|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 14, 2005 10:02:30 GMT -5
One item in the Post story this morning was somewhat concerning. Camille Powell, towards the bottom of her story, posed a series of "what ifs" that may have led to an NCAA bid. The first was "What if Georgetown had opted for an easier pre-conference slate and thus wound up with a few more overall victories?".
This wasn't a quote from Coach Thompson or anyone in McDonough; nevertheless it got me thinking.
We're all in agreement that we, as fans, enjoyed the better non-conference slate this year. And I think we all agree that there are other benefits of doing it this way--mainly that your team sees better competition and gets prepared to play in the Conference and increased interest and ticket sales.
But, now that the season is over, can any of the RPI-guys on the board determine what would have happened had we not upgraded as much? In other words, can we objectively show that this was the better thing to have done, statistically?
For purposes of argument, I won't mess with the pre-season tournament in Hawaii (since we play in such events regularly), but let's say that we didn't play Temple or Illinois, but instead played two of the creampuffs from last year that we didn't play this year and beat both of them: Delaware State and Grambling. I recognize that Del State won the MEAC this year, so maybe that's not a fair one to put in...but that's who we played last year (and maybe we would have lost...but this is just for argument's sake).
One final point that I'm sure has been made before and will be made again, particularly when we get to the off-season: we're going to have to downgrade the schedule a good deal going into next year, since the Conference slate is going to improve so much. I'm not suggesting we retreat completely, but we will need to downgrade a bit...perhaps replacing Illinois with another beatable mid-major like Davidson, for instance. And replacing a mid-major with a low major.
|
|
|
Post by DuddingtonHoya on Mar 14, 2005 10:13:33 GMT -5
Besides the fact that this is horendously blasphemous, I don't think we would have generated as much attention as we did if we hadn't played the teams we played.
Next year I'm definitely looking forward to playing a depleted Illinois (after all their starters bolt for the NBA following their championship) and another downtrodden Amaker team. And if we can still sneak into BBT to play Maryland and GWU.... Hopefully Howard will be the only 200+ team we play.... Our SOS will be so absurd while also playing in the new big east. It's going to be awesome.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Mar 14, 2005 10:15:35 GMT -5
It wouldn't have mattered, because every "analyst" on ESPN kept saying we played a crappy schedule this year anyway. They might be right, as while this was an improvement over years past, it still wasn't anything great.
|
|
|
Post by ArlingtonHoya on Mar 14, 2005 10:19:27 GMT -5
I really don't think the solution should be to avoid the tough OOC games, but rather to avoid the incredibly easy ones. If anyone heard the tourney director talking last night about bubble teams they chose, the one common denominator was that they'd made an effort to schedule challenging OOC games, so we really need to continue to do so. (Our beloved Maryland and Notre Dame were faulted for their relatively easy slates.) 20 wins without any OOC opponents in the top 100 RPI are not the makings of a tournament team.
The one thing we certainly can do to help ourselves is to remove teams like the Citadel (296 RPI), Norfolk St (270) and Howard (322) from our schedule. If we replace them with slightly less dreadful teams (George Mason (154), American (143) and even Hampton (182) come to mind), our RPI and SOS will shoot through the roof. And if we don't think we can beat those teams, we really shouldn't be concerned with making the tournament.
The RPI analysis I'd like to see is what our final ranking would have been if we replaced Citadel, NSU and Howard with GMU, American and Hampton. Assuming 3 wins or even just 2, what would our RPI have been? I'm guessing the difference is very meaningful.
In fact, can anyone offer an explanation as to why we haven't made this change already?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 14, 2005 10:21:10 GMT -5
Our RPI, already about as bad as you could get and still be considered (77 - worst ever was 75 for NM St. a few years ago), would've be compeltely out of reach.
If you look at the new RPI, and who got in, it reads pretty much straight.
The first 44 in RPI got in, Buffalo and Wichita St. were the best RPIs left out.
Worst RPI to get in without an automatic bid was NC State at 65 (then UAB at 49).
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 14, 2005 10:32:09 GMT -5
Going forward, I agree completely that the bottom portion of the schedule can and should be upgraded. Absolutely no argument. Downgrading a mid-major to a low major doesn't mean you need to play Grambling.
My main point was that the upper portion of the schedule will merit a very close look, given the difficulty the conference will present.
I'd be interested to see both analyses: what an upgrade of our schedule this year would have done for us and what a downgrade (such as the one I presented in the top post) would have done.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Mar 14, 2005 10:45:10 GMT -5
the analysis you suggest is worth doing and will provide some insights. It would be really good to know how much these various games impact RPI.
But i don't think we should downgrade the upper portion of our OOC. Do you think we would have been ready to start the season with a road upset of PITT if we hadn't played some tough competition -- and gotten some confidence -- ahead of time -- like hanging with Illinois for a while?
I completely agree with losing the really low RPI portion of our sched. If we are to keep one, I'd say Howard -- simply because of the proximity. It is OK for a major team to have one total creampuff early in the season.
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Mar 14, 2005 10:50:44 GMT -5
I think two more W's against garbage teams wouldn't have done a thing. We dropped too many at the end of the season and that was the reason for our downfall.
Additionally, next year we should play an even stronger OOC schedule because we aren't going to be hoping to make the tourney, but we are going to be playing for a high seed hopefully. Quality opponents early on can only help us prep for a great tourney run. Let's take the NIT and get '06 off to a great start.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 14, 2005 10:56:40 GMT -5
I think we'd be better off playing a Temple/MSU like schedule than a creampuff schedule. I wouldn't go that far, but a creampuff schedule is a bad, bad idea.
In general, I think most analysts completely underestimate the variability of a college basketball game. Ken Pomeroy places his estimates at +- 11 points, which means 95% of conference games are within his margin of error.
