LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Aug 24, 2017 13:39:43 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+. In 2017 the MEAC had 2 teams sub 280, 3 teams sub 300, 8 teams above 300. In 2016 the MEAC had 4 teams sub 280, 1 teams sub 300, 8 teams above 300. In 2015 the MEAC had 6 teams sub 280, 0 teams sub 300, 7 teams above 300. In 2014 the MEAC had 6 teams sub 280, 1 teams sub 300, 6 teams above 300. So maybe the outlier is 2017.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Aug 24, 2017 13:42:37 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. EXactly. The last 4 years we were 18 wins, 22 wins, 14 wins and 15 wins. Only the 22 win made the tournament. I can't find the numbers but you need at least 20 wins to have a realistic shot at March Madness. And we've really struggled to even get there so the rpi and SOS doesn't even come into play. Then you have guys like Lj Peak who over extend themselves against top competitor.early and end up with a recurring groin injury that limits his athleticism for the Big East portion of the season. If you win enough games in the Big East the rpi and Sos should take care of it self. Last year we were 8-4 going into Big East play. And ended up with 15 wins. Even doing a home-home split only gets you to 17 wins. Now with two extra wins at 10-2 a home home split gets you to 19 wins and sweeping two extra Big East teams gets you to 21 and wins and into the tourney. We just haven't been good enough to run that high rpi/Sos strategy. Not even close.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,465
|
Post by TC on Aug 24, 2017 14:54:27 GMT -5
In 2017 the MEAC had 2 teams sub 280, 3 teams sub 300, 8 teams above 300. In 2016 the MEAC had 4 teams sub 280, 1 teams sub 300, 8 teams above 300. In 2015 the MEAC had 6 teams sub 280, 0 teams sub 300, 7 teams above 300. In 2014 the MEAC had 6 teams sub 280, 1 teams sub 300, 6 teams above 300. Find a year where the majority of the MEAC is better than 250. You've argued that you can't predict the success of an individual team within the conference - if the more than half the conference is going to be outside the sweet spot rankings range that you want, why schedule them? If this team somehow pulls a miracle and does well in conference, scheduling four or five 300-RPI teams means they will miss the tournament.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Aug 24, 2017 17:02:35 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.. Those are two seasons in the last 10 where the team arguable played better, one of which was less of the team improving and more of Otto Porter realizing he was Otto Porter. That's not too good.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Aug 24, 2017 17:32:06 GMT -5
We've missed one tournament ever because of scheduling (2002). We have outperformed our seed in a couple years where the schedule hurt our seed (2001, 2006) and underperformed several times when the schedule helped our seed (2010, 2011).
I think my point is, if you're good, you're good and in the Big East there is nowhere to hide. Yes JTIII made countless "Schedule 16s" but the mediocrity of his actual teams caught up eventually.
Are you better off with a tougher schedule? Yes because frankly it gives fringe teams more cracks at a signature non-con win and the committee puts a disproportionate amount of stock in that.
But the schedule won't ruin a good team and that goes for demoralizing losses or RPI boosting wins.
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Aug 24, 2017 17:52:09 GMT -5
I can't find the numbers but you need at least 20 wins to have a realistic shot at March Madness. And we've really struggled to even get there so the rpi and SOS doesn't even come into play. This is not how the selection process works. 20 win teams are usually better than 15 win teams, but it's not a winning percentage contest like the NBA. Any metric the NCAA Tournament committee uses--RPI, KenPom, Sagarin, whatever--is going to prioritize strength of schedule over winning percentage. Scheduling a bunch of cupcakes to boost your win total marginally hurts your chances of making the NCAA Tournament. Maybe this year that means our chances go from 1% to .5% so big whoop, but they certainly won't get better because of what we've scheduled so far. Every other criteria the NCAA uses (and here they are: www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/mens-basketball-selections-101-selections) boils down to either: (a) we actually pay attention to who you played and beat; or (b) eh, the Mike Hopkins ones don't count.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,039
|
Post by EtomicB on Aug 24, 2017 18:48:45 GMT -5
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.. Those are two seasons in the last 10 where the team arguable played better, one of which was less of the team improving and more of Otto Porter realizing he was Otto Porter. That's not too good. There's nothing to argue about with either of those 2 years.. The 07-08 team obviously played well late in the year.. In 08-09 they were bad.. In 09-10 the team won 4 in a row to end the year, they made it to the BET championship game that year.. In 10-11 the team won 8 of 9 from 1/15 thru 2/13 and then went belly up after Wright got hurt.. The 11-12 & 12-13 teams have already been covered.. In 13-14 they were bad.. In 14-15 the team went 12-6 from 1/13 thru the end of the season.. In 15-16 & 16-17 they've been bad.. In 6 of the last 10 years the team has played well after January so your theory doesn't hold water Sleepy.. www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/georgetown/2015-schedule.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 19:02:22 GMT -5
Tourney? Meh....None of these kids, aside from Mourning, have experienced what a winning season looks like. Securing our first winning season in 3 years would be a nice start. It's a small to medium positive coaches can sell to recruits if they can pull it off.
I understand guys would rather see some better names, but recruits don't know the difference in RPI between Maine and UNC-Ash. They're not looking that deep, just want to see an appealing style of play for the most part imo...
