|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Feb 24, 2015 12:42:58 GMT -5
Also St. John's making the tournament directly puts money in Georgetown's pockets.
|
|
|
Post by grandmahoya on Feb 24, 2015 12:58:57 GMT -5
Thought the end of the Xavier / St. John's game last night was very strange. The refs just let the clock run out with Stainbrook lying on the ground. Why didn't the Xavier coach call a time out with 12 seconds left at the end of the game to set-up a play? Was he out of time outs? In any case, our game against St. John's will be very tough and physical. I will be at the game to support our Hoyas. The last 2 games I went to were Seton Hall at the Prudential Ctr. and the Indy game at MSG. We won them both and I'm hoping the third time I attend will be a charm. We always seem to play fairly well at the Garden. As long as we limit turnovers and get off to an early start scoring wise. We have all this week to practice free-throw shooting. I hope it helps. Xavier missed some key free-throws last night and it cost them dearly.
|
|
hoyazeke
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,807
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyazeke on Feb 24, 2015 12:58:52 GMT -5
Exactly my stance on Nova. They will never, ever be forgiven for '85. Just writing this post roils my insides. I'm there with you vadie. As Gtown fan who didn't attend the school I didn't get the SUcks hate. Nova plays some weak ACC bball and beats us in Cship game. Still peeved. .......:mad::mad::mad:
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Feb 24, 2015 13:26:25 GMT -5
I was thinking "when was the last time these teams played in the Garden this late in the year with both headed to the tourney?" I think the answer is the 1992 BET Semis. 2011 is the only year in between where both made it and that game was in early January. Crazy to think it's been that long. This is why I have a serious disconnect with our fans that wax nostalgic about the Sweater Game and the SJU rivalry in the 80s. Basically my entire Georgetown-rooting life (this millennium), a GU-SJU game is the definition of "eh, I guess". It's weird. You could say the same about Providence too, I suppose, since based on their appearance in the Top 25 for the first time in a decade, I reckon we haven't played each other while both teams were ranked in forever (ETA: Would you believe it if I said the end of the 1987 regular season?)
|
|
|
Post by grandmahoya on Feb 24, 2015 13:28:25 GMT -5
I agree with hobokenhoya who said 20-8 wins would look better than 18-8. JTIII believes in "Baptism by Fire" philosophy in our early season games. But, lets face it, a few cupcakes thrown in at the beginning of the season certainly gives you a nice cushion. We'll get our 20 wins in, though, certainly by the end of the BE tournament and still maintain our strong SOS.
|
|
hoyasaxa2003
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,767
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Feb 24, 2015 13:35:04 GMT -5
I agree with FLHoya. For me, St. John's just doesn't get me too upset and I don't feel strongly about them. Of course, I want to beat them, but as much as I want to beat anybody else. In my (relatively short) period of being a Hoyas fan, St. John's has always been (often) horrible to (rarely) mediocre.
That's why rivalries have to naturally occur and cannot be forced (as they sometimes are in sports like baseball). There is no substitute for two really good teams playing highly competitive and meaningful games. That's what creates rivalries (it's what originally created the St. John's rivalry and the Syracuse rivalry) in college basketball. Given the small nature of our conference, I'm confident they can emerge, but I think it will take a while.
|
|
hoyajinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,329
|
Post by hoyajinx on Feb 24, 2015 14:12:13 GMT -5
Okay, I hate St. John's more than I love the BE. I just hate to see a team with so much talent yet so little idea of how to play the game be rewarded with an NCAA tourney berth. The Duke game is the perfect example of why I hate them and why they don't deserve to be in the tourney. A complete meltdown in the last 10 minutes. They blew a chance to promote the BE and prove they are legit. Unless they win out (including beating us of course) and go to the BE final they don't deserve a shot at a national title and I hope the tourney selection committee recognizes this. Remember this team lost to Creighton and DePaul. They also beat both Providence & Xavier twice.. As other posters have noted, it's best for the league to get in as many teams as possible.. This brings up an odd scenario. If (and this is a big if) Georgetown beats St. John's, that would mean a season sweep of St. John's who has season sweeps of both PC and Xavier. Obviously, both of those teams own regular season sweeps of the Hoyas. Going 2-0 against a team that is a combined 4-0 against teams against whom we are 0-4 can't happen very often.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Feb 24, 2015 14:19:00 GMT -5
They also beat both Providence & Xavier twice.. As other posters have noted, it's best for the league to get in as many teams as possible.. This brings up an odd scenario. If (and this is a big if) Georgetown beats St. John's, that would mean a season sweep of St. John's who has season sweeps of both PC and Xavier. Obviously, both of those teams own regular season sweeps of the Hoyas. Going 2-0 against a team that is a combined 4-0 against teams against whom we are 0-4 can't happen very often. Alas, PC and XU split, thus destroying the extremely complicated 4-way Rocks/Paper/Scissors analogy I was building in my mind.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Feb 24, 2015 14:19:17 GMT -5
Nor should it...
