2015 Non-conference Schedule

[GooooMarquette]

I think it would be impossible to win 20 games and have only 2 or 3 "good" wins.

It all depends on the schedule....

[GooooMarquette]

I appreciate how you edited out the second part of my sentence and left out season ticket holders.

That said, yes, games against bigger-name opponents can occasionally draw more casual fans, but not always, and not if the home team isn't playing well.

Case in point: During the 2012-13 season, MU had better attendance for games against Savannah State, Colgate and  North Carolina State than they did last year for major-conference opponent Arizona State.

But that's not really relevant to the season ticket holders we were discussing.

I edited it out to indicate he part I was addressing.

But if you want to address season ticket holders, please explain why the lower bowl is always more crowded for big games than it is for cupcakes.

[Pakuni]

I edited it out to indicate he part I was addressing.

But if you want to address season ticket holders, please explain why the lower bowl is always more crowded for big games than it is for cupcakes.

Because more people go to those games?
Which doesn't change or contradict anything I've written.

[brewcity77]

I think it would be impossible to win 20 games and have only 2 or 3 "good" wins.

Good is usually considered top-100 wins. Interesting question, but...

- 9 wins: The home games against low major teams
- 1 win: Arizona State (may very well be outside top-100)
- 6 wins: Seton Hall (97 last year), Creighton (151 last year), DePaul (197 last year)

So that would be 20 wins with only 4 good wins if SHU dropped out of the top-100 and the other two stayed status quo. If one more Big East team dropped (maybe St. John's) we could get to 18 wins without beating a single top-100 team.

[GooooMarquette]

Because more people go to those games?
Which doesn't change or contradict anything I've written.

Yes it does.  You said:

"Sure, but ultimately people go to games (or choose not to go to games)  because of the home team, not the opponent, and this is even more so the case with season ticket buyers."

That's about as direct a contradiction as you can have.

[Pakuni]

Yes it does.  You said:

"Sure, but ultimately people go to games (or choose not to go to games)  because of the home team, not the opponent, and this is even more so the case with season ticket buyers."

That's about as direct a contradiction as you can have.

More selective editing ....

[Pakuni]

Good is usually considered top-100 wins. Interesting question, but...

- 9 wins: The home games against low major teams
- 1 win: Arizona State (may very well be outside top-100)
- 6 wins: Seton Hall (97 last year), Creighton (151 last year), DePaul (197 last year)

So that would be 20 wins with only 4 good wins if SHU dropped out of the top-100 and the other two stayed status quo. If one more Big East team dropped (maybe St. John's) we could get to 18 wins without beating a single top-100 team.

I count 16 wins above, not 20. What am I missing?
Look, even if MU beats only the cupcakes on its non-conference schedule, that's nine wins. That means they're going to need 11 more wins via conference play. I don't see how that's possible by beating only sub-100 teams unless the Big East is brutally terrible this year.

[GooooMarquette]

More selective editing ....

You are becoming quite funny.

First you said people go because of the home team, not the opponent.  Now you're acknowledging that many season ticket holders don't go to the lesser games.  And you still don't see the conflict. 

[brewcity77]

I count 16 wins above, not 20. What am I missing?
Look, even if MU beats only the cupcakes on its non-conference schedule, that's nine wins. That means they're going to need 11 more wins via conference play. I don't see how that's possible by beating only sub-100 teams unless the Big East is brutally terrible this year.

You're correct, but you said you felt it was impossible to get to 20 wins with only 2-3 "good" wins.

So 16 wins, which means to get to 20, we would have only 4 good wins. If another Big East team fell flat (say St. John's replaced us in the sub-100 RPI range) that could be 18 wins, which would mean we could get to 20 wins with only 2 top-100 wins. That's assuming 4 Big East teams outside the top-100 RPI.

EDIT: Last year, the Big East had 3 sub-100 teams and one more at 97 (Seton Hall). If Seton Hall fell 4 spots in the RPI and St. John's swapped spots with Marquette being outside the top-100, that's 8 potential league wins that would all be sub-100. So the 9 home cupcakes, 8 in the Big East, and Arizona State (102 RPI last year).

[Galway Eagle]

You are becoming quite funny.

First you said people go because of the home team, not the opponent.  Now you're acknowledging that many season ticket holders don't go to the lesser games.  And you still don't see the conflict.

They go to competitive games, doesn't mean they're there for the other team. Just means that if they're going to set aside a very large portion of their day (even larger for those of us from Chicago) they want to see a game of value. I'll go for belmont, I won't go to maine, that doesn't mean I'm there to see belmont. It means I want to see MU play belmont. It certainly doesn't mean I think we should play teams like Belmont every single game, heck even in the Pros I'm quite certain they're happy when they get to have their occasional night off against the Lakers or 76ers.

[Pakuni]

You are becoming quite funny.

First you said people go because of the home team, not the opponent.  Now you're acknowledging that many season ticket holders don't go to the lesser games.  And you still don't see the conflict.

Because by editing out portions of what I wrote you're removing context ... in this case the context of how the strength non-conference schedule affects season-ticket buying decisions.
With all due respect, it's more than a little misleading on your part to do that.

[Pakuni]

You're correct, but you said you felt it was impossible to get to 20 wins with only 2-3 "good" wins.

So 16 wins, which means to get to 20, we would have only 4 good wins. If another Big East team fell flat (say St. John's replaced us in the sub-100 RPI range) that could be 18 wins, which would mean we could get to 20 wins with only 2 top-100 wins. That's assuming 4 Big East teams outside the top-100 RPI.

EDIT: Last year, the Big East had 3 sub-100 teams and one more at 97 (Seton Hall). If Seton Hall fell 4 spots in the RPI and St. John's swapped spots with Marquette being outside the top-100, that's 8 potential league wins that would all be sub-100. So the 9 home cupcakes, 8 in the Big East, and Arizona State (102 RPI last year).

