|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 29, 2016 14:16:20 GMT -5
The Monmouth loss is only going to look worse over time from an RPI perspective, though. Their RPI (in the 30s right now) gets worse every time they take the court the rest of the way due to their conference being so weak. It may not end up being a "bad" loss when it's all said and done - but it will look worse in March than it does in January. And God forbid they lose in their conference tournament and we end up on the bubble with them... If they keep winning though would their RPI drop significantly? No. They have ten games left in the regular season. They are heavily favored in all but one. If they went 9-1, their RPI would still be in the 30s. If they lose two, though, given the level of competition, they'd drop to the mid to high 40s. So, not much Marvin for error....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2016 14:57:53 GMT -5
The Monmouth loss is only going to look worse over time from an RPI perspective, though. Their RPI (in the 30s right now) gets worse every time they take the court the rest of the way due to their conference being so weak. It may not end up being a "bad" loss when it's all said and done - but it will look worse in March than it does in January. And God forbid they lose in their conference tournament and we end up on the bubble with them... If they keep winning though would their RPI drop significantly? I don't know how much it would drop, but it will drop. They have 10 games left, and 7 of them are with teams 200+. Those drag you down, win or lose. EDIT: thanks, aleutianhoya for posting actual numbers...
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 29, 2016 15:12:44 GMT -5
If they keep winning though would their RPI drop significantly? No. They have ten games left in the regular season. They are heavily favored in all but one. If they went 9-1, their RPI would still be in the 30s. If they lose two, though, given the level of competition, they'd drop to the mid to high 40s. So, not much Marvin for error.... So two losses keeps them in the top 50 of the RPI? That makes the loss the equivalent of losing to Butler or Seton Hall. And, due in part to our efforts in the NCAA tournament, its no longer a shock when a "good" mid-major beats a major conference team, and Monmouth has the rep of being a "good" mid-major, since they also beat UCLA, USC and Notre Dame.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Jan 29, 2016 15:24:28 GMT -5
espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/14666655/weekend-homework-breaking-big-12-sec-challenge-matchupsI hate ESPN as much as the next person, but this makes a good point. "The Hoyas' jubilance after Tuesday's win over Creighton was remarkable to see. Granted, it was a close (74-73) game, but still: If in October you'd said that Georgetown would be that happy to beat Creighton by one point in Washington, D.C., no one would have believed you. What does that mean? Maybe nothing. But, if John Thompson III's team can knock off Providence on Saturday, we may officially have a turnaround on our hands." I don't buy that at all. The team was excited because it was a thrilling come from behind victory in an important conference game. It wasnt about how we were excited to just beat Creighton.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 29, 2016 15:26:58 GMT -5
No. They have ten games left in the regular season. They are heavily favored in all but one. If they went 9-1, their RPI would still be in the 30s. If they lose two, though, given the level of competition, they'd drop to the mid to high 40s. So, not much Marvin for error.... So two losses keeps them in the top 50 of the RPI? That makes the loss the equivalent of losing to Butler or Seton Hall. And, due in part to our efforts in the NCAA tournament, its no longer a shock when a "good" mid-major beats a major conference team, and Monmouth has the rep of being a "good" mid-major, since they also beat UCLA, USC and Notre Dame. Barely in the top 50 (49). Playing it out further, if they lost two more regular season games, then got to the conference final and lost to Siena (the only other top 100 team in their league), they'd be projected at an identical 49 in the RPI. It's close enough to 50 that it obviously could go either way pending actual matchups and results. (FWIW, if they went 7-3 instead of 8-2, and then lost in the conference title game, they'd be at 66 in the RPI.) Basically, there's no realistic way it becomes a "bad" loss (barring a key injury for them and an abject collapse). They wouldn't get an at-large bid with four total losses (at least probably not, although they'd be the kind of team Dickie V would be shouting about and advocating for), but we wouldn't be unduly punished for the loss even then. It'd be nice, I suppose, if they stay in the top 50 (and the odds are reasonably good that they will), but it's really not that big a deal either way.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Jan 29, 2016 15:28:25 GMT -5
