[Rosiak's Blog] A little clarification

[bilsu]

I think a more recognizable non-conference schedule will sell more season tickets. I also think a home and home with Kentucky would be a national TV game. I would have to believe the more tickets sold for the home game and the money received for a National TV game would more than offset the money recieved by having two home games with Savanah St. I do believe a team needs some easy games to try new things and get some non-starters more playing time. I think I would be happy if the goal was not to schedule anyone with an expected RPI over 250. i see no reason to play someone with an rpi of 300.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, has MU ever thought about tier pricing their schedule, like most MLB teams do now?

I think most would agree that the demand is there to add a game against a quality non-conference opponent. With that said, I think most would pay more money to see UCLA than Savannah St.

Not when I was there, but I wouldn't be surprised if they've thought about it now.  Actually, they do that to a limited amount when they force Wisconsin fans to buy tickets to other games through packaging.  In essence, that's a "tax" or a markup on those tickets as a premium game by forcing other games on them.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think a more recognizable non-conference schedule will sell more season tickets. I also think a home and home with Kentucky would be a national TV game. I would have to believe the more tickets sold for the home game and the money received for a National TV game would more than offset the money recieved by having two home games with Savanah St. I do believe a team needs some easy games to try new things and get some non-starters more playing time. I think I would be happy if the goal was not to schedule anyone with an expected RPI over 250. i see no reason to play someone with an rpi of 300.

You're not calculating in the potential loss and that's the key.  MU needs that NCAA tournament revenue which means basically 20+ wins a year, which means no more then 2 losses in non-conference play. 

Also bear in mind that the money for the national tv game is coming through the conference and split equally among all the teams (unless things have changed).

The problem with your artificial 250 RPI ceiling is that basically anyone below 200 is going to try and demand a return game, which MU can't do.  That leaves very few schools in that 200 to 250 or so range that won't kill your RPI but also won't demand a return game....and about 100+ other schools are trying to put those very teams on their schedule for the same reason MU would want to.  Makes it very difficult which is why MU will almost always play some schools in the 280's or worse...because they come cheap and don't demand a return game.

[Untucked]

TV and money ruins all sports.

[Pakuni]

I think a more recognizable non-conference schedule will sell more season tickets. I also think a home and home with Kentucky would be a national TV game. I would have to believe the more tickets sold for the home game and the money received for a National TV game would more than offset the money recieved by having two home games with Savanah St. I do believe a team needs some easy games to try new things and get some non-starters more playing time. I think I would be happy if the goal was not to schedule anyone with an expected RPI over 250. i see no reason to play someone with an rpi of 300.

As Chico's has mentioned, I'm sure these numbers have been run time and time again by people not only at MU, but at many, many universities. And, by and large, they've all come to the conclusion that they must have a certain number of buy games against lower-level competition. No disrespect to anyone, but none of you are re-inventing the wheel or offering revolutionary concepts here. I'm sure most, if not all, of what's being suggested here has been considered and determined to be less-than-ideal.

If it were somehow advantageous - financially, competitively, etc. - to load up on a non-conference schedule with home-and-homes against top-40 caliber programs, somebody would be doing it. But nobody's doing that. Some programs perhaps can afford a couple more home-and-homes than others, most major programs do the exact same thing Marquette does. And I imagine it's because they've all figured out it's to their advantage to do it that way.

As for the suggestion of top 250/below 300 ... would MU playing Texas State (RPI 249) be all that better for you than Rice (RPI 302)? Would Binghamton (247) and Lipscomb (226) be more attractive than Loyola-Marymount (308) and Princeton (331)?

[mu_hilltopper]

I think "factoring in the potential loss" should be evaluated on a season-by-season basis.   The Bradley Center has been great for the Warriors, somewhat because we've put a good team on the court, and partly because the BC is a tough place to play.

This last year, and this upcoming year, we were/are a predicted top 15 team, and should handle Tier 2 competition.   Our predicted win% versus an over 50+ RPI team at the BC would be extremely high.  (And yes, matchups would need to be considered.)  (and sure, any given Sunday rule applies, NDSU sometimes eats your lunch, but every game is a risk.)

2009-10, not so much.  We'll need every cupcake win.  Hell, you could make a case that we'll need some decent non-BE wins even more then, because with a middling team, we'll be lucky to go .500 in BE play.  Need something on the resume.

[RawdogDX]

Are we still talking about this?
People who are mad, can you please explain what makes you think you know more than the person putting together schedules for teams all across the country?  How do you have the gall to think that you know more about TV deals, consession sales, Bradly center rent, appeal sales, chances of losses effecting our tourney standing, ticket sales for a cupcake game vs for a top 40 team, the effect those cupcakes have on young player development and all the other variables that go into the decision that we can't even name because we are just that plain ignorant than the people who do this for a living with HARD data infront of them.  Not the guestemets that you use.

IF WHAT YOU WANTED WORKED THEN IT WOLD BE DONE BY SCHOOLS EVERYWHERE.

This reminds me of the time my roommate tried to describe to me how his perpetual motion machine would work using magnets.

