Non Conference RPI

[brewcity77]

This. I am generally really positive all things MU hoops, but we really need to schedule better. End of story.

You've stated similar many times regarding which teams should be ahead of Marquette. My question is which teams should we have not scheduled this year, and why?

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

You've stated similar many times regarding which teams should be ahead of Marquette. My question is which teams should we have not scheduled this year, and why?

Not sure I follow your first sentence. What do you mean which teams should be ahead of Marquette?

We need to schedule better buy games. I am willing to give them a pass on losing the Utah game this year, but IIRC, we've burned 1 non con game in 2 of the past 3 seasons. May even be 3 of last 4. So I take all that with a grain of salt.

On my phone right now so hard to respond with anything in depth. I don't give two sh**s about relationship games - no trason SIU Edwardsville would have been on the schedule. Western Carolina as well. Understand Howard was given to us. I've done the analysis on RPI wizard and simply replacing W, Carolina and SIU with teams around 150 RPI jumps our RPo significantly. Just schedule more traditionally decent mid major teams as buy games. Easier said than done - I know - but other teams find a way to do it quite easily. A stinker or two each season is expected, but we've been good for 3 or 4 per season last few.

I'd also like to see try and get a 2 or 3 for 1 with a blue blood.  A loss on the road in those games early in the year is never going to hurt you, and you'll reap the benefits all year.

[muguru]

Actually..since we are engaged in this conversation..despite what anyone thinks about how the non conf opponents affected MU's RPI, the single biggest thing MU could have done last year and this year to increase their RPI has NOTHING to do with scheduling..its winning at home. The RPI doesnt reward you for winning at home(they expect you too), but they sure do punish you for losing at home..even against good opponents..you can drop 8-15 spots for a home loss against a good opponent..and once you do that..its hard to recover from.

[brewcity77]

Not sure I follow your first sentence. What do you mean which teams should be ahead of Marquette?

When discussing seeding and Marquette's inclusion in the tournament, you have frequently asked for people to say who deserves to be in ahead of us (which I fully agree with).

We need to schedule better buy games. I am willing to give them a pass on losing the Utah game this year, but IIRC, we've burned 1 non con game in 2 of the past 3 seasons. May even be 3 of last 4. So I take all that with a grain of salt.

We haven't burned a non-con game. In 2014 we were not given a home game from the Old Spice Classic (or whatever the Orlando tournament is called) and this year we had Utah fall through. I agree we should fill the schedule with quality opponents, but both of those seasons were circumstances beyond our control.

On my phone right now so hard to respond with anything in depth. I don't give two sh**s about relationship games - no trason SIU Edwardsville would have been on the schedule. Western Carolina as well. Understand Howard was given to us. I've done the analysis on RPI wizard and simply replacing W, Carolina and SIU with teams around 150 RPI jumps our RPo significantly. Just schedule more traditionally decent mid major teams as buy games. Easier said than done - I know - but other teams find a way to do it quite easily. A stinker or two each season is expected, but we've been good for 3 or 4 per season last few.

That's fair about SIUE. However, Western Carolina has averaged a 196 RPI the past 8 seasons, with winning records in 4/8 seasons. This season is a complete outlier, and they've had the same coach the entire time, so I find it hard to blame MU too much for scheduling what should've been a team at worst 30 spots better than they were.

I'd also like to see try and get a 2 or 3 for 1 with a blue blood.  A loss on the road in those games early in the year is never going to hurt you, and you'll reap the benefits all year.

We won't be doing a 2/3 for 1 any time soon. No way we will give up two home games to anyone for one in return, nor should we. That's a huge revenue loss. It's important to use your schedule to both build revenue and improve tournament odds. The best way we can get better teams is to win. After the Final Four, we got a home-and-home with Arizona. The Vanderbilt and Ohio State home-and-homes were really big events. We got those by being a regular tournament team and winning once we got there. I think we can get those marquee games, but it will take a few years of Wojo winning to turn names like Utah and Georgia into UCLA and Florida.

