|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Mar 14, 2005 12:11:03 GMT -5
While I do agree that we should get rid of the random MEAC teams from our schedule, we should definately play Howard every year. A local game like that is nice for hometown perceptions of the team. We should also add AU to our schedule and try to get Mason as well, although that would be a dangerous game that we could potentially lose. How about starting our own mini-tournament with three other local teams, perhaps right before or after Christmas?
While some consideration of RPI may be necessary, I do not advocate bowing at the alter of the college basketball equivalent of the BCS (although that may be an insult to the BCS). Almost all analysts agree that RPI is very flawed. What we need to do is to get some coaches to lobby the selection committee to get rid of the RPI as a major part of their decision-making process.
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Mar 14, 2005 12:14:45 GMT -5
All I'm saying is that having a tough OOC is desirable and certainly prepped this team to play our BE schedule this year, though it may have tired them out by the end too.
We have 3 tough roadies and might have a couple more by the time all is said and done for next year. We'll have some homers- but the way it's set up right now, it behooves us to have more roadies. You win one, it's like winning 3 home games.
The BE will be brutal next year. As I said, don't be surprised if we have 11 losses and get in with a 5 seed.
|
|
|
Post by CTHoyaParanoya on Mar 14, 2005 12:21:03 GMT -5
Michigan will be very good next year. They return all their players including their leading scorer (Lester Abrams) who missed the whole season with injury and Daniel Horton who missed half the year with injuries/suspension. Plus they bring in recruits similar to the Hoyas, athletic guards and wing players. This team won the NIT last year and supposed to have a big year but injuries killed them. I would say Georgetown and Michigan have similar records next year and contend for a NCAA bid.
|
|
HoyaSpirit
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Gotta love Smitty - 1989 Big East Player of the Year
Posts: 305
|
Post by HoyaSpirit on Mar 14, 2005 12:36:04 GMT -5
From Arlington Hoyas post: "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."
SCHEDULING:
Arlington Hoya is exactly right. Howard, Norfolk St. and Citadel (and add San Jose State and Penn State to the mix) are total lose-lose-lose-lose-lose situations:
1. RPI-killers. They kill our RPI literally. 2. They look bad on schedule - bring flak from analysts. 3. The team is less prepared as a result of playing these teams. They develop bad habits that hurt later on. 4. If we actually lose to any of them - it's disastrous for us. 5. Further hurting us is the "Teams played under the 200 rpi mark stat"
With a 7-23 record, Penn State definitely fits the bill - their record would be 50% of our RPI for that game played against them - an RPI killer all the way. And if we lose to those guys - it looks really bad - the St. Johns and Prov losses were used repeatedly against us this year - and a loss to Penn State would have been worse than that. But the bigger point is that even a win against them is bad for our program.
I will post a fuller account of these at later date, but for now - the best OOC games to schedule are:
1. THE BEST TEAMS IN THE WEAK CONFERENCES
7 BENEFITS:
* they give great RPI boosts because of their huge winning records (mostly accumulated in their conferences)
* they look good on the OOC schedule and they're very recognizable and positively regarded names b/c they frequently go dancing - Hampton, Davidson, Oral Roberts, etc.
* they don't fall in the under 200 rpi category
* many would be considered quality wins - our win at Davidson was considered a good win by many analysts, and I saw a win over Oral Roberts by another team listed as big-time win on a major list - either espn or USA today
* even a loss against them doesn't really hurt us much - I almost never saw the loss to Oral Roberts listed as a bad loss.
* they help prepare the team reasonably well because they're competitive squads, they're usually well-coached squads so we can learn from them
* they're also very winnable games. We win probably 8 or 9 out of 10 of them.
* with the new serious adjustments in RPI for road games versus home games, this is even more important - because these teams - Davidson etc. - often expect home and away scheduling - so it forces us on the road where our Win becomes I think 40% more valuable in the RPI (and more likely to be listed a quaity win also).
TEAMS: Hampton, Davidson, Holy Cross, Oral Roberts, Central Conn., BU, Vermont, Northeastern.
NUMBER TO SCHEDULE: 4 (we already had 2 with Oral Roberts and Davidson - need 2 more) TYPICAL RECORD: 3-1
2. THE BEST TEAMS IN MID-MAJORS
similar reasons as above, adjusted somewhat.
