CBS: Rankings Team 1-351

[The Equalizer]

Actual wins and losses are irrelevant. If you want the explanation, see my lengthy post above.

Beating VCU reduces our win requirement total and offsets the benefit of winning an extra game. We need one less win outside Maui if we beat VCU and lose the next two than if we lose to VCU and win two in the loser's bracket.

Who it is doesn't matter. It never matters. Because if you get enough wins, enough will have to be quality due to our SOS to offset any bad losses.

Your length post is based on a flawed assumption--that we missed the tournament in 2015-16 because of poor SOS, and we made it in 2016-17 because of better SOS.

I already pointed out that SOS was irrelevant in both seasons. 

Our 8-10 record and standalone 7th place in the BE in 2016 wasn't tournament worthy. There was no possible SOS improvement that would have got us into the tournament that year. We didn't have a tournament worthy body of work.

Just try to make the argument that we were tournament worthy but for a stronger strength of schedule.  Our most impressive non-conference win was #46 RPI Wisconsin, offset by bad losses to #100 Creighton, #106 Georgetown, #201 DePaul and a near bad loss to #95 Belmont (at home).  We also had a home loss to #29 Iowa.  We had one conference win against an NCAA tournament team. 

I just don't see it. There is no history of 7th place/8-10 Bit East teams making the tournament.  It didn't happen for Georgetown in 2014, and their SOS was ranked 25th.

On the other hand, our 10-8/tied for 3rd place performance in 2017 was clearly tournament worthy, as has been the case for every 3rd place finisher in Big East play as far back as I can recall. 

Look, I'm not saying we should tank the game against VCU--but we build a tournament worthy body of work by winning two to three games against Wisconsin, Purdue, Vermont, Georgia AND VCU--and it doesn't matter which two or three teams the wins come against. 

[brewcity77]

You're missing the key component that it's the measure of results vs SOS. We had enough wins in 2016, but the body of work wasn't adequate specifically because of the SOS.

And my argument isn't solely that SOS makes you worthy, but it does make the road easier.

Also, 7th placed Xavier from 2017 and the Elite Eight would disagree with you.

[The Equalizer]

You're missing the key component that it's the measure of results vs SOS. We had enough wins in 2016, but the body of work wasn't adequate specifically because of the SOS.

And my argument isn't solely that SOS makes you worthy, but it does make the road easier.

Also, 7th placed Xavier from 2017 and the Elite Eight would disagree with you.

I'd love to hear your case as to how our body of work in 2016 was tournament worthy.  Ignore SOS.  make the case based on the wins you think demonstrated we were one of the top 64 teams, that would have caught the attention of the committee.  Highlight what you thought were the good losses, and why you think our bad losses weren't that bad.

[brewcity77]

I'd love to hear your case as to how our body of work in 2016 was tournament worthy.  Ignore SOS.  make the case based on the wins you think demonstrated we were one of the top 64 teams, that would have caught the attention of the committee.  Highlight what you thought were the good losses, and why you think our bad losses weren't that bad.

This is willful ignorance and I'm not bothering explaining what has already been thoroughly explained above. If you can't understand my argument to the rudimentary level I already broke it down to, then you are beyond my ability to educate.

[Galway Eagle]

Didn't somebody run a calculation that changed out the gramblimg and a couple other teams with average mid majors in the high 100s or low 200s and our sos bumped up to a point where we would have had an outside  as a bubble team or for sure have been in the NIT?

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

This is willful ignorance and I'm not bothering explaining what has already been thoroughly explained above. If you can't understand my argument to the rudimentary level I already broke it down to, then you are beyond my ability to educate.

Why are you always so hostile?  Not everyone shares your viewpoint.  It's a message board for God sakes.

[brewcity77]

Why are you always so hostile?  Not everyone shares your viewpoint.  It's a message board for God sakes.

I've had similar discussions with said poster over the years and it's always the same. How else would one respond to a discussion about the importance of SOS where the responder says "Ignore SOS"?

I'm willing to discuss actual counter points, but I fail to see how we can discuss the importance of SOS by ignoring it.

