Still to early IMO, but I know there are those that like to follow it.
We have a 109 rating right now.
Expected to finish with a 63.6 rating, which would put us in the 60th position if it came true.
18-13 record and a record of 7-12 against top 100 RPI (3-9 against top 100)
Currently picked for 6th in the Big East, but it is very close between 4th, 5th and 6th...all very tightly packed with Xavier and Butler.
Big East is 4th right now and expected to finish 4th. Villanova is currently tracking to finish 3rd in the country (remember all the he can't coach threads ;) )
One silver lining, our "over rated vs RPI" number is -45.4 which puts it near the bottom in the bottom of the country. What that means is that the likihood of our improvement in the RPI is good. If you have a high over rated number it means it is artificially high and will come back down to earth most likely. We are on the inverse, which is why we are sitting at 109 right now and expected to finish in the mid 60's.
Hopefully the staff and the team can get this righted quickly.
What's key to point out is that the projections above assume (among a million other things) that MU goes 10-8 in conference. Finishing 11-7 and they could be around 50 and potentially in "comfortable" (relative to MU some years) shape. I think 11 conference wins in the regular season is what to hope for. Less than that and there's work to do in the conference tourney. I think 11-7 plus a win in the BEast tourney gets 'em in. Very doable.
Nova is playing very well (especially defense). James Bell, Jamail's teammate at Montverde, is now a senior and dealt with injuries early on. Former MU target JayVaughn Pinkston is now a junior and draws contact like no other. Some of it is real.
Hilliard and Hart are playing out of their minds and will trend down as the year progresses.
Small team that's been dominant on the boards. Two impressive wins - Kansas, when Jo Jo Embiid & Tarik Black combined for 20 minutes and KU shot 40.7% eFG.... and then Iowa in OT.. White, Gesell, McCabe all fouling out for the Hawkeyes.
Nova's good... if you want to crown 'em... go ahead.. but... just you wait!
MU has zero bad losses. Disappointing start, but a lot of bball to play.
Hate to throw it out there, but... if* Duane came back and MU played better with him, the committee could and likely would heavily consider who MU is in March vs. who they were without a healthy Duane. That's another factor that could help to forgive some of the team's early sins (i.e., losses).
I agree that Duane is a wild card, but I also don't want to overdue it with him. Buzz doesn't play freshmen much to begin with and as good as the kid is supposed to be, most kids struggle first year. I hope he turns out to be the second coming, but we have to be fair to him.
On your other point, you are absolutely correct...11-7 pushes it up a notch (to 54.6), so on and so forth. Yesterday hurt because it was only the second game this year in the RPI we lost and we weren't supposed to.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 22, 2013, 07:39:14 PM
I agree that Duane is a wild card, but I also don't want to overdue it with him. Buzz doesn't play freshmen much to begin with and as good as the kid is supposed to be, most kids struggle first year. I hope he turns out to be the second coming, but we have to be fair to him.
On your other point, you are absolutely correct...11-7 pushes it up a notch (to 54.6), so on and so forth. Yesterday hurt because it was only the second game this year in the RPI we lost and we weren't supposed to.
1) Duane - I am fine with letting him redshirt this season if he's OK with it. A lot goes into that type of a decision and I am OK either way. I'd expect a bumpy early road for him - more so than most MU fans seem to (that's why in May I said Deonte & JJJ were the newcomers that will make the biggest impact this season) - just pointing out that from a selection committee's point of view it could be a factor that helps MU.
2) Overdo vs. overdue
3) You mention 54.6. Since you're referring to a specific prediction model I think it would be appropriate to include what the 54.6 means (i.e., a projected RPI in the high 40's at the end of the regular season).
If this team turns things around, outperforms in conference play, and gets to around 20-25 wins, then I think we get in as a low-seeded tourney team, and with the way things have started out this year, I wouldn't be disappointed with at all.
25 wins? Yes, we shall win 18 of our final 19 games!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 22, 2013, 07:39:14 PM
I agree that Duane is a wild card, but I also don't want to overdue it with him.
Library books or Netflix?
Quote from: Jay Bee on December 22, 2013, 07:45:23 PM
1) Duane - I am fine with letting him redshirt this season if he's OK with it. A lot goes into that type of a decision and I am OK either way. I'd expect a bumpy early road for him - more so than most MU fans seem to (that's why in May I said Deonte & JJJ were the newcomers that will make the biggest impact this season) - just pointing out that from a selection committee's point of view it could be a factor that helps MU.
2) Overdo vs. overdue
3) You mention 54.6. Since you're referring to a specific prediction model I think it would be appropriate to include what the 54.6 means (i.e., a projected RPI in the high 40's at the end of the regular season).
Thank you for the correction...it was long overdue ;D
The 54.6 is the rating number predicted, but not the ranking. For example, today we are predicted to finish with a 63.6 rating but a ranking of 60...meaning the rating of 63.6 would be the 60th best ranking.
If we finish at 54.6, we would be roughly around 48 to 50 ranking....I haven't gone through each scenario, but that's a ballpark number .
Quote from: keefe on December 22, 2013, 08:59:33 PM
Library books or Netflix?
I hit the sauce early...Cowboys game, eggnog and Jack, and I was just being stupid...it happens.
Quote from: Jay Bee on December 22, 2013, 07:18:59 PM
Nova's good... if you want to crown 'em... go ahead.. but... just you wait!
They will be who we think they are.
Hopefully, we don't let 'em off the hook.
We finally passed UW-milwaukee up....so there is a silver lining.
We are 107, they are 108.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 27, 2013, 04:44:39 PM
We finally passed UW-milwaukee up....so there is a silver lining.
We are 107, they are 108.
Can you imagine if somehow they finish ahead of us? Cries of us dodging them again, selling out the BMO playing them, and how its good for Wisconsin would not be too far away.
RPI Forecast shows a final prediction of 65.4 on 18-13 (10-8) and 3-9 vs. the top 50. Would guess that's 2-3 wins shy of what's needed to sneak in.
Big East is the 3rd rated conference at the end of the non conference season....http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2014/conferencerpi
Currently sit at 93
Expected RPI finish is 81.2 rating which would be 77th best overall
Obviously that expected RPI will not get us into the tournament so we have to win games we aren't supposed to.
Here is what the RPI predicts for us...those in bold are predicted be losses, but some are very close. For example, we are given a 47% chance to beat Butler...almost a toss up.
1-18 Butler (104.0) BE A 0-0 47% -0.8
1-20 Georgetown (43.8) BE A 0-0 33% -5.0
1-25 Villanova (7.0) BE H 0-0 34% -4.7
1-30 Providence (80.2) BE H 0-0 67% 5.0
2-1 St. John's (89.2) BE A 0-0 44% -1.7
2-4 Butler (104.0) BE H 0-0 71% 6.2
2-11 Seton Hall (144.9) BE A 0-0 57% 2.1
2-15 Xavier (39.2) BE H 0-0 56% 1.6
2-19 Creighton (16.5) BE H 0-0 38% -3.5
2-22 DePaul (147.1) BE A 0-0 65% 4.4
2-27 Georgetown (43.8) BE H 0-0 57% 1.9
3-2 Villanova (7.0) BE A 0-0 15% -11.6
3-4 Providence (80.2) BE A 0-0 43% -2.0
3-8 St. John's (89.2) BE H 0-0 68% 5.2
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 13, 2014, 12:40:41 PM
Currently sit at 93
Expected RPI finish is 81.2 rating which would be 77th best overall
Obviously that expected RPI will not get us into the tournament so we have to win games we aren't supposed to.
Here is what the RPI predicts for us...those in bold are predicted be losses, but some are very close. For example, we are given a 47% chance to beat Butler...almost a toss up.
1-18 Butler (104.0) BE A 0-0 47% -0.8
1-20 Georgetown (43.8) BE A 0-0 33% -5.0
1-25 Villanova (7.0) BE H 0-0 34% -4.7
1-30 Providence (80.2) BE H 0-0 67% 5.0
2-1 St. John's (89.2) BE A 0-0 44% -1.7
2-4 Butler (104.0) BE H 0-0 71% 6.2
2-11 Seton Hall (144.9) BE A 0-0 57% 2.1
2-15 Xavier (39.2) BE H 0-0 56% 1.6
2-19 Creighton (16.5) BE H 0-0 38% -3.5
2-22 DePaul (147.1) BE A 0-0 65% 4.4
2-27 Georgetown (43.8) BE H 0-0 57% 1.9
3-2 Villanova (7.0) BE A 0-0 15% -11.6
3-4 Providence (80.2) BE A 0-0 43% -2.0
3-8 St. John's (89.2) BE H 0-0 68% 5.2
Have to agree that 9-9, 17-14 doesn't make it. Even 10-8, 18-13 is probably a no go. 11-7, 19-12 is probably on the bubble.
The conference is still the 3rd best in the nation
http://realtimerpi.com/rpi_conf_Men.html
Quote from: Otule's Glass Eye on December 22, 2013, 07:49:32 PM
If this team turns things around, outperforms in conference play, and gets to around 20-25 wins, then I think we get in as a low-seeded tourney team, and with the way things have started out this year, I wouldn't be disappointed with at all.
To get to 25 wins, we would have to win all remaining regular season games and one in BE Tourney. Where do you get your weed?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 27, 2013, 04:44:39 PM
We finally passed UW-milwaukee up....so there is a silver lining.
We are 107, they are 108.
Now that is a stat that just oozes confidence.
Quote from: willie warrior on January 13, 2014, 02:17:22 PM
Now that is a stat that just oozes confidence.