WHat is our Strength of schedule going to be at the end of the year?  200?  100? No, because over the course of the year we will play plenty of tough schools.

oh and Hilltopper:
deals with major schools would be more than one year deals so we couldn't do it on a year to year basis.  Furthermore if we do those calculations and they come out to say 'play them' then wouldn't the other team be doing the same calculations and coming up with 'don't play them'?

[Marquette84]

There's one more factor, and that's that home losses count more against the RPI.  This is leading teams to schedule their most competitive games where they only count as 1 loss, not 1.6. 

My suspicion is that not only MU, but most schools are trying hard to limit the number of competitive games they *host* and increase the number they play *away* or on neutral court.  For example, Beating Duke or Kansas counts as .6 win (for RPI purposes) at home, but would still be a very difficult game to win.  And losing at home counts as 1.4 losses. 

So schools are working to beef up their non-conference SOS with neutral site games, where the sting of a loss is limited from an RPI perspective.


Tennessee had the #3 toughest schedule per the RPI SOS, but their fans saw this home slate:
Temple
Arkansas-Monticello
Prairie View A&M
Middle Tennessee State
North Carolina A&T
Louisiana Layfayette
NC Ashville
Ohio State

How did they wind up with the #3 non-conference schedule? A lot of tough road & neutral court games:

WVU: Neutral Court
Texas: Neutral Court
WKU:  Neutral Court
Xavier:  Away
Gonzaga:  Neutral Court
Memphis:  Away

Most of the possible losses were away from home, and the home slate is protected with only one game that could be called competitive.

Texas does the same thing.  They have the #27 ranked non-conference SOS

Home games:
Texas San Antonio
UC Davis
Arkansas Monticello
Texas Southern
North Texas
Texas State
Oral Roberts
Wisconsin
Texas Christian
St. Mary's

Neutral/Road:
New Mexico State
Tennessee
Michigan State
UCLA

One difficult home game in Wisconsin.  Maybe a 2nd with St. Mary's, but nobody predicted they'd be good when the game was scheduled.


How about North Carolina:  Home games:
Iona
South Carolina State
Nicholls State
UC Santa Barbara
Nevada
Valpo
Kent State
NC Ashville

Road/Neutral:
Davidson
ODU
BYU
Ohio State
Kentucy
Penn
Rutgers

Once again, you'd be hard pressed to pick a home game to lose.


Kansas:

Home:
Louisana Monroe
Missouri-Kancsas City
Washburn
Northern Arizona
Arizona
Florida Atlantic
Eastern Washington
DePaul
Miami-OH
Yale
Loyola Maryland

Neutral/Road
USC
Ohio
Georgia Tech
Boston College


Wisconsin:
IPFW
Savanna State
Florida A&M
Colorado
Georgia
Wofford
Marquette
UWGB
Valpo

Away:
Duke
Texas



Michigan State:

Home:
Chicago State
Louisiana - Monroe
Oakland
NC State
Jacksonville
IPFW
Sa. Jose State
UWGB

And I'm bending over backwards to consider NC State a true competitive game. 

Road/Neutral:
Missouri
UCLA
Bradley
BYU
Texas


I think you can start to see the pattern.  Just one competitive home game, combined with a number of easy wins.  Several additional competitive road/neutral games.

MU's schedule simply matches the pattern set by the teams we want to emulate.

[mu_hilltopper]

oh and Hilltopper:
deals with major schools would be more than one year deals so we couldn't do it on a year to year basis.  Furthermore if we do those calculations and they come out to say 'play them' then wouldn't the other team be doing the same calculations and coming up with 'don't play them'?

Besides the UW series, it's hard to think back to the "major schools" that MU has had experience with, contracting for OOC games.  Arizona and Notre Dame (before BE) series come to mind.  Nebraska, Valpo, Dayton, Xavier being the mid-major types we've contracted with.  All of those were two year deals.

So you have a point .. but it's mitigated by the idea that you should have a good feel for your team's strength one year in the future.  Certainly not a perfect vision, but close enough.

The other teams doing the same calculation?  Sure, that's their prerogative, but .. every team has their own equation, revenue pie, and needs. 

And additionally to the nay-sayers .. as I said earlier, MU DOES have conversations with semi/major teams, as evidenced last year.  If "it'll never happen/never make sense" is true, they wouldn't bother. 

Fans continue to hope the cosmic tumblers will align one year, where it makes financial and post-season sense to take the risk.   Buzz could make a lot of friends quickly with a slight upgrade of the OOC schedule with higher interest teams.

[spiral97]

not sure Nebraska would like being classified a mid-major.. they are a member of the Big 12 (along with Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, etc.) which is a BCS conference in football and almost assuredly still a major conference in basketball (albeit lesser so than football).

That said, I'll agree that they tend to play like a mid-major when it comes to basketball.

[ecompt]

Murff, you know how many Top 20 teams I saw come into Milwaukee in my four years there (1968-72)? Maybe two. Minnesota came in highly ranked and Jacksonville came in the year AFTER they were great. We played the other Midwest independents (Loyola, DePaul, Detroit) and UW twice each. We had a series with ND and occasionally a decent team in the Milwaukee Classic (which the students were home for). Al played Northern Michigan, UWM, Air Force, Nevada-Reno, Bowling Green, etc. Please. There is no comparison between what we play now and what we did then.