So, basically even if the Big East is historically bad, it's still not possible.
I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but I still see no way what was said - 20 wins with only 2-3 qualifying as "good" - is feasible.

[brewcity77]

So, basically even if the Big East is historically bad, it's still not possible.
I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but I still see no way what was said - 20 wins with only 2-3 qualifying as "good" - is feasible.

Uhh...I think your math is wrong. Historically bad? Last year, Marquette, DePaul, and Creighton were all sub-100. Seton Hall was 97. It wouldn't have taken much (1 more loss or one more bad cupcake) for Seton Hall to be below 100. If St. John's and Marquette swap and SHU drops 4 spots, that's 8 Big East wins possible without a single good win. Add in the 9 home games, that's 17 total wins without a single good win. If ASU is again below 100 RPI (like last year) that's 18 total wins without a single good win.

It wouldn't take historically bad from the Big East, it would take a season virtually identical to last season. That pretty easily gets us to 17-18 wins, and the only two differences between this year and last year would be SHU dropping 4 spots in RPI and St. John's replacing Marquette in the sub-100 area.

Like you, really not trying to be pedantic, just demonstrating that exactly what you said would be completely possible based on our current schedule if things from last year are virtually status quo.

[Jay Bee]

Don't remember what was written, but..read this re: last year's non conf sked vs. the previous year..

[chapman]

No other high major team will have more 300+ RPI teams on their schedule, and we'll have five or more with the next most in the BE being two.  Not sure if it's Broeker's continuing ineptitude for scheduling or Scholl actually pushing for this.  Guess it'll take missing the tournament and seeing a net loss in tournament shares vs. the pennies saved for scheduling middle school teams.

[wadesworld]

This stuff is getting absurdly blown out of proportion.

[Jay Bee]

No other high major team will have more 300+ RPI teams on their schedule, and we'll have five or more with the next most in the BE being two.  Not sure if it's Broeker's continuing ineptitude for scheduling or Scholl actually pushing for this.  Guess it'll take missing the tournament and seeing a net loss in tournament shares vs. the pennies saved for scheduling middle school teams.

lol

[WarhawkWarrior]

Win the bunnies and be in the top 4 of the Big Easy and you are tourney
bound. 

[dbwarriors]

Horrible non-conference schedule

[bradley center bat]

If that is true, why is attendance almost always considerably higher for "marquee" games than it is for weaker opponents?

Maybe Marquette said screw it, when Arizona State had 12,000 plus.

[bradley center bat]

No other high major team will have more 300+ RPI teams on their schedule, and we'll have five or more with the next most in the BE being two.  Not sure if it's Broeker's continuing ineptitude for scheduling or Scholl actually pushing for this.  Guess it'll take missing the tournament and seeing a net loss in tournament shares vs. the pennies saved for scheduling middle school teams.

Maybe Wojo wants this.

[GooooMarquette]

Because by editing out portions of what I wrote you're removing context ... in this case the context of how the strength non-conference schedule affects season-ticket buying decisions.
With all due respect, it's more than a little misleading on your part to do that.

Sorry I hurt your feelings by using your exact words.

Peace.

[#UnleashSean]

I count 16 wins above, not 20. What am I missing?
Look, even if MU beats only the cupcakes on its non-conference schedule, that's nine wins. That means they're going to need 11 more wins via conference play. I don't see how that's possible by beating only sub-100 teams unless the Big East is brutally terrible this year.

You are really blind to just how awful the big east really is. We might be lucky if we have more then 3 teams in the top 100.

[Galway Eagle]

You are really blind to just how awful the big east really is. We might be lucky if we have more then 3 teams in the top 100.

Well that's a dumb statement. I hope it's sarcasm. Nova, GTown, X and Providence will certainly be there. Butler and us will be there as well.  Yes SJU is terrible, seton hall is facing tons of issues but if whitehead is legit they'll be fine, if Billy Garrett and Hamilton can play under Dave Letaeo (I can't remember spelling) DePaul will jump up, creightons probably still down in the dumps.

[brewcity77]

Went with one more comparable going the other way. Let's say that Providence last year had a similar schedule to what we have this year:

2014-15 Providence
22-11 (11-7/1-1 BET)
RPI: 22
SOS: 5

DROP: Albany (Home win), Florida State (Neutral win), Boston College (Road loss), Rhode Island (Home win), Massachusetts (Home win)
ADD: Grambling, Jackson State, San Jose State, Presbyterian, Chicago State

They still have two neutral site games to roughly approximate the Legends Classic, Notre Dame and Miami. They have one big away game at Kentucky, who was far better than Bucky will be this year (kept as a loss). They play the same conference schedule we will play this year. I even kept in the loss to Brown, simulating the horrible "what if" we lose to one of these cupcakes. As far as other comparables, RPI 64 Yale is there to roughly approximate a likely top-100 Iowa and RPI 107 Stony Brook roughly approximates Belmont. So the new numbers?

2014-15 Providence
23-10 (11-7/1-1)
RPI: 46
SOS: 75

Because I dropped the BC loss and replaced it with a home cupcake win, Providence gains a win but drops massively in the other metrics. With 23 wins, playing a schedule similar (Providence's is likely still a bit better) would have had the Friars squarely on the bubble. Their vaunted SOS that helped them secure a 6-seed drops a whopping 70 points, while their RPI also takes a massive hit. Would they get in with that? Possibly, but probably as an 11 or 12 rather than a 6. It would take 24 wins for them to be assured of a bid.

So for anyone predicting MU for a NCAA bid with Henry this year, do you think 23-24 wins are on the cards?