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Aug 24, 2017 19:20:08 GMT -5
In 2017 the MEAC had 2 teams sub 280, 3 teams sub 300, 8 teams above 300. In 2016 the MEAC had 4 teams sub 280, 1 teams sub 300, 8 teams above 300. In 2015 the MEAC had 6 teams sub 280, 0 teams sub 300, 7 teams above 300. In 2014 the MEAC had 6 teams sub 280, 1 teams sub 300, 6 teams above 300. Find a year where the majority of the MEAC is better than 250. You've argued that you can't predict the success of an individual team within the conference - if the more than half the conference is going to be outside the sweet spot rankings range that you want, why schedule them? If this team somehow pulls a miracle and does well in conference, scheduling four or five 300-RPI teams means they will miss the tournament. 250? 280? 300? None of this is really the point. I completely agree with you that the team should generally have a more difficult schedule, and I'm hoping that the rest of the schedule is better than what has been announced so far. I just don't think it makes sense to say that the Hoyas should never schedule a team that could potentially end up with a 300+ RPI. So I'll leave it at this, if you're at the Maryland Eastern Shore game this Fall I'll buy you a beer at halftime so we can cheers to what is hopefully shaping up to a win over a potential 300+ RPI team.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,465
|
Post by TC on Aug 25, 2017 13:22:02 GMT -5
We've missed one tournament ever because of scheduling (2002). We have outperformed our seed in a couple years where the schedule hurt our seed (2001, 2006) and underperformed several times when the schedule helped our seed (2010, 2011). We only missed one tournament ever because of scheduling because until the late 1990's, the tournament's selection worked a lot more along the lines of what professorhoya is suggesting (puff up your schedule to 21 wins of whatever and you're golden if you are from a major conference). 1996-1997 would probably been a miss under today's selection guidelines, and 1993-1994 would have been even more questionable than it was.
|
|
|
Post by hoya7581 on Aug 26, 2017 21:57:08 GMT -5
These discussions about playing low RPI teams is a moot point. Yes, we need to win those games. But the real test is the BE conference. If we can get wins against Xavier, Providence, Butler , Creighton, Seton Hall etc and go deep in the BE tournament we'll get to the big dance. It's asking a lot from a young team but what we do in the BE is really what matters!
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Aug 27, 2017 0:53:28 GMT -5
These discussions about playing low RPI teams is a moot point. Yes, we need to win those games. But the real test is the BE conference. If we can get wins against Xavier, Providence, Butler , Creighton, Seton Hall etc and go deep in the BE tournament we'll get to the big dance. It's asking a lot from a young team but what we do in the BE is really what matters! Exactly but the better you do OOC the fewer Big East wins you need. With an awful OOC schedule 9 Big East wins probably won't cut it likely, even if we have 10 OOC wins. That's why it matters. Granted, I think expecting anything close to 9 Big East wins at this point is very unrealistic but as fans we can hope.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,465
|
Post by TC on Mar 28, 2018 9:40:53 GMT -5
Amen. The Count Chocula tree is littered with failures (Henderson, Dawkins), cheaters (Amaker and Snyder), overrated so-so's (Brey) and unproven DBags (Wojo). Ours may be non-existent but his stinks. Georgetown's coaching trees since 1950: John Thompson IIIRobert Burke (Mt. St. Mary's 2010-2012, 17-40) Matt Henry (Mt. St. Mary's, interim in 2012: 2-2) Kevin Broadus (Binghamton, 2007-2009, 37-24) Sydney Johnson (Princeton 2007-2011, Fairfield 2011-pres., 156-161) Mike Brennan (American 2013-pres., 57-70) We're one year out and this list just improved a great deal with Hardy and Cox getting hired.
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Mar 28, 2018 10:04:46 GMT -5
|
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,521
|
Post by bostonfan on Mar 28, 2018 10:25:49 GMT -5
The Palmer kid had a good year and might get a sniff from some NBA team, but whoever is advising Copeland that this is a good idea is not giving him good advise.
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Mar 28, 2018 10:27:43 GMT -5
The Palmer kid had a good year and might get a sniff from some NBA team, but whoever is advising Copeland that this is a good idea is not giving him good advise. LOL true. I ran into Palmer's dad when he was about 12 years old in Bowie's gym. I knew then the kid would be special.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,039
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 28, 2018 11:24:19 GMT -5
The Palmer kid had a good year and might get a sniff from some NBA team, but whoever is advising Copeland that this is a good idea is not giving him good advise. As long as he doesn't hire an agent how can it be a bad move?
|
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,521
|
Post by bostonfan on Mar 28, 2018 11:31:29 GMT -5
The Palmer kid had a good year and might get a sniff from some NBA team, but whoever is advising Copeland that this is a good idea is not giving him good advise. As long as he doesn't hire an agent how can it be a bad move? You are right about that. As long as he doesn't hire an agent he can always go back to school next year. I just hope no one is trying to tell him he is ready for the NBA now.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Mar 28, 2018 11:31:41 GMT -5
I suppose creating the perception that Ike has no grasp on the reality of his future - but yeah, no real negative impact. And he could get some guidance as to what he needs to improve to play professionally whether here or abroad.
|
|
justsaying
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 709
|
Post by justsaying on Mar 28, 2018 12:09:43 GMT -5
I suppose creating the perception that Ike has no grasp on the reality of his future - but yeah, no real negative impact. And he could get some guidance as to what he needs to improve to play professionally whether here or abroad. For Copeland I think the advise to this point is good and as mentioned as long as he does not hire an agent. The NBA coaches and executives will be telling him exactly where he stands, what he needs to work on, and his pluses and minuses. He has improved but still no break through. He will need to know because he may need attack this from a graduate transfer if and when that time come. Given his current trajectory he need as much next level information as possible given the time he has left. I also think this is different than Govan and Derrickson because their latest trajectory is showing upward and now a matter given this next year they will start showing on the big boards (obviously if they continue the upward movement; given they are working with Coach E we would expect it to continue).
|
|