It's also a stat that's several weeks old.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 13, 2014, 01:07:08 PM
Have to agree that 9-9, 17-14 doesn't make it. Even 10-8, 18-13 is probably a no go. 11-7, 19-12 is probably on the bubble.
Sounds about right. 19-12 is probably NIT.
We have 3 road games that we'll need to win above and beyond what's predicted. @Butler, @St.John's, @Providence. Do that and 12 conference wins is not out of the question. With a decent performance at the Garden, we'd dance. It starts this Saturday.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 13, 2014, 12:40:41 PM
Currently sit at 93
Expected RPI finish is 81.2 rating which would be 77th best overall
Obviously that expected RPI will not get us into the tournament so we have to win games we aren't supposed to.
Here is what the RPI predicts for us...those in bold are predicted be losses, but some are very close. For example, we are given a 47% chance to beat Butler...almost a toss up.
1-18 Butler (104.0) BE A 0-0 47% -0.8
1-20 Georgetown (43.8) BE A 0-0 33% -5.0
1-25 Villanova (7.0) BE H 0-0 34% -4.7
1-30 Providence (80.2) BE H 0-0 67% 5.0
2-1 St. John's (89.2) BE A 0-0 44% -1.7
2-4 Butler (104.0) BE H 0-0 71% 6.2
2-11 Seton Hall (144.9) BE A 0-0 57% 2.1
2-15 Xavier (39.2) BE H 0-0 56% 1.6
2-19 Creighton (16.5) BE H 0-0 38% -3.5
2-22 DePaul (147.1) BE A 0-0 65% 4.4
2-27 Georgetown (43.8) BE H 0-0 57% 1.9
3-2 Villanova (7.0) BE A 0-0 15% -11.6
3-4 Providence (80.2) BE A 0-0 43% -2.0
3-8 St. John's (89.2) BE H 0-0 68% 5.2
Good stuff. I still like our odds. I think winning @But, @SJU, and @PROV are all very doable. Home against Creighton isn't out of the question either. I think we will get better as the season goes on. Others may suffer injuries or lose players for other reasons.
There is no reason to think we cant go undefeated at home.
Quote from: Mu2323 on January 14, 2014, 11:41:45 AM
There is no reason to think we cant go undefeated at home.
There are a lot of reasons to think we can't go undefeated at home. We barely squeaked by Seton Hall for crying out loud. I enjoy your optimism but that statement is pure homerism.
Quote from: Mu2323 on January 14, 2014, 11:41:45 AM
There is no reason to think we cant go undefeated at home.
I think we can, I also think we can win many of those games that we are slight underdogs. It's the games like at DePaul where we are heavily favored that I worry about. The game at Seton Hall is no give me, and we are supposed to win that one also.
Remember, where you win matters with RPI so losing to Georgetown at home (a game the RPI today thinks we should win), hurts us worse than some others.
All in all, there are opportunities to be had out there.
Unfortunately, as of yesterday, the Butler game switched and we were supposed to win that game today. It was still basically a 50-50 game with a slight edge to MU. Considering it went to OT, seems like the prediction was pretty darn good.
Game against G'Town is very big for both teams with G'Town's loss today at home. Maybe they lose two games in a row at home, but that would be really rare.
Win the BET based on how this team is playing.
That's all that's left for this team to get into the NCAAs because there's a very low chance they'll go 10-3 to finish the regular season.
Expected RPI now 93
16-15 final record
A bunch of games, however, with less than 55% predictor so that can change those results very quickly. For example, it still has us losing at St. John's which surprises me.
Expected RPI now 82.2....jumped about 10 spots.
Expected record of 17-14
Of course, now that Buzz may have finally gotten over his stubbornness and is using a different lineup (which the RPI doesn't know), things could get a lot better in a hurry if the youngsters perform.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2014, 10:28:56 AM
Expected RPI now 82.2....jumped about 10 spots.
Expected record of 17-14
Of course, now that Buzz may have finally gotten over his stubbornness and is using a different lineup (which the RPI doesn't know), things could get a lot better in a hurry if the youngsters perform.
Yep, I happen to think we'll be better than 6-6 the rest of the way.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2014, 10:28:56 AM
Expected RPI now 82.2....jumped about 10 spots.
Expected record of 17-14
Of course, now that Buzz may have finally gotten over his stubbornness and is using a different lineup (which the RPI doesn't know), things could get a lot better in a hurry if the youngsters perform.
Yeah, not playing an injured Steve Taylor Jr was soooo stubborn. Thank God Buzz got over that!
So whats a baseline tournament worthy RPI?
I know its not the only factor, but what is a good enough that it wouldn't be held against us? 55? 50?
Quote from: copious1218 on January 21, 2014, 04:37:33 PM
Yep, I happen to think we'll be better than 6-6 the rest of the way.
While we are all glad we won a road game, and hope we will win some more, 6-6 is definitely possible, unless we believe that Dawson will continue to develop and Taylor will play that way each game. The chance of that trending that way are likely 50-50 at best.
By the way, assuming Dawson ends up 15-20 minutes a game, where does everybody thing that puts Du. Wilson next year?
Quote from: copious1218 on January 21, 2014, 04:37:33 PM
Yep, I happen to think we'll be better than 6-6 the rest of the way.
I agree.
If interested, here are the records and the expected RPIs...this is a general number since it really matters WHO you beat to get to these marks.
For example, if we go 20-11 the RPI is expected to be 50.5. Certainly not NCAA automatic by any stretch, but at least closer to the conversation
21-10 gets you to 41.5 RPI, likely that's in about 95% of the time
22-9 gets you to a 33.5 RPI, that's in about 98.5% of the time
23-8 gets you to 26.7 RPI that's in about 99.8% of the time.
Lots of work to do, but last night was big. Ohio State getting going wouldn't hurt right now either (though their overall impact to us is still relatively minor)
I think the lowest RPI team to get an at large bid might have been Seton Hall......low 70s IIRC?
So that might be a starting point as far as a goal....
Well, last night increased the chances of winning 21+ games from .43% to 1.62%.
Quote from: chapman on January 21, 2014, 07:51:32 PM
Well, last night increased the chances of winning 21+ games from .43% to 1.62%.
(http://img.pandawhale.com/58669-so-youre-telling-me-theres-a-c-Sm9B.gif)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2014, 05:16:45 PM
Lots of work to do, but last night was big. Ohio State getting going wouldn't hurt right now either (though their overall impact to us is still relatively minor)
"Impact is still relatively minor" is you speaking from an RPI perspective, which may carry little relevance - and we may never know.
However, it's likely far more relevant come March. Our first home loss since 2011... if it's our only, or one of just two or three, home losses this year.. looks a lot better losing to a team regarded as excellent or very good than a team that bombs.
I think Ohio State will be fine... but, the point is there is a lot more to life (and tourney selection) than the RPI.
Quote from: MuMark on January 21, 2014, 07:35:10 PM
I think the lowest RPI team to get an at large bid might have been Seton Hall......low 70s IIRC?
So that might be a starting point as far as a goal....
Lowest RPIs to make NCAA tournament as an at-large
74 New Mexico (1999)
67 USC (2011)
64 Marquette (2011)
63 NC State (2005)
63 Stanford (2007)
Highest RPIs to miss the NCAA tournament as an at-large
21 Missouri State (2006)
29 Texas Tech (1997)
30 Hofstra (2006)
30 Air Force (2007)
32 Dayton (2008)
33 Oklahoma (1994)
40 Cincinnati (2006)
Quote from: Jay Bee on January 21, 2014, 08:14:51 PM
I think Ohio State will be fine... but, the point is there is a lot more to life (and tourney selection) than the RPI.
Correct. No one has said differently. In fact, depending on the chairperson it may mean less or more to those in the room. I'm friends with on individual who was the chair. I'm acquaintances with another that recently served in the same role. For some committees is it more important than to others, but certainly not the end all be all.
Quote from: EnderWiggen on January 21, 2014, 08:14:28 PM
(http://img.pandawhale.com/58669-so-youre-telling-me-theres-a-c-Sm9B.gif)
I lol'd
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2014, 08:15:48 PM
Lowest RPIs to make NCAA tournament as an at-large
74 New Mexico (1999)
67 USC (2011)
64 Marquette (2011)
63 NC State (2005)
63 Stanford (2007)
Highest RPIs to miss the NCAA tournament as an at-large
21 Missouri State (2006)
29 Texas Tech (1997)
30 Hofstra (2006)
30 Air Force (2007)
32 Dayton (2008)
33 Oklahoma (1994)
40 Cincinnati (2006)
Thanks. This is helpful. I didn't realize we were third on that list...haha. Was 2011 the first year of the field of 68?
I think if we can hit low 50s we'll have a decent chance. No guarantees, obviously, but given everything that's happened this season its the range we need to be shooting for.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on January 22, 2014, 09:02:14 AM
Thanks. This is helpful. I didn't realize we were third on that list...haha. Was 2011 the first year of the field of 68?
I think if we can hit low 50s we'll have a decent chance. No guarantees, obviously, but given everything that's happened this season its the range we need to be shooting for.
Correct, 2011 was the first year of 68 teams. I can't remember if it was Lunardi or CBS, but likely one of the last four teams in that year. The Big East tournament really helped us....plus the conference was so deep.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on January 22, 2014, 09:02:14 AM
Thanks. This is helpful. I didn't realize we were third on that list...haha. Was 2011 the first year of the field of 68?
I think if we can hit low 50s we'll have a decent chance. No guarantees, obviously, but given everything that's happened this season its the range we need to be shooting for.
