Does than mean good things for USM? I sure hope so.

He also said FIRST TEAM FROM THE MAC when referring to Akron, so....

I didn't pick up on that. Still have my fingers crossed for USM.

Sorry USM...that sucks.

Pac 12? Really? That many teams?

I just don't see how Lasalle and Boise St got in over us.

That really sucks for USM. You guys should be in.

Bummer, guys. You should've gotten in. (And in case you were wondering, I've been incredibly busy with school and work.)

(03-17-2013 05:33 PM)Its The Talons Wrote:  I just don't see how Lasalle and Boise St got in over us.

La Salle has two top 50 wins. 6-8 versus top 100, and their worst loss was to RPI 200 Central Connecticut State on November 18 with no other 100+ losses.

Boise State was 4-7 versus top 50 and 8-8 versus top 100...I am surprised they were that close to not making it in. Their two 100+ losses were to 161 Utah and 173 Nevada, both on the road.

Southern Miss with a 32 RPI being left out. Pretty lousy, really.

(03-17-2013 05:33 PM)Its The Talons Wrote:  I just don't see how Lasalle and Boise St got in over us.

Boise had several very nice wins against teams in the tournament. USM did not.

LaSalle beat Butler, VCU, Villanova. On top of that they had 3 other top 100 victories.

Boise beat Creighton, Colorado State, and UNLV. They had other top 100 wins against Air Force, LSU, and Wyoming.


USM had a great year, but when it comes down to it, they didn't have any quality wins.

Sucks, but that's the way it is.

(03-17-2013 05:43 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 05:33 PM)Its The Talons Wrote:  I just don't see how Lasalle and Boise St got in over us.

Boise had several very nice wins against teams in the tournament. USM did not.

LaSalle beat Butler, VCU, Villanova. On top of that they had 3 other top 100 victories.

Boise beat Creighton, Colorado State, and UNLV. They had other top 100 wins against Air Force, LSU, and Wyoming.


USM had a great year, but when it comes down to it, they didn't have any quality wins.

Sucks, but that's the way it is.

If we didn't have any quality wins then how was our RPI sitting at 32?

That's what I don't understand. If we didn't play a quality schedule then this number should be much lower.

(03-17-2013 05:47 PM)Its The Talons Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 05:43 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 05:33 PM)Its The Talons Wrote:  I just don't see how Lasalle and Boise St got in over us.

Boise had several very nice wins against teams in the tournament. USM did not.

LaSalle beat Butler, VCU, Villanova. On top of that they had 3 other top 100 victories.

Boise beat Creighton, Colorado State, and UNLV. They had other top 100 wins against Air Force, LSU, and Wyoming.


USM had a great year, but when it comes down to it, they didn't have any quality wins.

Sucks, but that's the way it is.

If we didn't have any quality wins then how was our RPI sitting at 32?

That's what I don't understand. If we didn't play a quality schedule then this number should be much lower.

I was super encouraged when he said "First CUSA team" and then really let down when the final 17 were read.

There's really nothing fair about that process. I understand that the RPI isn't perfect, but if it isn't one of the better relative measures, then why is it referenced by virtually everyone when strengths of teams/schedules is discussed? I know who we played that was ranked and included in the tournament and I also know how improved we are since we played them.....and I watched the game Saturday. I know what I saw in all those games. Obviously not many in the selection process did.

As I said in previous "discussions" about the process and how CUSA is viewed; there's nothing fair about it. We've not done our part in winning tournament games and that certainly doesn't help, but I watched the A10 final.....and I know what I saw there also. USM got jobbed in my opinion.

Perhaps having one dominate team in the conference has been a handicap, I'm not sure.

(03-17-2013 05:47 PM)Its The Talons Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 05:43 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 05:33 PM)Its The Talons Wrote:  I just don't see how Lasalle and Boise St got in over us.

Boise had several very nice wins against teams in the tournament. USM did not.

LaSalle beat Butler, VCU, Villanova. On top of that they had 3 other top 100 victories.

Boise beat Creighton, Colorado State, and UNLV. They had other top 100 wins against Air Force, LSU, and Wyoming.


USM had a great year, but when it comes down to it, they didn't have any quality wins.

Sucks, but that's the way it is.

If we didn't have any quality wins then how was our RPI sitting at 32?

That's what I don't understand. If we didn't play a quality schedule then this number should be much lower.

50% of the RPI is your record. You had a lot of wins.

You also had only 1 bad loss. That helps a ton.

You only had 1 win against teams in the tournament....and they're a 16 seed that sneaked in because they won their conference tournament.

You had a good season. Keep it going next year and win some games against tournament quality teams and you'll be in.

(03-17-2013 06:55 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 05:47 PM)Its The Talons Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 05:43 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 05:33 PM)Its The Talons Wrote:  I just don't see how Lasalle and Boise St got in over us.

Boise had several very nice wins against teams in the tournament. USM did not.

LaSalle beat Butler, VCU, Villanova. On top of that they had 3 other top 100 victories.

