|
Post by HighNTight on Jul 13, 2014 10:38:27 GMT -8
Did the Big East Basketball agreements fall apart when the football league imploded? I know that we're planning Cincy this year, but we also were supposed to play games against UConn and Memphis St. Lastly, is Kansas coming to Viejas for the 2015-2016 season and that home and home agreement? Any word there? The game against Cincy is the basketball team taking over a commitment from the football team to avoid paying the cancellation fee.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jul 13, 2014 10:43:14 GMT -8
Any BE/AAC OOC MBB games were dropped when we dropped the football connection . Cincy away and possibly home MBB was added to replace the football payback that we owed them. Believe Kansas game here is still on for 2015-16 . San Marcos is a good OOC game . Last year Aztecs had a "controlled scrimmage" at Stanford that worked well , wonder if they try it again. Aztecs OOC schedule is very important for MM selection . Conference play really ends up hurting us unless other MW teams also have some quality OOC games . Rebels have but the other teams that want to be considered (Lobos , BSU, CSU ) have not
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jul 13, 2014 13:38:10 GMT -8
Any BE/AAC OOC MBB games were dropped when we dropped the football connection . Cincy away and possibly home MBB was added to replace the football payback that we owed them. Believe Kansas game here is still on for 2015-16 . San Marcos is a good OOC game . Last year Aztecs had a "controlled scrimmage" at Stanford that worked well , wonder if they try it again. Aztecs OOC schedule is very important for MM selection . Conference play really ends up hurting us unless other MW teams also have some quality OOC games . Rebels have but the other teams that want to be considered (Lobos , BSU, CSU ) have not The goats apparently have difficulty scheduling the better teams who will have to climb the mountains. I really think that's true, which means the word has spread about playing basketball at altitude. Good bye RPI, goats. Fortunately the NCAA selection committee is aware of SDSU even if our RPI suffers when playing them.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 13, 2014 14:28:59 GMT -8
Last year our RPI increased playing MWC teams. In 2012-2013 our conferences OOC success was such that we ended the year as one of the top RPI conferences.
For us, the most important aspect of our opponents schedule is that are able to win games. We should want a team like Utah State, for instance, to come into conference play with a good wining record. Even if that means they play bad teams. Them losing to good teams hurts us.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jul 13, 2014 18:28:51 GMT -8
AztecBill your RPI stats maybe are correct. IMO the most important stat is how many teams your conference gets selected for the MM or even NIT and where they are seeded . The MW did have a great RPI in 2012-13 and landed 5 teams in MM . Unfortunately the MW flopped and also flopped in OOC games -other then the Aztecs . So MW went to a two bid MM and ZERO for NIT . Most of those doing the selection realize the RPI may not be the most important stat , what they seemed to say is we want to see what teams do against quality teams in OOC . We want to look at how you performed in OOC games. Coach Fisher realized it , he knew those selecting did not think much of the MW - poor OOC , bogus RPI rating , Low conference rating . So he asked for a shorter conference schedule when the other teams said no , He set up a good OOC schedule . The Lobos did not and got a bad seed and lost quickly . BSU and UNLV not even a NIT invite. I agree it is better if the bottom half of the MW had a good OOC but in reality , those doing the selecting do not even value their record when they do not play any one decent . Coach Fisher tried again this year to lower the conference games but it did not work. UNLV got the message has a good OOC schedule . Did BSU, CSU, Lobos ? The others do not think they care enough . They may think their RPI will save them but it is not what it used to be. For the MW it is RIP. Because no one wants to go to the mountains. What is the expression you can not put lipstick on a pig .
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Jul 13, 2014 19:08:48 GMT -8
What is the expression you can not put lipstick on a pig . Actually you can put lipstick on a pig. But, it's still a pig.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jul 13, 2014 19:12:07 GMT -8
What is the expression you can not put lipstick on a pig . Actually you can put lipstick on a pig. But, it's still a pig. or is it that you can't make a silk purse out of pigs lipstick?
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Jul 13, 2014 19:55:23 GMT -8
Actually you can put lipstick on a pig. But, it's still a pig. or is it that you can't make a silk purse out of pigs lipstick? I think this is where I say "Hurry football season and get here, the AztecMesa citizens are getting crazy."