Keep in mind, that 2011 team had signature wins over @UCONN (last team to beat UCONN that year), Notre Dame & Syracuse at home, and WVU in the BET... not to mention 10 of their 14 losses were to ranked opponents. That was also the year that MU was specifically mentioned by the committee as being rewarded for their SOS even though they were 9-9 in the Big East, which sent 11 teams to the tournament.
Without a signature win so far this year (G-Town was a good win, but not signature), MU absolutely needs to win 2 of the last three games against Creighton and Nova... otherwise, RPI isn't going to mean squat. Fortunately, the road schedule from here on out is manageable, but I don't think they can afford any more losses at home except perhaps a Creighton
or Nova loss.
So all of that said... I don't think an RPI in the low 50s gets MU into the tourney short of beating Nova, X, and Creighton at least once, winning two games in the BET (at least one against either Nova or Creighton), winning out at home, winning against SJU & DePaul on the road, and taking one from either Prov or SHU on the road. That means going at least 12-3 the rest of the way, which probably gets you into the low to mid-50s RPI-wise.
If by some chance MU can get into the 40s, they would be in pretty decent shape regardless of their resume considering the weight the committee has given to RPI the past two years; however, to do that they likely have to go 13-2 or better any way.
Obviously, the games are more meaningful than RPI at this point... win the games they need to win, and the RPI will follow.
Quote from: Benny B on January 22, 2014, 09:44:00 AM
Keep in mind, that 2011 team had signature wins over @UCONN (last team to beat UCONN that year), Notre Dame & Syracuse at home, and WVU in the BET... not to mention 10 of their 14 losses were to ranked opponents. That was also the year that MU was specifically mentioned by the committee as being rewarded for their SOS even though they were 9-9 in the Big East, which sent 11 teams to the tournament.
Without a signature win so far this year (G-Town was a good win, but not signature), MU absolutely needs to win 2 of the last three games against Creighton and Nova... otherwise, RPI isn't going to mean squat. Fortunately, the road schedule from here on out is manageable, but I don't think they can afford any more losses at home except perhaps a Creighton or Nova loss.
So all of that said... I don't think an RPI in the low 50s gets MU into the tourney short of beating Nova, X, and Creighton at least once, winning two games in the BET (at least one against either Nova or Creighton), winning out at home, winning against SJU & DePaul on the road, and taking one from either Prov or SHU on the road. That means going at least 12-3 the rest of the way, which probably gets you into the low to mid-50s RPI-wise.
If by some chance MU can get into the 40s, they would be in pretty decent shape regardless of their resume considering the weight the committee has given to RPI the past two years; however, to do that they likely have to go 13-2 or better any way.
Obviously, the games are more meaningful than RPI at this point... win the games they need to win, and the RPI will follow.
I don't disagree with you.
I'm not sure we could get to a low 50s RPI without beating either Nova, X or Creighton at least once. Its kind of assumed. Failing to get a win against them would mean 4 more losses (at the very least)...which already has us at 11-7, assuming we win every single other game.
So yeah, we'd have to get a signature win to get there.
RPI is linked to not only how many games you win, but WHO you beat.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2014, 04:49:33 PM
Yeah, not playing an injured Steve Taylor Jr was soooo stubborn. Thank God Buzz got over that!
Come on Lenny, Steve, like John Dawson hadn't earned the minutes in practice. Steve saw action in a few games since his 16 point Grambling performance - I highly doubt Buzz would have put Taylor on the floor if he was legitimately jeopardizing his career/leg through playing.
At the end of the day, Steve not playing, and Dawson not getting any real PT, were both coaching decisions. Perhaps the G'Town game gave Buzz enough data to run with Steve and John for more PT.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on January 22, 2014, 09:46:31 AM
I don't disagree with you.
I'm not sure we could get to a low 50s RPI without beating either Nova, X or Creighton at least once. Its kind of assumed. Failing to get a win against them would mean 4 more losses (at the very least)...which already has us at 11-7, assuming we win every single other game.
So yeah, we'd have to get a signature win to get there.
I know... it's pretty much a circular argument. It's possible MU gets into the mid 50s without at least two signature wins, but not likely; so we're on the same page.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2014, 09:33:03 AM
Correct, 2011 was the first year of 68 teams. I can't remember if it was Lunardi or CBS, but likely one of the last four teams in that year. The Big East tournament really helped us....plus the conference was so deep.
We were not one of the last four at large teams in that year. They were UAB, Clemson, VCU and USC who were all in the "play in" games. In addition, Richmond, Utah St and Memphis were 12 seeds so likely in after us. Missouri and Gonzaga were on our line (11). At worst, the 5th last team in, at best the 10th, most likely the 8th.
Quote from: Ners on January 22, 2014, 09:50:02 AM
Come on Lenny, Steve, like John Dawson hadn't earned the minutes in practice. Steve saw action in a few games since his 16 point Grambling performance - I highly doubt Buzz would have put Taylor on the floor if he was legitimately jeopardizing his career/leg through playing.
At the end of the day, Steve not playing, and Dawson not getting any real PT, were both coaching decisions. Perhaps the G'Town game gave Buzz enough data to run with Steve and John for more PT.
There's a huge difference between being able to play without risking further injury and being 100 (or even 90 or 80) per cent. I guess you missed the post from the guy who asked Steve how his knee was going into the Big East season and he said "Terrible".
Quote from: Ners on January 22, 2014, 09:50:02 AM
Come on Lenny, Steve, like John Dawson hadn't earned the minutes in practice. Steve saw action in a few games since his 16 point Grambling performance - I highly doubt Buzz would have put Taylor on the floor if he was legitimately jeopardizing his career/leg through playing.
At the end of the day, Steve not playing, and Dawson not getting any real PT, were both coaching decisions. Perhaps the G'Town game gave Buzz enough data to run with Steve and John for more PT.
It was a coaching decision not to risk further injury. Just look at the film on Steve in those few games he played. He clearly favored one leg over the other and did not look comfortable out there. Last night he looked strong. @Butler may have been a coaching decision, but not before that.
Dawson on the other hand, I will hold is a worse PG than D Wil. BUT doesn't have any fatal flaws like Derrick does. Buzz thought playing the better overall PG was the better way to win, but eventually it became clear that his lack of outside shooting effected the team too much. Enter Dawson
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 22, 2014, 10:46:13 AM
It was a coaching decision not to risk further injury. Just look at the film on Steve in those few games he played. He clearly favored one leg over the other and did not look comfortable out there. Last night he looked strong. @Butler may have been a coaching decision, but not before that.
Dawson on the other hand, I will hold is a worse PG than D Wil. BUT doesn't have any fatal flaws like Derrick does. Buzz thought playing the better overall PG was the better way to win, but eventually it became clear that his lack of outside shooting effected the team too much. Enter Dawson
Wow...just wow! I'd love to hear what skills you feel DW possesses that make him a better PG than Dawson?
As far as Steve - I didn't see a whole lot of difference between the way he played in non-conference and in conference - he just got a much longer stretch of run against GTown and his production increased as it should have. Steve's never been an explosive athlete - he's a very long armed guy, with good rebounding instincts - his "athleticism" isn't what make him a great player.
Quote from: Ners on January 22, 2014, 10:53:56 AM
Wow...just wow! I'd love to hear what skills you feel DW possesses that make him a better PG than Dawson?
Defense, handle, court vision, body type, strength, slashing, leadership...list goes on. Look, I now agree with you that Dawson should get more minutes but I don't think he's the overall best PG on the floor.
The best analogy I can come up with comes from a video game. Imagine playing Madden. You have two wide receivers. One has an Overall score of 85 but a speed score of 70/100 (this is almost o-lineman slow). The other has an overall score of 80 but has a speed score of 88/100 (pretty average for a WR). Even though wide receiver 1 is a better overall player, he is almost useless because his speed is so low that he can never get open and just hurts the offense. So despite him being better than his competition, you sit him in favor of wide receiver #2.
I think Derrick is better than Dawson at almost everything, but his shooting is so poor that it makes him almost useless as an offensive player. Ergo, you have to run with Dawson.
Again, this is about RIGHT NOW. Not upside.
Court vision? You have to be on drugs...seriously......I like Derrick...he is a good kid who plays hard...but he has no court vision...he has no ability to make others better.
He has a better handle at this point and is better on defense...he is stronger........
Bottom line is Derrick is what he is......Dawson is quicker and more skilled in all areas offensively and should only get better. The first 2 possessions of OT were baskets that never happen if Derrick is in the game. Dawson hits a beautiful step back baseline jumper and then spaces the floor and nails a 3 off a pass from Gardner.
I also like Dawson's swagger (for lack of a better term) on the court. His teammates respond to him....he isn't afraid.
He will make mistakes but so does Derrick.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 22, 2014, 11:17:58 AM
Defense, handle, court vision, body type, strength, slashing, leadership...list goes on. Look, I now agree with you that Dawson should get more minutes but I don't think he's the overall best PG on the floor.
The best analogy I can come up with comes from a video game. Imagine playing Madden. You have two wide receivers. One has an Overall score of 85 but a speed score of 70/100 (this is almost o-lineman slow). The other has an overall score of 80 but has a speed score of 88/100 (pretty average for a WR). Even though wide receiver 1 is a better overall player, he is almost useless because his speed is so low that he can never get open and just hurts the offense. So despite him being better than his competition, you sit him in favor of wide receiver #2.
I think Derrick is better than Dawson at almost everything, but his shooting is so poor that it makes him almost useless as an offensive player. Ergo, you have to run with Dawson.
