Joe Lunardi has Valpo as #14 seed against #3 seed Louisville in Columbus.
Quote from: oklahomamick on February 02, 2015, 08:55:54 AMJoe Lunardi
I can understand why people might like this post, but if we are the HL representative that means we would probably be no less than 27-6 with wins over Green Bay and Cleveland State. ARE YOU KIDDING ME A #14 SEED!!! This would be a disgraceful seeding for such a team from the #15 RPI conference. >:(
Lunardi's weekly brackets don't project the rest of the season - he seeds based off of if the season were to end today. Our RPI is currently 86, his 13 seeds are currently 82, 71, 75 and 88. So maybe you quibble a bit over him putting Akron as a 13 instead of us.
OK, I know I am commenting on a meaningless speculation, but here goes:
13s in Lunardi's current projection: Akron (RPI 93), Murray State (RPI 77), William & Mary (RPI 75), SFA (RPI 87). Valpo's RPI is 86.
My guess is that in this scenario, closeness to home comes into play. They have tried to adjust seeds in recent years to keep teams closer to home (and thus increase attendance). Valpo and Akron are probably a toss-up, but he put Akron and Seattle and Valpo in Columbus. Not really a disgrace. And, of course, this will change 50 times over the next 6 weeks.
It is nice to see Valpo getting more recognition. Single votes in both polls always looks nice. It is certainly a credit to the job Bryce and his staff have done with multiple injuries to contend with.
For comparison, here is the teamrankings.com bracketology:
http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-tournament/bracketology/ (http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-tournament/bracketology/)
and Valpo's chances:
http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/team/valparaiso-crusaders/bracketology (http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/team/valparaiso-crusaders/bracketology)
Right now, teamrankings.com has Green Bay as the last 13 seed.
2 points on the way too early to speculate on Bracketology; however, (i) I'd rather be the 3/14 in Pittsburgh against ND because they have a history of losing 1st round games and they've been ducking us since the United Center; plus, the next round provides beatable opponents in G-Town and Tulsa (ii) Although the Ville is very good, the fun could be huge if you look to the 6/11 line in Columbus and see our old friends, Butler.
Quote from: vu84v2 on February 02, 2015, 03:19:57 PM
OK, I know I am commenting on a meaningless speculation, but here goes:
13s in Lunardi's current projection: Akron (RPI 93), Murray State (RPI 77), William & Mary (RPI 75), SFA (RPI 87). Valpo's RPI is 86.
My guess is that in this scenario, closeness to home comes into play. They have tried to adjust seeds in recent years to keep teams closer to home (and thus increase attendance). Valpo and Akron are probably a toss-up, but he put Akron and Seattle and Valpo in Columbus. Not really a disgrace. And, of course, this will change 50 times over the next 6 weeks.
It is nice to see Valpo getting more recognition. Single votes in both polls always looks nice. It is certainly a credit to the job Bryce and his staff have done with multiple injuries to contend with.
Yes it is nice that VU is getting some recognition and I hope it continues. What just really irks me is that we now play in a better conference, but if we win the conference tournament (the only way the HL rep currently gets in the Big Dance) our seeding hasn't changed any from the old Mid-Con days. Everybody wants to look at the holy grail of RPI and to me that is just weak. Murray State played one HL team, us, and we beat them by 35. They haven't lost to anybody because their conference sucks!!!@ So are you telling me that if we ran the table in the OVC we would be better off than winning the HL? Heck, the Summit League rep has gotten better seeding than the HL rep recently. The HL needs to find some way to up its reputation because we are still suffering from the Nobutler syndrome.
Quote from: FWalum on February 02, 2015, 05:52:10 PMThe HL needs to find some way to up its reputation because we are still suffering from the Nobutler syndrome.
Adding Northern Kentucky should help.
Our SOS is killing us. Only good news I can think of is that the 2nd half of our conference schedule is tougher than the 1st half. We are already done with UIC, Youngstown, and Milwaukee at home.
What sucks about SOS is that if we just would have played the #1 and #10 team in the country instead of Missouri and New Mexico, we would still have the exact same number of loses, but our RPI and SOS would be a whole lot better. Looking through team schedules, I see a lot of schools with SOS's in the 80-120 range where if we played their schedule we would have a very similar record to the one we have right now.
I watched Money Ball the other night. You know, the story about Billy Bean and the Oakland Athletics. Perhaps Valpo or the HL needs to hire a really smart math guy and pay him a bunch of money as a "Scheduling Consultant". There has got to be a way to cheat the system!
Quote from: SanityLost17 on February 02, 2015, 06:51:50 PMI watched Money Ball the other night. You know, the story about Billy Bean and the Oakland Athletics. Perhaps Valpo or the HL needs to hire a really smart math guy and pay him a bunch of money as a "Scheduling Consultant". There has got to be a way to cheat the system!
Great idea, but the HL commissioner would have to enforce it. I don't think LeCrone is the man to take the HL forward. Actually, I don't think LeCrone is the man to keep the HL from decreasing. At least when the big 12 lost all their teams the remaining team made record money. That's not the case for the HL. HL should fire LeCrone as the Big 12 fired Dan Beebe.
Quote from: valpo84 on February 02, 2015, 05:09:50 PM(ii) Although the Ville is very good, the fun could be huge if you look to the 6/11 line in Columbus and see our old friends, Butler.
I thought someone on this board thought Butler was going to be in the bottom of the Big East. What is Butler doing in Lunardi's bracketology?
Don't look now but the Bulldogs are third in the Big East at 16-6, conf 6-3. I wouldn't call that the lower half.
Even though I have detested the Bulldogs for a long time they truly are in the right conference for them and the move to the Big East has been successful.
Losing big to weak teams like Missouri and New Mexico that play in more competitive conferences does not help your ranking.
I agree with FWAlum, but in reality what is the big difference from being a 13 seed or a 14 seed?
Valpo needs to continue winning consistently, beat UWGB twice and Cleveland State. If they do that, their seed will increase.
Quote from: usc4valpo on February 03, 2015, 05:55:45 AMwhat is the big difference from being a 13 seed or a 14 seed?
um, it's huge.
14 seeds have a 14.3% winning percentage.
13 seeds have a 20.5% winning percentage.
To my rough eye that means historically a 13 seed has a
43% better chance of winning, although I'll wait for tex or history to check my math.
In the past couple years where the seeding has been low we've sent Detroit (15) Valpo (14) Milwaukee (15) - Two of those teams weren't the top team in the Horizon. Had Green Bay won last year, they would've been a 12 seed since they were almost an at-large. Valpo's under seeding has been well discussed here. Again, the selection committee looks at RPI and geography. Valpo had the best RPI in the history of the program, but Valpo is located closer to Michigan.
RPI improves with a better conference. What Murray State is doing is very rare - there's only a few other teams with longer winning streaks. If they lose a couple conference games, their RPI takes a nosedive. This is true for any commence - there's more room for error when you're playing better teams.
With that said, individual teams are still seeded, not conferences. The selection committee didn't award the horizon league the 15th seed, they awarded Milwaukee the 15th seed. Each team still has a responsibility to put together a tough schedule and win games outside of their conference. Whatever mid major conference we're in won't change our OOC schedules, won't magically upgrade our seed, and it won't win games for us. The conference is never going to do the work for us.
Also, everyone should check out bracketmatrix.com. It's a conglomeration of 81 bracket predictions and gives an average seed of each team. We're picked to win the HL in 24 brackets, while Green Bay is picked to win in 55. Our seed ranges from 12-14 with an average of 13.25 while Green Bay's ranges from 12-13 with an average seed of 12.29. This is always a good indication of how a team will be seeded before the selection committee gets really drunk and decides to randomly allocate seeds because they think its really funny.
If we win out I see us getting a 12 seed, maybe an 11 (highly doubtful though), if we lose one game and win the tourney we're a 13, lose 2 more and win the tourney then a 14. Don't win the tourney we're in the NIT or CIT. Gotta win the tourney if not all this bracketology discussion is moot.
Holy statistics Batman!
Let me chime in with Apostle's comments.
It is all relative – whether you are a 13 or 14 seed, you are a huge dog.
Since 1985, there have been 120 13 seeds and 120 14 seeds.
With your percentages:
Since 1985, 25 teams with a 13 seed advance in the first round and beyond
Since 1985,. 17 teams with a 14 seed advance in the first round and beyond
So over 30 years, 8 more teams with a 13 seed have advanced compared to a 14 seed. I repeat, is the difference in seed that big a deal?
Now if you compare the 12 seed to a 13 or 14 seed, I am sure the percentages change significantly.
What seed were we when we advanced to the sweet 16? I know we ended the season being ranked in the top 25.
Quote from: usc4valpo on February 03, 2015, 11:05:39 AM
Holy statistics Batman!
Let me chime in with Apostle's comments.
It is all relative – whether you are a 13 or 14 seed, you are a huge dog.
Since 1985, there have been 120 13 seeds and 120 14 seeds.
With your percentages:
Since 1985, 25 teams with a 13 seed advance in the first round and beyond
Since 1985,. 17 teams with a 14 seed advance in the first round and beyond
So over 30 years, 8 more teams with a 13 seed have advanced compared to a 14 seed. I repeat, is the difference in seed that big a deal?
Now if you compare the 12 seed to a 13 or 14 seed, I am sure the percentages change significantly.
In the past 10 years 5 14 seeds have advanced and 9 13 seeds have advanced. So on average, every other year a 14 seed wins, while nearly every year a 13 seed wins. Doesn't that SEEM like a significant advantage now?
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Quote from: usc4valpo on February 03, 2015, 11:05:39 AMis the difference in seed that big a deal?
YES 25 is like FIFTY PERCENT more than 17 gah
Quote from: oklahomamick on February 03, 2015, 11:20:39 AM
What seed were we when we advanced to the sweet 16? I know we ended the season being ranked in the top 25.
Pretty sure we were a 13. The best we've been is a 12, the year before, and many thought that was a gift.
The difference between 13 and 14 is huge. It could be the difference between playing a Top 10 program versus a program between 15-20. That's a big difference. Just about every year one 13 seed wins, not every year a 14 seed wins. Thus I'd rather have a 1 in 4 chance compared to a 1 in 8 chance of advancing to the next round.
That is a small sample size to make a conclusion like that. We need more data points.
I'm in full agreement that there is a pretty big gap between being a 13 and 14 seed. But for me personally it's all about match ups. When we made the tourney 2 years ago I said I didn't care what seed we were 12-14 as long as we didn't play MSU and of course that happens. And at this point, it's way too early to predict who will finish in seeds 3-5. Still plenty of time for movement.
Quote from: oklahomamick on February 03, 2015, 11:20:39 AM
What seed were we when we advanced to the sweet 16? I know we ended the season being ranked in the top 25.
Just to take the "pretty sure" out of it. Yes, 13.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament#Midwest_Regional_-_St._Louis.2C_Missouri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament#Midwest_Regional_-_St._Louis.2C_Missouri)
Quote from: usc4valpo on February 03, 2015, 12:03:08 PMWe need more data points.
HERE IS EVERY DATA POINT THERE IS http://mcubed.net/ncaab/seeds.shtml (http://mcubed.net/ncaab/seeds.shtml)
would you rather have a (little under a) 1-in-6 chance to win or a (little over a) 1-in-5 chance to win?
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 03, 2015, 07:31:06 AM14 seeds have a 14.3% winning percentage.
13 seeds have a 20.5% winning percentage.
I always enjoy stats like this. I usually grab them from Whelliston's bbstate bracket odds calculator page... what's he call it? I'm not trivially pulling it up.
But, it often makes me wonder what the difference is between "team given a 14 that deserved a 13" and "team given a 14 that deserved a 14". How much of the difference is in the quality of the _high_ seed? And how much in the quality of the low seed? If you get snubbed into a 14, maybe you'll perform more like a 13 seed, and have a winning percentage... nearly as good?
Quote from: valpo4life on February 03, 2015, 12:19:08 PM
I'm in full agreement that there is a pretty big gap between being a 13 and 14 seed. But for me personally it's all about match ups. When we made the tourney 2 years ago I said I didn't care what seed we were 12-14 as long as we didn't play MSU and of course that happens. And at this point, it's way too early to predict who will finish in seeds 3-5. Still plenty of time for movement.
Still so upsetting. Michigan State should have been a 2 seed above Georgetown. We should have definitely been above SD State, NM State, and Montana. Definitely Montana. Combined with the fact Michigan State (a team that NEVER gets upset in the first round) was playing at home meant doom for Valpo. To pour salt on the wound, New Mexico and Georgetown were both very vulnerable and ended up losing to Harvard and FGCU.
The matchup is still more important than the seed, but a higher seed typically means an inferior opponent, thus that statistics proving that a 13 is significantly more successful than a 14 seed. Looking at Valpo in 2011 is just anecdotal.
I agree that if Valpo makes the NCAAs that matchup is important, but I would argue that this is a little different Valpo team than in the last 12+ years. This team has a much better presence upfront, strong defensive guards, and (assuming Carter comes back strong) a high quality point guard. Thus, there are not as many teams as before where Valpo would just be totally outmatched physically. If I look at the one other conference that I know fairly well (the Big 12), Valpo could potentially matchup pretty well with anyone other than Kansas (in fact, they could give Kansas a reasonable challenge). Texas might be the most physically talented team in the conference and one of the most in the nation, but (besides being too low of a seed for Valpo to get) their coach is the leading national contender for the unofficial and not highly coveted Ray McCallum award for worst coach in the nation.
If Valpo got blown out by weak Mizzou and New Mexico teams, how in the world are they going to match up against Kansas? Let's have a little reality check here. They just beat UIC, who has an RPI of 313, by 5.
If they win the rest of their games, I see them as a 12 seed, and no higher than an 11 seed (and that is being optimistic)
In reality, I see them as a 13 seed f they win the conference tournament, which is no gimme.
Valpo also needs to prove they can first beat a team in a higher level conference. They have not demonstrated that recently.
We have a lot of upside, but we have proved nothing. Our best win is Murray State and Cleveland State trails well behind. Loss to Mizzou by 15?.........#13 seed would be highest we can hope. Green Bay could snag a 12 because they beat Miami and someone else.
Quote from: crusadermoe on February 03, 2015, 04:04:48 PM
We have a lot of upside, but we have proved nothing. Our best win is Murray State and Cleveland State trails well behind. Loss to Mizzou by 15?.........#13 seed would be highest we can hope. Green Bay could snag a 12 because they beat Miami and someone else.
Quote from: usc4valpo on February 03, 2015, 03:47:36 PM
If Valpo got blown out by weak Mizzou and New Mexico teams, how in the world are they going to match up against Kansas? Let's have a little reality check here. They just beat UIC, who has an RPI of 313, by 5.
If they win the rest of their games, I see them as a 12 seed, and no higher than an 11 seed (and that is being optimistic)
In reality, I see them as a 13 seed f they win the conference tournament, which is no gimme.
Valpo also needs to prove they can first beat a team in a higher level conference. They have not demonstrated that recently.
Beating teams from big conferences literally has nothing to do with seeding. It has nothing to do with margin of victory vs inferior opponents. Mid major seeding has to do with:
1. RPI
2. Geography
That's it.
sounds like a seedy bunch hanging on this String ;D
Two "best case" scenario stupid questions to our resident RPIologists/Bracketologists, from an uninformed Valpo non-geek fan:
Where would we project IF and only IF:
1.1) We run the regular season table and win the HL tournament?
1.2) We run the regular season table and lose in the final of the HL tournament?
There are other combinations but who cares?
1.1) 12 seed - it would be similar to Harvard recently in the tournament
1.2) 7 seed
Quote from: VULB#62 on February 03, 2015, 04:43:06 PM
Two "best case" scenario stupid questions to our resident RPIologists/Bracketologists, from an uninformed Valpo non-geek fan:
Where would we project IF and only IF:
1.1) We run the regular season table and win the HL tournament?
1.2) We run the regular season table and lose in the final of the HL tournament?
There are other combinations but who cares?
An excellent question. Once we know best-case RPI (and only when we know that) will we be able to project best-case seeding. I know that someone on this board has worked these what-if RPI scenarios before. I just don't remember who.
Quote from: VULB#62 on February 03, 2015, 04:43:06 PM
1.1) We run the regular season table and win the HL tournament?
1.2) We run the regular season table and lose in the final of the HL tournament?
1.1) Our RPI would be 42 if we win out, beat Oakland (projected 4 seed) and beat Green Bay (projected 2 seed). I would hope that would be good enough for an 11 seed but I think we'd get underseeded at 12 to face a 5 seed that's closer to home.
1.2) Our RPI would be 54 according to RPI Wizard if we won out, beat Oakland (projected 4 seed) and lost to Green Bay (projected 2 seed). As USC4Valpo said a 7 seed, but I think it would be more realistically a 5 seed in the NIT. We wouldn't be an at large to the big dance.
RPIWizard (http://www.rpiforecast.com/wizard/index.html) is your friend guys.
My bad - I thought if they went undefeated during the regular season and lost in the tournament.
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 03, 2015, 04:59:20 PM
Quote from: VULB#62 on February 03, 2015, 04:43:06 PM
1.1) We run the regular season table and win the HL tournament?
1.2) We run the regular season table and lose in the final of the HL tournament?
1.1) Our RPI would be 42 if we win out, beat Oakland (projected 4 seed) and beat Green Bay (projected 2 seed). I would hope that would be good enough for an 11 seed but I think we'd get underseeded at 12 to face a 5 seed that's closer to home.
1.2) Our RPI would be 54 according to RPI Wizard if we won out, beat Oakland (projected 4 seed) and lost to Green Bay (projected 2 seed). As USC4Valpo said a 7 seed, but I think it would be more realistically a 5 seed in the NIT. We wouldn't be an at large to the big dance.
RPIWizard (http://www.rpiforecast.com/wizard/index.html) is your friend guys.
This tells me everything I need to know. If we win out, we can get an 11 or 12, either one of which is a darn good seed. If we can't win out against the level of competition we play (looking at it the way the NCAA does) we deserve whatever we get.
Mr. Wet Blanket here. All of this bracketology talk is fine, and kinda exciting, but shouldn't we focus on a couple of little things first? Like, you know, beating Detroit? After all, they have whipped us three straight times at the ARC. Just sayin'.
Paul
Quote from: VULB#62 on February 03, 2015, 04:43:06 PM
Two "best case" scenario stupid questions to our resident RPIologists/Bracketologists, from an uninformed Valpo non-geek fan:
Where would we project IF and only IF:
1.1) We run the regular season table and win the HL tournament?
1.2) We run the regular season table and lose in the final of the HL tournament?
There are other combinations but who cares?
Given two home wins vs say Cleveland State and Green Bay in the conference tourney, RPI wizard projects an RPI of 40. Running the table just doesn't seem reasonable, but the surrounding 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 RPI's in 2013 were 10, 10, 7, 10, 9... These were all at-larges. The best true auto bid that wouldn't have been an at-large was Akron (43) and was a 12 seed. But this was a weird year - 2 atlarges were 13 seeds. Last year 38,39,40,41,42 was 10, NIT, 10, 7, 8. If I had to guess, considering we're a mid major with a poor SOS, I'd say a ceiling of 10 and a floor of 12.
Given the same scenario with a home loss to green bay in the championship game, our RPI drops to 52. The SOS and lack of top 50 wins would probably make an at-large out of reach.
Edit: you suck kyle
Quote from: 78crusader on February 03, 2015, 05:20:08 PM
Mr. Wet Blanket here. All of this bracketology talk is fine, and kinda exciting, but shouldn't we focus on a couple of little things first? Like, you know, beating Detroit? After all, they have whipped us three straight times at the ARC. Just sayin'.
Paul
Yeah, I guess it's a little too early to talk about seeding and the tournament... wait, no, it's never too early to talk about seeding and the tournament! Football season is officially over, so it's our duty to play 'what if' and glue ourselves to rankings and brackets until we face a devastating loss that shifts our focus to hockey and the NBA.
We, the fans, don't have to focus on beating Detroit. Dream away fans.
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 03, 2015, 07:31:06 AMI'll wait for tex or history to check my math.
Hey, I was perfectly willing to have full faith in your ability at math, especially after totally blowing it before, but then I eyeballed the max joseph mistake and said "oh, no, how could he leave himself so vulnerable." It was actually vusupporter who caught the last one--Skara.
Quote from: valpo4life on February 03, 2015, 12:19:08 PM2 years ago I said I didn't care what seed we were 12-14 as long as we didn't play MSU and of course that happens. And at this point, it's way too early to predict who will finish in seeds 3-5. Still plenty of time for movement.
Yes, and just because some committee at the top of the Weston in downtown Indy picks a team as a 3 seed or a 4 seed doesn't mean that the team actually deserves that seed. But if you get the 12 seed then the chances of drawing a higher quality team that didn't deserve the #3 or #4 seed they received is not as probable.
They'll give us a 13 to teach us a lesson about scheduling cupcakes... and then make us feel better with a pre-season NIT next year when we're healthy.
How about the other end of things? If Valpo were to lose out (20-12 RPI~180), I believe a CIT bid would probably still be a reality. If Valpo does something more realistic like lose a couple of games in the regular season (let's say GB/CSU) while missing out on the HL regular season title and then loses again in the Tourney (~25-7 RPI~80) then Valpo ends up most likely in...the CIT/CBI. As usual in the Mid-Major world, there is a lot of room for disappointment and only a narrow path to the promised land.
Is there any chance at an NIT bid without the regular season title (13-3 and loss in HL Championship)?
Just while we are thinking about different scenarios. :P
What a downer :-(
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/oqcfQQxtgjVYDDQwLfbPJLoTC8bGkDzOwRYmqN3rVIC1buVpjkvk__Ac6O6kPG2cQo1F_0LFYik50FWumpntwQ=w426-h240-n)
So here's something to do that's way too early to do but it'll work for us or Green Bay if either of us wins the tournament.
According to RPI Forecast there's 21* one bid leagues this year. Right now Buffalo would be a "bubble team" if they lost their conference tournament with a projected RPI of 38. Everyone below them would need the automatic bid to get in, and I'm thinking if Buffalo loses they'll miss out on the tournament. The Mountain West looks to be a 2 bid league if San Diego State (26 RPI) or Colorado St. (32 RPI) loses the tournament. If the top team in each conference wins their tournament and the RPIForecast is correct our conference would be on the edge of the 12 and 13 line. Our expected RPI is 75 which would put us squarely in the 14 line. If Oakland or CSU win the tournament they'll most likely get a 15 seed and while I think our conference has enough respect around the country to not receive a 16 seed, I think we'd get it if anyone below Oakland won.
*-Gonzaga would be the only team from the WCC to make the tournament this year, but if they lose their tournament they are an at large bid with an expected RPI of 7. I have to believe the A-10 gets more than VCU in with Dayton and Davidson at 41 and 42 right now. The AAC has 3 teams under 40 in RPI so I'm sure they'll get at least 2 in. The power 6 are multi-bid locks, as is the Valley.
| Rank | Conference | Top Team | Exp. RPI |
| 11 | MAC | Buffalo | 38 |
| 16 | CUSA | Old Dominion | 42 |
| 28 | Southland | Stephen F. Austin | 50 |
| 13 LINE |
| 14 | Horizon | Green Bay | 54 |
| 24 | Southern | Wofford | 55 |
| 20 | MAAC | Iona | 61 |
| 18 | CAA | William & Mary | 64 |
| 14 LINE |
| 15 | Ivy League | Yale | 67 |
| 22 | OVC | Murray St. | 68 |
| 13 | Big West | Long Beach St. | 73 |
| 19 | Sun Belt | Georgia St. | 74 |
| 15 LINE |
| 26 | Big Sky | Eastern Washington | 75 |
| 21 | Summit | South Dakota St. | 85 |
| 25 | Big South | High Point | 89 |
| 27 | America East | Stony Brook | 113 |
| 16 LINE |
| 31 | MEAC | N. Carolina Central | 120 |
| 29 | A-Sun | FGCU | 123 |
| 17 | Patriot | Lafayette | 125 |
| 30 | WAC | New Mexico St. | 126 |
| 32 | SWAC | Texas Southern | 141 |
| 23 | NEC | St. Francis | 154 |
After trying to do some sluething and brief twitter interaction with Bill Potter it seems there's way to deep a wormhole to try to find tiebreakers and it might come to a coinflip on who would host in this situation:
Green Bay loses @Valpo and wins every other game.
Valpo loses @CSU and wins every other game.
CSU loses @Green Bay and wins every other game.
Oakland loses @GB and Valpo wins every other game.
Final Standings
Green Bay 13-3 (H2H 2-2 vs VU and CSU, 1-1 vs. OU)
Valpo 13-3 (H2H 2-2 vs GB and CSU, 1-1 vs. OU)
CSU 13-3 (H2H 2-2 vs GB and VU, 1-1 vs. OU)
Oakland 12-4
I used RPI as the final determining factor for hosting which would mean Green Bay was barely ahead of us (think that OT loss to OU or the runner at the buzzer to GB would come to haunt us this badly?).
In the tourney I said OU would beat Detroit, CSU would be WSU, GB would beat OU and Valpo would beat CSU. Then in the championship I gave GB a 55% chance of winning. Here's your final standings.
Green Bay: 24-6 RPI: 42; SOS: 150
Valpo: 24-6 RPI: 48; SOS: 205
CSU: 19-12 RPI: 96; SOS: 134
Oakland: 16-15 RPI: 114; SOS: 107
We wouldn't be a bubble team guys. I would be ecstatic with a 12 seed if we won that GB game since we don't have a signature (read top 50) win. We'd be 3-2 vs top 100 RPI teams. We have bad losses to the 199th and 155th team in the country. I would fully expect a 13 seed with a game against Baylor (which by the by would be a great match up for us, a good 3 point shooting team with little interior presence) because the NCAA are sick bastards like that. The other thing we definitely wouldn't get is a first round match up vs. a mid-major, but I could see in the same side as Butler because again the NCAA committee are crazy bastards who love storylines. Oh and this would more than likely take place in Omaha.
If we make the tourney we probably draw Baylor, which is a million times better than Michigan State. When we drew them I knew our tourney was over before it began. Obviously we need to get there first and we have a good shot at doing so this season.
If we were to draw Baylor I'd like our chances. It would make for an incredibly interesting game since I would imagine both coaches would know each other's tendencies.
If we get in we draw either: Baylor, Butler, or Notre Dame. We need to get there first, if not all this is just pointless discussion...
Quote from: classof2014 on February 04, 2015, 08:59:27 AMWe need to get there first, if not all this is just pointless discussion...
(http://media0.giphy.com/media/joNVQCtuecqHK/200_s.gif)
Ok, the CBI/CIT, but what exactly do those tournaments do but cost you more money?
It's much like getting to the Wonka factory, turning into a blueberry and then getting "depressed/juiced." ::)
I don't really think the selection committee has the capability of creating story lines - they have enough problems trying to fit teams that are close enough to the host site and haven't already played each other.
Quote from: historyman on February 04, 2015, 09:20:50 AM
Ok, the CBI/CIT, but what exactly do those tournaments do but cost you more money?
It's much like getting to the Wonka factory, turning into a blueberry and then getting "depressed/juiced." ::)
If we miss out on hosting the HL tournament and are in the 50's for RPI I would fully expect an NIT at large bid.
1. We're still a big name among mid-majors
2. Last year the average At Large NIT team had an RPI of 62 (ranging from #29 Southern Miss to #92 West Virginia)
3. The average NIT team was 20.8-11.5 (.645 win %) with a best 27-6 from Southern Miss and Toledo. If we're 24-6 in D1 games how can they say no?
This all holds true for Green Bay as well. I can't see the HL not being represented in the NIT.
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 04, 2015, 08:26:38 AMAfter trying to do some sluething and brief twitter interaction with Bill Potter it seems there's way to deep a wormhole to try to find tiebreakers and it might come to a coinflip on who would host in this situation:
Did you eventually find the tiebreaker rules? I believe they're stated in the weekly release pdf's on the HL website.
(Admittedly, it does also say there that every game will be broadcast on HLN.)
I can well imagine that there are possibilities this season to move all the way through the list of them, to... RPI is it?
All I have to say is beat Detroit - Valpo needs to play a heckuva lot better for 40 minutes to win compared to last Saturday
Quote from: agibson on February 04, 2015, 12:02:14 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 04, 2015, 08:26:38 AMAfter trying to do some sluething and brief twitter interaction with Bill Potter it seems there's way to deep a wormhole to try to find tiebreakers and it might come to a coinflip on who would host in this situation:
Did you eventually find the tiebreaker rules? I believe they're stated in the weekly release pdf's on the HL website.
(Admittedly, it does also say there that every game will be broadcast on HLN.)
I can well imagine that there are possibilities this season to move all the way through the list of them, to... RPI is it?
My understanding is that the tiebreaker goes as follows:
1. Record (duh)
2. Head to head record (with three or more if need be)
3. Record against highest seeded team in conference not involved in the tiebreaker (ex. Valpo and Green Bay tied for first, 1-1 head to head. Tiebreaker would be record against 3rd place team (Cleve), then down to 4th (Oak), 5th, etc. Rewards wins over top teams)
*start over at 2 if a three (or more) way tie has been broken by 3*
4. RPI
http://www.horizonleague.org/blog/mens-basketball-tournament-seeding-tiebreaker-2009-10-22-26496.html (http://www.horizonleague.org/blog/mens-basketball-tournament-seeding-tiebreaker-2009-10-22-26496.html)
The article is a few years dated, so these may have changed since.
Quote from: hailcrusaders on February 04, 2015, 12:19:24 PM
Quote from: agibson on February 04, 2015, 12:02:14 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 04, 2015, 08:26:38 AMAfter trying to do some sluething and brief twitter interaction with Bill Potter it seems there's way to deep a wormhole to try to find tiebreakers and it might come to a coinflip on who would host in this situation:
Did you eventually find the tiebreaker rules? I believe they're stated in the weekly release pdf's on the HL website.
(Admittedly, it does also say there that every game will be broadcast on HLN.)
I can well imagine that there are possibilities this season to move all the way through the list of them, to... RPI is it?
My understanding is that the tiebreaker goes as follows:
1. Record (duh)
2. Head to head record (with three or more if need be)
3. Record against highest seeded team in conference not involved in the tiebreaker (ex. Valpo and Green Bay tied for first, 1-1 head to head. Tiebreaker would be record against 3rd place team (Cleve), then down to 4th (Oak), 5th, etc. Rewards wins over top teams)
*start over at 2 if a three (or more) way tie has been broken by 3*
4. RPI
http://www.horizonleague.org/blog/mens-basketball-tournament-seeding-tiebreaker-2009-10-22-26496.html (http://www.horizonleague.org/blog/mens-basketball-tournament-seeding-tiebreaker-2009-10-22-26496.html)
The article is a few years dated, so these may have changed since.
So while it's 3 steps to get to RPI it's really 10 steps if you go team by team. It'll be interesting if it plays out that each home team in the top 4 hold serve against each other and win out against the bottom 5. That eliminates Oakland with the road loss to Detroit and essentially eliminates CSU based on RPI.
Looking at the upcoming Green Bay-Valpo schedules it's kind of fun to speculate how it will affect the RPI of each team.
Games that are a wash:
Both teams play at home against Detroit and Oakland. so that's not going to help or hurt.
Games against the same opponent:
They both play against Milwaukee and Cleveland St, but this category slightly helps the Crusaders their games are on the road while Green Bay's are at home. Obviously having them at home helps Green Bay's probability of winning, but if both teams win these games the advantage will hedge slightly to Valpo in the ratings.
Games against each other:
Obviously this is the big one in the standings. But in the RPI rankings this one favors Green Bay slightly as it's a road game. But if Valpo wins this they should jump ahead of GB in RPI if only slightly. It also will help if they happen to lose another game.
The difference makers
This is where Valpo stands to make the most ground up in the RPI standings. vs. WSU (141) and at Detroit (206) are VU's other 2 games. Green Bay is at Youngstown (281) and UIC (312) and even if they win their RPI will still tank in these games
It's a little early to get serious about tiebreakers, and I've got the bulging preloaded spreadsheet to prove it ;) I am 16 HLMBB games away from being ready to do in depth analysis, though obviously a trickle of interesting tidbits might be available sooner.
For example, there's no way both GB and Valpo end up 14-2 (actually, there's no way for GB, Valpo, and CSU to end up 14-2 either, and there's no way for all 4 2-loss teams to finish 14-2), but after that, my head hurts.
And when *my* head hurts, worry ;)
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 04, 2015, 01:57:21 PM
It's a little early to get serious about tiebreakers, and I've got the bulging preloaded spreadsheet to prove it ;) I am 16 HLMBB games away from being ready to do in depth analysis, though obviously a trickle of interesting tidbits might be available sooner.
For example, there's no way both GB and Valpo end up 14-2 (actually, there's no way for GB, Valpo, and CSU to end up 14-2 either, and there's no way for all 4 2-loss teams to finish 14-2), but after that, my head hurts.
And when *my* head hurts, worry ;)
Yeah, all the tie breakers I have are 13-3 related. I haven't looked at the 12-4 ones, but now I'm going to because I love muddied pictures.
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 04, 2015, 01:57:21 PMIt's a little early to get serious about tiebreakers, and I've got the bulging preloaded spreadsheet to prove it
I was wondering when you were going to surface with "the spreadsheet", you have been a little quite this year StlVUFan.
The 12-4 situations
It seems fait accompli to give the top 4 teams Ws against UIC and YSU and to make this process easier, that's what I'm going to do. I also want to make every team in the top 4 1-1 against each other, which gives Oakland and CSU a slight advantage in the tie breaks since they've finished their series. That fills in 12 of the 29 options for this crazy situation. It also gives Oakland all the losses they can take so they would have to win @Milwaukee, vs. Detroit and @Wright St.
Detroit holds a big key for everyone, especially if we all end up tied at 12-4 and everyone 1-1 against each other. They'd be the first tie breaker and they have 5 games against the top 4. Detroit gives Green Bay the best shot of having a loss since Milwaukee didn't give them much of a challenge. I'm also giving Detroit the W against Valpo for their second L in the rematch in Detroit. And for good measure CSU's most likely loss is at Detroit. That doesn't give any wiggle room for the teams in their other games so mark them Ws.
What happens?
Everyone is 12-4. The head to head in the 4 way tie is 3-3 as everyone won their home game and lost their road game. Way to hold serve!
So we move to the 5th place team, 8-8 Detroit. Guess what, we all split with Detroit.
Boom, there's your 4 losses. Everyone swept the season series against Wright, Milwaukee, UIC, and Youngstown.
On to RPI. Via RPI Forecast Here's your standings.
Green Bay: 57
Valpo: 67
Cleveland St: 110
Oakland: 121
It stands to reason, if we want to host the HL tournament, we better win in Detroit or Cleveland and hold serve at home.
Quote from: FWalum on February 04, 2015, 02:31:57 PM
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 04, 2015, 01:57:21 PMIt's a little early to get serious about tiebreakers, and I've got the bulging preloaded spreadsheet to prove it
I was wondering when you were going to surface with "the spreadsheet", you have been a little quite this year StlVUFan.
I've posted several times this year. I've been less prolific to be sure for any number of reasons, most recently because I avoided this forum as of Sunday until I got killed in #LastMan. I was going to post a URL of what killed me, but the URL contains #TheKnowledge, and I have no way of knowing if anyone here is playing the game and is till alive.
I made it almost 4 times as far as last year. 45:39 is a personal record (just short of 2 whole days). I'll just say I was felled by a tried and true trick that I was well briefed on.
Yikes. My post vomited HTML all over itself. This is edited:
Impressive! I'll point out, though it's likely already been realized but not said:
There is one multiple 14-2 team scenario--it wouldn't involve RPIs though: Oakland and Cleveland State. They've already played twice and split the series 1-1.
So it goes OU/CSU at 14-2, then Valpo & GB finish 3 and 4 (order doesn't matter), both teams would have gone 1-1 with GB, but Oakland would have beaten Valpo twice and would win the tiebreak.
Quote from: talksalot on February 03, 2015, 08:21:17 PMThey'll give us a 13 to teach us a lesson about scheduling cupcakes...
A lot of truth in this even if it was said partially in jest.
Speaking of cupcake schedules this looks like the perfect time and place for me to rant and lecture about future scheduling needs! Given that we should start next year as a top 50 team with big upside potential we should use those expectations as the base for our scheduling decisions. A too easy OOC home game will be of no value next year--none! If we want an 8,9,10 or 11 seed for 2016 we are going to have to earn it and that will bring with it some difficulties.
Maybe we just pick a fight with ND, Northwestern, Purdue or others. Tell them to name a weekday date and we will be there for the same price as a Chicago St. If legitimate talks ensue great but if we get a cold shoulder then maybe we could find a sportswriter with backbone ;) willing to undertake a national interest story about the plight of mid- major basketball.
Whatever it takes to give this group of kids their maximum opportunity, lets be prepared to roll around in the mud to-----Get err done!
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 04, 2015, 02:44:58 PMVia RPI Forecast
If I'm not mistaken, I believe the rules specify the exact source/site of the RPI to be used, though, don't they? Since it is a little different from here to there...
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 04, 2015, 04:08:42 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 04, 2015, 02:44:58 PMVia RPI Forecast
If I'm not mistaken, I believe the rules specify the exact source/site of the RPI to be used, though, don't they? Since it is a little different from here to there...
