(01-28-2013 05:15 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 04:55 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:49 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:30 PM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:02 PM)QuitoTiger Wrote:  I can't help remembering the shaft we got with last year's seeding. If the Eye Test is, indeed, supposed to be a "blindfolded resume comparison in which analysts look at a team's record, conference record, RPI, and strength of schedule", and we do happen to finish 26-5 or better, I'm still concerned with the eyes of the beholder (NCAA Selection Com.). Does Memphis have a perpetual blemish/stigma that affects the NCAA's eyesight?

The committee rewards a team more for beating top 25 opponents than they penalyze a team for losing to bad teams. Example: You could take two teams with identical records with the identical schedules, and have team A beat the 15th ranked team in the country but lose to the 225th team in the country, and have team B lose to the 15th ranked team in the country but beat the 225th team. They will give team A the higher seed even though they lost to the 225th ranked team in the country. They should view team A and team B as the same but they don't. That's our problem. We have not beaten these highly ranked teams. That’s why last year even though we were the 16th ranked team in the RPI we only got an 8 seed.

...and to an extent that makes sense.

In putting teams into the tourney, I would rather put a team in there that has PROVED they are capable of beating a top notch team than put a team in there that has only proved they won't lose to a team worse than them. Especially since the seeding of that team will only involve them playing better teams throughout the tournament.

I think you and memphis mania are right. Over the last 5 years or so, it seems they put added emphasis on non-conference strength of schedule and top 25 and top 50 RPI wins. The Tigers are lacking in both areas. That is why it is hard to feel secure about our at-large chances if there are more than two additional losses between now and the C-USA tournament. They gotta keep winning.

We had a pretty good OOC SOS last year and it didn't seem to help us much come seeding time.

Just another reason why last year's seeding was a massive screw job. When even Jerry Palm had us projected as a #7 (Lunardi had us as a #6) and we got a #8 against similarly underseeded Saint Louis, it tells you how bad the screw over was.

And we had 5 top 50 wins. However, 4 of the 5 came against C-USA foes and I think that was the rub there. The Committee doesn't respect what we do in C-USA. We have to do it outside C-USA.

This is why you really can't dismiss people's paranoia on here in regards to the Selection Committee. Some Tiger fans think we will get a #8 or #9 seed if we are 31-3 on Selection Sunday. I tend to think that is crazy, but they may be right because of what happened last year. On the other hand, the Committee was quite generous to us in 2006-07 when we received a #2 seed with a single top 50 win.

(01-28-2013 05:15 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 04:55 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:49 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:30 PM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:02 PM)QuitoTiger Wrote:  I can't help remembering the shaft we got with last year's seeding. If the Eye Test is, indeed, supposed to be a "blindfolded resume comparison in which analysts look at a team's record, conference record, RPI, and strength of schedule", and we do happen to finish 26-5 or better, I'm still concerned with the eyes of the beholder (NCAA Selection Com.). Does Memphis have a perpetual blemish/stigma that affects the NCAA's eyesight?

The committee rewards a team more for beating top 25 opponents than they penalyze a team for losing to bad teams. Example: You could take two teams with identical records with the identical schedules, and have team A beat the 15th ranked team in the country but lose to the 225th team in the country, and have team B lose to the 15th ranked team in the country but beat the 225th team. They will give team A the higher seed even though they lost to the 225th ranked team in the country. They should view team A and team B as the same but they don't. That's our problem. We have not beaten these highly ranked teams. That’s why last year even though we were the 16th ranked team in the RPI we only got an 8 seed.

...and to an extent that makes sense.

In putting teams into the tourney, I would rather put a team in there that has PROVED they are capable of beating a top notch team than put a team in there that has only proved they won't lose to a team worse than them. Especially since the seeding of that team will only involve them playing better teams throughout the tournament.

I think you and memphis mania are right. Over the last 5 years or so, it seems they put added emphasis on non-conference strength of schedule and top 25 and top 50 RPI wins. The Tigers are lacking in both areas. That is why it is hard to feel secure about our at-large chances if there are more than two additional losses between now and the C-USA tournament. They gotta keep winning.

We had a pretty good OOC SOS last year and it didn't seem to help us much come seeding time.

In all reality, the "good" rpi wins were vs. Marshall (3), UCF (2), Tennessee (2), Xavier, USM, Robert Morris, Belmont, and Miami

It wasn't like they vanquished a bunch of world beaters.

