If X deserves to be in so do we...

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/team-comparison/XAVIER/MARQET

I was really surprised to see how well we compare to them, not sure why folks view them as solid for the tournament.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Because of poor cupcake scheduling. Look at the bottom of the resume. We have 6 wins against teams all worse than Xavier's second worst win. And they only played 3 sub-200 teams.

As tough as the good games were, the weak sisters were too weak. Our schedule required us to win some of those top-100 games. Outside of GW, we didn't. I hope Buzz and Mike look at this schedule and realize that you need better buy games than the ones we had this year. If we're on the bubble, those 6 buy games could be what keeps us out.

[The Reptile]

Because of poor cupcake scheduling. Look at the bottom of the resume. We have 6 wins against teams all worse than Xavier's second worst win. And they only played 3 sub-200 teams.

As tough as the good games were, the weak sisters were too weak. Our schedule required us to win some of those top-100 games. Outside of GW, we didn't. I hope Buzz and Mike look at this schedule and realize that you need better buy games than the ones we had this year. If we're on the bubble, those 6 buy games could be what keeps us out.

Or we could have simply won more games. Then the buy games would have been less of a factor.

[MU_Iceman]

Because of poor cupcake scheduling. Look at the bottom of the resume. We have 6 wins against teams all worse than Xavier's second worst win. And they only played 3 sub-200 teams.

As tough as the good games were, the weak sisters were too weak. Our schedule required us to win some of those top-100 games. Outside of GW, we didn't. I hope Buzz and Mike look at this schedule and realize that you need better buy games than the ones we had this year. If we're on the bubble, those 6 buy games could be what keeps us out.


But then there's this...And I think MU falls into this category..the bottom feeders turned out worse than they were supposed to be.



Sometimes, a schedule's strength isn't all it's cracked up to be

Editor's note: This file has been updated to include all games through Thursday, Feb. 13.

On Wednesday afternoon, one day before the start of the 2014 media mock selection, new men's basketball committee chair Ron Wellman sat down for the customary media teleconference. One question, about Wichita State's schedule strength, led to a particularly worthwhile answer.

After reiterating the usual talking points -- the committee looks at overall and nonconference schedules, and different members will draw different conclusions -- Wellman went even further.

"Oftentimes schools will develop a schedule thinking that it is a very strong schedule, only to have their opponents fall on their face," he said. "And the schedule isn't nearly as strong as what they thought it might be originally. Those are some of the factors that we look at beyond just the RPI. There are many, many metrics that we use beyond the RPI. The RPI does a good job of capturing all those metrics, but again, the various metrics can be used by the conference members."

The first part is a fascinating bit of situational philosophy. Let's call it "schedule intent" -- what a team sets out to do with its schedule, as opposed to what that schedule eventually becomes. Wellman's response might be the first time a committee chairman has explicitly discussed this kind of next-level hypothetical consideration.

On the one hand, it makes sense, for the same reasons the committee no longer weighs late-season games more heavily than nonconference ones: The NCAA wants to encourage teams to play good games. On the other hand, who cares what a schedule was supposed to be? What does that have to do with anything? Shouldn't the schedule itself -- the actual objective strength of the actual opponents -- be the only thing that matters?

The second part, thankfully, is just a handy reminder. The committee comprises a variety of human beings who value a variety of criteria when analyzing teams. Those members will weigh different factors differently. Some might even subscribe to this whole "well, they tried" scheduling idea, which was a concept we didn't even know existed two days ago. How do you adjust your expectations for that?

This is the crucial reminder as we dig into another edition of the Bubble Watch: At some point, these are just educated guesses.

[TheSultan]

I don't know Iceman....that non-conference schedule had a "soft underbelly" way back in November. What teams do you think are worse than we thought they would be?

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I thought the intent of at worst having a winning record was pretty clear. I understand wanting the high profile games, but offsetting those with such weak opponents jus doesn't work. Considering the high end, there is no way our SOS shouldn't be top-30, even in this diminished Big East.

I would rather see only 1-2 of the marquee (OSU, UW, ASU, UNM) games, as you can expect another 1-2 (GW, SDSU) in the non-con tourney. Stock the schedule with teams in the 100-200 range. Might not look as flashy, but it would probably give us more wins, a better RPI, and higher seed on average than trying to offset the marquee games with pure garbage.

[TheSultan]

I thought the intent of at worst having a winning record was pretty clear. I understand wanting the high profile games, but offsetting those with such weak opponents jus doesn't work. Considering the high end, there is no way our SOS shouldn't be top-30, even in this diminished Big East.

I would rather see only 1-2 of the marquee (OSU, UW, ASU, UNM) games, as you can expect another 1-2 (GW, SDSU) in the non-con tourney. Stock the schedule with teams in the 100-200 range. Might not look as flashy, but it would probably give us more wins, a better RPI, and higher seed on average than trying to offset the marquee games with pure garbage.


For instance, UW's non-conference schedule (with a healthy Florida team) is pretty much exactly what you would normally want to see. Now some of that is because SLU and UVA are better than people thought they would be, but in retrospect that non-conference schedule is what Marquette should strive for.

