Out of nowhere, the American Athletic Conference is having a pretty stout year: RPI #3 behind SEC and ACC and Nolan has them 4th just slightly behind the Pac 12. Now unfortunately I'm guessing no one in the conference is going to be good enough to host, but this is a really tough league this year.
Rice is now at #49 in the Official NCAA RPI Rankings. There are 33 at-large entries into the NCAA playoffs, and right now, 20 conference leaders are ranked below Rice. That means, if one were to use the RPI list to take the top at-large teams, the last team to get into the field right now would be #42 Kentucky, because there are 22 conference leaders below the Wildcats.
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2015 04:04 PM by WRCisforgotten79.)
(04-20-2015 04:00 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: Rice is now at #49 in the Official NCAA RPI Rankings. There are 33 at-large entries into the NCAA playoffs, and right now, 20 conference leaders are ranked below Rice. That means, if one were to use the RPI list to take the top at-large teams, the last team to get into the field right now would be #42 Kentucky, because there are 22 conference leaders below the Wildcats.
...but they don't and never have. Yes, RPI has been over-used as the primary determinant for regional hosts and national seeds, but in picking the at large bids, RPI has played a much smaller role...and name recognition plays strongly. Remember LSU failed to get an at large bid 3 or 4 years ago, despite a high 20s RPI because they finished 7th in the SEC and scheduled a joke of a home-baked, powderpuff OOC schedule. Our RPi is bad in part because we scheduled tough, but our 3 big OOC opponents-- all traditionally Top 25 powers-- all currently rank below #95 in RPI. The year after their first national championship, Oregon State finished 6th in the Pac-10 and were just barely over .500; yet made the tourney...and ended up repeating. Quite honestly, they did not deserve to have made the post-season that year, but were given the benefit of the doubt.
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2015 04:36 PM by waltgreenberg.)
CUSA isn't great but it's not the worst conference out there either. If we finish 1st or 2nd in the regular season, we'll be fine. Below 2nd and we may have to sweat it out a bit.
Just for the sake of argument, who would you say are currently the 5-10 most over-rated teams in RPI? (That is, those who might be most likely to miss the post-season in favor of other teams with higher RPIs.)
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2015 09:53 PM by Almadenmike.)
(04-20-2015 09:53 PM)Almadenmike Wrote: Just for the sake of argument, who would you say are currently the 5-10 most over-rated teams in RPI? (That is, those who might be most likely to miss the post-season in favor of other teams with higher RPIs.)
For starters...
#21 Radford (25-13), #51 ISR, #120 SoS
#28 Alabama (20-18), #66 ISR
#30 Ole Miss (20-20), #58 ISR
#33 UConn (25-15), #56 ISR, #11 SoS
#35 Cal St Fullerton (20-18), #48 ISR
#40 Liberty (25-15), #65 ISR, #115 SoS
Are we honestly pretending that if we don't win either the regular season or the tourney in this absolutely awful baseball conference that we DESERVE to be in the postseason? I think the early season swagger Walt was proud of was really a mistaken sense of entitlement that's spilling over from the field to these boards.
There's certainly plenty of ball left to be played but I think the squad and these boards needs to get over themselves, move past the benefit of the doubt, were Rice so that matters, it's just a crazy talented young team not playing good none sense and demand wins. Yes wins.
It's a really sad day when the same people who were declaring Omaha and a national championship contender after a 2-2 start are now defending a place in the tourney over Radford and Liberty. #RiceRising?? Please. Just thoughts from afar....
Might be time for me to go back to not reading these boards anymore.
(04-20-2015 11:48 PM)BufflOwl Wrote: Are we honestly pretending that if we don't win either the regular season or the tourney in this absolutely awful baseball conference that we DESERVE to be in the postseason? I think the early season swagger Walt was proud of was really a mistaken sense of entitlement that's spilling over from the field to these boards.
There's certainly plenty of ball left to be played but I think the squad and these boards needs to get over themselves, move past the benefit of the doubt, were Rice so that matters, it's just a crazy talented young team not playing good none sense and demand wins. Yes wins.
It's a really sad day when the same people who were declaring Omaha and a national championship contender after a 2-2 start are now defending a place in the tourney over Radford and Liberty. #RiceRising?? Please. Just thoughts from afar....
Might be time for me to go back to not reading these boards anymore.
??? Entitlement has absolutely nothing to do with it....and for the umpteenth time, CUSA is NOT "absolutely awful baseball conference". Repeating that contention is not going to make it true.
BTW, given the talent on this team, I still think we should be a national championship contender. Unfortunately, we have been woefully underperforming and underachieving; something that does happen rather frequently in sports-- at all levels. However, the talent is there, and this team could put it all together at the right time and go on an extended post-season run (just as easily as we've underperformed and made unexpectedly quick exits in 4 of the last 5 post-seasons). One has to only look at Oregon State (the year after their first title) and Fresno State for examples of teams that barely scrapped their way into the post-season, but emerged as national champions.
I'll agree that we need to finish no worse than second in CUSA (which I think we will do) to get an at large bid, but if we do so we will-- based on historical precedent-- get the benefit of the doubt by the Committee.
Focusing on the current season, our RPI situation has nothing to do with whether CUSA is having a down year or not. Our RPI is low because we have lost a lot of games. Our strength of schedule (54) is better than half of the teams in the RPI top 20, but we have lost about twice as many games as those teams.
To make the post season, we need to win. If we finish with an RPI above 40 we are almost sure to make the post season. If we finish with an RPI below 50, we are very unlikely to get the invite (unless we win the conference tournament and get the automatic bid). In the 40 to 50 range, we are left hoping that the committee gives us the benefit of the doubt, which is a very uncomfortable position.
