An Open Letter To Larry, The Dude Scheduling Michigan Basketball Comment Count

Brian

121711-AJC-basketball-Michigan-vs-Alabama-A-and-M-31_display

never again please

Dude. Larry. We have to talk:

Coming off a 2-27 season, the Bulldogs will play at Michigan at Crisler Center on Thursday, Dec. 21, according to a contract for the game obtained by MLive. U-M will pay Alabama A&M a guarantee of $95,000 for making the trip.

Coach Willie Hayes' team finished No. 351 out of 351 teams in both the RPI and Kenpom's efficiency ranking in 2016-17.

Its lone wins came over Mississippi Valley State (344) and Prairie View A&M (313). The Bulldogs finished last in the Southwestern Athletic Conference.

This is literally the worst possible game Michigan can schedule. Not only is it an offensive blowout in the making the likes of the Delaware State football game, it is poison to Michigan's RPI. Any SWAC team is an anchor; the worst SWAC team is even more so. A win against a team like Alabama A&M hurts your RPI. It would be better to simply not play that game.

Compounding matters:

John Beilein has previously indicated that there's a chance Michigan will not play a 31-game slate. He told reporters at the NBA Draft Combine that due to a condensed schedule -- the result of two Big Ten games being moved to early December and the conference tournament being moved a week earlier to Feb. 28-March 4 -- he will not shoehorn in an ill-advised game simply to get to 31.

You're not even going to play a full schedule because of Jim Delany! If you've opened the door to not playing games, this is the game you do not play. Nobody buying a season ticket is going to miss it. You are actively harming your RPI by playing it. An intrasquad scrimmage would be better preparation for the rest of the season. There is literally no reason to do this. And yet. Here we are.

I wrote about how to make your schedule pretty five years ago. (Not coincidentally, Alabama A&M was on the schedule that year as well.) Find high-win teams from lower leagues who you have a 98% chance of beating instead of a 99% chance. This has a material impact on your NCAA seedings, as this year's tournament amply demonstrated. A patently undeserving Minnesota got a five-seed this year because they paid attention to the RPI's flaws:

That and that alone was why Minnesota got a 5 seed and Wisconsin, which had a superior resume by any measure that was not an archaic and barely-tuned formula, got an 8. This matters, and every year Michigan plays two to four of the worst teams in the country. You're killing your father, Larry.

Comments

bronxblue

June 14th, 2017 at 2:59 PM ^

I mean, they would have sweated it out because they lost to non-tourney teams like OSU (at home), Iowa, and Illinois, plus got beaten badly by good teams in UCLA and South Carolina (the latter being a surprise FF team).  Them winning the tournament gave them a 7 seed, but I always thought it weird people talking about them a top-4 seed after they beat SMU and Marquette, and the refrain that "this is a tourney team" when they were .500 in conference always struck me as blind fandom.

Again, their RPI at the beginning of the B1G tournament was in the mid-40s, which made sense because they hadn't really beaten anyone.  After winning the tournament, they were in the low 30s, which again makes sense because they won a bunch of games against top teams.  I just don't think Michigan having two more wins against, say, the 85th and 92nd RPI teams would have mattered in that calculation as much as beating Purdue, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.  

J.

June 14th, 2017 at 4:06 PM ^

Sure, but the bubble was wretched last year.  Michigan could have been a lock, despite its poor performance in the games that you mention, with a better RPI.  They could have achieved a better RPI through scheduling, with little to no chance of ending up with a different record (because, yes, changing a win to a loss would outweigh any of the other benefits of this approach).

The selection committee cares about RPI.  Why they do that, I don't know, because it's a terrible measure.  But they do, so Michigan should do the same.

Sure, it would be great if Michigan had such a terrific season that their RPI didn't matter and they were the #1 overall seed.  That would be epic, and we'd all enjoy it, and I'll root for it to happen every single year.  But why not make plan B a little more palatable?

lhglrkwg

June 14th, 2017 at 2:36 PM ^

Do we actually know who builds Michigan's schedule? I am assuming Beilein gives input on what types of teams he wants to play, but he's not the guy calling up the Director of Basketball Operations at Alabama A&M

TrueBlue2003

June 14th, 2017 at 3:01 PM ^

This wasn't just a matter of Michigan getting hot at the end of the year.  They started the season 10-3 with some blowout wins over tournament teams (SMU and Marquette) and losses only against tournament teams, two of which were on the road against very good opponents (SC, UCLA) and one of which was a bit of a fluky/close collapse against a solid Va Tech team.

A top 25 ranking was warrented and faint chatter about a final four run was not unrealistic.  What dragged us down a in record and metrics was the stretch in the middle that saw us lose some close games on questionable substitution patterns, get lazy on defense, and get super unlucky on opponent three pointers.