If they keep winning though would their RPI drop significantly? I don't know how much it would drop, but it will drop. They have 10 games left, and 7 of them are with teams 200+. Those drag you down, win or lose. EDIT: thanks, aleutianhoya for posting actual numbers... I'm surprised people keep saying this. Numbers aside, Monmouth was a damn good team. Not sure why people want to bend over backwards to prove otherwise. They wiped the floor with us. I guess the idea of losing to a team like Monmouth sounds bad but they still have as many good wins as we do, maybe more.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Jan 29, 2016 15:40:48 GMT -5
I dont know, I still think losing at Marquette is defensible. That's another team that RPI doesnt say a lot about. A big reason their RPI so bad is because they've just beaten some really horrible OOC teams. That will hurt them with the Committee for sure, but it's not so bad for us to lose to a team that beat Providence on the road, and has wins against Arizona St, LSU and Wisconsin. They will also have plenty of other chances to beat decent teams, much as we do. Plus, the eye test to me is that Marquette isnt that bad of a team. SJU, on the other hand, if we lose that game, we probably dont deserve to go to the tournament. I agree with you that RPI is not a great way to evaluate the quality of Marquette's team (although they are roughly the same in KenPom and in RPI), and that a loss at Marquette doesn't saying anything about whether we "deserve" a berth, but the problem is that (i) the committee isn't going to drill down to explain away a loss outside the top 100 in the RPI when we have two other losses outside the top 100 in the RPI--they're just going to note that we have three bad losses (and that's assuming Creighton stays inside the top 100 in the RPI); and (ii) a loss to a team outside the top 100 is going to kill our own RPI, which is going to be shaky even if we beat Marquette. Yeah, I usually agree with you, but not one this one. I dont think Marquette would even be listed as a bad loss. I will say that the reason we are having this type of discussion is because we are a very odd team. If we beat Providence this weekend, even more so. Right now, Palm has us as the first four out, and as someone noted, a win this weekend would likely put us in. In some ways, that seems crazy, given that we'd be like 60 in the RPI, but then again, we'd be 7-2 in the BE!
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Jan 29, 2016 15:46:40 GMT -5
Another thing that is hurting us, that I'm not sure people have mentioned, is that Bryant and Brown turned out to be really, really bad teams. I think Hoya Since Birth and others have pointed out in the past that we've usually had a good track record of at least playing 200 RPI teams, but Bryant is one the worst teams in CBB. In fact, they just lost to the worst team in CBB! the 351st RPI team. Ouch.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 29, 2016 15:47:35 GMT -5
I don't know how much it would drop, but it will drop. They have 10 games left, and 7 of them are with teams 200+. Those drag you down, win or lose. EDIT: thanks, aleutianhoya for posting actual numbers... I'm surprised people keep saying this. Numbers aside, Monmouth was a damn good team. Not sure why people want to bend over backwards to prove otherwise. They wiped the floor with us. I guess the idea of losing to a team like Monmouth sounds bad but they still have as many good wins as we do, maybe more. To be fair, part of it is simply a numbers game. You can think they're a darned good team (as I do) and still concede that it's hard for them to maintain a stellar RPI given their league schedule. The reality of the sport -- and one of the reasons the cards are stacked so much in favor of major conference teams -- is that it's hard for even a good team to continually beat mediocre to bad teams on the road. Their league is terrible. But even with that said, five of their ten league opponents have RPIs of 210 or better. So, sure, Monmouth should win all the games they play against a 150-200ish RPI team, but when you play eight to ten of them, it's really hard to win them all (especially the road ones). And each one you lose is a killer, particularly given the dearth of high quality chances they have. You really can't schedule (or perform in that schedule) much better than they have, but the margins are still razor thin. They somehow got into a major tournament and went 2-1 against top 50 teams on a neutral court. Then they beat USC, UCLA, and us all on the road. All told, they played one home game out of conference! But because their conference stinks, if they even go 16-4 in conference (that is, lose two more games, they'll feel like they need to win the tournament to be safely in (though they probably would barely get in with a title game loss in that scenario).