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 13, 2014 21:40:53 GMT -8
AztecBill your RPI stats maybe are correct. IMO the most important stat is how many teams your conference gets selected for the MM or even NIT and where they are seeded . The MW did have a great RPI in 2012-13 and landed 5 teams in MM . Unfortunately the MW flopped and also flopped in OOC games -other then the Aztecs . So MW went to a two bid MM and ZERO for NIT . Most of those doing the selection realize the RPI may not be the most important stat , what they seemed to say is we want to see what teams do against quality teams in OOC . We want to look at how you performed in OOC games. Coach Fisher realized it , he knew those selecting did not think much of the MW - poor OOC , bogus RPI rating , Low conference rating . So he asked for a shorter conference schedule when the other teams said no , He set up a good OOC schedule . The Lobos did not and got a bad seed and lost quickly . BSU and UNLV not even a NIT invite. I agree it is better if the bottom half of the MW had a good OOC but in reality , those doing the selecting do not even value their record when they do not play any one decent . Coach Fisher tried again this year to lower the conference games but it did not work. UNLV got the message has a good OOC schedule . Did BSU, CSU, Lobos ? The others do not think they care enough . They may think their RPI will save them but it is not what it used to be. For the MW it is RIP. Because no one wants to go to the mountains. What is the expression you can not put lipstick on a pig . Almost every sentence is not in alignment with facts.
|
|
|
Post by Xolotl on Jul 13, 2014 21:48:05 GMT -8
The scary part is I understood everything you said
|
|
|
Post by Gundo on Jul 13, 2014 22:20:27 GMT -8
AztecBill your RPI stats maybe are correct. IMO the most important stat is how many teams your conference gets selected for the MM or even NIT and where they are seeded . The MW did have a great RPI in 2012-13 and landed 5 teams in MM . Unfortunately the MW flopped and also flopped in OOC games -other then the Aztecs . So MW went to a two bid MM and ZERO for NIT . Most of those doing the selection realize the RPI may not be the most important stat , what they seemed to say is we want to see what teams do against quality teams in OOC . We want to look at how you performed in OOC games. Coach Fisher realized it , he knew those selecting did not think much of the MW - poor OOC , bogus RPI rating , Low conference rating . So he asked for a shorter conference schedule when the other teams said no , He set up a good OOC schedule . The Lobos did not and got a bad seed and lost quickly . BSU and UNLV not even a NIT invite. I agree it is better if the bottom half of the MW had a good OOC but in reality , those doing the selecting do not even value their record when they do not play any one decent . Coach Fisher tried again this year to lower the conference games but it did not work. UNLV got the message has a good OOC schedule . Did BSU, CSU, Lobos ? The others do not think they care enough . They may think their RPI will save them but it is not what it used to be. For the MW it is RIP. Because no one wants to go to the mountains. What is the expression you can not put lipstick on a pig . Almost every sentence is not in alignment with facts. I am with Fish on this, most leagues are going to higher RPI games and conference alliances. All the other big 5 conferences play 16 game seasons and not all teams face one another in home and away schedules. Fisher is one of the nations top 10-20 coaches, MWC it's time to pull your head out of the sand.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 14, 2014 7:33:25 GMT -8
Almost every sentence is not in alignment with facts. I am with Fish on this, most leagues are going to higher RPI games and conference alliances. All the other big 5 conferences play 16 game seasons and not all teams face one another in home and away schedules. Fisher is one of the nations top 10-20 coaches, MWC it's time to pull your head out of the sand. I wanted a 16 game schedule before Fisher talked about it. I showed how RPI suffers when the ratio of OOC game to conference games becomes too slanted toward conference games. The extra two games would be replaced with quality home and homes. Limited OOC games also hurts Aztecs scheduling. Because the Aztecs need a certain number of home games, they are limited in their home and homes with extra conference games. With an 18 game schedule they are limited to 4 home and homes and any time. With a 16 game schedule they can have 6. 31 game limit minus 18 conference games minus 8 home games (Aztecs need 17 home games for ticket sales) minus 3 tournament games, leaves only 2 ture road games OOC every year. That gives the Aztecs the chance to play at most 4 home and home series at any time. We alread have USD. That leaves 3. Right now we have Washington, Cincinnati, and whichever home game (other than USD) is a home and home. By reducing the conference schedule to 16 games we can go from 4 Home and Home to 6. Huge difference. RPI-wise 18 conference games and (at most) 13 OOC games is a bad ratio. This is because every conference game reduces the overall conference winning percentage since every game is a loss and a win for the conference. We need more OOC games to improve our winning percentage, which is the most important part of how teams effect opponents SOS.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 14, 2014 7:38:30 GMT -8