[Jay Bee]

Didn't somebody run a calculation that changed out the gramblimg and a couple other teams with average mid majors in the high 100s or low 200s and our sos bumped up to a point where we would have had an outside  as a bubble team or for sure have been in the NIT?

Kind of...

http://latenighthoops.com/marquettes-schedule-improved-2016-17/#.Wfbsu4VOmEc

Before last season, we commented on the fact that our path to the tourney was much more favorable due to improved scheduling.

Maybe I'll post projections on 2017-18 at some point..

[MUDPT]

Fortunately there is Teamcast on Trank.

Beat VCU and lose to WSU and Michigan. Move up one seed line.

Lose to VCU and beat LSU and Cal, go down 3 seed lines. 

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Didn't somebody run a calculation that changed out the gramblimg and a couple other teams with average mid majors in the high 100s or low 200s and our sos bumped up to a point where we would have had an outside  as a bubble team or for sure have been in the NIT?

I did. I don't have the time or energy to go find the post, but we played a pitiful non-con schedule in 15-16.  Replace the dreadful teams (Grambling, Chicago State, Presbyterian) with teams around 200 in RPI (that are still easy wins) and we were a bubbly team. We probably still needed another win in the BET to make the dance, but we would have been 1-2 seed in the NIT, a probably 1 BE (league or tournament) win from being in the dance.

Now that is a slightly different discussion that the one we're having here.  But the importance on SOS/RPI remains the same. 

[The Equalizer]

This is willful ignorance and I'm not bothering explaining what has already been thoroughly explained above. If you can't understand my argument to the rudimentary level I already broke it down to, then you are beyond my ability to educate.

I'm just asking a simple question.

You apparently believe that our 2015-16 body of work--outside the quality of the half-dozen cupcakes-- is a strong, tournament-worthy performance.

I don't think you ever explained why you think we deserved a bid independent of SOS.

Make the case.

I already told you why i don't think we deserved it
- 8-10 / 7th place finish
- 3 conference losses to teams outside the top 100, including #201 DePaul
- Home losses to Iowa, Belmont
- Best win overall to #40 Providence
- Best nonconfernce win to Wisconsin

Not worthy.  Replacing our 300+ cupcakes with teams 150 to 200 would not have changed our body of work.

[brewcity77]

I'm just asking a simple question.

You apparently believe that our 2015-16 body of work--outside the quality of the half-dozen cupcakes-- is a strong, tournament-worthy performance.

I don't think you ever explained why you think we deserved a bid independent of SOS.

Make the case.

I already told you why i don't think we deserved it
- 8-10 / 7th place finish
- 3 conference losses to teams outside the top 100, including #201 DePaul
- Home losses to Iowa, Belmont
- Best win overall to #40 Providence
- Best nonconfernce win to Wisconsin

Not worthy.  Replacing our 300+ cupcakes with teams 150 to 200 would not have changed our body of work.

You're creating an argument I didn't make at any point in here. That's why this is willful ignorance. You're ignoring what I posted in regards to the importance of SOS and why winning the VCU game is so singularly important.

We've had the 2015-16 discussion more than enough times. I'm not rehashing that. Jay Bee, JJJJJ, and others went through it then and again now. Sorry, but I'm not banging my head against that wall again. If you want to understand that, go read the posts that were made ad nauseum at the time.

The comparison regarding 2015-16 is simply one of the win equation. 2015-16 proves that you can win more games (20) than we did in 2016-17 (19) and yet the higher win total did not yield a NCAA berth while the lower one did. The reason for that is because those wins are rated in comparison to the SOS we played.

The further comparison is made to Wichita State, who did make the tourney with a nearly identical SOS in 2015-16, but needed 4 more wins to get in as one of the last four teams. Marquette needed to win 23-24 games in 2015-16.

I would refer you back to this from my lengthy post that you claim to have read but clearly did not comprehend:

104 SOS for Postseason Bid:

20 wins: No Postseason
21 wins: Possible NIT
22 wins: Certain NIT, likely high NIT seed
23 wins: NCAA Tournament

I said specifically we needed 23 wins to get into the tournament. I said specifically that our 20 wins did not result in a postseason result. I laid it out clearly. Any further failure of comprehension is on your behalf, not mine. Reading is Fundamental.