Again, this is about RIGHT NOW. Not upside.
This is pure comedy! I mean you are resorting to making comparisons to a freaking video game. The ONLY area Derrick may have an advantage on Dawson is physical strength, and a slightly* better defender at this point - which I'd hope after 3 years in the program.
Seriously TAMU - I think Derrick is better than Dawson at almost everything except shooting!! Well guess what, shooting is a huge part of basketball. A bigger part than "leadership," body type, strength..
What happen to RPI? ::)
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 22, 2014, 11:17:58 AM
Defense, handle, court vision, body type, strength, slashing, leadership...list goes on. Look, I now agree with you that Dawson should get more minutes but I don't think he's the overall best PG on the floor.
The best analogy I can come up with comes from a video game. Imagine playing Madden. You have two wide receivers. One has an Overall score of 85 but a speed score of 70/100 (this is almost o-lineman slow). The other has an overall score of 80 but has a speed score of 88/100 (pretty average for a WR). Even though wide receiver 1 is a better overall player, he is almost useless because his speed is so low that he can never get open and just hurts the offense. So despite him being better than his competition, you sit him in favor of wide receiver #2.
I think Derrick is better than Dawson at almost everything, but his shooting is so poor that it makes him almost useless as an offensive player. Ergo, you have to run with Dawson.
Again, this is about RIGHT NOW. Not upside.
Dawson is a much better passer than Derrick. Knows how to deliver the ball to the right spot on time. Its called court prescence. Derrick does not have that. Derrick's best attributes are in not turning the ball over and defense. Though his defense is not as good as in the past due to the new rules.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2014, 04:49:33 PM
Yeah, not playing an injured Steve Taylor Jr was soooo stubborn. Thank God Buzz got over that!
That wasn't my reference to the stubborness.....and I agree with you that Taylor was huge....my STOG.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 22, 2014, 09:52:09 AM
We were not one of the last four at large teams in that year. They were UAB, Clemson, VCU and USC who were all in the "play in" games. In addition, Richmond, Utah St and Memphis were 12 seeds so likely in after us. Missouri and Gonzaga were on our line (11). At worst, the 5th last team in, at best the 10th, most likely the 8th.
Respectfully, you are incorrect in several of your comments.
You are making a false assumption in several areas. You assume the last four in automatically get play-in games or a seed line of 12 or 13. Seeding lines can move for other reasons. For example, Bobinski (last year's chair) admitted that Oregon as a 12th seed was unfortunate and a result of travel and scheduling constraints that moved them from an 11 to a 12.
Secondly, when there have been play-in games please note where they are sometimes seeded? 2011 is a perfect example, VCU and USC were seeded as 11's. Doesn't matter that they were a play-in game, they were an 11 seed and one of the last four in, but for seeding purposes despite being one of the last four in they stuck them at an 11 due to the auto qualifiers and where they rated compared to the other seedings. One cannot just assume the last 4 in are 12 or 13 seed, VCU and USC are prime examples of this.
Quote from: Ners on January 22, 2014, 11:46:45 AM
This is pure comedy! I mean you are resorting to making comparisons to a freaking video game. The ONLY area Derrick may have an advantage on Dawson is physical strength, and a slightly* better defender at this point - which I'd hope after 3 years in the program.
Seriously TAMU - I think Derrick is better than Dawson at almost everything except shooting!! Well guess what, shooting is a huge part of basketball. A bigger part than "leadership," body type, strength..
I'm not resorting to anything. I thought it was an appropriate analogy so I made it.
The only area Derrick has an advantage in is strength? I humbly disagree. From what I have observed, and from the fact that Buzz, a smarter basketball man than you or I, kept playing him, I would say Derrick has the advantage in most facets of being a point guard, all of which are important.
Unfortunately for Derrick, his shooting is SO poor that it makes his other talents next to useless. He can't slash because his defender is so far off of him. He can't make an entry pass because of the same reason. When the ball is worked into the post, the post can't do anything because Derrick's man is double teaming. The few times where Derrick's defender guarded him honestly, the offense looked great.
I didn't support Dawson before because it wasn't like he had established himself as a shooting threat. His 3P% was hovering somewhere around 13% for awhile. Defesnes weren't going to respect him either and until he could prove that he could make them pay for it, I wasn't willing to give him the nod. But after a 12 point 2/4 from 3P performance, Jay Wright is going to have to pay attention to him and plan for him on Saturday. Dawson will make the offense flow better.
What I am contending is simple. I'm not stubbornly saying to stick with Derrick at point. I want more Dawson! All I am saying is that if Derrick could shoot at even Junior Cadougan levels, the offense would run smoother with him, than with Dawson. But he can't, so Dawson it is.
One more thing, leadership is extremely important at the PG position. You are the quarterback on the floor. Your teammates look to you. I got to sit courtside at the Wooden Legacy and I was very impressed by him. He was the one yelling directions to other players. When a frosh had a freshman moment, D-Wil was the first one on the sideline to support him and give him direction. When Jamil got a dumb foul and was on the verge of mouthing off, D-Wil was in his face telling him to let it go. He even took on the big sheesh when he was having an attitude.
Derrick is the best verbal leader we have on this team. Unfortunately, the other half of leadership is done with your game and Derrick's is not at that level.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on January 22, 2014, 09:46:31 AM
RPI is linked to not only how many games you win, but WHO you beat.
This is incorrect. RPI isn't impacted by who you beat--only who you play. Our home win against Grambling counts exactly the same as a possible home win against Villanova.
We'll get a positive bump merely by playing Villanova because it will improve our oppponents average w/l percentage. But a win would count no more than any other home win.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 22, 2014, 03:22:45 PM
I'm not resorting to anything. I thought it was an appropriate analogy so I made it.
The only area Derrick has an advantage in is strength? I humbly disagree. From what I have observed, and from the fact that Buzz, a smarter basketball man than you or I, kept playing him, I would say Derrick has the advantage in most facets of being a point guard, all of which are important.
Unfortunately for Derrick, his shooting is SO poor that it makes his other talents next to useless. He can't slash because his defender is so far off of him. He can't make an entry pass because of the same reason. When the ball is worked into the post, the post can't do anything because Derrick's man is double teaming. The few times where Derrick's defender guarded him honestly, the offense looked great.
I didn't support Dawson before because it wasn't like he had established himself as a shooting threat. His 3P% was hovering somewhere around 13% for awhile. Defesnes weren't going to respect him either and until he could prove that he could make them pay for it, I wasn't willing to give him the nod. But after a 12 point 2/4 from 3P performance, Jay Wright is going to have to pay attention to him and plan for him on Saturday. Dawson will make the offense flow better.
What I am contending is simple. I'm not stubbornly saying to stick with Derrick at point. I want more Dawson! All I am saying is that if Derrick could shoot at even Junior Cadougan levels, the offense would run smoother with him, than with Dawson. But he can't, so Dawson it is.
One more thing, leadership is extremely important at the PG position. You are the quarterback on the floor. Your teammates look to you. I got to sit courtside at the Wooden Legacy and I was very impressed by him. He was the one yelling directions to other players. When a frosh had a freshman moment, D-Wil was the first one on the sideline to support him and give him direction. When Jamil got a dumb foul and was on the verge of mouthing off, D-Wil was in his face telling him to let it go. He even took on the big sheesh when he was having an attitude.
Derrick is the best verbal leader we have on this team. Unfortunately, the other half of leadership is done with your game and Derrick's is not at that level.
Leaders need to also be productive too - it's hard to take direction from I guy you have serious doubts with regard to their abilities. Derrick by all accounts is a great kid, and as a result of that has some leadership qualities alone. Yet in sports, it is really hard for a highly non-productive player to have a lot of leadership credibility in the locker room.
And as for Derrick having good PG qualities - you just listed (bolded above) the basic failures he has as a PG - all of which are very important to being a good PG. It's almost like saying - he'd be a really good pitcher in baseball, if he just had a better throwing arm!! You can't be one without the other - yet there are uber quick point guards who aren't great shooters, yet can put a lot of pressure on a defense with their quickness, and savvy. So - being a great shooter isn't a pre-req to being a great PG - but if you aren't a good shooter as a PG - you better be Peyton Silva good/quick/dynamic in making plays for your teammates.
Furthermore, if you can't see that Dawson has a MUCH better feel for the game, is a much better passer - I guess you'll need to continue to try to reach to video games as analogies.
Quote from: Ners on January 22, 2014, 03:36:26 PM
Leaders need to also be productive too - it's hard to take direction from I guy you have serious doubts with regard to their abilities. Derrick by all accounts is a great kid, and as a result of that has some leadership qualities alone. Yet in sports, it is really hard for a highly non-productive player to have a lot of leadership credibility in the locker room.
And as for Derrick having good PG qualities - you just listed (bolded above) the basic failures he has as a PG - all of which are very important to being a good PG. It's almost like saying - he'd be a really good pitcher in baseball, if he just had a better throwing arm!! You can't be one without the other - yet there are uber quick point guards who aren't great shooters, yet can put a lot of pressure on a defense with their quickness, and savvy. So - being a great shooter isn't a pre-req to being a great PG - but if you aren't a good shooter as a PG - you better be Peyton Silva good/quick/dynamic in making plays for your teammates.
Furthermore, if you can't see that Dawson has a MUCH better feel for the game, is a much better passer - I guess you'll need to continue to try to reach to video games as analogies.
Agreed on almost all points. I mentioned in my post about leadership that the other half of it is your game. And Derrick does not have it.
Your second point, I agree with but I'm not sure if we are coming to the same conclusion. My contention is that he is a good passer, is a good slasher, and is a great PG...when defenses play him like a shooter. But he's not a shooter. You mentioned being a great shooter is not a pre-req for a PG. That is true. But being a shooter in general is. If Derrick could shoot even 20% from 3, he would be a great PG. So while I don't agree it's exactly like "he'd be a great pitcher if he had a better throwing arm..." I do see your point.
You can make fun of my video game analogies all you want. I think it fit perfectly in this situation. If I didn't use that, I might have to resort to cliches like "has a better feel for the game." ;)
I'm not sure why my post got you so hot and bothered. I agree with you! You have been proven right! The offense flowed much better with Dawson. I, like most here, are now on the "let's see more of Dawson" train. My post was made because someone was wondering why we didn't see Dawson more. My belief is that Buzz sees Derrick as the better PG. But now he realizes that just because he is the better PG, doesn't mean the offense will flow better with him.
I refuse to believe the popular myth that Buzz is stubborn and will keep talented players out of games just to spite others. If Buzz ever admitted this I would want him fired on the spot. I don't want a coach who puts us in a losing position out of stubborness.
Quote from: The Equalizer on January 22, 2014, 03:35:04 PM
This is incorrect. RPI isn't impacted by who you beat--only who you play. Our home win against Grambling counts exactly the same as a possible home win against Villanova.
We'll get a positive bump merely by playing Villanova because it will improve our oppponents average w/l percentage. But a win would count no more than any other home win.
This. Losing at Butler has less of a negative impact on MU's RPI than losing against OSU at home. The win against Cal State Fullerton will have a greater positive impact on RPI than MU's win against Nova this weekend. RPI cares about two things: who is on your schedule and what is your (adjusted) W/L record... once your schedule is set, it doesn't matter
who you beat or
who beats you... it only matters
that you got beat or
that you beat down.
Yes... in theory, your RPI (raw score) could rise following a loss provided the marginal increase in your opponents' win percentage and opponents' opponents' win percentage offsets the marginal decline in your own W/L percentage; however, I don't know of an instance where this has occurred outside of the first few games of the season.
I'm confused. It doesn't matter WHO you beat anymore? Seriously?? A win at home against Grambling is no different than a win at home against Nova or Creighton, just as long as they are all on our schedule? I feel like that can't be true in the slightest.
Quote from: oneposteagle on January 22, 2014, 05:59:40 PM
I'm confused. It doesn't matter WHO you beat anymore? Seriously?? A win at home against Grambling is no different than a win at home against Nova or Creighton, just as long as they are all on our schedule? I feel like that can't be true in the slightest.
It matters in the sense that as Grambling continues to get pummeled every game, that dilutes our rating. Same as a team winning and doing great helps. Maybe another way to say it is that who you play matters to the extent of what they do in all their games.
RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)
The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage (WP), 50% opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP).
For the 2004-05 season, the formula was changed to give more weight to road wins vs home wins. A team's win total for RPI purposes is 1.4 * road wins + neutral site wins + 0.6 * home wins. A team's losses is calculated as 0.6 * road losses + neutral site losses + 1.4 * home losses.
For example, a team that is 4-0 at home and 2-7 on the road has a RPI record of 5.2 wins (1.4 * 2 + 0.6 * 4) and 4.2 losses (0.6 * 7). That means that even though it is 6-7, for RPI purposes, it is above .500 (5.2-4.2).
This weighted record is only used for the 25% of the formula that is each team's winning percentage. The regular team records are used to calculate OWP and OOWP.
Only games against Division I opponents count in the RPI.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2014, 02:46:09 PM
Respectfully, you are incorrect in several of your comments.
You are making a false assumption in several areas. You assume the last four in automatically get play-in games or a seed line of 12 or 13. Seeding lines can move for other reasons. For example, Bobinski (last year's chair) admitted that Oregon as a 12th seed was unfortunate and a result of travel and scheduling constraints that moved them from an 11 to a 12.
Secondly, when there have been play-in games please note where they are sometimes seeded? 2011 is a perfect example, VCU and USC were seeded as 11's. Doesn't matter that they were a play-in game, they were an 11 seed and one of the last four in, but for seeding purposes despite being one of the last four in they stuck them at an 11 due to the auto qualifiers and where they rated compared to the other seedings. One cannot just assume the last 4 in are 12 or 13 seed, VCU and USC are prime examples of this.
You are right. We could have been the 5th to the last, 10th to the last even 15th to the last. It's possible that teams seeded behind us were in before us and that we were in before teams seeded ahead of us. What we could not have been (which you posited as "likely") is one of the last 4 in. The last 4 in were the at large teams that were in the play in games.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2014, 07:16:11 PM
It matters in the sense that as Grambling continues to get pummeled every game, that dilutes our rating. Same as a team winning and doing great helps. Maybe another way to say it is that who you play matters to the extent of what they do in all their games.
RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)
The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage (WP), 50% opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP).
For the 2004-05 season, the formula was changed to give more weight to road wins vs home wins. A team's win total for RPI purposes is 1.4 * road wins + neutral site wins + 0.6 * home wins. A team's losses is calculated as 0.6 * road losses + neutral site losses + 1.4 * home losses.
For example, a team that is 4-0 at home and 2-7 on the road has a RPI record of 5.2 wins (1.4 * 2 + 0.6 * 4) and 4.2 losses (0.6 * 7). That means that even though it is 6-7, for RPI purposes, it is above .500 (5.2-4.2).
This weighted record is only used for the 25% of the formula that is each team's winning percentage. The regular team records are used to calculate OWP and OOWP.
Only games against Division I opponents count in the RPI.
That makes sense then. I see that that's how our RPI is calculated, but I was just talking more about quality wins in general and was thrown off when I heard that who we beat doesn't matter. Because we NEED to start stringing together quality/resume wins (Nova, Creighton, Xavier at home would be huge). That was my whole point, looking at things in a tourney resume perspective.
Quote from: oneposteagle on January 22, 2014, 08:26:40 PM
That makes sense then. I see that that's how our RPI is calculated, but I was just talking more about quality wins in general and was thrown off when I heard that who we beat doesn't matter. Because we NEED to start stringing together quality/resume wins (Nova, Creighton, Xavier at home would be huge). That was my whole point, looking at things in a tourney resume perspective.
Yes, you are correct. Who you beat absolutely matters.
RPI is just a barbaric calc that cares a lot about what your opponents do in games that don't involve you. How much will the committee care about the RPI? Don't know. They'll say it's just one thing available to them when selecting and seeding teams... we know they see it on the team sheets. Past that, it depends on the people in the room.
Quote from: oneposteagle on January 22, 2014, 08:26:40 PM
That makes sense then. I see that that's how our RPI is calculated, but I was just talking more about quality wins in general and was thrown off when I heard that who we beat doesn't matter. Because we NEED to start stringing together quality/resume wins (Nova, Creighton, Xavier at home would be huge). That was my whole point, looking at things in a tourney resume perspective.
Should have locked down the thread right there... but no, you had to go and ruin a perfectly good RPI discussion by looking at things in a tourney resume perspective.
The reason people don't understand RPI is because they don't understand what RPI is.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2014, 07:16:11 PM
It matters in the sense that as Grambling continues to get pummeled every game, that dilutes our rating. Same as a team winning and doing great helps. Maybe another way to say it is that who you play matters to the extent of what they do in all their games.
RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)
The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage (WP), 50% opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP).
For the 2004-05 season, the formula was changed to give more weight to road wins vs home wins. A team's win total for RPI purposes is 1.4 * road wins + neutral site wins + 0.6 * home wins. A team's losses is calculated as 0.6 * road losses + neutral site losses + 1.4 * home losses.
For example, a team that is 4-0 at home and 2-7 on the road has a RPI record of 5.2 wins (1.4 * 2 + 0.6 * 4) and 4.2 losses (0.6 * 7). That means that even though it is 6-7, for RPI purposes, it is above .500 (5.2-4.2).
This weighted record is only used for the 25% of the formula that is each team's winning percentage. The regular team records are used to calculate OWP and OOWP.
Only games against Division I opponents count in the RPI.
This. Of course it matters who you beat in terms of RPI. This is what I meant, and Chicos hit the nail on the head.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on January 23, 2014, 08:52:35 AM
This. Of course it matters who you beat in terms of RPI. This is what I meant, and Chicos hit the nail on the head.
No... that's not what Chicos said. He said:
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2014, 07:16:11 PM
Maybe another way to say it is that who you play matters to the extent of what they do in all their games.
Chicos is correct in saying that RPI does take into consideration who you play (irrespective of the outcome of those games) but does not weight your wins and losses based on who you play. The only weight given to your wins and losses is
where you play (home, away or neutral).
As of Jan 22, 2014, MU's RPI is 0.5447. If MU had beat OSU this past November but lost to IUPUI in December, MU's RPI would be 0.5447. If MU won against Butler but lost to Georgetown, their RPI would be 0.5447. If MU lost to GW but beat UNM, their RPI would still be 0.5447. It makes no difference who you beat... exchange a home, road or neutral win for a win in the same category (home, road or neutral), and your RPI remains unchanged.
Who you
schedule (i.e. play) impacts both your RPI and standing with the committee. Who you beat is important to the committee, but it has no impact on your RPI.
Quote from: Jay Bee on January 22, 2014, 08:41:20 PM
Yes, you are correct. Who you beat absolutely matters.
RPI is just a barbaric calc that cares a lot about what your opponents do in games that don't involve you. How much will the committee care about the RPI? Don't know. They'll say it's just one thing available to them when selecting and seeding teams... we know they see it on the team sheets. Past that, it depends on the people in the room.
I wouldn't call it barbaric, but I would call it incomplete. Then again, all rating systems have holes in them....the human polls happen to have the biggest holes because humans can only watch so many games and do not computer everything else the team did.
Who you beat/who you play...semantics
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 22, 2014, 07:50:24 PM
You are right. We could have been the 5th to the last, 10th to the last even 15th to the last. It's possible that teams seeded behind us were in before us and that we were in before teams seeded ahead of us. What we could not have been (which you posited as "likely") is one of the last 4 in. The last 4 in were the at large teams that were in the play in games.
Respectfully, what I posted was that Lunardi or CBS, can't remember, stated were one of the last 4 in. In some years the Chairperson will come right out and say who the last four in were (when asked), in other years the do not.
That particular year they did not identify all four, but did mention USC and VCU, who also got 11 seeds...same seed we got. I think this is why Lunardi or whomever it was (I'll try to find attribution) said we were one of the last four in.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on January 23, 2014, 09:29:40 AM
Who you beat/who you play...semantics
As far as the committee is concerned... sure, call it semantics if you'd like.
As far as the calculation of RPI is concerned, there is an important distinction between who you beat and who you schedule/play.
Quote from: Benny B on January 23, 2014, 09:24:45 AM
Chicos is correct in saying that RPI does take into consideration who you play (irrespective of the outcome of those games) but does not weight your wins and losses based on who you play. The only weight given to your wins and losses is where you play (home, away or neutral).
Holy excrement... I just realized I said Chicos was correct about something. Evidently the cold we're experiencing here in the MKE/CHI area has permeated hell.
Expected RPI 86.6, today we are 88.
It predicts we win 4 of the next 5, with the one loss very tight at St. John's (definitely a winnable game). Also has Providence at home as barely a win, at Seton Hall a nail biter and home to Xavier a pick 'em.
Today
RPI of 89, expected RPI of 85
Final record prediction of 16-15 and 8-10 in conference. Though the numbers to get to 9-9 or 10-8 are extremely close. As an example, we have a much better chance to finish 17-14 than 15-16.
Expected to beat Butler handily
@ Seton Hall is currently a pick 'em
Very slight favorite to beat Xavier
Could be on a 3 game winning streak here if we can get it together.
Just checked ESPN's RPI, by Lunardi. MU is 87, which is 7th in BEast.
Villa. 4
Creighton 7
Prov. 36
Xavier 47
GT 62 What about that Wade'sWorld?
St. John's 72
MU 87
Just about spot on to my thoughtful insight, eh WadesWorld. Both GT and St. John's ahead of MU as I stated and you made a half ass attempt to refute. This is as of right now--not 3 weeks ago. So please Wade, check things out before casting aspersions.
Quote from: willie warrior on February 03, 2014, 09:49:45 AM
Just checked ESPN's RPI, by Lunardi. MU is 87, which is 7th in BEast.
Villa. 4
Creighton 7
Prov. 36
Xavier 47
GT 62 What about that Wade'sWorld?
St. John's 72
MU 87
Just about spot on to my thoughtful insight, eh WadesWorld. Both GT and St. John's ahead of MU as I stated and you made a half ass attempt to refute. This is as of right now--not 3 weeks ago. So please Wade, check things out before casting aspersions.
Power rankings != RPI
Power rankings or RPI. I stand by what I said. MU is about 8th in BEast.
Current RPI is 73
Projected RPI prior to BET, 77
In the seven remaining games, we are supposed to go 4-3 including beating Xavier at home.
Go 7-0, finish at 39 RPI
Go 6-1, with loss at Nova finish with a 45 RPI
Go 5-2, with losses Nova and Creighton, finish with a 54 RPI
Go 5-2, with losses Nova and Providence, finish at 52 RPI
Go 5-2, with losses Nova and G'Town, finish at 55 RPI
Etc, etc
EDIT: Update to fix record
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 12, 2014, 09:25:09 AM
Current RPI is 73
Projected RPI prior to BET, 77
In the six remaining games, we are supposed to go 3-3 including beating Xavier at home.
Go 6-0, finish at 39 RPI
Go 5-1, with loss at Nova finish with a 45 RPI
Go 4-2, with losses Nova and Creighton, finish with a 54 RPI
Go 4-2, with losses Nova and Providence, finish at 52 RPI
Go 4-2, with losses Nova and G'Town, finish at 55 RPI
Etc, etc
I know we've discussed this before but too lazy to look it up. Historically, where does an rpi in the low to mid 50's put us in terms of statistical chances of making the tourney?
Quote from: g0lden3agle on February 12, 2014, 09:39:23 AM
I know we've discussed this before but too lazy to look it up. Historically, where does an rpi in the low to mid 50's put us in terms of statistical chances of making the tourney?
Last year
Valpo 59, made it as an AQ
Tennessee 58, didn't make it
New Mexico State 57, made it as an AQ
Kentucky had a 56 RPI, didn't make it.
UMass a 55 RPI, nope.
LA Tech 54, nope.
Cal was at 53, they made it as a 12 seed.
Bucknell 52, made it but they were an AQ.
Nova 51, made it as a 9.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 12, 2014, 09:49:33 AM
Last year
Valpo 59, made it as an AQ
Tennessee 58, didn't make it
New Mexico State 57, made it as an AQ
Kentucky had a 56 RPI, didn't make it.
UMass a 55 RPI, nope.
LA Tech 54, nope.
Cal was at 53, they made it as a 12 seed.
Bucknell 52, made it but they were an AQ.
Nova 51, made it as a 9.
Looking at this and prior years, you really need to be under 50. If we go 5-2, I really think we need to win two games in the BET. I have to think that would put our RPI under 50.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 12, 2014, 09:25:09 AM
Current RPI is 73
Projected RPI prior to BET, 77
In the six remaining games, we are supposed to go 4-3 including beating Xavier at home.
Go 7-0, finish at 39 RPI
Go 6-1, with loss at Nova finish with a 45 RPI
Go 5-2, with losses Nova and Creighton, finish with a 54 RPI
Go 5-2, with losses Nova and Providence, finish at 52 RPI
Go 5-2, with losses Nova and G'Town, finish at 55 RPI
Etc, etc
EDIT: Update to fix record
Chicos,
If we go 6-1 but our loss is to Providence, how does that shake out. I'm trying to determine if losing to Nova or Providence would be better for us. Losing to Prov. means we got the Nova "scalp" for the tourney, but I would think losing to Nova would be better for our RPI?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 12, 2014, 09:49:33 AM
Last year
Valpo 59, made it as an AQ
Tennessee 58, didn't make it
New Mexico State 57, made it as an AQ
Kentucky had a 56 RPI, didn't make it.
UMass a 55 RPI, nope.
LA Tech 54, nope.
Cal was at 53, they made it as a 12 seed.
Bucknell 52, made it but they were an AQ.
Nova 51, made it as a 9.
So its probably 50/50 AT BEST, but more than likely not in.
Need to get under 50 to feel good
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 12, 2014, 09:49:33 AM
Last year
Valpo 59, made it as an AQ
Tennessee 58, didn't make it
New Mexico State 57, made it as an AQ
Kentucky had a 56 RPI, didn't make it.
UMass a 55 RPI, nope.
LA Tech 54, nope.
Cal was at 53, they made it as a 12 seed.
Bucknell 52, made it but they were an AQ.
Nova 51, made it as a 9.
What were those teams' best wins and worst losses? Where did they finish in their conference? How good was their conference?*
There's more that goes into selections than just RPI. Getting that RPI into at least the 50s is a good start, but MU needs a big win or two to add to their resume.
(*-All rhetorical questions. Not an attempt to call you out, Chicos)
Quote from: MarquetteDano on February 12, 2014, 09:58:27 AM
Looking at this and prior years, you really need to be under 50. If we go 5-2, I really think we need to win two games in the BET. I have to think that would put our RPI under 50.
Do BET games factor into RPI?
Quote from: copious1218 on February 12, 2014, 10:03:45 AM
Chicos,
If we go 6-1 but our loss is to Providence, how does that shake out. I'm trying to determine if losing to Nova or Providence would be better for us. Losing to Prov. means we got the Nova "scalp" for the tourney, but I would think losing to Nova would be better for our RPI?
According to RPI Wizard, 6-1 with a loss to PC also leads to an RPI of 45. However, the win at Nova would be viewed much more positively than a loss at PC would be viewed negatively.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 12, 2014, 10:11:39 AM
What were those teams' best wins and worst losses? Where did they finish in their conference? How good was their conference?*
There's more that goes into selections than just RPI. Getting that RPI into at least the 50s is a good start, but MU needs a big win or two to add to their resume.
(*-All rhetorical questions. Not an attempt to call you out, Chicos)
No problem, I don't feel called out. To me, the quality of the conference is already factored in because of the strength of schedule. How good your conference is will pay off by playing better teams and influence your RPI rating accordingly.
I think there is a danger of people talking about where they finish in conference. Obviously, if you finish 1st or 2nd in the Big East, you're going to get in. But there are teams in power conferences that have finished in a spot in their conference where a lower finished team has gone and they haven't. One can always make the argument that team X finished 4th so they should go ahead of team Y that finished 5th in the same conference, but the reality is that doesn't always happen so we need to be careful there.
Here's an example happening right now in our own league IF selections were today. We're in 4th, Providence is in 5th. Yet, you look at how they stack up, Providence would get the nod...here's Jerry Palm's comparison tool http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/team-comparison/MARQET/PROV
Providence has wins over Creighton, Xavier...they also beat Georgetown, St. Johns (away), plus they played a much tougher out of conference schedule.
Again, that's if the selection was today, but you get the idea.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 12, 2014, 11:31:08 AM
No problem, I don't feel called out. To me, the quality of the conference is already factored in because of the strength of schedule. How good your conference is will pay off by playing better teams and influence your RPI rating accordingly.
I think there is a danger of people talking about where they finish in conference. Obviously, if you finish 1st or 2nd in the Big East, you're going to get in. But there are teams in power conferences that have finished in a spot in their conference where a lower finished team has gone and they haven't. One can always make the argument that team X finished 4th so they should go ahead of team Y that finished 5th in the same conference, but the reality is that doesn't always happen so we need to be careful there.
Here's an example happening right now in our own league IF selections were today. We're in 4th, Providence is in 5th. Yet, you look at how they stack up, Providence would get the nod...here's Jerry Palm's comparison tool http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/team-comparison/MARQET/PROV
Providence has wins over Creighton, Xavier...they also beat Georgetown, St. Johns (away), plus they played a much tougher out of conference schedule.
Again, that's if the selection was today, but you get the idea.
Good points. I worded that poorly. I should have said, "Did they win their conference but not the conf tournament?" (as was the case with La Tech).
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 12, 2014, 10:11:39 AM
What were those teams' best wins and worst losses? Where did they finish in their conference? How good was their conference?*
Needed some time to look this part up, only did a few...walking into meetings rest of the day.
Kentucky's best wins were Louisville, Tennessee, Missouri, Ole Miss, Providence, Vandy. Worst losses...none to teams 100+. Finished 12-6 in conference. 7-9 against top 100. Finished tied for 2nd in the SEC....Ole Miss also finished 2nd, but they went. Missouri finished in 5th, they went to the NCAAs. Basically, UK had a better profile than we have as of today, things can change. UK also had the big injury.
Tennessee best wins were over Xavier and Virginia...also beat LSU, Ole Miss and Wake. They had one "bad loss" to Texas A&M who was above 100 RPI. 9-10 vs top 100. Finished tied for 5th in the SEC with Missouri (who went to NCAAs).
UMass best wins over BYU, New Mexico, Providence, LaSalle, LSU. No bad losses to a team over 100. 8-9 vs top 100. Finished 6th in the conference with Xavier.
If you look at our profile right now. We have an outside shot at the 50's for an RPI. We're 6-13 vs top 100. 4th place in the conference. Opportunities ahead
MU at 74 after yesterday.
79 today
Here's why I hate RPI.
Eastern Michigan has a worse record than us, less top 50 wins, less top 100 wins, 2 sub 150 losses and....a better RPI than Marquette.
Da fuq?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 21, 2014, 01:16:00 AM
Here's why I hate RPI.
Eastern Michigan has a worse record than us, less top 50 wins, less top 100 wins, 2 sub 150 losses and....a better RPI than Marquette.
Da fuq?
Actually, MU has a better RPI than Eastern Michigan, but barely (updated through tonight). Played a nice schedule vs Kentucky, Duke, UMass, Purdue, Green Bay (whom they beat), Syracuse. Their expected RPI vs top 100 is 4-8, ours is 5-13
But I thought George Washington winning their games was going fix our RPI. At least that's what I was led to believe reading all the GW posts on this board.
Quote from: madtownwarrior on February 21, 2014, 05:50:11 AM
But I thought George Washington winning their games was going fix our RPI. At least that's what I was led to believe easing all the GW Potts on this board.
Unfortunately, GW has been losing games. Hope to fix that tomorrow night at SLU. We'll have a contingent of 14 MU fans rooting on the Colonials.
Games like today is when our fans should LOVE the RPI, because margin of victory doesn't mean a thing.
73
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 22, 2014, 04:10:41 PM
Games like today is when our fans should LOVE the RPI, because margin of victory doesn't mean a thing.
Unfortunately, "SOS" (a misnomer) does and DePaul's record blows.
A road win helps the adjusted win % though.
Quote from: Jay Bee on February 22, 2014, 04:31:01 PM
Unfortunately, "SOS" (a misnomer) does and DePaul's record blows.
A road win helps the adjusted win % though.
Agree.
Just pointing out that it giveth and it taketh away. LSU, another bubble team, loses with 3 seconds left on the road at Kentucky. RPI doesn't care...it's a loss. MU, beats a horrific DePaul team on the road in OT...RPI doesn't care, it's a win.
Today is a day people ripping on the RPI for MU should be happy.
After watching the first 6 minutes of our game today, I thought we were going to win by 25 points. DePaul was so bad, so horrific there was no way this was going to be a game. 0 for 11 or 12, just brutal. I think it was like 3 minutes later and the game was tied. Yikes.
After tonight's games.
75
After G'Town win
73 RPI
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 27, 2014, 11:19:07 PM
After G'Town win
73 RPI
*** estimated RPI
*** after win over Georgetown AND all other games last night
Still think we're in ok shape w/ only an L to Nova, then 1 win in BEast tourney.
Chicos --- do you have access to or know of any models that would adjust RPI to exclude the RPI 200+ or 150+ teams.
Since the NCAA tournament field typically consists of no more than a couple teams outside the top 100 in RPI (and rarely any 150+ teams), I'm interested in how RPI would look if you took today's "actual RPI", and re-ran the RPI model to include only the games played between teams both in the top 150.
Obviously, you're going to erase a lot of wins for MU, but you're also going to shed a bunch of dead weight on the OWP and OOWP side of the equation. The downside to this is that you could have a team rise to the top with only one or two good wins paired with a dozen or more bad losses, so it would be just one additional metric.... frankly, I don't see this helping MU, but I am curious as to how an "upper half RPI" would compare to the actual RPI.
Quote from: Benny B on February 28, 2014, 09:25:12 AM
Chicos --- do you have access to or know of any models that would adjust RPI to exclude the RPI 200+ or 150+ teams.
Since the NCAA tournament field typically consists of no more than a couple teams outside the top 100 in RPI (and rarely any 150+ teams), I'm interested in how RPI would look if you took today's "actual RPI", and re-ran the RPI model to include only the games played between teams both in the top 150.
Obviously, you're going to erase a lot of wins for MU, but you're also going to shed a bunch of dead weight on the OWP and OOWP side of the equation. The downside to this is that you could have a team rise to the top with only one or two good wins paired with a dozen or more bad losses, so it would be just one additional metric.... frankly, I don't see this helping MU, but I am curious as to how an "upper half RPI" would compare to the actual RPI.
If you drop all RPI 250+ games, MU would be 11-11 with an RPI of 42 and a SOS of 2.
Not RPI-related, but KenPom had MU 54 and GTOWN 53 before last nights game.
Today, MU is 57 and GTOWN is 54. Weird.
Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on February 28, 2014, 09:29:43 AM
Not RPI-related, but KenPom had MU 54 and GTOWN 53 before last nights game.
Today, MU is 57 and GTOWN is 54. Weird.
I suspect because using his system MU should have done better than a 2 point win. In Sagarin our rating "score" went down slightly as well. In Sagarin we are 56 rated and G'Town 53.
Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on February 28, 2014, 09:27:54 AM
If you drop all RPI 250+ games, MU would be 11-11 with an RPI of 42 and a SOS of 2.
Damn... that's much better than what I could even imagine. How'd you do that?
Quote from: Benny B on February 28, 2014, 09:42:46 AM
Damn... that's much better than what I could even imagine. How'd you do that?
RPI Wizard
Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on February 28, 2014, 09:27:54 AM
If you drop all RPI 250+ games, MU would be 11-11 with an RPI of 42 and a SOS of 2.
Can you send this to the committee? Wow, just wow.
Lessee now;
We have an RPI of 73
No signature win
Do not appear in Lunardi's bracketology or the bracket matrix
Still, many think we have a great shot at making the dance!
Really? Outside of winning the BE tourney I just don't see it.
So I ran the RPI Wizard for just MU and got the same result but I want to see what their RPI would be if you dropped the 250+ games for every team.
Quote from: ATWizJr on February 28, 2014, 10:00:33 AM
Lessee now;
We have an RPI of 73
No signature win
Do not appear in Lunardi's bracketology or the bracket matrix
Still, many think we have a great shot at making the dance!
Really? Outside of winning the BE tourney I just don't see it.
First off, I don't think anyone has said MU has a "great shot" of making the dance.
And, to be fair, nether Lunardi's bracket or Bracket Matrix have been updated since last night. We will certainly appear in the Bracket Matrix before our game Sunday, and I suspect that Lunardi will have MU in his "Next Four Out" in his next bracket, assuming he updates before Sunday. He had MU in "Four More" out prior to last night's game, and GTOWN in the "First 4 Out".
Quote from: ATWizJr on February 28, 2014, 10:00:33 AM
Lessee now;
We have an RPI of 73
No signature win
Do not appear in Lunardi's bracketology or the bracket matrix
Still, many think we have a great shot at making the dance!
Really? Outside of winning the BE tourney I just don't see it.
Go 2-1, and MU will finish the regular season with an RPI in the mid-50s. Go 3-0, and finish with an RPI in the upper 40s. The former is bubble territory, the latter is a "should-be-in." Then you have a few games in the BET to improve your numbers further. Beat Creighton or Nova in the BET semis (and lose to the other in the final) and they could end up with an RPI in the 30s... that would all but assure an at-large.
While they still need to win games (the probability for which can be debated), MU has a pretty good shot at the Dance insomuch as it appears that they control their own destiny.