Yeah they specify College Basketball News (http://rpiratings.com/mensrpi.php). And they don't have a forecast or projection thing on their site. It appears that RPI Forecast slightly overrates Green Bay and underrates Valpo, but honestly when looking at it I don't think it does enough to move either team +/-10 spots when forecasting.
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 04, 2015, 02:46:06 PM
Quote from: FWalum on February 04, 2015, 02:31:57 PM
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 04, 2015, 01:57:21 PMIt's a little early to get serious about tiebreakers, and I've got the bulging preloaded spreadsheet to prove it
I was wondering when you were going to surface with "the spreadsheet", you have been a little quite this year StlVUFan.
I've posted several times this year. I've been less prolific to be sure for any number of reasons, most recently because I avoided this forum as of Sunday until I got killed in #LastMan. I was going to post a URL of what killed me, but the URL contains #TheKnowledge, and I have no way of knowing if anyone here is playing the game and is till alive.
I made it almost 4 times as far as last year. 45:39 is a personal record (just short of 2 whole days). I'll just say I was felled by a tried and true trick that I was well briefed on.
Congrats?
(http://l1.alamy.com/thumbs/4/05c9dca2-3fd4-495f-8299-58a592b06cb4/A3PMFM.jpg)
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 04, 2015, 02:13:00 PMbut now I'm going to because I love muddied pictures.
Here you go:
(http://www.charlestondailymail.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CH/20111202/DM0101/312029983/EP/1/5/EP-312029983.jpg)
NOTHING DEFLATED HERE. PLEASE LOOK THE OTHER WAY!
Lunardi's new bracket has us remaining a 14 seed, but this time playing Notre Dame in Columbus. I don't hate it.
I would love ND in Columbus.
Question--in scenario 1 at top of pg 3. If Valpo beats GB wouldn't that be a top 50 win? Or, is it only their year-end RPI that would be <50?
BTW, Wyoming is suffering mid-major inferiority complex too at 19-4 and Larry Nance Jr is a player. Watched him develop in HS and he has decided to play and has the hands, leaping ability and instinct for rebounding that his Dad had. Great family too!! The little brother will be really good too.
Quote from: valpo84 on February 05, 2015, 10:37:25 AM
I would love ND in Columbus.
Question--in scenario 1 at top of pg 3. If Valpo beats GB wouldn't that be a top 50 win? Or, is it only their year-end RPI that would be <50?
BTW, Wyoming is suffering mid-major inferiority complex too at 19-4 and Larry Nance Jr is a player. Watched him develop in HS and he has decided to play and has the hands, leaping ability and instinct for rebounding that his Dad had. Great family too!! The little brother will be really good too.
You'd live any matchup in Columbus.
The NIT tournament will experiment with a 30-second shot clock this year, and they will enforce a 4-foot restricted area painted arc: http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2015-02-06/experimental-rules-be-used-during-2015-nit-include-30-second (http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2015-02-06/experimental-rules-be-used-during-2015-nit-include-30-second)
Love it. I'm a big fan of speeding up the game and the bigger restricted area will eliminate some of the charge calls where the defender gets over last second and everyone debates whether he was there in time for it to be a charge or a block. I'm happy about both proposals and it is a good move to experiment with them in a meaningful setting where there will be plenty of data to take to the NCAA's Rules Committee meeting in May.
I like this happening in the postseason NIT. It will not speed up the game that much, just adds some more possessions, but won't speed it up too much. Also, due to the NIT being on the off NCAA tournament nights, how many college basketball fans without a horse in the NIT will pay attention to it anyway? Also, use this format in the exhibition games next season. I mean it changes some aspects of those games more than it will in the NIT, I think. Plus, it allows for every D-I team to play under these rules, instead of a trial by teams that are just getting postseason exposure to help with recruiting.
Quote from: valporun on February 06, 2015, 01:27:22 PM
Also, use this format in the exhibition games next season.
The ACC already did that this season to try and get a head start on the seemingly inevitable rule change. I believe if it goes over well in the NIT, we will see this rule change happen for next season. Mike Brey, who used to be the chair of the Rules Committee, thinks there will be "great momentum" for the shot clock being changed to 30 seconds. Many coaches have been in favor of the change, I expect to see it next season.
I made this comment in another thread, but I'm all for a shorter shot clock. The pace might not improve much, but it'll make the end of games more bearable. In college, you have to start fouling with at least 40 seconds left if down. Games become free-throw fests earlier and the final minute takes about an hour. In the NBA, you don't have to start fouling before 27 or 28 seconds due to a shorter shot clock and the benefit of a timeout advancing the ball. The other night the Bucks were down 6 with 36 seconds left and came back to tie without any fouls - a 3 with 30 seconds left and then a buzzer beater at the end of regulation by OJ Mayo. But A 24 s clock would be too low for college - so many teams press and have a hard time bringing the ball up. 30 seems like a good compromise.
I'm a big fan of a 30-sec. clock. WSU's Donlon used a slowdown tactic that I absolutely despised, where their guards milked the clock in the back court for the first 10-15 seconds before they ran a play. His purported premise was that they couldn't win a game in the 70's or 80's, so he would intentionally take the air out of the ball to reduce total possessions. Maybe it was effective, maybe not. I don't know and I don't care, any more than I cared if Dean Smith's 4-corner offense was effective. As a fan I'm not interested in paying good money to watch gimmicky nonsense like that.
Quote from: wh on February 06, 2015, 08:19:14 PMso he would intentionally take the air out of the ball
Interesting wording.
I imagine that Donlon calls this the "Patriot" offense?
We might get swept by Oakland for god's sake. A #14 might be generous.
Quote from: kerrywoodwins20 on February 08, 2015, 03:18:36 PM
We might get swept by Oakland for god's sake. A #14 might be generous.
Oh good you found your way over to this thread too.
Updated today: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology)
Not only do we need to keep winning, but we need some other teams to lose a few! The HL needs GB or Valpo to win the conference tourney because we have the best chance at a solid seed and an upset. Cleveland State/Oakland are playing VERY well, but I am afraid their ceiling is a 14 seed. Beating Green Bay is a MUST win for us because it is possibly our last chance at a "signature" win. As far as seeding goes, we actually need to hope we see GB again in the conference tourney, as the winner of that game will get a bigger boost. All of the following teams are between 40-90 in the RPI and will be fighting for the 11-14 seed area depending on how conference tournaments play out. Important to note that Yale/Harvard will not have a conference tournament. Also, several of these schools are MAC schools and to quote the Highlander, "there can be only 1."
Eastern Washington
Murray State
Stephen F. Austin
Bowling Green
Iona
Wofford
William and Mary
Harvard
Yale
Louisiana Tech
UC Davis
LB State
Buffalo
Georgia State
Toledo
I'd say we would be anywhere from an 11 to a 14. 11 is unlikely but if we win out, which includes 2 GB wins I say we get a 12 and if some other things fall our way possibly an 11. If lose 1 more game to either CSU or GB and beat GB in the tourney we get a 13. If we lose both games but win the tourney we get a 14. Don't win the tourney we're in the NIT or lower.
Oh do I not want to play UNC. Meeks would have a field day with Vashil/Jubril and and Johnson is the exact type of player that shuts Alec down. Then you have a 6'6" and 6'8" guy for the Walkers to try match up against. The only match up against UNC I'd like is at PG and even then it's apples to oranges in terms of skill level. Can we go back to playing Notre Dame?
From Sagarin 13 thru 20 ranking (meaning possible 13 or 12 seed opponents) in descending order we have Baylor, ND, Ohio St, Iowa St, Wichita St, Butler (never heard of em), West Virginia, and Texas. There are some teams in that group that GB or Valpo could compete with. With our SOS and no signature wins I am not certain that we would get a 12 seed even if we win out. If we do win out then GB will fall much further than we will rise meaning our RPI will still be pretty marginal.
Hey I may be retired but unlike you folks I HAVE a very busy schedule and NEED to actually get some work done. So I'm out of here!!! I'll read all 200 of the new posts I missed after quitting time! ;) YES--- excitement is starting to build!
if i've learned anything from naples it's that the retired are WAY busier than you and i
Thoughts on whether Valpo could compete with that group of teams:
UNC: probably not
Baylor : probably not (Scott has done a great job this year)
ND: don't know
Ohio State: don't know
Iowa State: probably. A fun team, but their style and players would make them capable of beating Kentucky or getting beat by a 13-15 seed.
Wichita State: yes
Butler: yes
West Virginia: maybe. A highly varable team from game to game. Very athletic and intense defense, but Valpo has the players to match up with that and score.
Texas: who knows? (huge talent level, but worst coached team in the Big 12 and probably the country)
The Murray State win could prove big in terms of seeding, we didn't just beat them we destroyed them on neutral court that was basically a home game for them. If we win out we should be a 12, beating both GB (possibly twice) and Murray State at the very worst a 13.
If they do happen to make it, I hope they're in Omaha that way I can make the short journey!
No matter how the season ends this has been a fantastic season. I expected us to be good but not this good. The coaches have done a terrific job recruiting bringing in not only talent but fine young men that mesh well together and are willing to do whatever it takes to get a W.
Quote from: classof2014 on February 09, 2015, 12:35:30 PM
No matter how the season ends this has been a fantastic season. I expected us to be good but not this good. The coaches have done a terrific job recruiting bringing in not only talent but fine young men that mesh well together and are willing to do whatever it takes to get a W.
Yeah, talking about seeding may just be setting everyone up for mass disappointment. It's important to keep things in perspective and realize we still have a very young team and have been starting our 3rd string PG for much of the conference season.
Quote from: a3uge on February 09, 2015, 01:43:48 PMmass disappointment
i thought that was when the Pope was supposed to show for the liturgy and didn't?
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 09, 2015, 01:46:49 PM
Quote from: a3uge on February 09, 2015, 01:43:48 PMmass disappointment
i thought that was when the Pope was supposed to show for the liturgy and didn't?
Losing to UMass in NIT. Should have clarified that
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
LOL
In more in the "too early" dept., I motion for the HL 2015 champ shirts to read
"I won this conference with my 3rd string PG and all i got was this lousy t-shirt".
I'm tired of hearing about Tulsa around the office. They currently are a 11 seed. They haven't beaten anyone and they have two really bad loses. One to a D2 school and another to a bad ORU team. If you lose to a D2 school you should forfeit the right into the NCAA tournament.
Quote from: oklahomamick on February 09, 2015, 04:43:43 PM
I'm tired of hearing about Tulsa around the office. They currently are a 11 seed. They haven't beaten anyone and they have two really bad loses. One to a D2 school and another to a bad ORU team. If you lose to a D2 school you should forfeit the right into the NCAA tournament.
Fortunately for Tulsa, and unfortunately for Valpo, non-D1 games don't exist to the selection committee.
Quote from: oklahomamick on February 09, 2015, 04:43:43 PM
I'm tired of hearing about Tulsa around the office. They currently are a 11 seed. They haven't beaten anyone and they have two really bad loses. One to a D2 school and another to a bad ORU team. If you lose to a D2 school you should forfeit the right into the NCAA tournament.
I don't think Tulsa will make it. They need to win the AAC to make the dance right now with an RPI of 46 and a 2-5 record vs. top 50 teams. They have a minimum of 3 games left against top 50 opponents, so it'll be interesting, but their at large chances are low.
Quote from: a3uge on February 09, 2015, 04:48:23 PMI'm tired of hearing about Tulsa around the office. They currently are a 11 seed.
who lost to ORU on opening night... and have since beaten a good Temple [36] team on the road, and UConn and Memphis...and only losses are to RPI 15, 16, 22 and 23... that's a pretty strong resume...and anyone who beats Bruce Pearl 53-35 deserves an extra rung up the ladder on sheer principle.
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 09, 2015, 01:46:49 PMQuote from: a3uge on February 09, 2015, 01:43:48 PMmass disappointment
i thought that was when the Pope was supposed to show for the liturgy and didn't?
Isn't that when the priest losses the key to the communion wine cabinet just before the organ starts to play?
i don't know about you Lutherans, but we don't have a "communion wine cabinet".
Maybe a "communion wine cabernet", but, nope.
If we were to make the tourney, I hope that the selection committee somehow makes Butler play us. What a dream it would be to kick their @$$ again in a game they can't avoid :)
Quote from: valpotx on February 10, 2015, 01:51:39 AMIf we were to make the tourney, I hope that the selection committee somehow makes Butler play us. What a dream it would be to kick their @$$ again in a game they can't avoid :)
In case you missed it Butler is 18th ranked in the country and second in the Big East. They play Villanova, 6th ranked in the country and #1 in the Big East this Saturday in Hinkle. If they win they would be a 1/2 game in front of Villanova and lead the Big East. Their home record is 12-1. Just thought you would want to know that before you think beating Butler would be easy.
And that means Butler is 6-5 away from Hinkle, including neutral site games. Having watched a couple of their recent games, they are very similar to us in size, speed and hoops IQ, and a matchup in the Tourney would be indeed must watch TV. They also get the opportunity with the Big Catholic Least to play name teams at home in conference. Would St Johns, Providence, Seton Hall and DePaul want to play at the ARC? oh oh, are we about to start a conference discussion again??
If we made it and got Butler as the first round opponent we could win that game. In 2013 when we drew Michigan State in Auburn Hills our dance was over before it started, we had about a 2% chance of winning that game. Playing a team like a Butler would give us a great opportunity to make a run in the tourney. I know this team is talented enough to beat a Butler-like team, am I saying that we beat them no but we definitely can and it'd be a lot better than playing Michigan State on the road...
We got the short end the year they placed us against Michigan st. In Detroit. That seeding didn't make any since except for geographics. We play butler ten times we would pick up a couple wins. We play Michigan st. 10 times, I don't know if we could steal one. That goes for a unc too.
We are very excited about this team, coaches and individual players. I even started this topic and it's been fun discussing. However, we all know we have a lot of work ahead of us. We have not beaten a top HL team on the road yet and I think that's what it's going to take.
Does anyone think that this Butler team is as good as the 2010-2011 NCAA team? Having a history with a team means a ton. Having that history and also knowing that you have competed in the past with a team is a HUGE confidence builder. The mystique of a BCS conference team would not be there if we would get to play Butler. Heck we have beaten them 4 out of the last 5 time we have played!
Getting a 12 seed would be crucial, thus we can't lose anymore games. Playing a team ranked 15-25 to possibly unranked is much different then a top 10 BCS program. Its not at all uncommon when multiple 12 seeds advance and playing a Butler, Northern Iowa, Wichita State, type program doesn't seem anywhere near as daunting as a good Ohio State team.
Quote from: FWalum on February 10, 2015, 10:52:46 AMHeck we have beaten them the last 4 times we have played
FTFY
If we win the Horizon and happen to draw Butler in the tournament, the universe will likely explode.
Quote from: talksalot on February 09, 2015, 04:59:51 PMQuote from: a3uge on February 09, 2015, 04:48:23 PMI'm tired of hearing about Tulsa around the office. They currently are a 11 seed.
who lost to ORU on opening night... and have since beaten a good Temple [36] team on the road, and UConn and Memphis...and only losses are to RPI 15, 16, 22 and 23... that's a pretty strong resume...and anyone who beats Bruce Pearl 53-35 deserves an extra rung up the ladder on sheer principle.
I don't think UConn and Memphis are great teams this year. I would compare them to a Green Bay or Cleveland St. Plus you didn't include ORU rpi loss and I guess the D2 loss doesn't count.
For those looking to see how our RPI can improve each day, this is pretty cool.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/jerry-palm-reader (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/jerry-palm-reader)
We might be able to hang with Butler (because we do have their number), but let's be realistic: We lost to Mizzou, which is one of the worst big-conference teams in the nation. Even though this team is talented, I'm not sure we are anything better than a 15 at this point. We nearly always wilt against big-conference schools.
So tonight we are rooting for:
Valpo to rise
Missouri to beat South Carolina (KenPom 10% to win)
Ball State to beat Northern Illinois (KenPom 30% to win)
James Madison to beat Delaware (KenPom 51% to win)
New Mexico to beat Colorado State (KenPom 28% to win)
(Looks to be a tough night for our OOC SOS)
In case of tie breaker: Green Bay to drop
Memphis over East Carolina (KenPom 67% to win)
Mizzou St. over Evansville (KenPom 18% to win)
Nebraska over Wisconsin (KenPom 15% to win)
(Looks like a decent night for GB's OOC SOS)
Quote from: atkins on February 10, 2015, 04:22:50 PM
We might be able to hang with Butler (because we do have their number), but let's be realistic: We lost to Mizzou, which is one of the worst big-conference teams in the nation. Even though this team is talented, I'm not sure we are anything better than a 15 at this point. We nearly always wilt against big-conference schools.
Death. Taxes. The prevailing opinion that the only thing that matters are victories over teams from certain conferences.
Quote from: atkins on February 10, 2015, 04:22:50 PM
We might be able to hang with Butler (because we do have their number), but let's be realistic: We lost to Mizzou, which is one of the worst big-conference teams in the nation. Even though this team is talented, I'm not sure we are anything better than a 15 at this point. We nearly always wilt against big-conference schools.
Can we please stop blowing this game out of proportion. Plus, teams are judged on what have you done for me lately. Hence why Murray St. is ahead of us in basically any ranking system even though we blew them out of the water in the 2nd half.
Quote from: atkins on February 10, 2015, 04:22:50 PM
We might be able to hang with Butler (because we do have their number), but let's be realistic: We lost to Mizzou, which is one of the worst big-conference teams in the nation. Even though this team is talented, I'm not sure we are anything better than a 15 at this point. We nearly always wilt against big-conference schools.
I'd love for you to find me 12 teams from 1 bid conferences who are better than us. Seriously, the NEC, SWAC, WAC, Patriot, A-Sun, MEAC, A-East, Big South, Summit, and Big Sky still exist. Those are AWFUL leagues with TERRIBLE teams. Sometimes there's a good team from a bad conference that makes a case for a better seed, but this year only Stephen F. Austin is doing that. Hell if Wofford drops in the Southern Conference they'll probably produce a team with an RPI of 150+
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 10, 2015, 04:55:53 PM
Quote from: atkins on February 10, 2015, 04:22:50 PM
We might be able to hang with Butler (because we do have their number), but let's be realistic: We lost to Mizzou, which is one of the worst big-conference teams in the nation. Even though this team is talented, I'm not sure we are anything better than a 15 at this point. We nearly always wilt against big-conference schools.
I'd love for you to find me 12 teams from 1 bid conferences who are better than us. Seriously, the NEC, SWAC, WAC, Patriot, A-Sun, MEAC, A-East, Big South, Summit, and Big Sky still exist. Those are AWFUL leagues with TERRIBLE teams. Sometimes there's a good team from a bad conference that makes a case for a better seed, but this year only Stephen F. Austin is doing that. Hell if Wofford drops in the Southern Conference they'll probably produce a team with an RPI of 150+
But what's their record vs Wake Forest or Penn Sate?
I hate it when those schools get into the tourney, they have no business being there. Last season Milwaukee was nowhere near being the best team in the conference... They didn't belong in the tourney, they had little to no chance at beating Villanova. The NCAA should have the right to veto when a team's record is sub .500 or something. That way you get more teams that deserve to get in. Last season Green Bay was the most deserving team from our conference, they had a much better chance at making a run than the mediocre Panthers.
Every year there are snubs that should get in that don't, teams that are in much tougher conferences that are much more difficult to win. Stop letting the weaker teams in just because they won the Patriot League tournament.
If a team has 20+ wins and win their conference they should get the autobid but if a team has less than 20 the NCAA selection committee should have the right to veto.
Quote from: classof2014 on February 11, 2015, 08:32:30 AM
I hate it when those schools get into the tourney, they have no business being there. Last season Milwaukee was nowhere near being the best team in the conference... They didn't belong in the tourney, they had little to no chance at beating Villanova. The NCAA should have the right to veto when a team's record is sub .500 or something. That way you get more teams that deserve to get in. Last season Green Bay was the most deserving team from our conference, they had a much better chance at making a run than the mediocre Panthers.
Every year there are snubs that should get in that don't, teams that are in much tougher conferences that are much more difficult to win. Stop letting the weaker teams in just because they won the Patriot League tournament.
If a team has 20+ wins and win their conference they should get the autobid but if a team has less than 20 the NCAA selection committee should have the right to veto.
I think it still has to be up to the conference - having auto bids like the Ivy league is a bad system. It eliminates multiple bids and both the teams and the league loses out on conference tourney revenues. Having a championship game where one team is already eliminated also doesn't make sense.
The Horizon sets themselves up well with their format, but we saw an anomaly last year. Prior to that, Valpo, Detroit, Butler, Butler, multi-bid. All good teams. I like the double byes and the home team hosting. As for other conferences - keep sending crappy 16 seeds. All it means is a better seed for the Horizon.
Quote from: classof2014 on February 11, 2015, 08:32:30 AM
I hate it when those schools get into the tourney, they have no business being there. Last season Milwaukee was nowhere near being the best team in the conference... They didn't belong in the tourney, they had little to no chance at beating Villanova. The NCAA should have the right to veto when a team's record is sub .500 or something. That way you get more teams that deserve to get in. Last season Green Bay was the most deserving team from our conference, they had a much better chance at making a run than the mediocre Panthers.
Every year there are snubs that should get in that don't, teams that are in much tougher conferences that are much more difficult to win. Stop letting the weaker teams in just because they won the Patriot League tournament.
If a team has 20+ wins and win their conference they should get the autobid but if a team has less than 20 the NCAA selection committee should have the right to veto.
Here I think I don't mind a federal approach.
It's good we have the Ivy, and other leagues could experiment.
Quote from: a3uge on February 11, 2015, 09:03:57 AM
Quote from: classof2014 on February 11, 2015, 08:32:30 AM
I hate it when those schools get into the tourney, they have no business being there. Last season Milwaukee was nowhere near being the best team in the conference... They didn't belong in the tourney, they had little to no chance at beating Villanova. The NCAA should have the right to veto when a team's record is sub .500 or something. That way you get more teams that deserve to get in. Last season Green Bay was the most deserving team from our conference, they had a much better chance at making a run than the mediocre Panthers.
Every year there are snubs that should get in that don't, teams that are in much tougher conferences that are much more difficult to win. Stop letting the weaker teams in just because they won the Patriot League tournament.
If a team has 20+ wins and win their conference they should get the autobid but if a team has less than 20 the NCAA selection committee should have the right to veto.
I think it still has to be up to the conference - having auto bids like the Ivy league is a bad system. It eliminates multiple bids and both the teams and the league loses out on conference tourney revenues. Having a championship game where one team is already eliminated also doesn't make sense.
The Horizon sets themselves up well with their format, but we saw an anomaly last year. Prior to that, Valpo, Detroit, Butler, Butler, multi-bid. All good teams. I like the double byes and the home team hosting. As for other conferences - keep sending crappy 16 seeds. All it means is a better seed for the Horizon.
Detroit was a 15 seed that got trounced by Kansas. They were a the 3 seed in the HL tourney that year and of the top 4 seeds they were the worst representative we could have had according to RPI. It was a very similar situation to Milwaukee.
If (and it's a big if) we earn a spot in the NCAAs, I remain unconvinced that we will be able to defeat a top-25 team. I've seen most of them play (on tv, of course), and we don't match up well. We're too inconsistent and not strong enough under the basket. All of those teams are quick enough to negate Alec, and we don't have the literal strength to crash the boards like most of those teams do. In addition, we'd be blown off the court by any of the teams that are currently in the top 10. I'm afraid we'd be one-and-done.
Luckily we'd still get to the play the game.
Quote from: atkins on February 11, 2015, 01:25:03 PM
If (and it's a big if) we earn a spot in the NCAAs, I remain unconvinced that we will be able to defeat a top-25 team. I've seen most of them play (on tv, of course), and we don't match up well. We're too inconsistent and not strong enough under the basket. All of those teams are quick enough to negate Alec, and we don't have the literal strength to crash the boards like most of those teams do. In addition, we'd be blown off the court by any of the teams that are currently in the top 10. I'm afraid we'd be one-and-done.
Its like you've never watched an NCAA tournament game before.
Also find it ironic in a thread titled "Bracketology" that you're talking about playing a top 10 team.
I find it amusing that the 25th best rebounding team in the country is also the 28th best at limiting opponent rebounds.
The same team is 13th in the country in rebounding %, and #1 in the country in defensive rebounds.
But sure, that team is us and we're probably not strong enough to crash the boards.
Strength of schedule, yadda, yadda, yadda.
you can't play any schedule other than the one you've got.
FACT
I hate to say it, but agree with agibson, strength of schedule. Look what New Mexico did to us. I think we could adjust to the physicality of the BCS schools, we have some players that body wise are capable of developing into that physical style.
Quote from: atkins on February 11, 2015, 01:25:03 PM
If (and it's a big if) we earn a spot in the NCAAs, I remain unconvinced that we will be able to defeat a top-25 team. I've seen most of them play (on tv, of course), and we don't match up well. We're too inconsistent and not strong enough under the basket. All of those teams are quick enough to negate Alec, and we don't have the literal strength to crash the boards like most of those teams do. In addition, we'd be blown off the court by any of the teams that are currently in the top 10. I'm afraid we'd be one-and-done.
Ah, a few years ago maybe. have you checked out the physiques of our guys? Muscles baby. Jabril, Vashil, Alec, D Walker, T Walker, Max etc. We are also much quicker then in years past. I would like our chances against a non-top 10 team.
Was Mercer physical last year? Lehigh the year before? Norfolk State? Harvard? ND State? Morehead St? None of these teams won because they were super physical and big like the schools they played. They didn't win because they fit some stupid checklist of being able to beat Texas Tech or Washington State in the first road game of the year. They won because they shot well, had great team chemistry, and didn't have any pressure.
But somehow beating Missouri on the road would mean we could hang with a 4 or 5 seed. NOBODY ELSE. Beating any other team is apparently irrelevant when we play a team from conferences that actually matter.
It just absolutely baffles my mind that people still think the selection committee values a game against Missouri more than a game vs Green Bay or Murray State. That losing to Missouri means a 15 seed because there aren't any other mid majors that have bad losses. That losing to Missouri signifies a death sentence for the team if they make the tournament.
Of course any mid major is going to play a better team in the tournament. They're going to be an underdog. It doesn't mean the games are unwinnable as referenced by dozens of upsets happening every year.
Smh.
Quote from: agibson on February 11, 2015, 03:35:53 PMStrength of schedule, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Yup!
Quote from: FWalum on February 11, 2015, 04:10:28 PMI hate to say it, but agree with agibson, strength of schedule. Look what New Mexico did to us. I think we could adjust to the physicality of the BCS schools, we have some players that body wise are capable of developing into that physical style.
Also Yup!
I hadn't been paying much recent attention but by RealTime RPIs SOS numbers we are now ranked 271st as opposed to YSU at 225 and the rest of the HL between 159 down to 92. Wow!! Last summer we were lecturing WSU about scheduling discipline penalties for not meeting minimum standards and here they are ranked 157 spots below us! This is embarrassing. No wonder we are given an RPI in the 80s when we only have 4 losses.
I still think the minimum OOC SOS standards is a concept with potential for this league, even though it might have cost us 1/2 of our tournament split (fines) with our 14-15 scheduling debacle.
This whole thing is part of an endless vicious circle, but if we want to beat good teams we have to play good teams. If we want to consistently move up to the 8, 9, 10, or 11 seed area then our schedule doesn't need just a bit of tweaking it requires a major overhaul. Maybe Setshot is right, if we don't want to compete at the very top of Div 1 basketball lets just throw in the towel and go back to Div 11.
Quote from: justducky on February 11, 2015, 05:06:35 PM
Quote from: agibson on February 11, 2015, 03:35:53 PMStrength of schedule, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Yup!
Quote from: FWalum on February 11, 2015, 04:10:28 PMI hate to say it, but agree with agibson, strength of schedule. Look what New Mexico did to us. I think we could adjust to the physicality of the BCS schools, we have some players that body wise are capable of developing into that physical style.
Also Yup!
I hadn't been paying much recent attention but by RealTime RPIs SOS numbers we are now ranked 271st as opposed to YSU at 225 and the rest of the HL between 159 down to 92. Wow!! Last summer we were lecturing WSU about scheduling discipline penalties for not meeting minimum standards and here they are ranked 157 spots below us! This is embarrassing. No wonder we are given an RPI in the 80s when we only have 4 losses.
I still think the minimum OOC SOS standards is a concept with potential for this league, even though it might have cost us 1/2 of our tournament split (fines) with our 14-15 scheduling debacle.
This whole thing is part of an endless vicious circle, but if we want to beat good teams we have to play good teams. If we want to consistently move up to the 8, 9, 10, or 11 seed area then our schedule doesn't need just a bit of tweaking it requires a major overhaul. Maybe Setshot is right, if we don't want to compete at the very top of Div 1 basketball lets just throw in the towel and go back to Div 11.
We received votes in both the AP and Coaches poll, were picked to finish 4th but are in 1st in conference with 5 games to go. We've been a top 10 mid major team all year with a very young team that plays only 1 senior. Yes, it's very embarrassing.
Quote from: atkins on February 11, 2015, 01:25:03 PM
If (and it's a big if) we earn a spot in the NCAAs, I remain unconvinced that we will be able to defeat a top-25 team.
The odds of 12-16 seeds defeating 1-5 seeds are astronomically high. You're talking about defeating top teams from major conferences with 4 and 5 star athletes, huge recruiting budgets, and palatial arenas. These games are by design intended to be big mismatches that heavily favor the big programs. I have never understood people who think we actually have to win one of these games to validate our program or our achievements. Winning our conference isn't good enough. Winning our conference tournament isn't good enough. No, we have to become David to Goliath in order to feel good about ourselves. To me it's a completely convoluted way of thinking. It always places happiness and satisfaction just out of reach.
Quote from: wh on February 11, 2015, 05:59:40 PMThe odds of 12-16 seeds defeating 1-5 seeds are astronomically high.
Wanting to get back to the tournament just to win a 16, 15, or probably even a 14 seed does seem a little hollow. The single tournament game is probably your reward, for winning the conference tournament.
But, remember, the odds do get better. The 12 seed wins like a third of the 12-5 match-ups. That's not David and Goliath so much as it is... I dunno, Milwaukee and Oakland? Oakland and Valpo? Wright State and Green Bay?
It would be great to fun to get back (back! we had a 12 seed once!) to the days of a 12 seed. But, probably we do have some scheduling miracles to accomplish first. That elusive mix of tough challenges, beatable major conference opponents, decent home games, etc. And, of course, we need to keep putting up solid squads that grow and be developed into these challenges. Or, maybe it's just a recruiting coup or two away.
That was always might hope for Valpo in the Horizon League. That it would take a while to build ourselves into a contender, or that we'd only be a contender periodically, but when we were, we'd have a decent chance at _winning_ a game in the NCAA.
Quote from: classof2014 on February 11, 2015, 08:32:30 AMI hate it when those schools get into the tourney, they have no business being there. Last season Milwaukee was nowhere near being the best team in the conference... They didn't belong in the tourney, they had little to no chance at beating Villanova. The NCAA should have the right to veto when a team's record is sub .500 or something.
First you stack the deck against them with the double-bye system for exactly the same reason. Apparently, even that's not enough.
In my opinion, I don't care what kind of team wins 4 straight in March, they deserve to go. Period. Why even have a conference tourney if you're going to be constantly pissed at who wins???? Cast your anger upon Green Bay and Wright State (save some for Valpo as well) for not getting the job done. But Milwaukee absolutely deserved to go.
I'm sorry, there's just a disconnect here for me (not the first time it's come up, by any means). Everyone who is eligible for the postseason is fair game to go. If you're going to say that Milwaukee had no business going to the tourney, you have to start March by saying their not eligible for the conference tourney to begin with. You can't let them play and then say, "Sorry, you're sub .500, you can't go to the Big Dance."
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 11, 2015, 06:24:21 PM
Quote from: classof2014 on February 11, 2015, 08:32:30 AMI hate it when those schools get into the tourney, they have no business being there. Last season Milwaukee was nowhere near being the best team in the conference... They didn't belong in the tourney, they had little to no chance at beating Villanova. The NCAA should have the right to veto when a team's record is sub .500 or something.
First you stack the deck against them with the double-bye system for exactly the same reason. Apparently, even that's not enough.
In my opinion, I don't care what kind of team wins 4 straight in March, they deserve to go. Period. Why even have a conference tourney if you're going to be constantly pissed at who wins???? Cast your anger upon Green Bay and Wright State (save some for Valpo as well) for not getting the job done. But Milwaukee absolutely deserved to go.
I'm sorry, there's just a disconnect here for me (not the first time it's come up, by any means). Everyone who is eligible for the postseason is fair game to go. If you're going to say that Milwaukee had no business going to the tourney, you have to start March by saying their not eligible for the conference tourney to begin with. You can't let them play and then say, "Sorry, you're sub .500, you can't go to the Big Dance."
Imagine the Indiana HS Basketball tournament (pre class system) where whoever wins the sectional is told "you can't continue because your record is less than 0.500".
Pre 1976, you had to win your conference (or conference tourney) to get into the NCAA tournament (then round of 32). That is what makes UCLA's run even more impressive. The HL double bye is an attempt to favor teams that did well in the regular season and presumably would do well in the NCAA tournament. I agree that if you win the HL tournament, you have 'earned' the right to go dancing.
Quote from: wh on February 11, 2015, 05:59:40 PMNo, we have to become David to Goliath in order to feel good about ourselves. To me it's a completely convoluted way of thinking. It always places happiness and satisfaction just out of reach.
1 Samuel 17:49 "He reached into his bag and took out a stone, which he slung at Goliath. It hit him on the forehead and broke his skull, and Goliath fell face downward on the ground."
Here ends the reading...
Quote from: vu72 on February 11, 2015, 07:06:11 PM
Quote from: wh on February 11, 2015, 05:59:40 PMNo, we have to become David to Goliath in order to feel good about ourselves. To me it's a completely convoluted way of thinking. It always places happiness and satisfaction just out of reach.
1 Samuel 17:49 "He reached into his bag and took out a stone, which he slung at Goliath. It hit him on the forehead and broke his skull, and Goliath fell face downward on the ground."
Here ends the reading...
Wait, I thought Bryce was the one that fell on ground?
Well, I guess Green Bay impressed Joe Lunardi with the 1 point win over YSU enough not only to replace valpo in the bracketology but also to give them a 13 seed.
Guess we will find out Friday evening.
Anyone care to go through the CSU tiebreakers? That last game could be for all the marbles...
Our RPI went from 82 to 65 in a couple of hours. Green bay is still 47... So top 50 RPI win! When's the last time that happened?
I'm glad they pulled off the win in YSU.
Quote from: a3uge on February 14, 2015, 01:03:06 AM
Our RPI went from 82 to 65 in a couple of hours. Green bay is still 47... So top 50 RPI win! When's the last time that happened?
2011, Missouri State. Also CSU and Butler. All in the ARC.
Quote from: hailcrusaders on February 13, 2015, 10:54:49 PM
Anyone care to go through the CSU tiebreakers? That last game could be for all the marbles...
What's the conclusion with UWGB?
If we both follow the "only lose on the road, to the top 4 teams" pattern, they'll probably edge us on RPI? So, we need them to slip, or better win at CSU?
If CSU happens to win at UWGB, that'd be a strong tiebreaker, and, again, we'd better win out?
So, we control our fate, but still don't have any real margin for error?
I usually look at Sagarin, and Valpo is 63 and UWGB is 67 - they flip flopped in the 60's.
SFA is at 48 with a terrible strength of schedule of 324. They have a heckuva team but play in an overall very weak conference. I like watching these guys play as their fundamentals and coaching is beautiful to watch.
You think once detroit, uic or mikwaukee fires their coach brad underwood from SFA would would be a good fit?
Quote from: usc4valpo on February 14, 2015, 09:55:48 AM
I usually look at Sagarin, and Valpo is 63 and UWGB is 67 - they flip flopped in the 60's.
SFA is at 48 with a terrible strength of schedule of 324. They have a heckuva team but play in an overall very weak conference. I like watching these guys play as their fundamentals and coaching is beautiful to watch.
Does anyone have a feeling for why SFA's so highly ranked? Is it this kind if personal impression, from those who have seen them play? Glancing at their schedule, I don't see anything that would clearly put them above us. You could probably say the same about Murray State. Do voters just like long win streaks?
Quote from: agibson on February 14, 2015, 10:28:05 AM
Quote from: usc4valpo on February 14, 2015, 09:55:48 AM
I usually look at Sagarin, and Valpo is 63 and UWGB is 67 - they flip flopped in the 60's.
SFA is at 48 with a terrible strength of schedule of 324. They have a heckuva team but play in an overall very weak conference. I like watching these guys play as their fundamentals and coaching is beautiful to watch.
Does anyone have a feeling for why SFA's so highly ranked? Is it this kind if personal impression, from those who have seen them play? Glancing at their schedule, I don't see anything that would clearly put them above us. You could probably say the same about Murray State. Do voters just like long win streaks?
As stupid as it is, SFA beating VCU last year may help them. The committee does this sometimes.
SFA is an excellent team in a weak conference. Just to compare, they lost to 3 excellent teams - UNI in OT, Baylor and Xavier and that's it. But there are a lot of ham and eggers on their schedule. Valpo does too, but not at the level as SFA. I also think winning a tournament game increases their sagarin rating.
