(01-19-2012 09:43 AM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 09:13 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 09:29 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  101 Cincinnati 4-1 14-4 0.5375 213 0.4808

Strange. Realtimerpi bumped the RPI up to 70 but dropped the SOS to 248.

Where did you see that, it still has Cincinnati at 101 (not updated) from what I saw

http://www.realtimerpi.com/rpi_217_Men.html

It updated at 11:30 last night. I checked it this morning. None of the numbers made sense. Have not gone back to look.

are there unwritten limits for RPI/SOS for a tourney team?

Haven't read the whole thread, but Chicago State, Pine Bluff and Radford are a combined 4-48. That's what is killing the RPI. You have three teams that have won less than ten percent of their games. Had each of them won just twenty percent of their games, UC's RPi would easily be about 30 spots higher (by higher, I mean better). Pine Bluff and Radford should rack up a few wins, which will help. Even if their wining percentage is between 15% and 20%, that's about double what it is now, so that alone will boost it. If Chicago State can manage just one or two wins, 10% is still infintely higher than zero, so that will boost it.

It's a shame. Had you played teams around 200th, you would have won and your RPI wouldn't be as bad. Instead, you're playing teams around 300th, and to a computer that's a big difference. Like I said, the difference between .300 winning percentage and zero winning percentage is the same difference between a .500 team and a .800 team. UC sunk themselves (at least in terms of RPI and SOS) with that OOC schedule.


Having said all that, t he committee will look at that. It's their job and I'm confident they'll realize that when evaluating UC.

(01-19-2012 10:19 AM)eroc Wrote:  are there unwritten limits for RPI/SOS for a tourney team?

the RPI top 105 is submitted on the Nitty Gritty report, so I guess you could say 105 is the unwritten limit. Technically, though, there is no limit.

Truthfully, if UC can't play their way into the top 105 despite their weak OOC schedule, they don't have a prayer anyway.

I think you guys are fine. A few wins by your OOC oppponents will make a big difference.

Mick needs to take a page out of Huggs book for OOC scheduling.

Oral Roberts 16-4 overall, 8-0 in conference (Summit Conference)
Kent State 12-5, 2-2 (MAC)
Alcorn State 3-14, 1-5 (SWAC)
Morehead St. 9-11, 3-4 (OVC)
Akron 11-7, 3-1 (MAC)
Miss St. 15-4, 2-2 (SEC)
Kansas St. 13-4, 2-3 (Big 12)
Miami (FL) 10-6, 1-2 (ACC)
TAMU CC 2-15, 1-4 (Southland)
Tenn Tech 11-7, 3-2 (OVC)
Missouri St. 11-9, 4-4 (MVC)
Baylor 17-1, 4-1 (Big 12)

Huggs got games with Miss St and K-State because Kennedy and Martin are his friends. He basically lost to Kent St, Miss St, and Baylor. But other than Alcorn State and TAMU CC, all the other teams have winning records.

Why can't Mick do something like this?

Kennedy coaches at Ole Miss, not Miss St.

Does anyone know how much control Mick has over the schedule compared to the AD?

Mick has control of the schedule. It is the budget that is hurting the schedule the most. The cost of bringing in a low major that is likely to win their conference and the one that will finish at the bottom is tens of thousands of dollars. Unfortunately we are stuck paying for the cheaper school to come here. We can't just give away 1 for 1 series and lose a couple of home games every year because we have to have about 2/3 of the schedule be home games for season tickets to be worth the donation and ticket cost. Lose a few home games and you make the problem even worse by cutting into revenue even more.

I don't think they need a gigantic jump in the quality that they schedule. One more good team along the lines of Tennessee or something. After that I wouldn't mind him doing a Syracuse style schedule with the mid major teams around here. There are plenty that are better than Chi st, Presbyterian Jax st etc. Toledo, Akron, Cleveland St., Miami, Wright st, Valpo, Indiana St., Dayton, EKU, WKU, Morehead, Murray just to name a few.