The wins become near-certain "Quality wins" for us which are essential at Selection time.
The losses don't hurt unless we accumulate too many of them.
TEAMS: any team that regularly finishes in the top 2 of their mid-major. This way they have a great record (read: RPI boost), they are known by everybody as a tourney-level squad and “Quality” win. Example: Southern Illinois, Utah, Gonzaga. Possibly New Mexico, GW, Xavier, St. Joes or Nevada.
Temple on average doesn’t count - they usually won’t be a quality win, they will usually hurt us in RPI because their record on average is too close to .500, and they could hurt us with a loss. No upside to playing them, lots of downside.
NUMBER TO SCHEDULE:: 2 (we had 0 this year, the Long Beach State game hurt us with their 10-20 record and 256 RPI)
TYPICAL RECORD: 1-1
3. STRONG BUT BEATABLE TEAMS IN THE MAJORS
This would be teams that on average are top 40 teams. Teams that if you beat them it's a great win, and if you lose it's not a bad loss, and that have strong winning records so they give us strong RPI benefits as well.
TEAMS: I recommend against perennial Elite teams that are really hard to pull off victories against like Duke and Uconn. Better to think of the equivalents of teams like Georgia Tech, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Oklahoma, Illinois (on average), Ohio State, Charlotte, UAB, N.C. State and similar.
I also saw beating TCU and Houston in C-USA listed as quality wins in a lot of lists.
Games we have a decent shot at winning, would be a "Quality" win, and help the RPI percentage.
NUMBER TO SCHEDULE:: 2 (We had 1 this year in Illinois, Clemson was not a quality win, and the Penn. State game hurt us a lot) Michigan next year might not qualify as a quality win. TYPICAL RECORD: 1-1
4. EXAM WEEK OR OPENING GAME TEAMS: okay teams from weak conferences:
so pick some weak teams from really weak conferences who still have decent records so:
* close to guaranteed wins * RPI isn’t hurt * they on average don’t fall in the “under 200 rpi” - usually 150-200 range.
NUMBER TO SCHEDULE:: (I don’t know if we had any this year - Howard, Norfolk St., Citadel, and San Jose State all hurt us a lot) RECORD: 2-0
IF WE DID THE ABOVE:
I PRACTICALLY GUARANTEE:
a. Our Out of Conference SOS would be in the TOP 25 NATION-WIDE.
Likewise our overall SOS would be the same because the BE in-conf. schedule is as strong as any and is not going to lower anything.
This year our OOC sos basically stunk.
b. We would on average have a strong record anyway. On average we would have only about a half loss more.
In fact, this year, we likely would have had a similar 8-3 record. We probably would have been 4-1 against group 1 above, 2-2 combined against group 2 and 3, and 2-0 against group 4.
c. We would receive 3-4 OOC quality wins.
1-2 from the first group (at Davidson was a quality win for us on many lists, at beating Oral Roberts was quality win for someone else), and 2 from the best mid-majors and strong majors groups (and these 2 wins would show on all lists.)
This year we only had 1 quality 00C on any lists.
d. We would receive very positive, if not rave reviews from the media:
Georgetown’s OOC schedule included: Illinois, Georgia Tech, George Washington, New Mexico, Davidson, and Oral Roberts (all of which have legitimate chances of dancing in March).
e. With the same exact team and BE record, we would make the tourney much more often.
It hits all the points that are needed: RPI, overall record, SOS, quality wins, and number of teams under 200 rpi on schedule.
PLEASE - consider printing this out and bringing it (or mailing it) to the ADs office or JT3 or anyone who can get it to those guys - even any player.
We are needless shooting ourselves in the foot with scheduling. And it’s easy to do with a little thought as to what they committee expects (SOS, quality wins, RPI, overall record...)
It’s fairly easy to back it all up with the math. You could also email me at: contact -a--t- dailys.info and I can send it as a word doc for printing etc.
|
|
FOTP
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,435
|
Post by FOTP on Mar 14, 2005 12:39:45 GMT -5
Agreed.
The key is simply swapping out 260's for 160's. It makes a huge difference in the end. It doesn't seem like much, but it really does matter.
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Mar 14, 2005 12:47:19 GMT -5
Totally agree with both of you. We didn't have nearly as many of the weakest of the weak this year, and that helped.
