(02-21-2013 07:46 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:39 AM)JMSTiger Wrote:  Updated RPI after tonight's action:

**Current RPI of each member of Conference USA**
(in parenthesis is each team’s record vs. Division 1 opponents only)
-Memphis (23-3, 12-0): #20 (SOS: #83)
-Southern Mississippi (19-6, 10-2): #36 (SOS: #100)
-UTEP (14-11, 7-5): #95 (SOS: #68)
-UCF (16-9, 7-5): #107 (SOS: #125)
-East Carolina (11-10, 6-6): #110 (SOS: #81)
-Tulsa (13-12, 6-6): #123 (SOS: #113)
-Tulane (16-9, 5-6): #151 (SOS: #222)
-UAB (11-14, 4-7): #169 (SOS: #108)
-Marshall (11-15, 5-7): #184 (SOS: #102)
-SMU (12-13, 3-8): #199 (SOS: #225)
-Houston (14-10, 4-8): #204 (SOS: #294)
-Rice (4-19, 1-10): #312 (SOS: #142)

ECU closing in on 3rd place.

I love the tie breaker if ECU and UTEP end up tied for 3rd!

(02-21-2013 12:29 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  i gotta say that i am disappointed in SMU this season.

Well, they certainly aren't the most dissapointing team this season... :muttering:

(02-21-2013 09:43 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 07:46 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:39 AM)JMSTiger Wrote:  Updated RPI after tonight's action:

**Current RPI of each member of Conference USA**
(in parenthesis is each team’s record vs. Division 1 opponents only)
-Memphis (23-3, 12-0): #20 (SOS: #83)
-Southern Mississippi (19-6, 10-2): #36 (SOS: #100)
-UTEP (14-11, 7-5): #95 (SOS: #68)
-UCF (16-9, 7-5): #107 (SOS: #125)
-East Carolina (11-10, 6-6): #110 (SOS: #81)
-Tulsa (13-12, 6-6): #123 (SOS: #113)
-Tulane (16-9, 5-6): #151 (SOS: #222)
-UAB (11-14, 4-7): #169 (SOS: #108)
-Marshall (11-15, 5-7): #184 (SOS: #102)
-SMU (12-13, 3-8): #199 (SOS: #225)
-Houston (14-10, 4-8): #204 (SOS: #294)
-Rice (4-19, 1-10): #312 (SOS: #142)

ECU closing in on 3rd place.

I love the tie breaker if ECU and UTEP end up tied for 3rd!

Sounds like a fist fight will decide who finishes in 3rd.

(02-21-2013 12:56 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:34 AM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:15 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:12 AM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 11:23 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  Small point, but Tulsa is not in 5th place.

They are tied for 5th. No reason to worry about tiebreakers until the final standings.

Unless you want to know who's in 5th right now. ECU controls their destiny in the battle for fifth; Tulsa does not.

Understood. I am just presenting the standings without worrying about tiebreakers and such. I think everyone understands after tonight that 6-6 ECU leads 6-6 Tulsa as far as seeding for the conference tournament.

I can accept the way you are listing it. I wouldn't want to compute the tiebreakers after each game night. But understand that you shouldn't argue with someone who brings up the tiebreaker issue. It is a valid argument.

Another alternative is for you to go through the time and trouble to provide the information graciously provided by JMS to suit your picayune needs.

(02-21-2013 12:09 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:56 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:34 AM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:15 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:12 AM)JMSTiger Wrote:  They are tied for 5th. No reason to worry about tiebreakers until the final standings.

Unless you want to know who's in 5th right now. ECU controls their destiny in the battle for fifth; Tulsa does not.

Understood. I am just presenting the standings without worrying about tiebreakers and such. I think everyone understands after tonight that 6-6 ECU leads 6-6 Tulsa as far as seeding for the conference tournament.

I can accept the way you are listing it. I wouldn't want to compute the tiebreakers after each game night. But understand that you shouldn't argue with someone who brings up the tiebreaker issue. It is a valid argument.

Another alternative is for you to go through the time and trouble to provide the information graciously provided by JMS to suit your picayune needs.

I believe I indicated that I wouldn't have done any more than JMS. The difference is that I wouldn't have argued with someone who has a valid point. Any idiot with an ounce of intelligence would realize that his listing wasn't meant to include tiebreakers (hence having several teams listed with the same number) so why get into an argument over tiebreakers. Just let them post their valid observations.

Picayune? Kinda like your outrage.

Some of you guys need to get laid...this is an all-timer of a stupid argument. Both schools get tournament byes and play each other in the second round anyway...

(02-21-2013 12:18 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:09 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:56 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:34 AM)JMSTiger Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:15 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  Unless you want to know who's in 5th right now. ECU controls their destiny in the battle for fifth; Tulsa does not.

Understood. I am just presenting the standings without worrying about tiebreakers and such. I think everyone understands after tonight that 6-6 ECU leads 6-6 Tulsa as far as seeding for the conference tournament.

I can accept the way you are listing it. I wouldn't want to compute the tiebreakers after each game night. But understand that you shouldn't argue with someone who brings up the tiebreaker issue. It is a valid argument.

Another alternative is for you to go through the time and trouble to provide the information graciously provided by JMS to suit your picayune needs.

I believe I indicated that I wouldn't have done any more than JMS. The difference is that I wouldn't have argued with someone who has a valid point. Any idiot with an ounce of intelligence would realize that his listing wasn't meant to include tiebreakers (hence having several teams listed with the same number) so why get into an argument over tiebreakers. Just let them post their valid observations.

Picayune? Kinda like your outrage.

No need for people to get into it over this little matter. As I stated earlier it was just a little point. So when I look at the standings I always see who has the head to head tie breakers which why I have UTEP in 3rd place alone and UCF in 4th place; rather than UTEP and UCF being in a tie for 3rd place. Nothing major guys; lets move on.

Good work JMS.

(02-21-2013 12:21 PM)Freshy Wrote:  Some of you guys need to get laid...this is an all-timer of a stupid argument. Both schools get tournament byes and play each other in the second round anyway...

yup yup

(02-21-2013 01:04 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:21 PM)Freshy Wrote:  Some of you guys need to get laid...this is an all-timer of a stupid argument. Both schools get tournament byes and play each other in the second round anyway...

yup yup

I second that emotion...

(02-21-2013 12:29 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  i gotta say that i am disappointed in SMU this season.

Didn't some players leave before the start of the season?

I have been impressed with ECU and Tulane's turn around this season, however CUSA is much weeker this season than in previous years.

(02-22-2013 03:16 PM)rcmfuzzy Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:29 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  i gotta say that i am disappointed in SMU this season.

Didn't some players leave before the start of the season?

I have been impressed with ECU and Tulane's turn around this season, however CUSA is much weeker this season than in previous years.

The conference lost a good many quality players from last year's teams.

Was specifically referring to athlete-students who left pre-graduation. I know you are answering the same question, but how many did leave?