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Jan 29, 2016 15:51:08 GMT -5
Fair enough, but as you and TBird said, even if they drop a little, they drop in the 50-75 range. That's like losing to Seton Hall at home. It's not ideal, but it's not a sign they are a bad loss.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2016 15:52:52 GMT -5
Yeah - it sucks to even have to talk about where Monmouth's RPI might end up. The Radford and Asheville games are the real problem. No way we should have lost either of those. Without them, we could point to Monmouth as a "blip" against what is a pretty good team. Instead, I have to cheer for them and their dip bench fools to win out.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 29, 2016 15:57:16 GMT -5
Another thing that is hurting us, that I'm not sure people have mentioned, is that Bryant and Brown turned out to be really, really bad teams. I think Hoya Since Birth and others have pointed out in the past that we've usually had a good track record of at least playing 200 RPI teams, but Bryant is one the worst teams in CBB. In fact, they just lost to the worst team in CBB! the 351st RPI team. Ouch. Yup. Of course, if they'd been a fair amount better, we may have risked another loss! Kidding, kidding. Just like in college football, the entire system is somewhat random and silly (although less so here because of sample size). Let's even set-aside the inanity of the RPI formula. Even doing that, think about how silly it is that someone decided that "top 50" (because it's a round number) has some sort of significance, when, of course, wins and losses against the 51st ranked team are really just as impressive as those against the 49th. And it's not really our fault that Syracuse, UConn, and Wisconsin (all of whom you might have predicted would easily be top 50 opponents and probably better) all may struggle to get there. Even more silly: whether or not Wisconsin (to use a random example) is considered a "good" win is largely dependent on Wisconsin's final RPI, which is in turn dependent on how the teams they scheduled performed in their games. Whether they played and beat a 325 RPI team as opposed to a 25 RPI team has absolutely no bearing on how good, on the court, they are (or were when we played them) but it makes a huge difference ultimately in whether they are a good win for us or not.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Jan 29, 2016 15:59:09 GMT -5
Yeah - it sucks to even have to talk about where Monmouth's RPI might end up. The Radford and Asheville games are the real problem. No way we should have lost either of those. Without them, we could point to Monmouth as a "blip" against what is a pretty good team. Instead, I have to cheer for them and their dip Edited bench fools to win out. On those points, I agree a 100% and if we win tomorrow, part of me is going to be even more annoyed. To think that a 7-2 BE team that beat Providence and Xavier is only barely on the bubble...ugh. We'll see. Im sure the win + 10pm Saturday + alcohol will be > than annoyance, though
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Jan 29, 2016 16:02:31 GMT -5
Another thing that is hurting us, that I'm not sure people have mentioned, is that Bryant and Brown turned out to be really, really bad teams. I think Hoya Since Birth and others have pointed out in the past that we've usually had a good track record of at least playing 200 RPI teams, but Bryant is one the worst teams in CBB. In fact, they just lost to the worst team in CBB! the 351st RPI team. Ouch. Yup. Of course, if they'd been a fair amount better, we may have risked another loss! Kidding, kidding. Just like in college football, the entire system is somewhat random and silly (although less so here because of sample size). Let's even set-aside the inanity of the RPI formula. Even doing that, think about how silly it is that someone decided that "top 50" (because it's a round number) has some sort of significance, when, of course, wins and losses against the 51st ranked team are really just as impressive as those against the 49th. And it's not really our fault that Syracuse, UConn, and Wisconsin (all of whom you might have predicted would easily be top 50 opponents and probably better) all may struggle to get there. Even more silly: whether or not Wisconsin (to use a random example) is considered a "good" win is largely dependent on Wisconsin's final RPI, which is in turn dependent on how the teams they scheduled performed in their games. Whether they played and beat a 325 RPI team as opposed to a 25 RPI team has absolutely no bearing on how good, on the court, they are (or were when we played them) but it makes a huge difference ultimately in whether they are a good win for us or not. I hear you, isnt the top 50 just a barometer that bracketologists use? It's a way they make their projections. I could be wrong. The Committee doesnt necessarily judge teams that way. But, bracketologists say, well, teams that have 5 top 50 wins have always made the tournament, e.g.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 29, 2016 16:02:55 GMT -5
Yeah - it sucks to even have to talk about where Monmouth's RPI might end up. The Radford and Asheville games are the real problem. No way we should have lost either of those. Without them, we could point to Monmouth as a "blip" against what is a pretty good team. Instead, I have to cheer for them and their dip Edited bench fools to win out. It's not going to make you feel any better, but you can also expend energy cheering for either Asheville or Radford to win their league. Asheville is in a three-way tie for first right now and Radford is a game behind... It'd help at the margins if there was some way to pretty-up at least one of those losses as a loss to a conference champion (and/or NCAA qualifying team). Lipstick on a pig, but it's better than a pig without lipstick.
