Jump to content

Desired OOC Opponents?


Recommended Posts

Yale just shows how screwed up the the way the selection committee works. They ended up with a top 50 RPI but they didn't beat any of the top teams on their schedule except Princeton at home. They lost to SMU, Duke, Albany, SoCal, and Illinois. The Ivy League conference rank was 16 but somehow they deserved a 12 seed at Providence RI in the first round. That is basically a home game for them and Baylor had to cross 2 time zones and 1500 miles as the 5 seed. WTF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hilltopper said:

Yale just shows how screwed up the the way the selection committee works. They ended up with a top 50 RPI but they didn't beat any of the top teams on their schedule except Princeton at home. They lost to SMU, Duke, Albany, SoCal, and Illinois. The Ivy League conference rank was 16 but somehow they deserved a 12 seed at Providence RI in the first round. That is basically a home game for them and Baylor had to cross 2 time zones and 1500 miles as the 5 seed. WTF?

Maybe there are some bonesmen on the selection committee?

skull_and_crossbones_c1947_ghw_bush_left

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hilltopper said:

Yale just shows how screwed up the the way the selection committee works. They ended up with a top 50 RPI but they didn't beat any of the top teams on their schedule except Princeton at home. They lost to SMU, Duke, Albany, SoCal, and Illinois. The Ivy League conference rank was 16 but somehow they deserved a 12 seed at Providence RI in the first round. That is basically a home game for them and Baylor had to cross 2 time zones and 1500 miles as the 5 seed. WTF?

I agree with that. I also think it shows how worthless RPI really is by showing how the ranking can be "gamed".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we're all on the same page here, in terms of wanting the Zips to get more At-Large consideration and higher seeds, I think I can assume that we do ourselves no good by invalidating criteria that's used in the selection process. 

 

RPI is certainly well recognized, therefore getting a high RPI score makes an argument for your school.  Just do what we have to do to make that number higher. 

 

Anyone who thinks they can change what the selection committee sees by continually questioning the accuracy of the measures that they use is crazy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, skip-zip said:

Since we're all on the same page here, in terms of wanting the Zips to get more At-Large consideration and higher seeds, I think I can assume that we do ourselves no good by invalidating criteria that's used in the selection process. 

 

RPI is certainly well recognized, therefore getting a high RPI score makes an argument for your school.  Just do what we have to do to make that number higher. 

 

Anyone who thinks they can change what the selection committee sees by continually questioning the accuracy of the measures that they use is crazy. 

You still think they care about RPI huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, here's what I am seeing since I posted:

 

1) Don't bother trying to get a higher RPI.  It didn't help us this year, and it's not going to help us. 

2) The selection committee doesn't care about RPI

3) Someone who's sure they found a correlation between another ranking system and which teams were selected/seeded.

 

I suggest that maybe a few of you who think you have it figured out can write a note to Mr. Dambrot and tell him exactly what we need to do.  And I'm sure the other 300 D-1 teams who did not make the tournament would probably pay you big money to give them the formula for getting selected. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

So, here's what I am seeing since I posted:

 

1) Don't bother trying to get a higher RPI.  It didn't help us this year, and it's not going to help us. 

2) The selection committee doesn't care about RPI

3) Someone who's sure they found a correlation between another ranking system and which teams were selected/seeded.

 

I suggest that maybe a few of you who think you have it figured out can write a note to Mr. Dambrot and tell him exactly what we need to do.  And I'm sure the other 300 D-1 teams who did not make the tournament would probably pay you big money to give them the formula for getting selected. 

 

RPI is an outdated stat. The selection committee has moved onto more advanced metrics. Saint Bonaventure won the Atlantic 10 regular season, a higher rated conference than the MAC, and finished the regular season with a top 30 RPI. Teams like Wichita State (47), Michigan (56), Tulsa (58), Vanderbilt (63), and Syracuse (73) were all chosen ahead of them.

 

You can argue bias all you want, but 2 of those schools that I just named aren't P5 or Big East teams.

 

edit: St. Bon finished 79th in Kenpom. Those 5 other schools all finished better despite having poorer RPIs.

Edited by kreed5120
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On March 21, 2016 at 7:53 PM, kreed5120 said:

I also went ahead and tracked down RPI teams from my previous suggestions just to see how they compare.

 

Team

SFA (47-35-62)

Belmont (48-100-96)

Valpo (195-56-43)

JMU (236-157-104)

 

Of the teams I suggested, only SFA consistently finishes in the ~50 area. They also are the ones that seem most content taking their 28+ wins each season and making the tourney as a 12-14 seed. Predicting which mid majors provide top 50 wins is near impossible, however, finding ones the consistently finish in the top ~100-~125 is achievable. Below is Akron's numbers for anyone interested.