One note: when students are in exams or on break, MCI is a tomb. We are particularly vulnerable at this point, and that would be the time to schedule the easier homers. We can do the harder ones right after the season starts, and right before the conf sched.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Mar 14, 2005 12:48:22 GMT -5
None of this matters guys. If we beat St. John's and Providence, none of this matters. You guys fail to realize. If you don't win, it doesn't matter who you schedule. If we did what we were suppose to do towards the end of the year, we would be talking opening round of the NCAA. Our schedule was fine this year. The RPI is bogus anyway. Everybody has their own version of it,and which one the Commitee uses, nobody knows. Having a good mix of good and bad teams is cool for OOC, and taking care of business in the Big East, thats what gets it done.
|
|
TrueHoyaBlue
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,861
Member is Online
|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Mar 14, 2005 12:52:02 GMT -5
I am a big fan of the changes you listed, HoyaSpirit. A couple of things that complicate the issue (not that any of these are deal killers, but they add a few steps).
1. The top teams in low major conferences know that they are just that, and so do many of the elite teams in the country. Putting these teams on the schedule requires one of two things. -- agreeing to home-and-homes or -- paying pretty sizeable guarantees
Personally, I'm a fan of the home-and-homes, but I can see why Coach might not want to schedule a road trip that included Southern Illinois, Miami (OH) and Buffalo. Paying guarantees is a part of the game for most big schools, and teams like Cuse, Duke, and Pittsburgh are very content, knowing that they're guaranteed a high attendance for any game their team plays, are willing to shell out big bucks to play the teams that will help them most RPI-wise, without leaving the cozy confines of the Carrier Dome/Cameron/PEC.
Which leads to the second piece.... boosting attendance. If the team is not going to go with home-and-homes (and I think the Davidson H&H was a good one, but I think it would be tough to play 4 or 5 in a season), then can the Hoyas draw enough of a crowd to watch Hampton or Buffalo that it is financially worthwhile to schedule those teams instead of the Norfolk States and Citadels, who have a much smaller guarantee...
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Mar 14, 2005 12:52:38 GMT -5
Way, I think we're all speaking of similar things. We played a fine schedule this year; we win those 2 games or the Yukon game, you're right, we are in. Those were killers.
In the end, you have to beat who you schedule. But it does behoove us to keep moving in the direction, schedule-wise, we moved this year.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Mar 14, 2005 12:53:21 GMT -5
Way, I think we're all speaking of similar things. We played a fine schedule this year; we win those 2 games or the Yukon game, you're right, we are in. Those were killers. In the end, you have to beat who you schedule. But it does behoove us to keep moving in the direction, schedule-wise, we moved this year. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by ArlingtonHoya on Mar 14, 2005 12:58:11 GMT -5
You guys fail to realize. If you don't win, it doesn't matter who you schedule. If we did what we were suppose to do the stretch, we would be talking opening round of the NCAA. Our schedule was fine this year. Ummm, I guess I'll take the bait here. Maybe you're happy just to ignore our schedule, try to win as many games as possible, and let the chips fall where they may. But I think the rest of us prefer the idea that our program will do everything it can to make the tournament as often as possible. That clearly includes creating a challenging OOC schedule. Obviously we'll make the tournament regardless of our schedule if we win 25 games, but I think the point here is that many of us hope JTIII and the admin will focus on making every effort to improve our resume for those years where our wins and losses create a bubble scenario, which seems to be quite often these days. Would you prefer that we continue to handicap ourselves?
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Mar 14, 2005 12:59:46 GMT -5
While I totally agree with removing the MEAC teams and replacing them with competitive LOCAL teams like American and George Mason. There may be a complication regarding the contracts we and a team like Norfolk State sign. I believe I read that these deals are multi-year (5 years) deals that lock us into playing them for a long time in exchange for all home games. Does anyone know how these deals with small schools are structured?
I also do not agree with an Indiana-like schedule. Look at what happened to them - they go 10-6 in a major conference and get locked out of the NCAAs. Meanwhile, a team like Iowa gets hot at the right time and gets in despite the poor conference showing. I prefer a balanced schedule with 3 sure wins (RPIs 150-200), 3 or 4 mid majors or bad majors (100-150), 2 consistent mid major powers like BU (NIT 3 straight years) or a MAC team with RPIs 50-100 and then 2 marquee games made for national TV - Illinois, a UNC or a Duke. This would allow a young team not to totally lose hope on the season and would still generate interest by playing four top 100 RPI teams outside of conference. The competition in the Big East will take care of the rest.
