|
Post by professorhoya on Aug 23, 2017 15:49:04 GMT -5
The JTIII model of playing alot of top teams early hasn't worked.
Either we get crushed and put ourselves in a position where we have to win 80% of our Big East games while staying on the bubble (thanks to RPI) only to not make it in the end
OR
Beat a top team early, get complacent and overconfident and peak too early. And then flame out by the time of the BET and NCAA tournament.
Pitino seems to have a better model. He paces his teams so they peak in February and March and not in November/December.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,381
|
Post by calhoya on Aug 23, 2017 16:05:38 GMT -5
I certainly don't want to become the voice of optimism on this board, but I do not think that this team was anywhere near as bad as its record last year. I think it was a poorly put together collection of players with talent who did not fit the system they were playing and who were not well-coached last year. As for this year, the coach is an unknown, and they are lacking proven shooters, but there is still some talent on the team coming back. Enough talent that they should be competitive in most games. There are many teams that play well and have no high-ranking recruits. This team will have 3 players who were considered 4 star recruits. You also have Walker, Blair and Mosley, each of whom showed real flashes in the Kenner League (yes I know it is Kenner). I will understand growing pains and expect several tough losses as the coach and the team adjust, but I cannot see giving the team or the coach a pass this year for not performing hard and at a competitive level in and out of conference. They are starting over, but it is not a team playing with Division II talent.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,801
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 23, 2017 16:07:23 GMT -5
The JTIII model of playing alot of top teams early hasn't worked. Either we get crushed and put ourselves in a position where we have to win 80% of our Big East games while staying on the bubble (thanks to RPI) only to not make it in the end OR Beat a top team early, get complacent and overconfident and peak too early. And then flame out by the time of the BET and NCAA tournament. Pitino seems to have a better model. He paces his teams so they peak in February and March and not in November/December. Yep, Lord knows when I think about not reaching the apex early, I think of Rick Pitino
|
|
iowa80
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,407
|
Post by iowa80 on Aug 23, 2017 16:34:52 GMT -5
The JTIII model of playing alot of top teams early hasn't worked. Either we get crushed and put ourselves in a position where we have to win 80% of our Big East games while staying on the bubble (thanks to RPI) only to not make it in the end OR Beat a top team early, get complacent and overconfident and peak too early. And then flame out by the time of the BET and NCAA tournament. Pitino seems to have a better model. He paces his teams so they peak in February and March and not in November/December. I'd say he seeks a middle ground. Last year they did the Battle4Atlantis (ODU, Wichita St. Baylor), the Big 10 challenge, and (of course) Kentucky, in addition to a series of cupcakes. Pacing is fine, but I think that you have to play one or two strong teams--not necessarily national title contenders--in order to get some idea of what you have
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Aug 23, 2017 17:49:10 GMT -5
I certainly don't want to become the voice of optimism on this board, but I do not think that this team was anywhere near as bad as its record last year. I think it was a poorly put together collection of players with talent who did not fit the system they were playing and who were not well-coached last year. As for this year, the coach is an unknown, and they are lacking proven shooters, but there is still some talent on the team coming back. Enough talent that they should be competitive in most games. There are many teams that play well and have no high-ranking recruits. This team will have 3 players who were considered 4 star recruits. You also have Walker, Blair and Mosley, each of whom showed real flashes in the Kenner League (yes I know it is Kenner). I will understand growing pains and expect several tough losses as the coach and the team adjust, but I cannot see giving the team or the coach a pass this year for not performing hard and at a competitive level in and out of conference. They are starting over, but it is not a team playing with Division II talent. They actually have been something special even with the weird rumblings when Cameron quit the team before Maui. But what doomed the season was when LJ Peak hurt his groin right before Big East play. He was never the same player after that and that made it a one man threat with (Pryor) instead of a two superstar (at this level) threat. Also Hayes regressed badly on offense which made him pretty useless given his defensive deficiencies. I have to think their was something wrong with his foot because he wasn't the same offensive force was the previous year.
