hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,212
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jan 31, 2005 21:20:37 GMT -5
Really now, how incredible is this? Who in their right mind would have envisioned us being part of the discussion of possible tournament teams halfway through the conference season? I don't think even lic was that optimistic. I have to pinch myself when I read this thread to make sure I'm not dreaming. So what's my point? Just that we should not beat ourselves up over this. Let's just relax (if possible) and hope for the best. And consider this. If we make the tournament, III should be national coach of the year, hands down. Or at least tied with Al Skinner.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Jan 31, 2005 23:29:43 GMT -5
ORU is better than UMass who beat UConn. ORU is at least equal to Bucknell and St. John's who beat Pitt, and Michigan who beat Notre Dame.
|
|
Simian Prime
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again. --- J. Gumm
Posts: 283
|
Post by Simian Prime on Feb 1, 2005 0:23:49 GMT -5
8 games left!
We will go 7 of 8!
You heard it here first.
|
|
Simian Prime
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again. --- J. Gumm
Posts: 283
|
Post by Simian Prime on Feb 1, 2005 0:25:38 GMT -5
That also gives us 20 wins going into the BET!
I see the Uconn game as our loss, yet when we played them here, we really didn't look that bad.
|
|
FOTP
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,435
|
Post by FOTP on Feb 1, 2005 9:50:24 GMT -5
Folks - I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if we beat the teams we're "supposed to beat" (e.g. lower RPIs) then our projected RPI will be in the high 40's. WE get killed for playing SH, Rutgers, St. John's etc coming down the stretch.
High 40's doesn't typically get in as an at-large. Just look at the history. This assumes a 5-3 end of the season that puts us at 10-6 in conference and 18-9 overall.
IMO we need a win either at home against Nova (up to a 19 RPI) or @ UCONN. It would be another great win and probably put us over the top. Just taking care of business may need at least one win in the BE Tourney.
|
|
|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Feb 1, 2005 11:14:21 GMT -5
High 40s doesn't generally get in at-large, but that history obscures the changes that may or may not occur with this year's change in the RPI formula. As a result of the RPI shift, there is the potential to have far more of the automatic qualifiers from mid-major conferences be teams that would have qualified at-large, thereby freeing up more at large spots. Still too early to tell, but I think either way, G'town's play in the BET will have a whole lot to do with where we wind up in the postseason.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Feb 1, 2005 13:25:16 GMT -5
Exactly right THB. Currently 15 conferences are represented in the top 50 of the RPI due to the new formula (a 16th is #56). So the traditional RPI milestones are out the window with the new formula. Even just accounting for all those conference champs, #49 is the last the team in on a strict RPI basis.
But there's another issue here which is the falling SOS of teams in the weaker conferences. The MAC has three top 50 teams, will it get three bids? Unlikely. The WCC has three as well. That's more likely but still highly unlikely they get more than 2 in.
So let's not count RPIs yet. It's a snapshot ranking not a measurement in units. We'll know more as we get closer to Selection Sunday about who has a shot at the at-large bids.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 1, 2005 13:28:14 GMT -5
Excellent points Giga and THB
|
|
FOTP
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,435
|
Post by FOTP on Feb 1, 2005 14:11:55 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure why the "traditional RPI milestones" are thrown out the window. They are just as valid now as before.
You argue that these conferences with those teams in the Top 50 just won't make it. My question is: why not?
The whole point of the change is to give higher credit to road and neutral court games/wins. Historically the "mid-majors" are the ones forced to trek on the road to beg for games. Well the new system is set up to encourage and benefit those type of teams.
The new RPI doens't give any credit and in fact harms teams like Pitt that have a great looking record, but played no one prior to the Big East schedule. Hence the #58 RPI ranking today. Pitt has a couple of nice looking wins, but both at home. The committe generally and in particular this year gives more credit to road wins. Just watch when Pitt is ranked #12 and gets an 8 seed. All hell will break loose, but it will happen.
Don't think that just because traditional confernences didn't get more than one bid before that it won't happen this time. The whole change in the RPI is set up to help those exact teams.
