(01-15-2013 03:03 PM)Cr8n Wrote:  Because it took a turn to the left somewhere around practice facilities.

I thought that this was a new thread on architecture and didn't open it until late this afternoon. Someone has a good sense of humor in changing the title.

(01-15-2013 04:00 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Only UTSA and FIU are younger than UAB, ODU, and Charlotte.

UAB will be the only team left win an overall winning record in the tournament. (19-14)
Last Sweet 16 for the conference - UAB in 2004
Last Elite 8 - Tulsa 2000 (UAB 1982 if TU leaves)
Last Final 4 - Charlotte 1977
Last Title Game - UTEP in 1966

Random factoid: FIU was the SUNBLAZERS until 1987. I think I like them a little more now.

Again, this Wikipedia article does not count vacated seasons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men's_..._by_school

I didn't even know FIU existed in 1987. I thought they just built the whole damn thing about 15 years ago.

(01-15-2013 04:18 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  Depending on teams that remain, this could definitely be a good basketball league that has a shot at 2 bids. RPI is very dependent on the leauge that you play in. While our RPI hasn't been cracked 100 in the last 6 years, we have been under 150 5 out of the last 6 years before this year's abomination. If you look at the average ending RPI for the last 6 years, UNT's average RPI is actually better than Charlotte, La Tech, and MTSU, even though they have each had individual years that were better than our best. Regardless of what folks think about our program, I am looking forward to the new hoops league and hope that everyone currently in the league ends up staying.

WKU and NMSU would be solid hoops additions. Unfortunately, they would probably come at the expense of losing even better hoops programs.

Can't wait for 2013/14 hoops.

Yes, but this also coincides with Charlotte's worst 6 year stretch (literally, by any measure) in ~30 years.

(01-15-2013 07:00 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I didn't even know FIU existed in 1987. I thought they just built the whole damn thing about 15 years ago.

Their mascot was an SOB.

(01-15-2013 06:00 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 05:53 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 04:37 PM)CharSFNiner Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 04:18 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  Depending on teams that remain, this could definitely be a good basketball league that has a shot at 2 bids. RPI is very dependent on the leauge that you play in. While our RPI hasn't been cracked 100 in the last 6 years, we have been under 150 5 out of the last 6 years before this year's abomination. If you look at the average ending RPI for the last 6 years, UNT's average RPI is actually better than Charlotte, La Tech, and MTSU, even though they have each had individual years that were better than our best. Regardless of what folks think about our program, I am looking forward to the new hoops league and hope that everyone currently in the league ends up staying.

WKU and NMSU would be solid hoops additions. Unfortunately, they would probably come at the expense of losing even better hoops programs.

Can't wait for 2013/14 hoops.

Your playing of non-D1 schools help you with that whole RPI thing. Just saying. Try to cut that out when we get going.

Non D1 opponents are not included in RPI rankings, regardless of W/L.

Exactly, so it helps. You have to figure that most schools would otherwise play relatively low quality D1 programs in lieu of non-D1 games. Even if you win those games, they typically negatively impact you RPI.

Most schools schedule non-D1 games to pad their win loss record the same as they would if they played a vastly inferior D1 team. Playing non-D1 buy games is a way to try to manipulate the RPI, but it doesn't really work because the selection committee isn't going to take a resume with several non-D1 games very seriously.

Your stance is that we are following a strategy of manipulating our RPI by playing a team that does not impact our RPI? Gotcha.

(01-15-2013 02:54 PM)CharSFNiner Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 02:22 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  If you guys would add more brick and columns then CharSFNiner would love it. He's a big fan of Neo-classical.

Because that's not a lame ass joke already on NN.N.

It may be lame on NN.N but its fresh as a carrot here!

(01-15-2013 07:32 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 06:00 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 05:53 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 04:37 PM)CharSFNiner Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 04:18 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  Depending on teams that remain, this could definitely be a good basketball league that has a shot at 2 bids. RPI is very dependent on the leauge that you play in. While our RPI hasn't been cracked 100 in the last 6 years, we have been under 150 5 out of the last 6 years before this year's abomination. If you look at the average ending RPI for the last 6 years, UNT's average RPI is actually better than Charlotte, La Tech, and MTSU, even though they have each had individual years that were better than our best. Regardless of what folks think about our program, I am looking forward to the new hoops league and hope that everyone currently in the league ends up staying.