[real chili 83]

You're creating an argument I didn't make at any point in here. That's why this is willful ignorance. You're ignoring what I posted in regards to the importance of SOS and why winning the VCU game is so singularly important.

We've had the 2015-16 discussion more than enough times. I'm not rehashing that. Jay Bee, JJJJJ, and others went through it then and again now. Sorry, but I'm not banging my head against that wall again. If you want to understand that, go read the posts that were made ad nauseum at the time.

The comparison regarding 2015-16 is simply one of the win equation. 2015-16 proves that you can win more games (20) than we did in 2016-17 (19) and yet the higher win total did not yield a NCAA berth while the lower one did. The reason for that is because those wins are rated in comparison to the SOS we played.

The further comparison is made to Wichita State, who did make the tourney with a nearly identical SOS in 2015-16, but needed 4 more wins to get in as one of the last four teams. Marquette needed to win 23-24 games in 2015-16.

I would refer you back to this from my lengthy post that you claim to have read but clearly did not comprehend:

I said specifically we needed 23 wins to get into the tournament. I said specifically that our 20 wins did not result in a postseason result. I laid it out clearly. Any further failure of comprehension is on your behalf, not mine. Reading is Fundamental.

Breathe.

[MUDPT]

I again went to Teamcast for the 2016 Season.

Dropped Grambling, Maine, Chicago St. and Presbyterian.

Added Southern, New Hampshire, UMKC and Radford.

RPI went from 111 to 93.

[MUDPT]

I will also say the UW game will also be huge this year. Looking at some of the analytical sites, we are near the bubble with them. It would be tough to put them ahead of us on same seed line with a win in Madison. SI has MU and UW as 11 seeds, with MU in the play in game, for example.

[The Equalizer]

I again went to Teamcast for the 2016 Season.

Dropped Grambling, Maine, Chicago St. and Presbyterian.

Added Southern, New Hampshire, UMKC and Radford.

RPI went from 111 to 93.

I went to Teamcast and ran 4 scenarios for 3 different opponents, accepting the Teamcast default projections in all other games.  I wanted to see if the data backed up the idea that the VCU game carries outsized importance in our NCAA chances.

Lose to Wisconsin, lose to VCU (followed by 2 wins):  RPI is 48
Lose to Wisconsin, beat VCU (followed by 2 losses): RPI of 37
Beat Wisconsin, lose to VCU (followed by 2 wins): RPI of 37
Beat Wisconsin, Beat VCU (followed by 2 losses) : RPI of 29

Then 4 scenarios with Purdue (accepting their projections, which returns Wisconsin to a Loss)
Lose to Purdue, lose to VCU - RPI is 56
Lose to Purdue, beat VCU - RPI is 42
Beat Purdue, Lose to VCU - RPI is 41
Beat Purdue, beat VCU - RPI is 32

BTW, its not just Purdue or Wisconsin--avoiding home losses and getting road wins have the same impact.  For example, here's DePaul.

Lose to DePaul at home, Lose to VCU - RPI of 55
Lose to DePaul at home, Beat VCU - RPI of 40
Beat DePaul at home, lose to VCU - RPI of 40
Beat DePaul at Home, Beat VCU  - RPI of 32

In each of three opponent selections, its obviously best case to beat both teams, (and worst to lose to both teams).  But the interesting thing is if you compare any opponent to VCU--all other things being equal--it makes no difference to our RPI which team we beat.

Of course, this doesn't incorporate any of the adjustments that the committee makes.  We know that they penalize teams for bad losses.  So if DePaul is sub 200 in the RPI rank again, even though the RPI is equivalent between the choices of beating them and losing to VCU or the reverse--avoiding a loss to DePaul actually is more important to our tournament chances because we'd avoid the bad loss penalty.

Teamcast disproves the notion that VCU is singularly important to our tournament chances.  At face value, it is no more or less important than any other game on the schedule.   And arguably less important than avoiding bad losses or getting good wins.