I just don't see the benefit we get playing a brutal schedule when the best we can do in the BE in the near future is likely 9-7. Temple knows they will be 12-4 in the A-10, we deifinitely do not have that luxury. You want to make sure we have an attractive win total, 15-17 wins just does not do it.
On ESPN, the first thing one of selection committee guys said was "we had so and so number of 20 win teams this year" that tells you what the topline criteria is in their minds. You want to be on the right side of that W column.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 14, 2005 13:01:57 GMT -5
All I know is that it has been a long time since a Top 40 RPI has missed the NCAAs, and very few teams with an RPI over 50 make it.
I don't think we should go all Indiana, but we need to have a hard enough schedule to have a Top 40 RPI.
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Mar 14, 2005 13:05:54 GMT -5
All the guarantees are year-to-year, so that does not present a problem in ditching them.
We do need a balance, and I think replacing the worst of the worst with the decent low- or mid- majors represents that, along with like 4 games against good teams non-con.
|
|
HoyaSpirit
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Gotta love Smitty - 1989 Big East Player of the Year
Posts: 305
|
Post by HoyaSpirit on Mar 14, 2005 13:10:34 GMT -5
Agreed. The key is simply swapping out 260's for 160's. It makes a huge difference in the end. It doesn't seem like much, but it really does matter. I would agree in some cases yes, and in other cases no: 2 Main factors in it: 1. For our own benefit - an potential opponent’s Winning Percentage is far more important than their RPI. A team can play really tough opponents and get a good RPI and horrible Winning Percentage as a result. Their Winning Percentage would count as 50% of our RPI score. While the thing which got THEM their strong rpi (their opponents record) would only be a measly 25% of our RPI. So opponents with strong Winning Percentages (regardless of their competition) is the key. Much more so than teams with good RPI and weak Winning Percentage. Examples: Colorado is 99 rpi but is 13-16 winning percentage, and would hurt our RPI. while Memphis is 109 rpi, but is 19-15 and would help our RPI. 2. Quality wins On above example, beating Colorado would not have been a quality wins - same for Nebraska at 111 rpi yet 14-14 record, or Northwestern at 119 rpi but only 15-16. Yet, beating Davidson and Oral Roberts were on many lists as quality wins - as was TCU at 91 rpi, but 18-13 record (from beating up on easier c-usa), and Memphis at 109 rpi yet 19-15. So the KEY actually lies to a good degree in ignoring the RPI figure alone when looking at opponents, and looking at: * Winning Percentage * whether they would be a quality win * whether they would be a bad loss * how they would “look’ overall to media writers * and of course how well they would prepare us
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 14, 2005 13:12:13 GMT -5
Your analysis makes a lot of logical sense. I can't really quibble with it, except to say that the win/losses might be a bit optimistic.
I would only make one other point regarding scheduling; it's not always easy to tell at the beginning of the year which teams fit into which categories. I remember three years ago or so, we played Louisville and UCLA and both teams turned out to be unpredictably poor by the end of the year. That's one of the issues with the RPI and looking at OOC scheduling by the end result.
|
|
HoyaSpirit
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Gotta love Smitty - 1989 Big East Player of the Year
Posts: 305
|
Post by HoyaSpirit on Mar 14, 2005 13:20:43 GMT -5
Obviously we'll make the tournament regardless of our schedule if we win 25 games, but I think the point here is that many of us hope JTIII and the admin will focus on making every effort to improve our resume for those years where our wins and losses create a bubble scenario, which seems to be quite often these days. Would you prefer that we continue to handicap ourselves? I agree - and it does no doubt make a difference: Every year the selection committee makes the same points - OOC schedule does make a difference, and cite specific examples each year - this year someone said ND was mentioned by the committee for a weak OOC hurting them. Several years ago Georgia got in on a 16-12 record with a strong OOC schedule. If we had beaten Prov is the last game this year, I think we would have deserved to go, but I put it at 50-50 that we would have been kept back based on the OOC, and the RPI. Look at the info for last 10 years and almost every year the RPI matches very, very closely with who goes - sometimes exactly. I dislike the RPI immensely, but I think knowing the system and beating the system is the best way to go. For a team like Georgetown that may on average be a bubble team (let's hope better of course) - this is becomes more of a factor. And let's remember that the selection committee seeds the teams too - and that's effects our seed and chances for winning once there.