Personally, I think we should try to have two home-and-homes or neutral site games in addition to Wisconsin each year. We were moving in that direction until the program fell off a bit. Washington/LSU in 2011, LSU/Florida in 2012, Ohio State/Arizona State in 2013 and 2014. I think we'll be back to that (this year should've been Georgia, Vanderbilt, and Utah) and feel it's encouraging that we even had that Utah game lined up. But if you want the marquee games, you need to earn them (like 'Nova playing Virginia, Xavier playing Baylor, Butler playing Cincy, etc).

[brewcity77]

Actually..since we are engaged in this conversation..despite what anyone thinks about how the non conf opponents affected MU's RPI, the single biggest thing MU could have done last year and this year to increase their RPI has NOTHING to do with scheduling..its winning at home. The RPI doesnt reward you for winning at home(they expect you too), but they sure do punish you for losing at home..even against good opponents..you can drop 8-15 spots for a home loss against a good opponent..and once you do that..its hard to recover from.

Winning at home is paramount. That say, we were 14-3 at home this year and all three losses were to tournament teams. That's our best home record since 2013's Big East Champions. It's not perfect, but it's certainly an improvement.

[B. McBannerson]

But hey our basketball office is doing a great job of scheduling.

Job 1.  Fill schedule of 31 allowed games :  F
Job 2.  A schedule conducive to making ncaas : F

Two F s for our basketball office

I guess we are making progress tho, it was even worse last year

Job 1 was to fill the schedule. Which they did. How do they receive a failing grade?
Job 2, if we make the NCAAs tomorrow (which we will), how is that receiving a failing grade? 

Our schedule is ranked 49th in the country.

[brewcity77]

Job 1 was to fill the schedule. Which they did. How do they receive a failing grade?
Job 2, if we make the NCAAs tomorrow (which we will), how is that receiving a failing grade? 

Our schedule is ranked 49th in the country.

Our non-con schedule wasn't good enough to get us a 1-seed, but we were never playing for a 1-seed. Filling the schedule after Utah backed out would have been detrimental to our bid hopes.

And exactly, getting in is all that matters. Our schedule could be better, but this year is just about having a schedule good enough to get in. This schedule accomplished that. Had our opponents played to form, it would've been closer to top-25 than top-50, but either way it's good enough.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

When discussing seeding and Marquette's inclusion in the tournament, you have frequently asked for people to say who deserves to be in ahead of us (which I fully agree with).

We haven't burned a non-con game. In 2014 we were not given a home game from the Old Spice Classic (or whatever the Orlando tournament is called) and this year we had Utah fall through. I agree we should fill the schedule with quality opponents, but both of those seasons were circumstances beyond our control.

That's fair about SIUE. However, Western Carolina has averaged a 196 RPI the past 8 seasons, with winning records in 4/8 seasons. This season is a complete outlier, and they've had the same coach the entire time, so I find it hard to blame MU too much for scheduling what should've been a team at worst 30 spots better than they were.

We won't be doing a 2/3 for 1 any time soon. No way we will give up two home games to anyone for one in return, nor should we. That's a huge revenue loss. It's important to use your schedule to both build revenue and improve tournament odds. The best way we can get better teams is to win. After the Final Four, we got a home-and-home with Arizona. The Vanderbilt and Ohio State home-and-homes were really big events. We got those by being a regular tournament team and winning once we got there. I think we can get those marquee games, but it will take a few years of Wojo winning to turn names like Utah and Georgia into UCLA and Florida.

Personally, I think we should try to have two home-and-homes or neutral site games in addition to Wisconsin each year. We were moving in that direction until the program fell off a bit. Washington/LSU in 2011, LSU/Florida in 2012, Ohio State/Arizona State in 2013 and 2014. I think we'll be back to that (this year should've been Georgia, Vanderbilt, and Utah) and feel it's encouraging that we even had that Utah game lined up. But if you want the marquee games, you need to earn them (like 'Nova playing Virginia, Xavier playing Baylor, Butler playing Cincy, etc).

I agree with all of this, so I don't think we're too far from on the same page.