 

Akron (96-123-41)

 

Edit: Our numbers look comparable to Belmont. Let's get on the phone and see about scheduling a home and home.

I concede that the RPI numbers of the squads I suggested may not be the very best. I am comparing them, though, not to the other schools suggested on here but rather to Coppin State, UAPB, and South Carolina State. I also was trying to look at more than just RPI but also recruiting and rewarding our players opportunities to play in front of their families and friends, especially in a "pay game" scenario.

 

I still remember how KD talking about how much of a team building exercise it really became when the team would stop at the McKnight's home in Lancaster on the way to Athens to play Ohio University.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, clarkwgriswold said:

The year we think RPI is unimportant the committee will decide it is important.  That's the problem with the committee- any member is free to use whatever measure they want, whether it's RPI, Kenpom, pompom, coin flip or magic 8 ball. 

 

That's exactly my point.  Even during the selection show, you heard about RPI, bad losses, and big wins used randomly to explain why certain teams got in, and certain ones did not. 

 

But apparently that's not stopping a few from believing that they have the selection committee figured out. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever metrics you feel they use, Akron needs to either win more games playing the schedule they played (how many more is still in question) or they need to win relatively the same number of games playing a much tougher schedule (how much tougher we don't know). 

 

What we do know is that being a 27 win MAC team with a ~35 RPI and ~80 kenpom is good enough for a 6 seed in the NIT. Do with those numbers what you will.

 

Edit: Some people can continue to believe RPI is the end all be all in the selection committees eyes, but be prepared to be disappointed year after year when a 30 RPI isn't good enough to make the tournament.

Edited by kreed5120
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kreed5120 said:

Whatever metrics you feel they use, Akron needs to either win more games playing the schedule they played (how many more is still in question) or they need to win relatively the same number of games playing a much tougher schedule (how much tougher we don't know). 

 

What we do know is that being a 27 win MAC team with a ~35 RPI and ~80 kenpom is good enough for a 6 seed in the NIT. Do with those numbers what you will.

 

Edit: Some people can continue to believe RPI is the end all be all in the selection committees eyes, but be prepared to be disappointed year after year when a 30 RPI isn't good enough to make the tournament.

 

Kreed, At least I find what you say here to be far more reasonable than what you said earlier, when you emphatically stated that the committee now uses "other" measurement tools, and that there is no bias in their selections just because a couple of teams were selected that were outside the P5.

 

And I don't recall anyone ever saying that they believed that RPI was the only factor used by the selection committee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skip-zip said:

 

Kreed, At least I find what you say here to be far more reasonable than what you said earlier, when you emphatically stated that the committee now uses "other" measurement tools, and that there is no bias in their selections just because a couple of teams were selected that were outside the P5.

 

And I don't recall anyone ever saying that they believed that RPI was the only factor used by the selection committee. 

 

I said you can't claim bias because St. Bonaventure plays in an as good, if not better, basketball conference (I'll say better) as Tulane and Wichita State and also finished with an RPI that was +17 better than Wichita State and +28 better than Tulane. Both of those teams got in over St. Bonaventure. It wasn't biased that got Wichita State and Tulane in over St. Bonaventure.

 

This was your exact quote. "RPI is certainly well recognized, therefore getting a high RPI score makes an argument for your school.  Just do what we have to do to make that number higher." Every year it seems the record gets broken for the highest RPI to not make the tournament. Do you really not see that it has been losing its value every year? RPI is an easy system to game. 75% of it is based off of your opponents winning % and your opponents opponents winning %. Any game vs. a none D1 school isn't included in the formula. Games vs. MEAC and SWAC teams drive your RPI numbers down as they typically have poor records and play a conference schedule vs. teams with poor records. The Zips could instantly improve their RPI by removing those teams from the schedule and replacing them with more games vs. Malone, Hiram, Mount Union, etc. because those teams wouldn't factor into the RPI formula. Do you think the selection committee would view that as more favorable?

 

Edit: Here is an excerpt that I pulled from the New York Times quoting the selection committee chairmen...“The common metrics most of us use are KenPom, Sagarin, L.R.M.C., B.P.I., K.P.I.,” the committee chairman, Oklahoma Athletic Director Joe Castiglione, told reporters Wednesday, sounding like an economist rattling off the names of various federal departments.

Edited by kreed5120
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You conveniently omitted the rest of his quote in the same article, which went like this....

 

“We’re using more and more metrics than we were in the past. It isn’t just the R.P.I.”

 

I think the fact that he said that's its not "JUST" the RPI proves it's continued relevance.  They even mentioned it several times throughout the selection show.  But again, nobody here is claiming that it's the only criteria that they use.  I think you are just personally discrediting it, which is fine.  That's your opinion. 