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Feb 24, 2015 15:59:09 GMT -5
Thought the end of the Xavier / St. John's game last night was very strange. The refs just let the clock run out with Stainbrook lying on the ground. Why didn't the Xavier coach call a time out with 12 seconds left at the end of the game to set-up a play? Was he out of time outs? In any case, our game against St. John's will be very tough and physical. I will be at the game to support our Hoyas. The last 2 games I went to were Seton Hall at the Prudential Ctr. and the Indy game at MSG. We won them both and I'm hoping the third time I attend will be a charm. We always seem to play fairly well at the Garden. As long as we limit turnovers and get off to an early start scoring wise. We have all this week to practice free-throw shooting. I hope it helps. Xavier missed some key free-throws last night and it cost them dearly. He was out of time outs.
|
|
Big Dog
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by Big Dog on Feb 25, 2015 10:48:34 GMT -5
So, will we see more Hoyas alums at MSG than we did at home for the DePaul game? I bet there's a chance.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,923
|
Post by NCHoya on Feb 25, 2015 11:15:28 GMT -5
So, will we see more Hoyas alums at MSG than we did at home for the DePaul game? I bet there's a chance. This is exactly why for some folks the SJU game takes on extra meaning versus other opponents. Kind of like for you, Big Dog, when we play Marquette. It is fun for us in the NYC metro area to go to these games and beat the team that makes such a big deal about playing in MSG. I go down fairly often to make a long weekend of seeing the Hoyas, but I know many of my fellow alums up here are happy this game is now a guaranteed chance every season to see the Hoyas. I am hoping for a strong turnout. It should be fun since both teams are finally good, and it is not an all risk, no reward type of game it has been in the past for the Hoyas.
|
|
Hoyaholic
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 748
|
Post by Hoyaholic on Feb 25, 2015 11:38:30 GMT -5
I agree with hobokenhoya who said 20-8 wins would look better than 18-8. JTIII believes in "Baptism by Fire" philosophy in our early season games. But, lets face it, a few cupcakes thrown in at the beginning of the season certainly gives you a nice cushion. We'll get our 20 wins in, though, certainly by the end of the BE tournament and still maintain our strong SOS. On the other hand, the relative lack of cupcakes this year seems to have really helped our RPI. Anyone care to take a quick stab at how much lower it would be with a couple of 200 RPI teams added in?