Quote from: usc4valpo on February 14, 2015, 02:52:32 PMSFA is an excellent team in a weak conference. Just to compare, they lost to 3 excellent teams - UNI in OT, Baylor and Xavier and that's it. But there are a lot of ham and eggers on their schedule. Valpo does too, but not at the level as SFA.
Not that much difference. SFA at 281 and after last nights SOS bump from GB we have only moved up to 245. We are still standing out at the bottom of the HL and in the bottom 1/3rd of all Div1 teams. This is clearly unacceptable.
From oklahomamich "You think once detroit, uic or mikwaukee fires their coach brad underwood from SFA would would be a good fit?"
I have a feeling Brad Underwood, being a journeyman from Oklahoma and Texas, would not be a good fit at the Midwest city schools. I think Rice, Houston, Okie St., or TCU would be a better fit.
Like usual and unfortunately, the Bryce Drew coachings rumors will be coming out in a few weeks.
Quote from: usc4valpo on February 14, 2015, 05:25:09 PM
From oklahomamich "You think once detroit, uic or mikwaukee fires their coach brad underwood from SFA would would be a good fit?"
I have a feeling Brad Underwood, being a journeyman from Oklahoma and Texas, would not be a good fit at the Midwest city schools. I think Rice, Houston, Okie St., or TCU would be a better fit.
Like usual and unfortunately, the Bryce Drew coachings rumors will be coming out in a few weeks.
He's not leaving for a while.
Stephen F. Austin lost their first conference game today. Which puts their RPI at 84 and SOS at 300 according to ESPN. Assuming a win tomorrow, if we are behind them by more than one seed line I will no longer pay attention to anything Lunardi puts out. I can understand for bracketing purposes if we were a seed lower for some reason or another. But his last one on Thursday had them as an 11 which was ridiculous even before this loss today.
OK, lots of griping about the OOC schedule we have this year... "what did we know when we scheduled these teams"? Was there an expectation that they would be at least as good as last year and not be a drag on our SOS? (Maine and PB were not scheduled by us, but we did agree to play 'em)
SAGARIN 13-14 14-15 change
MAINE 338 5-23 343 3-21 -5
ETSTU 230 18-16 197 12-10 33
JMADU 253 11-20 181 15-11 72
BALLS 300 3-25 237 6-15 63
DRAKE 190 14-16 270 7-17 -80
NMEXU 36 27-7 108 14-10 -72
MIZZO 67 23-12 179 6-17 -112
EASTK 121 22-10 141 13-9 -20
MURRY 106 21-11 62 20-4 44
IPFTW 135 22-11 201 11-11 -66
PORTL 122 15-16 106 13-10 16
ARKPB 315 11-18 323 8-17 -8
AVG 184.42 195.7
If you take MISSOURI out of the mix... the Current Year Sagarin is 197.1 compared to last year-end 195. So we have some pleasant surprises... and some real boat anchors.
NOW... take a gander at the real boat anchors...Look at all the teams we have to play twice!
13-14 14-15 change
GB 73 67 6
CSU 94 126 -32
WSU 138 218 -80
UWM 164 250 -86
YSU 191 271 -80
OAK 198 166 32
UDM 202 188 14
UIC 283 296 -13
avg 167.875 197.75
VU 171 63 108
As Luke Gore has said more than once... scheduling is an art more than a science.
great analysis. thank you for making a lot of sense.
This is great. Hard to predict which teams will do what years in advance when the return trips of home and homes are decided. The one thing that was disappointing was that we didn't really set up any future games against quality opponents. In 2012 we set up SLU, Murray State, and NM at home. Next year we'll return, what, ETSU and IPFW?
Quote from: a3uge on February 14, 2015, 10:14:29 PMNext year we'll return, what, ETSU and IPFW?
ESTU was a return this year... we lost to them on their court in December '13
Ball State was a return this year
Missouri and New Mexico were the end of the paybacks
Discount the tournament games: Drake, Murray, Portland, Maine, Ark-PB
EKY was a return as the end of the BracketBuster Era from 2 years ago.
that leaves IPFW as the only incomplete circle. We'll be starting with a fresh slate.
Quote from: usc4valpo on February 14, 2015, 09:55:48 AMI usually look at Sagarin, and Valpo is 63 and UWGB is 67 - they flip flopped in the 60's.
I used to own a pair of flip flops from the 1960's. :)
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.stylelist.com/media/2013/05/history-flops-insidearticle.jpg)
I flip flopped more than Obama on same sex marriage. And almost as much as the lead in the second half in the Oakland game.
Quote from: talksalot on February 14, 2015, 10:37:43 PM
Quote from: a3uge on February 14, 2015, 10:14:29 PMNext year we'll return, what, ETSU and IPFW?
ESTU was a return this year... we lost to them on their court in December '13
Ball State was a return this year
Missouri and New Mexico were the end of the paybacks
Discount the tournament games: Drake, Murray, Portland, Maine, Ark-PB
EKY was a return as the end of the BracketBuster Era from 2 years ago.
that leaves IPFW as the only incomplete circle. We'll be starting with a fresh slate.
Missouri was a payback? Did they come to the arc in 1992?
Anyways, I'm guessing we'll see a bottom MVC team Evansville/drake/Bradley and a middle summit team like iupui/IPFW and a top ovc team Murray state/eku/Belmont.
We really should just go ahead and schedule a road loss to Duke or Kansas, something to game SOS and RPI. Seriously, most mid majors have similar schedules, but instead of D2 teams they have a couple unwinnable games at Wisconsin or at Kentucky that deflates their RPI and SOS.
Maybe Valpo could schedule the USD Tereros in San Diego. The schools have a relationship in the PFL. The men's bball team could use a trip to warmer weather in the fall/winter. San Diego is currently 14-13 and 7-8 in the WCC. For the chance to beat Valpo in their Jenny Craig Pavilion USD should have to pay for Valpo's trip to San Diego. It's not a hot team, their SOS is good in the WCC and it's really a win/win situation for both schools.
Quote from: talksalot on February 14, 2015, 07:41:01 PM
OK, lots of griping about the OOC schedule we have this year... "what did we know when we scheduled these teams"? Was there an expectation that they would be at least as good as last year and not be a drag on our SOS? (Maine and PB were not scheduled by us, but we did agree to play 'em)
SAGARIN 13-14 14-15 change
MAINE 338 5-23 343 3-21 -5
ETSTU 230 18-16 197 12-10 33
JMADU 253 11-20 181 15-11 72
BALLS 300 3-25 237 6-15 63
DRAKE 190 14-16 270 7-17 -80
NMEXU 36 27-7 108 14-10 -72
MIZZO 67 23-12 179 6-17 -112
EASTK 121 22-10 141 13-9 -20
MURRY 106 21-11 62 20-4 44
IPFTW 135 22-11 201 11-11 -66
PORTL 122 15-16 106 13-10 16
ARKPB 315 11-18 323 8-17 -8
AVG 184.42 195.7
If you take MISSOURI out of the mix... the Current Year Sagarin is 197.1 compared to last year-end 195. So we have some pleasant surprises... and some real boat anchors.
NOW... take a gander at the real boat anchors...Look at all the teams we have to play twice!
13-14 14-15 change
GB 73 67 6
CSU 94 126 -32
WSU 138 218 -80
UWM 164 250 -86
YSU 191 271 -80
OAK 198 166 32
UDM 202 188 14
UIC 283 296 -13
avg 167.875 197.75
VU 171 63 108
As Luke Gore has said more than once...scheduling is an art more than a science.
A bracket buster game would have come in handy about now. A chance to play a top mid major with a good RPI like a Northern Iowa or a Wichita State and improve our RPI by 10 points overnight. That was the original intent - matchup the best mids at a time when their RPI is being pulled down by bad conference opponents to better position them for the NCAA tournament. It was a good idea - until everyone had to get in on it that is. Then it lost it's luster over night.
Valpo is near Chicagoland - it would be great if they would play Northwestern and/or DePaul once in a while. It is too bad Northwestern or DePaul is too prideful or is too scared to schedule the Brown and Gold. Northwestern and DePaul have not played each other since 1979 and 1980, respectively. Considering that it is an hour drive to these schools, I find it pretty sad.
Looking at this from a recruitment perspective, it's a no-win situation for the Power conferences to schedule us in their backyard. If we lose, we're supposed to. If we win, it's a shakeup to their local high school contacts and suddenly we are on the radar. I like the "United Center" matchups. Those are a win-win... for our alumni and for the power conference teams to showcase in the Chicago market. I would think that's a marketable game next year...Kentucky?
Depaul and Northwestern are being wimps and basketball programs reflect their ineptness. These 3 schools are within an hours drive and they have not Faced each other since 1980? That's shameful.
Quote from: usc4valpo on February 15, 2015, 11:04:39 AMThese 3 schools are within an hours drive and they have not Faced each other since 1980? That's shameful.
that does make me feel a little better about us not getting a game with them. but how sad. "can't we all just get along?"
I do take pride in Valpo being the best basketball school in the Chicagoland.
Northern Illinois -- Stinks
UIC -- Stinks
Loyola -- Bad
DePaul -- Joke
Northwestern -- Pitiful
Chicago State -- ...
Valparaiso -- Now that's a program!!!
I think there's a reason why we get some decent talent from Chicago. If you look at the schools within an hour's or so drive of Chicago all of them are flat out awful, nowhere close to being halfway decent. Valparaiso is the only program that has had success in the recent past and has the brightest future ahead as well.
If Valpo keeps improving and getting more and more national recognition more and more Chicago kids will want to go to Valpo, especially if they want to be close to home.
It is nice that Valpo is starting to get some national recognition for what they have accomplished this season. We are 23-4 and most likely be 24-4 by the time the weekend is over. This team is incredibly young and has a bright future ahead. The opportunity that the basketball program has is incredible thinking back to where it was in the late 2000s. Valpo was able to build and use the 2013 NCAA team to its fullest advantage, which is exactly what I hoped for.
I would love to see us schedule a game against a Northwestern or a Marquette in the UC, get the game on ESPN. A game like that could really do wonders for the program and the school.
Quote from: usc4valpo on February 15, 2015, 07:29:32 AMValpo is near Chicagoland - it would be great if they would play Northwestern and/or DePaul once in a while. It is too bad Northwestern or DePaul is too prideful or is too scared to schedule the Brown and Gold.
Quote from: talksalot on February 15, 2015, 09:47:55 AMLooking at this from a recruitment perspective, it's a no-win situation for the Power conferences to schedule us in their backyard. If we lose, we're supposed to. If we win, it's a shakeup to their local high school contacts and suddenly we are on the radar.
I think that DePaul, Marquette, and Purdue should all be targeted for respectful scheduling negotiations, but I would place Northwestern and Notre Dame in a category all to themselves requiring a slightly different approach.
As I have stated before we should be able to fit in a week night game to either of these location if only they had a desire or need to play us. So basically lets give them both. First you make the standard polite phone call with a reasonable proposal and hear the standard song and dance decline. Wait a week then call back with a new proposal saying that we really would like a game so we will show up for no money and will even pay you for the privilege of parking our bus there for the game. I think that would be met by dead silence followed by a "I'll get back with you". Then wait another week and publish half page advertisements in the South Bend and Chicago Tribunes basically stating the facts and picking a fight.
If you want blue collar northwest Indiana fans flooding into the ARC to see what is going on, then exploit your underdog status by challenging these monetary and financial elitest to a street brawl initiated just for the love of the game! If you can't get some fantastic press from this then we need a total house cleaning.
Northwestern may play in a power conference, but certainly do not perform as if they are part of a power conference. As for DePaul, that program is a mess - they think they are Chicago finest and continue to live off the Ray Meyer era.
Seth Davis has Valpo ranked 25th, Murray state a few spots higher. Needless to say the IU fans are not pleased!
Tie Breaker breakdown
We know what happens if Valpo wins out. So what happens if the unthinkable happens and we LOSE! ;)
Example #1: 13-3 with a loss at Cleveland State
Result #1: Cleveland St. wins out, Green Bay loses vs. CSU
t1. Cleveland St. (13-3)
Valpo (13-3)
3. Green Bay (11-5)
In this situation CSU would hold the tie breaker. We split the season series with CSU so it would go to next highest common opponent, Green Bay. They went 2-0 vs GB while we split.
Result #2: Green Bay wins out, Cleveland State loses @GB.
t1. Green Bay (13-3)
Valpo (13-3)
3. Cleveland St. (10-4)
4. Oakland (11-5)
In this situation Green Bay would hold the tie breaker. We split the season series with GB, and then the next best common opponent CSU was also split by both teams. We'd move to the Oakland series where we both split. After that we'd move to the rest of the league and both teams are 2-0 against everyone else. Then we'd move to RPI. According to RPI Wizard they would be #40 and we would be #60.
Example #1: 13-3 with a to either Detroit or Wright St.
Result #1: Green Bay wins out, Cleveland State loses @GB and vs. VU
t1. Valpo (13-3)
Green Bay (13-3)
t3. Cleveland St. (11-5)
Oakland (11-5)
In this situation we would hold the tie breaker. We split the season series with GB. The next best opponent, CSU, lost both games to us and split with Green Bay.
I don't want to try to dig this any deeper for 12-4, because at that point we would need way too much help to tie Green Bay or CSU. With our win yesterday we've officially clinched a first round bye. I believe my math is right that with 1 more win we will clinch a top 3 seed. (We definitely clinch it if Oakland loses again).
Still a lot of moving parts, but controlling our own destiny with 3 games left feels good. Let's hope for a little help from our bottom of the conference friends so we've got everything locked up going into Cleveland.
Couple facts to check, thought Oakland had beat UWGB at Oakland?
Quote from: valpo84 on February 16, 2015, 09:33:48 AM
Couple facts to check, thought Oakland had beat UWGB at Oakland?
Yep, was looking at the wrong line for that one. Alright time to go back and redo the tie breaks.
For example #1 result 2, the tiebreaker ends up being RPI because every other tiebreaker does not break the tie. Valpo is about 10 spots behind GB in RPI and they would not make that up in that scenario. Thus, GB holds the tiebreaker.
Quote from: vu84v2 on February 16, 2015, 09:48:44 AM
For example #1 result 2, the tiebreaker ends up being RPI because every other tiebreaker does not break the tie. Valpo is about 10 spots behind GB in RPI and they would not make that up in that scenario. Thus, GB holds the tiebreaker.
Yep according to RPI Wizard we would be 20 spots back with a loss to CSU. The only way we can move ahead of GB in RPI is if we win out.
Indiana, Baylor, and Butler around a 4, 5 seeds.... Just sayin'...
Last year 3 12 seeds won and the one 12 that lost, lost by 3 points... A 12 seed would give Valpo a great chance at winning a game. Gotta get there first though!
Quote from: classof2014 on February 16, 2015, 10:18:26 AM
Last year 3 12 seeds won and the one 12 that lost, lost by 3 points... A 12 seed would give Valpo a great chance at winning a game. Gotta get there first though!
New Bracketology (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/231) came out, has us as a 13 seed vs. Oklahoma in Jacksonville. Other 4 seeds: Northern Iowa (yes please), Wichita St. (No thank you), and Louisville (oh god no). 5 seeds: Butler, Baylor, Maryland and VCU. Notre Dame is a 3 seed, Indiana is a 7 seed (on the rise), Purdue is in the first 4 out. It'd be cool to get 5 Indiana teams in the tourney. That might be the most by a state this year.
We may set the D1 record for turnovers if we play VCU in the tournament.
Out of those 8 teams I would love to play Northern Iowa or Butler since I believe those 2 would give us the best chance to win, while Louisville would be similar to the MSU draw of a few years ago. Oklahoma is very beatable if we drew them, they lost in the opening round last year to North Dakota State.
I wouldn't mind seeing Wichita State. They have good guards but not much of a inside threat. Detroit had them beat early in the season before they blew a 10 point lead. Also wanted to point out that more than likely, with a better seed comes a game further away from home. I'm really hoping we would be in Louisville or Columbus. But I'll be happy as long as we're in.
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 16, 2015, 10:39:37 AMNew Bracketology came out, has us as a 13 seed vs. Oklahoma in Jacksonville. Other 4 seeds: Northern Iowa (yes please), Wichita St. (No thank you), and Louisville (oh god no). 5 seeds: Butler, Baylor, Maryland and VCU. Notre Dame is a 3 seed, Indiana is a 7 seed (on the rise), Purdue is in the first 4 out. It'd be cool to get 5 Indiana teams in the tourney. That might be the most by a state this year.
Our best Bracketology of the year, I suppose? With Green Bay earlier getting a 13.
Harvard, Iona, Wofford the auto-bids above us.
NC State, Tulsa the "last-in" teams on the 12 line.
We're sharing the 13 with Eastern Washington, Murray State, Bowling Green.
Stephen F. Austin loses the auto-bid to Sam Houston State, who shows up at 14. With William and Mary, LA Tech, UC Davis (another 4-loss team; SOS even worse than ours! At 317).
My tiebreaker spreadsheet is locked and loaded, ready for bear ... except: still waiting word on just how much Milwaukee will be involved in tie-breaker procedures. Seems fairly certain they are to be used as a common opponent, should tiebreaker rule 3 be needed, but they may also complicate 3-way ties that they ostensibly participate in.
I was told there will be something from the HL office on this today.
Kyle is right about CSU hosting if they win out, as far as I can tell, but I don't know about GB winning out (and Valpo losing at least once).
So here's a look at the teams who are currently leading the 1 bid conferences with their second place team so we can see who we really need to root for coming down the stretch.
I left out the WCC, MWC and AAC because Gonzaga, SDSU and SMU are in based on RPI. I would imagine that the AAC isn't a one bid conference but right now 2nd is Tulsa with an RPI of 47. Going to be interesting to watch that bubble team. WCC is a one bid with #55 St. Mary's being second (a team we don't want getting the autobid as they'd likely slot higher than us), and the MWC is in the same boat with #79 Wyoming. Wofford and Iona would be interesting at large bids and it appears whatever happens in the Ivys they will be ahead of us. Our hope of moving up significantly relies on the bubble teams and the Southern and MAAC tourneys as I don't think they would produce at larges with an RPI in the projected 50-60s should they lose their tourney. If our RPI jumps up to the 40s like it projects to if we win out then we can start looking at bubble teams and our hopes of passing them. Last year they put 2 at larges at 11s and 2 at 12s, and they are doing the same thing this year.
| Conference | | 1st Place Team | | 2nd Place Team |
| | 12 LINE |
| Southern | 43 | Wofford | 131 | Chattanooga |
| Metro Atlantic | 46 | Iona | 122 | Rider |
| Ivy League | 51 | Harvard | 59 | Yale |
| | 13 LINE |
| Mid-American | 58 | Bowling Green | 92 | Akron |
| Horizon | 61 | Valparaiso | 140 | Cleveland St. |
| Big Sky | 71 | Eastern Wash. | 146 | Sacramento St. |
| Conference USA | 72 | Louisiana Tech | 63 | UTEP |
| | 14 LINE |
| Big West | 89 | UC Davis | 123 | UC Irvine |
| Southland | 90 | Sam Houston St. | 84 | Stephen F. Austin |
| Summit | 96 | South Dakota St. | 127 | North Dakota St. |
| Big South | 101 | High Point | 135 | Radford |
| | 15 LINE |
| Atlantic Sun | 106 | Fla. Gulf Coast | 193 | North Florida |
| Colonial Athletic | 109 | William & Mary | 141 | UNC Wilmington |
| Mid-Eastern | 111 | N.C. Central | 182 | Norfolk St. |
| Sun Belt | 115 | UL Monroe | 105 | Georgia Southern |
| | 16 LINE |
| America East | 120 | Albany | 186 | Vermont |
| Western Ath. | 143 | New Mexico St. | 258 | Grand Canyon |
| Ohio Valley | 149 | Eastern Kentucky | 152 | Belmont |
| Patriot League | 150 | Bucknell | 198 | Colgate |
| Northeast | 177 | St. Francis NY | 201 | Robert Morris |
| Southwestern | 254 | Alabama St. | 163 | Texas Southern |
According to bracketmatrix.com, which compiles all the top bracketologies (for lack of a better term), shows that Valpo has the best average seed among projected winners all of the one bid leagues. Our average seed is 12.52, followed by Harvard at 12.60 and Wofford at 12.61. We were as high as an 11 seed in some brackets and as low as 14 in others. Makes me believe that if we do win out like we all hope, a 12 seed is fairly likely. And an 11 is within the realm of possibility, depending on where the play in games are slotted.
Perfect characterization of the board during these times of speculation and anticipation!
(http://theawkwardyeti.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/0204_theDragon.png)
We are all really rooting for you hearts!
The stupid thing about seeding is that the committee focuses too much on SOS of losses. I ran a simulation of Valpo's seed had they lost to Duke at the beginning of the season on the road - Valpo's exp RPI actually got better by 8 points (59 to 51) and the SOS decreased by over 30 points from 234 to 203! Throw in a loss to Wisconsin and its a 46 RPI with a 170 SOS.
So if Valpo loses by 40 in both of those games, they're suddenly more desirable? No, but unfortunately this is how it works. If Valpo had simply scheduled a couple losses at the beginning of the year, they may be in consideration for an at-large. With a blowout loss to Duke early in the season but a HL Championship loss to UWGB, you're looking at a 25-6 record with a 47 RPI and a 178 SOS vs a 25-5 record but a 54 RPI and a 206 SOS. Unfortunately the extra loss is somehow more desirable.
cut to Greg Kampe tenting his fingers and murmuring "...excellent"
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 17, 2015, 02:17:49 PM
cut to Greg Kampe tenting his fingers and murmuring "...excellent"
I'm glad you mentioned that - there's also the problem of teams scheduling too many of these games. 1 or 2 are fine, 5 or 6 start murdering your RPI as you're actually replacing winnable games with losses. Oakland still isn't above .500 and have shown they're actually somewhat of a decent team by having a conference record above .500. This proves their schedule was a complete disaster. While our OOC SOS may have sucked, we won all but 2 of those games and are projected at a 12 seed now. Anyone saying that schedule is detrimental to the Horizon should go eat a box of rocks. Where's your team projected at? Remember the Wright State fan lecturing us on how they're helping out the conference by scheduling so many wins? Well if you don't actually win those games, then you're crapping all over the conference. If we a really soft schedule and lose to teams like NC A&T, then we have some serious issues.
Quote from: valpo4life on February 17, 2015, 12:28:02 PM
According to bracketmatrix.com, which compiles all the top bracketologies (for lack of a better term), shows that Valpo has the best average seed among projected winners all of the one bid leagues. Our average seed is 12.52, followed by Harvard at 12.60 and Wofford at 12.61. We were as high as an 11 seed in some brackets and as low as 14 in others. Makes me believe that if we do win out like we all hope, a 12 seed is fairly likely. And an 11 is within the realm of possibility, depending on where the play in games are slotted.
Interesting! Looks like, by default, he's taking a week's worth of brackets?
It seems like we were lower not so long ago? But, I don't have the numbers to prove it. Maybe our stock's rising.
I note that Green Bay's average seed is even better than ours! 12.16. But, it may be they'll fall out of most brackets soon.
Quote from: a3uge on February 17, 2015, 02:40:26 PMlose to teams like NC A&T
(http://8.media.bustedtees.cvcdn.com/d/-/bustedtees.574aa52d-f1dc-40ed-a51f-0d8980a0.gif)
Quote from: a3uge on February 17, 2015, 01:40:22 PM
The stupid thing about seeding is that the committee focuses too much on SOS of losses. I ran a simulation of Valpo's seed had they lost to Duke at the beginning of the season on the road - Valpo's exp RPI actually got better by 8 points (59 to 51) and the SOS decreased by over 30 points from 234 to 203! Throw in a loss to Wisconsin and its a 46 RPI with a 170 SOS.
So if Valpo loses by 40 in both of those games, they're suddenly more desirable? No, but unfortunately this is how it works. If Valpo had simply scheduled a couple losses at the beginning of the year, they may be in consideration for an at-large. With a blowout loss to Duke early in the season but a HL Championship loss to UWGB, you're looking at a 25-6 record with a 47 RPI and a 178 SOS vs a 25-5 record but a 54 RPI and a 206 SOS. Unfortunately the extra loss is somehow more desirable.
Really nice examples. Of course, you can't see their February RPI's when you schedule them.
But, probably there are some relatively safe bets for "is probably going to be ranked and with an excellent RPI in the next couple of seasons". Going simply from last year's top 25, you probably could have done OK. Not fantastic with Ohio State or Michigan State. And maybe not so great with Syracuse, Florida, or Michigan. But, perhaps some of these down years could be predicted.
Of course, the selection committee's not _just_ supposed to look at your opponents' RPI's. Even if that was Wheliston's take-home message from the mock bracket exercises. "Your RPI matters maybe not as much you think, but your opponents' RPI's matter a lot." In the form of average RPI win, average RPI loss, and the win/loss/home/away breakdown for top-50, 51-100, etc. opponents. As per his selection sheets http://www.bbstate.com/teams/VALP/sheet (http://www.bbstate.com/teams/VALP/sheet)
But, it does seem like RPI mattered a lot when we drew Michigan State...
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 16, 2015, 01:08:02 PMso we can see who we really need to root for coming down the stretch.
Feels like an interesting contrast to what bubble teams are cheering for.
If there are a few "2 bids, if the at-large team loses the tourney" conferences bubble teams root for chalk in those conference tourneys.
In our case, if there are a few "teams _almost_ good enough for an at-large, but in one-bid conferences" we're rooting for the good team to _lose_ the tourney.
Bubble teams want to keep the bottom of the bracket thin, we want to fill up the bottom!
Quote from: agibson on February 17, 2015, 03:48:54 PMAs per his selection sheets http://www.bbstate.com/teams/VALP/sheet (http://www.bbstate.com/teams/VALP/sheet)
I had forgotten that, like RPI, the sheets are very much focused on D1. The non-D1 games show up, but they're relegated to the bottom corner.
The committee's quick impression of Valpo's current record would very much be 21-4, not 24-4.
29-4 at selection time vs. 26-4? Does it matter? 30 would have an awfully nice ring to it... Don't know about 29.
The four losses looks really good. I think that's what is going to stand out. The two conference losses were on the road, to two of the top four conference teams. And one was tied after regulation and the other was a one point loss. Basically if Valpo would've scored one more bucket in each game Valpo would be 13-0 in conference and 26-2 overall. Also the Murray State win looks better and better every day, I don't think they're as good as people make them out to be. I still think its the name that is carrying them further in people's eyes. They're in a poor conference and haven't lost since the Valpo game. The better people think of Murray State, the better the win looks for Valpo.
My guess is, if Valpo wins out, the ceiling is an 11 and floor is 14, with the highest chance being a 12.
I trust Jerry Palm's bracketology on CBSsportline. He currently has Valpo as a 12, along with Murray State and Wofford, while Harvard, Iona, and Bowling Green are all 13's.
Quote from: agibson on February 17, 2015, 03:55:28 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 16, 2015, 01:08:02 PMso we can see who we really need to root for coming down the stretch.
Feels like an interesting contrast to what bubble teams are cheering for.
If there are a few "2 bids, if the at-large team loses the tourney" conferences bubble teams root for chalk in those conference tourneys.
In our case, if there are a few "teams _almost_ good enough for an at-large, but in one-bid conferences" we're rooting for the good team to _lose_ the tourney.
Bubble teams want to keep the bottom of the bracket thin, we want to fill up them bottom!
What would really help is if the Power 6 conferences were won by the bottom feeders with 100+ RPIs. Teams like Northwestern, Texas Tech, USC and the like would only move us up lines as there's no way you can seed a 100+ RPI team ahead of us at this point.
While that would make the tournament more fun for us as getting a 10 or 11 seed would increase our chances of making a run I think it would water down the tourney from a quality of play standpoint and might make the first round games turn into slaughters.
We are not going to get an at-large bid. Period. We played two BCS schools this year and lost to both --badly.
This seeding talk is nice but first we have to win our conference tourney to get there. And to win the conference tourney, we will probably need to host the tourney. And to host the tourney, we will probably need to win all three remaining regular season games since UWGB probably will not lose again -- they have three home games and only one road game left --@ UIC. And to win all our remaining games, we will need to play very, very well -- @ Detroit and @ CSU will be very difficult games.
Paul
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 17, 2015, 04:14:24 PM
Quote from: agibson on February 17, 2015, 03:55:28 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 16, 2015, 01:08:02 PMso we can see who we really need to root for coming down the stretch.
Feels like an interesting contrast to what bubble teams are cheering for.
If there are a few "2 bids, if the at-large team loses the tourney" conferences bubble teams root for chalk in those conference tourneys.
In our case, if there are a few "teams _almost_ good enough for an at-large, but in one-bid conferences" we're rooting for the good team to _lose_ the tourney.
Bubble teams want to keep the bottom of the bracket thin, we want to fill up them bottom!
What would really help is if the Power 6 conferences were won by the bottom feeders with 100+ RPIs. Teams like Northwestern, Texas Tech, USC and the like would only move us up lines as there's no way you can seed a 100+ RPI team ahead of us at this point.
While that would make the tournament more fun for us as getting a 10 or 11 seed would increase our chances of making a run I think it would water down the tourney from a quality of play standpoint and might make the first round games turn into slaughters.
If Northwestern wins the Big 10, they would potentially have wins over Wisconsin, Maryland, Ohio State, Illinois and Penn State. So 4 at larges and 4 Top 50 RPI wins. That's never going to happen, but even if it did, they wouldn't make them a 13 seed. Rooting for lower tiered power conference teams to win their conference is wasted effort.
Quote from: chef on February 17, 2015, 04:09:29 PM
I trust Jerry Palm's bracketology on CBSsportline. He currently has Valpo as a 12, along with Murray State and Wofford, while Harvard, Iona, and Bowling Green are all 13's.
Lunardi typically does a little better job than Palm. But neither are really highly ranked.
http://bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html (http://bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html)
Quote from: 78crusader on February 17, 2015, 04:33:14 PM
We are not going to get an at-large bid. Period. We played two BCS schools this year and lost to both --badly.
This seeding talk is nice but first we have to win our conference tourney to get there. And to win the conference tourney, we will probably need to host the tourney. And to host the tourney, we will probably need to win all three remaining regular season games since UWGB probably will not lose again -- they have three home games and only one road game left --@ UIC. And to win all our remaining games, we will need to play very, very well -- @ Detroit and @ CSU will be very difficult games.
Paul
A loss to a BCS team means more to the selection committee than losing to a non-BCS team? So if "Missouri" was actually "Missouri State" and we lost, it would help us?
Also, what's a BCS?
Quote from: a3uge on February 17, 2015, 04:40:42 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 17, 2015, 04:14:24 PM
Quote from: agibson on February 17, 2015, 03:55:28 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 16, 2015, 01:08:02 PMso we can see who we really need to root for coming down the stretch.
Feels like an interesting contrast to what bubble teams are cheering for.
If there are a few "2 bids, if the at-large team loses the tourney" conferences bubble teams root for chalk in those conference tourneys.
In our case, if there are a few "teams _almost_ good enough for an at-large, but in one-bid conferences" we're rooting for the good team to _lose_ the tourney.
Bubble teams want to keep the bottom of the bracket thin, we want to fill up them bottom!
What would really help is if the Power 6 conferences were won by the bottom feeders with 100+ RPIs. Teams like Northwestern, Texas Tech, USC and the like would only move us up lines as there's no way you can seed a 100+ RPI team ahead of us at this point.
While that would make the tournament more fun for us as getting a 10 or 11 seed would increase our chances of making a run I think it would water down the tourney from a quality of play standpoint and might make the first round games turn into slaughters.
If Northwestern wins the Big 10, they would potentially have wins over Wisconsin, Maryland, Ohio State, Illinois and Penn State. So 4 at larges and 4 Top 50 RPI wins. That's never going to happen, but even if it did, they wouldn't make them a 13 seed. Rooting for lower tiered power conference teams to win their conference is wasted effort.
Actually if we win out and lose the HL championship game to Green Bay our RPI will be 54 which is squarely on the bubble. Last year Nebraska (53/11 seed), North Carolina State (55/12 seed), Xavier (56/12 seed), and Kansas St. (58/9 seed) were all at large bids. The one you're missing is Louisiana Tech at 54 who was considered one of the biggest snubs last season. We could be the fix for LATech.
I would phrase it a bit differently, a3uge -- a win over a BCS team means more than a win over a non-BCS team.
Paul
Checking the Louisiana Tech website, they beat Oklahoma last year. Oklahoma finished second in the Big 12. We do not have anything remotely resembling such a win on our schedule this year.
Paul
Quote from: 78crusader on February 17, 2015, 04:57:35 PM
I would phrase it a bit differently, a3uge -- a win over a BCS team means more than a win over a non-BCS team.
Paul
No it doesn't.
You are right, a3uge -- a win over Butler means more than a win over Northwestern.
Having said that, we are not an at-large team this year. Big losses to two big schools -- Missouri and New Mexico -- neither of which are having stellar seasons -- killed our chances.
Paul
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 17, 2015, 04:51:50 PMActually if we win out and lose the HL championship game to Green Bay our RPI will be 54 which is squarely on the bubble.
True and I think they would go out of their way to keep us on the edge of our seats while they delivered the bad news. Awful OOC schedule, no signature wins, even with only 5 total losses I believe they could make a more compelling case for several other entrants.
Quote from: 78crusader on February 17, 2015, 05:20:42 PMHaving said that, we are not an at-large team this year. Big losses to two big schools -- Missouri and New Mexico -- neither of which are having stellar seasons -- killed our chances.
Yes and no. Add one top 40 OOC road win and we might easily be back in. But wait, we never even had any of them on our schedule!
This speculation about a 12 seed is nice (premature but nice) however we should prepare for the 15-16 season with the expectation that an 11 or 12 seed would be a big disappointment. No question that we have to schedule for better.
Quote from: 78crusader on February 17, 2015, 05:20:42 PM
You are right, a3uge -- a win over Butler means more than a win over Northwestern.
Having said that, we are not an at-large team this year. Big losses to two big schools -- Missouri and New Mexico -- neither of which are having stellar seasons -- killed our chances.
Paul
A win over Incarnate Word means more than a win over Missouri. A loss to Quinnipiac would be worse than a loss to Missouri. It's just another team to the selection committee. Losing to Oakland meant more than losing to New Mexico. They do not break down teams by their records against "BCS" schools.
Saying the loss to New Mexico and Missouri would be the difference between an at-large and NIT is wrong. The loss to UWGB on the road had the highest impact - that would have meant 2 top 50 RPI wins, one of them being on the road. 4-0 vs the top 100 would look good. The selection committee will look at RPI, SOS, quality wins, and bad losses. New Mexico or Missouri wouldn't have been quality wins. Mizzou is still a "bad loss", but at least it happened on the road. It still has a chance of avoiding 200+ if they ever win a game. We have 4 losses, so I guess it's easy to cherry pick the power conference schools out and blame the whole season on these games, but the selection committee values good teams as good teams and bad teams as bad teams.
Quote from: justducky on February 17, 2015, 06:01:51 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 17, 2015, 04:51:50 PMActually if we win out and lose the HL championship game to Green Bay our RPI will be 54 which is squarely on the bubble.
True and I think they would go out of their way to keep us on the edge of our seats while they delivered the bad news. Awful OOC schedule, no signature wins, even with only 5 total losses I believe they could make a more compelling case for several other entrants.
Quote from: 78crusader on February 17, 2015, 05:20:42 PMHaving said that, we are not an at-large team this year. Big losses to two big schools -- Missouri and New Mexico -- neither of which are having stellar seasons -- killed our chances.
Yes and no. Add one top 40 OOC road win and we might easily be back in. But wait, we never even had any of them on our schedule!
This speculation about a 12 seed is nice (premature but nice) however we should prepare for the 15-16 season with the expectation that an 11 or 12 seed would be a big disappointment. No question that we have to schedule for better.
It's kind of funny, going into the season I don't anyone would be complaining about the lack of top-50 RPI win chances for a potential at-large bid. While I went over the stupidity of the selection committee valuing SOS, even if you got slaughtered by 2 top teams, your sos could easily be chopped in half and you'd have a better RPI for simply showing up at a game. While it's stupid, it's necessary.
But it's a double edged sword. Maybe scheduling UCLA and Xavier instead of Ball State and ETSU means a significantly better SOS, but it could also mean 2 more losses, a worse RPI, and certainly no at-large talks either. It would be nice to have the chance, but I think the weak SOS may have actually helped the team this year.
Quote from: a3uge on February 17, 2015, 06:34:05 PM
Quote from: justducky on February 17, 2015, 06:01:51 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 17, 2015, 04:51:50 PMActually if we win out and lose the HL championship game to Green Bay our RPI will be 54 which is squarely on the bubble.
True and I think they would go out of their way to keep us on the edge of our seats while they delivered the bad news. Awful OOC schedule, no signature wins, even with only 5 total losses I believe they could make a more compelling case for several other entrants.
Quote from: 78crusader on February 17, 2015, 05:20:42 PMHaving said that, we are not an at-large team this year. Big losses to two big schools -- Missouri and New Mexico -- neither of which are having stellar seasons -- killed our chances.
Yes and no. Add one top 40 OOC road win and we might easily be back in. But wait, we never even had any of them on our schedule!
This speculation about a 12 seed is nice (premature but nice) however we should prepare for the 15-16 season with the expectation that an 11 or 12 seed would be a big disappointment. No question that we have to schedule for better.