All of the ones you mentioned are currently out of our price range, and the only way to get them to come here is by giving them a game in return.

(01-19-2012 12:19 PM)RealDeal Wrote:  Kennedy coaches at Ole Miss, not Miss St.

Does anyone know how much control Mick has over the schedule compared to the AD?

I knew that. But had a momentary brain cramp. Sorry.

(01-19-2012 12:25 PM)subflea Wrote:  Mick has control of the schedule. It is the budget that is hurting the schedule the most. The cost of bringing in a low major that is likely to win their conference and the one that will finish at the bottom is tens of thousands of dollars. Unfortunately we are stuck paying for the cheaper school to come here. We can't just give away 1 for 1 series and lose a couple of home games every year because we have to have about 2/3 of the schedule be home games for season tickets to be worth the donation and ticket cost. Lose a few home games and you make the problem even worse by cutting into revenue even more.

Sub, just out of curiosity, about how much does UC pay teams like Chicago St? Ballpark?

It surprises me that some of first or second place teams wouldn't take a little less for the chance to win at UC.

I guess as attendance picks up MC will be able to play a better schedule with that added revenue.

(01-19-2012 12:27 PM)subflea Wrote:  All of the ones you mentioned are currently out of our price range, and the only way to get them to come here is by giving them a game in return.

Honestly I'd be ok with some road tests earlier. Hell just replacing Chicago St and Jax St. with a couple of those teams may give our schedule a huge bump. I get what you're saying about not losing home games for the season ticket holders but if they aren't going to go to the game anyways... I don't know. The situation sucks hopefully they figure something out.

Scheduling for BE hoops is like scheduling for SEC football. Why play a brutal non-conference schedule when you have to go through the meat grinder that is the BE? The Wise Man has it right, we need to play more teams in the 200 range as opposed to the 300 range. I don't care how they do it but Whit's got to find the means to start bringing in some decent mid-majors.

Alcorn's and Akron's records should improve a ton by the end of the year, which will pad the RPI even more.

Quote:It is the budget that is hurting the schedule the most. The cost of bringing in a low major that is likely to win their conference and the one that will finish at the bottom is tens of thousands of dollars.

My thing is that if you pay the extra money to bring in teams that are more intriguing as opponents, you should also end up selling more tickets and making your money back. There were several games where the overall attendance was below $5k. In some cases the other team probably walked away with more money than UC did.

There are other ways to help the budget out....like playing on TV. I don't know how revenue sharing works in the Big East exactly, but for a non conference game that's on TV, UC probably gets to keep the majority (if not all) of the revenue.

Even still, it's one thing to not get the best teams from the lower level conferences. It's another to end up with the absolute worst. I don't think anyone had any realistic expectations of Pine Bluff or Chicago State winning anywhere close to ten games. Same with Radford. If you replace them with teams like IPFW, or Western Illinois, or Sacred Heart, or teams like that. They won't win their league, but they'll win over 30% of their games. That would make a very noticeable difference. And those are teams that UC would beat 98% of the time.

When you schedule that weak, you do nothing to help yourself on paper. It's also my belief that when you schedule a team that your bench could blow out, you do nothing to help yourself off paper either. I don't mean that as an attack. I'm extremely impressed with UC's team right now. It's just that I think they made it harder on themselves. Playing a weak schedule puts MORE pressure on you to play well in conference becuase you essentially take a pass on making any sort of case for yourself out of conference.

3rd Wise Man- absolutely spot on with your analysis. Our non-conference scheduling in terms of setting us up in the best possible way to make the tournament and earn as high a seed as possible, has been somewhere between God awful and horrendous. Does not take away any of the enjoyment I have watching the Bearcats play right now, but we have not done ourselves any favors. I hope we figure this out, before it comes back to bite us in the ass. It killed Bama last year and they have already made the adjustments to build an out of conference schedule that can get help them if they are on the edge.