|
|
|
Post by HoyasAreHungry on Feb 25, 2015 11:45:33 GMT -5
I agree with hobokenhoya who said 20-8 wins would look better than 18-8. JTIII believes in "Baptism by Fire" philosophy in our early season games. But, lets face it, a few cupcakes thrown in at the beginning of the season certainly gives you a nice cushion. We'll get our 20 wins in, though, certainly by the end of the BE tournament and still maintain our strong SOS. On the other hand, the relative lack of cupcakes this year seems to have really helped our RPI. Anyone care to take a quick stab at how much lower it would be with a couple of 200 RPI teams added in? 3 carry the 1 divide by Pi
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Feb 25, 2015 12:41:04 GMT -5
I agree with hobokenhoya who said 20-8 wins would look better than 18-8. JTIII believes in "Baptism by Fire" philosophy in our early season games. But, lets face it, a few cupcakes thrown in at the beginning of the season certainly gives you a nice cushion. We'll get our 20 wins in, though, certainly by the end of the BE tournament and still maintain our strong SOS. On the other hand, the relative lack of cupcakes this year seems to have really helped our RPI. Anyone care to take a quick stab at how much lower it would be with a couple of 200 RPI teams added in? I plugged 2 200+ RPI games into our schedule using the RPI Wizard site. Not positive this is accurate but here's what I got. Currently our expected RPI is 21.5. assuming we won both games. adding home games against RPI #201 UC riverside and #202 Colgate would not change our predicted RPI of 21. adding home games against RPI #250 Hartford and #251 St. Peters would not chage out predicted RPI of 21. adding home games against RPI #298 Hampton and #299 SE Lousiana would drop us to a predicted RPI of 23. Even losing one of the worst games at home would've only dropped us to 27th. Losing both would get us down to 33rd. So yeah looks like we would've benefited from adding these games.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 25, 2015 12:52:52 GMT -5
I agree with hobokenhoya who said 20-8 wins would look better than 18-8. JTIII believes in "Baptism by Fire" philosophy in our early season games. But, lets face it, a few cupcakes thrown in at the beginning of the season certainly gives you a nice cushion. We'll get our 20 wins in, though, certainly by the end of the BE tournament and still maintain our strong SOS. On the other hand, the relative lack of cupcakes this year seems to have really helped our RPI. Anyone care to take a quick stab at how much lower it would be with a couple of 200 RPI teams added in? It's interesting. It would be almost exactly the same. Our RPI right now is 23. If we played and beat Colgate twice at home (RPI of 201, so maybe they're slightly better than "cupcake" status), our RPI actually would IMPROVE ever so slightly to 22. If the opponents were significantly worse than that and we played, say, Delaware (RPI 276) twice, our RPI would be worse, but only slightly: 26. That would have been our worst opponent (by RPI) this year. Even if we went back to JTJr. and Esh scheduling and the the opponents were truly abysmal (Longwood; RPI 325), our RPI right now would still be 26. Remember: part of the RPI formula is your own winning percentage, and that part of the math doesn't care who you beat, so particularly if your percentage is somewhat middling, two wins are going to make a difference. We would never want to replace a pretty good cupcake (say, Radford, which is top 150 this year) with a bad opponent. But just adding two bad games to the schedule wouldn't have really hurt. I wouldn't have thought this was the result. But seeing this, it seems clear we would have been better off doing just that -- giving us more wins and probably getting some more PT for the young guys or the subs. EDIT: Didn't see HSB's similar post before I did this. My methodology was a bit different from his -- hence the slightly different results -- but the general point is the same. As he notes, there is some risk of losing even to a bad team (I didn't factor that in). Although he notes that even a loss doesn't destroy your RPI, it DOES play a significant role in NCAAT selection and seeding. The fact we've lost no bad games is significant right now.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 25, 2015 12:57:55 GMT -5
On the other hand, the relative lack of cupcakes this year seems to have really helped our RPI. Anyone care to take a quick stab at how much lower it would be with a couple of 200 RPI teams added in? I plugged 2 200+ RPI games into our schedule using the RPI Wizard site. Not positive this is accurate but here's what I got. Currently our expected RPI is 21.5. assuming we won both games. adding home games against RPI #201 UC riverside and #202 Colgate would not change our predicted RPI of 21. adding home games against RPI #250 Hartford and #251 St. Peters would not chage out predicted RPI of 21. adding home games against RPI #298 Hampton and #299 SE Lousiana would drop us to a predicted RPI of 23. Even losing one of the worst games at home would've only dropped us to 27th. Losing both would get us down to 33rd. So yeah looks like we would've benefited from adding these games. Or we could add UMCP and GW instead of the 200+ RPI teams
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Feb 25, 2015 13:37:06 GMT -5