It's kind of funny, going into the season I don't anyone would be complaining about the lack of top-50 RPI win chances for a potential at-large bid. While I went over the stupidity of the selection committee valuing SOS, even if you got slaughtered by 2 top teams, your sos could easily be chopped in half and you'd have a better RPI for simply showing up at a game. While it's stupid, it's necessary.
But it's a double edged sword. Maybe scheduling UCLA and Xavier instead of Ball State and ETSU means a significantly better SOS, but it could also mean 2 more losses, a worse RPI, and certainly no at-large talks either. It would be nice to have the chance, but I think the weak SOS may have actually helped the team this year.
That's exactly what some of us were saying during the OOC part of the season relative to Oakland scheduling 5 or 6 Power-5 conference teams that they did not at all match up with. While they have the best SOS in the conference - 96, they also have 14 losses and an RPI of 144 to show for it. The goal is to schedule the best OOC opponents
that you think you have a realistic chance of beating. There's still no winning formula without winning games.
Quote from: wh on February 17, 2015, 07:03:23 PM
Quote from: a3uge on February 17, 2015, 06:34:05 PM
Quote from: justducky on February 17, 2015, 06:01:51 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 17, 2015, 04:51:50 PMActually if we win out and lose the HL championship game to Green Bay our RPI will be 54 which is squarely on the bubble.
True and I think they would go out of their way to keep us on the edge of our seats while they delivered the bad news. Awful OOC schedule, no signature wins, even with only 5 total losses I believe they could make a more compelling case for several other entrants.
Quote from: 78crusader on February 17, 2015, 05:20:42 PMHaving said that, we are not an at-large team this year. Big losses to two big schools -- Missouri and New Mexico -- neither of which are having stellar seasons -- killed our chances.
Yes and no. Add one top 40 OOC road win and we might easily be back in. But wait, we never even had any of them on our schedule!
This speculation about a 12 seed is nice (premature but nice) however we should prepare for the 15-16 season with the expectation that an 11 or 12 seed would be a big disappointment. No question that we have to schedule for better.
It's kind of funny, going into the season I don't anyone would be complaining about the lack of top-50 RPI win chances for a potential at-large bid. While I went over the stupidity of the selection committee valuing SOS, even if you got slaughtered by 2 top teams, your sos could easily be chopped in half and you'd have a better RPI for simply showing up at a game. While it's stupid, it's necessary.
But it's a double edged sword. Maybe scheduling UCLA and Xavier instead of Ball State and ETSU means a significantly better SOS, but it could also mean 2 more losses, a worse RPI, and certainly no at-large talks either. It would be nice to have the chance, but I think the weak SOS may have actually helped the team this year.
That's exactly what some of us were saying during the OOC part of the season relative to Oakland scheduling 5 or 6 Power-5 conference teams that they did not at all match up with. While they have the best SOS in the conference - 96, they also have 14 losses and an RPI of 144 to show for it. The goal is to schedule the best OOC opponents that you think you have a realistic chance of beating. There's still no winning formula without winning games.
Saying we won out, if we had scheduled road games at Dayton and UCLA and lost (replacing ETSU and Ball St.) we would have a SoS of 198 and an RPI of 48. We have a SoS 223 and an RPI of 44.
I've always found the Sagarin's to be pretty reliable way of determining seedings. Right now we are ranked 63rd, and higher than the best ranked team in 19 other conferences. The Mountain West or Southland are our best shots at moving past another conference leader. So, if we are ranked higher than 19 other conference leaders, we could be a 12. If we get some luck we could make it to 11. I'm pretty sure the highest we have ever been seeded was a 12.
Reflecting on these recent posts reveals our universal ingrained mindset that we should maximize our inferior position rather than plan our breakout to a higher level. Of this even I am guilty.
that's what fans do.
leave it to people like Grizz or setshot to talk about 15 seeds.
Quote from: justducky on February 17, 2015, 08:04:07 PM
Reflecting on these recent posts reveals our universal ingrained mindset that we should maximize our inferior position rather than plan our breakout to a higher level. Of this even I am guilty.
You have to crawl before you walk (or however that goes ;)). I'm all for raising our profile, but we have to be smart about it. As much as I hate to use Butler as the model for anything, they did a good job of incrementally "scheduling up" while they were in the Horizon League. They started in the early 2000's by improving their recruiting and positioning themselves to compete for a conference title on an ongoing basis. They started establishing home-and-homes rivalries against other quality mid majors like Creighton, S. IL (when they were good), Belmont, and others. Then they started getting themselves invited to quality pre/early season tournaments with good but not necessarily best-of-the-best majors. They also worked their way into to a reconfigured Big 4 thing with IU, PU and ND, that was formerly IU, ND, Louisville and Kentucky.
That's what we need to do, and, like Butler, we need to be smart about how we do it. Right now, we're only at step-1.
Quote from: justducky on February 17, 2015, 08:04:07 PM
Reflecting on these recent posts reveals our universal ingrained mindset that we should maximize our inferior position rather than plan our breakout to a higher level. Of this even I am guilty.
Or maybe, we shouldn't put the cart before the horse. Step 1: win a lot of games. Step 2: win a lot of games against good teams. This is the formula for virtually every team that goes from mid-major to perennial at-large contenders. In the 7 seasons since joining the Horizon, we've made it to the tournament once and the NIT once. In 1997, Butler made their first NCAA appearance in the modern era coming in at a #14 seed. 10 tournament appearances, two National Championship games, 16 total games, and 4 total Sweet 16s later they finally moved from the Horizon (all with virtually the same teams in the conference). In 2004 VCU made the tournament as a 13 seed, losing in the opening round, took a couple years to get back in the tournament in 2007, and then won a game and took #3 Pitt to overtime. In 2008, they were the top team in the CAA, but lost in their conference tournament. Then they made it a couple of times, and after they made it all the way to the Final Four, they moved up to the A10 (which many still consider a mid-major conference). Even for George Mason, it took 5 more 20 win seasons after their final four appearance just to jump to the A10, where they're now a bottom dweller.
These things just don't happen over night. There's over 200 other mid major teams that would love to turn into the next Butler, VCU, or Wichita State. There's no secret formula or secret scheduling sauce that elevates a program. If it was that easy, well, there wouldn't really be a big divide. Everyone wants to complain about schedules, conferences, and how we do against certain opponents... Really the answer is simple: winning.
But even if you do have success, there's no guarantee that you sustain it. UWM was very successful, making it to the tournament in 3 of 4 years with a Sweet 16 in-between. Now see them. Also, Winthrop... they made it to the tournament 5 times in 6 years and are still playing in the Big South and are about to go 5 straight years without a NCAA or NIT appearance. Getting upset that we're not in the mix for an at-large is silly. Trashing the conference and saying that we don't belong is also silly. We haven't really done anything here yet, and that's why we aren't big time yet, not because we're not scheduling correctly. Winning the conference will go a long way to telling recruits that they are virtually guaranteed to play in the NCAA tournament one day... and telling other programs that when you schedule us, you'll get a game against a high-RPI potential tournament team. I think after that, we can look to find ways to make sure we're in the mix every year as an at-large.
Edit: Damn, spent too long on this and wh already stole my thunder
Quote from: a3uge on February 17, 2015, 09:17:28 PM
Quote from: justducky on February 17, 2015, 08:04:07 PM
Reflecting on these recent posts reveals our universal ingrained mindset that we should maximize our inferior position rather than plan our breakout to a higher level. Of this even I am guilty.
Or maybe, we shouldn't put the cart before the horse. Step 1: win a lot of games. Step 2: win a lot of games against good teams. This is the formula for virtually every team that goes from mid-major to perennial at-large contenders. In the 7 seasons since joining the Horizon, we've made it to the tournament once and the NIT once. In 1997, Butler made their first NCAA appearance in the modern era coming in at a #14 seed. 10 tournament appearances, two National Championship games, 16 total games, and 4 total Sweet 16s later they finally moved from the Horizon (all with virtually the same teams in the conference). In 2004 VCU made the tournament as a 13 seed, losing in the opening round, took a couple years to get back in the tournament in 2007, and then won a game and took #3 Pitt to overtime. In 2008, they were the top team in the CAA, but lost in their conference tournament. Then they made it a couple of times, and after they made it all the way to the Final Four, they moved up to the A10 (which many still consider a mid-major conference). Even for George Mason, it took 5 more 20 win seasons after their final four appearance just to jump to the A10, where they're now a bottom dweller.
These things just don't happen over night. There's over 200 other mid major teams that would love to turn into the next Butler, VCU, or Wichita State. There's no secret formula or secret scheduling sauce that elevates a program. If it was that easy, well, there wouldn't really be a big divide. Everyone wants to complain about schedules, conferences, and how we do against certain opponents... Really the answer is simple: winning.
But even if you do have success, there's no guarantee that you sustain it. UWM was very successful, making it to the tournament in 3 of 4 years with a Sweet 16 in-between. Now see them. Also, Winthrop... they made it to the tournament 5 times in 6 years and are still playing in the Big South and are about to go 5 straight years without a NCAA or NIT appearance. Getting upset that we're not in the mix for an at-large is silly. Trashing the conference and saying that we don't belong is also silly. We haven't really done anything here yet, and that's why we aren't big time yet, not because we're not scheduling correctly. Winning the conference will go a long way to telling recruits that they are virtually guaranteed to play in the NCAA tournament one day... and telling other programs that when you schedule us, you'll get a game against a high-RPI potential tournament team. I think after that, we can look to find ways to make sure we're in the mix every year as an at-large.
Edit: Damn, spent too long on this and wh already stole my thunder
You made the complete argument. I just wrote the executive summary. ;)
Quote from: a3uge on February 17, 2015, 09:17:28 PMWinning the conference will go a long way to telling recruits that they are virtually guaranteed to play in the NCAA tournament one day... and telling other programs that when you schedule us, you'll get a game against a high-RPI potential tournament team. I think after that, we can look to find ways to make sure we're in the mix every year as an at-large.
Quote from: wh on February 17, 2015, 08:47:59 PMThat's what we need to do, and, like Butler, we need to be smart about how we do it. Right now, we're only at step-1.
Thank you both for the reasoned logic. Can either of you or anyone on this board give me total assurance that the mechanisms for taking that second step are being implemented? It looks to all of us that this group of kids deserve it.
Quote from: justducky on February 17, 2015, 11:21:31 PM
Quote from: a3uge on February 17, 2015, 09:17:28 PMWinning the conference will go a long way to telling recruits that they are virtually guaranteed to play in the NCAA tournament one day... and telling other programs that when you schedule us, you'll get a game against a high-RPI potential tournament team. I think after that, we can look to find ways to make sure we're in the mix every year as an at-large.
Quote from: wh on February 17, 2015, 08:47:59 PMThat's what we need to do, and, like Butler, we need to be smart about how we do it. Right now, we're only at step-1.
Thank you both for the reasoned logic. Can either of you or anyone on this board give me total assurance that the mechanisms for taking that second step are being implemented? It looks to all of us that this group of kids deserve it.
I don't think we really know yet. Considering our RPI projects to be in the high 30's if we win the conference, I'd say the scheduling wasn't a failure. This would translate to at least a 12 seed, possibly an 11. This would be, by far, the best RPI in the history of our program, and considering we're undervalued in many other systems, probably Sagarin, Massey, and KPom as well. I'd say the scheduling hasn't been an actual issue this year.
But yeah, "elevating" the program - I'd say we'd probably have to see what happens. We don't really know our schedule next year. Say we lose on the road to Detroit and CSU, and then flop in the conf tournament to Oakland, then I don't think it'd be reasonable to demand that we schedule a bunch of top 50 teams to bolster our chances at an at-large next year... Or better yet, if we make it to the Sweet 16, then I would imagine that it'd be significantly easier to get invited to decent pre-season tournaments. Again, I don't think scheduling right now is holding us back as we've had decent enough schedules in the past, it's actually finding success.
I look at the 2010/11 squad as the base for what we have now. That was Valpo's first successful season in the HL, winning 20+ games and in contention for the HL crown with just a few games remaining. Valpo wound up folding down the stretch and losing to Milwaukee in the semis. After that season many thought Valpo was going back to the lower half of the HL after graduating guys like Corey Johnson, Howard Little, and losing Brandon Wood to Michigan State. The young guys on the team were able to build off that season. Rowdy, Matt Kenney, KVW, and Buggs all stepped up next season and shocked the HL by winning the regular season title but lost in the finals. The pieces for Valpo were beginning to come together, with a senior laden team in the 2012/13 season Valpo finally got back to the promise land after a 9 year drought. That gave Valpo the tool it needed, the ability to say "we've been with the best of the HL and every year we can win the league, just look at the last 3 sesaons (10/11-12/13)."
The coaching staff was able to use that team to recruit guys like Alec Peters, Lexus Williams, Jubril, get guys like KC and EVN to join the team. Last season was a rebuilding year, yet Valpo was still decent and went back to the post-season for the fourth consecutive year. The nucleus for a team is there and this last offseason Valpo added more pieces to the puzzle, getting guys like Tevonn, Darien, and David to come to Valpo.
The past 4 to 5 seasons of being a quality mid-major is beginning to pay its dividends. The nucleus is there for a team that can make a run in the tournament. Whether it be this year or not? I don't know. It's definitely there though.
Valpo has started to get kids who were also recruited by high-majors. Alec Peters was offered from BC and Butler, David Skara had an offer from VA Tech, Tevonn Walker was a top-10 player from Canada, Derrik Smits is one of the top centers from Indiana and was recruited by Butler, Xavier, and Indiana was starting to show interest.
A few seasons ago Valpo had to build a team by combing through everyone. Getting little-recruited guys like Ryan Broekhoff, Kevin Van Wijk, Erik Buggs, Matt Kenney, and turning to transfers like LVD, Capobianco, Will Bogan, and Ben Boggs to make a difference. They did their job and put Valpo back on the map.
I would say stage one is complete. Build a contender in the HL year-in-year-out. Valpo has certainly done that. Now there's stage 2 which has begun, get to the tournament every year and make a run in the tournament. Like with the first stage this takes a few years, since much of it is due to consistency. One slip up can be fatal in building a national contender, it takes years to do. Stage 2 has began, become the perennial top-dog in the HL, Valpo is off to a good start and only time will tell if they pass stage 2.
Quote from: classof2014 on February 18, 2015, 08:33:09 AM
I look at the 2010/11 squad as the base for what we have now. That was Valpo's first successful season in the HL, winning 20+ games and in contention for the HL crown with just a few games remaining. Valpo wound up folding down the stretch and losing to Milwaukee in the semis. After that season many thought Valpo was going back to the lower half of the HL after graduating guys like Corey Johnson, Howard Little, and losing Brandon Wood to Michigan State. The young guys on the team were able to build off that season. Rowdy, Matt Kenney, KVW, and Buggs all stepped up next season and shocked the HL by winning the regular season title but lost in the finals. The pieces for Valpo were beginning to come together, with a senior laden team in the 2012/13 season Valpo finally got back to the promise land after a 9 year drought. That gave Valpo the tool it needed, the ability to say "we've been with the best of the HL and every year we can win the league, just look at the last 3 sesaons (10/11-12/13)."
The coaching staff was able to use that team to recruit guys like Alec Peters, Lexus Williams, Jubril, get guys like KC and EVN to join the team. Last season was a rebuilding year, yet Valpo was still decent and went back to the post-season for the fourth consecutive year. The nucleus for a team is there and this last offseason Valpo added more pieces to the puzzle, getting guys like Tevonn, Darien, and David to come to Valpo.
The past 4 to 5 seasons of being a quality mid-major is beginning to pay its dividends. The nucleus is there for a team that can make a run in the tournament. Whether it be this year or not? I don't know. It's definitely there though.
Valpo has started to get kids who were also recruited by high-majors. Alec Peters was offered from BC and Butler, David Skara had an offer from VA Tech, Tevonn Walker was a top-10 player from Canada, Derrik Smits is one of the top centers from Indiana and was recruited by Butler, Xavier, and Indiana was starting to show interest.
A few seasons ago Valpo had to build a team by combing through everyone. Getting little-recruited guys like Ryan Broekhoff, Kevin Van Wijk, Erik Buggs, Matt Kenney, and turning to transfers like LVD, Capobianco, Will Bogan, and Ben Boggs to make a difference. They did their job and put Valpo back on the map.
I would say stage one is complete. Build a contender in the HL year-in-year-out. Valpo has certainly done that. Now there's stage 2 which has begun, get to the tournament every year and make a run in the tournament. Like with the first stage this takes a few years, since much of it is due to consistency. One slip up can be fatal in building a national contender, it takes years to do. Stage 2 has began, become the perennial top-dog in the HL, Valpo is off to a good start and only time will tell if they pass stage 2.
Well written. Only one small correction. Matt Kenney was not "little recruited". He was an Indiana All Star. The amazing thing about the Valpo coaches is how they find guys like Ryan or Max and Tevonn. Tevonn and Ryan and probably David Skara, are Big Ten talent. Probably not starting their freshman year, like Tevonn, but his speed, athleticism and shooting would fit on many Bigs. Still, when it was announced that we had commitments from the Canadians there was a collective "Huh"? Same with Ryan. No one knew how talented he was. Little to no interest from other US schools. That is the remarkable thing. The first really big commitment from a highly sought after kid was Alec. The enxt was Derrik. If Derrik was still on the market he would have loads of schools after him. 7'ers with his skill set just aren't available at this point.
Don't forget our Jamaican senior that hopefully is not playing his last game in the ARC this week. This is a guy who was not recruited but is in the top 10 in the nation in blocks. If it wasn't for his rim protection, we are a different type of the team. I hope next year we have a shot blocker at half of vashils ability.
Just another example of a non recruited player that our staff has gotten and even improved.
While I think that trying to predict where we could be seeded in the NCAA tournament is premature (we need to host and win the HL tournament), it is a fun discussion. I like the http://www.bracketmatrix.com/ (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/) site, as it averages the 89 'bracketologists' that are currently trying to predict the bracket. While hopeful for a 12 or even an 11 seed, I don't want the 11 or 12 seeds play-in game. The NCAA tournament selection committee uses more than just RPI. They also have the requirement of placing conference teams so that no two same conference teams meet before the regional quarterfinals (I think), which does influence the seeding of teams in the tournament.
I think that ml and Bryce have worked very hard to give Valpo the best schedule possible, and I'll leave the future scheduling to them.
I don't know if this is true but the high ranking (11/12 seed) play-in games are mostly made up of at-large bids?
And the 16 seed one is usually for two teams that probably shouldn't have won their conference tournament but did?
Quote from: covufan on February 18, 2015, 11:45:16 AM
While I think that trying to predict where we could be seeded in the NCAA tournament is premature (we need to host and win the HL tournament), it is a fun discussion. I like the http://www.bracketmatrix.com/ (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/) site, as it averages the 89 'bracketologists' that are currently trying to predict the bracket. While hopeful for a 12 or even an 11 seed, I don't want the 11 or 12 seeds play-in game. The NCAA tournament selection committee uses more than just RPI. They also have the requirement of placing conference teams so that no two same conference teams meet before the regional quarterfinals (I think), which does influence the seeding of teams in the tournament.
I think that ml and Bryce have worked very hard to give Valpo the best schedule possible, and I'll leave the future scheduling to them.
If we end up a 11 seed, that means we would have won our conference. Conference winners can't play in the play-in games. If we miraculously get an at-large, we would certainly be playing in the "First Four", as these playins are the last at-large teams to make the tournament.
Quote from: classof2014 on February 18, 2015, 11:57:15 AM
I don't know if this is true but the high ranking (11/12 seed) play-in games are mostly made up of at-large bids?
And the 16 seed one is usually for two teams that probably shouldn't have won their conference tournament but did?
Just to try to staple together what others have said.
The 11/12 play-in games are for the four lowest seeded at-large teams. The seed they're competing for depends on how the bracket shakes out. (In principle it could probably be a 13, maybe even a 14 or 10.)
The 16 seed play-ins (the old Dayton PIG) are for the four lowest seeded conference champions. I don't think these are always upsets - but they seem to often be the same few conferences, where even the favorite's not great.
If we get into the 11/12 game we'd probably be delighted when it happens. We'd have lost the conference tournament but somehow snagged an at-large bid.
When I dream that we might somehow qualify for an at-large, mostly my dream involves an at-large quality -seed- (like an 11 or 10) without actually needing the at-large bid.
It was VCU as an at-large seeded 11th in 2010-11 that came out of those PIGs in Dayton to make to Final Four! That is a winnable game against usually a Power 5 that has holes in its game. VCU beat USC.
Grantland with an article on developing the mock selection committee bracket. Here's an interesting paragraph:
4. The committee members insist they don't care about story lines.
During the bracketing process, it was brought to my attention that we'd given Baylor a 4-seed and Valparaiso a 13-seed, meaning a potential brother vs. brother head-coaching matchup between Scott and Bryce Drew was possible. Mandel and I were cochairs of the mock committee and had yet to make any executive decisions, so I decided to put my foot down and make the Drew vs. Drew game happen, even though it meant sending Valpo to Jacksonville for its first game when a spot was open in Louisville. The NCAA officials laughed and said this would never happen in real life. I kept a straight face and told them that maybe it should.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/ncaa-basketball-power-rankings-march-madness-tournament-selection-sunday-kentucky-wildcats-wisconsin-badgers-duke-blue-devils-villanova-wildcats-virginia-cavaliers-gonzaga-bulldogs-dick-vitale-arizona/ (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/ncaa-basketball-power-rankings-march-madness-tournament-selection-sunday-kentucky-wildcats-wisconsin-badgers-duke-blue-devils-villanova-wildcats-virginia-cavaliers-gonzaga-bulldogs-dick-vitale-arizona/)
Quote from: valpo84 on February 18, 2015, 03:51:20 PM
Grantland with an article on developing the mock selection committee bracket. Here's an interesting paragraph:
4. The committee members insist they don't care about story lines.
During the bracketing process, it was brought to my attention that we'd given Baylor a 4-seed and Valparaiso a 13-seed, meaning a potential brother vs. brother head-coaching matchup between Scott and Bryce Drew was possible. Mandel and I were cochairs of the mock committee and had yet to make any executive decisions, so I decided to put my foot down and make the Drew vs. Drew game happen, even though it meant sending Valpo to Jacksonville for its first game when a spot was open in Louisville. The NCAA officials laughed and said this would never happen in real life. I kept a straight face and told them that maybe it should.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/ncaa-basketball-power-rankings-march-madness-tournament-selection-sunday-kentucky-wildcats-wisconsin-badgers-duke-blue-devils-villanova-wildcats-virginia-cavaliers-gonzaga-bulldogs-dick-vitale-arizona/ (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/ncaa-basketball-power-rankings-march-madness-tournament-selection-sunday-kentucky-wildcats-wisconsin-badgers-duke-blue-devils-villanova-wildcats-virginia-cavaliers-gonzaga-bulldogs-dick-vitale-arizona/)
With all of the talk about a 12 seed, I could see this pairing in the second round. Baylor is a legit 4 seed.
I am going to take this article to mean that we should stop worrying about the possibility of a 11, 12, 13, or 14 seed. It would appear that the seed we SHOULD get makes less of a difference as to what works best geographically.
I wonder if our location in the Midwest is an advantage or a disadvantage to this new reality? A reality that i do not think the committee was as concerned about 15 years ago.
Quote from: covufan on February 18, 2015, 04:49:45 PMWith all of the talk about a 12 seed, I could see this pairing in the second round. Baylor is a legit 4 seed.
Maybe my memory is wrong but wouldn't a VU 12 and a Baylor 4 mean that they couldn't meet unless it was for final four rights or do you mean that Baylor will be at least a 4 and maybe a 3?
Quote from: justducky on February 18, 2015, 05:08:16 PM
Quote from: covufan on February 18, 2015, 04:49:45 PMWith all of the talk about a 12 seed, I could see this pairing in the second round. Baylor is a legit 4 seed.
Maybe my memory is wrong but wouldn't a VU 12 and a Baylor 4 mean that they couldn't meet unless it was for final four rights or do you mean that Baylor will be at least a 4 and maybe a 3?
5-12 winner plays 4-13 winner. So that would possibly happen 2nd round.
In regard to moving teams up or down to better support geographic proximity, my guess is that the selection committee would be more likely to let us keep our rightful seed if it were an 11 or 12 as opposed to a 13 or higher. Does anyone know if my guess is accurate?
"It was VCU as an at-large seeded 11th in 2010-11 that came out of those PIGs in Dayton to make to Final Four! That is a winnable game against usually a Power 5 that has holes in its game. VCU beat USC."
[/size]
[/size]Thanks for reminding me Valpo84 (actually, the year I also graduated)
Quote from: valpo84 on February 18, 2015, 03:51:20 PM
Grantland with an article on developing the mock selection committee bracket. Here's an interesting paragraph:
4. The committee members insist they don't care about story lines.
During the bracketing process, it was brought to my attention that we'd given Baylor a 4-seed and Valparaiso a 13-seed, meaning a potential brother vs. brother head-coaching matchup between Scott and Bryce Drew was possible. Mandel and I were cochairs of the mock committee and had yet to make any executive decisions, so I decided to put my foot down and make the Drew vs. Drew game happen, even though it meant sending Valpo to Jacksonville for its first game when a spot was open in Louisville. The NCAA officials laughed and said this would never happen in real life. I kept a straight face and told them that maybe it should.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/ncaa-basketball-power-rankings-march-madness-tournament-selection-sunday-kentucky-wildcats-wisconsin-badgers-duke-blue-devils-villanova-wildcats-virginia-cavaliers-gonzaga-bulldogs-dick-vitale-arizona/ (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/ncaa-basketball-power-rankings-march-madness-tournament-selection-sunday-kentucky-wildcats-wisconsin-badgers-duke-blue-devils-villanova-wildcats-virginia-cavaliers-gonzaga-bulldogs-dick-vitale-arizona/)
I wonder how much they would pay Homer to do color for a Baylor/Valpo match-up? He certainly would have great knowledge about both teams. Maybe it would keep Homer busy enough so he wouldn't agonize over the game. Janet and other members of the Drew family would have to fret through it. I remember Tom Crean and the Harbaugh family at the Super Bowl when the Brothers Harbaugh battled for the greatest trophy in football. They knew when it was over it was going to be elation and misery no matter who won.
I don't think Homer would want to broadcast the game between Baylor and Valpo only because he wouldn't do it for professional reasons. I mean he was tepid about doing commentary for the non-conference Illinois games he worked because of the potential for Illinois to face Baylor later in the season, but Coach Groce welcomed him to the State Farm Center professionally. I just don't see Homer doing commentary for a game between Baylor and Valpo as long as Scott and Bryce are on either bench.
I think the "geographic" determinations for some games came post-9/11 because the NCAA didn't want to keep fans from traveling to watch their team because of fears about flying to locations across the country. That was a part of the determination for Valpo going to St. Louis to play Kentucky in 2002. After that, I'm guessing it was during the economic mess of 2008, when people were losing money so badly that they couldn't spend lots of money to attend games, stay in hotels, and eat as much as they could in previous years.
Quote from: valpo4life on February 18, 2015, 05:26:43 PM5-12 winner plays 4-13 winner.
My mistake I had the 12-5 playing the 14-3.
Looking at last year's bracket not sure if geography is that big of a deal.
In the first round:
Colorado vs Pittsburgh in Orlando
VCU vs SFA in San Diego
New Mexico vs Stanford in St. Louis
Cincinnati vs Harvard in Spokane
Michigan St vs Delaware in Spokane
North Carolina vs Providence in San Antonio
Iowa State vs NC Central in San Antonio
Oklahoma vs North Dakota St in Spokane
San Diego St vs New Mexico in Spokane
Oregon vs BYU in Milwaukee
Louisville vs Manhattan in Orlando
Texas vs Arizona State in Milwaukee
This shows that the NCAA committee really doesn't take geography into account too much. Some teams get to be near campus while some teams need to travel quite a ways. If you look at other 12 seeds from last year.
VCU (5) vs SFA (12) was in San Diego --- Nowhere near either school
Cincinnati (5) vs Harvard (12) in Spokane --- Nowhere near either school
Oklahoma (5) vs North Dakota St (12) in Spokane --- Nowhere near either school
St. Louis (5) vs North Carolina St (12) in Orlando --- Not terribly far from Orlando
To me it doesn't matter. They try to keep a team nearby, mostly the big name schools.
Florida (1) was in Orlando
UCLA (4) was in San Diego
Syracuse (3) was in Buffalo
Kansas (2) was in St. Louis
Virginia (1) was in Raleigh
Arizona (1) was in San Diego
Baylor (6) was in San Antonio
Wisconsin (2) was in Milwaukee
Wichita St (1) was in St. Louis
Duke (3) was in Raleigh
It seems tat they try to keep the 1 seeds within the region then the twos and threes maybe get to be in a nearby region. But looking at last years bracket. There were still plenty of first round matchups between two schools that both had to travel quite a ways to get to the city they were playing in.
I had not seen this posted... for those making travel plans after the pairings are announced on Sunday the 15th...
Thursday March 19th if we are assigned to:
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Jacksonville
Portland (OR)
Friday March 20 if we are assigned to:
Columbus
Charlotte, NC
Omaha
Seattle
and for those who are liking our chances NEXT year... planning ahead is never a bad idea:
2016 sites: (Chicago gets the Midwest Regional at the UC Next Season)
March 17, 19 Providence, R.I. Dunkin Donuts Center
March 17, 19 Des Moines, Iowa Wells Fargo Arena
March 17, 19 Raleigh, N.C. PNC Arena
March 17, 19 Denver Pepsi Center
March 18, 20 Brooklyn, N.Y. Barclays Center
March 18, 20 St. Louis Scottrade Center
March 18, 20 Oklahoma City Chesapeake Energy Arena <<<<#####>>>>
March 18, 20 Spokane, Wash. Spokane Veterans Memorial Arena
But the real reason for this post... is the 2018 sites that have been announced... along with the Host Schools....
March 15, 17 Duquesne Pittsburgh CONSOL Energy Center
March 15, 17 Wichita State Wichita, Kan. Intrust Bank Arena
March 15, 17 Big 12 Dallas American Airlines Center
March 15, 17 Boise State Boise, Idaho Taco Bell Arena
March 16, 18 UNC Charlotte Charlotte, N.C. Time Warner Cable Arena
March 16, 18 Detroit, Mercy Detroit New Detroit Arena
March 16, 18 Ohio Valley Nashville, Tenn. Bridgestone Arena
March 16, 18 San Diego State San Diego Viejas Arena
Quote from: classof2014 on February 19, 2015, 08:33:00 AM
Looking at last year's bracket not sure if geography is that big of a deal.
In the first round:
Colorado vs Pittsburgh in Orlando
VCU vs SFA in San Diego
New Mexico vs Stanford in St. Louis
Cincinnati vs Harvard in Spokane
Michigan St vs Delaware in Spokane
North Carolina vs Providence in San Antonio
Iowa State vs NC Central in San Antonio
Oklahoma vs North Dakota St in Spokane
San Diego St vs New Mexico in Spokane
Oregon vs BYU in Milwaukee
Louisville vs Manhattan in Orlando
Texas vs Arizona State in Milwaukee
This shows that the NCAA committee really doesn't take geography into account too much. Some teams get to be near campus while some teams need to travel quite a ways. If you look at other 12 seeds from last year.
VCU (5) vs SFA (12) was in San Diego --- Nowhere near either school
Cincinnati (5) vs Harvard (12) in Spokane --- Nowhere near either school
Oklahoma (5) vs North Dakota St (12) in Spokane --- Nowhere near either school
St. Louis (5) vs North Carolina St (12) in Orlando --- Not terribly far from Orlando
To me it doesn't matter. They try to keep a team nearby, mostly the big name schools.
Florida (1) was in Orlando
UCLA (4) was in San Diego
Syracuse (3) was in Buffalo
Kansas (2) was in St. Louis
Virginia (1) was in Raleigh
Arizona (1) was in San Diego
Baylor (6) was in San Antonio
Wisconsin (2) was in Milwaukee
Wichita St (1) was in St. Louis
Duke (3) was in Raleigh
It seems tat they try to keep the 1 seeds within the region then the twos and threes maybe get to be in a nearby region. But looking at last years bracket. There were still plenty of first round matchups between two schools that both had to travel quite a ways to get to the city they were playing in.
I'm fairly certain there's a rule that 12 seeds and higher can't play within 50 miles of their campus - this is why UWM played in Buffalo instead of Milwaukee. I think they try to give them the second closest place if possible, but everything is such a cluster****.
There's no doubt that not everyone is flexed for geography, and it's seemingly random, but a lot of teams are placed into their Sweet 16 area instead of opening round area. I never understood why games in Florida feed into the "Midwest" Regional. Last year Wisconsin played in Milwaukee, then flew to California for the Sweet 16. Figuring out what the selection committee is doing is a very futile task. My theory is they all just get absolutely wasted and can't coherently come up with the best plan.
Quote from: talksalot on February 19, 2015, 08:52:02 AMBut the real reason for this post... is the 2018 sites that have been announced... along with the Host Schools....
"New Detroit Arena"
Do we know details?
Quote from: agibson on February 19, 2015, 09:21:34 AM
Quote from: talksalot on February 19, 2015, 08:52:02 AMBut the real reason for this post... is the 2018 sites that have been announced... along with the Host Schools....
"New Detroit Arena"
Do we know details?
The Red Wings are building a new arena and there's talks that the Pistons could abandon the Palace in Auburn Hills for it as well. I'm guessing that's where they would host the game. It's funny because 5 of those arenas are host to more Hockey games than Basketball games. But I like the fact they are picking 15k-20k seat venues for first round games over the gigantic stadiums that are half full
As the NCAA has been trying to squeeze more and more $$ out of ticket sales, the venues have had to be scaled back because of attendance. I am still receiving ticket offers for some of the arenas in the Midwest subregionals and for the Regional in Cleveland. I already hold some tixs for the Cleveland Midwest Regional, but the cost of good tixs from the NCAA (not brokers) has become ridiculous. Remember when the whole first round weekend of games was about $90. That won't get you one session of good seats today. Hence, there is a reason to seed teams close to home to fill those arenas. The rule on seedings used to be you could not be seeded at a site where you had played 3 or more games. Teams would try to play games at certain venues to learn the floors and sightlines during the season. So, a Duke, UNC etc like playing a game at United Center or MSG, Greensboro or Charlotte Arena (TWC?) so they have had experience there either for ACC or NCAA tourneys.
Quote from: valpo84 on February 19, 2015, 09:49:54 AMSo, a Duke, UNC etc like playing a game at United Center
Which further's our opportunities for next season to get a game against a power-conference team at the UC...since they are hosting the MW Regional.
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 19, 2015, 09:33:05 AMThe Red Wings are building a new arena and there's talks that the Pistons could abandon the Palace in Auburn Hills for it as well.
It wouldn't be just the Red Wings and possibly the Pistons that would build that new arena in downtown Detroit. Yes, the cash strapped city of Detroit is contributing to this arena. I'm not sure of all the details but the funds were already set aside for this project before the city of Detroit filed for protection from their creditors. It didn't sit well with many that the city would contribute to the arena even though they were defaulting on loaned money. Those who are involved from the city of Detroit feel it's vitally important that the Red Wings stay in the city for the downtown to have a chance to make it back.
Quote from: classof2014 on February 19, 2015, 08:33:00 AMThis shows that the NCAA committee really doesn't take geography into account too much.
As soon as Spokane was chosen as a site it was evident that the NCAA doesn't take geography into account too much. How many schools are close or remotely close to Spokane? They had to bring schools from far away into Spokane.
Quote from: talksalot on February 19, 2015, 08:52:02 AMFriday March 20 if we are assigned to:
Columbus
Please. PLEASE. PLEASE!!!! I'll be in Dayton for the First Four. Would love the short trip.
Quote from: historyman on February 20, 2015, 08:08:08 AMHow many schools are close or remotely close to Spokane?
um...Gonzaga comes to mind.
they're pretty good. you guys.
one school. Any others?
Eastern Washington state is just outside of Spokane. Washington state is in Pullman 1 hour away.
and Univ of Idaho is about 90 minutes away... it's only 6 hours over to Montana State... and 4 hours to Washington U, Seattle U, ... so ok, ok... point taken.
When it comes to RPI, there is no need anymore to wait for the weekly official NCAA number. They publish it on a daily basis.
One note of interest since last night's game won by Cleveland State is that Valpo jumped Green Bay by one place in the official RPI.
See:
[http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-rpi]
We've finally passed up Green Bay on bracketmatrix.com. 12.42.
We're still the best of the AQ's on this site, but well off the at-larges. And other places have the likes of Harvard, Wofford, and Murray State above us. Going to be hard to catch Harvard in RPI, unless they start losing...
Somehow our "win out" RPI seems to be getting worse... RPI Forecast has 52/53 (and that's before the CSU loss).
What really hurts Valpo's RPI this year, more than any other season is the poor records by everyone except Green Bay in the non-conference. UWM a .500 team in the league, was 3-9 in the non-conference, and their current RPI is 229. Oakland a title contender all year had a 3-10 non-conference record. Since 50% of the RPI is your opponent's record, it's so hard to move your RPI once league play begins. Additionally, the league's RPI has dropped from 13 to 16 simply by playing each other. Oakland's non-conference scheduling really hurts the league RPI (not that they care).
