So exactly how tough is MSU’s nonconference schedule?
Posted by kj on Thursday, September 4th, 2008
Joe Rexrode on Michigan State’s nonconference schedule:
. . . I’d rate this the third-toughest of the Izzo era, behind that 2003 slate [Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, Oklahoma, UCLA, Syracuse], and the 1999-2000 schedule that included North Carolina, Arizona and Kentucky on the road, Kansas in Chicago, Texas in Puerto Rico, Connecticut at home. In retrospect, that’s easily No. 1.
Let’s see what the numbers say about this question. Below are the rankings for each of MSU’s 2008-09 nonconference opponents based on the 2007-08 Kenpom ratings, sorted from best to worst.
- Kansas (1)
- North Carolina (4)
- Georgetown (7)*
- Texas (9)
- Gonzaga (30)*
- Maryland (56)
- Bradley (81)
- Oakland (149)
- Indiana-Purdue Fort Wayne (202)
- Idaho (280)
- The Citadel (324)
- Alcorn State (336)
The asterisks indicate MSU’s projected opponents in the Old Spice Classic if the favorites when in each round of the tournament. If MSU or the other top-ranked teams lose in the first or second rounds, that would drive the quality of the schedule down a bit.
Obviously, each of these teams will probably be somewhat better or worse this season than they were last season. Prominent examples: Kansas won’t be the best team in the country; North Carolina may very well be the best team in the country. But last year’s rankings provide a rough measure of the quality of each opponent.
Let’s see how these rankings compare to the data from previous MSU nonconference schedules. (Note that I’m ignoring game locations. Generally the patsies are all at home and the tougher opponents are split pretty equally between home/neutral/away.)
|
Based on the average Kenpom ranking, the 2008-09 nonconference slate ranks as the 4th toughest over the time period for which the data are available, barely ahead of the 1998-99, 2000-01, and 2001-02 schedules.
The schedule certainly appears to be substantially tougher than it has been since the 2003-04 season. Over the last four seasons, MSU has played no more than two top 30 teams per season out of conference. This year, they could play up to five such opponents, which would be the second most over the last decade.
I’ve also shown the number of opponents ranked 200th or lower in the Kenpom rankings to provide an idea how many major-league patsies have been scheduled each year. That number has gone up the last few years. This year’s total of four is fairly reasonable, though–particularly as Oakland is the only other nonconference opponent ranked below the top 100.
Using the average ranking methodology, the 2003-04 season comes up as the toughest schedule. That schedule featured Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, and Syracuse as top 30 teams. Seven of MSU’s 11 opponents were ranked in the top 100 and no opponent was ranked below 250, driving the average ranking downward. The result was MSU’s only losing nonconference record during the last decade.
Rexrode judges the the 1999-2000 schedule to be the toughest. That’s a reasonable judgment. That schedule had the second lowest average ranking and included a whopping six top 30 teams.
The 2002-03 average ranking was the third lowest (this was Rexrode’s #2 pick). It was the only schedule to feature three top 10 teams (Kentucky, Syracuse, and Oklahoma).
The bottom line is that the 2008-09 schedule appears to match up favorably with the kind of schedules MSU played during the first three Final Four seasons. Following subpar results against tough schedules in 2002-03 and 2003-04 (Rexrode notes the unanticipated loss of Lorbek made that 2003-04 schedule particularly difficult), Izzo eased up a bit over the next four years. The win-loss results have been favorable, with no more than 2 losses each year.
But playing the best opposition possible is in Izzo’s blood. I’m glad we’re getting back to it. Maybe a tougher nonconference slate and a more favorable conference schedule are two ingredients for ending the conference title drought . . .
Other stuff of interest:
- In the same blog post, Joe Rexrode says Tom Herzog has bulked up by more than 20 pounds during the offseason.
- Izzo talked at length about the schedule and other matters on the Huge Show. He’d like to see major rivals like MSU and U-M play twice every year and isn’t a huge fan of the pre-New Years start to conference play. He sounds a little tentative about how much PT Delvon Roe will be ready for early in the season.
Filed in stats analysis4 responses so far
4 Responses to “So exactly how tough is MSU’s nonconference schedule?”
Benon 05 Sep 2008 at 2:04 am 1So if Izzo’s in favor of playing Michigan twice, why don’t we try to schedule them for an OOC game in years when they’re rotated off our conference slate? IU and Purdue do this when they only play each other once in the conference season . . .
kjon 05 Sep 2008 at 8:21 am 2He said something about why they haven’t done that–but I forget exactly what.
It does use up one of your byes if you’re going to do in the conference season (as we’re doing with Kansas this year).
Dr Huxtableon 05 Sep 2008 at 4:15 pm 3They’ve definitely done that in the past.
http://msuspartans.cstv.com/sp.....-ev16.html
But in 02 and 03 we only played Michigan once, so there’s no real consistency.
kjon 05 Sep 2008 at 4:59 pm 4One solution would be to guarantee that everyone play their two fixed football rivals twice every year in basketball (your two missing games would come from the other 8 potential opponents).
Michigan would probably suffer most under that plan, as their two rivals (MSU, OSU) are most likely to both be contenders for the foreseeable future.