[brewcity77]

I agree with all of this, so I don't think we're too far from on the same page.

Agreed. Actually, if I have problems with anyone we scheduled, it's St. Francis and Houston Baptist. They did better than expected, but I thought they would be dogs. At the end of the day, they probably need to improve it a bit, but if you are going to have 5 buy games, I think the hope is for two in the 100-200 range, two in the 200-250 range, and one dog (because that always happens). I can live with what they did this year.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

On my phone right now so hard to respond with anything in depth. I don't give two sh**s about relationship games - no trason SIU Edwardsville would have been on the schedule. Western Carolina as well. Understand Howard was given to us. I've done the analysis on RPI wizard and simply replacing W, Carolina and SIU with teams around 150 RPI jumps our RPo significantly. Just schedule more traditionally decent mid major teams as buy games. Easier said than done - I know - but other teams find a way to do it quite easily. A stinker or two each season is expected, but we've been good for 3 or 4 per season last few.

Just about every high major has a dog like SIU-E on their schedule. Helping out a former player is a good reason to have one IMHO. And as Brew has pointed out, Western Carolina had their worst season in over a decade. That's something you can't predict. They have their normal, minimal year of 13 wins and they are a great buy game.

I'd also like to see try and get a 2 or 3 for 1 with a blue blood.  A loss on the road in those games early in the year is never going to hurt you, and you'll reap the benefits all year.

You may want that, but Blue Bloods don't. From what I can tell, not a single Blue Blood scheduled a true road game against a non-conference high major opponent this season unless it was another blue blood or a traditional rivalry. A couple did schedule them with mid-majors, Louisville went to Grand Canyon of all places, but no high majors. There is no upside for them to schedule a road game with a team like Marquette. Either they win and no one cares because they were supposed to. Or they lose and it hurts them for seeding later.

Schedules aren't carte blanche. You don't just pick what you want and get it. Its a difficult and complicated process with lots of money involved. Plus you have to compete with other high majors. I agree about last year, the scheduling was abysmal. The scheduling this year was decidedly average.

Plus, I think scheduling is going to matter less and less every year. The committee supposedly is wising up and moving away from RPI. If true, tournament bids will no longer be impacted by whether you blew out Howard or won by double digits against Albany.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Just about every high major has a dog like SIU-E on their schedule. Helping out a former player is a good reason to have one IMHO. And as Brew has pointed out, Western Carolina had their worst season in over a decade. That's something you can't predict. They have their normal, minimal year of 13 wins and they are a great buy game.

You may want that, but Blue Bloods don't. From what I can tell, not a single Blue Blood scheduled a true road game against a non-conference high major opponent this season unless it was another blue blood or a traditional rivalry. A couple did schedule them with mid-majors, Louisville went to Grand Canyon of all places, but no high majors. There is no upside for them to schedule a road game with a team like Marquette. Either they win and no one cares because they were supposed to. Or they lose and it hurts them for seeding later.

Schedules aren't carte blanche. You don't just pick what you want and get it. Its a difficult and complicated process with lots of money involved. Plus you have to compete with other high majors. I agree about last year, the scheduling was abysmal. The scheduling this year was decidedly average.

Plus, I think scheduling is going to matter less and less every year. The committee supposedly is wising up and moving away from RPI. If true, tournament bids will no longer be impacted by whether you blew out Howard or won by double digits against Albany.

Again, I'm fine with a dog or two. We've had more than our fair share last several years, and frankly got lucky with HBU and St Francis this year. I don't disagree with your assertion that our schedule was decidedly average. In my mind, that means it needs to improve.

I get that blue bloods don't want to (don't have to) play on the road. And I get a 3 for 1 doesn't make much sense for MU, but then figure out a way to add another neutral site game against a top half P5 team. I don't have the time or means to look it up at the moment, but I can find lots of P6 teams that had schedules that I feel we should emulate moving forward.

Lastly, I think the de-emphasis of RPI is a great thing for all parties.

