|
Post by standiego on Jul 14, 2014 11:30:05 GMT -8
IMO the RPI stat is over rated . What is important is how well your team performs in OOC - and then in your conference - if you play top 50 or top 100 teams, especially by the only ones that count the MM selection group or even the NIT group . They look for quality wins on the road or neutral court . Plus avoiding a loss to an unrated team . Unfortunately as of today the MW is seen as a two bid conference until they prove they deserve more . The way you do it is by winning games in MM or during OOC - scheduling quality games . Some teams get it and schedule those games , especially if you are from a conference that is not considered a top conference . Fisher and UNLV get it and schedule that way . Are CSU , BSU , Lobos going to, we will see . But do not complain at selection time . The other teams , does it really matter if they choose not to try to improve them selves or are they afraid it proves how bad they are ? It does look better if Wyoming has a 9-0 record from OOC but not to some one who looks at their OOC schedule then digests who and where they played . That is what the selection group does , look at schools schedules .
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 14, 2014 11:39:32 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. So why did playing a bad schedule not hurt FGCU? You contention has no basis.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jul 14, 2014 11:56:15 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. So why did playing a bad schedule not hurt FGCU? You contention has no basis. so it your position that schedules don't matter because FGCU? You want to live by the ratings and stats that's fine, but if that is going to be the case ... then you need to dig deeper into the numbers and pull out a whole lot more data. Separate early wins and losses against top RPI schools from later ones (even within the OoC schedule). You have to track the trends over the last 10 games, and account for injuries to players in a much more detailed way. **an injury to Thames has a different impact than an injury to O'Brien, but that will not be reflected in most numbers that only account for the number of injured as opposed to WHO is injured and the effect on the team. I really don't understand your point in advocating for the lower half of the conference to under-schedule ... in the end it really doesn't help us -- could we get a higher seed maybe, would it really matter if we're unprepared to face the likes of a #15 seed FGCU? Was FGCU better prepared? I believe so, they played a schedule of varied types of teams and had a lot of information going into the tourney -- they fared a whole lot better than Boise State did. They got in on an auto-bid, that used to be us. Now we're an at-large in any year we don't also take the auto-bid -- where was FGCU in 2014? Scheduling matters, not just for RPI, but for experience as well.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 14, 2014 12:03:47 GMT -8
IMO the RPI stat is over rated . What is important is how well your team performs in OOC - and then in your conference - if you play top 50 or top 100 teams, especially by the only ones that count the MM selection group or even the NIT group . They look for quality wins on the road or neutral court . Plus avoiding a loss to an unrated team . Unfortunately as of today the MW is seen as a two bid conference until they prove they deserve more . The way you do it is by winning games in MM or during OOC - scheduling quality games . Some teams get it and schedule those games , especially if you are from a conference that is not considered a top conference . Fisher and UNLV get it and schedule that way . Are CSU , BSU , Lobos going to, we will see . But do not complain at selection time . The other teams , does it really matter if they choose not to try to improve them selves or are they afraid it proves how bad they are ? It does look better if Wyoming has a 9-0 record from OOC but not to some one who looks at their OOC schedule then digests who and where they played . That is what the selection group does , look at schools schedules . The difference between Wyoming going 9-0 and 0-9 makes a huge difference to conference teams trying to make the NCAA tournament. The difference to every team in the MWC conference between those two options is about 135 RPI points. That is the difference between being #30 and #40 in RPI. This rise in RPI for every team in the MWC could mean more top 25, top 50, and top 100 wins for teams in the conference because every team's RPIs rise those 135 points. The Aztecs last season beat UNLV 3 times but had no credit for 3 top 100 wins because UNLV ended the year at #105. Adding that 135 RPI points would have given them a #90 RPI instead. Adding 3 top 100 wins to the Aztecs record changes their #51-#100 RPI record from 3-0 to 6-0. Utah State and Fresno State were right on the cusp also. Those two would have changed the Aztecs from 6-0 to 11-0. That would have made a huge difference. But changing from 0-9 to 9-0 is rather extreme. But those extra 9 wins would have done the same thing no matter how they were distributed across the bottom half of the conference. OOC Wins by the bottom of the conference makes a huge difference. If Boise State had beat St Mary's out of conference and the bottom of the conference had 2 more wins, Boise would have moved into the top 50 of RPI. That would change our top 50 RPI record from 3-3 to 5-3. Again, a huge difference. Every game OOC makes a big difference. The bottom half matters a lot more than you think. The committee looks closely at top 25, top 50, and top 100 W/L records. Each team is considered by themselves. The conference is not considered a 2 bid conference, the conference is not considered in the decision. Your conference effects things only because they comprise most of your opponents.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 14, 2014 12:09:32 GMT -8