In fact, I think Memphis went 3-6 vs. teams in the NCAA tourney.

Man, the cookie didn't crumble the right way this season from an RPI standpoint. I don't think the schedule was bad. We just weren't ready early in the season, and some supposed-to-be-solid RPI teams have failed to do as well as expected.

(01-28-2013 05:28 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 05:15 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 04:55 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:49 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:30 PM)memphis mania Wrote:  The committee rewards a team more for beating top 25 opponents than they penalyze a team for losing to bad teams. Example: You could take two teams with identical records with the identical schedules, and have team A beat the 15th ranked team in the country but lose to the 225th team in the country, and have team B lose to the 15th ranked team in the country but beat the 225th team. They will give team A the higher seed even though they lost to the 225th ranked team in the country. They should view team A and team B as the same but they don't. That's our problem. We have not beaten these highly ranked teams. That’s why last year even though we were the 16th ranked team in the RPI we only got an 8 seed.

...and to an extent that makes sense.

In putting teams into the tourney, I would rather put a team in there that has PROVED they are capable of beating a top notch team than put a team in there that has only proved they won't lose to a team worse than them. Especially since the seeding of that team will only involve them playing better teams throughout the tournament.

I think you and memphis mania are right. Over the last 5 years or so, it seems they put added emphasis on non-conference strength of schedule and top 25 and top 50 RPI wins. The Tigers are lacking in both areas. That is why it is hard to feel secure about our at-large chances if there are more than two additional losses between now and the C-USA tournament. They gotta keep winning.

We had a pretty good OOC SOS last year and it didn't seem to help us much come seeding time.

In all reality, the "good" rpi wins were vs. Marshall (3), UCF (2), Tennessee (2), Xavier, USM, Robert Morris, Belmont, and Miami

It wasn't like they vanquished a bunch of world beaters.

In fact, I think Memphis went 3-6 vs. teams in the NCAA tourney.

Probably if they had just beaten Georgetown in Maui (they lost by just 3 in OT), it would have made a world of difference. Similar to this year. If they had just beaten Louise...

(01-28-2013 04:55 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:49 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:30 PM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:02 PM)QuitoTiger Wrote:  I can't help remembering the shaft we got with last year's seeding. If the Eye Test is, indeed, supposed to be a "blindfolded resume comparison in which analysts look at a team's record, conference record, RPI, and strength of schedule", and we do happen to finish 26-5 or better, I'm still concerned with the eyes of the beholder (NCAA Selection Com.). Does Memphis have a perpetual blemish/stigma that affects the NCAA's eyesight?

The committee rewards a team more for beating top 25 opponents than they penalyze a team for losing to bad teams. Example: You could take two teams with identical records with the identical schedules, and have team A beat the 15th ranked team in the country but lose to the 225th team in the country, and have team B lose to the 15th ranked team in the country but beat the 225th team. They will give team A the higher seed even though they lost to the 225th ranked team in the country. They should view team A and team B as the same but they don't. That's our problem. We have not beaten these highly ranked teams. That’s why last year even though we were the 16th ranked team in the RPI we only got an 8 seed.

...and to an extent that makes sense.

In putting teams into the tourney, I would rather put a team in there that has PROVED they are capable of beating a top notch team than put a team in there that has only proved they won't lose to a team worse than them. Especially since the seeding of that team will only involve them playing better teams throughout the tournament.

I think you and memphis mania are right. Over the last 5 years or so, it seems they put added emphasis on non-conference strength of schedule and top 25 and top 50 RPI wins. The Tigers are lacking in both areas. That is why it is hard to feel secure about our at-large chances if there are more than two additional losses between now and the C-USA tournament. They gotta keep winning.

Yep. That's it in a nutshell.

(01-28-2013 05:33 PM)NJ1 Wrote:  Man, the cookie didn't crumble the right way this season from an RPI standpoint. I don't think the schedule was bad. We just weren't ready early in the season, and some supposed-to-be-solid RPI teams have failed to do as well as expected.

Going into the season, the schedule was fine. It was maybe missing one additional good opponent. What is hurting is that some normally decent cupcakes like Austin Peay and Lipscomb are terrible this year. In addition, losing in the first round in the Bahamas not only took away what would have been a good win over VCU, it deprived us of a game against RPI #1 Duke and even if we had lost to them, the third round game would have been against a better opponent than Northern Iowa. As you say, the cookie didn't crumble our way.