|
|
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 13:26:23 GMT -5
i was saying that if we sustituted two easy nonconference wins for temple and illinois that it would not have made a difference. we'd still be out.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Mar 14, 2005 13:27:49 GMT -5
I agree with your major points, but I do have some minor quibbles... * even a loss against them doesn't really hurt us much - I almost never saw the loss to Oral Roberts listed as a bad loss. It was definitely mentioned numerous times as a bad loss...eventhough it could easily be argued that it wasn't. It was also RARELY mentioned by the media that this was a neutral court loss. Woah, woah, woah...near-certain win? That's stepping over the line. I'm sorry, but I definitely don't feel that games against Southern Illinois, Utah, Gonzaga. Possibly New Mexico, GW, Xavier, St. Joes or Nevada are near certain wins...that is a a murderers row. How is St. Joe's and Xavier good and Temple bad? I don't get it. Xavier had a real down year. St. Joe's beat no one OOC and just feasted off the weaker conf in the A-10. GW was the only heavy weight in the conference, but they were horribly inconsistent in A-10 play and are a scary matchup for us. But Temple, bad? Temple is never a bad loss because their RPI is always bouying up the A-10 and every couple years they absolutely dominate the A-10. It is typically the only reason the A-10's RPI is ranked in the top 12 ever and Temple is usually one of the front-runners. It is always in the top 10 for the first half of the season. I think they are the only A-10 team worth scheduling outside of GW...but I agree that I think that more for the valuable experience than the effect on RPI. We didn't schedule LBS, they were part of the Maui Invitational and were a last minute replacement for another team that dropped out. Besides had we beat Oral Roberts we would have tackled Hawaii...a top 150 team...and would have had a shot at going after UAB a top 50 team. This one was out of our hands. Just a point of order...but what the hell is UAB doing on that list? Or Charlotte for that matter? Those are mid-majors...FORGET THE MEDIA HYPE. One is in the CUSA and the other is in the A-10 (next year). As for the others, I welcome them. You can not list Houston(84), Davidson(78), TCU(91) as quality wins and then discount Clemson(88) on a neutral court. Sorry, but Clemson, to their credit, clawed their way to respectibility this past weekend. Clemson was a great win to have on the resume. And best case, we would have gone maybe 3-3 this year...depending on when we played GW and NM...Early in the year, we get torched GW was on fire...later in the OOC NM was burning it up and we go 1-5...
|
|
HoyaSpirit
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Gotta love Smitty - 1989 Big East Player of the Year
Posts: 305
|
Post by HoyaSpirit on Mar 14, 2005 13:54:22 GMT -5
I agree with your major points, but I do have some minor quibbles... Cambridge Hoya, I agree with plenty of your quibbles - and like you said - we agree on the major points. Couple of follow-ups: * When I said “near-certain quality wins” I meant that they would almost certainly be considered as “quality wins” if we won them. I did not mean that we would nearly certainly win them. * When I mentioned St. Joes and Xavier, I’m doing so based on their reputation on average in recent years - whereas Temple: while I agree they would not be a bad loss - they have been in my poor recollection an NIT level only team for a long-time (and seem to miss the NIT even a fair bit) - and on average would not count as a quality win. I may be wrong. * I agree the hawaii tournament match-ups were out of our hands - I was only evaluating the impact of teams we had played this year - regardless of how they got scheduled - as a sort of benchmark of where it needs to go next to improve, and how much more it could be improved. * On the Clemson front, they mostly were not listed as a quality win for us - I agree they “should” have been, but they were not. On average, I suppose Clemson is a good major team to have on schedule assuming their program stays in the right direction. And would agree on earlier posts than Michigan on average will be a good program and will count for quality win if we beat em. * The point of order on UAB and Charlotte is aok. For this year and many of recent years, I would put c-USA as at the level of PAC-10 and therefor a Major for hoops purposes. Some years not. But they on average WERE (past tense) somewhat above other mid-majors, although that of course will change with Louisville, Cincy, Marquette and Depaul coming over to BE. * In general, the principles are more important than examples I tossed in (didn’t have time for that).
|
|