It's not like the committee sits around and says: We need 6 teams from the Big East and then work backwards.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 1, 2005 14:17:27 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure why the "traditional RPI milestones" are thrown out the window. They are just as valid now as before. You argue that these conferences with those teams in the Top 50 just won't make it. My question is: why not? The whole point of the change is to give higher credit to road and neutral court games/wins. Historically the "mid-majors" are the ones forced to trek on the road to beg for games. Well the new system is set up to encourage and benefit those type of teams. The new RPI doens't give any credit and in fact harms teams like Pitt that have a great looking record, but played no one prior to the Big East schedule. Hence the #58 RPI ranking today. Pitt has a couple of nice looking wins, but both at home. The committe generally and in particular this year gives more credit to road wins. Just watch when Pitt is ranked #12 and gets an 8 seed. All hell will break loose, but it will happen. Don't think that just because traditional confernences didn't get more than one bid before that it won't happen this time. The whole change in the RPI is set up to help those exact teams. It's not like the committee sits around and says: We need 6 teams from the Big East and then work backwards. I think a lot of it depends on the conference tournaments. If the high RPI mid-majors win their conference tournaments, our current RPI is probably understated relative to the same number last year (i.e. more of what were automatic bids reserved for low RPI teams are now automatic bids reserved for high RPI teams). If those teams lose in their conference tournaments, the RPI value is similar -- the mid-major conference will take what used to be major conference bids. This change annoys me because frankly, it is a marketing move. It's designed to create more cinderellas and desgined to create more big matchups for tv. I understand the sentiment; I hate the fact that they are handing out bids based on it. On the flip, if we had a usual Gtown schedule, we'd be in Pitt's position - desperate for big road wins.
|
|
FOTP
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,435
|
Post by FOTP on Feb 1, 2005 14:26:27 GMT -5
I love the new idea. It severly penalizes teams for playing Howard, Norfolk St., St. Jose St.
Those games KILL us.
Even with our "better schedule" this year we have the worst out of conference schedule of any team in the Top 47 of the current RPI...by far in most cases.
I love anything that penalizes teams like Ptt and Syr. (the reason they have a #16 RPI with such a gaudy record) for never leaving the state and playing terrible teams. It's the reason why the Big East is #3 in the RPI.
Not sure why it's for marketing purposes either. Aren't all the NCAA games on neutral courts? Doesn't the new system just benefit teams that play the type of schedule you'd have to play in the tournament anyway?
We don't need to play more Illinois...just replace Norfolk St. (RPI 230) with American (RPI 130).
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 1, 2005 14:32:03 GMT -5
I love the new idea. It severly penalizes teams for playing Howard, Norfolk St., St. Jose St. Those games KILL us. Even with our "better schedule" this year we have the worst out of conference schedule of any team in the Top 47 of the current RPI...by far in most cases. I love anything that penalizes teams like Ptt and Syr. (the reason they have a #16 RPI with such a gaudy record) for never leaving the state and playing terrible teams. It's the reason why the Big East is #3 in the RPI. Not sure why it's for marketing purposes either. Aren't all the NCAA games on neutral courts? Doesn't the new system just benefit teams that play the type of schedule you'd have to play in the tournament anyway? We don't need to play more Illinois...just replace Norfolk St. (RPI 230) with American (RPI 130). It's a marketing ploy because it started with -- how do we get better scheduling and more love to the md-majors? rather than How do we more accurately evaluate who the best team is? It is also an extreme change targeted at forcing teams to play more on the road. Which seems good, except that those creampuff games are somewhat of a symbiotic relationship for many teams. St. Francis can't draw what Pitt pays them, and Pitt draws 15k no matter what. (This probably won't hurt GU that much, if at all).
|
|
FOTP
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,435
|
Post by FOTP on Feb 1, 2005 14:44:16 GMT -5
Why is that so bad? Who's to say the "big conferences" are automatically better?
You can still play a predominately home schedule and be just fine if you replace teams in the 300's of the RPI with teams in the 150's. It's really not a big deal. Don't you think American would fall all over themeselves to play at MCI Center in December?
I'm not saying we should go out and play St. Mary's and Pepperdine. My only point is that this new system is actually bringing out our flawed scheduling even more. Even in a season where everyone says "this is our best schedule in awhile" we still get hammered in the out of conference schedule.
I looked up some teams ahead of us like San Francisco and it's quite fascinating. You look at it and it looks like we have a better record and a better overall SOS. However, we get killed because our wins over 300+ RPI teams don't count towards anything.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 1, 2005 14:52:03 GMT -5
Why is that so bad? Who's to say the "big conferences" are automatically better? You can still play a predominately home schedule and be just fine if you replace teams in the 300's of the RPI with teams in the 150's. It's really not a big deal. Don't you think American would fall all over themeselves to play at MCI Center in December? I'm not saying we should go out and play St. Mary's and Pepperdine. My only point is that this new system is actually bringing out our flawed scheduling even more. Even in a season where everyone says "this is our best schedule in awhile" we still get hammered in the out of conference schedule. I looked up some teams ahead of us like San Francisco and it's quite fascinating. You look at it and it looks like we have a better record and a better overall SOS. However, we get killed because our wins over 300+ RPI teams don't count towards anything. It's bad because the committee ASSUMED that mid-majors were getting shafted. They didn't bother to come up with a statistic that mirrored actual wins and losses (i.e. a predictive stat) to be fair. They just decided they'd give a bump to mid-majors and that was that. It isn't so hard to come up with a system that predicts wins and losses better than RPI. Lots of people have done it. And if a system predicts a winner better, I have to guess its evaluation is better. If the committee was interested in rewarding the better team, they'd have gone in that direction. Instead, they made changes designed to help mid-majors and create pressure for better TV matchups. As for GU, we do schedule idiotically. We don't take advantage of the system. But it still annoys me that the committee is going into full BCS mode -- they mollify the complainers and television. That's not exactly fair to the players.