WKU and NMSU would be solid hoops additions. Unfortunately, they would probably come at the expense of losing even better hoops programs.

Can't wait for 2013/14 hoops.

Your playing of non-D1 schools help you with that whole RPI thing. Just saying. Try to cut that out when we get going.

Non D1 opponents are not included in RPI rankings, regardless of W/L.

Exactly, so it helps. You have to figure that most schools would otherwise play relatively low quality D1 programs in lieu of non-D1 games. Even if you win those games, they typically negatively impact you RPI.

Most schools schedule non-D1 games to pad their win loss record the same as they would if they played a vastly inferior D1 team. Playing non-D1 buy games is a way to try to manipulate the RPI, but it doesn't really work because the selection committee isn't going to take a resume with several non-D1 games very seriously.

Your stance is that we are following a strategy of manipulating our RPI by playing a team that does not impact our RPI? Gotcha.

You obviously can't comprehend, it's okay, there's a few ECU fans who are just as bad at it.

If your RPI is say, 80 and you play a team with an RPI of 296, regardless of you beating them, they're not going to help boost that 80. They'll likely drop it.

So if you play a D-2 team and get the W (or even an L like North Texas did earlier this year) you don't move the needle off of 80.

That simple. You play the same ****** opponent, just without the RPI effect, which is a tool the committee uses.

You also get to (if you so choose, which I wouldn't) argue with other programs who don't play any non-D1 teams that you have a better RPI (in an argument to polish your turd more than theirs), albeit that is because you didn't play 2 or 3 games versus a 250+ RPI opponent.

(01-16-2013 09:03 AM)CharSFNiner Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 07:32 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 06:00 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 05:53 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 04:37 PM)CharSFNiner Wrote:  Your playing of non-D1 schools help you with that whole RPI thing. Just saying. Try to cut that out when we get going.

Non D1 opponents are not included in RPI rankings, regardless of W/L.

Exactly, so it helps. You have to figure that most schools would otherwise play relatively low quality D1 programs in lieu of non-D1 games. Even if you win those games, they typically negatively impact you RPI.

Most schools schedule non-D1 games to pad their win loss record the same as they would if they played a vastly inferior D1 team. Playing non-D1 buy games is a way to try to manipulate the RPI, but it doesn't really work because the selection committee isn't going to take a resume with several non-D1 games very seriously.

Your stance is that we are following a strategy of manipulating our RPI by playing a team that does not impact our RPI? Gotcha.

You obviously can't comprehend, it's okay, there's a few ECU fans who are just as bad at it.

If your RPI is say, 80 and you play a team with an RPI of 296, regardless of you beating them, they're not going to help boost that 80. They'll likely drop it.

So if you play a D-2 team and get the W (or even an L like North Texas did earlier this year) you don't move the needle off of 80.

That simple. You play the same ****** opponent, just without the RPI effect, which is a tool the committee uses.

You also get to (if you so choose, which I wouldn't) argue with other programs who don't play any non-D1 teams that you have a better RPI (in an argument to polish your turd more than theirs), albeit that is because you didn't play 2 or 3 games versus a 250+ RPI opponent.

And that is a bad thing? I am sure we are the only one that ever has a D2 oppoenent on the schedule? We played 2 of them this year. One we had no control over because we drew them in a tournament. Hardly a calculating strategy to purposefully manipulate our RPI. But of course the only way that could possibly occur is for us to have somehow cheated.

Charlotte has been going through a 5 or 6 year rough stretch. Sorry? One of you fans was bashing on our program and all I did was point out that over the last 6 years UNT has actually posted stronger average ratings using RPI as the measurement. Pesky facts. And we have done that while playing in the historically lower rated Sunbelt conference while Charlotte has benefitted from playing in the much higher rated A10.

It looks like Charlotte is having a good year and unfortunately we are sucking ass this year. Hopefully you guys have turned it around and can return to pre 2005 form because the conference will need some strong hoops programs.