(01-28-2013 05:35 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 04:55 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:49 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:30 PM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:02 PM)QuitoTiger Wrote:  I can't help remembering the shaft we got with last year's seeding. If the Eye Test is, indeed, supposed to be a "blindfolded resume comparison in which analysts look at a team's record, conference record, RPI, and strength of schedule", and we do happen to finish 26-5 or better, I'm still concerned with the eyes of the beholder (NCAA Selection Com.). Does Memphis have a perpetual blemish/stigma that affects the NCAA's eyesight?

The committee rewards a team more for beating top 25 opponents than they penalyze a team for losing to bad teams. Example: You could take two teams with identical records with the identical schedules, and have team A beat the 15th ranked team in the country but lose to the 225th team in the country, and have team B lose to the 15th ranked team in the country but beat the 225th team. They will give team A the higher seed even though they lost to the 225th ranked team in the country. They should view team A and team B as the same but they don't. That's our problem. We have not beaten these highly ranked teams. That’s why last year even though we were the 16th ranked team in the RPI we only got an 8 seed.

...and to an extent that makes sense.

In putting teams into the tourney, I would rather put a team in there that has PROVED they are capable of beating a top notch team than put a team in there that has only proved they won't lose to a team worse than them. Especially since the seeding of that team will only involve them playing better teams throughout the tournament.

I think you and memphis mania are right. Over the last 5 years or so, it seems they put added emphasis on non-conference strength of schedule and top 25 and top 50 RPI wins. The Tigers are lacking in both areas. That is why it is hard to feel secure about our at-large chances if there are more than two additional losses between now and the C-USA tournament. They gotta keep winning.

Yep. That's it in a nutshell.

I agree, it will be hard to obtain an at-large with three defeats and winning away from home in the C-USA tourney is a challenge. Every win is important regardless of the margin of victory.

holy crap.

we were 14-6 this time last year?

dayum.

Memphis will be fine.

(01-28-2013 07:03 PM)TG4 Wrote:  Memphis will be fine.

Define fine.

(01-28-2013 05:28 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 05:15 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 04:55 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:49 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:30 PM)memphis mania Wrote:  The committee rewards a team more for beating top 25 opponents than they penalyze a team for losing to bad teams. Example: You could take two teams with identical records with the identical schedules, and have team A beat the 15th ranked team in the country but lose to the 225th team in the country, and have team B lose to the 15th ranked team in the country but beat the 225th team. They will give team A the higher seed even though they lost to the 225th ranked team in the country. They should view team A and team B as the same but they don't. That's our problem. We have not beaten these highly ranked teams. That’s why last year even though we were the 16th ranked team in the RPI we only got an 8 seed.

...and to an extent that makes sense.

In putting teams into the tourney, I would rather put a team in there that has PROVED they are capable of beating a top notch team than put a team in there that has only proved they won't lose to a team worse than them. Especially since the seeding of that team will only involve them playing better teams throughout the tournament.

I think you and memphis mania are right. Over the last 5 years or so, it seems they put added emphasis on non-conference strength of schedule and top 25 and top 50 RPI wins. The Tigers are lacking in both areas. That is why it is hard to feel secure about our at-large chances if there are more than two additional losses between now and the C-USA tournament. They gotta keep winning.

We had a pretty good OOC SOS last year and it didn't seem to help us much come seeding time.

In all reality, the "good" rpi wins were vs. Marshall (3), UCF (2), Tennessee (2), Xavier, USM, Robert Morris, Belmont, and Miami

It wasn't like they vanquished a bunch of world beaters.

In fact, I think Memphis went 3-6 vs. teams in the NCAA tourney.

What was our OOC RPI? We've always been told that the committee rewards teams for playing a tough OOC schedule (win or lose), but it didn't seem to help us last year.

We got shafted last year.

We should have been a 6 or 7 seed.

(01-29-2013 11:28 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  We got shafted last year.

We should have been a 6 or 7 seed.

The committe has the ability to move you up or down a spot in order to avoid intraconfernce matchups in the first two rounds.

We were probably a 7 and just got unlucky.