We were a 3/4 seed by talent and quality, dragged into what should have been 5/6 territory because of bad luck/a short stretch of uninspired play.  7 was egregiously wrong for us.  Ask Ok St. and Louisville which were the bigger victims of that underseeding.

bronxblue

June 14th, 2017 at 3:56 PM ^

I mean, that whole first paragraph sounds exactly like the argument you'd make for a 7-seeded team.  They went 2-3 in games against good squads.  The second paragraph is just full of rationalizations all fans have, but they don't disguise the fact that they lost by double-digits to Illinois, in OT to a mediocre Iowa team, and at home to a bad OSU team.  

This team was never a 3/4 seed until the very end of the year.  Maybe they were a 6 seed, but them falling to the 7 line was a much to do with the entire conference being down as anything Michigan's OOC schedule.  

Here are the other 7-seeds Michigan was set up against:

St. Mary's (29-5) - RPI 17, OOC 21

Dayton (24-8) - RPI 30, OOC 53

South Carolina (26-11) - RPI 43, OOC 47

Michigan (26-12) - RPI 25, OOC 44

Those teams all look about the same to me.  Michigan got a slight uptick because they won the B1G tournament, but before then they were in the high 30s for RPI.  

Taken in total, last year's team was probably a 8/9/10 seed team that got super-hot and played like a top-10 team for about a month.  The fact they really couldn't perform like that save for a week in NY falls on the coaches, player development, the vagaries of basketball, whatever.  But Michigan didn't win a bunch of top-50 matchups, and lost to a couple of mediocre-to-bad teams.  Yes, at the margins beating the #125 team is better for your RPI than beating the #190 team, but in the broad strokes that most basketball teams abide by, Michigan was a fine team that was seeded pretty close to what they were based on their total season.  Now, if you are arguing the committee should have taken into account the last 10-15 games and seeded closer to that performance, fine.  But they didn't seem to do that for any team, and that seems to be a conscious effort.  Sometimes you run into a team that is super-hot and they are underseeded as a result, while other times you are Dayton and run into Wichita St.

Scout96

June 14th, 2017 at 1:34 PM ^

Hey Michigan Athletic department, if you want to sell more tickets and impress recruits or get recruits to come watch, do not schedule these dud games that are also RPI killers.  Please add marginally interesting opponents, at least CMU is a good local story. I agree with Brian on this fully on gaming RPI, and it does't mean you have to schedule  more top 25 teams, at least start with the teams in RPI 100s-200s.

mGrowOld

June 14th, 2017 at 1:40 PM ^

I'm happy for Maizen this got posted.  He was right yesterday and instead of looking at what he said people got all twisted up in how he said it.  And candidly I didnt have any great issue in his presentation and absolutely believe that if virtually anyone else but him had made the exact same post nobody wouldve batted much of an eye over it.

Board Rules:

1. Board HATES bad news.  If you bring it (unless you're Brian) expect backlash

2. Board hates even more being reminded when said bearer of bad news is proven to be right and reminds board of it.

Maizen has broken both "rules" by pointing out our OOC schedule is horrible yesterday and by pointing out when we lose out on the big-name recruits we go after.  And then compounds his sins by reminding people of it in a less than gracious manner when he does.

 

bronxblue

June 14th, 2017 at 1:51 PM ^

The title of his post was "John Beilein continues to kill Michigan's RPI with the way he schedules OOC", and was basically a mini-rant about how scheduling a bad SWAC team destroyed Michigan's RPI.  Mind you, people pointed out the fact Michigan had 4-5 big-name teams on the schedule a couple of other likely-wins-but-no-anchor games as well.  It was a petulant post that he then went through upvoting his comments and calling out anyone who disagreed.

Some people might have negged him for the negative news, but I argued it was just lazy analysis.  Michigan finished with the 25th-ranked RPI last year; Minnesota, the darling of gaming the RPI in some people's eyes, finished 19th.  Michigan was a 7 seed because for the season, they played like one.  They got hot at the end and played like a top-2 seed; in the early part of the conference slate, they played like an NIT squad.  Average that out, you get the team's placement.

Maizen wasn't "proven right".  He said "Brian says this", then Brian posted a front-page comment that pointed it out.  That doesn't mean Brian is right; I disagree with the premise that the OOC schedule has dramatically hurt Michigan's seeding under Beilein.  The B1G being sorta-garbage last year cost them seeding, like it cost everyone else.  

I mostly agree with Brian on major topics, and sure there is a reflexive response to agree with him on his blog as like-minded patrons, but most people here are competent human beings who can consume and produce opinions on their own.  I stand by my opinions, and if Brian agrees with me, then fine.  But it's intellectually dishonest to assume everyone here is a sheep just because they don't agree with you.