So why did playing a bad schedule not hurt FGCU? You contention has no basis. so it your position that schedules don't matter because FGCU? You want to live by the ratings and stats that's fine, but if that is going to be the case ... then you need to dig deeper into the numbers and pull out a whole lot more data. Separate early wins and losses against top RPI schools from later ones (even within the OoC schedule). You have to track the trends over the last 10 games, and account for injuries to players in a much more detailed way. **an injury to Thames has a different impact than an injury to O'Brien, but that will not be reflected in most numbers that only account for the number of injured as opposed to WHO is injured and the effect on the team. I really don't understand your point in advocating for the lower half of the conference to under-schedule ... in the end it really doesn't help us -- could we get a higher seed maybe, would it really matter if we're unprepared to face the likes of a #15 seed FGCU? Was FGCU better prepared? I believe so, they played a schedule of varied types of teams and had a lot of information going into the tourney -- they fared a whole lot better than Boise State did. They got in on an auto-bid, that used to be us. Now we're an at-large in any year we don't also take the auto-bid -- where was FGCU in 2014? Scheduling matters, not just for RPI, but for experience as well. It is you who said to do better in the tournament you have to play tougher teams OOC. I merely demonstrated that the MWC did play much tougher teams OOC than they lost to in the tournament. We didn't lose to FGCU because we didn't play a better OOC schedule - neither UNM, UNLV, Boise State, or CSU. We lost for other reasons, as you seem to agree with above, contradicting you earlier contention.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 14, 2014 12:12:57 GMT -8
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.?So what? You stated the MWC teams lost because they weren't use to playing tough competition but UNLV beat that same tough competition on the road OOC. This is at odds with your "reasons" for the MWC poor showing.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jul 14, 2014 12:22:20 GMT -8
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.?So what? You stated the MWC teams lost because they weren't use to playing tough competition but UNLV beat that same tough competition on the road OOC. This is at odds with your "reasons" for the MWC poor showing. So which is it? Do you believe in the RPI system and scheduling according to it or not? My point about the LOSS to DIXIE ST by UNLV was to set an example of the inconsistent play of the Rebs that year and to show the part of the stats you left out when citing their 5 top 50 wins. If I want to examine why the MWC fails, I just have to look at why the A-10 succeeds and compare the two conferences www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/ranking/rpi-rating-by-conf (2014)www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/ranking/rpi-rating-by-conf?rating_date=2013-04-09 (2013)
EDIT: succeeds is the wrong word ... consistent is a better description when comparing it to the volatile nature of the MWC
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 14, 2014 12:31:52 GMT -8
So what? You stated the MWC teams lost because they weren't use to playing tough competition but UNLV beat that same tough competition on the road OOC. This is at odds with your "reasons" for the MWC poor showing. So which is it? Do you believe in the RPI system and scheduling according to it or not? My point about the LOSS to DIXIE ST by UNLV was to set an example of the inconsistent play of the Rebs that year and to show the part of the stats you left out when citing their 5 top 50 wins. If I want to examine why the MWC fails, I just have to look at why the A-10 succeeds and compare the two conferences www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/ranking/rpi-rating-by-conf (2014)www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/ranking/rpi-rating-by-conf?rating_date=2013-04-09 (2013)I don't understand how you can not know my position on this by now. The bottom of the conference, meaning those who will not be fighting for a spot in the NCAA tournament, need to schedule to win as many games as possible. The top of the conference, meaning any team that will be fighting for a spot in the tournament, need a schedule that is more nuanced. They need to avoid teams that will end the year with few wins (Southern Utah) and they need to schedule enough good teams to win a few quality games. They also, for the conferences sake, need to schedule enough middle tier teams to have a good winning record entering conference play. I have expressed my feelings here about RPI as a rating system. It has problems but for a very simple system it does amazingly well.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jul 14, 2014 12:36:36 GMT -8