AztecBill your RPI stats maybe are correct. IMO the most important stat is how many teams your conference gets selected for the MM or even NIT and where they are seeded . The MW did have a great RPI in 2012-13 and landed 5 teams in MM . Unfortunately the MW flopped and also flopped in OOC games -other then the Aztecs . So MW went to a two bid MM and ZERO for NIT . Most of those doing the selection realize the RPI may not be the most important stat , what they seemed to say is we want to see what teams do against quality teams in OOC . We want to look at how you performed in OOC games. Coach Fisher realized it , he knew those selecting did not think much of the MW - poor OOC , bogus RPI rating , Low conference rating . So he asked for a shorter conference schedule when the other teams said no , He set up a good OOC schedule . The Lobos did not and got a bad seed and lost quickly . BSU and UNLV not even a NIT invite. I agree it is better if the bottom half of the MW had a good OOC but in reality , those doing the selecting do not even value their record when they do not play any one decent . Coach Fisher tried again this year to lower the conference games but it did not work. UNLV got the message has a good OOC schedule . Did BSU, CSU, Lobos ? The others do not think they care enough . They may think their RPI will save them but it is not what it used to be. For the MW it is RIP. Because no one wants to go to the mountains. What is the expression you can not put lipstick on a pig . The MWC had 55% of their teams in the 2013 tournament because during November and December of 2012 MWC teams had a great run of very good wins and beat lesser teams at a very high rate. The MWC had 18% of their teams in the 2014 tournament because during November and December of 2013 MWC teams had few good wins and beat lesser teams at a poor rate. All that other stuff is reading into the situation superfluous stuff that didn't effect it at all. For instance, New Mexico didn't get a great seed this year because they lost too many games - their schedule was fine.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jul 14, 2014 8:05:48 GMT -8
AztecBill your RPI stats maybe are correct. IMO the most important stat is how many teams your conference gets selected for the MM or even NIT and where they are seeded . The MW did have a great RPI in 2012-13 and landed 5 teams in MM . Unfortunately the MW flopped and also flopped in OOC games -other then the Aztecs . So MW went to a two bid MM and ZERO for NIT . Most of those doing the selection realize the RPI may not be the most important stat , what they seemed to say is we want to see what teams do against quality teams in OOC . We want to look at how you performed in OOC games. Coach Fisher realized it , he knew those selecting did not think much of the MW - poor OOC , bogus RPI rating , Low conference rating . So he asked for a shorter conference schedule when the other teams said no , He set up a good OOC schedule . The Lobos did not and got a bad seed and lost quickly . BSU and UNLV not even a NIT invite. I agree it is better if the bottom half of the MW had a good OOC but in reality , those doing the selecting do not even value their record when they do not play any one decent . Coach Fisher tried again this year to lower the conference games but it did not work. UNLV got the message has a good OOC schedule . Did BSU, CSU, Lobos ? The others do not think they care enough . They may think their RPI will save them but it is not what it used to be. For the MW it is RIP. Because no one wants to go to the mountains. What is the expression you can not put lipstick on a pig . The MWC had 55% of their teams in the 2013 tournament because during November and December of 2012 MWC teams had a great run of very good wins and beat lesser teams at a very high rate. The MWC had 18% of their teams in the 2014 tournament because during November and December of 2013 MWC teams had few good wins and beat lesser teams at a poor rate. All that other stuff is reading into the situation superfluous stuff that didn't effect it at all. For instance, New Mexico didn't get a great seed this year because they lost too many games - their schedule was fine. and in 2013, of the 55% of the MWC teams in the tournament ... how many survived their 1st game? and in 2014, of the 18% of the MWC teams in the tournament ... well we know what happened. The point is this, if the goal of the goats is to just make it into the NCAAT (and that's good enough for them) then they will continue to schedule as they do ... if they actually want to make the tourney and get somewhere, they will schedule more like we do.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 14, 2014 9:14:48 GMT -8
The MWC had 55% of their teams in the 2013 tournament because during November and December of 2012 MWC teams had a great run of very good wins and beat lesser teams at a very high rate. The MWC had 18% of their teams in the 2014 tournament because during November and December of 2013 MWC teams had few good wins and beat lesser teams at a poor rate. All that other stuff is reading into the situation superfluous stuff that didn't effect it at all. For instance, New Mexico didn't get a great seed this year because they lost too many games - their schedule was fine. and in 2013, of the 55% of the MWC teams in the tournament ... how many survived their 1st game? and in 2014, of the 18% of the MWC teams in the tournament ... well we know what happened. The point is this, if the goal of the goats is to just make it into the NCAAT (and that's good enough for them) then they will continue to schedule as they do ... if they actually want to make the tourney and get somewhere, they will schedule more like we do. How they scheduled had nothing to do with not doing well in the tournament in 2013. The MWC had 23 top 100 wins (over 2 and a half per team) OOC in 2013. Last year they only had 10 top 100 wins (less than 1 per team). Scheduling's only goal is to get into the NCAA tournament and get good seeds. Scheduling has nothing to do with doing well there. MWC teams have plenty of experience playing before big crowds in tough environments by the time the MWC tournament is done.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 14, 2014 9:19:33 GMT -8
