(04-22-2013 02:57 PM)VA49er Wrote:  SJ, without getting into another pissing contest with you or you spouting off irrelevant stats, can you just let the games talk for themselves? We will meet you on the court and the best team will win, again.

Things like end of year ranking (ECU #67, UNCC #81), how you finished the season (ECU 9-2, UNCC 4-8), your recruiting class (ECU #83, UNCC (zero recruits) etc are certainly all relavent in a dissussion about teams going into next year, and a lot more so than a December 2nd game. No way you guys were playing better than us in March or are looking as solid going into next year.

(04-22-2013 03:20 PM)wh49er Wrote:  No one pimps RPI after the post tournaments

It's simply the best ranking system to compare teams there is. Why wouldn't you want to use it with complete data in a discussion and comparing teams next year especially when many are coming from various conferences.

(04-22-2013 03:20 PM)wh49er Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 03:08 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  So he brings in unbiased stuff, and y'all jump all over him? I mean I don't know what else to expect from this type thread, but geeze. Let him same something opinionated first. That is redic.

No one pimps RPI after the post tournaments have been selected but he does that so he can spin the garbage that are his arguments. He does this all the time. Until he stops doing this, no one is going to cut him any slack.


Wish I could negative rep you for saying "redic".

This.

Also, in the data he posted, it does not include every recruit in UAB's class. Not sure how/why this is, but it's hard to take it seriously when the data isn't complete.

(04-22-2013 03:27 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 02:57 PM)VA49er Wrote:  SJ, without getting into another pissing contest with you or you spouting off irrelevant stats, can you just let the games talk for themselves? We will meet you on the court and the best team will win, again.

Things like end of year ranking (ECU #67, UNCC #81), how you finished the season (ECU 9-2, UNCC 4-8), your recruiting class (ECU #83, UNCC (zero recruits) etc are certainly all relavent in a dissussion about teams going into next year, and a lot more so than a December 2nd game. No way you guys were playing better than us in March or are looking as solid going into next year.

(04-22-2013 03:20 PM)wh49er Wrote:  No one pimps RPI after the post tournaments

It's simply the best ranking system to compare teams there is. Why wouldn't you want to use it with complete data in a discussion comparing teams next year.

Because some teams are thrilled to be in the NIT(or any postseason tournament) while others aren't. Kentucky sure looked happy to be there, right? The only tournament you are going to get every team's 100% best effort is the NCAA tournament. Talking about your RPI after beating mediocre teams in a mediocre tournament is pointless. That is the definition of manipulating the RPI, it just happens to be done after the season is over. Nobody cares what their final RPI is once postseason play is over. You either win the tournament you are in, or you don't. Pretty simple.

With so many new teams coming together from various conferenes next year, you need something to compare the seasons each of us had for a discussion of how teams are looking going into next year. You find me something better than the RPI with the 3 weeks of postseason data included. You think RPI without the postseason included is better? It's just a ranking to compare teams with the complete season, there is nothing better to compare so many different teams from different conferences.

(04-22-2013 03:33 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 03:27 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 02:57 PM)VA49er Wrote:  SJ, without getting into another pissing contest with you or you spouting off irrelevant stats, can you just let the games talk for themselves? We will meet you on the court and the best team will win, again.

Things like end of year ranking (ECU #67, UNCC #81), how you finished the season (ECU 9-2, UNCC 4-8), your recruiting class (ECU #83, UNCC (zero recruits) etc are certainly all relavent in a dissussion about teams going into next year, and a lot more so than a December 2nd game. No way you guys were playing better than us in March or are looking as solid going into next year.

(04-22-2013 03:20 PM)wh49er Wrote:  No one pimps RPI after the post tournaments

It's simply the best ranking system to compare teams there is. Why wouldn't you want to use it with complete data in a discussion comparing teams next year.