MI Expat NY

June 14th, 2017 at 3:29 PM ^

Because the RPI exists, it influences preceptions of teams.  Perhaps we don't appear to be barely an NIT team after a rough start to the early conference season if we weren't sitting at an RPI of 84 after a 10-3 non-conference schedule.  We played four 250+ RPI teams and one additional 200+ RPI team.  Scheduling dragged us down and hurt our perception.  

I guess I don't understand the harm in gaming the RPI system.  There's actual math involved and the analysis is straight forward.  Why would you not want to look as good as you can by a metric that the selection committee cares about.  You can pick out anecdotal arguments here and there as to why the RPI didn't really matter as much as some suggest, but why let it come to that?  Why not simply have an RPI that's 10-15 spots higher simply by good scheduling?  Are you really suggesting that if Michigan finished as Conference Tournament champions with an RPI of 15, we're not a 4-5 seed at worst?   

281wolverine

June 15th, 2017 at 11:55 AM ^

New to posting, so unsure where the personal stuff is coming from.  But I have to disagree with Brian and Maizen.  Our SOS has always been competitive, and  Minnesota's RPI boost was largely due to luck (3 weak opponents making jumps of 100+ in RPI).  The truth is, we only schedule 2-3 of these games every year...and frankly, most blue bloods do too.  

When has our out of conference scheduling really screwed us?  It doesn't add up.  We play tough teams on the road and at home, participate in competitive non con tourneys and play tons of home games for the fans.  I feel that some in the fan base just can't wait to attack Johnny B.  Since we're not playing anymore, scheduling it is.  When we start filling the 2018 class, we'll hear more hate. 

 

Just don't think the facts support this thread or Maizen's.  Plus, RPI is being devalued this year. \

mGrowOld

June 14th, 2017 at 2:56 PM ^

Last year I took two unpopular stands here during the football season and got quite a bit of blowback from the vox-populi.  I said the MSU game would be much closer than people thought and that I thought we stood a very good chance of losing at Iowa.  Both statements were based on almost 50 years of watching Michigan play at those schools and both were proven to be correct.

But man oh man did I hear about how ridiculous my thoughts were in the weeks leading up to the games and how wrong-headed I was for saying such a thing.  And in the days after both games any comment I made reminding people about my predictions turning out to be right were not warmly recieved.   

I've never gotten anywhere near the grief Maizen takes around here but you're kidding yourself if you think this place wants to hear anything but good news when it comes to our team.  And those that think and write otherwise generally face a rough road from the board.

Image result for burn the witch animated gif

bronxblue

June 14th, 2017 at 3:06 PM ^

I guess I don't get why people are so worried about people disagreeing with them here.  Yes, if you say "Iowa is going to be tough" and people neg you for it, then we've identified some dumb people on this site.  It's the internet and this shouldn't be a shock to anyone.  Hell, I said yesterday it was weird people bought jerseys with other peoples' names on them, and that apparently was deemed unpopular.  So be it.

But there's a way to say a controversial opinion without saying "you dumb sheep don't get it", which is how those neg posts tend to go.  I will neg people sometimes for ideas I genuinely disagree with, but by far my most common negative respones are directed toward people who say their semi-legitimate point with a sneer.  I don't have the comments posted by people who claim they are negged for being contrarian, but my guess is that a lot of them are delivered with a self-satisfaction that is probably unearned.  

lilpenny1316

June 14th, 2017 at 1:43 PM ^

That's the date of the Alabama A&M game.  If they're going to play a terrible team, that's the best time -- when the kids are gone.  If I was to take my kids (10, 8, 4, 2) to a game, I'd probably break them in with a crappy game like that.  Stay for a half so the kids get the experience, then bail once the little ones start getting antsy.

 

TrueBlue2003

June 14th, 2017 at 3:16 PM ^

Not sure if this will be buried in the comments but didn't see it discussed yet.

I would think Michigan should absolutely, 100 percent schedule a 20-win mid-major for the final weekend of conference tournaments that they have wide open! (Thanks, Delany)  All the mid-majors are done with their tournaments already so they'd all be available.  Have to think any one of them would take the payday and chance to play Michigan, especially for a team expected to continue playing in the postseason.

If Michigan and other B1G teams don't schedule a game after the tourney, they'll have almost two weeks off between the end of their conf tournament and post-season play.  Schedule a Saturday game to break that up. That's a long time to get out of sync without game competition. That wouldn't be "shoehorning", it's a big open window. 

281wolverine

June 14th, 2017 at 7:41 PM ^

Really don't think this will impact us too much.  If we beat Minnesota, then that would have solved our seed line issues :)  This post is melodramatic.  Our schedule is loaded this year.  @UT and UNC.  UCLA.  Maui Invitational.   At most this game costs us 1 seed line.  So many other games do too.  Please.  Moving on.

**Edit:  AND, if I recall correctly, next year the committee will begin taking other metrics into account and NOT valuing RPI as much.  This post is absurd.