(01-16-2013 10:05 AM)CurveItAround Wrote:  

(01-16-2013 09:03 AM)CharSFNiner Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 07:32 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 06:00 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 05:53 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  Non D1 opponents are not included in RPI rankings, regardless of W/L.

Exactly, so it helps. You have to figure that most schools would otherwise play relatively low quality D1 programs in lieu of non-D1 games. Even if you win those games, they typically negatively impact you RPI.

Most schools schedule non-D1 games to pad their win loss record the same as they would if they played a vastly inferior D1 team. Playing non-D1 buy games is a way to try to manipulate the RPI, but it doesn't really work because the selection committee isn't going to take a resume with several non-D1 games very seriously.

Your stance is that we are following a strategy of manipulating our RPI by playing a team that does not impact our RPI? Gotcha.

You obviously can't comprehend, it's okay, there's a few ECU fans who are just as bad at it.

If your RPI is say, 80 and you play a team with an RPI of 296, regardless of you beating them, they're not going to help boost that 80. They'll likely drop it.

So if you play a D-2 team and get the W (or even an L like North Texas did earlier this year) you don't move the needle off of 80.

That simple. You play the same ****** opponent, just without the RPI effect, which is a tool the committee uses.

You also get to (if you so choose, which I wouldn't) argue with other programs who don't play any non-D1 teams that you have a better RPI (in an argument to polish your turd more than theirs), albeit that is because you didn't play 2 or 3 games versus a 250+ RPI opponent.

And that is a bad thing? I am sure we are the only one that ever has a D2 oppoenent on the schedule? We played 2 of them this year. One we had no control over because we drew them in a tournament. Hardly a calculating strategy to purposefully manipulate our RPI. But of course the only way that could possibly occur is for us to have somehow cheated.

Charlotte has been going through a 5 or 6 year rough stretch. Sorry? One of you fans was bashing on our program and all I did was point out that over the last 6 years UNT has actually posted stronger average ratings using RPI as the measurement. Pesky facts. And we have done that while playing in the historically lower rated Sunbelt conference while Charlotte has benefitted from playing in the much higher rated A10.

It looks like Charlotte is having a good year and unfortunately we are sucking ass this year. Hopefully you guys have turned it around and can return to pre 2005 form because the conference will need some strong hoops programs.

I only pointed it out since you for some unknown reason picked a "6" (random number) year period. How bout we use a 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35+ year period and compare notes then?

(01-16-2013 10:05 AM)CurveItAround Wrote:  

(01-16-2013 09:03 AM)CharSFNiner Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 07:32 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 06:00 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(01-15-2013 05:53 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  Non D1 opponents are not included in RPI rankings, regardless of W/L.

Exactly, so it helps. You have to figure that most schools would otherwise play relatively low quality D1 programs in lieu of non-D1 games. Even if you win those games, they typically negatively impact you RPI.

Most schools schedule non-D1 games to pad their win loss record the same as they would if they played a vastly inferior D1 team. Playing non-D1 buy games is a way to try to manipulate the RPI, but it doesn't really work because the selection committee isn't going to take a resume with several non-D1 games very seriously.

Your stance is that we are following a strategy of manipulating our RPI by playing a team that does not impact our RPI? Gotcha.

You obviously can't comprehend, it's okay, there's a few ECU fans who are just as bad at it.

If your RPI is say, 80 and you play a team with an RPI of 296, regardless of you beating them, they're not going to help boost that 80. They'll likely drop it.

So if you play a D-2 team and get the W (or even an L like North Texas did earlier this year) you don't move the needle off of 80.

That simple. You play the same ****** opponent, just without the RPI effect, which is a tool the committee uses.

You also get to (if you so choose, which I wouldn't) argue with other programs who don't play any non-D1 teams that you have a better RPI (in an argument to polish your turd more than theirs), albeit that is because you didn't play 2 or 3 games versus a 250+ RPI opponent.

And that is a bad thing? I am sure we are the only one that ever has a D2 oppoenent on the schedule? We played 2 of them this year. One we had no control over because we drew them in a tournament. Hardly a calculating strategy to purposefully manipulate our RPI. But of course the only way that could possibly occur is for us to have somehow cheated.