[Murffieus]

We're not talking about who's a better coach, we're talking about what makes a better schedule to make the NCAA tournament.

And the bottom line is that MU has made 3 NCAA tournaments in a row, Syracuse has missed 2 of the last 3--and without a miracle run in the conference tournament would have missed 3 of 3.   And their problem is they don't build a non-confernce schedule that they can run the table on.

Cuse has won an NCAA Championship too, playing a tougher non conference schedule.

Boeheim's error the past 3 years is that he didn't have the talent to be more competitive with a tougher non conference
schedule. Buzz has a veteran team which should be able to handle a tougher non conference schedule.

One of the reasons crean's teams faded down the stretch is because he didn't challenge them enough in the non conference schedule (not enough road games too)-----with  the result that they didn't improve past January!

[THEGYMBAR]

eco---You make me feel better by pointing out the schedule in the 60's and 70's. My first MU game was in '72 and you are 100% correct on the # of top teams to play the Arena. All of our big games were "true" rivals and most were not nationally ranked. Biggest home game in mind back in that era was the midnight game against the Russians. I think that was preseason '76-'77. But you have to admit that Al made every game an event and now we need more to get excited about.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Cuse has won an NCAA Championship too, playing a tougher non conference schedule.

Boeheim's error the past 3 years is that he didn't have the talent to be more competitive with a tougher non conference
schedule. Buzz has a veteran team which should be able to handle a tougher non conference schedule.

One of the reasons crean's teams faded down the stretch is because he didn't challenge them enough in the non conference schedule (not enough road games too)-----with  the result that they didn't improve past January!

Cuse non-conference schedule when they won it in 2003 was 157th ranked

Thu Nov 14    (26) Memphis 70, Syracuse 63   Neutral (New York, NY)   0-1     
Sun Nov 24    Syracuse 81, (96) Valparaiso 66   Home   1-1     
Tue Dec 3    Syracuse 98, (250) Colgate 68   Home   2-1     
Fri Dec 6    Syracuse 85, (292) Cornell 62   Home   3-1     
Tue Dec 10    Syracuse 92, (287) NC Greensboro 65   Home   4-1     
Sat Dec 14    Syracuse 94, (212) Binghamton 58   Home   5-1     
Sat Dec 21    Syracuse 92, (76) Georgia Tech 65   Home   6-1     
Sat Dec 28    Syracuse 109, (294) Albany (NY) 79   Home   7-1     
Mon Dec 30    Syracuse 87, (247) Canisius 69   Home   8-1     
Mon Jan 13    Syracuse 76, (17) Missouri 69   Home   11-1     
Sun Feb 23    Syracuse 76, (31) Michigan St. 75   Away   19-4    

This past year, it was 21 in the RPI non conference.  They actually played a tougher non-conference schedule this year then when they won it.   Doesn't jive with your theory...easier schedule they won it all, tougher schedule and they didn't even make it to the NCAAs. 

In 2007, Syracuse had a 122nd schedule, also easier then in 2003.  They failed to make the NCAAs then, too.

In 2006, Syracuse had a 55th best non conference schedule...they were bounced in the first round of the NCAAs.

Tougher schedules non-conference do not mean more success in the NCAA tournament. It might, but it certainly might not as well with the Cuse examples.

[ecompt]

Thanks for pointing out another obvious Murff gaffe, chicos. Cuse hardly ever leaves the state of New York in non-conference play, and their OOC schedule is filled with creampuffs. That killed them recently when they didn't make the Dance.

[Marquette84]

Thanks for pointing out another obvious Murff gaffe, chicos. Cuse hardly ever leaves the state of New York in non-conference play, and their OOC schedule is filled with creampuffs. That killed them recently when they didn't make the Dance.

I don't think the creampuffs are a problem--it's when you start losing to your non-conference slate that is a problem.

2008 Syracuse lost to three non-tournament teams--URI, UMass and Ohio State. 
2007 Syracuse lost to three non-tournament teams--Wichita State, Oklahoma State, Drexel.

Those losses give the committee a convenient way to frame you vis-a-vis the NCAA field as a whole.

Its specious to argue that a tournament team should be able to beat teams like URI, UMass and Ohio State--that's a $750,000 bet on your own machismo.  Yeah, you should be able to beat those teams.  And in a perfect world, everyone is exposing themselves to that same level of challenge.


I would argue that the committe isn't going to dismiss a 9 or 10 win team in the Big East on SOS alone--they need a good reason.  Losing games to non-tournament teams in non-conference is exactly the reason the committee needs. 

I would argue that had Syracuse played 3 additional creampuffs each year and won them all, they would have easily made the NCAA tournament.  They would be judged as being adequately tested in the Big East, and based on a .500 record that included wins over Georgetown, MU, Villanova each year, they would have definitely received an invite.

If Syracuse played in CUSA or the WCC, then yes, they need a handful of challenging opponents.  But not in the Big East.

So the question is why risk your NCAA bid playing teams that you SHOULD win but are also clearly strong enough to beat you?