CSNbbs

A list of the best wins and worst losses, so far this season, for each team in C-USA.

Source: KenPom.com

Team rating - best win rating / worst loss rating

La Tech 61 - St. Bonaventure 96 / St. Mary's 40
Charlotte 76 - Michigan 19 / College of Charleston 228
USM 78 - North Dakota State 100 / Louisville 1
UTEP 88 - Tennessee 32 / New Mexico State (twice) 66
Mid TN 91 - Akron 132 / Florida 12
UAB 107 - UNC 20 / Temple 95

ECU 166 - Norfolk St. 226 / UNC Wilmington 232
Tulsa 175 - Indiana St. 72 / TCU 229
North Texas 199 - Portland 134 / Idaho 204
Marshall 203 - WKU 172 / E. TN St. 239
ODU 212 - Murray St. 250 / Mo. St. 145
FIU 221 - GA St. 151 / Youngstown St. 170

Rice 276 - Santa Clara 217 / SE LA 285
FAU 279 - Ave Maria NR / St. Francis NY 165
Tulane 306 - Southern 238 / Northern KY 314
UTSA 335 - TX A&M Corpus Christie 327 / Nicholls St. 350

Top three wins: Michigan 19, UNC 20, and Tennessee 32.
Bottom three losses: Nicholls St. 350, Northern KY 314, and SE LA 285.

Interesting tidbits: Southern Miss's worst loss is to #1 Louisville. FAU doesn't have a win over a ranked team yet, but otherwise have played a difficult schedule. Only 16 teams are ranked below UTSA. Greatest spread between best win and worst loss - Charlotte with 209.

It's early, but there appears to be three tiers of teams in C-USA right now, as broken up in the list above.

C-USA wins over top 100 Teams.

19 Michigan (Charlotte)
20 UNC (UAB)
32 TN (UTEP)
72 Indiana St. (Tulsa)
81 Kansas St. (Charlotte)
92 Colorado St. (UTEP)
96 St. Bonaventure (LA Tech)
100 North Dakota St. (USM)

Are those teams ahead of us really playing that much better of a schedule? Why are we still ranked sub-100?

(12-02-2013 08:46 PM)The Answer UAB Wrote: [ -> ]Are those teams ahead of us really playing that much better of a schedule? Why are we still ranked sub-100?

Things still shift a lot this early in the season. Can't put too much credibility in these rankings just yet. For example, Louisville's current RPI is about 117.

Not sure why KenPom is so different other than the fact he is trying to predict the absolutely unpredictable.

(12-02-2013 08:57 PM)Blazer85 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-02-2013 08:46 PM)The Answer UAB Wrote: [ -> ]Are those teams ahead of us really playing that much better of a schedule? Why are we still ranked sub-100?

Things still shift a lot this early in the season. Can't put too much credibility in these rankings just yet. For example, Louisville's current RPI is about 117.

Not sure why KenPom is so different other than the fact he is trying to predict the absolutely unpredictable.

I wouldn't say KenPom is all that different from the other ratings, at least with respect to UAB. Massey has UAB at 92, Sagarin 111, Nolan 113, Kirkpatrick 113, and Pomeroy 107.

http://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

(12-02-2013 08:46 PM)The Answer UAB Wrote: [ -> ]Are those teams ahead of us really playing that much better of a schedule? Why are we still ranked sub-100?

UAB lost to Temple by 21 points. Temple is ranked 95th by KenPom.com. Massey has them at 96. Sagarin has them at 90. That one game is what is holding UAB's ranking back right now.

(12-02-2013 09:18 PM)KevMo4UAB Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-02-2013 08:46 PM)The Answer UAB Wrote: [ -> ]Are those teams ahead of us really playing that much better of a schedule? Why are we still ranked sub-100?

UAB lost to Temple by 21 points. Temple is ranked 95th by KenPom.com. Massey has them at 96. Sagarin has them at 90. That one game is what is holding UAB's ranking back right now.

UAB didn't even play a bad game from opening tip til the finish. We had a bad half, and Temple was firing on all cylinders. I was upset with that game, but that is the only half of basketball this season where UAB seemed to be getting pounded. Even with the loss to New Mexico, we went toe to toe the whole game. And the UNC game isn't like we made a furious comeback to win at the end. We led from essentially the opening tip.

I think that half against Temple will turn out to be an aberration this season.