Boise beat Creighton, Colorado State, and UNLV. They had other top 100 wins against Air Force, LSU, and Wyoming.


USM had a great year, but when it comes down to it, they didn't have any quality wins.

Sucks, but that's the way it is.

If we didn't have any quality wins then how was our RPI sitting at 32?

That's what I don't understand. If we didn't play a quality schedule then this number should be much lower.

50% of the RPI is your record. You had a lot of wins.

You also had only 1 bad loss. That helps a ton.

You only had 1 win against teams in the tournament....and they're a 16 seed that sneaked in because they won their conference tournament.

Technically two bad losses...to RPIs 205 and 105.

We beat Liberty and Western Kentucky.

(03-17-2013 05:47 PM)Its The Talons Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 05:43 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 05:33 PM)Its The Talons Wrote:  I just don't see how Lasalle and Boise St got in over us.

Boise had several very nice wins against teams in the tournament. USM did not.

LaSalle beat Butler, VCU, Villanova. On top of that they had 3 other top 100 victories.

Boise beat Creighton, Colorado State, and UNLV. They had other top 100 wins against Air Force, LSU, and Wyoming.


USM had a great year, but when it comes down to it, they didn't have any quality wins.

Sucks, but that's the way it is.

If we didn't have any quality wins then how was our RPI sitting at 32?

That's what I don't understand. If we didn't play a quality schedule then this number should be much lower.

This has been proven time and again. Win a bunch of games between RPI 101-200(Southern Miss had 11 of these) , don't lose stupid games(Southern Miss had 1 really bad one, and the RPI 103 loss is close to not mattering much), and play some quality opponents(12 games against teams in the RPI 100, 5 of those vs the top 50). It's a flaw in the system that doesn't account for truly great wins, but just picks up on the sheer number of wins. Southern Miss had a solid year, but the resume just wasn't there. When you look at this objectively and your best argument is we beat Denver, the conversation really starts and ends there.

Here is RealTimeRPI with USM

http://www.realtimerpi.com/rpi_226_Men.html

(03-17-2013 06:57 PM)Freshy Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 06:55 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 05:47 PM)Its The Talons Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 05:43 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 05:33 PM)Its The Talons Wrote:  I just don't see how Lasalle and Boise St got in over us.

Boise had several very nice wins against teams in the tournament. USM did not.

LaSalle beat Butler, VCU, Villanova. On top of that they had 3 other top 100 victories.

Boise beat Creighton, Colorado State, and UNLV. They had other top 100 wins against Air Force, LSU, and Wyoming.


USM had a great year, but when it comes down to it, they didn't have any quality wins.

Sucks, but that's the way it is.

If we didn't have any quality wins then how was our RPI sitting at 32?

That's what I don't understand. If we didn't play a quality schedule then this number should be much lower.

50% of the RPI is your record. You had a lot of wins.

You also had only 1 bad loss. That helps a ton.

You only had 1 win against teams in the tournament....and they're a 16 seed that sneaked in because they won their conference tournament.

Technically two bad losses...to RPIs 205 and 105.

We beat Liberty and Western Kentucky.

Don't need to look why we didn't make it, our own fans go out of the way to explain why we don't make it. And you wonder why we haven't advance here. We have searched for the enemy, and we are him.....

(03-17-2013 05:43 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 05:33 PM)Its The Talons Wrote:  I just don't see how Lasalle and Boise St got in over us.

Boise had several very nice wins against teams in the tournament. USM did not.

LaSalle beat Butler, VCU, Villanova. On top of that they had 3 other top 100 victories.

Boise beat Creighton, Colorado State, and UNLV. They had other top 100 wins against Air Force, LSU, and Wyoming.


USM had a great year, but when it comes down to it, they didn't have any quality wins.

Sucks, but that's the way it is.

Not to pick on this post in particular, but the argument that USM shouldn't be invited just because of a very high RPI (27).....

Some of the comments above and others that discuss why USM was left out quote top 100 and top 50 wins of others. Those top 50/100 ratings are base on what?.....RPI ratings.

In a common sense world, you can't use the RPI ratings to prove others should be in and discount USM earning a high RPI rating. It's illogical, unfair, and against any common sense process on earth.

The post above uses other tangible reasons, which do make sense and I applaud those comments, but still quotes "other top 100 wins", which is out of bounds if USM can't use its very high RPI ranking.

In the end, USM didn't get a bid and we'll all move on, but don't use "top 100/top 50" wins of others and discount a top 30 rating.

How many teams get Top 50 wins on the road? Not very many. We played one Top 50 team at home all season (Memphis), and they played their best game of the season and just beat us.

We played numerous games on the road. That is one reason our rpi is so high, but that is because it is so difficult to win on the road. Look at how many Top 25 teams lost on the road to teams with an RPI above 100. I think it is ridiculous to state that our loss at Marshall kept us out of the tourney when a loss by Kansas at TCU does not prevent them from being a 1 seed.

I admit that I am biased, but Southern Miss should be in the tourney.