Below shows the difference between 2012 and 2013 OOC games for the MWC. 2012 is significantly better. Team | 2012 | 2013 | 2012 Top100 | 2013 top 100 | Utah St. | NA | 81.8% | NA | 0 | San Jose St. | NA | 40.0% | NA | 0 | Wyoming | 100.0% | 63.6% | 2 | 0 | UNLV | 85.7% | 69.2% | 4 | 0 | San Diego St. | 83.3% | 90.0% | 2 | 3 | New Mexico | 86.7% | 75.0% | 7 | 3 | Nevada | 61.5% | 38.5% | 1 | 2 | Fresno St. | 36.4% | 45.5% | 1 | 0 | Colorado St. | 84.6% | 63.6% | 4 | 1 | Boise St. | 83.3% | 72.7% | 2 | 1 | Air Force | 63.6% | 44.4% | 0 | 0 | | | | 23 | 10 | | 76.1% | 62.2% | 2.56 | 0.91 |
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jul 14, 2014 9:21:38 GMT -8
and in 2013, of the 55% of the MWC teams in the tournament ... how many survived their 1st game? and in 2014, of the 18% of the MWC teams in the tournament ... well we know what happened. The point is this, if the goal of the goats is to just make it into the NCAAT (and that's good enough for them) then they will continue to schedule as they do ... if they actually want to make the tourney and get somewhere, they will schedule more like we do. How they scheduled had nothing to do with not doing well in the tournament in 2013. The MWC had 23 top 100 wins (over 2 and a half per team) OOC in 2013. Last year they only had 10 top 100 wins (less than 1 per team). Scheduling's only goal is to get into the NCAA tournament and get good seeds. Scheduling has nothing to do with doing well there. MWC teams have plenty of experience playing before big crowds in tough environments by the time the MWC tournament is done. As an analyst I can tell you that numbers can be deceiving ... if you don't schedule anything better than a couple of teams between 75-130 ... don't be surprised when you lose to a team in the 40-60 range in the first round. Scheduling's goal is two fold ... to get you into the tourney sure -- but to also PREPARE you for the tourney as well. If your schedule is designed to only get you in, don't complain that you get no respect and get re-routed to the NIT
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 14, 2014 10:07:27 GMT -8
How they scheduled had nothing to do with not doing well in the tournament in 2013. The MWC had 23 top 100 wins (over 2 and a half per team) OOC in 2013. Last year they only had 10 top 100 wins (less than 1 per team). Scheduling's only goal is to get into the NCAA tournament and get good seeds. Scheduling has nothing to do with doing well there. MWC teams have plenty of experience playing before big crowds in tough environments by the time the MWC tournament is done. As an analyst I can tell you that numbers can be deceiving ... if you don't schedule anything better than a couple of teams between 75-130 ... don't be surprised when you lose to a team in the 40-60 range in the first round. Scheduling's goal is two fold ... to get you into the tourney sure -- but to also PREPARE you for the tourney as well. If your schedule is designed to only get you in, don't complain that you get no respect and get re-routed to the NIT So New Mexico, who had 19 wins over teams rated better than Harvard and no losses to teams like Havard or below, might have won if they had had played 20 games against better teams ? So UNLV might have beat California if they played more teams like California OOC? Oh wait, they played at California OOC and beat them. UNLV had double the top 100 wins than Califorina and 5 top 50 wins compare dto California's 2. So if SDSU had played better teams they may have been ready for a low rated team in the 3rd round. Maybe they were too used to playing good teams.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jul 14, 2014 10:11:16 GMT -8
As an analyst I can tell you that numbers can be deceiving ... if you don't schedule anything better than a couple of teams between 75-130 ... don't be surprised when you lose to a team in the 40-60 range in the first round. Scheduling's goal is two fold ... to get you into the tourney sure -- but to also PREPARE you for the tourney as well. If your schedule is designed to only get you in, don't complain that you get no respect and get re-routed to the NIT So New Mexico, who had 19 wins over teams rated better than Harvard and no losses to teams like Havard or below, might have won if they had had played 20 games against better teams ? Scheduling to Prepare is more than just tough competition ... you must also seek out teams that play OTHER types of offense or defense than you will see in league play. I guess for the record UNM did lose to South Dakota State at the Pit ... should have known then how their season would end. Edit: and numbers can be deceiving ... UNLV did beat Cal in the OOC -- and Cal was favored (and won) in the tourney. The earlier meeting was hardly a decisive win/loss for either team. BTW, isn't this the same year that the Rebs lost to Dixie St.?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jul 14, 2014 11:03:35 GMT -8
about an hour ago AztecBill said: So if SDSU had played better teams they may have been ready for a low rated team in the 3rd round. Maybe they were too used to playing good teams.
So now I need to break down why we lost to FGCU a couple of years back? While I'm at it should I explain why Georgetown also lost to them? Cinderella's happen, sometimes it's hard to prepare for a team that no one has heard of. In some cases, when you overlook an opponent, you get burned. The tourney is a bad time to lose focus and hit a trap game.
|
|