(01-28-2013 11:33 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 10:25 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  Here is our RPI projections acording to rpiforecast.com:

Final Record / Expected RPI
28-3 / 14.6
27-4 / 18.3
26-5 / 23.3
25-6 / 29.4
24-7 / 36.2
23-8 / 43.5
22-9 / 52.0
21-10 / 61.9

Based on these projections, we can lose 3 more games and have an RPI in the top 30. The past few days our OOC opponents have played so bad (as JMS referenced) that the projected RPI for the Tiger's with 3 losses went from 27 to 29. That's actually a big move even at this point in the season. If we can keep it to 3 losses and have an RPI in the top 30, will be almost assured an at-large bid. If we lose 4 more, it's looking like an RPI of about 36. That would probably be giving us close to a 50/50 shot of making the tournament.

A realistic goal that would get us in the Tourney as an at large would be to lose no more than 3 games. (2 regular season, 1 CUSA Tourney) It's going to be very tough, and it starts Wednesday @ ECU.

Final Record/Expected RPI/Probability
28-3 12.7 0.03%
27-4 14.6 0.37%
26-5 18.5 1.88%
25-6 23.2 6.08%
24-7 29.3 11.68%
23-8 36.7 18.96%
22-9 45.0 21.17%
21-10 54.5 17.77%

As you can note, the RPI projections are getting worse for the same record (this one from 1/3/13) so a couple more losses could but Memphis in the 30's, which is no guarantee.

St. Mary's had a record of 25-6 with an SOS of 105 and they ended up right on the button at 30. If we win 1 game in the CUSA tournament, that gets us to 27-5 with a comparable SOS. There is no way that gets us into the 30's. Wrong again I'm afraid.

(01-28-2013 05:34 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 05:28 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 05:15 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 04:55 PM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:49 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  ...and to an extent that makes sense.

In putting teams into the tourney, I would rather put a team in there that has PROVED they are capable of beating a top notch team than put a team in there that has only proved they won't lose to a team worse than them. Especially since the seeding of that team will only involve them playing better teams throughout the tournament.

I think you and memphis mania are right. Over the last 5 years or so, it seems they put added emphasis on non-conference strength of schedule and top 25 and top 50 RPI wins. The Tigers are lacking in both areas. That is why it is hard to feel secure about our at-large chances if there are more than two additional losses between now and the C-USA tournament. They gotta keep winning.

We had a pretty good OOC SOS last year and it didn't seem to help us much come seeding time.

In all reality, the "good" rpi wins were vs. Marshall (3), UCF (2), Tennessee (2), Xavier, USM, Robert Morris, Belmont, and Miami

It wasn't like they vanquished a bunch of world beaters.

In fact, I think Memphis went 3-6 vs. teams in the NCAA tourney.

Probably if they had just beaten Georgetown in Maui (they lost by just 3 in OT), it would have made a world of difference. Similar to this year. If they had just beaten Louise...

The sad thing is that we beat Loserville fair and square. We should be 17-2; ranked and looking at a 2-4 seed.

(01-29-2013 02:24 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 11:28 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  We got shafted last year.

We should have been a 6 or 7 seed.

The committe has the ability to move you up or down a spot in order to avoid intraconfernce matchups in the first two rounds.

We were probably a 7 and just got unlucky.

The committee has the ability to put you wherever they want to.

Florida was the 7th seed over us with the 30 RPI, but they beat RPI 11 Florida State, RPI 19 Vanderbilt, and at 36 Alabama.

We beat 21 Southern Miss, 44 Marshall thrice, and 41 Xavier.

I don't think the moved Florida up over us for conference purposes... Florida got in over us because they had quality wins.

You know what is really crazy? Southern Miss at a RPI of 21, and they didn't beat anybody but us and Colorado State!

RPI can be fixed.

(01-29-2013 02:49 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 02:24 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 11:28 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  We got shafted last year.

We should have been a 6 or 7 seed.

The committe has the ability to move you up or down a spot in order to avoid intraconfernce matchups in the first two rounds.

We were probably a 7 and just got unlucky.

The committee has the ability to put you wherever they want to.

Florida was the 7th seed over us with the 30 RPI, but they beat RPI 11 Florida State, RPI 19 Vanderbilt, and at 36 Alabama.

We beat 21 Southern Miss, 44 Marshall thrice, and 41 Xavier.

I don't think the moved Florida up over us for conference purposes... Florida got in over us because they had quality wins.

You know what is really crazy? Southern Miss at a RPI of 21, and they didn't beat anybody but us and Colorado State!

RPI can be fixed.

I'm not sure if you intentionally leave out important info, or if you don't have the ability to read through and understand basic information.

