Next year, conference-wide SOS will look better with ECU and Tulane gone. We had to play Tulane twice.

Now you're just being mean.

(03-16-2014 07:04 PM)Noodles Wrote:  Next year, conference-wide SOS will look better with ECU and Tulane gone. We had to play Tulane twice.

The problem is the OOC schedule, not the in conference schedules. Time to go on the road and play better teams than North Dakota.

(03-16-2014 07:08 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:04 PM)Noodles Wrote:  Next year, conference-wide SOS will look better with ECU and Tulane gone. We had to play Tulane twice.

The problem is the OOC schedule, not the in conference schedules. Time to go on the road and play better teams than North Dakota.

North Dakota STATE Rpi = 34.
ECU = eleventy billion.

Explain how you were not the problem again, please.

For the most part, the committee knows you can't control who you play in conference. If you have a strong OOC schedule with some notable wins and no bad losses in conference, you can get in. That is how MT did it last year. It's not an equal playing field, but at least you can overcome the bias easier than in football.

(03-16-2014 07:23 PM)Noodles Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:08 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:04 PM)Noodles Wrote:  Next year, conference-wide SOS will look better with ECU and Tulane gone. We had to play Tulane twice.

The problem is the OOC schedule, not the in conference schedules. Time to go on the road and play better teams than North Dakota.

North Dakota STATE Rpi = 34.
ECU = eleventy billion.

Explain how you were not the problem again, please.

Because when you are in a weak conference you have to schedule tough OOC games. Hell SMU is in a tough conference and still didn't make the tournament, because SMU's OOC looks as bad as USM's. If you are going to complain about the process at least look at the factors that they are reviewing.

(03-16-2014 07:59 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:23 PM)Noodles Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:08 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:04 PM)Noodles Wrote:  Next year, conference-wide SOS will look better with ECU and Tulane gone. We had to play Tulane twice.

The problem is the OOC schedule, not the in conference schedules. Time to go on the road and play better teams than North Dakota.

North Dakota STATE Rpi = 34.
ECU = eleventy billion.

Explain how you were not the problem again, please.

Because when you are in a weak conference you have to schedule tough OOC games. Hell SMU is in a tough conference and still didn't make the tournament, because SMU's OOC looks as bad as USM's. If you are going to complain about the process at least look at the factors that they are reviewing.

Southern Miss OOC SOS: 150
SMU OOC SOS: 296

296 is much, much worse than 150.

(03-16-2014 08:03 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:59 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:23 PM)Noodles Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:08 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:04 PM)Noodles Wrote:  Next year, conference-wide SOS will look better with ECU and Tulane gone. We had to play Tulane twice.

The problem is the OOC schedule, not the in conference schedules. Time to go on the road and play better teams than North Dakota.

North Dakota STATE Rpi = 34.
ECU = eleventy billion.

Explain how you were not the problem again, please.

Because when you are in a weak conference you have to schedule tough OOC games. Hell SMU is in a tough conference and still didn't make the tournament, because SMU's OOC looks as bad as USM's. If you are going to complain about the process at least look at the factors that they are reviewing.

Southern Miss OOC SOS: 150
SMU OOC SOS: 296

296 is much, much worse than 150.

I give up. there are so many variables and so much subjectivity that you can leave a team out because you just want to, and justify it a dozen different ways -- and still sound totally reasonable.

this is a hell of a way to pick a tournament field. and this exact thing is going to happen to the panacea known as a "playoff system" when it comes to college football.

They put in who they want to put in. Then make justifications when they have to. Its always worked that way.

(03-16-2014 08:30 PM)TulsaEye Wrote:  They put in who they want to put in. Then make justifications when they have to. Its always worked that way.

Yep. I even remember some years when they either used conflicting reasoning publicly to support one team and then not another, and other years when they said what they were looking for early in the season only to go against that at selection time.

The data they often select to emphasize is also often not helpful. For example, the rpi SOS does not include whether the games were played home-away-neutral, only the team's individual rpi includes that. SOS is basically opponents' records and opponents' opponents' records with no correction for location. That's ludicrous if you're trying to be fair, but makes total sense if you want to favor teams with larger fan bases that can afford to play more home games (or play in conferences where all the other teams can play more home games, inflating win totals, and then inflating separations between conferences in terms of rated strength).

(03-16-2014 07:08 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:04 PM)Noodles Wrote:  Next year, conference-wide SOS will look better with ECU and Tulane gone. We had to play Tulane twice.

The problem is the OOC schedule, not the in conference schedules. Time to go on the road and play better teams than North Dakota.

Every team with an RPI below 150 killed this conferences chances to make multiple bids in real tournaments.

(03-16-2014 07:08 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:04 PM)Noodles Wrote:  Next year, conference-wide SOS will look better with ECU and Tulane gone. We had to play Tulane twice.

The problem is the OOC schedule, not the in conference schedules. Time to go on the road and play better teams than North Dakota.

North Dakota State was 34 RPI and won the Summit League. This is what qualifies as a "Good Win."


I don't see why we don't do what's smart. There's no reason to try to schedule the Kentuckys and Michigans and Kansases of the world. Go grab a team like Nebraska and Iowa and put them on your schedule.


For many of us, we want to play regional, and I understand that but a lot of the regional teams we schedule are terrible RPI. We have too many awful teams who have coaches the desire to pad their records with weak OOC schedules. Until we make a rule about who you can and can't schedule, this will continue.

(03-16-2014 09:46 PM)9erken Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 08:30 PM)TulsaEye Wrote:  They put in who they want to put in. Then make justifications when they have to. Its always worked that way.

Yep. I even remember some years when they either used conflicting reasoning publicly to support one team and then not another, and other years when they said what they were looking for early in the season only to go against that at selection time.

The data they often select to emphasize is also often not helpful. For example, the rpi SOS does not include whether the games were played home-away-neutral, only the team's individual rpi includes that. SOS is basically opponents' records and opponents' opponents' records with no correction for location. That's ludicrous if you're trying to be fair, but makes total sense if you want to favor teams with larger fan bases that can afford to play more home games (or play in conferences where all the other teams can play more home games, inflating win totals, and then inflating separations between conferences in terms of rated strength).

Bingo.