|
|
|
Post by daytonahoya31 on Aug 24, 2017 0:19:21 GMT -5
I will be surprised if any of the quality recruits take a chance on the Ewing in the November signing period without seeing how he coaches and how his team plays. After the season, come next April's Spring signing period there are always some undecided players in the Top 100, some late bloomers and some under the radar prospects. That is a first opportunity to judge how Ewing is being perceived. A quality recruit has already taken a chance on Ewing without seeing how he coaches and how his team plays. Remember Jamarko Pickett?
|
|
Hoyaholic
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 748
|
Post by Hoyaholic on Aug 24, 2017 1:58:17 GMT -5
-25 The JTIII model of playing alot of top teams early hasn't worked. Either we get crushed and put ourselves in a position where we have to win 80% of our Big East games while staying on the bubble (thanks to RPI) only to not make it in the end OR Beat a top team early, get complacent and overconfident and peak too early. And then flame out by the time of the BET and NCAA tournament. Pitino seems to have a better model. He paces his teams so they peak in February and March and not in November/December. So the only two outcomes of a tough out of conference schedule are that you will either (a) beat a very good team (or teams) and get so cocky and complacent that you fail in the tournament 4 months later, or (b) lose and have your spirits crushed, then slog through a meaningless conference season? Either way, the team is doomed to failure from being tested early. Seems pretty defeatist, and I don't buy it for a second. Last season was probably our worst OOC performance under JTIII. We played 6 legitimate OOC teams. We beat a F4 team, lost badly twice, beat SU and UConn, and were a 2 minute comedy of errors away from beating MD. And still we did not need to win 80% of our BE games to make the tournament. Had we won 55.5% (10-8), we were in easily. And yes, the RPI was our friend last year, as it should have been. It kept our hopes alive deep into the season (until the DePaul debacle). By your logic, we should have scheduled a weak OOC to build confidence, but had we done so, after our poor start in BE play we would have been completely eliminated from postseason contention. The truth is the only reason the season held any hope after Feb 1 is because we had some good early wins under our belt. After we drubbed Marquette, a strong finish and an at-large bid seemed pretty feasible. Seriously, in what other sport do people actually believe the nonsense that you get better by repeatedly beating up on clearly and objectively inferior teams? This is a complete BS myth created by coaches who want to pad their resumes and avoid getting fired. It exists nowhere but in college football and basketball, and it is shameful. More importantly, in the age of the RPI, it absolutely hurts your post season chances. If anything, Our OOC success under JTIII may have led to our being over-seeded in the tournament, which made our losses seem all that more surprising. I literally cannot recall a year under III when I thought our seed was too low (maybe 2006). Put me in the camp of scheduling as difficult an OOC as possible, regardless of circumstance. It is absolutely indisputable that the committee rewards 1-2 good wins much more than a bunch of bad wins (or punishes bad losses). The problem is that coaches, like everyone else, respond to incentives, and they believe that it is safer to get to 20-25 wins than to rely on the RPI to get them in the tourney. After all, nobody knows the coach with the highest career RPI, but they know Boeheim has 1000 900ish wins.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Aug 24, 2017 8:57:16 GMT -5
I will be surprised if any of the quality recruits take a chance on the Ewing in the November signing period without seeing how he coaches and how his team plays. After the season, come next April's Spring signing period there are always some undecided players in the Top 100, some late bloomers and some under the radar prospects. That is a first opportunity to judge how Ewing is being perceived. A quality recruit has already taken a chance on Ewing without seeing how he coaches and how his team plays. Remember Jamarko Pickett? Also a DC kid too. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 24, 2017 9:10:18 GMT -5
So the only two outcomes of a tough out of conference schedule are that you will either (a) beat a very good team (or teams) and get so cocky and complacent that you fail in the tournament 4 months later, or (b) lose and have your spirits crushed, then slog through a meaningless conference season? Either way, the team is doomed to failure from being tested early. Seems pretty defeatist, and I don't buy it for a second. Last season was probably our worst OOC performance under JTIII. We played 6 legitimate OOC teams. We beat a F4 team, lost badly twice, beat SU and UConn, and were a 2 minute comedy of errors away from beating MD. And still we did not need to win 80% of our BE games to make the tournament. Had we won 55.5% (10-8), we were in easily. And yes, the RPI was our friend last year, as it should have been. It kept our hopes alive deep