Florida Bad Losses
161 Rutgers
104 Georgia
90 UT
90 UT

Memphis Bad Losses
147 UTEP

Florida
51-100: 5-2
101-200: 12-2
Total: 17-4

Memphis
51-100: 10-1
101-200: 9-1
Total: 19-2

(01-29-2013 03:16 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 02:49 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 02:24 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 11:28 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  We got shafted last year.

We should have been a 6 or 7 seed.

The committe has the ability to move you up or down a spot in order to avoid intraconfernce matchups in the first two rounds.

We were probably a 7 and just got unlucky.

The committee has the ability to put you wherever they want to.

Florida was the 7th seed over us with the 30 RPI, but they beat RPI 11 Florida State, RPI 19 Vanderbilt, and at 36 Alabama.

We beat 21 Southern Miss, 44 Marshall thrice, and 41 Xavier.

I don't think the moved Florida up over us for conference purposes... Florida got in over us because they had quality wins.

You know what is really crazy? Southern Miss at a RPI of 21, and they didn't beat anybody but us and Colorado State!

RPI can be fixed.

I'm not sure if you intentionally leave out important info, or if you don't have the ability to read through and understand basic information.

Florida Bad Losses
161 Rutgers
104 Georgia
90 UT
90 UT

Memphis Bad Losses
147 UTEP

Florida
51-100: 5-2
101-200: 12-2
Total: 17-4

Memphis
51-100: 10-1
101-200: 9-1
Total: 19-2

So why were they the 7 seed and were the 8th seed when we were 15 slots ahead in RPI?

(01-29-2013 03:49 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 03:16 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 02:49 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 02:24 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 11:28 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  We got shafted last year.

We should have been a 6 or 7 seed.

The committe has the ability to move you up or down a spot in order to avoid intraconfernce matchups in the first two rounds.

We were probably a 7 and just got unlucky.

The committee has the ability to put you wherever they want to.

Florida was the 7th seed over us with the 30 RPI, but they beat RPI 11 Florida State, RPI 19 Vanderbilt, and at 36 Alabama.

We beat 21 Southern Miss, 44 Marshall thrice, and 41 Xavier.

I don't think the moved Florida up over us for conference purposes... Florida got in over us because they had quality wins.

You know what is really crazy? Southern Miss at a RPI of 21, and they didn't beat anybody but us and Colorado State!

RPI can be fixed.

I'm not sure if you intentionally leave out important info, or if you don't have the ability to read through and understand basic information.

Florida Bad Losses
161 Rutgers
104 Georgia
90 UT
90 UT

Memphis Bad Losses
147 UTEP

Florida
51-100: 5-2
101-200: 12-2
Total: 17-4

Memphis
51-100: 10-1
101-200: 9-1
Total: 19-2

So why were they the 7 seed and were the 8th seed when we were 15 slots ahead in RPI?

We got screwed. Why was West Virginia a 10 seed with an RPI of 61? We were 19-2 against RPI 51-200. West Virginia was 13-5. Why was St. Louis a 9 seed with an RPI of 28?

(01-29-2013 03:49 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 03:16 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 02:49 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 02:24 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(01-29-2013 11:28 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  We got shafted last year.

We should have been a 6 or 7 seed.

The committe has the ability to move you up or down a spot in order to avoid intraconfernce matchups in the first two rounds.

We were probably a 7 and just got unlucky.

The committee has the ability to put you wherever they want to.

Florida was the 7th seed over us with the 30 RPI, but they beat RPI 11 Florida State, RPI 19 Vanderbilt, and at 36 Alabama.

We beat 21 Southern Miss, 44 Marshall thrice, and 41 Xavier.

I don't think the moved Florida up over us for conference purposes... Florida got in over us because they had quality wins.

You know what is really crazy? Southern Miss at a RPI of 21, and they didn't beat anybody but us and Colorado State!

RPI can be fixed.

I'm not sure if you intentionally leave out important info, or if you don't have the ability to read through and understand basic information.

Florida Bad Losses
161 Rutgers
104 Georgia
90 UT
90 UT

Memphis Bad Losses
147 UTEP

Florida
51-100: 5-2
101-200: 12-2
Total: 17-4

Memphis
51-100: 10-1
101-200: 9-1
Total: 19-2

So why were they the 7 seed and were the 8th seed when we were 15 slots ahead in RPI?

Notice how nice my response was? If I was allowed to respond honestly based on the quality of your post, it would have been a lot different. It's the new me. Let's just say that Mensa won't be sending you an application form very soon.