[BossplayaOtto]

Maui does have one pre-game. This year they had Army, Central Arkansas, Arkansas State, and Chattanooga. Of the 7 teams in Maui, only UConn didn't get a pre-game. After that, just hope you don't get Chaminade (though they are RPI-neutral) on the island. So most likely...

• Maui pre-game (H)
• Gavitt Big 10 team (H)
• Maui: 3 of Cal, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, VCU, Wichita State (N)
• Georgia (H)
• Wisconsin (A)

So that's 7/13 games that we know about already. My guess is we add one more high-major like you said, either a home-and-home starting on the road or a neutral site game, then have 5 buy opponents. As long as Maui doesn't screw us with a poor opponent (3/4 this year were decent to good) and we do okay on the buy games, we should be fine. Not necessarily great, but fine.

I could see a marquee home-and-home starting on the road, with a return game planned for the opening of the Silk Exotic Entertainment Center.

Brew, lots of great stuff In this post and throughout the thread. Thanks for the insight.

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

Just about every high major has a dog like SIU-E on their schedule. Helping out a former player is a good reason to have one IMHO. And as Brew has pointed out, Western Carolina had their worst season in over a decade. That's something you can't predict. They have their normal, minimal year of 13 wins and they are a great buy game.

You may want that, but Blue Bloods don't. From what I can tell, not a single Blue Blood scheduled a true road game against a non-conference high major opponent this season unless it was another blue blood or a traditional rivalry. A couple did schedule them with mid-majors, Louisville went to Grand Canyon of all places, but no high majors. There is no upside for them to schedule a road game with a team like Marquette. Either they win and no one cares because they were supposed to. Or they lose and it hurts them for seeding later.

Schedules aren't carte blanche. You don't just pick what you want and get it. Its a difficult and complicated process with lots of money involved. Plus you have to compete with other high majors. I agree about last year, the scheduling was abysmal. The scheduling this year was decidedly average.

Plus, I think scheduling is going to matter less and less every year. The committee supposedly is wising up and moving away from RPI. If true, tournament bids will no longer be impacted by whether you blew out Howard or won by double digits against Albany.

Tamu i think u have been in academia too long.  No one ever said schedule making was carte blanche or easy.  But its a world if absolutes, trying tet failing doesnt award u a participation ribbon or an atta boy in the real world.  No one said it was easy.
Lets just look at our perrs in the middle if the BE that our in our same situation.  X, prov, creighton, and seton hall all managed to 1. Fill out the schedule and have a sos a goid bit harder than ours.  They did it last year also.  You can defend failure all you want.  Apart from Depaul and SJu we had the worst schedule in the conference, and last year it was prolly the worst.  They failed n they put our team in a really bad place.  I know academics like to congrstulate everyone n tell them they are doing a wonderful job.  In the real world and when something stinks we say it stinks.  And when someone is bad at their job over n over again they get replaced.  Its time we start getting performance from that department.  All losses have reasons n excuses, i guess i want a winner or an over achiever in our scheduling department.  Not one we need to make stretches and bs excuses for each year! Get it done or gtfo

[brewcity77]

Sand knit, all you do is bitch. Which teams, specifically, should've been replaced? Why should they have been replaced? And if we end up in the tournament with the schedule as constructed, how is it a failure?

[GGGG]

I don't think you know how scheduling works. Just because they announce the games in May and June doesn't mean the decision to play a team is made then. The negotiations are ongoing and most of these deals are finalized months before they are announced. That's why scheduling news sometimes leaks. These games are made with best guess intentions. Players declaring early (especially from non-NBA factories like Duke and Kentucky), coaching changes, transfers, injuries, none of that can really be accounted for when you are making the schedule. Look again at the teams we played:

• Vanderbilt: Won 20+ in 6 of last 10 seasons, had a 2-year downturn, but Stallings seemed to have them regrouping around talented underclassmen. Failed to meet expectations

Stallings isn't there anymore.  Bryce Drew is.  And IMO they have more than exceeded expectations this year.