 

I think Akron should be trying to get as high as possible in every metric.  But if there is one in which we are particularly high, we should tout that to sell ourselves to the selection committee.  And that's exactly what Keith did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

 

I think Akron should be trying to get as high as possible in every metric.  But if there is one in which we are particularly high, we should tout that to sell ourselves to the selection committee.  And that's exactly what Keith did. 

And how'd that work out? Not even in the conversation. I think that tells you all you need to know about RPI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't intentionally leave out any comment. I copied and pasted a full paragraph and provided the source so that you could find it if you wanted to.

 

You do hear analysis mention RPI, but those are the same ones that were outraged that teams like Syracuse and Tulane got in meanwhile teams like St. Bon were sent to the NIT. Advanced metrics are taking over college basketball like advanced metrics took over MLB. Are there some resistance to change? Sure, but year after year more and more people are coming around to them.

 

I do agree that the Zips would get in with a top 25 RPI, but if you won enough games to achieve that, your other advanced metrics would look great too. Simply improving RPI isn't the answer as I already gave you an example of how the Zips could do it, but it would have a negative impact on their resume. Playing and beating better teams or compiling a large enough win total vs. the current schedule that is too big to ignore is the answer.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zippy5 said:

And how'd that work out? Not even in the conversation. I think that tells you all you need to know about RPI

 

Since I believe I've seen this statement from you twice now in this thread, I'm waiting for your solution. 

 

Please, tell us the formula for getting selected, if you know.  Then, like I said, there are 300 teams in D-1 college basketball that would pay you big money to tell them exactly how to get into the tournament. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

Please, tell us the formula for getting selected, if you know.  Then, like I said, there are 300 teams in D-1 college basketball that would pay you big money to tell them exactly how to get into the tournament. 

Win more games and/or beat better teams. It's not rocket science. Winning your conference tournament helps quite a bit as well.

Edited by LZIp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

Since I believe I've seen this statement from you twice now in this thread, I'm waiting for your solution. 

 

Please, tell us the formula for getting selected, if you know.  Then, like I said, there are 300 teams in D-1 college basketball that would pay you big money to tell them exactly how to get into the tournament. 

Beat better teams. I've said it before. You need top 50 wins. If we aren't good enough to do that, we aren't good enough to be an at-large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Zips are not going to get an at large bid no matter who they schedule. The only way they would is for the MAC to get to be a 2 team NCAA tournament league. That means the whole league needs to schedule better and when they do get in they need to start winning a game or two. Compare the schools in the MVC to the MAC. Just on name alone their is no reason for the MVC to be a 2 team tournament. But the league does have rules on who each school can schedule and they WIN.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, zippy5 said:

Beat better teams. I've said it before. You need top 50 wins. If we aren't good enough to do that, we aren't good enough to be an at-large.

Just to avoid the vicious cycle of the next response in regards to "but Monmouth had top 50 wins" Monmouth played in a garbage conference with 75% of their games vs. cupcakes. This included them losing to 3 teams in the bottom 1/3 of college basketball. A handful of quality non conference games wasn't enough to overcome this. The MAC actually provides opportunities to pick up decent wins in conference play.

Edited by kreed5120
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve1982 said:

The Zips are not going to get an at large bid no matter who they schedule. The only way they would is for the MAC to get to be a 2 team NCAA tournament league. That means the whole league needs to schedule better and when they do get in they need to start winning a game or two. Compare the schools in the MVC to the MAC. Just on name alone their is no reason for the MVC to be a 2 team tournament. But the league does have rules on who each school can schedule and they WIN.

 

 

I do think it is possible for the MAC to get two teams into the NCAA. Its just not likely as every time a team puts themselves in serious at-large consideration they go ahead and win the conference tourney anyway. One of these years, though, I hope we see two teams that are at-large worthy in the MAC. I do think the conference overall is starting to trend upward again a bit.

 

That being said I believe you are absolutely correct when you say the entire conference needs to schedule better. That doesn't mean teams expected to be at the bottom need to go out and get a murderer's row schedule but just get more teams that are comparable to themselves and a few where they are playing "up". The MAC schools need to avoid having 4 and 5 true cupcakes (sometimes 1 or 2 can actually help a team) on their schedule and the entire conference will benefit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zippy5 said:

You need top 50 wins.

 

I've already hit on this on here, many times.  And the selection committee chair also mentioned that quite a few times.

 

2 hours ago, Steve1982 said:

The Zips are not going to get an at large bid no matter who they schedule.

 

Now, there's the Zips spirit that is really lacking in the Akron area. :thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...