Because some teams are thrilled to be in the NIT(or any postseason tournament) while others aren't. Kentucky sure looked happy to be there, right? The only tournament you are going to get every team's 100% best effort is the NCAA tournament. Talking about your RPI after beating mediocre teams in a mediocre tournament is pointless. That is the definition of manipulating the RPI, it just happens to be done after the season is over. Nobody cares what their final RPI is once postseason play is over. You either win the tournament you are in, or you don't. Pretty simple.

That is a valid point...USM's RPI should've been enough to his point? Stats are great for baseball...and even they can be misguided sometimes. W's and L's against home/away competition coupled with an overtly biased NE media slant....oops, are they in the NE? It did us in this year.

Our NIT three home games were great. However, I responded to a post that stated I would choose a first round at large loss over any other lower tier tourney vic every day of the week.

Historically, we have nothing that allows us to stand and pound the chest, but ask him how many they have....he's just nuts with that crap sometimes.

only on this board could people get mad about posting actual compete data RPI Rankings of the entire season or a composite recruiting rankings of all the top recruiting services rankings in a discussion trying to compare teams from several different conferences that will be joining each other next year and trying to rank them.

For those of you making a stink and knocking the tools I provided, feel free to provide your own. I'd love to see what's better than RPI rankings of the completed season. Hey but I see no one else offering up anything other than statements like "we will be good" and voting for their own teams in the poll. If you think you got a better way to rank teams from 4 or 5 different conferences I'd love to see it.

(04-22-2013 02:20 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  I brought actual data to the thread. Sorry you didn't like it.

You brought weak data but data nevertheless.

I picked Tulsa because I think they have as good a shot as anyone. They finished in the top half of the conference last year playing mostly freshmen and decimated by injuries. The freshmen should make a leap forward and we have some good JUCO talent coming in. I expect Tulsa to be vastly improved next season.

(04-22-2013 04:43 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 02:20 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  I brought actual data to the thread. Sorry you didn't like it.

You brought weak data but data nevertheless.

So what have you brought to the thread other than whining like UNCC fans. Let's see the data you think is better for comparing teams from several different conferences. It must really chap some of your asses that ECU basketball is on the rise.

I voted FIU ... in case we play MTSU in the conference finals.

C Armstrong SR.....9ppg 4.5rpg, 57% shooting (in only 20 minutes)
F Sampson SR.......9ppg 9rpg 2bpg
F Straughn SR.......2 year returning starter from injury, best defender
G Richmond SR......11ppg 42% from 3 point (in only 20 minutes)
G Robinson JR.......#13 best JUCO nationally in composite of rankings

G Campbell JR........Returning Starter, 37% three's


So we got 4 seniors/4 returning starters, and we are bringing in the 3rd best recruiting class overall in CUSA. Guys like Richmond and Armstrong are more than capable of picking up the scoring slack when they see 30 minutes a game next year. Richmond averaged 16ppg in 28 minutes a game the last 13 games of the year when Gaines went down with injury. With that kind of experience and a team that finished the season as strong as we did, we are certainly a contender.

Meh. These polls are worthless. They are a homers paradise who will vote for his team.

What? Me? Of course I voted for UTEP, who'd you expect?

UTEP,USM,UAB, or Charlotte.

I'd guess UTEP.

UTEP for the win. Once their fans wake up, that pit they play basketball in will be a formidable environment indeed. I mean no offense to the Miners...it's a very nice pit.

(04-22-2013 05:53 PM)Blazer88 Wrote:  UTEP,USM,UAB, or Charlotte.

Charlotte Key returners

C Thorne SO.....1.8ppg 1.6rpg....played 17 games, massive ??
F Clayton SO.....8.5ppg, 6.2rpg, 58% shooting
F Nickerson JR...5.8ppg, 35% shooting,21% 3's
G Williams JR......7.6ppg on 35% shooting 22% 3's
G Henry JR........10.3ppg 5.5rpg, 3.7apg, 43% FG, 19% 3's

G Ingram..........5.6ppg on 37% shooting, 27% 3's

They finished the year 4-8 with several blowouts, and they have zero other post players on the entire team, and no one signed. You think that team with huge question marks in the post is better than the team? If so you seriously need your head checked. Especially when we finished the year like we did going 9-2 down the stretch and return more key players and a better recruiting class.