into the season (until the DePaul debacle). By your logic, we should have scheduled a weak OOC to build confidence, but had we done so, after our poor start in BE play we would have been completely eliminated from postseason contention. The truth is the only reason the season held any hope after Feb 1 is because we had some good early wins under our belt. After we drubbed Marquette, a strong finish and an at-large bid seemed pretty feasible. Seriously, in what other sport do people actually believe the nonsense that you get better by repeatedly beating up on clearly and objectively inferior teams? This is a complete BS myth created by coaches who want to pad their resumes and avoid getting fired. It exists nowhere but in college football and basketball, and it is shameful. More importantly, in the age of the RPI, it absolutely hurts your post season chances. If anything, Our OOC success under JTIII may have led to our being over-seeded in the tournament, which made our losses seem all that more surprising. I literally cannot recall a year under III when I thought our seed was too low (maybe 2006). Put me in the camp of scheduling as difficult an OOC as possible, regardless of circumstance. It is absolutely indisputable that the committee rewards 1-2 good wins much more than a bunch of bad wins (or punishes bad losses). The problem is that coaches, like everyone else, respond to incentives, and they believe that it is safer to get to 20-25 wins than to rely on the RPI to get them in the tourney. After all, nobody knows the coach with the highest career RPI, but they know Boeheim has 1000 900ish wins. I agree with virtually everything here. But here's a good example. In 2016, Marquette had a pretty weak OOC schedule. These are the KenPom ratings of their OOC opponents: 129, 207, 74, 81, 93, 249, 345, 336, 259, 38, 347, 329, 278. This is a pretty poor schedule, though even it could be better than what we end up having this season. So even with that weak OOC, Marquette was 11-2. In the Big East, they were 8-10, for a total record (before the BET) of 19-12. In the BET they beat a pretty bad St. John's and lost to good Xavier team. On paper, not a bad total record. 21-13, 9-11 in conference. While the record might make it seem like Marquette wasn't all that far from the tournament, they were actually nowhere near tournament contention. Their RPI was 111! While sites like RPI Forecast don't allow me to play with the numbers from 2016, my guess is that Marquette would have needed 2-4 more very high quality wins to even have a chance at tournament contention. I realize some will say "well, we have no shot this year anyway!" and that's probably true. But what if we do? We shouldn't put ourselves in a position where we need to go 12-6 or better in the Big East to have any shot at post-season play.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Aug 24, 2017 10:05:16 GMT -5
I agree with virtually everything here. But here's a good example. In 2016, Marquette had a pretty weak OOC schedule. These are the KenPom ratings of their OOC opponents: 129, 207, 74, 81, 93, 249, 345, 336, 259, 38, 347, 329, 278. This is a pretty poor schedule, though even it could be better than what we end up having this season. So even with that weak OOC, Marquette was 11-2. In the Big East, they were 8-10, for a total record (before the BET) of 19-12. In the BET they beat a pretty bad St. John's and lost to good Xavier team. On paper, not a bad total record. 21-13, 9-11 in conference. While the record might make it seem like Marquette wasn't all that far from the tournament, they were actually nowhere near tournament contention. Their RPI was 111! While sites like RPI Forecast don't allow me to play with the numbers from 2016, my guess is that Marquette would have needed 2-4 more very high quality wins to even have a chance at tournament contention. I realize some will say "well, we have no shot this year anyway!" and that's probably true. But what if we do? We shouldn't put ourselves in a position where we need to go 12-6 or better in the Big East to have any shot at post-season play. I completely agree with this. I'm hopeful that the Hoyas have a better OOC schedule than Marquette did that year (more in the 100-250 range than in the 250-350 range), but we'll see once the schedule comes out. One thing to remember about your example is that Marquette the next season went on to be 10-8 in the Big East with a NCAA tournament berth.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Aug 24, 2017 10:23:20 GMT -5
I completely agree with this. I'm hopeful that the Hoyas have a better OOC schedule than Marquette did that year (more in the 100-250 range than in the 250-350 range), but we'll see once the schedule comes out. One thing to remember about your example is that Marquette the next season went on to be 10-8 in the Big East with a NCAA tournament berth. Except that all evidence shows that we're adding more 300+ RPI teams, not 100-250's. From the front page :
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Aug 24, 2017 10:55:13 GMT -5