The Oakland fans don't care, but I thought LeCrone made a point when they were accepted that they must change their occ philosophy. I also thought he made an exception with the size of their bball stadium. If they were to host, the HL would lose a little money because ticket sells wouldn't be as much.
Quote from: chef on February 22, 2015, 11:49:20 PM
Oakland a title contender all year had a 3-10 non-conference record. Since 50% of the RPI is your opponent's record, it's so hard to move your RPI once league play begins. Additionally, the league's RPI has dropped from 13 to 16 simply by playing each other. Oakland's non-conference scheduling really hurts the league RPI (not that they care).
An interesting point. Scheduling games where you're the sacrificial lamb might be Ok, even good, for your own RPI. But, it could drag down the league.
Quote from: agibson on February 23, 2015, 08:58:12 AM
Quote from: chef on February 22, 2015, 11:49:20 PM
Oakland a title contender all year had a 3-10 non-conference record. Since 50% of the RPI is your opponent's record, it's so hard to move your RPI once league play begins. Additionally, the league's RPI has dropped from 13 to 16 simply by playing each other. Oakland's non-conference scheduling really hurts the league RPI (not that they care).
An interesting point. Scheduling games where you're the sacrificial lamb might be Ok, even good, for your own RPI. But, it could drag down the league.
The MAC is a top 10 RPI conference this year! They have 6 schools with excellent RPI's. Whoever goes on a run in the conference tournament will end up with a 12 seed and an RPI in the 40's because of it (Unless somebody like Western Michigan or EMU goes on an upset run). Oakland really screwed us this year. I don't mind them scheduling hard, BUT NOT DURING A REBUILDING YEAR. You have to adjust your schedule based on how good your team is going to be!!!!!
What's the reasoning behind it? I know this has been beaten to death. If all teams can get on the same page as far as scheduling.
1. Do The math. How much $$ did Oakland receive for these Power-5/6 games?
2. Based on #1... I don't think there needs to be a second reason.
Quote from: chef on February 22, 2015, 11:49:20 PM
What really hurts Valpo's RPI this year, more than any other season is the poor records by everyone except Green Bay in the non-conference. UWM a .500 team in the league, was 3-9 in the non-conference, and their current RPI is 229. Oakland a title contender all year had a 3-10 non-conference record. Since 50% of the RPI is your opponent's record, it's so hard to move your RPI once league play begins. Additionally, the league's RPI has dropped from 13 to 16 simply by playing each other. Oakland's non-conference scheduling really hurts the league RPI (not that they care).
Could you please explain how Oakland's strong out of conference schedule hurts the Horizon League's RPI? I would think if it helps Oakland's RPI (which it certainly does), that everyone who plays Oakland in the conference is blessed with those top team's records and is part of their own RPI, more specifically their SOS, since it is weighted 75% to a team's opponents record and their opponent's opponents record. It seems to me that when any team in the HL plays, say, KY, win or lose, their SOS will improve over time and so will the teams in the HL who plays against that team who played against KY. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 23, 2015, 09:21:38 AM
Quote from: chef on February 22, 2015, 11:49:20 PM
What really hurts Valpo's RPI this year, more than any other season is the poor records by everyone except Green Bay in the non-conference. UWM a .500 team in the league, was 3-9 in the non-conference, and their current RPI is 229. Oakland a title contender all year had a 3-10 non-conference record. Since 50% of the RPI is your opponent's record, it's so hard to move your RPI once league play begins. Additionally, the league's RPI has dropped from 13 to 16 simply by playing each other. Oakland's non-conference scheduling really hurts the league RPI (not that they care).
Could you please explain how Oakland's strong out of conference schedule hurts the Horizon League's RPI? I would think if it helps Oakland's RPI (which it certainly does), that everyone who plays Oakland in the conference is blessed with those top team's records and is part of their own RPI, more specifically their SOS, since it is weighted 75% to a team's opponents record and their opponent's opponents record. It seems to me that when any team in the HL plays, say, KY, win or lose, their SOS will improve over time and so will the teams in the HL who plays against that team who played against KY. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Quote from: oklahomamick on February 23, 2015, 09:19:30 AM
What's the reasoning behind it? I know this has been beaten to death. If all teams can get on the same page as far as scheduling.
Part of RPI your opponent's winning percentage. If Oakland had scheduled more winnable games, and not gone 3-10 in the OOC, our RPI would be improved twofold. They would have a better RPI with more Ws and we would have a better one because their win% was higher. That 3-10 is killing the conference RPI right now because they are a moderately good team who could have been 7-6 or better with a schedule similar Wright State's.
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 23, 2015, 09:24:36 AM
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 23, 2015, 09:21:38 AM
Quote from: chef on February 22, 2015, 11:49:20 PM
What really hurts Valpo's RPI this year, more than any other season is the poor records by everyone except Green Bay in the non-conference. UWM a .500 team in the league, was 3-9 in the non-conference, and their current RPI is 229. Oakland a title contender all year had a 3-10 non-conference record. Since 50% of the RPI is your opponent's record, it's so hard to move your RPI once league play begins. Additionally, the league's RPI has dropped from 13 to 16 simply by playing each other. Oakland's non-conference scheduling really hurts the league RPI (not that they care).
Could you please explain how Oakland's strong out of conference schedule hurts the Horizon League's RPI? I would think if it helps Oakland's RPI (which it certainly does), that everyone who plays Oakland in the conference is blessed with those top team's records and is part of their own RPI, more specifically their SOS, since it is weighted 75% to a team's opponents record and their opponent's opponents record. It seems to me that when any team in the HL plays, say, KY, win or lose, their SOS will improve over time and so will the teams in the HL who plays against that team who played against KY. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Quote from: oklahomamick on February 23, 2015, 09:19:30 AM
What's the reasoning behind it? I know this has been beaten to death. If all teams can get on the same page as far as scheduling.
Part of RPI your opponent's winning percentage. If Oakland had scheduled more winnable games, and not gone 3-10 in the OOC, our RPI would be improved twofold. They would have a better RPI with more Ws and we would have a better one because their win% was higher. That 3-10 is killing the conference RPI right now because they are a moderately good team who could have been 7-6 or better with a schedule similar Wright State's.
The fact that Oakland lost to these better teams is not relevant to SOS, a major part of RPI. Even though Oakland lost those games against strong opponents, their RPI is disproportionately helped more by their opponents (and opponents opponents) winning record than their own W-L record. In fact, Oakland's RPI can move up at a faster rate than Valpo's RPI (all things being equal) even though Oakland or Valpo hasn't played any games during that time period in which the increase/decrease in RPI is calculated. Looking solely at the SOS of your opponent and their winning record (and the winning record and SOS of their stronger conference opponents) can improve your RPI even if you lose games after playing them.
Take a look at Valpo for example. Every team they beat who has a losing record continues to be a drag on their RPI on an ongoing basis because those weaker teams, and the weaker teams in their conference, simply lose more games as time goes on and these losing records negatively affect Valpo's SOS, which negatively affects their RPI to a large degree . Just a few days ago, Valpo was one place ahead of Green Bay in the official RPI as Green Bay fell below Valpo after having lost a game to Milwaukee. Then Valpo won its game and Green Bay lost its game to Cleveland State. What happened to their RPI after those games? Valpo drops three places to 65 and Green Bay moves up one place to replace Valpo at 62. SOS is 75% of your RPI and when you play KY and teams of that caliber, they stick to (and continually improve) your SOS as the season progresses, even though they beat you and yet their continued winning and playing stronger teams in conference continue to improve your RPI despite what you do, W or L. One's own W-L is only 25% of RPI. Ky and their opponents in their strong conference continue to increase Oakland's RPI whether they win or lose their games and effect their RPI (to a certain degree) more than their own W-L record.
With the GB losses to us and CSU our RPI has inched down as a result of their significant fall. The result should move us almost completely off the bubble if we win out but fall in the championship game. You should never have to go to the NIT with only 5 defeats but----- Will somebody try to cheer me up and convince me I am wrong?
Quote from: justducky on February 23, 2015, 10:06:22 AM
With the GB losses to us and CSU our RPI has inched down as a result of their significant fall. The result should move us almost completely off the bubble if we win out but fall in the championship game. You should never have to go to the NIT with only 5 defeats but----- Will somebody try to cheer me up and convince me I am wrong?
NCAA Sports article from March 10th 2014:
"10 years ago ...
Utah State went 25-3 and did not make the field, the best record for an eligible team ever to fail to get an at-large berth."
http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2014-03-10/do-you-remember-when (http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2014-03-10/do-you-remember-when)
At least we won't feel as screwed-over as Utah State did.
Going back to 2010, the only case I see of less than 6 losses in the NIT is Stephen F Austin at 27-4 in 2013.
If we don't win the game on Tuesday March 10, 2015... we are NIT bound... just like Utah State 11 years ago...
========================================================================
March 14, 2004
LOGAN, Utah - Stew Morrill, Head Coach, Utah State University
General comments on not getting a NCAA Tournament bid:
"Whining is not going to accomplish a whole lot. You win 25 ball games and you go 17-1 in your league and everyone says no matter what you're in, well, no matter what happened, were not in. It really sends a tough message to mid-majors out there. We were nationally ranked for six weeks, won 25 games and went 17-1 in our league and the bottom line is, that you need to win your tournament. I wavered a little last week and said we were in no matter what, trying to be positive, which went against what I have been saying all along that we were a one bid conference. Guess what? We're a one bid conference. If you want to get in the tournament in about 18 leagues around the country you better win your tournament because that is what it is all about. As I told our players, this doesn't diminish the great season that we have had. It doesn't diminish the things we have accomplished, but it is tough. There are a lot of experts out there that seem to know a lot of things, but they don't know, the committee knows. You can't find fault with the guys that got in. There are several teams like us that had chances of getting in and had great seasons. We had a chance of playing our way in, which we have done several times when we haven't won the regular season. When you have benefited from winning the tournament then you have to take the consequences when you don't win the tournament. There is no point in whining. I don't whine well anyway."
Possible NIT bid:
"Hopefully we will have a chance to play again and we will see how we respond. I can't predict how we will respond. Last time we were in this position we didn't respond very well. We were devastated and didn't play worth a dang in the NIT Tournament versus Montana State. It's really hard to predict what's going to happen."
======================
SO... USU got a home game against Hawaii in the first round in the NIT as a consolation prize...
======================
March 17, 2004
LOGAN, Utah - Michael Kuebler scored 28 points to lead a hot-shooting Hawai'I team to a convincing 85-74 road win at 25th-ranked Utah State in the first round of the National Invitational Tournament here Wednesday.
The Rainbow Warriors improved to 20-11, while Utah State fell to 25-4. The loss snapped a 17-game homecourt winning streak for the Aggies, who lost for just the eighth time in their last 92 home games.
The 11-point loss was the biggest home loss in head coach Stew Morrill's six years as well as the largest at the Dee Glen Smith Spectrum since a 19-point loss (60-41) to Utah here in November of 1997.
Spencer Nelson led the Aggies with a career-high 24 points and recorded his fifth double-double of the season with 11 rebounds. Cardell Butler added 15 points, while Mark Brown and Mike Ahmad each chipped in 11 points.
However, Hawaii, shot 61.8 percent from the field, including making eight of 13 three-point attempts for 61.5 percent.
Hawai'I built up a 43-32 lead at halftime and then extended its margin to 18 points at 62-44 with 10:04 left in the game. USU cut the margin to nine at 73-64 with 4:07 left, but Hawai'I pushed the margin back to 15 points en route to the win.
USU, which entered the game shooting 51.1 percent from the field, made just 45.5 percent of its attempts, including just 40.7 percent in the first half.
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 23, 2015, 09:49:00 AM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 23, 2015, 09:24:36 AM
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 23, 2015, 09:21:38 AM
Quote from: chef on February 22, 2015, 11:49:20 PM
What really hurts Valpo's RPI this year, more than any other season is the poor records by everyone except Green Bay in the non-conference. UWM a .500 team in the league, was 3-9 in the non-conference, and their current RPI is 229. Oakland a title contender all year had a 3-10 non-conference record. Since 50% of the RPI is your opponent's record, it's so hard to move your RPI once league play begins. Additionally, the league's RPI has dropped from 13 to 16 simply by playing each other. Oakland's non-conference scheduling really hurts the league RPI (not that they care).
Could you please explain how Oakland's strong out of conference schedule hurts the Horizon League's RPI? I would think if it helps Oakland's RPI (which it certainly does), that everyone who plays Oakland in the conference is blessed with those top team's records and is part of their own RPI, more specifically their SOS, since it is weighted 75% to a team's opponents record and their opponent's opponents record. It seems to me that when any team in the HL plays, say, KY, win or lose, their SOS will improve over time and so will the teams in the HL who plays against that team who played against KY. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Quote from: oklahomamick on February 23, 2015, 09:19:30 AM
What's the reasoning behind it? I know this has been beaten to death. If all teams can get on the same page as far as scheduling.
Part of RPI your opponent's winning percentage. If Oakland had scheduled more winnable games, and not gone 3-10 in the OOC, our RPI would be improved twofold. They would have a better RPI with more Ws and we would have a better one because their win% was higher. That 3-10 is killing the conference RPI right now because they are a moderately good team who could have been 7-6 or better with a schedule similar Wright State's.
The fact that Oakland lost to these better teams is not relevant to SOS, a major part of RPI. Even though Oakland lost those games against strong opponents, their RPI is disproportionately helped more by their opponents (and opponents opponents) winning record than their own W-L record. In fact, Oakland's RPI can move up at a faster rate than Valpo's RPI (all things being equal) even though Oakland or Valpo hasn't played any games during that time period in which the increase/decrease in RPI is calculated. Looking solely at the SOS of your opponent and their winning record (and the winning record and SOS of their stronger conference opponents) can improve your RPI even if you lose games after playing them.
Take a look at Valpo for example. Every team they beat who has a losing record continues to be a drag on their RPI on an ongoing basis because those weaker teams, and the weaker teams in their conference, simply lose more games as time goes on and these losing records negatively affect Valpo's SOS, which negatively affects their RPI to a large degree . Just a few days ago, Valpo was one place ahead of Green Bay in the official RPI as Green Bay fell below Valpo after having lost a game to Milwaukee. Then Valpo won its game and Green Bay lost its game to Cleveland State. What happened to their RPI after those games? Valpo drops three places to 65 and Green Bay moves up one place to replace Valpo at 62. SOS is 75% of your RPI and when you play KY and teams of that caliber, they stick to (and continually improve) your SOS as the season progresses, even though they beat you and yet their continued winning and playing stronger teams in conference continue to improve your RPI despite what you do, W or L. One's own W-L is only 25% of RPI. Ky and their opponents in their strong conference continue to increase Oakland's RPI whether they win or lose their games and effect their RPI (to a certain degree) more than their own W-L record.
You're half true. Your last sentence isn't true at all. Oakland's OOC RPI has actually decreased and projects to decrease to 205 from here on out. Also conference opponents are much more valuable to your RPI (you play them twice) than a strong OOC opponent. Scheduling strong OOC opponents on the road actually helps your RPI even if you lose... BUT, if you lose 10 OOC games because 6 of them are unwinnable, well you're poor winning percentage hurts your RPI and the whole conference. Oakland's 200 OOC RPI isn't helping the league at all.
If Oakland scheduled games against say Bucknell and Akron, their RPI would be 7-8 spots lower, and they'd actually be above .500, and even if their RPI was the same with two wins over bad opponents the W-L record would help conference opponents because opponents W-L record accounts for more (50%) than opponent's opponents W-L record (25%). So having an 200 RPI team with an 7-6 team is better for the conference than a 200 RPI team with a 3-10 record.
But having a weak OOC schedule is reckless because most teams are bound to drop a couple bad road games. Valpo has gotten away with it because they've won so many games. They're certainly not hurting the conference. Like chef said, the amount of teams with losing records is what's dragging the top teams down.
Can a team with a record of 13-14 have a better RPI than a team with a record of 17-5? If so, why is that?
For Example... from the "Real Time" version of the RPI... this is through Noon Saturday....
77 Florida 13-14 0.5547 7 0.5944 Sec 6-8
78 Wyoming 19-6 0.5530 210 0.4780 Mwest 10-4
79 Georgia St. 17-8 0.5515 177 0.4892 Sbelt 3-3
80 UC Davis 18-4 0.5504 318 0.4397 Bigw 10-1
Quote from: talksalot on February 23, 2015, 03:05:05 PM
For Example... from the "Real Time" version of the RPI... this is through Noon Saturday....
77 Florida 13-14 0.5547 7 0.5944 Sec 6-8
78 Wyoming 19-6 0.5530 210 0.4780 Mwest 10-4
79 Georgia St. 17-8 0.5515 177 0.4892 Sbelt 3-3
80 UC Davis 18-4 0.5504 318 0.4397 Bigw 10-1
Why does the 13-14 team have a higher RPI than the 18-4 team?
Florida has played the 7th toughest schedule... UC Davis has played the 318th toughest Strength of Schedule.
If there was no consideration for "SOS"... Chicago State, Florida A&M and Liberty would be playing a schedule full of SEC, ACC and Big Ten games... !~!
Consider: #339 San Jose State... 0-23... worst W/L record... has 12 teams ranked below them... including #340 Jacksonville who is 6-19.
Quote from: talksalot on February 23, 2015, 03:16:26 PM
Florida has played the 7th toughest schedule... UC Davis has played the 318th toughest Strength of Schedule.
If there was no consideration for "SOS"... Chicago State, Florida A&M and Liberty would be playing a schedule full of SEC, ACC and Big Ten games... !~!
Consider: #339 San Jose State... 0-23... worst W/L record... has 12 teams ranked below them... including #340 Jacksonville who is 6-19.
Exactly, a team's SOS increases the team's RPI over time because the weaker team with the better record has a weaker SOS and over time their opponents drag their RPI down. Thus my point which is that the tougher your schedule, your RPI will improve over time. We see this when we don't play any games at all but the next day we look at the RPI and we've dropped. Why? Because the weaker teams we have played keep losing and that affect our RPI through the SOS. If we look to the rank of strength of schedule within the Horizon League, we find:
Total SOS Rank
1. Oakland 109
2. Wright St. 117
3. Milwaukee 126
4. Detroit 140
5. Green Bay 143
6. UIC 148
7. Cleveland St. 168
8. Youngstown St. 190
9. Valparaiso 292
(Source 2/23/2015): http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi/_/groupId/45 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi/_/groupId/45)
I am arguing that our RPI can be boosted without our even playing a game if certain teams beat other teams. If you go to the Palm Reader every day on days we don't play, Jerry Palm (CBS) lists the teams that need to win in order for our RPI to improve. If they lose, our RPI goes the other way. That's the math of RPI. The teams you have played in the past continue daily to affect your RPI whether you win, lose, or don't play at all. Now how much can your RPI increase/decrease is another question, but it is irrefutable that a team's RPI will be increased or decreased by mathematical formula every time one of your previous opponents plays a game. Whether there are enough games played by previous opponents and if the opponents win the games that Palm says will boost your RPI will overcome a loss by your team is uncertain, but it could happen. As I've said before, Valpo won, Green Bay lost and yet the next day Green Bay jumped Valpo's RPI and Valpo actually fell 3 places. This proves my point.
I would argue that the teams with the best SOS, both in and out of conference (Oakland's out of conference SOS is nationally 27the place, Valpo's is 264), whether you beat those teams or not when you played them, will have their RPI improved
over time on a day-to-day basis more than those teams with lower SOS because those stronger teams who were your opponents will win more games than lose them over time, which will boost your team's RPI even if they beat you when you played them. Take a look at Palm Reader and list the teams that must win in order for Valpo to have its RPI boosted. I've watched that list, sometimes it's just one or two teams, other times, it's six or more and when you look at the probability of Valpo's opponents winning, (see Pomeroy's work on win probability of every team) most of them are expected to lose, while more of Oakland's opponents who must win in order to boost Oakland's RPI are expected to win. It follows that Oakland's RPI is not hurting the conference when viewed over time. I argue just the opposite. You can't change an out of conference record that Oakland has of 3-10, but if Oakland never played another game after that, their RPI would increase over time and be greater than their RPI right after those games were played because the teams that beat them keep winning. And the math is that 75% of a team's RPI is dependent not on that team's own W-L record, but on your opponents W-L record and their opponents W-L record.
The math is the math.
Let's say you're 2-1. In one scenario, the teams you've played are all 2-1, and their opponents are all 1-2. In the other, flip-flop it - all your opponents are 1-2, but their opponents are all 2-1.
In scenario A, your RPI is .5835 (1/4 your .667 win pct., 1/2 your opponents' .667 win pct., 1/4 your opponents' opponents' .333 win pct.)
In scenario B, your RPI is .500 (1/4 your .667 win pct., 1/2 your opponents' .333 win pct., 1/4 your opponents' opponents' .667 win pct.)
Ergo, you want your opponents to have better records, regardless of what level of team they've been playing.
Quote from: a3uge on February 23, 2015, 12:14:52 PM
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 23, 2015, 09:49:00 AM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 23, 2015, 09:24:36 AM
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 23, 2015, 09:21:38 AM
Quote from: chef on February 22, 2015, 11:49:20 PM
What really hurts Valpo's RPI this year, more than any other season is the poor records by everyone except Green Bay in the non-conference. UWM a .500 team in the league, was 3-9 in the non-conference, and their current RPI is 229. Oakland a title contender all year had a 3-10 non-conference record. Since 50% of the RPI is your opponent's record, it's so hard to move your RPI once league play begins. Additionally, the league's RPI has dropped from 13 to 16 simply by playing each other. Oakland's non-conference scheduling really hurts the league RPI (not that they care).
Could you please explain how Oakland's strong out of conference schedule hurts the Horizon League's RPI? I would think if it helps Oakland's RPI (which it certainly does), that everyone who plays Oakland in the conference is blessed with those top team's records and is part of their own RPI, more specifically their SOS, since it is weighted 75% to a team's opponents record and their opponent's opponents record. It seems to me that when any team in the HL plays, say, KY, win or lose, their SOS will improve over time and so will the teams in the HL who plays against that team who played against KY. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Quote from: oklahomamick on February 23, 2015, 09:19:30 AM
What's the reasoning behind it? I know this has been beaten to death. If all teams can get on the same page as far as scheduling.
Part of RPI your opponent's winning percentage. If Oakland had scheduled more winnable games, and not gone 3-10 in the OOC, our RPI would be improved twofold. They would have a better RPI with more Ws and we would have a better one because their win% was higher. That 3-10 is killing the conference RPI right now because they are a moderately good team who could have been 7-6 or better with a schedule similar Wright State's.
The fact that Oakland lost to these better teams is not relevant to SOS, a major part of RPI. Even though Oakland lost those games against strong opponents, their RPI is disproportionately helped more by their opponents (and opponents opponents) winning record than their own W-L record. In fact, Oakland's RPI can move up at a faster rate than Valpo's RPI (all things being equal) even though Oakland or Valpo hasn't played any games during that time period in which the increase/decrease in RPI is calculated. Looking solely at the SOS of your opponent and their winning record (and the winning record and SOS of their stronger conference opponents) can improve your RPI even if you lose games after playing them.
Take a look at Valpo for example. Every team they beat who has a losing record continues to be a drag on their RPI on an ongoing basis because those weaker teams, and the weaker teams in their conference, simply lose more games as time goes on and these losing records negatively affect Valpo's SOS, which negatively affects their RPI to a large degree . Just a few days ago, Valpo was one place ahead of Green Bay in the official RPI as Green Bay fell below Valpo after having lost a game to Milwaukee. Then Valpo won its game and Green Bay lost its game to Cleveland State. What happened to their RPI after those games? Valpo drops three places to 65 and Green Bay moves up one place to replace Valpo at 62. SOS is 75% of your RPI and when you play KY and teams of that caliber, they stick to (and continually improve) your SOS as the season progresses, even though they beat you and yet their continued winning and playing stronger teams in conference continue to improve your RPI despite what you do, W or L. One's own W-L is only 25% of RPI. Ky and their opponents in their strong conference continue to increase Oakland's RPI whether they win or lose their games and effect their RPI (to a certain degree) more than their own W-L record.
You're half true. Your last sentence isn't true at all. Oakland's OOC RPI has actually decreased and projects to decrease to 205 from here on out. Also conference opponents are much more valuable to your RPI (you play them twice) than a strong OOC opponent. Scheduling strong OOC opponents on the road actually helps your RPI even if you lose... BUT, if you lose 10 OOC games because 6 of them are unwinnable, well you're poor winning percentage hurts your RPI and the whole conference. Oakland's 200 OOC RPI isn't helping the league at all.
If Oakland scheduled games against say Bucknell and Akron, their RPI would be 7-8 spots lower, and they'd actually be above .500, and even if their RPI was the same with two wins over bad opponents the W-L record would help conference opponents because opponents W-L record accounts for more (50%) than opponent's opponents W-L record (25%). So having an 200 RPI team with an 7-6 team is better for the conference than a 200 RPI team with a 3-10 record.
But having a weak OOC schedule is reckless because most teams are bound to drop a couple bad road games. Valpo has gotten away with it because they've won so many games. They're certainly not hurting the conference. Like chef said, the amount of teams with losing records is what's dragging the top teams down.
I'm proud of you, a3uge. :thumbsup:
I'm proud of you, a3uge. :thumbsup:
He didn't refute my argument though.
Quote from: vusupporter on February 23, 2015, 04:07:26 PM
Let's say you're 2-1. In one scenario, the teams you've played are all 2-1, and their opponents are all 1-2. In the other, flip-flop it - all your opponents are 1-2, but their opponents are all 2-1.
In scenario A, your RPI is .5835 (1/4 your .667 win pct., 1/2 your opponents' .667 win pct., 1/4 your opponents' opponents' .333 win pct.)
In scenario B, your RPI is .500 (1/4 your .667 win pct., 1/2 your opponents' .333 win pct., 1/4 your opponents' opponents' .667 win pct.)
Ergo, you want your opponents to have better records, regardless of what level of team they've been playing.
Not going to lie, I don't care who our conference opponents play if they win their OOC games at a 66% clip. If you extrapolated Supporter's hypothetical and applied our 22-4 record to it our RPI would be 0.711 and good for #1 in the country. That's obviously silly
The issue I have with RPI is it rewards mediocrity in the big conferences. They can sit back schedule 10-12 home OOC games win all of them play mediocre .500 ball in conference (winning record at home with a so called upset of a top-4 team in their conference on its home court) and have RPI's that put them on the bubble. Oh Florida (substitute Indiana or some middling Big 12 team) beat so and so (usually only at home, see WVA) so they deserve to be in. Those teams shouldn't be rewarded with their mediocrity.
Mid-majors aren't afforded that because if they schedule 10-12 OOC winnable games at home or away, go 10-2 or 12-0 and then go 12-4 or 13-3 or 14-2 in conference, play way over .500 on the road and lose in their tourney, suddenly they go careening off the bubble. The question I've asked is who deserves the bid. But the Committee claims blind resumes. Well, 24-4 or whatever to me is a better resume than 18-10 most days. I will say it has been better since they added the play-in games (68) as that has allowed the mid-major who has had the very successful season but slips up in their tourney and also the power conference team both a shot to win and be in, usually against each other (see VCU).
Teams like Oakland play a very similar schedule to teams in the ACC, Big 10, PAC12, etc. EXCEPT IT IS REVERSED. Instead of playing their easier opponents at the beginning of the season like the high majors, they play their easier opponents during the conference season. Vice Versa... High majors play most of their "hard" games during conference where as teams like Oakland play them at the beginning of the year.
On the surface, and as far as SOS is concerned, it would look like Oakland is doing a good thing by "scheduling like a high major - in reverse". However, it is not the same, because the same chances of winning do not exist. It is an illusion of sameness...Why?
1. Oakland has to go on the road for ALL of their "hard" games early in the season; where as high majors enjoy a nice 50/50 balance during their "hard" conference season.
2. No matter how good a mid-major is, they are going to lose a couple of conference games, because winning in conference, especially on the road, is HARD (no matter how big or small the conference is). Thus, Maryland playing 8 straight home games at the beginning of the season during the "easy" portion of their season can not be compared to the conference season of mid-major.
Everyone wants to hold mid-majors to the same standard as high majors, but you simply can't do that, because mid-majors have no scheduling power.
The NCAA needs scheduling bylaws. If this gets rid of "pay games" then so be it. In my estimation, there are about 100 schools in this country that shouldn't be playing D1 basketball anyway! If you cant afford to run your program without pay money from major programs, move to D2 or D3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Figured I'd throw this into the RPI mix:
Our most meaningful game in a positive sense was against Murray St. at a "weight" of 1.55
Our most meaningless game was the loss to New Mexico, which is weighted at exactly 0.
Our most meaningful game in a negative sense was being Maine at a weight of -1.48.
Got these stats from RPI forecast. For as much as we bash our OOC schedule. It's pretty clear league games hamper our potential RPI more than anything else. The only team really worth anything RPI wise is Green Bay. The Cleveland State win isn't even worth as much as beating Eastern Kentucky or James Madison. The bottom half of our league is pretty bad. Even Oakland and CSU fighting for the 2 seed lost games against a couple MAC opponents, a conference we are trying to compete with for respect. And we went 4-10 against them. If the rest of our conference doesn't pick it up, we're going to see more of the same every season even if we do improve our OOC schedule.
I love this kind of debate. It is educating all of us as well as venting some long held frustrations.
Quote from: valpo84 on February 23, 2015, 05:55:37 PMThe issue I have with RPI is it rewards mediocrity in the big conferences. They can sit back schedule 10-12 home OOC games win all of them play mediocre .500 ball in conference (winning record at home with a so called upset of a top-4 team in their conference on its home court) and have RPI's that put them on the bubble. Oh Florida (substitute Indiana or some middling Big 12 team) beat so and so (usually only at home, see WVA) so they deserve to be in. Those teams shouldn't be rewarded with their mediocrity.
As an open question--- How were the BIG conferences able to recognize, design then implement successful OOC scheduling tactics 15 years before most of us clueless mid-major participants were aware that maybe we should be gaming the system as well? As I see it we are now so far behind that regaining lost ground is almost hopeless without some unity among mid major programs and conferences.
Another factor justducky is money. The Power conferences have to have home dates to generate revenues for their arenas and programs. But, they need to make all those rich alumni happy in the lower bowls by winning games at home. The gaming was inherent in that system because OOC records start off so well, throw in a nice TV game here and there and then launch into conference season thinking you're a strong club because you're 12-1 with 1-1 against 2 power teams. The middle of the big Least in the old days mastered this. Frankly, Valpo's OOC schedule was pretty good for that as it had us 12-2. Unfortunately the rest of HL did similarly schedule or carry through. If Oakland had schedule similarly and been 10-4, eg, in OOC and now 10-4, that 20-8 would look real good in our RPI. The same would be true of GB and CSU. YSU and UIC would actually help by playing and winning a bunch of 200-250 teams so their OOC RPI would be higher to start conference. Look bad teams are going to hamper RPI no matter what. It's like the old Mid-Con/Summit days. Again this argues for moving to Big Least or A-10.
Quote from: valpo84 on February 23, 2015, 08:39:52 PM
Another factor justducky is money. The Power conferences have to have home dates to generate revenues for their arenas and programs. But, they need to make all those rich alumni happy in the lower bowls by winning games at home. The gaming was inherent in that system because OOC records start off so well, throw in a nice TV game here and there and then launch into conference season thinking you're a strong club because you're 12-1 with 1-1 against 2 power teams. The middle of the big Least in the old days mastered this. Frankly, Valpo's OOC schedule was pretty good for that as it had us 12-2. Unfortunately the rest of HL did similarly schedule or carry through. If Oakland had schedule similarly and been 10-4, eg, in OOC and now 10-4, that 20-8 would look real good in our RPI. The same would be true of GB and CSU. YSU and UIC would actually help by playing and winning a bunch of 200-250 teams so their OOC RPI would be higher to start conference. Look bad teams are going to hamper RPI no matter what. It's like the old Mid-Con/Summit days. Again this argues for moving to Big Least or A-10.
If all of the mid-majors and low-majors banded together and signed a pact to never sign any contract without some sort of home and away element, whether it be a 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, or 4-1, what do you think would happen? Would the high majors cave after a few years and start accepting home and away contracts (in the forms listed above), or would the power conferences try to cut all the mid and low-majors out completely and lobby the NCAA to exclude them from the NCAA tournament for their insolence?
Quote from: SanityLost17 on February 23, 2015, 08:51:58 PM
Quote from: valpo84 on February 23, 2015, 08:39:52 PM
Another factor justducky is money. The Power conferences have to have home dates to generate revenues for their arenas and programs. But, they need to make all those rich alumni happy in the lower bowls by winning games at home. The gaming was inherent in that system because OOC records start off so well, throw in a nice TV game here and there and then launch into conference season thinking you're a strong club because you're 12-1 with 1-1 against 2 power teams. The middle of the big Least in the old days mastered this. Frankly, Valpo's OOC schedule was pretty good for that as it had us 12-2. Unfortunately the rest of HL did similarly schedule or carry through. If Oakland had schedule similarly and been 10-4, eg, in OOC and now 10-4, that 20-8 would look real good in our RPI. The same would be true of GB and CSU. YSU and UIC would actually help by playing and winning a bunch of 200-250 teams so their OOC RPI would be higher to start conference. Look bad teams are going to hamper RPI no matter what. It's like the old Mid-Con/Summit days. Again this argues for moving to Big Least or A-10.
If all of the mid-majors and low-majors banded together and signed a pact to never sign any contract without some sort of home and away element, whether it be a 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, or 4-1, what do you think would happen? Would the high majors cave after a few years and start accepting home and away contracts (in the forms listed above), or would the power conferences try to cut all the mid and low-majors out completely and lobby the NCAA to exclude them from the NCAA tournament for their insolence?
If banding together at the mid major level has even the remotest potential to disrupt the ability to earn large football body bag game payouts in any way shape or form, it is doubtful that this would ever occur, IMO. Not all mid majors are equal in this analysis when it comes to prioritization because not all mid majors are "basketball" schools.
Straight away, commandeering 2 or 3 for 1's from the high majors might look great on paper for schools like Valpo where basketball is the major asset. But the same scenario might not look so good to a Georgia Southern, New Mexico State, or an Idaho if such actions have the ability to jeopardize football revenues. Fellow mid major FIU is getting $1M to come to Bloomington and play IU next fall. You think FIU is going to want to jeopardize the potential returns on their football assets for the sake of the greater good of mid major basketball scheduling if such actions disrupt P5 football payouts?
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 23, 2015, 04:17:18 PMWhen it comes to RPI, there is no need anymore to wait for the weekly official NCAA number. They publish it on a daily basis.
One note of interest since last night's game won by Cleveland State is that Valpo jumped Green Bay by one place in the official RPI.
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 23, 2015, 04:17:18 PM
I'm proud of you, a3uge. :thumbsup:
He didn't refute my argument though.
I'm not entirely sure what your argument even is. Oakland's schedule netted them a 200 RPI OOC. And they're actually a decent team. Decent teams that net a 200 RPI OOC aren't scheduling correctly. Last year, Wright State had a non conference SOS of 340. They finished 8-8 OOC so obviously that approach didn't work either. Neither approach is healthy. Valpo's schedule OOC this year could have turned out to be disastrous, but considering Valpo's projected as a 12 seed, I don't think anyone from the conference has a right to complain. I have argued countless times that scheduling a couple of top teams on the road, although completely ridiculous and unfair, is necessary to game RPI and help SOS. You're saying this and I'm agreeing with you. But, scheduling too many tough games as to where you finish your OOC portion under .500 is terrible for everyone involved. I don't know how anyone can conceivably argue that. If Oakland STILL isn't above .500 and only have 4 conference losses.
I think I get where you're coming from with the argument that if you schedule all these top teams, you can just sit and watch your RPI decrease like magic without playing any games. Oakland's RPI was 205 in their non-con and now estimates to 195 with HL teams ripped out. But that's still terrible and it doesn't always work like that. Teams with top 10 OOC RPI's like Northwestern St. and UC Santa Barbara actually project to a worse RPI throughout the year with their schedules, so I'm not convinced this is completely legitimate.
Instead of all this hand-wringing over the big schools that refuse to play us, why not play as many of our non-conference games against other mid-majors as we can? Belmont, Murray State, Drake, Evansville, Iona, Akron, Florida Gulf Coast, Western Michigan, Toledo and Bradley are just a few of the schools that come to mind. Wouldn't these schools be better than some of the weaker opponents on this year's schedule?
Paul
Quote from: oklahomamick on February 23, 2015, 07:01:34 AM
The Oakland fans don't care, but I thought LeCrone made a point when they were accepted that they must change their occ philosophy. I also thought he made an exception with the size of their bball stadium. If they were to host, the HL would lose a little money because ticket sells wouldn't be as much.
Kampe himself made a statement that he would back off scheduling the big conference schools when it was announced that Oakland would be joining the HL. Kampe backed off that statement because he said the players really wanted those games against the big conference teams and his AD really liked the money the school was earning from those games. If you can't read between the lines, the AD said "Greg, we can't stop getting those checks. We can't pay for the other sports without them." It truly is all about the money in the suburban area of Oakland County, MI. Kampe doesn't have the backbone to say "no" to his AD and players.
The thing is, it's going to be hard for Oakland to maintain this type of schedule if they ever become a decent mid major. These teams don't want to risk a home 50-100 rpi loss to a mid major when they can take their pick of guaranteed wins.