|
|
Locker
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,265
|
Post by Locker on Jan 29, 2016 16:03:44 GMT -5
The only thing worse than the RPI are second order statistics (e.g., Top 50 wins) derived from the RPI, that are treated as more important than the RPI rank itself. Here's a good Pomeroy blog post on this topic: kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/tiers_of_joy
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 29, 2016 16:08:31 GMT -5
Yup. Of course, if they'd been a fair amount better, we may have risked another loss! Kidding, kidding. Just like in college football, the entire system is somewhat random and silly (although less so here because of sample size). Let's even set-aside the inanity of the RPI formula. Even doing that, think about how silly it is that someone decided that "top 50" (because it's a round number) has some sort of significance, when, of course, wins and losses against the 51st ranked team are really just as impressive as those against the 49th. And it's not really our fault that Syracuse, UConn, and Wisconsin (all of whom you might have predicted would easily be top 50 opponents and probably better) all may struggle to get there. Even more silly: whether or not Wisconsin (to use a random example) is considered a "good" win is largely dependent on Wisconsin's final RPI, which is in turn dependent on how the teams they scheduled performed in their games. Whether they played and beat a 325 RPI team as opposed to a 25 RPI team has absolutely no bearing on how good, on the court, they are (or were when we played them) but it makes a huge difference ultimately in whether they are a good win for us or not. I hear you, isnt the top 50 just a barometer that bracketologists use? It's a way they make their projections. I could be wrong. The Committee doesnt necessarily judge teams that way. But, bracketologists say, well, teams that have 5 top 50 wins have always made the tournament, e.g. Sadly, I think it is officially part of the process. According to the NCAA's website on the men's basketball committee: "The committee often refers to "team sheets" when comparing team performance. The team sheets contain in-depth team information about strength of schedule, performance against top-50 teams and home/road records." The team sheet contains lots of other stuff too, (including, finally, other rankings systems) and you'd like to think that someone would pick up on something like a team being 0-3 against the top 50 but 6-0 against teams 51-60.
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Jan 29, 2016 16:26:09 GMT -5
They somehow got into a major tournament Because the MAAC sponsors it and always sends a team, so they had that going for them.
|
|
HoyaChris
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,408
|
Post by HoyaChris on Jan 29, 2016 16:29:17 GMT -5
Another problem with RPI - and Pomeroy for that matter - ss that teams are really close to each other this year and actual differences between 30 and 40 or 30 and 50 are much closer than they have been in other years. Loo, for example at the number of losses in the top 10.
The impact of the parity is such that you can move up or down 25 spots with a medium sized upset.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 29, 2016 16:37:08 GMT -5
They somehow got into a major tournament Because the MAAC sponsors it and always sends a team, so they had that going for them. Interesting. Hadn't known that. I wonder how they were able to swing hosting a tournament held in FL every year. You'd think the ESPNs of the world would prefer that the eighth team be more mid-majorish (A-10, WCC, Colonial, etc.) than the MAAC. In any event, it's certainly a great idea for the league. I assume (and hope) that the league is smart enough to automatically send the MAAC team that they reasonably believe will be the best team that year. Hard to get that right all the time, even if that is the idea.
|
|