-25 The JTIII model of playing alot of top teams early hasn't worked. Either we get crushed and put ourselves in a position where we have to win 80% of our Big East games while staying on the bubble (thanks to RPI) only to not make it in the end OR Beat a top team early, get complacent and overconfident and peak too early. And then flame out by the time of the BET and NCAA tournament. Pitino seems to have a better model. He paces his teams so they peak in February and March and not in November/December. So the only two outcomes of a tough out of conference schedule are that you will either (a) beat a very good team (or teams) and get so cocky and complacent that you fail in the tournament 4 months later, or (b) lose and have your spirits crushed, then slog through a meaningless conference season? Either way, the team is doomed to failure from being tested early. Seems pretty defeatist, and I don't buy it for a second. Last season was probably our worst OOC performance under JTIII. We played 6 legitimate OOC teams. We beat a F4 team, lost badly twice, beat SU and UConn, and were a 2 minute comedy of errors away from beating MD. And still we did not need to win 80% of our BE games to make the tournament. Had we won 55.5% (10-8), we were in easily. And yes, the RPI was our friend last year, as it should have been. It kept our hopes alive deep into the season (until the DePaul debacle). By your logic, we should have scheduled a weak OOC to build confidence, but had we done so, after our poor start in BE play we would have been completely eliminated from postseason contention. The truth is the only reason the season held any hope after Feb 1 is because we had some good early wins under our belt. After we drubbed Marquette, a strong finish and an at-large bid seemed pretty feasible. Seriously, in what other sport do people actually believe the nonsense that you get better by repeatedly beating up on clearly and objectively inferior teams? This is a complete BS myth created by coaches who want to pad their resumes and avoid getting fired. It exists nowhere but in college football and basketball, and it is shameful. More importantly, in the age of the RPI, it absolutely hurts your post season chances. If anything, Our OOC success under JTIII may have led to our being over-seeded in the tournament, which made our losses seem all that more surprising. I literally cannot recall a year under III when I thought our seed was too low (maybe 2006). Put me in the camp of scheduling as difficult an OOC as possible, regardless of circumstance. It is absolutely indisputable that the committee rewards 1-2 good wins much more than a bunch of bad wins (or punishes bad losses). The problem is that coaches, like everyone else, respond to incentives, and they believe that it is safer to get to 20-25 wins than to rely on the RPI to get them in the tourney. After all, nobody knows the coach with the highest career RPI, but they know Boeheim has 1000 900ish wins. But the point is JTIII's teams never actually got better from the OOC schedules, at least not in the that 4-5 years (I'd argue 8-9 years). They would peak in January instead of February, the past 2 years early season failures really derailed the tone, feel, and approach of the whole season from the get go. Yea the difficult schedules helped with our seeding and the tournament, but our issue was we weren't getting better through the season and were being overwhelmed with losses we weren't mentally able to overcome early on. You can't say the schedule last year almost got us into the tournament and an easier one would have given us no chance as you have no idea how this team would have responded to an easier schedule. Its feasible they would have improved and matured and learned to play cohesively and with confidence. Who knows? But to say with that measure of certainty that there is no value in an easy schedule is hogwash and ignores the psychology of sports.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,229
|
Post by EtomicB on Aug 24, 2017 11:36:59 GMT -5
-25So the only two outcomes of a tough out of conference schedule are that you will either (a) beat a very good team (or teams) and get so cocky and complacent that you fail in the tournament 4 months later, or (b) lose and have your spirits crushed, then slog through a meaningless conference season? Either way, the team is doomed to failure from being tested early. Seems pretty defeatist, and I don't buy it for a second. Last season was probably our worst OOC performance under JTIII. We played 6 legitimate OOC teams. We beat a F4 team, lost badly twice, beat SU and UConn, and were a 2 minute comedy of errors away from beating MD. And still we did not need to win 80% of our BE games to make the tournament. Had we won 55.5% (10-8), we were in easily. And yes, the RPI was our friend last year, as it should have been. It kept our hopes alive deep into the season (until the DePaul debacle). By your logic, we should have scheduled a weak OOC to build confidence, but had we done so, after our poor start in BE play we would have been completely eliminated from postseason contention. The truth is the only reason the season held any hope after Feb 1 is because we had some good early wins under our belt. After we drubbed Marquette, a strong finish and an at-large bid seemed pretty feasible. Seriously, in what other sport do people actually believe