I suggest we play a lot of tournament level teams -- and a wide range of them. We will lose some, but we will get some upsets.
If at the end of the year we have six Top 50 wins, three Top 25 and an RPI of 30 something, a record with over ten losses isn't going to keep us out.
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Mar 14, 2005 11:03:39 GMT -5
The first thing I should note was that the current admin had very little ability to change this year's schedule. Next year they will have a ton of ability to change it, and we know already we're playing at SJSU, Michigan, and Illinois. Past that, I agree with playing the best of the low majors or mid majors- not as much of an RPI hit, especially in the new RPI. I also think an ACC team and an Big XII team are missing from the coming year's schedule.
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Mar 14, 2005 11:13:04 GMT -5
We should get UVA & Duke back on the schedule. They are good for fans, recruiting, and I hate the ACC. What about American? Aren't they better then playing against MEAC squads?
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Mar 14, 2005 11:20:17 GMT -5
Now that Gillen is off the island at UVa, I think there might be more hope for UVa on the schedule. As for Duke or anyone else, who knows. But I think we can all agree that we will want a consistently tough schedcule, makes for more interesting viewing.
I should also note that the BE will be absolutely brutal next year. As I said, we may have 11 losses and an RPI of 15 going into March.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Mar 14, 2005 11:24:24 GMT -5
The reason we didn't get in the tournament was because we lost 5 games in a row down the stretch, two of those games we could or should have won St. Johns, and Providence. We win those two games, and we are in the tournament. I think having balanced OOC schedule is important, a mix between good teams, and lower teams. Indiana and Michigan St., and Temple play the toughest schedules but I don't think that is always a good thing. Indiana and Temple aren't in the NCAA's this year. Temple has to do that, because the A-10 for some reason gets no respect from the committee. I think you need balance, especially when you have a young team like we had, to build confidence. I think you can add 1 to 2 more good teams, but don't go crazy especially with the New Big East, where you do't have to. Syracuse and Duke both had below-average non-conference schedules this year. They are both in the tournament because they took care of business within their conferences. Thats something we succeded in doing early in conference play, and what we failed to do down the stretch of conference play.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 14, 2005 11:29:32 GMT -5
The reason we didn't get in the tournament was because we lost 5 games in a row down the stretch, two of those games we could or should have won St. Johns, and Providence. We win those two games, and we are in the tournament. I think having balanced OOC schedule is important, a mix between good teams, and lower teams. Indiana and Michigan St., and Temple play the toughest schedules but I don't think that is always a good thing. Indiana and Temple aren't in the NCAA's this year. Temple has to do that, because the A-10 for some reason gets no respect from the committee. I think you need balance, especially when you have a young team like we had, to build confidence. I think you can add 1 to 2 more good teams, but don't go crazy especially with the New Big East, where you do't have to. Syracuse and Duke both had below-average non-conference schedules this year. They are both in the tournament because they took care of business within their conferences. Thats something we succeded in doing early in conference play, and what we failed to do down the stretch of conference play. With the New Big East being so tough next year, I question our ability to go 11-5 or 10-6 in conference next year. We simply have no idea how tough it will be. That's why I'd err a bit on the side of getting some OOC wins. Along with our slide, we had no real OOC wins of substance, losing to Illinois, Oral Roberts and Temple are not offset by beating Davidson (78 RPI). Basically, our entire resume was in conference this year.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Mar 14, 2005 11:40:33 GMT -5
With the New Big East being so tough next year, I question our ability to go 11-5 or 10-6 in conference next year. We simply have no idea how tough it will be. That's why I'd err a bit on the side of getting some OOC wins. Along with our slide, we had no real OOC wins of substance, losing to Illinois, Oral Roberts and Temple are not offset by beating Davidson (78 RPI). Basically, our entire resume was in conference this year. Well, I think if we get better its a moot point. If you can win games in-conference, with the caliber of teams the Big East had this year and will have next year, you should be able win against Temple and Oral Roberts. I think our team now can beat both those teams. Playing a top 20 team wouldn't have done us any better because we would have lost those games as well. Like I said, you have to be smart in scheduling OOC games. You can't do an all cupcake schedule but you shouldn't do an all top 20 OOC schedule either. We didn't take care of business when we should have, that is why we are not in the tournament, not our schedule this year.
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Never throw to the venus on a spider 3 Y banana!
Posts: 4,991
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Mar 14, 2005 11:45:17 GMT -5
2 more wins and a lowered rpi and we'd be like depaul, still out.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Mar 14, 2005 11:47:39 GMT -5
2 more wins and a lowered rpi and we'd be like depaul, still out. Not true. We whould have been 10-6 in the Big East Conference. We would have been in. Everybody knows that. Depaul was in the weak Conference USA.
|
|
|
Post by FromTheBeginning on Mar 14, 2005 11:48:24 GMT -5
I wouldn't at all be surprised to see the 1st place team in the new BE have 5 or 6 losses in conference. The big question is how far the committee will move on the "how many teams fron one conference" issue when you are dealing with a league that could easily have 9 or 10 worthy teams.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2005 11:50:47 GMT -5
Not true. We whould have been 10-6 in the Big East Conference. We would have been in. Everybody knows that. Depaul was in the weak Conference USA. I think HoyaFanNY was referring to our out-of-conference slate (as mentioned earlier in the thread).
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 14, 2005 11:54:25 GMT -5
We'd have had an RPI of 48, not guaranteed in, but certainly with a case.
It would have been higher than UAB, NC State and Iowa State.
We'd have also have been 10-6 in the BE. With no bad losses. And 3 Top 50 RPI wins (two on the road).
|
|