(03-18-2013 09:12 AM)Eagleholic Wrote:  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.

I haven't seen anyone say losing to Marshall kept you out. It didn't. Not winning a single game against a good tournament team did. Beat any of those tournament teams you lost to and you are probably in. Just 1.

Like I said, it is a shame for USM, but you have to win tough road games.

MT and USM were pretty much equals in my eyes and for some reason MT got the nod over USM. I thought their resume was basically the same as USM's. Hard to figure out why they got the nod over USM.

(03-18-2013 09:12 AM)Eagleholic Wrote:  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.

Kansas had 6 top 100 wins out of conference. 5 of those were top 50 wins, and 3 of those were top 20 wins. 15 of their 29 wins were against top 100 foes. One of their 5 losses was that super WTF loss to TCU. I hate Kansas as much as anybody, but there is no arguing that they are worthy of a #1 this year. The comparison is also apples to oranges because of the strength of the Kansas resume, and the lack of strength in the Southern Miss resume.

If USM has any gripes it should be that Minnesota got in over them not Boise State and La Salle.



Minnesota finished 3-7 in their last 10. Not tournament quality coming down the stretch.

(03-18-2013 08:43 AM)oldtiger 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.

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.

Absolutely agree...seems like some analysts do this same thing...

(03-18-2013 09:12 AM)Eagleholic Wrote:  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.

Counting the CUSA tournament we played 21 road/neutral site games with 10 of our 13 non-conference games on the road? The NCAA committee chairman talked about leaving teams out for not winning on the road, but winning 13 away from home didn't seem to help our case.

(03-18-2013 04:53 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 09:12 AM)Eagleholic Wrote:  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.

Counting the CUSA tournament we played 21 road/neutral site games with 10 of our 13 non-conference games on the road? The NCAA committee chairman talked about leaving teams out for not winning on the road, but winning 13 away from home didn't seem to help our case.

Yes, while it is better to win away from home, your best win away was against ECU, who 100. You beat UTEP at a neutral site who is 91.

I mean I wish y'all got in. But beating sub-100 team away from H-burg isn't the way to make a case.

Y'all are gonnabe set next fall.

(03-18-2013 08:43 AM)oldtiger 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.

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.

Missouri State had a higher RPI in 2006 in a much tougher conference and they were left out.

(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.

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

I'm pretty sure rpi is 25% your record, 50% your opponents record and the last 25% your opponents opponents record... unless it's been changed

By virtue of winning the SEC tournament and picking up two top 50 RPI wins, Ole Miss bumped up their RPI by six places on the last weekend of the season to 50. Because of that, Middle Tennessee ended up with a top 50 win. They also had five more D1 wins, four fewer losses, and an RPI two spots higher.

Every single team in this year's tournament who earned an at-large bid has at least one top 50 win. We would have been the sole exception in the entire field had we gotten in.

We were up by eight points at Arizona at the half...and lost.
We led Wichita State 28-17 at the half, but got outscored 42-23 in the second half...and lost.
We had three shots at Memphis included one at home and one in double OT...and lost all three.

We had our chances during the regular season, and didn't come through when we needed it the most. Now, let's put this topic to rest and go enjoy the NIT.

Actually I was thinking Cal wasn't deserving of a bid.

(03-19-2013 06:28 AM)Freshy Wrote:  By virtue of winning the SEC tournament and picking up two top 50 RPI wins, Ole Miss bumped up their RPI by six places on the last weekend of the season to 50. Because of that, Middle Tennessee ended up with a top 50 win. They also had five more D1 wins, four fewer losses, and an RPI two spots higher.

Every single team in this year's tournament who earned an at-large bid has at least one top 50 win. We would have been the sole exception in the entire field had we gotten in.

We were up by eight points at Arizona at the half...and lost.
We led Wichita State 28-17 at the half, but got outscored 42-23 in the second half...and lost.
We had three shots at Memphis included one at home and one in double OT...and lost all three.

We had our chances during the regular season, and didn't come through when we needed it the most. Now, let's put this topic to rest and go enjoy the NIT.

One of our fine USM fans explaining how we don't deserve credit once again. We don't need talking heads talking us down when we have our own fans degrading us. Pitiful.

(03-17-2013 05:35 PM)GeminiShamrock Wrote:  Bummer, guys. You should've gotten in. (And in case you were wondering, I've been incredibly busy with school and work.)

....yeah, I actually was wondering...one of my favorite UH posters

(03-17-2013 06:38 PM)oldtiger 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.

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.

This is the reason I asked JMS for info on best RPI to not make the dance in a previous thread. I knew it was going to happen and we would join that club. Oh well, we are pretty used to lack of respect down here. In the end, you won't see me ***** about it and hope you guys kick butt to show that not only MEM, but CUSA deserves more.

(03-19-2013 07:41 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  This is the reason I asked JMS for info on best RPI to not make the dance in a previous thread. I knew it was going to happen and we would join that club. Oh well, we are pretty used to lack of respect down here. In the end, you won't see me ***** about it and hope you guys kick butt to show that not only MEM, but CUSA deserves more.

It's not just "down here" where lack of respect applies and the last 2 years, we've not helped the perception of the conference with our tournament performance.

Receive bid, complain about the seeding, lose 1st round, come home has been our performance the last 2 years. I'm not complaining or being negative because these have been fun seasons, but we need to change that pattern this year.

However, based on our recent history and perception of the conference, many of the "experts" have us as one of the teams with too high of a seed and one of the most likely to be upset in round 2. Even if that happens, it's been a fun year - 30 wins always is; but we do need to win a game or two for a lot of reasons.

(03-19-2013 07:34 AM)nastybunch Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 06:28 AM)Freshy Wrote:  By virtue of winning the SEC tournament and picking up two top 50 RPI wins, Ole Miss bumped up their RPI by six places on the last weekend of the season to 50. Because of that, Middle Tennessee ended up with a top 50 win. They also had five more D1 wins, four fewer losses, and an RPI two spots higher.

Every single team in this year's tournament who earned an at-large bid has at least one top 50 win. We would have been the sole exception in the entire field had we gotten in.

We were up by eight points at Arizona at the half...and lost.
We led Wichita State 28-17 at the half, but got outscored 42-23 in the second half...and lost.
We had three shots at Memphis included one at home and one in double OT...and lost all three.

We had our chances during the regular season, and didn't come through when we needed it the most. Now, let's put this topic to rest and go enjoy the NIT.

One of our fine USM fans explaining how we don't deserve credit once again. We don't need talking heads talking us down when we have our own fans degrading us. Pitiful.

Another fine USM fan deliberately trying to find an excuse to wallow in that feeling of butthurt. Pitiful.

We didn't get in. There is your exact reason why. Deal with it and move on.