bay or Milwaukee on the schedule. Marquette has zero interest in giving up home games against teams that aren't high major, and both of those schools desire 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 deals.

I am ok with doing 3 for 1 deals with Green Bay or Milwaukee. Creates a little more fan interest  when we play at home and gives us an opportunity for a road win under favorable circumstances.  Attendance at these games has always been higher, both reported and actual bodies at the BC. Through in some bottom tier MAC and MVC and we will be fine.

We just have to play the scheduling game as it is defined. Even if it costs a few bucks in guarantees etc.

[mu03eng]

I have to laugh that people were touting Broeker as AD material during the last search. I have met the guy and while he is sincere and amiable he is hardly senior executive caliber talent.

The scheduling fiasco only underscores how utterly awful he would have been as AD.

People like him and therefore want to promote him for two reasons A) he's a likable guy which is rare for MU's AD department {cough} SID {cough} B) he has a social media presence and is therefore the "face" of the department so the uninitiated conflate visibility to competence.