We don't need a radical change to our approach, we need to just avoid teams like Grambling that are consistently bottom 5 teams in the NCAA... obviously it's not a perfect science but if you can replace all your teams that were at 300+ with teams in the 200 range it makes a dramatic difference, then you sprinkle in the H/H series, holiday tournament, UW, and Gavitt Games and annually you have a really solid top 100 non conference type schedule...
Nice start to the 2016 non conference schedule
Printable View
-
03-30-2016, 11:29 AMMKE_GoldenEagleFan
-
03-30-2016, 11:42 AMIWB
I broke that all out a few months ago.
Out of the 6 (?) buy games MU had, 4 of the teams finished either dead last or second last in their conferences. That can't happen. Need to figure out how to get the top two teams in those conferences. Difference in RPI was incredible. -
03-30-2016, 12:03 PMNukem2Actually, it was 7. Final official RPI per NCAA website in parentheses:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Ganzer, "IWB"
Grambling St. (350)
Chicago St. (348)
Presbyterian (319)
Maine (314)
Stetson (303)
San Jose St. (302)
Jackson St. (222)
Jackson State finished 3rd in the SWAC. Can't be that hard to figure out the top teams in those conferences in advance.
Whatever, but 7 of these teams is astounding. -
03-30-2016, 12:16 PMIWB
Yes, 7 - thanks. Wasn't sure. So, hard to detect who actually wins those conferences, so let's take a look at the RPI of the 2nd place finishers...
Grambling St. (350)
Alcorn State (253)
Difference of 97 spots
Chicago St. (348)
Grand Canyon (92)
Difference of 356 spots
Presbyterian (319)
High Point (157)
Difference of 162 spots
Maine (314)
Albany (107)
Difference of 207 spots.
Stetson (303)
Florida Gulf Coast (215)
Difference of 88 spots
San Jose St. (302)
Fresno State (66)
Difference of 236 spots.
Jackson St. (222)
Alcorn State (253)
This one was a positive 31 spots -
03-30-2016, 06:49 PMunclejohnQuote:
Originally Posted by Jim Ganzer, "IWB"
I do not think anyone doubts that we have to strengthen the schedule next year. this year we played every dog team south of the Yukon. The reasons for that have been explained and debated. But it is not as easy, nor necessarily as beneficial as your list suggests. We played one of those best teams in their conference to open the season. We lost. The same might well have happened with some of the other teams that won smaller conferences. High Point is not a bad team, not your typical buy win. Kind of like Winthrop who beat us at home some years ago. Same thing with Albany, which has been getting pretty good in recent years. Many of those teams are not going to come to Milwaukee for a buy game.
Often, the teams we signed were not typical of their conference. Sure, Chicago State sucks. Chicago State always sucks. But they are not typical of the WAC. What they are doing there is anybody's guess, another screw-up of their athletic department. But we were not likely to play Grand Canyon. Nobody knows what to expect of Grand Canyon at this point. They just stepped up their program and poured money into it after becoming the first for-profit in D-1. And it is going to be way harder to get them to come from AZ than to get Chicago State to jump on the bus and come up here, something that they have been doing for years. San Jose State is another one. Fresno State, or most of the Mountain West, would not be coming to Milwaukee without a return game in there somewhere.
We had two MEAC teams on the schedule this year. They are just about always terrible so I am not sure what we are doing with two of them on the schedule this year. But it is a rare year when any MEAC or SWAC team is going to have a positive effect on your RPI. You provided an example here. The SWAC champion actually had a worse RPI than the SWAC team we played.
So there is a problem here. The teams that are willing to show up at your place and lose for a check are not as numerous as people seem to think. The reason that some of these guys are perennials is that they are willing to do that and Marquette has developed some type of relationship with them over the years. We should not have seven of them on the schedule like we did this year, but as long as I have been watching, we have always had about four or so, and which ones they are really does not make much difference. Finding the ones you can beat without killing your RPI is very tricky.
The way to improve the schedule is load up on a number of quality home-and-homes, (Utah would be quite good if it goes through,) try and fill in the schedule with respectable teams that are going to give us a three for one deal or something, (and right now, I do not think that would be Valpo. Perhaps a good thing. I am not at all sure we would have beaten them,) fill in a few dogs, and hope for the best.
We will step it up next year for sure, but no matter what you do, scheduling can be slippery. I remember one year under O'Neil. The year before, the team had played a schedule like this year's. That was the year after they had opened the season on the road against the teams that played for the national championship with a young team. They got eaten alive. So the next year, Kevin scheduled all the dogs. The year following though, after suffering the kind of criticism we are seeing here, there was a real effort to upgrade the schedule. But it did not work out so well. We played Dayton like we had for about a decade. This was a year or two after we were in the same conference and they had almost won it. They started the season losing a bunch of heart-breakers. I remember them being described as the best 0-6 team in history or something. By the time they got to Milwaukee, they were 0-9. They completely fell apart. I think they won about five games all year. We had Ohio State on the schedule that year. This was two years after they made the Final Four. They were terrible. I think they finished 4-14 in the Big Ten and won about six games all year. We played Fordham, I think on the road. They were supposed to be pretty good. Earlier in the year, they went across town and beat St. John's when they were nationally ranked. But the rest of the season, they stunk. So we had three non-conference teams that should have boosted our RPI. Instead, they were anchors, and people still talked about the lousy schedule Marquette played. -
03-31-2016, 07:11 AMAlan Bykowski, "brewcity77"I specifically said the Pac 12 because their scheduling is totally different, with travel partners and two game commitments that don't allow for alteration. Wake was different because it's the more flexible ACC. If we want a Pac 12 series it would have to be November or December. No amount of will would change that.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaribouJim
-
03-31-2016, 08:58 AMGoose85The Pac 12 is set up nicely, 2 teams near each other in AZ, 2 LA teams, 2 SF area teams, 2 teams in Oregon, 2 in Washington, and Utah and Colorado.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"
I don't think you need a whole conference challenge thing, just a few schools each year, like 5. I don't think Arizona and UCLA would do it, but there are plenty of other Pac 12 teams. I get it that a in conference season thing might not work, I just mentioned it because I liked how Kentucky and Kansas played outside of the conference season. -
03-31-2016, 12:06 PMMUMacQuote:
Originally Posted by Goose85
That was part of the Big 12/SEC Challenge. Weekend full of games. I would love that with the Pac 12. -
03-31-2016, 12:18 PMTheSultanQuote:
Originally Posted by MUMac
Agreed. Ten games on FS1 and FS2 on the Saturday between the Super Bowl. With four time zones in play, that is completely doable.
Much better alternative than some sort of arrangement with the WCC which is simply a mid-major conference with one powerful school. -
03-31-2016, 01:26 PMNukem2Guess one could say that about the SEC most years as well. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSultan