finishing

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

This was as of as of Feb 2016, maybe these records got nudged a month after that.

Lowest RPI to get an at-large bid:
• 67 - USC (2011)
• 64 - Marquette (2011)
• 63 - North Carolina State (2005), Stanford (2007)

Outside the Big Six:
• 50 - Air Force (2006)
• 49 - VCU (2011)

So .. 70 will not do it.   

RPIForecast.com has us at 71 for the season.

My guess: Finishing above those expectations, going 4-2 with a 57 RPI and 0-1 in the BET .. and we're NIT bound.

You think a 10-8 5th place Big East team with an RPI in the 50s, Kenpom in the mid 30s is going to be left out? There is not a shot in hell. 

[brewcity77]

This was as of as of Feb 2016, maybe these records got nudged a month after that.

Lowest RPI to get an at-large bid:
• 67 - USC (2011)
• 64 - Marquette (2011)
• 63 - North Carolina State (2005), Stanford (2007)

Outside the Big Six:
• 50 - Air Force (2006)
• 49 - VCU (2011)

So .. 70 will not do it.   

RPIForecast.com has us at 71 for the season.

My guess: Finishing above those expectations, going 4-2 with a 57 RPI and 0-1 in the BET .. and we're NIT bound.

So I just ran the numbers. Go 4-2 and lose to Xavier in the first game, that's a 61 RPI and 53 SOS. That gives us 4 top-25 wins and 1 sub-100 loss. This year, in this conference, that's a NCAA resume. If we go 9-9, I'm with you. we're NIT bound. But 10-8 gets us in pretty much no matter what happens at MSG.

Further, last year, 68 Temple, 70 Tulsa, and 71 Vanderbilt all made the tournament as at-large bids. And the bubble isn't any better this year.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

So I just ran the numbers. Go 4-2 and lose to Xavier in the first game, that's a 61 RPI and 53 SOS. That gives us 4 top-25 wins and 1 sub-100 loss. This year, in this conference, that's a NCAA resume. If we go 9-9, I'm with you. we're NIT bound. But 10-8 gets us in pretty much no matter what happens at MSG.

Further, last year, 68 Temple, 70 Tulsa, and 71 Vanderbilt all made the tournament as at-large bids. And the bubble isn't any better this year.

There are scenarios that would get us in at 9-9, but they require wins in the BET.  Let's say we go 3-3 the rest of the way, losses at Georgetown, @ X and vs. Creighton.  Lets assume that gets us the 6 seed, though it may still be the 5.  Play and beat Creighton in the 3/6 game a few days after they beat us at the BC, then lose to Butler in the semis.  That gets us to 19-13 and an RPI of 62. Maybe enough to sneak in, maybe not.  Lets say we beat Butler in the 2nd game, then fall to Nova in the final..that gets us to 20-13 and an RPI of 49.  No way that team doesn't get in. 

[amen426]

This was as of as of Feb 2016, maybe these records got nudged a month after that.

Lowest RPI to get an at-large bid:
• 67 - USC (2011)
• 64 - Marquette (2011)
• 63 - North Carolina State (2005), Stanford (2007)

Outside the Big Six:
• 50 - Air Force (2006)
• 49 - VCU (2011)

So .. 70 will not do it.   

RPIForecast.com has us at 71 for the season.

My guess: Finishing above those expectations, going 4-2 with a 57 RPI and 0-1 in the BET .. and we're NIT bound.

Tulsa had an RPI in the 70's last year, and still got an at-large bid.

If we get our RPI in the 60's (meaning we have to win a total of 4 games the rest of the way), we should be fine.

My question to you would be - if we're going to the NIT, who's going to take our spot?

In the prior two years, the Big East has gotten 6 & 5 bids. Without even looking at any other conferences...

1. Is anyone in our conference more worthy of being the 5th Bid in the Big East?

2. Is the Big East down from the prior two years, or should they at least match the 5-6 bids that we received in the last two years?

I can't see Seton Hall, Providence or Georgetown leapfrogging us for that 5th bid. I also can't see the Big East getting less than 5 bids this year.

[#UnleashSean]

This was as of as of Feb 2016, maybe these records got nudged a month after that.

Lowest RPI to get an at-large bid:
• 67 - USC (2011)
• 64 - Marquette (2011)
• 63 - North Carolina State (2005), Stanford (2007)

Outside the Big Six:
• 50 - Air Force (2006)
• 49 - VCU (2011)

So .. 70 will not do it.   

RPIForecast.com has us at 71 for the season.

My guess: Finishing above those expectations, going 4-2 with a 57 RPI and 0-1 in the BET .. and we're NIT bound.

Wow I can't believe I dont remember that Marquette was an 11 seed in 2011.

[brewcity77]

Okay...here are a few questionable teams last year:

- Syracuse looked terrible, losing 4 of their last 5 conference games. Most felt they didn't belong, and they went one and done in the conference tourney, yet got in.
- Vanderbilt was 19-13 before losing to a bad Tennessee team in the SEC opener. Sub-70 RPI, they had no chance without a SEC run, yet they got in.
- Tulsa toppled to 70 in the RPI after losing to a Memphis team that missed the NIT. Surely the conference tournament cost them, right? Wrong, they got in.
- San Diego State dropped to 25-9 after going 2-1 in the conference tourney before falling to MWC champs Fresno State. Play themselves in? Nope, snubbed.
- St Mary's was a lock after overcoming their bizarre Pepperdine bugbear and going 2-1 against Gonzaga despite losing in the WCC Final. Except...they weren't. Left out despite doing everything but win the conference tournament.

This is why I have no faith in the conference tournaments. You can play like crap and get in because the committee decided you were worthy before you took the court (Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Tulsa) or you can tack on some wins and still get left out (San Diego State, St Mary's).

I think 10-8 in conference and losing the 4/5 game gives us a better shot than 9-9 and making the conference final. Those games are regularly overweighted by pundits and bracketologists and aren't nearly as important as people think unless you win the whole damn thing.

[amen426]

Okay...here are a few questionable teams last year:

- Syracuse looked terrible, losing 4 of their last 5 conference games. Most felt they didn't belong, and they went one and done in the conference tourney, yet got in.
- Vanderbilt was 19-13 before losing to a bad Tennessee team in the SEC opener. Sub-70 RPI, they had no chance without a SEC run, yet they got in.
- Tulsa toppled to 70 in the RPI after losing to a Memphis team that missed the NIT. Surely the conference tournament cost them, right? Wrong, they got in.
- San Diego State dropped to 25-9 after going 2-1 in the conference tourney before falling to MWC champs Fresno State. Play themselves in? Nope, snubbed.
- St Mary's was a lock after overcoming their bizarre Pepperdine bugbear and going 2-1 against Gonzaga despite losing in the WCC Final. Except...they weren't. Left out despite doing everything but win the conference tournament.

This is why I have no faith in the conference tournaments. You can play like crap and get in because the committee decided you were worthy before you took the court (Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Tulsa) or you can tack on some wins and still get left out (San Diego State, St Mary's).

I think 10-8 in conference and losing the 4/5 game gives us a better shot than 9-9 and making the conference final. Those games are regularly overweighted by pundits and bracketologists and aren't nearly as important as people think unless you win the whole damn thing.

You are assuming you know what the committee's opinion is before the conference tournament begins. Just because those teams made the tournament, doesn't mean the losses didn't drop them down the seed line.

In 2014, most pundits would have assumed that SMU was a lock for the tournament. They lose their first conference tournament game, and get snubbed on Selection Sunday. Clearly, they thought the conference tournament held some value - since their resume wasn't worthy prior to the AAC tourny.

There are just as many scenarios proving that the conference tournament games are just as relevant as regular season games to the committee.

[muguru]

To expound on this a little further...currently MU is 4-5 vs. the top 50 RPI. Only 3 teams from RPI #25, down to MU at 74 have as many or more than MU. West Virginia- RPI 34 top 50 wins...6, Minnesota- RPI 25 has 4, and Notre Dame-RPI 27 has 4 as well.

On another note, did anyone realize UW has only played 5 games against the top 50 RPI?? 5!! And they are 2-3 in those games..Only, South Carolina, UCLA and Maryland have played that few or fewer amongst power 5 conference schools. That's pathetic!

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

To expound on this a little further...currently MU is 4-5 vs. the top 50 RPI. Only 3 teams from RPI #25, down to MU at 74 have as many or more than MU. West Virginia- RPI 34 top 50 wins...6, Minnesota- RPI 25 has 4, and Notre Dame-RPI 27 has 4 as well.

On another note, did anyone realize UW has only played 5 games against the top 50 RPI?? 5!! And they are 2-3 in those games..Only, South Carolina, UCLA and Maryland have played that few or fewer amongst power 5 conference schools. That's pathetic!

Exactly. Plus we'll grab at least 1 or 2 more, and we have what only a few teams in the country have in a win versus a legit #1. MU still has quite a bit going for them, and I know I've said it a bunch, but they have as good a shot as anyone does at .500 in conference.

[muguru]

Exactly. Plus we'll grab at least 1 or 2 more, and we have what only a few teams in the country have in a win versus a legit #1. MU still has quite a bit going for them, and I know I've said it a bunch, but they have as good a shot as anyone does at .500 in conference.

I still would rather not chance it at 9-9...get to 10-8 and remove all doubt.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

I still would rather not chance it at 9-9...get to 10-8 and remove all doubt.

No doubt about it. Completely with you there.

[brewcity77]

You are assuming you know what the committee's opinion is before the conference tournament begins. Just because those teams made the tournament, doesn't mean the losses didn't drop them down the seed line.

In 2014, most pundits would have assumed that SMU was a lock for the tournament. They lose their first conference tournament game, and get snubbed on Selection Sunday. Clearly, they thought the conference tournament held some value - since their resume wasn't worthy prior to the AAC tourny.

There are just as many scenarios proving that the conference tournament games are just as relevant as regular season games to the committee.

Except there aren't. When has the committee ever said "they were just off our radar, but played their way in"? I'm genuinely asking, I can't ever remember a similar comment.

When it comes to SMU the Committee cited their #302 NCSOS and #129 SOS. There was no "if not for that loss to Houston they were a lock". When you look at how the entire AAC was treated that year, I think their fate was decided before they tipped their first game, they needed to win the tourney to make the Dance.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2014/03/16/green-bay-southern-methodist-ncaa-tournament-snubs/6504815/

[real chili 83]

Hey, I thought this was a fishing thread.

We got this!

[wadesworld]

MU was 23-4, CUSA champs, and a projected 2 seed heading into the CUSA Tournament in 2003.  They lost first round to UAB and dropped to a 3 seed.

UCONN was 24-9 and 9-9 in the BE (good for a tie for 9th place) heading into the BET and had lost 4 of its last 5 and 7 of its last 11 regular season games before going on to win the BET and ended up with a 3 seed in the NCAA Tournament.  There's no chance a .500, 9th place BE team gets a 3 seed without making a run through the BET.

Conference tournaments matter for what they are, 1-4 games.  Of course the regular season holds more weight, they're over games long compared to a max of 5 games depending on your conference tournament format.  But if you're a bubble team and you lose to a team like DePaul you're in some trouble, just like if you lost to DePaul in the regular season.  Or if you're a bubble team and you make a run to beat Creighton, Butler, and lose to Villanova, you help yourself quite a bit, just like if you went through that stretch in the regular season (like we saw this year).  If you're a bubble team and beat Houston and Memphis before losing to Cinci then it's pretty neutral, just as it would be in the regular season.

[amen426]

Except there aren't. When has the committee ever said "they were just off our radar, but played their way in"? I'm genuinely asking, I can't ever remember a similar comment.

When it comes to SMU the Committee cited their #302 NCSOS and #129 SOS. There was no "if not for that loss to Houston they were a lock". When you look at how the entire AAC was treated that year, I think their fate was decided before they tipped their first game, they needed to win the tourney to make the Dance.

Again, that's your opinion.

They aren't wrong in saying that they missed the tournament because of the SOS. But that doesn't mean they would have kept them out of the tournament if they had beaten Houston. When did the committee ever say that SMU needed to win the tournament in order to get in?

They don't get that specific.

My only point was - individual conference games mean just as much as individual regular season games. The committee has never said otherwise.

Okay...here are a few questionable teams last year:
- Syracuse looked terrible, losing 4 of their last 5 conference games. Most felt they didn't belong, and they went one and done in the conference tourney, yet got in.
- Vanderbilt was 19-13 before losing to a bad Tennessee team in the SEC opener. Sub-70 RPI, they had no chance without a SEC run, yet they got in.
- Tulsa toppled to 70 in the RPI after losing to a Memphis team that missed the NIT. Surely the conference tournament cost them, right? Wrong, they got in.
- San Diego State dropped to 25-9 after going 2-1 in the conference tourney before falling to MWC champs Fresno State. Play themselves in? Nope, snubbed.
- St Mary's was a lock after overcoming their bizarre Pepperdine bugbear and going 2-1 against Gonzaga despite losing in the WCC Final. Except...they weren't. Left out despite doing everything but win the conference tournament.
This is why I have no faith in the conference tournaments.

These teams shouldn't be used as an argument against conference tournaments. They should be a reminder that RPI is not as big of a factor as the pundits think it is.

All of those "surprises" were all RPI related. They are not proof that the teams maintained the exact same seed before and after the conference tournament games.. Syracuse probably moved down -- just not enough to get knocked out of the field of 68.

[amen426]

Conference tournaments matter for what they are, 1-4 games.

+1

[brewcity77]

In 2002, #1 ranked Cincy was the only CUSA team while we were in there league to earn a 1-seed. Before that, the champs for 6 years (all Cincy) were between a the 2-5 lines. In the years after 2003, before we joined the Big East, Cincinnati was the top CUSA seed with a 4 in 2004 while 29-4 Louisville earned a 4 in 2005. Sorry, but I don't believe we lost our 2-seed because of one game any more than I think we were in line for a 1 by winning out. That league was routinely disrespected.

As far as UConn, they had also not lost a non-conference game and were ranked 19/21 in the polls. The 3-seed wasn't an outlier from where they were projected by more than one line.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This was as of as of Feb 2016, maybe these records got nudged a month after that.

Lowest RPI to get an at-large bid:
• 67 - USC (2011)
• 64 - Marquette (2011)
• 63 - North Carolina State (2005), Stanford (2007)

Outside the Big Six:
• 50 - Air Force (2006)
• 49 - VCU (2011)

So .. 70 will not do it.   

RPIForecast.com has us at 71 for the season.

My guess: Finishing above those expectations, going 4-2 with a 57 RPI and 0-1 in the BET .. and we're NIT bound.

That was broken last year. Check Syracuse

[Herman Cain]

I think we need to win the Big East tournament. Get lucky with 3 straight hot shooting nights. The rest of our schedule is a bear. Wins going to be hard to come by.

[wadesworld]

I think we need to win the Big East tournament. Get lucky with 3 straight hot shooting nights. The rest of our schedule is a bear. Wins going to be hard to come by.

Phew.

[fjm]

Hey, I thought this was a fishing thread.

We got this!

Ya... whatcha usin there? 5lb test line eh?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I think we need to win the Big East tournament. Get lucky with 3 straight hot shooting nights. The rest of our schedule is a bear. Wins going to be hard to come by.

Why are three games against teams currently out of the tournament and three games against teams missing their starting PGs considered a bear? I mean it's the Big East so every game is a bear but as our conference goes, this is less than average.

Are you trying the reverse jinx?

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Why are three games against teams currently out of the tournament and three games against teams missing their starting PGs considered a bear? I mean it's the Big East so every game is a bear but as our conference goes, this is less than average.

Are you trying the reverse jinx?

.

To be fair, he picked us to go 1-15.

[Herman Cain]

Why are three games against teams currently out of the tournament and three games against teams missing their starting PGs considered a bear? I mean it's the Big East so every game is a bear but as our conference goes, this is less than average.

Are you trying the reverse jinx?

Six games against tough teams. Even without the injured players Xavier and Creighton are still strong teams. Georgetown has been better lately. We have demonstrated our ability to lose against Providence and St. Johns. d. 

We need to win Four to get into the tournament. Steve Lavin was commenting on the 6 loss teams in the Big East last night on one of the FS1 games,he says it will take 10-8 to get in.

It is possible we can win all six of the remaining games. it is also possible we can lose all 6. If we go 3-3 that makes us 9-9.

So my conclusion is our best path to the NCAA tournament is to have three hot shooting nights in the Big East Tournament. I would of course prefer we get in with a 10-8 conference record. 

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Six games against tough teams. Even without the injured players Xavier and Creighton are still strong teams. Georgetown has been better lately. We have demonstrated our ability to lose against Providence and St. Johns. d. 

We need to win Four to get into the tournament. Steve Lavin was commenting on the 6 loss teams in the Big East last night on one of the FS1 games,he says it will take 10-8 to get in.

It is possible we can win all six of the remaining games. it is also possible we can lose all 6. If we go 3-3 that makes us 9-9.

So my conclusion is our best path to the NCAA tournament is to have three hot shooting nights in the Big East Tournament. I would of course prefer we get in with a 10-8 conference record.

If Seton Hall and Marquette finish 9-9, at least one of them will make the tournament.  No way in hell the BE only gets 4 teams in.