[kneelb4zerg]

I thought the intent of at worst having a winning record was pretty clear. I understand wanting the high profile games, but offsetting those with such weak opponents jus doesn't work. Considering the high end, there is no way our SOS shouldn't be top-30, even in this diminished Big East.

I would rather see only 1-2 of the marquee (OSU, UW, ASU, UNM) games, as you can expect another 1-2 (GW, SDSU) in the non-con tourney. Stock the schedule with teams in the 100-200 range. Might not look as flashy, but it would probably give us more wins, a better RPI, and higher seed on average than trying to offset the marquee games with pure garbage.

To take it one step further it would have been helpful if at least one more of our top 100 games was at home. Instead all we got was OSU, a game we basically had no chance of winning. Going at ASU and neutral site New Mexico just didn't work for us.

[warriorfan4life]

I think X is in good shape because of the neutral court win over Cincy (likely 3-5 seed in the tourney) and their win over Tennessee is about equal to ours over GW. Now, they could use a home win over Creighton or Nova to feel totally safe, but think they will be an 8-9 seed in the end.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

It would be really nice for us if Xavier finishes hot, right now they are RPI #49 and them dropping below 50 would hurt us again... Need top 50 wins for that resume

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

For instance, UW's non-conference schedule (with a healthy Florida team) is pretty much exactly what you would normally want to see. Now some of that is because SLU and UVA are better than people thought they would be, but in retrospect that non-conference schedule is what Marquette should strive for.

Exactly. UW's schedule was by far the best they've assembled in recent memory and better than just about any of Marquette's recent schedules. If we did that every year, I'd be overjoyed, and to be honest, in many ways it was an easier schedule than we faced.

When you can schedule a slate that is both better for RPI and more likely to generate wins, that's smart scheduling. The Badgers were brilliant in that regard this year.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

And agreed, kneel. I really think we need another annual home and home to balance the UW series. I would love that to be Notre Dame. If not them, ISU, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, and Louisville would all be good candidates. Also, neutral site games should be neutral sites. Like MSG was for the Washington game. Games like SDSU and New Mexico may have been neutral on paper, but neither were remotely neutral.

[Markedman]

Their RPI is 40 not 49....http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2014/rpi


It would be really nice for us if Xavier finishes hot, right now they are RPI #49 and them dropping below 50 would hurt us again... Need top 50 wins for that resume

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

Is that updated? CBS has them at 49 and that was updated today.

[Nukem2]

Is that updated? CBS has them at 49 and that was updated today.Just looked. Both Nolan and CBS have X at # 40.....

[MU/Panther]

Xavier has some solid wins in the non league schedule. Highlighted by beating Cincy.

[Markedman]

Nolan is a great site...they update almost as soon as the games are finished....

[MU_Iceman]

I don't know Iceman....that non-conference schedule had a "soft underbelly" way back in November. What teams do you think are worse than we thought they would be?


Well for one, I think EVERYONE(particularly Broeker, Buzz etc), thought Ball State would be much better than they are. I'm sure there is NO way they anticipated them being a 300 RPI team. Same with IUPUI. Maybe 250ish yes, but not 310 in IUPUI's case. Ball St, I think many thought would be around a 200 RPI team. Not sure what the hell happened to them and why they have only won two games. If those two teams are what they are supposed to be, or rather anticipated to be, the schedule would look a whole hell of a lot different.

[TheSultan]

Well for one, I think EVERYONE(particularly Broeker, Buzz etc), thought Ball State would be much better than they are. I'm sure there is NO way they anticipated them being a 300 RPI team. Same with IUPUI. Maybe 250ish yes, but not 310 in IUPUI's case. Ball St, I think many thought would be around a 200 RPI team. Not sure what the hell happened to them and why they have only won two games. If those two teams are what they are supposed to be, or rather anticipated to be, the schedule would look a whole hell of a lot different.


OK...fair enough.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Well for one, I think EVERYONE(particularly Broeker, Buzz etc), thought Ball State would be much better than they are. I'm sure there is NO way they anticipated them being a 300 RPI team. Same with IUPUI. Maybe 250ish yes, but not 310 in IUPUI's case. Ball St, I think many thought would be around a 200 RPI team. Not sure what the hell happened to them and why they have only won two games. If those two teams are what they are supposed to be, or rather anticipated to be, the schedule would look a whole hell of a lot different.

Ball State has disappointed. IUPUI is what everyone expected they would be -- awful last year, awful this year. Regardless, the idea that these teams might have been in the 250 range instead of 300 isn't exactly a schedule-booster. We need to look at buy games against teams that will be expected to compete for conference titles. Teams like Southern are fine. Savannah State and Norfolk State the past couple years were good games to have on the schedule. This year there were way too many teams that looked bad from the get-go. IUPUI, Grambling, Samford, New Hampshire, and Fullerton all looked like duds from the word go.

Ball State makes it worse, but this was never going to be a quality batch of cupcakes.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

Just looked. Both Nolan and CBS have X at # 40.....

Interesting... This link to CBS says #49 for me... I guess it's neither here nor there, the point remains I think its important they stay top 50