the nonsense that you get better by repeatedly beating up on clearly and objectively inferior teams? This is a complete BS myth created by coaches who want to pad their resumes and avoid getting fired. It exists nowhere but in college football and basketball, and it is shameful. More importantly, in the age of the RPI, it absolutely hurts your post season chances. If anything, Our OOC success under JTIII may have led to our being over-seeded in the tournament, which made our losses seem all that more surprising. I literally cannot recall a year under III when I thought our seed was too low (maybe 2006). Put me in the camp of scheduling as difficult an OOC as possible, regardless of circumstance. It is absolutely indisputable that the committee rewards 1-2 good wins much more than a bunch of bad wins (or punishes bad losses). The problem is that coaches, like everyone else, respond to incentives, and they believe that it is safer to get to 20-25 wins than to rely on the RPI to get them in the tourney. After all, nobody knows the coach with the highest career RPI, but they know Boeheim has 1000 900ish wins. But the point is JTIII's teams never actually got better from the OOC schedules, at least not in the that 4-5 years (I'd argue 8-9 years). They would peak in January instead of February, the past 2 years early season failures really derailed the tone, feel, and approach of the whole season from the get go. Yea the difficult schedules helped with our seeding and the tournament, but our issue was we weren't getting better through the season and were being overwhelmed with losses we weren't mentally able to overcome early on. You can't say the schedule last year almost got us into the tournament and an easier one would have given us no chance as you have no idea how this team would have responded to an easier schedule. Its feasible they would have improved and matured and learned to play cohesively and with confidence. Who knows? But to say with that measure of certainty that there is no value in an easy schedule is hogwash and ignores the psychology of sports. They didn't peak in January in Otto's soph year, they choked in the tourney but the biggest wins of the season came in late Feb early March.. The Sims lead team played well down the stretch too..
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Aug 24, 2017 11:53:35 GMT -5
Scheduling wasn't the problem with JTII teams.
Whether he scheduled his OOC like his Pops or Tom Izzo, he wasn't the coach, talent evaluator,recruiter, and program builder that his Pops and Izzo were.
|
|
95hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,303
|
Post by 95hoya on Aug 24, 2017 12:27:56 GMT -5
I agree with virtually everything here. But here's a good example. In 2016, Marquette had a pretty weak OOC schedule. These are the KenPom ratings of their OOC opponents: 129, 207, 74, 81, 93, 249, 345, 336, 259, 38, 347, 329, 278. This is a pretty poor schedule, though even it could be better than what we end up having this season. So even with that weak OOC, Marquette was 11-2. In the Big East, they were 8-10, for a total record (before the BET) of 19-12. In the BET they beat a pretty bad St. John's and lost to good Xavier team. On paper, not a bad total record. 21-13, 9-11 in conference. While the record might make it seem like Marquette wasn't all that far from the tournament, they were actually nowhere near tournament contention. Their RPI was 111! While sites like RPI Forecast don't allow me to play with the numbers from 2016, my guess is that Marquette would have needed 2-4 more very high quality wins to even have a chance at tournament contention. I realize some will say "well, we have no shot this year anyway!" and that's probably true. But what if we do? We shouldn't put ourselves in a position where we need to go 12-6 or better in the Big East to have any shot at post-season play. I completely agree with this. I'm hopeful that the Hoyas have a better OOC schedule than Marquette did that year (more in the 100-250 range than in the 250-350 range), but we'll see once the schedule comes out. One thing to remember about your example is that Marquette the next season went on to be 10-8 in the Big East with a NCAA tournament berth. There's no reason for any major schools to schedule any 300+ rpi schools. It's embarrassing and an outdated scheduling philosophy. Get your easy wins in the 200s.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Aug 24, 2017 12:59:12 GMT -5
I completely agree with this. I'm hopeful that the Hoyas have a better OOC schedule than Marquette did that year (more in the 100-250 range than in the 250-350 range), but we'll see once the schedule comes out. One thing to remember about your example is that Marquette the next season went on to be 10-8 in the Big East with a NCAA tournament berth. Except that all evidence shows that we're adding more 300+ RPI teams, not 100-250's. From the front page : That's not evidence that we're adding more 300+ RPI teams, that's evidence that so far most of the teams we are aware of on the schedule are 300+ RPI. You're assuming that additional teams will be 300+ RPI.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Aug 24, 2017 13:01:29 GMT -5
I absolutely am, yes.
