MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: ChicosBailBonds on March 05, 2011, 07:59:44 PM
-
I got blasted for this when I did it in late November or early December....I'm wondering if the first week of March it's ok to post this. We're 69 as of right now with a handful of games around the country to still be played.
69....very dangerous territory. The bad part is that a win over Providence won't move us up. A win over South Florida might move us up a spot or two.
-
So we probably need two wins to get an NCAA bid. One is likely but two is stretching it.
-
I got blasted for this when I did it in late November or early December....I'm wondering if the first week of March it's ok to post this. We're 69 as of right now with a handful of games around the country to still be played.
69....very dangerous territory. The bad part is that a win over Providence won't move us up. A win over South Florida might move us up a spot or two.
MU is truly a bubble team now. I'm afraid they need 2 wins to get in. Collapsing at the end of the season never looks good to the committee.
-
The Bradley Center has an open slot on March 15th.
-
It will take 5 wins to get in. Anything less is NIT.
-
It will take 5 wins to get in. Anything less is NIT.
Doubt it. Terrible loss tonight, but if they win 2 games they're a lock. Win one, they're probably in. The other bubble teams are just that bad.
-
The Bradley Center has an open slot on March 15th.
Is that the first round of the NIT? An NIT first round game @ MU over spring break would be disastrous. If you think the student section has been weak this year, try getting them to get to an NIT game during spring break.
-
An NIT first round game @ MU over spring break would be disastrous. If you think the student section has been weak this year, try getting them to get to an NIT game during spring break.
Also, there is the fact that the NIT sucks, and is for losers. It's a worthless tournament, that means nothing, except for maybe more practice time, if that is even useful. So yeah, students MAY NOT CARE.
-
So we probably nee
Won't happen--but maybe next year.
-
We're up to number 68 now.....with a bullet
-
It will take 5 wins to get in. Anything less is NIT.
I know you're mad, but you still have to use your brain.
-
Actually I am not mad at all but yes i miscounted. I do believe that my point was clear though. I hope I am wrong but I don't think i am.
-
Actually I am not mad at all but yes i miscounted. I do believe that my point was clear though. I hope I am wrong but I don't think i am.
If you honestly think we need to win the Big East tourney just to make the NCAAs, you have no concept of the state of college basketball or where this Marquette team fits into it. The only possible way any fan could believe that is if they only
choose to read willie warrior's posts.
-
Win Tuesday and we are in. Even with a loss we still may have a shot.
BC is one of the last four in right now.
-
We're up to number 68 now.....with a bullet
The 13 losses bother me.
-
We're up to number 68 now.....with a bullet
You haven't had this much fun since you drowned your neighbor's dog.
-
Our RPI is one of the two real question marks about us right now. Had we mustered a win this week and stayed in the top 60, we'd be fine, but RPI along with aggregate losses are legitimate causes for concern. I still feel other factors will outweigh these, but CBB is hardly out-of-line for suggesting they could be problems.
This is EXACTLY why we need to beef up the cupcakes. Enough with all the 300+ teams. Go after bottom feeders in the Horizon, MVC, or other higher quality mid-majors or teams with recent NCAA history from the small conferences (Belmont, Murray St., etc) and we won't have this problem.
-
You haven't had this much fun since you drowned your neighbor's dog.
Fun...sorry, MU's misfortunes aren't fun for me. I enjoy going to the NCAA tournament and cheering on the boys. I don't enjoy having to find out if we're even in the tournament on the heels of being annihilated by Seton Hall. No, this isn't fun.
-
Our RPI is one of the two real question marks about us right now. Had we mustered a win this week and stayed in the top 60, we'd be fine, but RPI along with aggregate losses are legitimate causes for concern. I still feel other factors will outweigh these, but CBB is hardly out-of-line for suggesting they could be problems.
This is EXACTLY why we need to beef up the cupcakes. Enough with all the 300+ teams. Go after bottom feeders in the Horizon, MVC, or other higher quality mid-majors or teams with recent NCAA history from the small conferences (Belmont, Murray St., etc) and we won't have this problem.
+1 Playing someone like Centennary...OMG. Everyone knew they were going to be ridiculous this year and they certainly fulfilled. Scheduling is hard, very hard. Many teams want return games or the Buy Teams hold out for the best deals they can get and play the buyers off one another. I used to watch Mike Rice pull his hair out trying to schedule with the games that are played, but we do have to be smarter. Longwood, Centenary, South Dakota, Corpus Christi, Prairie View....they really hammered us this year. All the losses also hurt in the RPI.
Of the Big East teams, our overall SOS was 11th in the conference. Our out of conference SOS ranked 12th in the conference. I'd like to see us move those up to around 7th or 8th.
-
Also, there is the fact that the NIT sucks, and is for losers. It's a worthless tournament, that means nothing, except for maybe more practice time, if that is even useful. So yeah, students MAY NOT CARE.
IF you win the NIT, that makes you the 69th best team in the country and only one of two teams not to lose your last game. ;D
-
What was our RPI last season going into the tourney?