Charlotte has been going through a 5 or 6 year rough stretch. Sorry? One of you fans was bashing on our program and all I did was point out that over the last 6 years UNT has actually posted stronger average ratings using RPI as the measurement. Pesky facts. And we have done that while playing in the historically lower rated Sunbelt conference while Charlotte has benefitted from playing in the much higher rated A10.

It looks like Charlotte is having a good year and unfortunately we are sucking ass this year. Hopefully you guys have turned it around and can return to pre 2005 form because the conference will need some strong hoops programs.

It effects it, one game or two. I just said don't make it a habit, that's all.

I agree. When you use an arbitrary number like 6, you are definitely skewing facts in your favor. We can all make our programs look really good if we use a random stretch.

(01-16-2013 11:28 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  I agree. When you use an arbitrary number like 6, you are definitely skewing facts in your favor. We can all make our programs look really good if we use a random stretch.

Would the last 5 years have been more acceptable to you and not sounded so 'arbitrary'? It would produce the same result. It wasn't a random stretch, just recent results. It's not like I picked a year, skipped a year, picked another year, etc...

Of course I could have gone back over the entire history, but my point was that in recent years, of which we have been on a nice 5-6 year run, showed that we have actually been rated higher than three of the programs that were being touted. No big deal, it looks like we are shatting our pants this season.

Apparently this thread has gone downhill quickly...after the UAB troll, I see it is now about...architecture?

(01-16-2013 01:42 PM)TheNorthTexan Wrote:  Apparently this thread has gone downhill quickly...after the UAB troll, I see it is now about...architecture?

So how, exactly, is it trolling when he said that the average of those ten RPI numbers is 172 in answer to "Why is no one talking about NT hoops?"

That is exactly why no one is talking about it. Truth may hurt, but the RPI is a pretty standard measuring device.

Now if he had said that when you guys got measured it stuck straight out because it was too short to hang down, that might be considered trolling a bit...

Well utsa's convocation is horrible both inside and out. 1960 architecture. Ugly, ugly, ugly.
This year's team is just as ugly? Presently at 4-12. Don't know how next year will fare but could be the doormats unless we can sign some decent talent. We will have 2 redshirts and one Utah transfer suiting up next year plus a 3 star SG. Don't know whether they will be difference makers. Wait and see I guess.

Speaking of architecture, just won an award for our work on Miltimore Residence Hall at Charlotte.

(01-29-2013 11:20 AM)Cr8n Wrote:  Speaking of architecture, just won an award for our work on Miltimore Residence Hall at Charlotte.

We name our residences for former Governors or Trees, these names of Ike Belk's family members mean nothing to me. It shall always be Laurel Hall to me.

http://nineronline.com/2012/spruce-and-l...more-hall/

(01-29-2013 11:23 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 11:20 AM)Cr8n Wrote:  Speaking of architecture, just won an award for our work on Miltimore Residence Hall at Charlotte.

We name our residences for former Governors or Trees, these names of Ike Belk's family members mean nothing to me. It shall always be Laurel Hall to me.

http://nineronline.com/2012/spruce-and-l...more-hall/

You are slightly confused. Miltimore was briefly named Spruce before. But Laurel is now called Wallis. By the way, before it was Laurel and Lynch, it was Cypress and Squires.

(01-12-2013 11:47 PM)Noodles Wrote:  Southern Miss, Tulsa (if they stay), UTEP, UAB, Charlotte will get us 2 or 3 spots in the Dance a year. MTSU is playing at a high level. ODU and Marshall will be back in a big way because they are serious about basketball.
This post doesn't require any negative responses from defectors. I would, however, like to hear the thoughts of the 14.

I like the optimism. For our MTSU friends we should point out they are, I believe, the highest rated member/future member in the current RPI's. SOUTHERN MISS is indeed playing well...and will continue to do so as long as we can retain our coach, so I see USM in the tourney a majority of the time until we can no longer hold on to D.Tyn. (ok D-10, but that's just too damn hokie).

As for Marshall - I'd love to see them dancing every year, but "serious about basketball"???? Aren't they one of the teams who hasn't had their name called since prohibition? Admittedly I could be mistaken --- it's quite possible as I'm basing that on internet postings only and we all know you can't lie on the internet.