MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on November 23, 2014, 11:07:42 AM
-
As of right now, we have four ranked teams on the schedule
#20 tOSU Loss 74-63
#3 Wisc Dec 6
#12 Villanova
at Nova Feb 4
home Feb 21
Question ...
Is this our weakest schedule since the C-USA days?
-
Circumstances could dictate quite a bit. Hypothetically we could end up playing Michigan State and Kansas, both currently ranked. Also, while the Big East didn't start with any ranked teams, Georgetown is getting votes and if Providence wins today there's a decent chance they move into the rankings.
At the end of the day, you're probably right. It simply won't be as easy to have a loaded schedule in the newly constructed Big East. Regardless, it will still come down to wins and losses. The league will be full of top-100 teams (and DePaul) and as long as we have a few ranked teams in the non-conference, the most important thing will be winning games. I always endorse getting quality cupcakes, yesterday really was a good example of that despite how it turned out. Ellisium can piss and moan all he wants about a transitional D2 team, but Omaha was just outside the top-200 RPI last year and is the type of team we should be playing when we are playing for seeding.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like this will be a playing for seeding kind of year.
-
Omaha was just outside the top-200 RPI last year and is the type of team we should be playing when we are playing for seeding.
What in the bloody hell does this mean?
-
What in the bloody hell does this mean?
Seems pretty self-explanatory. They are a good buy opponent, as opposed to say Alabama A&M or another SWAC team that is guaranteed to be an RPI drag win or lose.
-
Circumstances could dictate quite a bit. Hypothetically we could end up playing Michigan State and Kansas, both currently ranked. Also, while the Big East didn't start with any ranked teams, Georgetown is getting votes and if Providence wins today there's a decent chance they move into the rankings.
At the end of the day, you're probably right. It simply won't be as easy to have a loaded schedule in the newly constructed Big East. Regardless, it will still come down to wins and losses. The league will be full of top-100 teams (and DePaul) and as long as we have a few ranked teams in the non-conference, the most important thing will be winning games. I always endorse getting quality cupcakes, yesterday really was a good example of that despite how it turned out. Ellisium can piss and moan all he wants about a transitional D2 team, but Omaha was just outside the top-200 RPI last year and is the type of team we should be playing when we are playing for seeding.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like this will be a playing for seeding kind of year.
I agree with your view on schedule quality. I would like to see us playing teams where there is a high probability we win , but a chance of an occasional loss. I would like to see us playing Loyola UWM and Green Bay with frequency , even with what happened yesterday .
-
I would like to see us playing Loyola UWM and Green Bay with frequency , even with what happened yesterday .
No thanks.
-
As of right now, we have four ranked teams on the schedule
#20 tOSU Loss 74-63
#3 Wisc Dec 6
#12 Villanova
at Nova Feb 4
home Feb 21
Question ...
Is this our weakest schedule since the C-USA days?
AP rankings, especially right now, mean nada.
-
Where an opponent sits in the RPI doesn't directly impact your RPI... not to mention last year has no relevance. The SWAC commentary is off base.
Nonetheless, Omaha could have a decent win-loss record, which is key.
-
Where an opponent sits in the RPI doesn't directly impact your RPI... not to mention last year has no relevance. The SWAC commentary is off base.
Nonetheless, Omaha could have a decent win-loss record, which is key.
While last year has no relevance in this year's RPI calculation, looking at a conference's historical performance certainly allows us to make general conclusions about a conferences ability to help/hurt our RPI at the end of the year.
Taking this Summit vs. SWAC comparison as an example- over the last 5 years the Summit league takes about 40% of their non-conference matchups vs. SWAC's 10%. The SWAC's inability to take any non-con games directly impacts their ability to help our RPI when scheduling one of their teams as an opponent.
-
While last year has no relevance in this year's RPI calculation, looking at a conference's historical performance certainly allows us to make general conclusions about a conferences ability to help/hurt our RPI at the end of the year.
Taking this Summit vs. SWAC comparison as an example- over the last 5 years the Summit league takes about 40% of their non-conference matchups vs. SWAC's 10%. The SWAC's inability to take any non-con games directly impacts their ability to help our RPI when scheduling one of their teams as an opponent.
Such conference bias is idiotic and unsupported by reality. Your logic is completely eff'd.
For instance, last year MU played Southern out of the SWAC. This year they played Omaha out of the Summit. If MU had instead played Omaha last year instead of Southern (and won), it would have been another hit to our RPI.
Yes - Omaha had a much better nonconf record (12-6 v Southern's 4-10... don't quote me on those, but they are close IIRC)... So what? Southern's season win-loss was better than Omaha's as was their opp's records.
-
Such conference bias is idiotic and unsupported by reality. Your logic is completely eff'd.
For instance, last year MU played Southern out of the SWAC. This year they played Omaha out of the Summit. If MU had instead played Omaha last year instead of Southern (and won), it would have been another hit to our RPI.
Yes - Omaha had a much better nonconf record (12-6 v Southern's 4-10... don't quote me on those, but they are close IIRC)... So what? Southern's season win-loss was better than Omaha's as was their opp's records.
But you aren't talking about like teams. You can't just say "random SWAC opponent" and "random Summit opponent" then cherry pick a team that happened to win its respective conference and one that finished in the bottom half. Southern was the best possible option out of the SWAC last year. That made them a worthwhile buy. Anyone that will come up in the 175-250 range I'd say would be considered a solid buy. And while you are right that it isn't the number, the number ends up being a pretty good indicator of how valuable a team will be at the end of the year.
Instead of comparing Southern with Omaha, it would be more accurate to compare Southern with North Dakota State, or Jackson State with Omaha. In both cases, you are better off playing the team from the Summit League.
Conference bias is completely justified because the teams at the top of the better mid and low majors will be better for you RPI wise than the teams at the top of the worst leagues, the teams at the middle will be better, and so on. I don't want Marquette to schedule UWM or Green Bay, but I would like to see them get buy opponents from leagues like the Horizon, Summit, and Sun Belt rather than the Southland, MEAC, and SWAC. The only exception to this would be if you are getting a team from one of those bottom leagues that is expected to compete for the regular season championship.
-
I'm not talking about random teams. You guys chose the conferences, I took real world MU examples.
The point is conference bias is eff'd - scheduling should be about the TEAM. If your intelligence and ability to project is so bad that all you can do is say, "well conf A generally wins more NC games than conf B.., so let's play a team from conf A", you're in big trouble.
-
I'm not talking about random teams. You guys chose the conferences, I took real world MU examples.
The point is conference bias is eff'd - scheduling should be about the TEAM. If your intelligence and ability to project is so bad that all you can do is say, "well conf A generally wins more NC games than conf B.., so let's play a team from conf A", you're in big trouble.
Your real world example would have worked better if you picked Grambling. They were a SWAC team we played last year and finished closer to where UNO did in conference standings.
-
I'm not talking about random teams. You guys chose the conferences, I took real world MU examples.
The point is conference bias is eff'd - scheduling should be about the TEAM. If your intelligence and ability to project is so bad that all you can do is say, "well conf A generally wins more NC games than conf B.., so let's play a team from conf A", you're in big trouble.
But that's not "all you can do". You can have a conference's historical NC performance as one of your weight factors. Is that really that preposterous?