-
+1 Playing someone like Centennary...OMG. Everyone knew they were going to be ridiculous this year and they certainly fulfilled. Scheduling is hard, very hard. Many teams want return games or the Buy Teams hold out for the best deals they can get and play the buyers off one another. I used to watch Mike Rice pull his hair out trying to schedule with the games that are played, but we do have to be smarter. Longwood, Centenary, South Dakota, Corpus Christi, Prairie View....they really hammered us this year. All the losses also hurt in the RPI.
Of the Big East teams, our overall SOS was 11th in the conference. Our out of conference SOS ranked 12th in the conference. I'd like to see us move those up to around 7th or 8th.
Wondering if we are lost in the forest with this line of discussion?
Saragin says we have played 14 top 25 teams. 16 top 50 teams
14 top 25 teams leads the nation (second with 13 is five other BE teams, then Pitt with 12).
16 top 50 teams is second most in the nation (ND, Uconn, SH and GU played 17. SJU and MSU played 16).
Does it really matter if our buy-in games are against RPI 202 or 340? I know the argument is "the committee looks at it" but we have noted many times the committee has greatly diminished the use of RPI. SoS has to be even further down the list of importance.
Fact is we played 14 top 25 teams. Looking back in the archives between 1985 and 1993 (8 years) collectively MU played ranked teams over that period.
Teh schedule is fine and the fact that our SoS is so low is more an artifact of its calculation.
-
What was our RPI last season going into the tourney?
We had a RPI of 50 going into the NCAA tournament.
We had a RPI of 57 going into the Big East tournament...we went 2-1 in the Big East tourney to improve 7 spots.
This year we are at 68 RPI going into the Big East tournament.
-
We had a RPI of 50 going into the NCAA tournament.
We had a RPI of 57 going into the Big East tournament...we went 2-1 in the Big East tourney to improve 7 spots.
This year we are at 68 RPI going into the Big East tournament.
'
Back of the envelope here ....
Last year's RPI of 50 equated to a 6 seed.
What does a RPI of 68 equate to? 10 or 11 seed?
-
I know the argument is "the committee looks at it" but we have noted many times the committee has greatly diminished the use of RPI. SoS has to be even further down the list of importance.
No, you and others have said the committee has "greatly diminished the use of the RPI". As Doug Elgin, actual former committee member and committee chairman has said, it's up to each individual member to use the data they have to select teams they feel worthy. This idea that it's "greatly diminished"...I'd love to know where that is coming from. Sure, some members don't use it at all. Sure, some media guys think it's not that big of a deal...but at the end of the day it's up to each member to choose the data points they want. Some of you make it out like there was some edict by the NCAA that the RPI shall now have only 15% weighting or something. Not the case at all.
I'd love to know why you and others keep stating this?
Last year's chairman...UCLA athletics director Dan Guerrero is the 2010 chairman. "The RPI continues to be one of the criteria we evaluate," he said. "The RPI is indicative of the measure of several things that are very, very important to the committee. So we will certainly take that into consideration as we make our decisions."
Yet other chairmen have said things like... In 2008, chairman Tom O'Connor said, "People get hung up on the RPI" and referred to it merely as "a starting data control point."
It's up to the individual members!!!
Have you noticed that whenever they do tournament resumes on CBS or elsewhere, what do they focus on? Good losses, bad losses, RPI, SOS and overall record. I don't see Sagarin listed there. I don't see Ken Pom listed there. I don't see national rankings listed there. Are all of these other rankings used....yes, of course. But to suggest it is greatly diminished?
You guys should have a chat with Gary Johnson some time...he keeps the official RPI at the NCAA. Jerry Palm will tell you the RPI is most important for BUBBLE TEAMS because it helps to compare multiple teams. Just because you want it to be diminished doesn't mean it is. Palm will come right out and tell you that it's not decisive. He's right, the formula is not great, but he also knows that committee members use it, especially to distinguish bubble teams.
Jay Bilas...absolutely hates it...Jay Bilas is not on the committee. Now, should we take the word of Jay Bilas or someone like Dan Guerrero how chaired the selection committee?
Here's a fun little article just last week from an Alabama paper. He makes the same argument you and one of my CS brethren makes, that KenPom and Sagarin are better indicators...but in the same article also states that the committee uses the RPI TOO MUCH. Well, there you have it. He may be right that there are better indicators...hell, I can argue all day that the BLS Unemployment data each month is a complete crock and they should be reporting the U6 data in the press, but that's not what they do. The NCAA created the RPI and I really think some of you ignore this at your own peril. The NCAA likes to use the data they control and they UNDERSTAND.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/02/ncaa_bubble_watch_alabama_and.html
-
'
Back of the envelope here ....
Last year's RPI of 50 equated to a 6 seed.
What does a RPI of 68 equate to? 10 or 11 seed?
Well, first you should use the 57 because that's what our RPI was on Selection Sunday...not 50.
Second, look at someone like Florida who had a 56 RPI on Selection Sunday...they ended up with a 10 seed despite having one better RPI number than MU who got a 6 seed.
So the back of the envelope thing doesn't work as well for seedings because of the Pod implications, avoiding rematches in the first round, conference avoidance, etc.