As far as UAB, they were terrible last year and your class you are bringing in isn't as good as ours either. There is no reason for anyone to think you are a contender at this point.

(04-22-2013 06:19 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 05:53 PM)Blazer88 Wrote:  UTEP,USM,UAB, or Charlotte.

Charlotte Key returners


As far as UAB, they were terrible last year and your class you are bringing in isn't as good as ours either. There is no reason for anyone to think you are a contender.

LOL how much high school basketball do you watch? You have no idea. We return everybody pretty much and now have two years under Haases' system. And have a nice class coming in, 5 new players possibly could sign another big

(04-22-2013 04:08 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:   only on this board could people get mad about posting actual compete data RPI Rankings of the entire season or a composite recruiting rankings of all the top recruiting services rankings in a discussion trying to compare teams from several different conferences that will be joining each other next year and trying to rank them.

For those of you making a stink and knocking the tools I provided, feel free to provide your own. I'd love to see what's better than RPI rankings of the completed season. Hey but I see no one else offering up anything other than statements like "we will be good" and voting for their own teams in the poll. If you think you got a better way to rank teams from 4 or 5 different conferences I'd love to see it.

Let's say I wanted to come up with an average height for a given populace. For that populace, I used a sample drawn for other purposes by someone else. Unbeknownst to me, that person created a sample of NBA Forwards and Centers. The shortest person in the room was 6'6. The tallest person in the room was 7'. The majority were right around 6'9. Therefore, in my attempt to sample the average height of the populace, I would draw the abhorrent conclusion that the average person in that general populace was 6'9.

Essentially, this is what happens when you draw conclusions about RPI numbers that have been computed after the postseason ends. The median RPI rank of the entirety of NCAA Division I Basketball at any given time during the regular season is always 174. This is because there are 347 division I basketball schools. The median during the four postseason tournaments for all four tournaments combined can be as low as 74.5 if the top 148 teams are all eligible and accept bids. This is because only 148 of the 347 NCAA Division I basketball teams are still playing. Thus, any RPI ranking calculated after the tournaments begin can never be anything but an abhorrent statistic...an anomaly.

As a point of fact, the actual median RPI of the CIT was 153.9 (Bracket Project's numbers). Yet, this number does not tell the whole tale either. Not only are the numbers skewed for teams playing in postseason tournaments against reduced sample sizes, but the numbers become further skewed as the sample continues to reduce itself in size. For example, the median RPI for the second round of the CIT was 126.2. Median RPI for the Quarterfinal round was 116.4. Median RPI for the Semifinal round was 94.5, and the final also had a median RPI of 94.5. Note that these are all RPI numbers from the end of the regular season. These numbers would be even further skewed as the RPI updated after each postseason tournament game played. For example, only ten teams played five or more postseason games. Thus, 337 teams had no chance to improve their RPI at that point, while ten teams could hardly have seen theirs drop.

by the way you may want to tell Rivals you have a better class

http://rivals.yahoo.com/uab/basketball/r...13/uab-207

http://rivals.yahoo.com/uab/basketball/r...arolina-99

Our kids pick us over miss state, UGA, and Murray state.. and you get players over high point. much better.

(04-22-2013 06:21 PM)Blazer88 Wrote:  LOL how much high school basketball do you watch? You have no idea. We return everybody pretty much and now have two years under Haases' system.

Great. You return a bunch of players that did nothing last year.

ECU #67
UAB #142

http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2013/rpi

(04-22-2013 06:28 PM)Blazer88 Wrote:  by the way you may want to tell Rivals you have a better class

http://rivals.yahoo.com/uab/basketball/r...13/uab-207

http://rivals.yahoo.com/uab/basketball/r...arolina-99

Our kids pick us over miss state, UGA, and Murray state.. and you get players over high point. much better.

and you may want to send ESPN a memo.




That's why I posted the Composite recruiting rankings that include multiple sites.