I don't understand how you can not know my position on this by now. The bottom of the conference, meaning those who will not be fighting for a spot in the NCAA tournament, need to schedule to win as many games as possible. The top of the conference, meaning any team that will be fighting for a spot in the tournament, need a schedule that is more nuanced. They need to avoid teams that will end the year with few wins (Southern Utah) and they need to schedule enough good teams to win a few quality games. They also, for the conferences sake, need to schedule enough middle tier teams to have a good winning record entering conference play. I have expressed my feelings here about RPI as a rating system. It has problems but for a very simple system it does amazingly well. No I understand your position perfectly ... the bottom of the conference should sacrifice their programs for the benefit of 1 or 2 borderline teams near the top (other than SDSU) to get the NCAA invite.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 14, 2014 12:43:54 GMT -8
I don't understand how you can not know my position on this by now. The bottom of the conference, meaning those who will not be fighting for a spot in the NCAA tournament, need to schedule to win as many games as possible. The top of the conference, meaning any team that will be fighting for a spot in the tournament, need a schedule that is more nuanced. They need to avoid teams that will end the year with few wins (Southern Utah) and they need to schedule enough good teams to win a few quality games. They also, for the conferences sake, need to schedule enough middle tier teams to have a good winning record entering conference play. I have expressed my feelings here about RPI as a rating system. It has problems but for a very simple system it does amazingly well. No I understand your position perfectly ... the bottom of the conference should sacrifice their programs for the benefit of 1 or 2 borderline teams near the top (other than SDSU) to get the NCAA invite. Not being fodder for top teams OOC does not "sacrifice their program". The goal of the conference should be to get as many NCAA credits as possible. That is done by getting more teams in with higher seeds. That is why they should agree to only schedule 16 conference games and to let the top teams avoid 2 games against the bottom teams. They benefit from NCAA credits too.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 14, 2014 12:47:22 GMT -8
I don't understand how you can not know my position on this by now. The bottom of the conference, meaning those who will not be fighting for a spot in the NCAA tournament, need to schedule to win as many games as possible. The top of the conference, meaning any team that will be fighting for a spot in the tournament, need a schedule that is more nuanced. They need to avoid teams that will end the year with few wins (Southern Utah) and they need to schedule enough good teams to win a few quality games. They also, for the conferences sake, need to schedule enough middle tier teams to have a good winning record entering conference play. I have expressed my feelings here about RPI as a rating system. It has problems but for a very simple system it does amazingly well. For any rating system to to good it needs to use a reiterative process.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jul 14, 2014 12:52:08 GMT -8
No I understand your position perfectly ... the bottom of the conference should sacrifice their programs for the benefit of 1 or 2 borderline teams near the top (other than SDSU) to get the NCAA invite. Not being fodder for top teams OOC does not "sacrifice their program". The goal of the conference should be to get as many NCAA credits as possible. That is done by getting more teams in with higher seeds. That is why they should agree to only schedule 16 conference games and to let the top teams avoid 2 games against the bottom teams. They benefit from NCAA credits too. so San Jose St. should fill their schedule with teams from the Big Sky, the bottom half of the Big West, the bottom 3rd of the WCC -- likewise for Air Force, Nevada and any other team from the lower half of the MWC. Don't take those away games for pay at the likes of UCLA or Stanford and don't even consider a home and home with anyone at that level. I sure am glad that Steve Fisher never thought like you do ... we'd still be at the bottom of the pile. On the one hand you advocate for the team to put the conference needs ahead of their own -- but only after your team has gotten itself across the divide. What will the conference do for those teams in return? A bigger share of the NCAA Credits? More TV air time for their games? EDIT: I can see the recruiting now ... come to San Jose St for basketball -- you'll never play any of the big teams in the country except for SDSU (once a year) and we'll never be anything but the bottom of the MWC, but yeah come play here anyway.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 15, 2014 7:27:00 GMT -8
Home 11/14/2014 Cal State Northridge (Part of the Maui Classic, so it doesn't count toward limit) 11/18/2014 Utah ??/??/2014 USD 12/10/2014 Long Beach State
Neutral 11/24/2014 Maui Classic 11/25/2014 Maui Classic 11/26/2014 Maui Classic Including: Arizona, Kansas State, BYU, Pitt, Missouri, and Purdue.
