The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(01-11-2018 12:26 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:15 PM)geef Wrote:  The problem is that it's highly unlikely that there will be "a few 2-4 loss teams". The conference seems to be trending toward WSU, UC, and then a handful of 5 and 6 loss teams. I still think that SMU or Houston will find a way to get in, due to the relative strength of the AAC. And Temple, for the record, is not a bad loss, despite your claim to the contrary. Their RPI is still 36, despite being a .500 team. That's what playing a brutal nonconference schedule - and winning a few - does for you.

Okay, can you extrapolate the larger point here? The issue is you don't really have a clearly defined 5-6 loss team emerging either. The worst are beating the teams that are supposedly up there with us. What makes you so sure it won't just be UC, WSU and a bunch of .500 teams? That's what I'm trying to get at. The 2-4 loss or whatever hypothetical I made up, was just to illustrate the problem. Parity is not a good thing, it implies there are no teams that are obviously head and shoulders above the others, except the bearcats and the shockers.

That means our wins could end up being irrelevant if things continue and the Memphis/UConn/Temple's end up beating the SMU/UCF/Tulsa's.
Even in the one example everyone is obsessing over, how long do you think the benefit of the Owl's OOC schedule will continue to outweigh their losses in this conference? They're not doing well. Those two wins they had, are going to be outweighed by them losing to Tulane or ECU or God forbid USF at some point and then what? Well, not that win we had over them looks like ****. And the same will hit every other team in conference.

Look I'm just saying, things don't look good. RPI and SOS aside, teams are underperforming. It's a denial of reality, to say the UCF losing to UConn is a positive and if you can't admit that, it's just because you're don't like to look at things for what they are.

I wasn't making a larger point. And no one is obsessing over Temple. They're just saying you're wrong.