On the other hand, the relative lack of cupcakes this year seems to have really helped our RPI. Anyone care to take a quick stab at how much lower it would be with a couple of 200 RPI teams added in? I plugged 2 200+ RPI games into our schedule using the RPI Wizard site. Not positive this is accurate but here's what I got. Currently our expected RPI is 21.5. assuming we won both games. adding home games against RPI #201 UC riverside and #202 Colgate would not change our predicted RPI of 21. adding home games against RPI #250 Hartford and #251 St. Peters would not chage out predicted RPI of 21. adding home games against RPI #298 Hampton and #299 SE Lousiana would drop us to a predicted RPI of 23. Even losing one of the worst games at home would've only dropped us to 27th. Losing both would get us down to 33rd. So yeah looks like we would've benefited from adding these games. On the other hand, the relative lack of cupcakes this year seems to have really helped our RPI. Anyone care to take a quick stab at how much lower it would be with a couple of 200 RPI teams added in? It's interesting. It would be almost exactly the same. Our RPI right now is 23. If we played and beat Colgate twice at home (RPI of 201, so maybe they're slightly better than "cupcake" status), our RPI actually would IMPROVE ever so slightly to 22. If the opponents were significantly worse than that and we played, say, Delaware (RPI 276) twice, our RPI would be worse, but only slightly: 26. That would have been our worst opponent (by RPI) this year. Even if we went back to JTJr. and Esh scheduling and the the opponents were truly abysmal (Longwood; RPI 325), our RPI right now would still be 26. Remember: part of the RPI formula is your own winning percentage, and that part of the math doesn't care who you beat, so particularly if your percentage is somewhat middling, two wins are going to make a difference. We would never want to replace a pretty good cupcake (say, Radford, which is top 150 this year) with a bad opponent. But just adding two bad games to the schedule wouldn't have really hurt. I wouldn't have thought this was the result. But seeing this, it seems clear we would have been better off doing just that -- giving us more wins and probably getting some more PT for the young guys or the subs. EDIT: Didn't see HSB's similar post before I did this. My methodology was a bit different from his -- hence the slightly different results -- but the general point is the same. As he notes, there is some risk of losing even to a bad team (I didn't factor that in). Although he notes that even a loss doesn't destroy your RPI, it DOES play a significant role in NCAAT selection and seeding. The fact we've lost no bad games is significant right now. You guys shoulda collaborated.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,923
|
Post by NCHoya on Feb 25, 2015 14:10:45 GMT -5
Thanks for this data on the RPI guys. I was wondering about this all season. I hate leaving possible games on the table for so many reasons, better record/winning % for optical purposes, player dveelopment and hopefully enhanced revenue. I would certainly like to see us reach 20 wins in the regular season, and given the RPI data, I see no downside. We are not losing to Colgate or whoever is an RPI 200 team.
I really hope AD Reed and III revisit this strategy in the future.
|
|
hoopsmccan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,416
|
Post by hoopsmccan on Feb 25, 2015 14:22:37 GMT -5
I plugged 2 200+ RPI games into our schedule using the RPI Wizard site. Not positive this is accurate but here's what I got. Currently our expected RPI is 21.5. assuming we won both games. adding home games against RPI #201 UC riverside and #202 Colgate would not change our predicted RPI of 21. adding home games against RPI #250 Hartford and #251 St. Peters would not chage out predicted RPI of 21. adding home games against RPI #298 Hampton and #299 SE Lousiana would drop us to a predicted RPI of 23. Even losing one of the worst games at home would've only dropped us to 27th. Losing both would get us down to 33rd. So yeah looks like we would've benefited from adding these games. It's interesting. It would be almost exactly the same. Our RPI right now is 23. If we played and beat Colgate twice at home (RPI of 201, so maybe they're slightly better than "cupcake" status), our RPI actually would IMPROVE ever so slightly to 22. If the opponents were significantly worse than that and we played, say, Delaware (RPI 276) twice, our RPI would be worse, but only slightly: 26. That would have been our worst opponent (by RPI) this year. Even if we went back to JTJr. and Esh scheduling and the the opponents were truly abysmal (Longwood; RPI 325), our RPI right now would still be 26. Remember: part of the RPI formula is your own winning percentage, and that part of the math doesn't care who you beat, so particularly if your percentage is somewhat middling, two wins are going to make a difference. We would never want to replace a pretty good cupcake (say, Radford, which is top 150 this year) with a bad opponent. But just adding two bad games to the schedule wouldn't have really hurt. I wouldn't have thought this was the result. But seeing this, it seems clear we would have been better off doing just that -- giving us more wins and probably getting some more PT for the young guys or the subs. EDIT: Didn't see HSB's similar post before I did this. My methodology was a bit different from his -- hence the slightly different results -- but the general point is the same. As he notes, there is some risk of losing even to a bad team (I didn't factor that in). Although he notes that even a loss doesn't destroy your RPI, it DOES play a significant role in NCAAT selection and seeding. The fact we've lost no bad games is significant right now. You guys shoulda collaborated. Agreed. Bad leadership by Dan by not making sure there is proper alignment among posters. Too much siloing here. hm
|
|