Oakland actually is a very good team. They've beaten Valpo, Green Bay, Cleveland State and nearly won at Pitt. They'll always be able to find majors to play them for the right price.
Oh, and they'll never be a top 50 rpi scheduling like this. They'll be 3-10 every year in the non-conference no matter how good they get. Horizon League teams don't win at Iowa State, Michigan State, Maryland, and Arizona. It just doesn't happen and it never will.
Quote from: 78crusader on February 23, 2015, 10:47:26 PMInstead of all this hand-wringing over the big schools that refuse to play us, why not play as many of our non-conference games against other mid-majors as we can? Belmont, Murray State, Drake, Evansville, Iona, Akron, Florida Gulf Coast, Western Michigan, Toledo and Bradley are just a few of the schools that come to mind. Wouldn't these schools be better than some of the weaker opponents on this year's schedule?
Absolutely, but setting up enough equivalent mid majors in advance for home and homes (weekends?) is tricky and travel intensive. The 3 and 4 team associations i suggested on the Exempt Tournament thread could give us 2 or 3 quality games on a long weekend instead of the piecemeal, fill in the blanks approach which always leaves us with scheduling gaps requiring less than optimal choices. Just my opinion. :(
Quote from: chef on February 23, 2015, 11:40:05 PM
Oh, and they'll never be a top 50 rpi scheduling like this. They'll be 3-10 every year in the non-conference no matter how good they get. Horizon League teams don't win at Iowa State, Michigan State, Maryland, and Arizona. It just doesn't happen and it never will.
Not on the road. However, I do believe this can be done at a neutral court site. Think our past games at Kansas and Wisconsin. 2 very close games, I don't remember the exact years, that we no doubt would have won had those games not been true road games. All HL teams need to start scheduling tough mid-major opponents and paying big money to get in tournaments that give them big opponents on neutral courts. We have several teams that could do damage with a schedule like that.
Oakland plays at these large arenas to pick up big checks. It's unlikely anybody in the league will be playing these teams on a neutral court much. It will happen occasionally in a tournament, but not very often, especially with Oakland.
Thanks Chef just had a Falu Arizona game flashback!! See you Friday night!!
Quote from: SanityLost17 on February 24, 2015, 08:21:56 AMNot on the road. However, I do believe this can be done at a neutral court site.
Here are your choices of 'neutral' courts: Kansas City for Kansas; Fieldhouse in Indy for IU or Purdue; Charlotte for UNC or Duke; etc. These are the choices you'd get if you tried to schedule the bigs on a neutral court in the OOC schedule. They would be trying to get alumni in those areas a chance to see their team. Not really neutral.
Quote from: 78crusader on February 23, 2015, 10:47:26 PM
Instead of all this hand-wringing over the big schools that refuse to play us, why not play as many of our non-conference games against other mid-majors as we can? Belmont, Murray State, Drake, Evansville, Iona, Akron, Florida Gulf Coast, Western Michigan, Toledo and Bradley are just a few of the schools that come to mind. Wouldn't these schools be better than some of the weaker opponents on this year's schedule?
Paul
I might add ETSU, Portland, IPFW, E. Kentucky, Ball St., and James Madison (all from this year's schedule) - but the trouble has always been 'getting' them scheduled. I realize that with holidays and finals getting teams that fit onto the calendar can be difficult. For that reason I can see having one less than Division I team on the schedule, especially around finals. Three is too many. With the team that is expected back, we might need to schedule one or two away games with no expectation of a return game. Or we could offer a return game sometime in the next two seasons at the United Center (for Illinois, IU, Purdue, Michigan St., ND, etc).
Other than having three less than Division I home games, I really think this year's OOC schedule was OK - Missouri, New Mexico at home, ETSU, Murray St., Portland, E. Kentucky, IPFW and James Madison were all good opponents.
This may have been mentioned elsewhere, but speaking of bracketology, Valpo is a 12 seed playing 5 seed Arkansas. If they win, they play the winner of Baylor (4) and Murray State (13), all according to Jerry Palm:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology)
Now Valpo/Baylor would be an exciting game to watch for many reasons.
Quote from: chef on February 23, 2015, 11:36:02 PM
Oakland actually is a very good team. They've beaten Valpo, Green Bay, Cleveland State and nearly won at Pitt. They'll always be able to find majors to play them for the right price.
But if they were good enough to upset these teams on the road, these schools wouldn't schedule them. There's just little incentive for major programs to schedule decent mid majors when they can schedule a top 10 team at home or on the road. They don't have to worry about SOS or RPI and can just schedule wins against .500 mid major teams.
Quote from: valpo84 on February 24, 2015, 09:15:26 AM
Thanks Chef just had a Falu Arizona game flashback!! See you Friday night!!
thanks for sparking the inspiration
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 24, 2015, 12:05:01 PM
This may have been mentioned elsewhere, but speaking of bracketology, Valpo is a 12 seed playing 5 seed Arkansas. If they win, they play the winner of Baylor (4) and Murray State (13), all according to Jerry Palm:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology)
Now Valpo/Baylor would be an exciting game to watch for many reasons.
I'd definitely take that bracket! I could get behind a Murray St rematch, as well.
Palm Reader Games for Today that could boost Valpo's RPI:
Ball State needs to beat Western Michigan. Pomeroy's probability that Ball State will win: 42%
Missouri needs to beat Florida. Probability of this: 22%
New Mexico must beat Boise State: Probability: 16%
Likely effect on Valpo's RPI = down, but it may or may not result in Valpo moving from its current place of 64.
=============================================
Oakland's RPI will be boosted if:
Maryland over Wisconsin
Probability: 29%
Eastern Michigan over Central Michigan
Probability 52%
Toledo over Northern Illinois
Probability 88%
Western Michigan over Ball State
Probability 58%
Pitt over Boston College
Probability 83%
Likely outcome is that Oakland's RPI will increase but maybe not enough to move up. (Current 134)
=====================================
Which team, if the probabilities play out, will drag down the Horizon League's RPI today? Valpo, not Oakland (who has an out of conference W-L of 3-10) -
which had nothing to do with their expected increase in RPI. Why? SOS, regardless of whether they won or lost against those stronger teams.
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 24, 2015, 06:25:55 PM
Palm Reader Games for Today that could boost Valpo's RPI:
Ball State needs to beat Western Michigan. Pomeroy's probability that Ball State will win: 42%
Missouri needs to beat Florida. Probability of this: 22%
New Mexico must beat Boise State: Probability: 16%
Likely effect on Valpo's RPI = down, but it may or may not result in Valpo moving from its current place of 64.
=============================================
Oakland's RPI will be boosted if:
Maryland over Wisconsin
Probability: 29%
Eastern Michigan over Central Michigan
Probability 52%
Toledo over Northern Illinois
Probability 88%
Western Michigan over Ball State
Probability 58%
Pitt over Boston College
Probability 83%
Likely outcome is that Oakland's RPI will increase.
=====================================
Which team, if the probabilities play out, will drag down the Horizon League's RPI today? Valpo, not Oakland (who has an out of conference W-L of 3-10) -
which had nothing to do with their expected increase in RPI. Why? SOS, regardless of whether they won or lost against those stronger teams.
Yes, the team with the best projected RPI is dragging down the conference's RPI, not the team that's under .500 with an OOC RPI around 200. But thank god they lost all those games so their OOC RPI can go from 200 to 195. Well worth it. Thanks Oakland for keeping the conference afloat.
Quote from: a3uge on February 24, 2015, 06:33:18 PM
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 24, 2015, 06:25:55 PM
Palm Reader Games for Today that could boost Valpo's RPI:
Ball State needs to beat Western Michigan. Pomeroy's probability that Ball State will win: 42%
Missouri needs to beat Florida. Probability of this: 22%
New Mexico must beat Boise State: Probability: 16%
Likely effect on Valpo's RPI = down, but it may or may not result in Valpo moving from its current place of 64.
=============================================
Oakland's RPI will be boosted if:
Maryland over Wisconsin
Probability: 29%
Eastern Michigan over Central Michigan
Probability 52%
Toledo over Northern Illinois
Probability 88%
Western Michigan over Ball State
Probability 58%
Pitt over Boston College
Probability 83%
Likely outcome is that Oakland's RPI will increase.
=====================================
Which team, if the probabilities play out, will drag down the Horizon League's RPI today? Valpo, not Oakland (who has an out of conference W-L of 3-10) -
which had nothing to do with their expected increase in RPI. Why? SOS, regardless of whether they won or lost against those stronger teams.
Yes, the team with the best projected RPI is dragging down the conference's RPI, not the team that's under .500 with an OOC RPI around 200. But thank god they lost all those games so their OOC RPI can go from 200 to 195. Well worth it. Thanks Oakland for keeping the conference afloat.
Don't give Oakland too much credit. ESPN has their OOC RPI at 270. Good thing they have an OOC SOS of 26 though. That's helping the conference so much...
How long has this RPI conversation dragged on? Anyone else not care?
Quote from: a3uge on February 24, 2015, 06:33:18 PM
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 24, 2015, 06:25:55 PM
Palm Reader Games for Today that could boost Valpo's RPI:
Ball State needs to beat Western Michigan. Pomeroy's probability that Ball State will win: 42%
Missouri needs to beat Florida. Probability of this: 22%
New Mexico must beat Boise State: Probability: 16%
Likely effect on Valpo's RPI = down, but it may or may not result in Valpo moving from its current place of 64.
=============================================
Oakland's RPI will be boosted if:
Maryland over Wisconsin
Probability: 29%
Eastern Michigan over Central Michigan
Probability 52%
Toledo over Northern Illinois
Probability 88%
Western Michigan over Ball State
Probability 58%
Pitt over Boston College
Probability 83%
Likely outcome is that Oakland's RPI will increase.
=====================================
Which team, if the probabilities play out, will drag down the Horizon League's RPI today? Valpo, not Oakland (who has an out of conference W-L of 3-10) -
which had nothing to do with their expected increase in RPI. Why? SOS, regardless of whether they won or lost against those stronger teams.
Yes, the team with the best projected RPI is dragging down the conference's RPI, not the team that's under .500 with an OOC RPI around 200. But thank god they lost all those games so their OOC RPI can go from 200 to 195. Well worth it. Thanks Oakland for keeping the conference afloat.
Your comment is divorced from reality. You continue to be stubborn when you should concede the argument. Exaggeration and sarcasm is a weak way to argue.
Quote from: valpo4life on February 24, 2015, 06:46:07 PM
Quote from: a3uge on February 24, 2015, 06:33:18 PM
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 24, 2015, 06:25:55 PM
Palm Reader Games for Today that could boost Valpo's RPI:
Ball State needs to beat Western Michigan. Pomeroy's probability that Ball State will win: 42%
Missouri needs to beat Florida. Probability of this: 22%
New Mexico must beat Boise State: Probability: 16%
Likely effect on Valpo's RPI = down, but it may or may not result in Valpo moving from its current place of 64.
=============================================
Oakland's RPI will be boosted if:
Maryland over Wisconsin
Probability: 29%
Eastern Michigan over Central Michigan
Probability 52%
Toledo over Northern Illinois
Probability 88%
Western Michigan over Ball State
Probability 58%
Pitt over Boston College
Probability 83%
Likely outcome is that Oakland's RPI will increase.
=====================================
Which team, if the probabilities play out, will drag down the Horizon League's RPI today? Valpo, not Oakland (who has an out of conference W-L of 3-10) -
which had nothing to do with their expected increase in RPI. Why? SOS, regardless of whether they won or lost against those stronger teams.
Yes, the team with the best projected RPI is dragging down the conference's RPI, not the team that's under .500 with an OOC RPI around 200. But thank god they lost all those games so their OOC RPI can go from 200 to 195. Well worth it. Thanks Oakland for keeping the conference afloat.
Don't give Oakland too much credit. ESPN has their OOC RPI at 270. Good thing they have an OOC SOS of 26 though. That's helping the conference so much...
Currently it is because of their horrible record OOC, but that doesn't stop their RPI from going up every time one of those strong teams that beat them play and win.
Okay, let's do some 'math is math' to find out why Oakland's scheduling is actually hurting US. Let's replace Oakland with a couple teams that have more wins, but worse RPIs. Let's say Belmont. Not because they'd be a good addition to the Horizon, but because they fit the criteria.
Belmont
Expected RPI: 141.1
Current RPI: 136
Expected SOS: 276
Current SOS: 245
Current Record: 17-10
Expected Record: 18-10
Current Conf Record: 10-5
Expected Conf Record: 11-5
Current OOC Record: 7-5
Expected OOC RPI: 140
Expected OOC SOS: 219
Now look at oakland
Oakland
Conference: Horz
Expected RPI: 133.6
Current RPI: 134
Expected SOS: 107
Current SOS: 108
Current Record: 13-14
Expected Record: 14-15
Current Conf Record: 10-4
Expected Conf Record: 11-5
Current OOC Record: 3-10
Expected OOC RPI: 194
Expected OOC SOS: 22
219 vs 22 OOC SOS? Ouch. 2 RPI spots below Oakland... you'd assume with Oakland's better expected RPI, better RPI, and better SOS they'd be better for the conference than someone with more wins like Belmont, right?
Not at all. RPI doesn't care about team's individual RPIs, it cares about opponent's W/L (50%) and their opponent's W/L (25%). Your opponents raw W/L record will do more good than their opponent's opponents W/L record. Simulating a season with Oakland (made sure to account for any weird happenings in the RPI Wizard) and Belmont in their place yielded interesting results:
(http://i.imgur.com/bCInQ5T.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/CGyITL0.png)
Since Belmont's W/L record is significantly better, it actually helped both Valpo's SOS and RPI. So when we say scheduling too many unwinnable games actually hurts the conference, it actually hurts the conference.
Quote from: a3uge on February 24, 2015, 07:29:01 PM
Okay, let's do some 'math is math' to find out why Oakland's scheduling is actually hurting US. Let's replace Oakland with a couple teams that have more wins, but worse RPIs. Let's say Belmont. Not because they'd be a good addition to the Horizon, but because they fit the criteria.
Belmont
Expected RPI: 141.1
Current RPI: 136
Expected SOS: 276
Current SOS: 245
Current Record: 17-10
Expected Record: 18-10
Current Conf Record: 10-5
Expected Conf Record: 11-5
Current OOC Record: 7-5
Expected OOC RPI: 140
Expected OOC SOS: 219
Now look at oakland
Oakland
Conference: Horz
Expected RPI: 133.6
Current RPI: 134
Expected SOS: 107
Current SOS: 108
Current Record: 13-14
Expected Record: 14-15
Current Conf Record: 10-4
Expected Conf Record: 11-5
Current OOC Record: 3-10
Expected OOC RPI: 194
Expected OOC SOS: 22
219 vs 22 OOC SOS? Ouch. 2 RPI spots below Oakland... you'd assume with Oakland's better expected RPI, better RPI, and better SOS they'd be better for the conference than someone with more wins like Belmont, right?
Not at all. RPI doesn't care about team's individual RPIs, it cares about opponent's W/L (50%) and their opponent's W/L (25%). Your opponents raw W/L record will do more good than their opponent's opponents W/L record. Simulating a season with Oakland (made sure to account for any weird happenings in the RPI Wizard) and Belmont in their place yielded interesting results:
(http://i.imgur.com/bCInQ5T.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/CGyITL0.png)
Since Belmont's W/L record is significantly better, it actually helped both Valpo's SOS and RPI. So when we say scheduling too many unwinnable games actually hurts the conference, it actually hurts the conference.
Sad that you don't even know when you've lost an argument and rather than man-up, admit you are wrong, you continue to say things that have nothing to do with my argument. Concede before you embarrass yourself further.
Also, you're welcome.
(http://i.imgur.com/zzYX1He.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/iMs9G57.png)
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 24, 2015, 07:33:34 PM
Sad that you don't even know when you've lost an argument and rather than man-up, admit you are wrong, you continue to say things that have nothing to do with my argument. Concede before you embarrass yourself further.
Using actual data to contradict the notion that Valpo is a drag on the conference's RPI, not Oakland because of their SOS... Yup, how embarrassing.
The MAC is currently the 10th best RPI conference. They also have the 31st ranked OOC-SOS. Look at each teams OOC-SOS compared to their forcasted SOS for the end of the season.
http://www.rpiforecast.com/confs/MAC.html (http://www.rpiforecast.com/confs/MAC.html)
I find this very interesting. Other than Buffalo, everybody beat up on cupcakes in the non-con. All had bad SOS's, yet after playing each other in conference multiple times, they all have pretty respectable SOS's and pretty darn good RPI's.
I am not advocating that the HL play the weakest non-con SOS in America. However, it is very likely that the winner of this league will have a better seed than any team that we send. So it worked.
Schools who need the money will continue to prostitute themselves out. Yes a couple games against those Giants is okay as its a great experience for them and the team. However when you over do it and its for a paycheck it becomes embarrassing.
LeCrone or the HL will not tell a school how to schedule if they depend on it to make money.
Quote from: hailcrusaders on February 24, 2015, 07:05:03 PM
How long has this RPI conversation dragged on? Anyone else not care?
my dad went to RPI. i've heard about it longer than you.
Quote from: SanityLost17 on February 24, 2015, 09:18:54 PMI find this very interesting. Other than Buffalo, everybody beat up on cupcakes in the non-con. All had bad SOS's, yet after playing each other in conference multiple times, they all have pretty respectable SOS's and pretty darn good RPI's.
I am not advocating that the HL play the weakest non-con SOS in America. However, it is very likely that the winner of this league will have a better seed than any team that we send. So it worked.
On paper it looks like a stronger league but it is still one bid and even with Buffalo having a lower RPI their 9 losses could hold back the seed they might receive. I don't see the others any better than the worst 13.
Quote from: hailcrusaders on February 24, 2015, 07:05:03 PM
How long has this RPI conversation dragged on? Anyone else not care?
Not one bit
The Horizon had a 3 win 10 loss record vs the MAC. I guess we are their cupcake.
Would this scheduling approach have persuaded Central Michigan to avoid VU and instead play Maine and Pine Bluff or was that our choice?
Quote from: justducky on February 24, 2015, 10:35:38 PM
The Horizon had a 3 win 10 loss record vs the MAC. I guess we are their cupcake.
Would this scheduling approach have persuaded Central Michigan to avoid VU and instead play Maine and Pine Bluff or was that our choice?
That's interesting. I feel like they conned us into the worst tournament ever made. I still don't understand why we never played CMU.
It was Central Michigan's tournament and they wanted two wins. The schedule was done accordingly. I think most people agree the ideal schedule for HL teams would consist of a lot of games against solid mid-majors, with one or two guarantee games, and a very good three game tournament (i.e. Nashville). Then you need to win those toss up games. This year was pretty much ideal for Valpo. However, the weakness of teams such as Ball State, Maine, Drake and Pine Bluff really hurt the OOC SOS.
Quote from: chef on February 24, 2015, 11:05:57 PM
It was Central Michigan's tournament and they wanted two wins. The schedule was done accordingly. I think most people agree the ideal schedule for HL teams would consist of a lot of games against solid mid-majors, with one or two guarantee games, and a very good three game tournament (i.e. Nashville). Then you need to win those toss up games. This year was pretty much ideal for Valpo. However, the weakness of teams such as Ball State, Maine, Drake and Pine Bluff really hurt the OOC SOS.
I feel we can find some easy wins without resorting to Arkansas Pine Bluff or Maine. Those teams are historically terrible and it's easy to predict that they'll be terrible.
Quote from: chef on February 24, 2015, 11:05:57 PMI think most people agree the ideal schedule for HL teams would consist of a lot of games against solid mid-majors, with one or two guarantee games, and a very good three game tournament (i.e. Nashville). Then you need to win those toss up games. This year was pretty much ideal for Valpo. However, the weakness of teams such as Ball State, Maine, Drake and Pine Bluff really hurt the OOC SOS.
I agree that that formula you listed would be ideal but what about this season's OOC schedule would lead you to believe that "This year was pretty much ideal for Valpo" in comparison to what you listed? IMO the preseason ranked #9 MVC team (Drake), preseason ranked #8 America East team (Maine), #4 preseason ranked SWAC team (Arkansas PB), and preseason ranked dead last team in the MAC (Ball St) cannot be considered "solid mid-majors". They were games against teams who were widely acknowledged as having very little shot at doing much of anything this season. If we had teams like SFA, VCU, UNI, Harvard, Toledo, or Belmont to go along with our games against New Mexico and Murray St then I'd agree, but pairing lower tier mid-major conference teams with 3 non-D1 games doesn't make for an "ideal" scheduling year in my opinion.
I guess it's never going to be ideal. I strongly agree with you on the 3 non-DI and I'm told it will never happen again. As for Maine, APB, and Drake, they were tournament opponents that Valpo did not choose. That's always going to happen, just hopefully not to the negative extreme of Maine. The wins over Murray State and Portland certainly offset the other tournament opponents. I think the rotating home and home with Ball State is a gamble that you have to accept. The game is good for many obvious reasons. You just have to hope their program will step up and it will become a good RPI game for many years to come.
Also, who would have known that Valpo would face Missouri and New Mexico when they are having down years. Those games obviously do not help their RPI or Sagarin rating.
Despite RPI, I would like to see Valpo face DePaul and Northwestern. With such short proximity, it is a shame and ridiculas they cannot set schedule.
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 24, 2015, 09:46:09 PMmy dad went to RPI. i've heard about it longer than you.
and MY dad went to Middlebury... who HATES RPI... and I've heard about that for a VERY long time....
Quote from: chef on February 25, 2015, 04:49:41 AMI guess it's never going to be ideal. I strongly agree with you on the 3 non-DI and I'm told it will never happen again.
:thumbsup: :cheers: :dance: :thewave:
so let's see what actually happened...
Palm Reader Games for Today that could boost Valpo's RPI:
Ball State needs to beat Western Michigan. Pomeroy's probability that Ball State will win: 42%... WMU WINS
Missouri needs to beat Florida. Probability of this: 22%.... MISSOURI WINS
New Mexico must beat Boise State: Probability: 16%... BOISE STATE WINS so... 1 out of 3 good things happened.
Likely effect on Valpo's RPI = down, but it may or may not result in Valpo moving from its current place of 64.
=============================================
Oakland's RPI will be boosted if:
Maryland over Wisconsin....... MARYLAND WINS
Probability: 29%
Eastern Michigan over Central Michigan.......... CMU WINS
Probability 52%
Toledo over Northern Illinois......... POSTPONED TOLEDO, Ohio – NIU men's basketball game at Toledo has been postponed due to a water main break at Toledo's Savage Arena. The Huskies and Rockets will play on Wednesday night, Feb. 25, at 8 p.m. ET (7 p.m. CT) as the second half of a doubleheader with the Toledo women's basketball team.
Probability 88%
Western Michigan over Ball State........ WMU WINS
Probability 58%
Pitt over Boston College........... PITT WINS
Probability 83%
Likely outcome is that Oakland's RPI will increase. 3 OUT OF 4 GOOD THINGS HAPPENED FOR OU
warrennolan.com is the only RPI that's been updated with these results...
Valpo went from 64 to 63
OU went from 134 to 133
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 24, 2015, 07:18:37 PM
Blah, blah, blah, blah
If you don't mind, let's cut to the chase here.
I think Oakland knows full well that scheduling 6 buy games hurts the conference RPI and, realistically, does nothing for Oakland itself except add 6 losses to their won/loss record. The problem they're having is how do they replace $500K in revenue that they have long used as a crutch to support their athletic department budget. This is especially problematic right now because they already have their 2015 budget in place, which includes Nov. and Dec. (when buy games are played). That means that as we speak they are already locked in to a minimum number of buy games for next season.
So, here's my question for you, Scott. How many buy games do you plan on playing next season?
Quote from: justducky on February 25, 2015, 09:49:56 AM
Quote from: chef on February 25, 2015, 04:49:41 AMI guess it's never going to be ideal. I strongly agree with you on the 3 non-DI and I'm told it will never happen again.
:thumbsup: :cheers: :dance: :thewave:
Does this mean that the AD holds open the possibility to continue to schedule at least two? Dear lord, I hope not.
I'm all in favor for scheduling the occasional non D-I opponent, like a St. Joes for example, where there has been significant historical athletic ties between the two schools. In fact I would venture to say that some of our older alumni who remember SJC as conference mates might like to see them on the schedule here and there. But the point of scheduling an IU-Kokomo, where there was absolutely no competitive history between schools, was what? I hope your statement reads that there will be a concerted effort to move away from scheduling non D-I teams principally as a matter of course moving forward.
Quote from: justducky on February 25, 2015, 09:49:56 AM
Quote from: chef on February 25, 2015, 04:49:41 AMI guess it's never going to be ideal. I strongly agree with you on the 3 non-DI and I'm told it will never happen again.
:thumbsup: :cheers: :dance: :thewave:
There is always the argument that they're better than the 300 RPI set. At least beating them doesn't -hurt- your RPI.
Quote from: wh on February 25, 2015, 10:29:16 AM
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 24, 2015, 07:18:37 PM
Blah, blah, blah, blah
If you don't mind, let's cut to the chase here.
I think Oakland knows full well that scheduling 6 buy games hurts the conference RPI and, realistically, does nothing for Oakland itself except add 6 losses to their won/loss record. The problem they're having is how do they replace $500K in revenue that they have long used as a crutch to support their athletic department budget. This is especially problematic right now because they already have their 2015 budget in place, which includes Nov. and Dec. (when buy games are played). That means that as we speak they are already locked in to a minimum number of buy games for next season.
So, here's my question for you, Scott. How many buy games do you plan on playing next season?
You're probably right that finances are a big part of this. I'm sure there's also at least a dose of "challenge yourself against the best", "the players enjoy playing big time competition, they'll tell their grand kids about it" and maybe "these are the teams we'll play in the NCAA."
But, there was sone earlier analysis posted showing that these payday games (at least against the very best) probably do help the loser's RPI. Even if they drag down the rest of the conference.
I don't imagine that coaches care -too- much about gaming the RPI. So, it may not influence their scheduling. But, it's an interesting effect.
Thinking about seeding for a moment. We've maybe slipped slightly on bracketmatrix.com, essentially now in a tie with Harvard and Wofford for the best non-at large AQ slots. That site has the three filling outvthe 12 line. With another group of three (including Murray State) essentially tied, not far behind us.
Quote from: agibson on February 25, 2015, 11:34:57 AMThere is always the argument that they're better than the 300 RPI set. At least beating them doesn't -hurt- your RPI.
Wrong answer! I pointed out months ago that this is an unintended consequence of their flawed methodology and a slight adjustment could be of significant help to bottom D1 scheduling.
Quote from: talksalot on February 25, 2015, 10:03:08 AM
so let's see what actually happened...
Palm Reader Games for Today that could boost Valpo's RPI:
Ball State needs to beat Western Michigan. Pomeroy's probability that Ball State will win: 42%... WMU WINS
Missouri needs to beat Florida. Probability of this: 22%.... MISSOURI WINS
New Mexico must beat Boise State: Probability: 16%... BOISE STATE WINS so... 1 out of 3 good things happened.
Likely effect on Valpo's RPI = down, but it may or may not result in Valpo moving from its current place of 64.
=============================================
Oakland's RPI will be boosted if:
Maryland over Wisconsin....... MARYLAND WINS
Probability: 29%
Eastern Michigan over Central Michigan.......... CMU WINS
Probability 52%
Toledo over Northern Illinois......... POSTPONED TOLEDO, Ohio – NIU men's basketball game at Toledo has been postponed due to a water main break at Toledo's Savage Arena. The Huskies and Rockets will play on Wednesday night, Feb. 25, at 8 p.m. ET (7 p.m. CT) as the second half of a doubleheader with the Toledo women's basketball team.
Probability 88%
Western Michigan over Ball State........ WMU WINS
Probability 58%
Pitt over Boston College........... PITT WINS
Probability 83%
Likely outcome is that Oakland's RPI will increase. 3 OUT OF 4 GOOD THINGS HAPPENED FOR OU
warrennolan.com is the only RPI that's been updated with these results...
Valpo went from 64 to 63
OU went from 134 to 133
A "likely" outcome is not a "certain" outcome when teams are placed by number, i.e., 62 or 63, etc. A team can improve its calculated RPI but remain in the same numerical place in rankings because the actual RPI calculation is on relative basis compared to every other team's RPI and some teams' improvement might be greater than other teams' improvement such that one cannot say it is certain that any improvement in calculated RPI necessarily means an improvement in one's numerical ranking(place). Also, on any given day, a team's calculated RPI can go down but down less than the other teams and thereby an improvement in rank is possible..There is only one thing that determines one's ranking and that is the ***calculated RPI of every team.*** And every time any team plays a game, all other teams in Div. 1 have their RPI recalculated and the rankings are re-done and they often change for a good number of teams (many of whom didn't even play a game) even if only a very few teams actually play games on a given day. So Valpo's improvement is understandable and is not inconsistent with my argument. And Oakland's improvement was likely to occur given most of the teams that needed to win actually won. But they *could* have stayed the same in their rank while at the same time having an improved calculated RPI. A team's place is relative to every other team's new calculated RPI.
*** RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)
where WP is Winning Percentage (adjusted for road/home/neutral floor),
OWP is Opponents' Winning Percentage (unadjusted) and
OOWP is Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage (unadjusted)
Quote from: agibson on February 25, 2015, 11:39:12 AM
Quote from: wh on February 25, 2015, 10:29:16 AM
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 24, 2015, 07:18:37 PM
Blah, blah, blah, blah
If you don't mind, let's cut to the chase here.
I think Oakland knows full well that scheduling 6 buy games hurts the conference RPI and, realistically, does nothing for Oakland itself except add 6 losses to their won/loss record. The problem they're having is how do they replace $500K in revenue that they have long used as a crutch to support their athletic department budget. This is especially problematic right now because they already have their 2015 budget in place, which includes Nov. and Dec. (when buy games are played). That means that as we speak they are already locked in to a minimum number of buy games for next season.
So, here's my question for you, Scott. How many buy games do you plan on playing next season?
You're probably right that finances are a big part of this. I'm sure there's also at least a dose of "challenge yourself against the best", "the players enjoy playing big time competition, they'll tell their grand kids about it" and maybe "these are the teams we'll play in the NCAA."
But, there was sone earlier analysis posted showing that these payday games (at least against the very best) probably do help the loser's RPI. Even if they drag down the rest of the conference.
I don't imagine that coaches care -too- much about gaming the RPI. So, it may not influence their scheduling. But, it's an interesting effect.
I would imagine every mid major player would like the experience of going up against the big boys on a major stage, regardless of how lopsided the outcome might me. That said, I seriously doubt there would be much interest in traveling all over the country to get your brains beat out over and over by teams with higher level talent on their home court. But, rather than speculate let's ask our celebrity Oakland troll, JustSayin. He's in a much better position to know. What say you, Scott?
Quote from: Just Sayin on February 25, 2015, 01:13:27 PM
Quote from: talksalot on February 25, 2015, 10:03:08 AM
so let's see what actually happened...
Palm Reader Games for Today that could boost Valpo's RPI:
Ball State needs to beat Western Michigan. Pomeroy's probability that Ball State will win: 42%... WMU WINS
Missouri needs to beat Florida. Probability of this: 22%.... MISSOURI WINS
New Mexico must beat Boise State: Probability: 16%... BOISE STATE WINS so... 1 out of 3 good things happened.
Likely effect on Valpo's RPI = down, but it may or may not result in Valpo moving from its current place of 64.
=============================================
Oakland's RPI will be boosted if:
Maryland over Wisconsin....... MARYLAND WINS
Probability: 29%
Eastern Michigan over Central Michigan.......... CMU WINS
Probability 52%
Toledo over Northern Illinois......... POSTPONED TOLEDO, Ohio – NIU men's basketball game at Toledo has been postponed due to a water main break at Toledo's Savage Arena. The Huskies and Rockets will play on Wednesday night, Feb. 25, at 8 p.m. ET (7 p.m. CT) as the second half of a doubleheader with the Toledo women's basketball team.
Probability 88%
Western Michigan over Ball State........ WMU WINS
Probability 58%
Pitt over Boston College........... PITT WINS
Probability 83%
Likely outcome is that Oakland's RPI will increase. 3 OUT OF 4 GOOD THINGS HAPPENED FOR OU
warrennolan.com is the only RPI that's been updated with these results...
Valpo went from 64 to 63
OU went from 134 to 133
A "likely" outcome is not a "certain" outcome when teams are placed by number, i.e., 62 or 63, etc. A team can improve its calculated RPI but remain in the same numerical place in rankings because the actual RPI calculation is on relative basis compared to every other team's RPI and some teams' improvement might be greater than other teams' improvement such that one cannot say it is certain that any improvement in calculated RPI necessarily means an improvement in one's numerical ranking(place). Also, on any given day, a team's calculated RPI can go down but down less than the other teams and thereby an improvement in rank is possible..There is only one thing that determines one's ranking and that is the ***calculated RPI of every team.*** And every time any team plays a game, all other teams in Div. 1 have their RPI recalculated and the rankings are re-done and they often change for a good number of teams (many of whom didn't even play a game) even if only a very few teams actually play games on a given day. So Valpo's improvement is understandable and is not inconsistent with my argument. And Oakland's improvement was likely to occur given most of the teams that needed to win actually won. But they *could* have stayed the same in their rank while at the same time having an improved calculated RPI. A team's place is relative to every other team's new calculated RPI.
*** RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)
where WP is Winning Percentage (adjusted for road/home/neutral floor),
OWP is Opponents' Winning Percentage (unadjusted) and
OOWP is Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage (unadjusted)
You know what would help everyone in the conference's RPI? Oakland not losing so many games out of conference. I'm glad you're watching your OOC RPI go down by a miniscule amount each night because of the 25% Opponent's Opponents calculation. Real happy for you. Destroy the RPI and SOS of every team in the conference so you guys can watch your OOC RPI decrease from 200 to 195 because of the magic RPI bunny.
Wouldn't it be great if we all won our OOC games?... there's a word for that...(and Valpo went x-0 in HL)... it's right on the tip of my tongue... Kentucky.
Quote from: justducky on February 25, 2015, 12:10:52 PM
Quote from: agibson on February 25, 2015, 11:34:57 AMThere is always the argument that they're better than the 300 RPI set. At least beating them doesn't -hurt- your RPI.
Wrong answer! I pointed out months ago that this is an unintended consequence of their flawed methodology and a slight adjustment could be of significant help to bottom D1 scheduling.
Maybe you could post a link? I don't remember the conversation, but it could be interesting.
Here's a crazy theory. I'm sure one of the mods here could check it out and I might be :crazy: but is Just Sayin's IP address tracking from Michigan? Say somewhere outside of Detroit?
Yep, don't anyone be fooled. Oakland doesn't give a damn about the impact they are having on the RPI's of other conference members. I was all for Oakland being invited to join the Horizon League, but I now think it was a huge mistake. Not only does their money grabbing approach to scheduling hurt the rest of the league, their horrendous OOC record makes it nearly impossible to build and sustain a loyal fan base, which in turn will make justifying a representative sized bb facility nearly impossible. They lied about the changes they were going to make. They are not good team players. All they are is takers.
A lot more chatter today about bracketology and our seeding for the NCAAs rather than a tough game tonight against a talented Detroit team playing with nothing to lose on their Senior Night....
This is gonna be a tough game. Hope our guys are ready.
Paul
Quote from: wh on February 25, 2015, 03:30:28 PM
Yep, don't anyone be fooled. Oakland doesn't give a damn about the impact they are having on the RPI's of other conference members. I was all for Oakland being invited to join the Horizon League, but I now think it was a huge mistake. Not only does their money grabbing approach to scheduling hurt the rest of the league, their horrendous OOC record makes it nearly impossible to build and sustain a loyal fan base, which in turn will make justifying a representative sized bb facility nearly impossible. They lied about the changes they were going to make. They are not good team players. All they are is takers.
They do have persistent trolls though, I'll give them that.
They need these money grabbing games so they can pay these trolls to post relentlessly on twitter and on opposing team fan boards about how a fourth place team should have the POY, 2 first teamers, and the defensive POY.
Quote from: wh on February 25, 2015, 03:30:28 PM
Yep, don't anyone be fooled. Oakland doesn't give a damn about the impact they are having on the RPI's of other conference members. I was all for Oakland being invited to join the Horizon League, but I now think it was a huge mistake. Not only does their money grabbing approach to scheduling hurt the rest of the league, their horrendous OOC record makes it nearly impossible to build and sustain a loyal fan base, which in turn will make justifying a representative sized bb facility nearly impossible. They lied about the changes they were going to make. They are not good team players. All they are is takers.
I agree. After all you were "just sayin."
There isnn't enough action on their forum....
13 seed? We could work with a 13 seed.
Quote from: agibson on February 27, 2015, 11:18:24 PM13 seed? We could work with a 13 seed.
I would say it still depends on who below us gets in and bumps us up, but since last time we deserved a 13 and got a 14 for "geography"...i just don't know any more, man.
Maybe we should ask Joe Lannardee... no... Leenurdy... ESPN YOU NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT AND HAVE YOUR MOUTHS WASHED OUT WITH SOAP !
I was happy to see that the pbp guy had it correct by the second half. He sure did mispronounce Valparaiso multiple times in the first half. He mispronounced it so many times anybody playing bbtds' drinking game would have been drunk after 10 minutes through the first half. ;D
If we win the HL tourney and get a 14 seed, the NCAA tourney is an absolute joke. Montana being given that 13 seed instead of us was horrific. Screw geography!