I hear the comment all the time that when you play in the Big East you don't want to play a "brutal nonconference schedule." Nobody is suggesting we do that. People are suggesting we schedule with a tiny bit of intelligence and get some teams that are not going to be 20,000 pound anchors on our SOS.

Good news if UC keeps winning 80% of our Big East games, all it may cost us is a seed line or two. We'll still be dancing.

So are we 5-2 vs. top 100 and 2-0 vs top 15?
Beat WVU and we are 3-0 vs top 15.
Real Time RPI has not updated our win and they had us losing last night.

Don't disagree at all with upgrading the pre-conference schedule next year. Still, UC already has more wins over ranked opponents than all but a handful of NCAA tourney teams will claim come March. Barring serious injuries or a complete collapse down the stretch, the RPI shouldn't be a concern; quality wins will trump that stat.
Regarding the TV deal, my understanding is the entire schedule is locked down with that ESPN multi-year agreement with the Big East Conference; those December games fall under that deal. It's among the best coverage and biggest payouts of the six major conferences. I suspect that will only get better when TV rights for football/basketball are renegotiated for 2013. The future is bright for the Cats!

(01-19-2012 12:59 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  3rd Wise Man- absolutely spot on with your analysis. Our non-conference scheduling in terms of setting us up in the best possible way to make the tournament and earn as high a seed as possible, has been somewhere between God awful and horrendous. Does not take away any of the enjoyment I have watching the Bearcats play right now, but we have not done ourselves any favors. I hope we figure this out, before it comes back to bite us in the ass. It killed Bama last year and they have already made the adjustments to build an out of conference schedule that can get help them if they are on the edge.

I hear the comment all the time that when you play in the Big East you don't want to play a "brutal nonconference schedule." Nobody is suggesting we do that. People are suggesting we schedule with a tiny bit of intelligence and get some teams that are not going to be 20,000 pound anchors on our SOS.

Good news if UC keeps winning 80% of our Big East games, all it may cost us is a seed line or two. We'll still be dancing.

Did Bama defeat a Top 10 RPI team on the road and a Top 20 RPI team on the road?

I have a hard time believing money is keeping the Cats from scheduling better. I watch Nov/Dec games from the big conferences and many arenas have plenty of empty seats... yet they somehow manage to come up with decent sos higher than the Cats.

The Cats came up with about $300k for Micks extension (approx 33% raise?) when we were told there was no money. It's funny how money shows up when something needs to get done. I'm not interested in where the money comes from, especially the way colleges can move money in and out of departments.

I'm not sure whoever is responsible has a grasp of the art of scheduling in regards to the RPI. Be as it may, one could argue soft ooc scheduling hasn't bothered Syracuse in the past. Just be sure to tcb in conference.

The Rating Percentage Index is just one of many factors used by NCAA sports committee when evaluating Division I teams for postseason selection and seeding. Divisions II and III do not use RPI data.

The RPI first was used in 1981 to provide supplemental data for the Division I Men’s Basketball Committee. The Division I Women’s Basketball Committee began using the RPI in 1984 and the Division I Baseball Committee in 1988. Other Division I sports committees now using the RPI are men’s and women’s soccer, men’s and women’s volleyball, women’s field hockey, men’s and women’s lacrosse, softball and women’s water polo.

Currently available for public viewing is the Nitty Gritty providing multiple columns of selection data for every team and the Team Sheets breaking down every institution’s results by opponent RPI ranking. These are two resources that selection committees use when evaluating teams for postseason selection and seeding.

The RPI never should be considered anything but an additional evaluation tool. No computer program that is based on pure numbers can take into account subjective concepts; e.g., how well a team is playing down the stretch, what the loss or return of a top player means to a team, or how emotional a specific contest may be.

An institution’s RPI ranking consists of three factors that are weighted as follows:

Factor 1. Division I Winning Percentage -- 25 percent of the RPI

Factor 2. Opponent Strength of Schedule -- 50 percent of the RPI

Factor 3. Opponents’ Opponent Strength of Schedule -- 25 percent of the RPI