[MUDPT]

I went to Teamcast and ran 4 scenarios for 3 different opponents, accepting the Teamcast default projections in all other games.  I wanted to see if the data backed up the idea that the VCU game carries outsized importance in our NCAA chances.

Lose to Wisconsin, lose to VCU (followed by 2 wins):  RPI is 48
Lose to Wisconsin, beat VCU (followed by 2 losses): RPI of 37
Beat Wisconsin, lose to VCU (followed by 2 wins): RPI of 37
Beat Wisconsin, Beat VCU (followed by 2 losses) : RPI of 29

Then 4 scenarios with Purdue (accepting their projections, which returns Wisconsin to a Loss)
Lose to Purdue, lose to VCU - RPI is 56
Lose to Purdue, beat VCU - RPI is 42
Beat Purdue, Lose to VCU - RPI is 41
Beat Purdue, beat VCU - RPI is 32

BTW, its not just Purdue or Wisconsin--avoiding home losses and getting road wins have the same impact.  For example, here's DePaul.

Lose to DePaul at home, Lose to VCU - RPI of 55
Lose to DePaul at home, Beat VCU - RPI of 40
Beat DePaul at home, lose to VCU - RPI of 40
Beat DePaul at Home, Beat VCU  - RPI of 32

In each of three opponent selections, its obviously best case to beat both teams, (and worst to lose to both teams).  But the interesting thing is if you compare any opponent to VCU--all other things being equal--it makes no difference to our RPI which team we beat.

Of course, this doesn't incorporate any of the adjustments that the committee makes.  We know that they penalize teams for bad losses.  So if DePaul is sub 200 in the RPI rank again, even though the RPI is equivalent between the choices of beating them and losing to VCU or the reverse--avoiding a loss to DePaul actually is more important to our tournament chances because we'd avoid the bad loss penalty.

Teamcast disproves the notion that VCU is singularly important to our tournament chances.  At face value, it is no more or less important than any other game on the schedule.   And arguably less important than avoiding bad losses or getting good wins.

Who did you use for the games after VCU?

Fortunately there is Teamcast on Trank.

Beat VCU and lose to WSU and Michigan. Move up one seed line.

Lose to VCU and beat LSU and Cal, go down 3 seed lines. 

That's the simple analysis. I can run it again if you want.

[MUDPT]

Who did you use for the games after VCU?

That's the simple analysis. I can run it again if you want.

I meant seed lines, as in the S curve.

[The Equalizer]

Who did you use for the games after VCU?

Win: lossees to WSU and Michigan
Loss: Wins over LSU and Cal

[MuMark]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/21238280/ranking-every-team-college-basketball-1-351

[GoldenDieners32]

imagine if we play Wichita, i really feel like they are a little overrated except their PG Landry Shamet who is really good

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/21238280/ranking-every-team-college-basketball-1-351

#36? THE OUTRAGE!!! ESPN CLEARLY HATES THE BIG EAST!!!


Actually, seems about right, maybe even higher than what I would have predicted.

Rest of the Big East and MU opponents for everyone's easy viewing pleasure:

#2 Wichita State
#5 Villanova
#12 Purdue
#18 Xavier
#20 Notre Dame
#23 Michigan
#24 Seton Hall
#29 Providence
#32 Butler
#43 Wisconsin
#44 Creighton
#57 Georgia
#63 St. John's
#74 Vermont
#81 VCU
#88 LSU
#92 Georgetown
#100 California
#118 DePaul
#218 Eastern Illinois
#234 Northern Illinois
#263 Mount St. Mary's
#289 American
#328 Chicago State

[MomofMUltiples]

Obviously these polls are all figured out in different ways; how else could a CBS writer have MU at 64 and an ESPN one have them at 36?  For more data points, here are the most recent AP and USA today polls:

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings

Neither are as bullish on Wichita State as John Gasaway is, but both have them highly ranked.  It would be great to play them.

[Spotcheck Billy]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/21238280/ranking-every-team-college-basketball-1-351

Kentucky only returning 7% of possession-minutes from last year.

[MU82]

Would it help our RPI and other stuff if we go 3-0 in Maui?

Cuz that's what we're gonna do!