I don't see any reason why we should play any RPI 300+ teams.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Aug 24, 2017 13:04:36 GMT -5
I completely agree with this. I'm hopeful that the Hoyas have a better OOC schedule than Marquette did that year (more in the 100-250 range than in the 250-350 range), but we'll see once the schedule comes out. One thing to remember about your example is that Marquette the next season went on to be 10-8 in the Big East with a NCAA tournament berth. There's no reason for any major schools to schedule any 300+ rpi schools. It's embarrassing and an outdated scheduling philosophy. Get your easy wins in the 200s. I'm ok with that concept, but also keep in mind that you can not always predict the RPI of a team before the season. For example, Maryland Eastern Shore's RPI the past few seasons has been: 2017 - 279 2016 - 307 (played Georgetown) 2015 - 191 2014 - 347
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,652
|
Post by guru on Aug 24, 2017 13:11:17 GMT -5
But the point is JTIII's teams never actually got better from the OOC schedules, at least not in the that 4-5 years (I'd argue 8-9 years). They would peak in January instead of February, the past 2 years early season failures really derailed the tone, feel, and approach of the whole season from the get go. Yea the difficult schedules helped with our seeding and the tournament, but our issue was we weren't getting better through the season and were being overwhelmed with losses we weren't mentally able to overcome early on. You can't say the schedule last year almost got us into the tournament and an easier one would have given us no chance as you have no idea how this team would have responded to an easier schedule. Its feasible they would have improved and matured and learned to play cohesively and with confidence. Who knows? But to say with that measure of certainty that there is no value in an easy schedule is hogwash and ignores the psychology of sports. They didn't peak in January in Otto's soph year, they choked in the tourney but the biggest wins of the season came in late Feb early March.. The Sims lead team played well down the stretch too.. My goodness, that team. Played so well in February then ended that season losing an historic BET semifinal game to our fiercest rival whom they had already beaten twice, then followed that up with one of the handful of worst losses in NCAA tournament history. Adding nothing to the conversation here, I realize, but man did that season get poleaxed.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Aug 24, 2017 13:27:19 GMT -5
I'm ok with that concept, but also keep in mind that you can not always predict the RPI of a team before the season. For example, Maryland Eastern Shore's RPI the past few seasons has been: 2017 - 279 2016 - 307 (played Georgetown) 2015 - 191 2014 - 347 I don't think that shows what you think it shows. The outlier is 2015. If you look at the MEAC RPI's, basically two teams in the entire conference had an RPI under rank 280 : www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi/_/year/2017/groupId/16It's a pretty good bet that if you schedule any MEAC team other than the conference champion, you are scheduling one of the worst RPI teams in college basketball. There is literally nothing to be gained from scheduling the MEAC - in most cases, playing a MEAC game hurts your RPI more than losing to another Big East team. If you want to schedule RPI 100-250, you don't schedule MEAC teams. You schedule MEAC teams if you want 300+.
|
|