Away ??/??/2014 Washington 12/17/2014 Cincinnati
9 games + 18 MWC games = 26 games. We have, at most, 6 more games. 32 is the max since we have a 4 game Maui tournament.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jul 15, 2014 8:13:06 GMT -8
Believe the Utah - home and away series has not been totally confirmed . Northridge and Long Beach are as noted set.
|
|
|
Post by statefan87 on Jul 31, 2014 11:14:15 GMT -8
Any updates on the OOC Schedule?
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jul 31, 2014 20:54:08 GMT -8
Any updates on the OOC Schedule? Yes, this year we are at North Caroline and Oregon State. Next year we are at Cal and Penn State. Home games OOC in 2015 still undetermined. After all, it is football season and college football is THE king of all sports!!!
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Aug 1, 2014 11:02:30 GMT -8
Looking to see if Utah games have been officially added to the MBB 's OOC schedule .Believe their AD may sit on the MM selection committee . Our OOC record against the quality teams could make be a very important part of our ranking and seeding heading into MM . Most of the "experts" do not think much of the MW conference other then UNLV . So the games in Maui T plus games with Washington, Cincy , and Utah could be key. Believe Utah AD may now serve on the MM selection group .
|
|
|
Post by eeaztec on Aug 1, 2014 12:05:55 GMT -8
Looking to see if Utah games have been officially added to the MBB 's OOC schedule .Believe their AD may sit on the MM selection committee . Our OOC record against the quality teams could make be a very important part of our ranking and seeding heading into MM . Most of the "experts" do not think much of the MW conference other then UNLV and SDSU . So the games in Maui T plus games with Washington, Cincy , and Utah could be key. Believe Utah AD may now serve on the MM selection group . FIFY
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 1, 2014 12:21:27 GMT -8
Looking to see if Utah games have been officially added to the MBB 's OOC schedule .Believe their AD may sit on the MM selection committee . Our OOC record against the quality teams could make be a very important part of our ranking and seeding heading into MM . Most of the "experts" do not think much of the MW conference other then UNLV . So the games in Maui T plus games with Washington, Cincy , and Utah could be key. Believe Utah AD may now serve on the MM selection group . Dutch specifically talked about the game at the event Tuesday, so would assume it can be labeled "official". Said they called us asking for a H&H - only team to do so. That's going to be a HELL of a game, and yes - critical to the perception of SDSU & the conference overall!! Utah is a NCAA Tourney team.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Aug 1, 2014 13:04:40 GMT -8
Looking to see if Utah games have been officially added to the MBB 's OOC schedule .Believe their AD may sit on the MM selection committee . Our OOC record against the quality teams could make be a very important part of our ranking and seeding heading into MM . Most of the "experts" do not think much of the MW conference other then UNLV . So the games in Maui T plus games with Washington, Cincy , and Utah could be key. Believe Utah AD may now serve on the MM selection group . We should concentrate on scoring more than our opponents.
|
|