Harvard drops a game... that's probably god for us?
Quote from: agibson on February 28, 2015, 12:51:11 AMHarvard drops a game... that's probably god for us?
Don't forget that Harvard has a very well known divinity school. I think god is probably for them too.
You don't think Valpo would nickname themselves after a school that god was against, do you? The god-less Harvard of the midwest?
Quote from: talksalot on February 27, 2015, 11:31:28 PM
Maybe we should ask Joe Lannardee... no... Leenurdy... ESPN YOU NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT AND HAVE YOUR MOUTHS WASHED OUT WITH SOAP !
speaking of leenurdy - does he have a face for radio or what?
As of today... Valpo is a 13 seed facing Northern Iowa. Of course, this change daily and who knows what will happen. Living in Des Moines, I think this would be an awesome matchup.
If (not when, the Horizon conference is competitive) Valpo wins the conference tournament, they will be a 13 seed and IMO deservedly so. Honestly, I look at the other teams and I cannot make a case where should be a 12 seed. But who knows.
Be cautious. As Valpo heads into the tournament and as many assume that they will win...
"There is no fool like a careless gambler who starts taking victory for granted."
Hunter S. Thompson
There's a lot of hoop to be played before March Madness guys.
Tell that to the guy right above you who's already talking seeds and opponents.
I did say if and not when Apostle
Quote from: usc4valpo on February 28, 2015, 10:46:31 AM
As of today... Valpo is a 13 seed facing Northern Iowa. Of course, this change daily and who knows what will happen. Living in Des Moines, I think this would be an awesome matchup.
If (not when, the Horizon conference is competitive) Valpo wins the conference tournament, they will be a 13 seed and IMO deservedly so. Honestly, I look at the other teams and I cannot make a case where should be a 12 seed. But who knows.
Harvard? Wofford? Murray State? SFA? Iona? LA Tech?
I could easily make a case for a 12 seed over each of those teams, and on most of those, the majority of bracket-makers agree with me there. And this assumes every one of those teams will win their conference tournament, which they probably won't.
I would take Harvard and SFA over Valpo right now - they have proven to win a game in tourney, especially Harvard. Besides, my wife went to SFA so I know what arguments to fight.
I have to admit and be objective by the eye evaluation - after watching UNI and Wichita State play, they are obviously at a higher level of quality play compared to SFA, Valpo and Woogie Boogie.
Quote from: usc4valpo on February 28, 2015, 04:23:00 PMI have to admit and be objective by the eye evaluation - after watching UNI and Wichita State play, they are obviously at a higher level of quality play compared to SFA, Valpo and Woogie Boogie.
Watched most of that game as well. UNI would give us fits and WSU is the better team. We could stay close with both but getting a win would take some breaks.
Quote from: usc4valpo on February 28, 2015, 04:23:00 PM
I would take Harvard and SFA over Valpo right now - they have proven to win a game in tourney, especially Harvard.
What you've done in previous years is irrelevant.
Quote from: valpo4life on February 28, 2015, 04:37:20 PMWhat you've done in previous years is irrelevant.
Surely it's supposed to be. For amateur bracektologists I'm sure it's _not_. The selection committee? I don't know... I'd just as soon Yale get the auto-bid (better yet a third team - but it'd take a small miracle, if it's even possible at this point).
Espn bracketology has us as a 13 seed against Wichita St. in Seattle. I know it means nothing and there are two really tough games ahead just to get NCAA but if it was my choice I would rather take the 14th seed and play ND in Columbus.
Year after year, Jerry Palm outperforms Joe Lunardi. Palm has Valpo as a 12. Ironically also playing Wichita State.
Quote from: chef on March 02, 2015, 11:37:06 AM
Year after year, Jerry Palm outperforms Joe Lunardi. Palm has Valpo as a 12. Ironically also playing Wichita State.
That's actually not true - Lunardi's had a more accurate bracket the past four years: http://bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html
Even so, I wouldn't trust any specific bracket. Its impossible to know what the selection committee will be thinking. There's going to be a bunch of seeds that make no sense and a bunch of teams that move up and down with geography. Maybe Murray State would play Butler in Louisville and all of the sudden Murray State loses and now Valpo is a logical replacement. It's these things that will be hard to predict.
for what it's worth: Lunatic Lunardi has Valpareyeso as a 13 facing off vs. Wichita State in Seattle.
http://espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology (http://espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology)
Yeah, I guess I was living in the past. I see where Palm outscored Lunardi in 2008, 2009, and 2010. As we get older we only remember things from the past.
I just checked Sagarin and found that of the current conference leaders, 16 are ranked lower than Valpo. Conference USA, The Mid-America and Ohio Valley are slightly better as is the case with Steven F. Austin, If anybody other than SFA or Murray State wins their tourneys then we would jump ahead of them as well. So, with a little luck I can see the committee making us a 12 given the current conference leaders.
Quote from: vu72 on March 04, 2015, 01:55:08 PM
I just checked Sagarin and found that of the current conference leaders, 16 are ranked lower than Valpo. Conference USA, The Mid-America and Ohio Valley are slightly better as is the case with Steven F. Austin, If anybody other than SFA or Murray State wins their tourneys then we would jump ahead of them as well. So, with a little luck I can see the committee making us a 12 given the current conference leaders.
One of the benefits of the double bye tournament bracket is the top 2 seeds are not saddled with playing teams at the bottom of the conference with bad RPI's. If the OVC, for example, doesn't have a double bye system (haven't looked) Murray State's RPI could be more negatively impacted by tournament opponents than Valpo's. The same could happen with other conferences. Something seemingly small like that could make the difference between a 12 and a 13.
Quote from: wh on March 04, 2015, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: vu72 on March 04, 2015, 01:55:08 PM
I just checked Sagarin and found that of the current conference leaders, 16 are ranked lower than Valpo. Conference USA, The Mid-America and Ohio Valley are slightly better as is the case with Steven F. Austin, If anybody other than SFA or Murray State wins their tourneys then we would jump ahead of them as well. So, with a little luck I can see the committee making us a 12 given the current conference leaders.
One of the benefits of the double bye tournament bracket is the top 2 seeds are not saddled with playing teams at the bottom of the conference with bad RPI's. If the OVC, for example, doesn't have a double bye system (haven't looked) Murray State's RPI could be more negatively impacted by tournament opponents than Valpo's. The same could happen with other conferences. Something seemingly small like that could make the difference between a 12 and a 13.
Teams with the better record need to win Friday night.
Oh, and all of the teams we've played this year need to win their games this week!
Quote from: wh on March 04, 2015, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: vu72 on March 04, 2015, 01:55:08 PM
I just checked Sagarin and found that of the current conference leaders, 16 are ranked lower than Valpo. Conference USA, The Mid-America and Ohio Valley are slightly better as is the case with Steven F. Austin, If anybody other than SFA or Murray State wins their tourneys then we would jump ahead of them as well. So, with a little luck I can see the committee making us a 12 given the current conference leaders.
One of the benefits of the double bye tournament bracket is the top 2 seeds are not saddled with playing teams at the bottom of the conference with bad RPI's. If the OVC, for example, doesn't have a double bye system (haven't looked) Murray State's RPI could be more negatively impacted by tournament opponents than Valpo's. The same could happen with other conferences. Something seemingly small like that could make the difference between a 12 and a 13.
Actually, the OVC's tournament mirrors the Horizon this year.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/bracket/_/id/201524/2015-ohio-valley-tournament (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/bracket/_/id/201524/2015-ohio-valley-tournament)
Watched the CBS-Sportsnet broadcast of the A10 games last night... the Preview show included a phone interview with the Murray State coach and both he and the announcer had good things to say about "Valpo"... "Valpo played really well that night and it was real wake up call for us" [he didn't mention that they had lost to Portland earlier in the same tournament].
Quote from: wh on March 04, 2015, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: vu72 on March 04, 2015, 01:55:08 PM
I just checked Sagarin and found that of the current conference leaders, 16 are ranked lower than Valpo. Conference USA, The Mid-America and Ohio Valley are slightly better as is the case with Steven F. Austin, If anybody other than SFA or Murray State wins their tourneys then we would jump ahead of them as well. So, with a little luck I can see the committee making us a 12 given the current conference leaders.
One of the benefits of the double bye tournament bracket is the top 2 seeds are not saddled with playing teams at the bottom of the conference with bad RPI's. If the OVC, for example, doesn't have a double bye system (haven't looked) Murray State's RPI could be more negatively impacted by tournament opponents than Valpo's. The same could happen with other conferences. Something seemingly small like that could make the difference between a 12 and a 13.
The OVC has actually had double byes since 2011, but they still play games on a neutral court.
We actually project to 48 (206 SOS) while Murray State projects to 50 (220 SOS), I'd imagine Valpos would be lower (better), given Valpo playing Green Bay, who would have a high RPI going into the championship game. But the neutral court benefits Murray State.
The Horizon has been awful this year. The league had a 43% OOC winning percentage! The OVC has 5 teams above .500, while we only have 3. THREE! That's inexcusable! After the OOC portion, we had TWO above .500, and the now awful WSU and YSU at 6-6! Our 3 and 4 seeds have a combined OOC record of 7-18! If these teams would have performed better, scheduled better, we'd be a top 50 RPI team. The horrible records by our conference opponents has devastated our RPI. Oakland's 130 RPI may be 4th in the league, but their terrible W/L record is devastating to our SOS and dramatically hurts every team's RPI.
It's no surprise that the Horizon League is 16th in RPI when it had the 4th highest SOS.
But Valpo isn't without blame. While the high W/L helps each individual team, the SOS hurts Valpo. We couldn't have predicted a god awful Missouri team or a New Mexico meltdown, but we could have avoided that crappy Michigan tournament. Its a double edged sword - scheduling cupcakes hurts you even if you win, but over-scheduling hurts the conference and is a good one way ticket to a 16 seed.
Quote from: wh on March 04, 2015, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: vu72 on March 04, 2015, 01:55:08 PM
I just checked Sagarin and found that of the current conference leaders, 16 are ranked lower than Valpo. Conference USA, The Mid-America and Ohio Valley are slightly better as is the case with Steven F. Austin, If anybody other than SFA or Murray State wins their tourneys then we would jump ahead of them as well. So, with a little luck I can see the committee making us a 12 given the current conference leaders.
One of the benefits of the double bye tournament bracket is the top 2 seeds are not saddled with playing teams at the bottom of the conference with bad RPI's. If the OVC, for example, doesn't have a double bye system (haven't looked) Murray State's RPI could be more negatively impacted by tournament opponents than Valpo's. The same could happen with other conferences. Something seemingly small like that could make the difference between a 12 and a 13.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Ohio_Valley_Conference_Men%27s_Basketball_Tournament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Ohio_Valley_Conference_Men%27s_Basketball_Tournament)
The OVC tournament is an eight-team tournament with the third and fourth seeds receiving a first round bye and the two divisional winners receiving byes through to the semifinals.
The top team in each division, based on conference winning percentage, automatically earns a berth into the tournament. The next six teams with the highest conference winning percentage also earned a bid, regardless of division. The No. 1 seed goes to the divisional winner with the higher conference winning percentage, while the No. 2 seed automatically goes to the other divisional winner. The remaining six teams are seeded 3–8 by conference winning percentage, regardless of division.
2014–15 Ohio Valley Conference men's basketball standings
v t e Conf Overall
Team W L PCT W L PCT
East
Belmont 11 – 5 .688 19 – 10 .655
Eastern Kentucky 11 – 5 .688 19 – 10 .655
Morehead State 10 – 6 .625 15 – 16 .484
Jacksonville State 5 – 11 .313 12 – 19 .387
Tennessee Tech 4 – 12 .250 12 – 18 .400
Tennessee State 2 – 14 .125 5 – 26 .161
West
#25 Murray State 16 – 0 1.000 26 – 4 .867
Tennessee–Martin 10 – 6 .625 18 – 11 .621
Eastern Illinois 9 – 7 .563 16 – 13 .552
SIU Edwardsville 8 – 8 .500 12 – 15 .444
Southeast Missouri St. 7 – 9 .438 13 – 16 .448
Austin Peay 3 – 13 .188 8 – 22 .267
why is Wofford a projected 12 seed? I don't get that. What have they proven?
Quote from: usc4valpo on March 04, 2015, 07:42:44 PMwhy is Wofford a projected 12 seed? I don't get that. What have they proven?
#50 RPI, double digit win over Iona, win at North Carolina State.
Quote from: wh on March 04, 2015, 02:06:42 PM
One of the benefits of the double bye tournament bracket is the top 2 seeds are not saddled with playing teams at the bottom of the conference with bad RPI's. If the OVC, for example, doesn't have a double bye system (haven't looked) Murray State's RPI could be more negatively impacted by tournament opponents than Valpo's. The same could happen with other conferences. Something seemingly small like that could make the difference between a 12 and a 13.
I know it's been debated for years here, but are you for or against the HL tourney format? I've lost track of who is pro vs. con.
Quote from: zvillehaze on March 04, 2015, 09:06:11 PM
Quote from: wh on March 04, 2015, 02:06:42 PM
One of the benefits of the double bye tournament bracket is the top 2 seeds are not saddled with playing teams at the bottom of the conference with bad RPI's. If the OVC, for example, doesn't have a double bye system (haven't looked) Murray State's RPI could be more negatively impacted by tournament opponents than Valpo's. The same could happen with other conferences. Something seemingly small like that could make the difference between a 12 and a 13.
I know it's been debated for years here, but are you for or against the HL tourney format? I've lost track of who is pro vs. con.
Subtle: clever and indirect : not showing your real purpose ;)
Yeah, New Mexico went from a good 6-3 in conference, to 8 straight losses (6-11)
If Missouri and New Mexico had decent seasons our OOC schedule would've been much stronger. I didn't think our OOC was weak, it wasn't strong but rather mediocre. We beat some decent mid-majors, Murray State, Portland State, Eastern Kentucky, James Madison, and IPFW. Maine and Arkansas Pine-Bluff is what really brought us down.
On kampe's radio show Bryce was a guest and was put on the spot when asked about scheduling. Kampe admitted he receives grief about his schedule and then asks Bryce his philosophy. Bryce repied that we didn't know what kind of team we had. We try to schedule on a year to year basis with what we have and this having a young team, we didn't have certain expectations. Also mentioned that it's difficult to find teams to play you and wished the critics would set up the schedule.
I understood it as not a philosophy but rather meeting the needs of the team for that year.
New Mexico has lost 8 in a row. Jordan Goodman went down for the season then (key 6th man). They also lost their key scorer Cullen Neal early in the season (before us) and that had to have had a huge effect all season.
Quote from: oklahomamick on March 05, 2015, 08:35:51 AM
On kampe's radio show Bryce was a guest and was put on the spot when asked about scheduling. Kampe admitted he receives grief about his schedule and then asks Bryce his philosophy. Bryce repied that we didn't know what kind of team we had. We try to schedule on a year to year basis with what we have and this having a young team, we didn't have certain expectations. Also mentioned that it's difficult to find teams to play you and wished the critics would set up the schedule.
I understood it as not a philosophy but rather meeting the needs of the team for that year.
I heard this interview (sort of, they decided to broadcast from the noisiest bar ever) too after Oren tweeted about it. Bryce did say he never expected the team to be where it is now and that if he was trying for a high seed, he'd have tried to scheduled a bit harder. He said the goal wasn't a good seed, it was just making it back in. He said he tries to schedule with experience and he also mentioned something about not playing in the CMU tournament and Missouri and how their RPI would be 36 (does Bryce use RPI Wizard?) or something like that.
The interview was from Oakland guys, and they were critical of their own program's scheduling. They also jokingly said that their fans think they have a final four team every year, which I found hilarious.
Quote from: a3uge on March 05, 2015, 09:08:07 AMhe also mentioned something about not playing in the CMU tournament and Missouri and how their RPI would be 36 (does Bryce use RPI Wizard?) or something like that.
Huh. Look at that. 36.
Hearing some discussion of "big 5" scheduling policies, evolution, and RPI watching it seems that plenty of coaches and leagues _are_ _very_ conscience of RPI, and do actively game the system. If the SEC, why not Bryce?
Quote from: a3uge on March 05, 2015, 09:08:07 AM
Quote from: oklahomamick on March 05, 2015, 08:35:51 AM
On kampe's radio show Bryce was a guest and was put on the spot when asked about scheduling. Kampe admitted he receives grief about his schedule and then asks Bryce his philosophy. Bryce repied that we didn't know what kind of team we had. We try to schedule on a year to year basis with what we have and this having a young team, we didn't have certain expectations. Also mentioned that it's difficult to find teams to play you and wished the critics would set up the schedule.
I understood it as not a philosophy but rather meeting the needs of the team for that year.
I heard this interview (sort of, they decided to broadcast from the noisiest bar ever) too after Oren tweeted about it. Bryce did say he never expected the team to be where it is now and that if he was trying for a high seed, he'd have tried to scheduled a bit harder. He said the goal wasn't a good seed, it was just making it back in. He said he tries to schedule with experience and he also mentioned something about not playing in the CMU tournament and Missouri and how their RPI would be 36 (does Bryce use RPI Wizard?) or something like that.
The interview was from Oakland guys, and they were critical of their own program's scheduling. They also jokingly said that their fans think they have a final four team every year, which I found hilarious.
They were not critical of their own program's scheduling, they said their fans are critical.
Bryce said "If we lose to Kentucky instead of Missouri" and he threw in another upgrade which I have forgotten, our RPI would be about 30 points higher. You are probably right, he or someone on his staff does use some online projecting tool to come up with that. I also agree that it was hard to understand. I thought Bryce's phone connection might have been not so great, but there was a lot of noise as well.
The key point was: the two of them schedule with one arm tied behind their backs (my wording).
Quote from: agibson on March 05, 2015, 10:27:45 AMIf the SEC, why not Bryce?
Um... I think an SEC team has a LOT more leverage to do stuff like this than an HL team.
Quote from: StlVUFan on March 05, 2015, 10:32:12 AM
Quote from: agibson on March 05, 2015, 10:27:45 AMIf the SEC, why not Bryce?
Um... I think an SEC team has a LOT more leverage to do stuff like this than an HL team.
When Bryce says he didn't know we were going to be this good when he put the schedule together means that he follows the "schedule the most difficult opponents you think you can beat" philosophy for qmid majors. It means he knows how to play the RPI game. Unintentionally, he may have missed the mark this year, but who knew? If we have the good fortune of winning the conference tournament, I will be satisfied with a 13 and thrilled with a 12.
Oakland's scheduling phylosophy is better suited for an athletic department fundraising instruction manual under "Examples of desperate fundraising measures if you're too lazy or too stupid to raise money like everyone else does."
If Missouri and New Mexico had normal seasons for their program we would be ranked much higher in terms of RPI. I thought Bryce did a good job putting together the schedule its just unfortunate both Missouri and New Mexico are having down seasons.
ESPN bracketology keeps us at a 13 but keeps flopping MVC teams. Predicts Wichita St. in Seattle.
Quote from: oklahomamick on March 05, 2015, 10:43:35 AM
ESPN bracketology keeps us at a 13 but keeps flopping MVC teams. Predicts Wichita St. in Seattle.
Wichita St in Seattle wouldn't be terrible. Seems like every year a team like Wichita falls in the first round. Not a traditional powerhouse programs like Duke, North Carolina, Michigan St, etc... Also if we played Wichita State in Seattle that is truly a neutral court. Don't know of many people from Valpo living in Seattle and would imagine the same for Wichita St.
Quote from: classof2014 on March 05, 2015, 10:46:37 AM
Quote from: oklahomamick on March 05, 2015, 10:43:35 AM
ESPN bracketology keeps us at a 13 but keeps flopping MVC teams. Predicts Wichita St. in Seattle.
Wichita St in Seattle wouldn't be terrible. Seems like every year a team like Wichita falls in the first round. Not a traditional powerhouse programs like Duke, North Carolina, Michigan St, etc... Also if we played Wichita State in Seattle that is truly a neutral court. Don't know of many people from Valpo living in Seattle and would imagine the same for Wichita St.
Not sure what you mean by that. Wichita State fell to eventual runner-up Kentucky last year in probably the best game of the tournament. Both teams shot extremely well that game and were hitting shots at the end. VanVleet missed a 3 to win at the buzzer. The year before they were in the final four and lost in the "wait, is that the guy's bone?" game. The year before that they did get upset by VCU, and before that they won the NIT. It's not fair to say they get upset easily because they're a mid-major.
They're not as good as last year (Early got drafted), but still have the best point guard in the country (VanVleet), another great shooting guard in Baker, and one of the best coaches in the country. They just destroyed a good UNI team and may be hitting their stride. I'd much rather face a less experienced team that doesn't have a bunch of postseason experience. Utah, Arkansas, WV, and Butler would be much better draws.
Quote from: a3uge on March 05, 2015, 12:03:10 PM
Quote from: classof2014 on March 05, 2015, 10:46:37 AM
Quote from: oklahomamick on March 05, 2015, 10:43:35 AM
ESPN bracketology keeps us at a 13 but keeps flopping MVC teams. Predicts Wichita St. in Seattle.
Wichita St in Seattle wouldn't be terrible. Seems like every year a team like Wichita falls in the first round. Not a traditional powerhouse programs like Duke, North Carolina, Michigan St, etc... Also if we played Wichita State in Seattle that is truly a neutral court. Don't know of many people from Valpo living in Seattle and would imagine the same for Wichita St.
Not sure what you mean by that. Wichita State fell to eventual runner-up Kentucky last year in probably the best game of the tournament. Both teams shot extremely well that game and were hitting shots at the end. VanVleet missed a 3 to win at the buzzer. The year before they were in the final four and lost in the "wait, is that the guy's bone?" game. The year before that they did get upset by VCU, and before that they won the NIT. It's not fair to say they get upset easily because they're a mid-major.
They're not as good as last year (Early got drafted), but still have the best point guard in the country (VanVleet), another great shooting guard in Baker, and one of the best coaches in the country. They just destroyed a good UNI team and may be hitting their stride. I'd much rather face a less experienced team that doesn't have a bunch of postseason experience. Utah, Arkansas, WV, and Butler would be much better draws.
I didn't mean Wichita State specifically. I meant teams that aren't the big boys of college basketball, like Duke, North Carolina, UCONN, Kentucky, etc... No matter who we draw we won't be expected to win, we'd be a 12 seed max. Although Duke lost in the first round last season the powerhouse schools rarely seem to fall in the first round. Are there better draws than Wichita St? Definitely.
It's also hard to tell how good they really are. They're in the MVC so they play some mediocre to poor teams. The only other team is Northern Iowa. It's not like they're from the B1G where teams play top 25 teams every game, so it seems. The only Top 25 team they've won is a home game against Northern Iowa. They're a very good mid-major but they're not unbeatable.
Quote from: classof2014 on March 05, 2015, 12:22:31 PM
Quote from: a3uge on March 05, 2015, 12:03:10 PM
Quote from: classof2014 on March 05, 2015, 10:46:37 AM
Quote from: oklahomamick on March 05, 2015, 10:43:35 AM
ESPN bracketology keeps us at a 13 but keeps flopping MVC teams. Predicts Wichita St. in Seattle.
Wichita St in Seattle wouldn't be terrible. Seems like every year a team like Wichita falls in the first round. Not a traditional powerhouse programs like Duke, North Carolina, Michigan St, etc... Also if we played Wichita State in Seattle that is truly a neutral court. Don't know of many people from Valpo living in Seattle and would imagine the same for Wichita St.
Not sure what you mean by that. Wichita State fell to eventual runner-up Kentucky last year in probably the best game of the tournament. Both teams shot extremely well that game and were hitting shots at the end. VanVleet missed a 3 to win at the buzzer. The year before they were in the final four and lost in the "wait, is that the guy's bone?" game. The year before that they did get upset by VCU, and before that they won the NIT. It's not fair to say they get upset easily because they're a mid-major.
They're not as good as last year (Early got drafted), but still have the best point guard in the country (VanVleet), another great shooting guard in Baker, and one of the best coaches in the country. They just destroyed a good UNI team and may be hitting their stride. I'd much rather face a less experienced team that doesn't have a bunch of postseason experience. Utah, Arkansas, WV, and Butler would be much better draws.
I didn't mean Wichita State specifically. I meant teams that aren't the big boys of college basketball, like Duke, North Carolina, UCONN, Kentucky, etc... No matter who we draw we won't be expected to win, we'd be a 12 seed max. Although Duke lost in the first round last season the powerhouse schools rarely seem to fall in the first round. Are there better draws than Wichita St? Definitely.
It's also hard to tell how good they really are. They're in the MVC so they play some mediocre to poor teams. The only other team is Northern Iowa. It's not like they're from the B1G where teams play top 25 teams every game, so it seems. The only Top 25 team they've won is a home game against Northern Iowa. They're a very good mid-major but they're not unbeatable.
I don't really know what a New Mexico or a Duke or a Georgetown or a Kansas have to do with Wichita State. I don't think there's a higher winning percentage from power conference upsets to mid major upsets in the first round. You can't really say its hard to tell how good Wichita State is from their conference anymore - many of the same guys were on the team with their Final Four run and their undefeated regular season last year. From the projected 3s, 4s, and 5s they have by far the most experience, the most postseason success, and the best coaching. They're really good. I'd order the projected 3-5 seeds in order of least likely 1st round upset to bracketbuster like this:
Maryland
Iowa St
Wichita St
UNC
Louisville
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Baylor
Utah
UNI
WV
Arkansas
Quote from: wh on March 04, 2015, 10:38:38 PM
Quote from: zvillehaze on March 04, 2015, 09:06:11 PM
Quote from: wh on March 04, 2015, 02:06:42 PM
One of the benefits of the double bye tournament bracket is the top 2 seeds are not saddled with playing teams at the bottom of the conference with bad RPI's. If the OVC, for example, doesn't have a double bye system (haven't looked) Murray State's RPI could be more negatively impacted by tournament opponents than Valpo's. The same could happen with other conferences. Something seemingly small like that could make the difference between a 12 and a 13.
I know it's been debated for years here, but are you for or against the HL tourney format? I've lost track of who is pro vs. con.
Subtle: clever and indirect : not showing your real purpose ;)
Let me think. Of the 3 vocal opponents to the double-bye RLH is long dead, wh now rides the fence, and once again I stand alone. There seems to be a pattern emerging. So who here thinks
A. we should have a schedule more like Oaklands and less like ours? Ducky
B. that HL referees almost always do a good job (after you watch the game replay)? Ducky
C. that Brian Wardle is both a fine coach and a decent role model? Ducky again. I did have Milan Miracle with me on that until he got badgered off the board. "Note the word badgered"
D the double bye is a stacked deck? Ducky flies alone buzzing the landscape looking forlornly for his fallen partners.
Maybe next year with an at large quality team wh will decide to rejoin the flock.
Quote from: justducky on March 05, 2015, 01:34:24 PM
Quote from: wh on March 04, 2015, 10:38:38 PM
Quote from: zvillehaze on March 04, 2015, 09:06:11 PM
Quote from: wh on March 04, 2015, 02:06:42 PM
One of the benefits of the double bye tournament bracket is the top 2 seeds are not saddled with playing teams at the bottom of the conference with bad RPI's. If the OVC, for example, doesn't have a double bye system (haven't looked) Murray State's RPI could be more negatively impacted by tournament opponents than Valpo's. The same could happen with other conferences. Something seemingly small like that could make the difference between a 12 and a 13.
I know it's been debated for years here, but are you for or against the HL tourney format? I've lost track of who is pro vs. con.
Subtle: clever and indirect : not showing your real purpose ;)
Let me think. Of the 4 vocal opponents to the double-bye RLH is long dead, wh now rides the fence, and once again I and StlVUFan stand alone. There seems to be a pattern emerging. So who here thinks
A. we should have a schedule more like Oaklands and less like ours? Ducky
B. that HL referees almost always do a good job (after you watch the game replay)? Ducky
C. that Brian Wardle is both a fine coach and a decent role model? Ducky again. I did have Milan Miracle with me on that until he got badgered off the board. "Note the word badgered"
D the double bye is a stacked deck? Ducky and StlVUFan fly alone buzzing the landscape looking forlornly for their fallen partners.
Maybe next year with an at large quality team wh will decide to rejoin the flock.
Fixed it for you.
Quote from: justducky on March 05, 2015, 01:34:24 PM
Quote from: wh on March 04, 2015, 10:38:38 PM
Quote from: zvillehaze on March 04, 2015, 09:06:11 PM
Quote from: wh on March 04, 2015, 02:06:42 PM
One of the benefits of the double bye tournament bracket is the top 2 seeds are not saddled with playing teams at the bottom of the conference with bad RPI's. If the OVC, for example, doesn't have a double bye system (haven't looked) Murray State's RPI could be more negatively impacted by tournament opponents than Valpo's. The same could happen with other conferences. Something seemingly small like that could make the difference between a 12 and a 13.
I know it's been debated for years here, but are you for or against the HL tourney format? I've lost track of who is pro vs. con.
Subtle: clever and indirect : not showing your real purpose ;)
Let me think. Of the 3 vocal opponents to the double-bye RLH is long dead, wh now rides the fence, and once again I stand alone. There seems to be a pattern emerging. So who here thinks
A. we should have a schedule more like Oaklands and less like ours? Ducky
B. that HL referees almost always do a good job (after you watch the game replay)? Ducky
C. that Brian Wardle is both a fine coach and a decent role model? Ducky again. I did have Milan Miracle with me on that until he got badgered off the board. "Note the word badgered"
D the double bye is a stacked deck? Ducky flies alone buzzing the landscape looking forlornly for his fallen partners.
Maybe next year with an at large quality team wh will decide to rejoin the flock.
Of course the double bye is a stacked deck. That's the whole point. Also I don't think anyone has argued for the same OOC schedule. We just think Oakland's OOC schedule is extremely detrimental to themselves and the league (which it is).
I watched the Wichita State V NI game. Both teams are currently 4 seeds. Not all 4 seeds are the same and if I had a choice I would rather play NI in Jacksonville (neutral site for both teams) because I think our defense would wreck havoc
Quote from: frontrowfan on March 05, 2015, 05:34:51 PMI watched the Wichita State V NI game. Both teams are currently 4 seeds. Not all 4 seeds are the same and if I had a choice I would rather play NI in Jacksonville (neutral site for both teams) because I think our defense would wreck havoc
Logged
Vashil could matchup better with Wichita St. My nightmare with Northern Iowa would be falling behind to the point that we would have to play man defense. That NI center could either dismantle Vashil from the outside or Jubril from the inside. Could we maybe take it to him and try to get him in foul trouble?
Quote from: justducky on March 05, 2015, 05:58:00 PM
Quote from: frontrowfan on March 05, 2015, 05:34:51 PMI watched the Wichita State V NI game. Both teams are currently 4 seeds. Not all 4 seeds are the same and if I had a choice I would rather play NI in Jacksonville (neutral site for both teams) because I think our defense would wreck havoc
Logged
Vashil could matchup better with Wichita St. My nightmare with Northern Iowa would be falling behind to the point that we would have to play man defense. That NI center could either dismantle Vashil from the outside or Jubril from the inside. Could we maybe take it to him and try to get him in foul trouble?
Don't know why you think Vashil struggles on the perimeter. I feel thats one of his biggest strengths - he's got quick feet and moves well for a big man. We have the best opponent 3 point shooting percentage in the conference. But yeah, Tuttle is a monster. He'll get anyone into foul trouble by banging down low, especially someone like Vashil. He can push anyone around and is very accurate around the basket. Kind of reminds me of a KVW that can shoot 3s. UNI overall didn't look very good against Wichita State, but had a couple spurts of brilliance to keep the game somewhat close.
Quote from: a3uge on March 05, 2015, 06:13:48 PMKind of reminds me of a KVW that can shoot 3s.
Huh - he never did hit one, did he?
Nope...0-7, though at least he only took 1 each as a jr and sr.
Wasn't one of them basically for spits 'n giggles? I seem to remember something...
Looks like we've (continued to?) slipped a bit at bracketmatrix.com.
Nothing so different from what the consensus seems to be around here. Looking more like a 13 seed than a 12.
(2 of 5 12 seeds forecast to be taken by play-in teams)
Wofford Southern 12.36
Stephen F. Austin Southland 12.48
Murray State Ohio Valley 12.52
Louisiana Tech CUSA 12.64
Valparaiso Horizon 12.77
Harvard Ivy 12.87 (that's before their loss last night)
Iona Metro Atlantic 13.13
Central Michigan MAC 13.56
With Central Michigan the first of the 14 seeds, trailed significantly by Davis and GA State.
I think you guys are way ahead of yourselves talking NCAA seeds. We have to win TWO very tough games.
But if we must.......I say cheer on Murray State since that is our best win. I think they are overrated..as are we.
I do think this year we have the athletes to pull off an NCAA win. But so do Green Bay and CSU and we have to beat them first.
And down goes Murray State in a hell of a game against Belmont...
Quote from: bmlvu97 on March 07, 2015, 08:01:50 PM
And down goes Murray State in a hell of a game against Belmont...
Ha-ha! I still think they're nowhere near an at-large. Good news! 88-87 in Nashville. Well done Belmont! If they're going to join the Horizon, this would be a good start.
Just saw the end if that Murray st game - what a game!
...am i the only one here that thinks this was not great? now our best win doesn't look as hot.
What is the difference in our best win coming against a 27-5 team vs. a 28-4 team? Who cares if Murray St. does not make the tournament. If Valpo wins the Horizon they will be seeded higher than Belmont and would have been seeded lower than Murray St. If Valpo does not win the Horizon they are not getting into the tournament and Belmont beating Murray St. had no impact on that. Belmont winning is a good thing. Need a few more of these to get a 12 seed.
Quote from: valpocleveland on March 07, 2015, 09:51:16 PMWhat is the difference in our best win coming against a 27-5 team vs. a 28-4 team?
we could say:
--we were their last loss
--we beat another conf champ
--we beat another team in the tourney
there you go
Make Tournament>Favorable match-up>Last team to beat Murray St.
It's not like they were going to run the table in the NCAAs.
Best case scenario would have been for EKU to beat Belmont, then beat MSU. That would have both been good and looked good.
Finally we passed GB on RPI. 58 after our win over CSU (and maybe GB dropped a hair beating UIC? I didn't check before their game).
With both GB and Valpo facing off for the title it looks like the Horizon will get a 12, 13 being the worst. I'm sure LeCrone is happy about that.
LeCrone needs to get Belmont.
For the college basketball fan, another great game tonight was Yale-Dartmouth. Yale, with the conference title in their hand, loses on a last second play to setup a one game playoff with Harvard for the Ivy League title.
Quote from: vu84v2 on March 07, 2015, 11:28:51 PM
For the college basketball fan, another great game tonight was Yale-Dartmouth. Yale, with the conference title in their hand, loses on a last second play to setup a one game playoff with Harvard for the Ivy League title.
Hmm... I was thinking that might be bad for us in the RPI-battle. But... looks like maybe we're OK? Still hoping for a Yale win, I think, even if they might wind up with a somewhat better RPI than would Harvard.
Quote from: vu84v2 on March 07, 2015, 11:28:51 PMFor the college basketball fan, another great game tonight was Yale-Dartmouth. Yale, with the conference title in their hand, loses on a last second play to setup a one game playoff with Harvard for the Ivy League title.
Will the game be played in New Haven or Cambridge? Since they tied for first in the 8 team Ivy League how is the vitally important home court decided? Knowing the Ivy League I'm sure it's not by RPI. The Ivy would scoff at that.
(http://media1.giphy.com/media/NqKMDYjidGsaA/200_s.gif)
Decided by RPI. Indeed!
Quote from: historyman on March 08, 2015, 06:47:22 AM
Quote from: vu84v2 on March 07, 2015, 11:28:51 PMFor the college basketball fan, another great game tonight was Yale-Dartmouth. Yale, with the conference title in their hand, loses on a last second play to setup a one game playoff with Harvard for the Ivy League title.
Will the game be played in New Haven or Cambridge? Since they tied for first in the 8 team Ivy League how is the vitally important home court decided? Knowing the Ivy League I'm sure it's not by RPI. The Ivy would scoff at that.
(http://media1.giphy.com/media/NqKMDYjidGsaA/200_s.gif)
Decided by RPI. Indeed!
Game is played on a neutral court. In this instance, at the Palestra in Philadelphia.
Quote from: agibson on March 07, 2015, 10:58:05 AM
Looks like we've (continued to?) slipped a bit at bracketmatrix.com.
Nothing so different from what the consensus seems to be around here. Looking more like a 13 seed than a 12.
(2 of 5 12 seeds forecast to be taken by play-in teams)
Wofford Southern 12.36
Stephen F. Austin Southland 12.48
Murray State Ohio Valley 12.52
Louisiana Tech CUSA 12.64
Valparaiso Horizon 12.77
Harvard Ivy 12.87 (that's before their loss last night)
Iona Metro Atlantic 13.13
Central Michigan MAC 13.56
With Central Michigan the first of the 14 seeds, trailed significantly by Davis and GA State.
Checking in with bracketmatrix.com, last updated 3/7/15 6:06 PM.
Harvard edges above us
Harvard Ivy 12.78, but based on old data; basically everybody's now including Yale:
Yale Ivy 13.21 39
But, that was before Yale's loss!