(04-20-2015 04:18 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: ...but they don't and never have. Yes, RPI has been over-used as the primary determinant for regional hosts and national seeds, but in picking the at large bids, RPI has played a much smaller role...and name recognition plays strongly. Remember LSU failed to get an at large bid 3 or 4 years ago, despite a high 20s RPI because they finished 7th in the SEC and scheduled a joke of a home-baked, powderpuff OOC schedule. Our RPi is bad in part because we scheduled tough, but our 3 big OOC opponents-- all traditionally Top 25 powers-- all currently rank below #95 in RPI. The year after their first national championship, Oregon State finished 6th in the Pac-10 and were just barely over .500; yet made the tourney...and ended up repeating. Quite honestly, they did not deserve to have made the post-season that year, but were given the benefit of the doubt.
This seems to suggest name recognition plays not so strongly after all.
What would our RPI be if Texas, Arizona and Stanford had RPIs of 30, 31 and 32 instead of 91, 93 and 128? If the teams we scheduled in non-conference had RPIs that were anywhere nearly reflective of their customary RPIs, this discussion would be unnecessary.
(04-20-2015 04:18 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: ...but they don't and never have. Yes, RPI has been over-used as the primary determinant for regional hosts and national seeds, but in picking the at large bids, RPI has played a much smaller role...and name recognition plays strongly. Remember LSU failed to get an at large bid 3 or 4 years ago, despite a high 20s RPI because they finished 7th in the SEC and scheduled a joke of a home-baked, powderpuff OOC schedule. Our RPi is bad in part because we scheduled tough, but our 3 big OOC opponents-- all traditionally Top 25 powers-- all currently rank below #95 in RPI. The year after their first national championship, Oregon State finished 6th in the Pac-10 and were just barely over .500; yet made the tourney...and ended up repeating. Quite honestly, they did not deserve to have made the post-season that year, but were given the benefit of the doubt.
This seems to suggest name recognition plays not so strongly after all.
In the LSU case, yes. But I do buy Walt's argument for why that was the result in that particular case.
(04-21-2015 11:49 AM)interwebowl Wrote: Walt, generally you skillfully apply that analytic mind to your postings. That is why I have enjoyed reading your stuff. I don't think you are doing that here. I have reviewed our exchanges on this subject and presented you with a number of facts that you dismiss and simply assert that the conference is not that bad as you did in the last post in this thread. I would ask, relative to what?
I'd like us all to debate this without flames and personal insults.
I believe that the current CUSA is an awful conference for us and you continually saying that it is not that bad does not make it so any more than those saying it is bad. I will put on my lawyer hat and try to make this argument clearer. I offer you 5 points to consider. Please feel free to respond to each point and offer new ones if you like.
1. Although RPI varies, it sure looks like our conference is pretty awful. The league RPI is now 10th and we are pretty late in the season. You said the AAC was no better earlier in the year, but it appears they are third.
2. The destinations in CUSA are hard to get to and as I understand it, expensive as well. Not a good thing for non-P5 budgets! This means that although football can charter everything including LA Tech, baseball has to spend 6.5 hours on a bus to Hattiesburg each way and absorb very expensive trips with connections to these off the beaten path schools.
3. The facilities in the new CUSA are not that great. I have seen some of the old sunbelt/new CUSA places personally and they are not very good. Padding on the walls is not the rule and players can hurt themselves on uneven tracks and poorly drained fields. Area High School fields are of higher quality than the ones at UAB and UTSA and they must be better than Marshall's because they don't even let them play at home. The gap is huge when compared to our home base and the ones we lost at Tulane, UH, UCF and ECU.
4. No one in this new league is even interested in trying to pretend to be an academic powerhouse. I think we agree on the lack of peer institutions.
5. This conference is hurting our recruiting. Do you not realize how easy it is for other Texas schools to use this conference against us in recruiting? I know for a fact they do. Some of our kids want to play for Wayne and some cherish the educational opportunities, but we are not winning the hearts and minds of many potential recruits by promising them all expense paid trips to Bowling Green, Murfreesboro and Rustin. This experience gets less valuable when you consider the attendance in our conference. It is not fun to play in front of 100 people on the road.
I will be the first to admit that in spite of my wishing, we may have no other choices and this is the best we can do. All I am saying is that does not make this a good fit or a good conference for us. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I really want to see some evidence and arguments to the contrary before I am willing to accept your premise that CUSA is not that bad.
Walt has previously described the Big Ten as an awful baseball conference this January, so that may be a good starting point to assess that label. Over the last 3 years plus this season to date, their RPI has been (score and conference rank):
2012 - .518 10
2013 - .521 6
2014 - .513 10
2015 - .535 6
(04-21-2015 01:16 PM)Houston Owl Wrote: What would our RPI be if Texas, Arizona and Stanford had RPIs of 30, 31 and 32 instead of 91, 93 and 128? If the teams we scheduled in non-conference had RPIs that were anywhere nearly reflective of their customary RPIs, this discussion would be unnecessary.
We went 6-5 against these three teams that turned out not to be very good this year. If all three of these teams were a lot better this year, we likely would have won fewer of the games.
D1 baseball provides both an overall RPI and a nonconference RPI. Rice is 12-9 nonconference with a 51 strength of schedule yielding a nonconference RPI of 84th place. A&M is 23-0 nonconference with a 216 strength of schedule yielding a nonconference RPI of 7th place. Again, our problem this year is not who we played. Our problem is the number of games we have lost.
(This post was last modified: 04-21-2015 01:55 PM by temchugh.)