I agree that MU controls its own destiny but even just 2-1 is a tall order for these remaining three games. We could easily drop all 3. One game at a time though.
I think we need 4 more wins between now and Selection Sunday to get in, including the BET games.
Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on February 28, 2014, 10:08:46 AM
First off, I don't think anyone has said MU has a "great shot" of making the dance.
And, to be fair, nether Lunardi's bracket or Bracket Matrix have been updated since last night. We will certainly appear in the Bracket Matrix before our game Sunday, and I suspect that Lunardi will have MU in his "Next Four Out" in his next bracket, assuming he updates before Sunday. He had MU in "Four More" out prior to last night's game, and GTOWN in the "First 4 Out".
I would be surprised if we are in either by Sunday. Win Sunday, then yes but probably not before.
Quote from: Benny B on February 28, 2014, 10:13:41 AM
Go 2-1, and MU will finish the regular season with an RPI in the mid-50s. Go 3-0, and finish with an RPI in the upper 40s. The former is bubble territory, the latter is a "should-be-in." Then you have a few games in the BET to improve your numbers further. Beat Creighton or Nova in the BET semis (and lose to the other in the final) and they could end up with an RPI in the 30s... that would all but assure an at-large.
While they still need to win games (the probability for which can be debated), MU has a pretty good shot at the Dance insomuch as it appears that they control their own destiny.
I don't disagree with you, but I don't understand RPI. We won 5 of our last 6 and went up what? 10 spots in the RPI or something? I just don't understand how even winning our last 3 would jump us 30 spots. I know they are better teams than we played in the non-con, but only Nova is above the level of competition we have beaten recently.
Quote from: striker14 on February 28, 2014, 10:33:06 AM
I don't disagree with you, but I don't understand RPI. We won 5 of our last 6 and went up what? 10 spots in the RPI or something? I just don't understand how even winning our last 3 would jump us 30 spots. I know they are better teams than we played in the non-con, but only Nova is above the level of competition we have beaten recently.
Those are all estimates anyway. Nothing happens in a vacuum and what other teams do also matters.
Most people don't understand the math and relationships in RPI and for that matter KenPom
That's all for now.
Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on February 28, 2014, 09:27:54 AM
If you drop all RPI 250+ games, MU would be 11-11 with an RPI of 42 and a SOS of 2.
To be comparable, you would have to drop the 250+ games from every team. I doubt our SOS would be 2
Quote from: bilsu on February 28, 2014, 12:25:14 PM
To be comparable, you would have to drop the 250+ games from every team. I doubt our SOS would be 2
Correct, but replace those teams with RPI's in the 175-250 range and SOS would probably be in the teens.
70 going into today's game
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 02, 2014, 10:20:30 AM
70 going into today's game
Should get into the mid 50s with a win.
Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on March 02, 2014, 10:28:48 AM
Should get into the mid 50s with a win.
Somewhere around 57 to 60 depending on how games shake out today
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 02, 2014, 10:31:34 AM
Somewhere around 57 to 60 depending on how games shake out today
Agreed; and should be into the 66-68 or so range with a loss.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 02, 2014, 11:25:31 AM
Agreed; and should be into the 66-68 or so range with a loss.
Hot damn didn't know you could agree with chicos when it comes to RPI calcs
Am I reading it right that we are 57 in Kenpom's RPI?
Quote from: ShannonSmith on March 02, 2014, 12:31:59 PM
Am I reading it right that we are 57 in Kenpom's RPI?
Yes.
but cbs has us 70? That's a big difference for the same stat
It's not the same stat. Kenpom factors their ratings differently including margin of victory. RPI does not. Neither is perfect, but RPI is the standard bearer still.
Quote from: ShannonSmith on March 02, 2014, 12:34:54 PM
but cbs has us 70? That's a big difference for the same stat
Ooops, didn't even notice you said 'Kenpom's RPI'... KenPom vs. RPI are different things, both with flaws if taken at face value.
RPI's from different sites are different because of errors (i.e., ESPN has their's all f'd up)... but KenPom isn't trying to calculate RPI.
Quote from: ShannonSmith on March 02, 2014, 12:31:59 PM
Am I reading it right that we are 57 in Kenpom's RPI?
Ken Pom doesn't do the RPI
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 02, 2014, 11:25:31 AM
Agreed; and should be into the 66-68 or so range with a loss.
Yup, I would say 67 to 69, very close.
70 as of this morning
80th now after SJU loss
SJU up to 59
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 08, 2014, 02:22:55 PM
80th now after SJU loss
SJU up to 59
80? At this point Senator what difference does it make. It could be 180, and would not matter.
Quote from: willie warrior on March 08, 2014, 02:32:21 PM
80? At this point Senator what difference does it make. It could be 180, and would not matter.
There were actually four teams with better than a 80 RPI last year that did not make the NIT, but played in the CBI or CIT.
Another two teams had an RPI between 81 and 85 that also didn't go...so a total of 6 between 69 and 85 got passed over by the NIT.
I would be surprised if we didn't make the NIT, but if we lose the next game it would not be a total shock either.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 08, 2014, 02:38:24 PM
There were actually four teams with better than a 80 RPI last year that did not make the NIT, but played in the CBI or CIT.
Another two teams had an RPI between 81 and 85 that also didn't go...so a total of 6 between 69 and 85 got passed over by the NIT.
I would be surprised if we didn't make the NIT, but if we lose the next game it would not be a total shock either.
The other possibility is that MU declines the NIT. There are some coaches really into banners and celebrating anything (including cutting down nets after losses, etc.), but that's not Buzz. I can think of a team with an RPI in the 90's who would cherish the 'opportunity' to play in the NIT and brag about it... not sure we would.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 08, 2014, 07:24:45 PM
The other possibility is that MU declines the NIT. There are some coaches really into banners and celebrating anything (including cutting down nets after losses, etc.), but that's not Buzz. I can think of a team with an RPI in the 90's who would cherish the 'opportunity' to play in the NIT and brag about it... not sure we would.
I would be disappointed if MU declined the NIT. It would look very snobbish
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 08, 2014, 07:26:43 PM
I would be disappointed if MU declined the NIT. It would look very snobbish
Like when Al declined the NCAA?
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 08, 2014, 07:24:45 PM
The other possibility is that MU declines the NIT. There are some coaches really into banners and celebrating anything (including cutting down nets after losses, etc.), but that's not Buzz. I can think of a team with an RPI in the 90's who would cherish the 'opportunity' to play in the NIT and brag about it... not sure we would.
If you are a young team, you play in it. Only helps you. MU won't decline it. I recall a Kentucky team that played in it last year and a North Carolina team 3 years ago...probably like that team in the 90's....very young, need some reps. Unfortunately our team isn't young, but we won't be turning it down.
Quote from: jesmu84 on March 08, 2014, 07:33:51 PM
Like when Al declined the NCAA?
That was very different. This team and the 1970 Warriors have very little in common
We are at 91 after last night.
Last year these teams made it to the NIT with similar RPI
88 Washington
89 Arizona State
90 Providence
94 St. John's
On the flip side, these teams with better RPIs were left out of the NIT last year
69 Eastern Kentucky
73 Wyoming
75 North Dakota State
79 Air Force
83 Northern Iowa
85 Weber State
91 Richmond
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 14, 2014, 01:35:22 PM
We are at 91 after last night.
Last year these teams made it to the NIT with similar RPI
88 Washington
89 Arizona State
90 Providence
94 St. John's
On the flip side, these teams with better RPIs were left out of the NIT last year
69 Eastern Kentucky
73 Wyoming
75 North Dakota State
79 Air Force
83 Northern Iowa
85 Weber State
91 Richmond
Looks like name recrecognition might play a role in getting in, hopefully that works in our favor
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 08, 2014, 07:24:45 PM
The other possibility is that MU declines the NIT. There are some coaches really into banners and celebrating anything (including cutting down nets after losses, etc.), but that's not Buzz. I can think of a team with an RPI in the 90's who would cherish the 'opportunity' to play in the NIT and brag about it... not sure we would.
As it turns out, this actually is Buzz. Unless he doesn't understand that his team has an RPI currently in the 90's.
"I hope," he said. "That's the thing. I see it from a different lens. Part of it is because I think I'm getting old. Part of it is because I look at it from a different perspective. I turn on the TV and it's like . . . 'They're going to the NIT.' And I'm going, well, 'How many teams are in the NIT?
I hope that we go to the NIT and I mean that sincerely. I would like us to keep playing, but as I've told my guys, in my career as a head coach, I haven't been to the NIT. So, does anybody know how that works? Sincerely."
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/250279231.html
Quote from: The Equalizer on March 14, 2014, 01:51:19 PM
As it turns out, this actually is Buzz. Unless he doesn't understand that his team has an RPI currently in the 90's.
"I hope," he said. "That's the thing. I see it from a different lens. Part of it is because I think I'm getting old. Part of it is because I look at it from a different perspective. I turn on the TV and it's like . . . 'They're going to the NIT.' And I'm going, well, 'How many teams are in the NIT? I hope that we go to the NIT and I mean that sincerely. I would like us to keep playing, but as I've told my guys, in my career as a head coach, I haven't been to the NIT. So, does anybody know how that works? Sincerely."
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/250279231.html
No. If he has a parade or wants to organize a big to do for the NIT selection show, then we can talk. Saying he wants to keep playing isn't similar to cutting down the net after losing a game.
Would be the absolute chits and slap on the kisser to get passed over, aina?
keefe, with the reference to "passed over," get we get more of them there Israeli soldier pics?
ANY female Warrior pics would be much enjoyed