[brewcity77]

Stallings isn't there anymore.  Bryce Drew is.  And IMO they have more than exceeded expectations this year.[/list]

You haven't kept up with the conversation. Stallings was there when the game was scheduled. And 17-14 regular season from a team that is more often than not a 20+ win team is failing to meet expectations, largely because two players declared early and the coach left.

Drew has done okay, but based on 16 months or so ago when this was scheduled, it's failing to meet expectations.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Tamu i think u have been in academia too long.  No one ever said schedule making was carte blanche or easy.  But its a world if absolutes, trying tet failing doesnt award u a participation ribbon or an atta boy in the real world.  No one said it was easy.
Lets just look at our perrs in the middle if the BE that our in our same situation.  X, prov, creighton, and seton hall all managed to 1. Fill out the schedule and have a sos a goid bit harder than ours.  They did it last year also.  You can defend failure all you want.  Apart from Depaul and SJu we had the worst schedule in the conference, and last year it was prolly the worst.  They failed n they put our team in a really bad place.  I know academics like to congrstulate everyone n tell them they are doing a wonderful job.  In the real world and when something stinks we say it stinks.  And when someone is bad at their job over n over again they get replaced.  Its time we start getting performance from that department.  All losses have reasons n excuses, i guess i want a winner or an over achiever in our scheduling department.  Not one we need to make stretches and bs excuses for each year! Get it done or gtfo

First, I can barely read what ever that first paragraph is supposed to say. So I apologize if I missed something relavent in there.

You also missed this exchange:

If we make ncaas this year its not because of the schedule it is despite it.  I challenge people defending our schedule to show me where a poorer job was done.  Literally one of the worst schedules in the power 6.

UCLA, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Miami (FL), Seton Hall, Virginia Tech, Providence, Kansas State, Utah, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, Texas Tech, St. John's, NC State, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Rutgers, Boston College, Depaul, Missouri, Oregon State.

You'll notice four teams from the Big East, meaning we were in the middle for our own conference.

We actually had better non-conferences than Seton Hall. Seton Hall's schedule was ranked 30 spots below ours. Providence was all of 9 spots higher than us. See in academia, I learned how to back up claims with actual facts instead of just angrily yelling.

The carte blanche comment was directed at the idea that we should schedule non-conference games against blue bloods. We can't just call up Duke and say let's play each other. They will always say no.

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

Sand knit, all you do is bitch. Which teams, specifically, should've been replaced? Why should they have been replaced? And if we end up in the tournament with the schedule as constructed, how is it a failure?

How is it a failure?  Well its arguably the worst schedule of any at large bid hopeful schools and was even worse last year.  Look at all the sub .500 conference teams with less than 20 wins that have been discussed in bubble discussion.  Last year we had 20 wins n were 8-10.  Never even considered because the schedule was hoooorendous!.  This year it is a little better but we cant even fill it iut.  Its simply bad, u really need me to expkain why its bad. Really, well we have too many crap 250+ games.  Rpi n sos development has been done by schools since it became a stressed criteria.  Its like MU misses the memo every year.  We need to beat teams tha consistanly ginish above 200 in the rankings.  Maybe the walkons dont get in til the ladt minute.  But we are better served than scheduling the historically 250 n worse programs.
Again defend all you want, done schools are really good about it.  Apparently we r struggling to fill the schefule n who we get iis just gravy.  Pretty pathetic

[brewcity77]

The worst, except for the 23 other schools TAMU mentioned?

Last year is irrelevant. That schedule was designed specifically to build wins and confidence, not for a postseason berth.

And you didn't answer any of the questions I posed, so the only failure I see is yours.

[GGGG]

The worst, except for the 23 other schools TAMU mentioned?

Last year is irrelevant. That schedule was designed specifically to build wins and confidence, not for a postseason berth.

And you didn't answer any of the questions I posed, so the only failure I see is yours.

Not to mention basic spelling, grammar and sentence structure...

[tower912]

Not to mention basic spelling, grammar and sentence structure...

Maybe he needs to spend some time in academia. 

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Mr. Sand Knit