|
|
FOTP
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,435
|
Post by FOTP on Feb 1, 2005 15:00:03 GMT -5
I hear you on a lot of the points you make, but I just don't think it's a "help the mid-majors out" type of a thing. I really think it's more of a "leave your home state a little bit" and we'll give you more credit for that type of thing.
Or just play a little better home slate. If you want to make the tournament and get a good seed you can't just sit at home and play Canisius (dig on Syr.) and Norfolk St. (dig on G-Town) etc. That just won't cut it. What's wrong with penalizing teams for doing that?
I'm not saying we or anyone else is forced to go play at Gonzaga or anything. We and others in the big East just need to recognize the consequences of our actions and not get all upset when our seed isn't what we thought or we don't make the tourney.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 1, 2005 15:05:25 GMT -5
I hear you on a lot of the points you make, but I just don't think it's a "help the mid-majors out" type of a thing. I really think it's more of a "leave your home state a little bit" and we'll give you more credit for that type of thing. Or just play a little better home slate. If you want to make the tournament and get a good seed you can't just sit at home and play Canisius (dig on Syr.) and Norfolk St. (dig on G-Town) etc. That just won't cut it. What's wrong with penalizing teams for doing that? I'm not saying we or anyone else is forced to go play at Gonzaga or anything. We and others in the big East just need to recognize the consequences of our actions and not get all upset when our seed isn't what we thought or we don't make the tourney. It's not the worst thing in the world; you're right. I'd just rather see them pick the best 65 teams (or 47 or whatever) for the tournament, rather than the best 35 plus some teams to make a point. I sincerely hope GU catches on to the glitches in the system.
|
|
FOTP
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,435
|
Post by FOTP on Feb 1, 2005 15:10:08 GMT -5
Agreed. I think we really basically agree on things.
Let's just hope that JTIII does the same analysis and tweaks the schedule slightly. Nothing major actually.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 1, 2005 15:14:11 GMT -5
Agreed. I think we really basically agree on things. Let's just hope that JTIII does the same analysis and tweaks the schedule slightly. Nothing major actually. Thinking about it more, I think it is imperative that we have a strong OOC schedule. The only reason the ACC has a better RPI right now is what you're saying -- teams like Cuse and Pitt sabotaged the BE's. (And GU used to do so). Only Rutgers, GU and I think Nova had much of an OOC -- maybe UConn? Either way, the only way the NBE is going to survive and get its fair share of bids is by its members scheduling better. If a team has a strong OOC, but goes 9-7 in conference losing to other teams with strong OOCs, they will get in. If the same exact team has the same conference records against the same exact teams, but those teams didn't prove they were any good OOC, then that 9-7 team is NIT bound. Edited because "very imperative" sounds like "I strenuously object."
|
|
FOTP
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,435
|
Post by FOTP on Feb 1, 2005 15:33:13 GMT -5
100% agree. No doubt.
It's actually pretty interesting when you look at the Nitty Gritty report on all the teams in the Big East and the ACC.
On average the Out of conference schedule rank is 51.6 for the ACC vs. 60.6 for the Big East. HOWEVER, this only includes teams that make the nitty gritty report. All of the ACC teams make this list expect for Va Tech (too low of an RPI to be considered). ON the big east side it eliminates St. John's, Prov, SHU and Rutgers.
|
|
hoyadrummer
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Class of 2000
Posts: 266
|
Post by hoyadrummer on Feb 1, 2005 15:38:05 GMT -5
I think what the NCAA has in mind is not helping mid majors because they "got shafted," in the past, but improving college bball across the board by giving teams an incentive to schedule a greater number of competitive games, creating a larger number of exciting games throughout the season, and I think that is a great idea.
The mid majors benefit immediately because due to their weak conference schedules they had already been scheduling tough OOC games, many on the road, to help their RPI under the old system.
Very long term, I think this new RPI will have the unintended effect of pushing bottom end conferences out of existence. If GU isn't playing Howard, Norfolk St, etc etc, and UNC isn't playing them because GU and UNC are playing each other, and so forth, these schools lose a major source a revenue.
We'll see if this happens (and doubtlessly argue over whether it is a good thing)
|
|