Amusingly, Bracket Matrix tossed in Belmont at 16, despite not actually appearing in any brackets yet. And basically scratched Murray State (and, indeed, Lunardi and basically everyone else credible seemed to be on record saying they had no chance at an at-large; but I'm sure people will have fun debating now).
We've fallen a bit
Valparaiso Horizon 12.84
(that before our win last night)
but seem to be getting a lot more 12's in March 7 brackets...
Another upset or two, out of maybe only three or four possibilities (SoCon, Southland, CUSA, Ivy, MAAC?), and we'd have a pretty good chance at a twelve seed. Maybe.
Realistically, I suppose we're looking at a 13.
And, realistically, Green Bay may still have a better chance at a 12. Not least because their last win would be on the road. Though, both of our ceilings seem to have shrunk, a bit mysteriously, on RPI Wizard. UWGB 60-->51, Valpo 59-->54. Maybe UWGB would need a little help from Miami, doing some damage in their tourney. Realistically, it might come down to that Miami win (which might come back into Top 50?) vs. our votes in the national pols and Bryce Drew.
Quote from: ValpoHoops on March 08, 2015, 07:51:09 AMGame is played on a neutral court. In this instance, at the Palestra in Philadelphia.
I wonder how they get it on such short notice!
Quote from: agibson on March 08, 2015, 01:06:46 PM
Quote from: ValpoHoops on March 08, 2015, 07:51:09 AMGame is played on a neutral court. In this instance, at the Palestra in Philadelphia.
I wonder how they get it on such short notice!
the ivies have powerful friends
The Simpsons Stonecutters Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZI_aEalijE#)
Quote from: agibson on March 08, 2015, 01:06:46 PMQuote from: ValpoHoops on March 08, 2015, 07:51:09 AMGame is played on a neutral court. In this instance, at the Palestra in Philadelphia.
I wonder how they get it on such short notice!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestra)
The Palestra, often called the Cathedral of College Basketball,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestra#cite_note-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestra#cite_note-The_Palestra_tour-3) is a historic arena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena) and the home gym of the University of Pennsylvania Quakers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Pennsylvania#Athletics) men's and women's basketball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball) teams, volleyball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volleyball) teams, wrestling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrestling) team, and Philadelphia Big 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Big_5)basketball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball). Located at 235 South 33rd St. in Philadelphia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia), Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania) on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Pennsylvania), near Franklin Field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Field)in the University City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_City,_Philadelphia,_Pennsylvania) section of Philadelphia, it opened on January 1, 1927. The Palestra has been called "the most important building in the history of college basketball" and "changed the entire history of the sport for which it was built."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestra#cite_note-4)The University of Pennslyvania, an Ivy League member, just happens to own the Palestra.
Quote from: historyman on March 08, 2015, 01:19:09 PMThe University of Pennslyvania, an Ivy League member, just happens to own the Palestra.
It gets used for a bunch of others stuff too though, right? I'd thought it might be hosting a conference tournament. But, maybe not. Just Big5 regular season games?
Quote from: agibson on March 08, 2015, 01:21:29 PMQuote from: historyman on March 08, 2015, 01:19:09 PMThe University of Pennslyvania, an Ivy League member, just happens to own the Palestra.
It gets used for a bunch of others stuff too though, right? I'd thought it might be hosting a conference tournament. But, maybe not. Just Big5 regular season games?
This couldn't be the first time this has happened in the Ivy League (a tie for first). My guess is that they save the date at the Palestra just for this kind of thing.
Illinois State up 14 at the half on Northern Iowa. My guess is that Illinois State winning would hinder seeding for Tuesday's winner since it would move them ahead of both Valpo and Green Bay in RPI and would give them two huge marquee wins. Still, it is hard to root against a mid-major playing their tails off at this stage of the season.
Spoke too soon. Northern Iowa is just too good of a team not to come back from a big first half deficit. Game on, but I wouldn't bet against UNI.
Quote from: vu84v2 on March 08, 2015, 02:17:50 PMIllinois State up 14 at the half on Northern Iowa. My guess is that Illinois State winning would hinder seeding for Tuesday's winner since it would move them ahead of both Valpo and Green Bay in RPI and would give them two huge marquee wins. Still, it is hard to root against a mid-major playing their tails off at this stage of the season.
Illinois State would be displacing a bubble team like Indiana or Texas since there's a finite number of at-larges. Either way, all of those bubble teams are 10-12 seeds and have no bearing on the Horizon League's seed.
Quote from: vu84v2 on March 08, 2015, 02:17:50 PMit would move them ahead of both Valpo and Green Bay in RPI and would give them two huge marquee wins.
We might end neck-and-neck. But, it's pretty easy to imagine which way the Selection Committee would go.
Consolation prize, they're an opponents-opponent! Their run does help our RPI slightly.
Bracket Matrix updated 3/8/15 11:23 AM.
Looks like a split decision on the Ivies. About half and half Yale vs. Harvard, with Harvard getting the higher seed. Basically tied with ours.
_Noone_ seems to have Murray State in.
We're at
Valparaiso Horizon 12.77
currently the best of the 13's.
Kind of a cool series of tweets from one of the MSU players imploring the NCAA to recognize Murray's great regular season and regular season championship and pushing for an at-large bid.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/03/murray-state-player-tweets-impassioned-plea-for-spot-in-ncaa-tournament (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/03/murray-state-player-tweets-impassioned-plea-for-spot-in-ncaa-tournament)
Murray State has an RPI of 67. They aren't getting an at-large. They should be wondering how they can go undefeated in league-play and not get an at-large... prompting them to join the Horizon.
Still a 13 seed but now against Utah in Portland.
Quote from: oklahomamick on March 08, 2015, 06:49:03 PM
Still a 13 seed but now against Utah in Portland.
With Iona a 12, ahead of us. Who are up against Manhattan in the finals, tomorrow. Played them close both times.
Furman just beat Mercer, so it looks like Wofford will have a cakewalk to win the SoCon. Furman's RPI is around 300 and they're 11-21.
I went looking for the worst team to ever make the tournament - funny Oakland's MidConn championship in 2005 showed up there. They finished 12-18... I looked on Wikipedia to find out what happened and I guess Oral Roberts just fell apart as the 1 seed. Also found this hilarious:
QuoteThe Golden Grizzlies had started the season 0–7, playing an extremely challenging schedule. At 12–18, they had the worst record of any qualifier to the NCAA Tournament. They would go on to win their play-in game against Alabama A&M, then lose to North Carolina in the first round. [1]
Some things never change. Oakland Grizzlies: 16 seed or bust.
Quote from: a3uge on March 08, 2015, 09:50:26 PM
Furman just beat Mercer, so it looks like Wofford will have a cakewalk to win the SoCon. Furman's RPI is around 300 and they're 11-21.
I went looking for the worst team to ever make the tournament - funny Oakland's MidConn championship in 2005 showed up there. They finished 12-18... I looked on Wikipedia to find out what happened and I guess Oral Roberts just fell apart as the 1 seed. Also found this hilarious:
QuoteThe Golden Grizzlies had started the season 0–7, playing an extremely challenging schedule. At 12–18, they had the worst record of any qualifier to the NCAA Tournament. They would go on to win their play-in game against Alabama A&M, then lose to North Carolina in the first round. [1]
Some things never change. Oakland Grizzlies: 16 seed or bust.
Their first 7 opponents: Xavier, Illinois, Marquette, Texas A&M, Missouri, Kansas State and St. Louis.
Wow, they've been selling their bodies forever. ;)
IUPUI was down 3 with 2.5 seconds left and in-bounded the ball under the basket for an easy lay-in. All 500 people in Sioux Falls then wondered what the heck they were doing watching IUPUI play Oral Roberts. Then I asked myself the same thing.
[tweet]574775722977460224[/tweet]
Quote from: a3uge on March 08, 2015, 09:50:26 PMI went looking for the worst team to ever make the tournament - funny Oakland's MidConn championship in 2005 showed up there. They finished 12-18... I looked on Wikipedia to find out what happened and I guess Oral Roberts just fell apart as the 1 seed. Also found this hilarious: Quote (selected) The Golden Grizzlies had started the season 0–7, playing an extremely challenging schedule. At 12–18, they had the worst record of any qualifier to the NCAA Tournament. They would go on to win their play-in game against Alabama A&M, then lose to North Carolina in the first round. [1]
I remember watching that game on TV and wishing I had stayed in Tulsa to watch ORU fall apart and cheer on Oakland. Rawle Marshall, I believe, hit a huge shot in the last few seconds to send Kampe and Oakland to their first NCAA tournament.
Quote from: a3uge on March 08, 2015, 11:19:32 PM
and they did this?!
Went for the easy two when they needed 3?
Quote from: a3uge on March 08, 2015, 11:19:32 PM
IUPUI was down 3 with 2.5 seconds left and in-bounded the ball under the basket for an easy lay-in. All 500 people in Sioux Falls then wondered what the heck they were doing watching IUPUI play Oral Roberts. Then I asked myself the same thing.
[tweet]574775722977460224[/tweet]
Doh!
Quote from: historyman on March 09, 2015, 02:21:40 AM
Quote from: a3uge on March 08, 2015, 09:50:26 PMI went looking for the worst team to ever make the tournament - funny Oakland's MidConn championship in 2005 showed up there. They finished 12-18... I looked on Wikipedia to find out what happened and I guess Oral Roberts just fell apart as the 1 seed. Also found this hilarious: Quote (selected) The Golden Grizzlies had started the season 0–7, playing an extremely challenging schedule. At 12–18, they had the worst record of any qualifier to the NCAA Tournament. They would go on to win their play-in game against Alabama A&M, then lose to North Carolina in the first round. [1]
I remember watching that game on TV and wishing I had stayed in Tulsa to watch ORU fall apart and cheer on Oakland. Rawle Marshall, I believe, hit a huge shot in the last few seconds to send Kampe and Oakland to their first NCAA tournament.
Pierre Dukes.
Don't know where to put this, but Oakland has a chance to finish above .500 this year:
[tweet]574998938455048192[/tweet]
Quote from: a3uge on March 09, 2015, 02:35:13 PM
Don't know where to put this, but Oakland has a chance to finish above .500 this year:
To _host_ a CIT game (putting up $$, some of the guarantee money, I guess), that is.
RPI 153, I guess that's the top half...
Quote from: a3uge on March 09, 2015, 02:35:13 PMDon't know where to put this, but Oakland has a chance to finish above .500 this year:
Good for them! The more HL members in the post season the better!
Quote from: FWalum on March 09, 2015, 05:33:11 PM
Quote from: a3uge on March 09, 2015, 02:35:13 PMDon't know where to put this, but Oakland has a chance to finish above .500 this year:
Good for them! The more HL members in the post season the better!
I think they could do some damage in the post season.
Congrats to Coach Driscoll and N. Florida for their bid into the NCAA. I met him in the ATL airport over thanksgiving, nice guy. Also nice enough to vote for us several times. :thumbsup:
Quote from: wh on March 09, 2015, 05:55:54 PM
Quote from: FWalum on March 09, 2015, 05:33:11 PM
Quote from: a3uge on March 09, 2015, 02:35:13 PMDon't know where to put this, but Oakland has a chance to finish above .500 this year:
Good for them! The more HL members in the post season the better!
I think they could do some damage in the post season.
They've done more damage in these smaller postseason tourneys than we have.
Just listened to a report on line by Jerry Palm who predicted either GB or Valpo could win a game in the tournament and also said that if Valpo didn't win he could expect the same nashing of teeth by Valpo fans as would be coming from Murray State fans if we don't get a bid. Then he finished by mentioning that Valpo beat Murray by 35!
Now the seeding talks may officially commence!!!
Yep, less fear of jinxing the team. This is the best 5 days of the year when we get a bid. Speculators unite!
Quote from: classof2014 on March 10, 2015, 09:39:08 PMNow the seeding talks may officially commence!!!
When should I plant seeds this year?
(http://www.marcanthonyjohnson.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Seeds-2.jpg)
Quote from: classof2014 on March 10, 2015, 09:39:08 PM
Now the seeding talks may officially commence!!!
We still don't look like a 12 to me. But, here's hoping!
I'd be awfully disappointed by a 14.
We should get a 12, but worst case scenario is a 13. Either way, those are the seeds we want to have in order to pull an upset!
Up to a 12 according to Lunardi today against UNC.
Quote from: valpo4life on March 11, 2015, 09:47:37 AM
Up to a 12 according to Lunardi today against UNC.
Nice! The Bracketmatrix sliding average has us edging closer to LA Tech, who Lunardi has us passing. Most of the latest brackets actually seem to have us 12, but it's not clear that we'll get to keep that momentum.
If the current Joe Lunardi's bracket was in fact our bracket I would be very happy.
We would be a 12 playing West Virginia in Jacksonville (KC would go up against his cousin, Jevon)
Winner would play winner of Louisville (4) vs GA State (13)
-Nova is the 1 seed, which to me is by far the worst of the 1 seeds.
Calling it now. Rematch between Michigan St and Valpo in the Elite Eight!
---Only if this were our bracket--- LOL
So, where did we end up one the all-time RPI list? Somebody (a3uge?) had a nice table, but I wasn't trivially able to find it...
Quote from: agibson on March 12, 2015, 12:59:58 PM
So, where did we end up one the all-time RPI list? Somebody (a3uge?) had a nice table, but I wasn't trivially able to find it...
Considering we have opponents of opponents still playing (and probably will until Selection Sunday) we'll have to wait to find out what the final number is.
Quote from: Kyle321n on March 12, 2015, 01:09:45 PM
Quote from: agibson on March 12, 2015, 12:59:58 PM
So, where did we end up one the all-time RPI list? Somebody (a3uge?) had a nice table, but I wasn't trivially able to find it...
Considering we have opponents of opponents still playing (and probably will until Selection Sunday) we'll have to wait to find out what the final number is.
[/b]
[/b]
So, for example, Miami won last night and Green Bay beat them earlier in the year. Do wins like that help our RPI?
Quote from: vu72 on March 12, 2015, 01:13:34 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on March 12, 2015, 01:09:45 PM
Quote from: agibson on March 12, 2015, 12:59:58 PM
So, where did we end up one the all-time RPI list? Somebody (a3uge?) had a nice table, but I wasn't trivially able to find it...
Considering we have opponents of opponents still playing (and probably will until Selection Sunday) we'll have to wait to find out what the final number is.
So, for example, Miami won last night and Green Bay beat them earlier in the year. Do wins like that help our RPI?
Yes. Our opponent's strength of schedule makes up 25% of our RPI. So every win that our opponent's opponent gets helps us. Not as much as wins our opponents get (50% is made up of our Opponents Record) or our wins. Even if Green Bay had lost to Miami, that Miami win would help us. It helps us more that Green Bay beat Miami, but that's besides the point.
Quote from: classof2014 on March 12, 2015, 10:55:25 AMCalling it now. Rematch between Michigan St and Valpo in the Elite Eight!
'14... I agree to a point... as a preservationist... I think the rematch with Arizona in the E8...50-15 at the half...90-51 at the end... Not going to happen this year...
I do see Lunardo [spelling correct for pronunciation purposes] has 5 Indiana teams in ...and IU gets the PIG.
Quote from: Kyle321n on March 12, 2015, 01:09:45 PM
Quote from: agibson on March 12, 2015, 12:59:58 PM
So, where did we end up one the all-time RPI list? Somebody (a3uge?) had a nice table, but I wasn't trivially able to find it...
Considering we have opponents of opponents still playing (and probably will until Selection Sunday) we'll have to wait to find out what the final number is.
Well, sure. But, I bet we're within a couple of places of the final. Actually, I take that back. I bet our RPI itself (about 0.5717) won't change very much. But, our rank might. A fair number of the teams around us are still big conference teams with tournaments still going on. So, who knows, maybe #53 can still change by a few places. Still, are we close?
Are we looking for "regular season" RPI or "end of year" RPI? Shouldn't it be the latter for comparisons between years to be valid?
So it could change by several spots based on what happens in the tournament.
And hopefully it goes up a lot.
wonder what North Carolina's 10 point win over Louisville in the ACC tournament will do to the bracket...?
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on March 12, 2015, 03:14:57 PM
Are we looking for "regular season" RPI or "end of year" RPI? Shouldn't it be the latter for comparisons between years to be valid?
So it could change by several spots based on what happens in the tournament.
And hopefully it goes up a lot.
We have better data on pre-NCAA RPI, right?
Of course, both could be interesting, especially in the event of wins.
I have end of season data from the NCAA archives saved somewhere I'll try f find it. I think RPI used to not factor in home/away games until 2002 or something. Maybe bbstate.com has it
Here's the thread.
http://www.valpofanzone.com/forum/index.php?topic=2106.msg55593#msg55593 (http://www.valpofanzone.com/forum/index.php?topic=2106.msg55593#msg55593)
Jerry Palm puts the 2013 pre-NCAA RPI at 60. So, whether we end at 53, or something nearby, it seems like we will beat that one.
Quote from: talksalot on March 12, 2015, 04:01:06 PMwonder what North Carolina's 10 point win over Louisville in the ACC tournament will do to the bracket...?
Watched some of that game and some of Providence- Saint John. I had paid no special attention to any of them before but a quick glance at all suggests that none could dominate us like Michigan St did 2 years back. No I am not going to stick my neck out any further than that until I know a bit more than I presently do.
Today Lunardi's got us a 12 against a rising Georgetown.
Thinking in general about bracketing. There's been a lot of talk in the last few years that geography matters a great deal. And, that it can maybe even move teams up or down a seed.
But, I wonder, how does it affect the S curve? In our draw against Michigan State, I don't remember us being seeded low relative to our announced S curve position. Do they retroactively change the S curve, if geography has an affect on bracketing/seeding?
I think we were considered to be the highest rated 13, we were moved to Detroit due to location and I think they moved us below 2 other 13s, but this is 2013 we're talking about and I don't remember the beers I drank last night.
Quote from: Kyle321n on March 13, 2015, 11:32:15 AMI don't remember the beers I drank last night.
Whenever my wife asks me "How many beers did you have?", my response is always "One...at a time!"
Quote from: Kyle321n on March 13, 2015, 11:32:15 AM
I think we were considered to be the highest rated 13, we were moved to Detroit due to location and I think they moved us below 2 other 13s, but this is 2013 we're talking about and I don't remember the beers I drank last night.
#45 Boise State vs. #49 La Salle for one 13, NM State #52, SD State #53, Montana #54 for the other 13's.
Davidson #55, Valpo #56 as the best of the 14's. (Then Northwestern State #57, Harvard #58.)
At the time it sure felt like we should have been above Montana (who proceeded to lose by 47 to Syracuse).
But, either geography doesn't seem to have been a factor in our 14 seed, or they covered it by changing the "overall rank" scores.
Quote from: Kyle321n on March 13, 2015, 11:32:15 AM
I think we were considered to be the highest rated 13, we were moved to Detroit due to location and I think they moved us below 2 other 13s, but this is 2013 we're talking about and I don't remember the beers I drank last night.
They don't snake seeds - they reserve the right to move teams up or down 1 seed, so they moved up Montana and moved down either Valpo or SD State whom also got a terrible draw against eventual runner-up Michigan. The one thing that was disappointing (besides stupid Montana seed) was the lack of respect for the Horizon - the conferences historically strong reputation didn't really do us any favors.
The committee does rank each team 1-68, so I feel if they have the top 13 seed, they'll try to avoid dropping them down to a 14, but you never know. Montana wasn't even close to a 13, but they moved them up anyways.
Trolling around a little bit for reports from the Mock Selection exercises, trying to find comments on the role of geography.
Here's one take
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2387936-behind-the-scenes-how-the-ncaa-tournament-selection-committee-really-works (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2387936-behind-the-scenes-how-the-ncaa-tournament-selection-committee-really-works)
Quote
Geography is the supreme ruler during bracketing. Senior Web Developer Colin Chappell has designed a program (that I would pay good money for) that notes exactly how many miles a team would need to travel to reach the various options for regional and sub-regional locations. In addition to miles, there is a lot of discussion about how many time zones a team would need to travel. The top 16 teams are placed by region and then by sub-region.
Where in previous years there was an "S-curve," in which (if possible) the top No. 2 seed was matched up against the bottom No. 1 seed, teams are now kept as close to home as possible while still remaining on their true seed line. So even if Wisconsin is the top No. 2 seed, get ready to see the Badgers in the Midwest Region opposite Kentucky. Cleveland would be the preferred regional location for each.
Quote from: a3uge on March 13, 2015, 11:53:05 AMThey don't snake seeds - they reserve the right to move teams up or down 1 seed, so they moved up Montana and moved down either Valpo or SD State whom also got a terrible draw against eventual runner-up Michigan. The one thing that was disappointing (besides stupid Montana seed) was the lack of respect for the Horizon - the conferences historically strong reputation didn't really do us any favors.
The committee does rank each team 1-68, so I feel if they have the top 13 seed, they'll try to avoid dropping them down to a 14, but you never know. Montana wasn't even close to a 13, but they moved them up anyways.
Yeah, sorry, my use of the phrase "S Curve" was an anachronism. Still, I assume that the procedure is still to do the overall ranking before bracketing.
And, it would seem a little perverse (but who knows) to edit the overall ranking to support, ex post facto, the final bracketing.
Do we have a copy of the actual "rules" given to the committee?
Quote from: agibson on March 13, 2015, 11:58:16 AM
Quote from: a3uge on March 13, 2015, 11:53:05 AMThey don't snake seeds - they reserve the right to move teams up or down 1 seed, so they moved up Montana and moved down either Valpo or SD State whom also got a terrible draw against eventual runner-up Michigan. The one thing that was disappointing (besides stupid Montana seed) was the lack of respect for the Horizon - the conferences historically strong reputation didn't really do us any favors.
The committee does rank each team 1-68, so I feel if they have the top 13 seed, they'll try to avoid dropping them down to a 14, but you never know. Montana wasn't even close to a 13, but they moved them up anyways.
Yeah, sorry, my use of the phrase "S Curve" was an anachronism. Still, I assume that the procedure is still to do the overall ranking before bracketing.
And, it would seem a little perverse (but who knows) to edit the overall ranking to support, ex post facto, the final bracketing.
Do we have a copy of the actual "rules" given to the committee?
http://www.ncaa.com/content/di-principles-and-procedures-selection
I responded before reading your response, but yeah, in an ideal world they would avoid moving the top 13 seed to a 14, but the committee tends to make no sense.
Quote from: a3uge on March 13, 2015, 12:09:36 PM
http://www.ncaa.com/content/di-principles-and-procedures-selection (http://www.ncaa.com/content/di-principles-and-procedures-selection)
I responded before reading your response, but yeah, in an ideal world they would avoid moving the top 13 seed to a 14, but the committee tends to make no sense.
This document makes it pretty clear that the Seed List is created first, and not changed during bracketing. Really suggesting that we weren't bumped down to 14 because of geography. They just really thought we were worse than Davidson and Montana.
Seed moves (up or down one line, or even exceptionally two) must happen all the time (did they say up to eleven one year?). So, the evidence should be there in past brackets...
I really don't think we'll be a 14. The 2013 team I wasn't surprised at the 14 seed, I thought it was low but not unfair. The unfair part about it was that we had to play Michigan State in Auburn Hills, so it was basically a home game for the Spartans.
We're either a 12 or 13. An 11 or 14 isn't out of the realm of possibility but I would be quite surprised if that was the case.
Quote from: agibson on March 13, 2015, 12:34:55 PM
Quote from: a3uge on March 13, 2015, 12:09:36 PM
http://www.ncaa.com/content/di-principles-and-procedures-selection (http://www.ncaa.com/content/di-principles-and-procedures-selection)
I responded before reading your response, but yeah, in an ideal world they would avoid moving the top 13 seed to a 14, but the committee tends to make no sense.
This document makes it pretty clear that the Seed List is created first, and not changed during bracketing. Really suggesting that we weren't bumped down to 14 because of geography. They just really thought we were worse than Davidson and Montana.
Seed moves (up or down one line, or even exceptionally two) must happen all the time (did they say up to eleven one year?). So, the evidence should be there in past brackets...
"Importantly, various principles may preclude a
team from being placed in its "true" seed position
in the bracket."
"A team may be moved up or down one (or in
extraordinary circumstances) two lines from
its true seed line (e.g., from the 13 seed line to
the 12 seed line; or from a 12 seed line to a 13
seed line) when it is placed in the bracket if
necessary to meet the principles."
Quote from: agibson on March 13, 2015, 12:34:55 PMSeed moves (up or down one line, or even exceptionally two) must happen all the time (did they say up to eleven one year?). So, the evidence should be there in past brackets...
So, with that in mind, looking at the 2013 bracket.
Starting from the top, I don't see any discrepancies until the 9 seed. Which would be 33 to 36 on the Seed List, normally. But, Villanova got bumped up from #38 overall.
Correspondingly, the 10 seed would normally be 37 to 40, but Colorado played as a 10 from the #36 spot.
Then the 11 gets a little crazy. Would normally be 41 to 44 or 45. Minnesota (41) was an 11, and Belmont (44). Bucknell (48, normally a 12) was the third 11. California (42) got bumped down to the 12. So did Oregon (43). Saint Mary's (46) and MTSU (50) somehow played for the last 11. MTSU, at 50, would normally have been at a 13.
The 12 seed would normally be 46 or so to 49 or so. It wound up as Akron (51), Mississippi (47), California (42, as mentioned), Oregon (43, as mentioned).
The 13 seed would normally be 50 or so to 54 or so. SD State (53). Montana (54). NM State (52). And Boise State (45) and La Salle (49) played for a spot.
The 14 seed would then be 55 to 58. Which it was, including us.
So, according to the NCAA's seed list, there was plenty of shifting around in the bottom half of the bracket in 2013 - according to their rules about rematches, conferences, and perhaps geography.
But, apparently, none of it moved us off our originally designated 14 seed.
*shrug*
So, yeah, our playing in Auburn Hills might have been a bit of cruel fortune. Perhaps a result of other geography considerations in the bracket. Or, a cruel attempt by the NCAA to do us a favor and have us play close to home.
But, it seems like they gave us a 14 seed entirely on purpose.
And yeah, this year, I hope we can stay out of the 14. It seems like everything would have to break wrong in the other conference tourneys, and in the head-to-head comparisons. But, a fair bit would still have to break _right_ to get us to the 12. Bracketmatrix aside.
Quote from: agibson on March 13, 2015, 12:50:09 PMAnd yeah, this year, I hope we can stay out of the 14.
I would only like the 14 if we were to get Maryland in Columbus or Louisville. Maryland is a good match for us, but they do seem to win many of the close (less than 3 points) games.
Quote from: covufan on March 13, 2015, 01:05:48 PMI would only like the 14 if we were to get Maryland in Columbus or Louisville. Maryland is a good match for us, but they do seem to win many of the close (less than 3 points) games.
I would love to see Seth Davis' twitter feed if we managed to beat Maryland in a 14-3 game. (Thinking back to the week, or several weeks?, when he ranked us in preference to them in the top 25.)
Newest Update - Jerry Palm/CBS Bracketology:
Butler (5) vs. Valparaiso (12) in Charlotte
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology)
I just wonder how Butler, who lost in their quarter-finals, makes it to a 5. I'd love it but I do wonder... ???
And no one on this team, except Vashil I believe, has ever taken the floor against a Butler team and has zero personal context. So it would be great for us veteran fans, but the kids in school today and the players won't get the same flow of adrenaline as us -- that is....... if it comes to be.
We played Butler three times in 2011-2012. The only current player on the roster then was, indeed, Vashil. He did not, however, see any playing time in the three games.
Quote from: VULB#62 on March 14, 2015, 10:03:29 AM
And no one on this team, except Vashil I believe, has ever taken the floor against a Butler team and has zero personal context. So it would be great for us veteran fans, but the kids in school today and the players won't get the same flow of adrenaline as us -- that is....... if it comes to be.
I think you are really underselling what this matchup would mean to the team and at least every fan in the senior class. The defection of Butler from the HL was a HUGE deal and I guarantee that every player on the team is aware of the recent history between VU and Butler. I think the adrenaline will be flowing a plenty..... if it comes to be. (http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/prayer-hands-smiley-emoticon.gif) (http://www.sherv.net/)
I'm sure Alec would love to play Butler. Alec was heavily recruited by Butler. They offered him a scholarship and then lost interest in him later in favor of Chrabascz. Some of their message board fans continue to compare the 2 ( more so last year than this), and have questioned the decision. Now that they're winning and Chrabascz is a solid contributor, they've moved on. I'm guessing Alec would like to see if he could score a hoop or 2 against them. ;)
Aside from that I'm not sure what the point is about the players not being personally excited or intrigued or whatever by playing Butler. Even if true, so what? Fans on both sides would be greatly interested in it. There are a lot of great story lines, e.g., our 4 game winning streak, Butlers refusal to play us despite "repeated attempts" by ml to schedule them, etc. Lastly, compare this year's Valpo team not to the Broekhoff 12-13 team, but the Broekhoff 11-12 team that lost to Detroit in the HL tourney championship game. That's how much better we are now than the last time we played and swept them.
Or, we could play Utah or someone else we have absolutely zero connection to...
Geez you guys! Yes, Alex will be motivated, and, if you had really read my initial post on this, I did not say they won't be excited. The kids on this team will be thrilled to play wherever they land in the bracket and Butler being an in-state team will make for an intriguing matchup because we recruit against them. And the adrenaline will flow. My point was about us -- the vets, the old-timers, the old farts. Us old-timers have much bigger chips on our shoulders based on a deep, deep history. The adrenaline I was referring to is different. I know my adrenaline will have at least 20% bile as a component -- that's where the context comes in.
Look at what Lunardi now has:
Baylor (4) vs. Valpo (13) in Jacksonville (East Regional)
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/257 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/257)
Palm now has:
Arkansas (5) vs. Valpo (12) in Pittsburgh (East Regional)
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology)
Lunardi has St Francis (PA) as a 9 seed at-large!
(http://i.imgur.com/2La7Y3T.jpg)
Quote from: a3uge on March 15, 2015, 11:07:08 AM
Lunardi has St Francis (PA) as a 9 seed at-large!
He also still has Valpo (13) playing Baylor (4) in Jacksonville!
Quote from: a3uge on March 15, 2015, 11:07:08 AMLunardi has St Francis (PA) as a 9 seed at-large!
(http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/mamacitapic1.jpg)
Just replaced with "Saint Johns"... the next school alphabetically on the list... Whooops !
Quote from: talksalot on March 15, 2015, 02:24:48 PM
Just replaced with "Saint Johns"... the next school alphabetically on the list... Whooops !
Intern getting a talking to?
The logic and rationale used by the selection committee of clustering teams by geographic proximity and using the "eye test" renders Bracketology prognostication of very limited value. Personally, I will be paying far less attention to "Bracketology speak" next year.
Quote from: wh on March 24, 2015, 12:42:58 PM
The logic and rationale used by the selection committee of clustering teams by geographic proximity and using the "eye test" renders Bracketology prognostication of very limited value. Personally, I will be paying far less attention to "Bracketology speak" next year.
Agreed, I think it is a travesty when someone like a Colorado State does not get in the tournament with 27 wins and a 30 RPI. It makes a mockery of the whole process.
Quote from: wh on March 24, 2015, 12:42:58 PM
The logic and rationale used by the selection committee of clustering teams by geographic proximity and using the "eye test" renders Bracketology prognostication of very limited value. Personally, I will be paying far less attention to "Bracketology speak" next year.
I've been trying to tell you all that they just get really drunk and hand out certain seeds at random.
Quote from: a3uge on March 24, 2015, 03:13:50 PMI've been trying to tell you all that they just get really drunk and hand out certain seeds at random.
Yup. Then they draw straws and the loser has to coffee up and rationalize the process to the media. I could do that job too except I've never been a big fan of coffee!
Quote from: a3uge on March 24, 2015, 03:13:50 PMI've been trying to tell you all that they just get really drunk and hand out certain seeds at random.
Where can I sign up or send my resume to be on the committee?!!?!?! ;D :cheers:
A bracketology for next year.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology)
A #13 seed vs. #4 Wisconsin.
I think I'd rather play them in December at the United Center...
Lundardi probably doesn't even know Payne declared for the NBA. He's clueless. Can't even pronounce our school name correctly, I wouldn't put any weight into what he says this early.
At this way too early juncture, the key is that he has us slated to win our conference. Pronunciations, places and opponents are for another day.
Quote from: oklahomamick on April 07, 2015, 02:24:11 PM
A bracketology for next year.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology)
A #13 seed vs. #4 Wisconsin.
Not sure how a top 25 team gets a 13.
Goodman had us as a 12. My reaction was similar (nice to be mentioned... but just a 12?). (But, OK, if someone had to guess today. Particularly an outsider, a 12 is probably a pretty good guess.)
[tweet]585435072184057856[/tweet]
I presume we'll be a 3 or 4 seed after going undefeated.
Quote from: a3uge on April 07, 2015, 04:43:17 PM
I presume we'll be a 3 or 4 seed after going undefeated.
What'd Princeton draw? An 8 or a 9, to play Green Bay?
Quote from: agibson on April 07, 2015, 04:51:09 PM
Quote from: a3uge on April 07, 2015, 04:43:17 PM
I presume we'll be a 3 or 4 seed after going undefeated.
What'd Princeton draw? An 8 or a 9, to play Green Bay?
I was talking about Volleyball not basketball.
Quote from: valpo84 on April 07, 2015, 03:10:37 PMAt this way too early juncture, the key is that he has us slated to win our conference. Pronunciations, places and opponents are for another day.
At this too early juncture, the key is LET ME ENJOY REFLECTING ON 2014-2015 AND WATCH MY WHITE SOX WIN THE WORLD SERIES BEFORE SHOVING 2015-2016 DOWN MY THROAT.
:banghead: :rant:
But seriously folks, all I really mean to convey is that I just don't understand why bracketology has to be a year-round thing and start up as soon as "One Shining Moment" hits its final measure and fades off into the sunset. Why doesn't the college basketball world want to let the current season breath for awhile before getting right back on the same treadmill all over again. It's a free country, don't get me wrong. I just don't get it anymore ;) 8-) :deadhorse:
Then again, I don't get bracketology, period, so just ignore me ;)
Valpo opens as 300-1 odds to win the national championship next year. Easy money.
http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/12639147/kentucky-wildcats-north-carolina-tar-heels-open-las-vegas-favorites-2016-national-championship (http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/12639147/kentucky-wildcats-north-carolina-tar-heels-open-las-vegas-favorites-2016-national-championship)
Quote from: chipper955 on April 07, 2015, 07:00:32 PM
Valpo opens as 300-1 odds to win the national championship next year. Easy money.
http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/12639147/kentucky-wildcats-north-carolina-tar-heels-open-las-vegas-favorites-2016-national-championship (http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/12639147/kentucky-wildcats-north-carolina-tar-heels-open-las-vegas-favorites-2016-national-championship)
If we use the odds list as a guide, then Valpo begins this very early projection tied for #55 in the 2015-2016 rankings.
Too early STL? Even the team is looking forward to 2015-16!! ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ3uyX15ESg&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ3uyX15ESg&feature=youtu.be)
Quote from: valpo84 on April 08, 2015, 08:23:55 AM
Too early STL? Even the team is looking forward to 2015-16!! ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ3uyX15ESg&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ3uyX15ESg&feature=youtu.be)
"An error occurred. Please try again later."
Working OK for me at the moment.
Valpo Basketball Returns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ3uyX15ESg#ws)
It was probably a firewall issue since I was trying to get to it from my work computer.
That's not what I was talking about anyway ;) Bracketology and predictions is worlds apart from student athletes looking forward to competing again next year.
Quote from: StlVUFan on April 08, 2015, 06:51:17 PM
Quote from: valpo84 on April 08, 2015, 08:23:55 AM
Too early STL? Even the team is looking forward to 2015-16!! ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ3uyX15ESg&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ3uyX15ESg&feature=youtu.be)
"An error occurred. Please try again later."
And here I thought you were sly like a mink. ::)
Probably this was mentioned somewhere. But, I figured I'd file it away for March. Lunardi, pre-season, had us as an 11 seed. Not sure if he does the pre-season seriously (imagining what quality wins people will garner, etc.), or not.
Actually, looks like he had two pre-season brackets. August 5 (pre-Vashil? or who knows what changed) a 13 seed. November 11, an 11 seed. He has the at-large play-ins 12-12 and 11-11 (and neither us).
Never too early to dream, right? But, I can't bear to start a new thread in November.
Quote from: agibson on November 17, 2015, 04:21:14 PM
Probably this was mentioned somewhere. But, I figured I'd file it away for March. Lunardi, pre-season, had us as an 11 seed. Not sure if he does the pre-season seriously (imagining what quality wins people will garner, etc.), or not.
Actually, looks like he had two pre-season brackets. August 5 (pre-Vashil? or who knows what changed) a 13 seed. November 11, an 11 seed. He has the at-large play-ins 12-12 and 11-11 (and neither us).
Never too early to dream, right? But, I can't bear to start a new thread in November.
You won't find too many brackets predicting us to lose the conference tournament (the only way we'd end up with a play-in game like that).
With a split in Oregon our at-large hopes should be very solid and as low as a 7 or 8 seed could be achievable. I am still counting on dropping 2 (maybe even 3) HL games either in or outside the tournament. Of course a new rash of injuries might drop us out of all contention. That is what the fickle finger of fate can do.