(09-22-2013 09:02 PM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  Indeed, however let them discredit our wins.

I keep seeing Memphis fans making this argument and I guess I don't understand the logic. No one has said that Memphis is a bad program or that they shouldn't have their wins recognized. What has been said is that the original methodology was flawed because it a) valued all conference titles the same and b) valued conference titles as much as a final four.

C-USA was a 1 bid conference in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2013 and a 2 bid conference in 2006, 2010, 2011, and 2012. Outside of Memphis, C-USA was a bad basketball conference and I don't think anyone can realistically argue otherwise. Now ask yourself: was winning C-USA as hard as winning a conference like the Big 10, Big East, ACC? Was winning C-USA a feat equal to making a final four? If you said no, then you're agreeing with pretty much everyone who had an issue with the original methodology.

(09-23-2013 08:50 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  And another thread derails into the Memphis Sucks Abyss. Memphis posters, there's no need to bother replying in this thread anymore, folks here don't give a ****, they hate Memphis and that isn't going to change. I say let them have their cake so they can choke on it when we come to town. Take pride in the fact our program is great enough that people literally sit around all day thinking of ways to try and discredit us.

Who said Memphis sucks in this thread?

I've read the argument that the old Big East was a beast but in fact each year they had questionable/soft teams at the bottom of the conference like all conferences did. Most of the time, the top teams of the conference feasted of those teams for easy victories similar to top teams of every conference feasting on the bottom teams. Why would Memphis feasting on the middle to bottom of their conference be any different?

Personally I have more faith (usually) as to where the select committee seeds teams and how far they succeed in the tournament then made up formulas that can be argued until everyone is blue in the face with no clear victor.

If the select committee, which takes into account conference schedules and SOS, seeds a team #1, then the conference they played in matters very little. The funny thing is, once you are in the tourney, winning is all that matters (see Butler). Memphis is usually not a one and done team. They usually represent themselves and conference well when the enter the tournament.

Do they underachieve expectations at times? Sure, so did old Big East Pitt nearly every year they entered the tournament, for example.

(09-23-2013 08:52 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(09-22-2013 09:02 PM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  Indeed, however let them discredit our wins.

I keep seeing Memphis fans making this argument and I guess I don't understand the logic. No one has said that Memphis is a bad program or that they shouldn't have their wins recognized. What has been said is that the original methodology was flawed because it a) valued all conference titles the same and b) valued conference titles as much as a final four.

C-USA was a 1 bid conference in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2013 and a 2 bid conference in 2006, 2010, 2011, and 2012. Outside of Memphis, C-USA was a bad basketball conference and I don't think anyone can realistically argue otherwise. Now ask yourself: was winning C-USA as hard as winning a conference like the Big 10, Big East, ACC? Was winning C-USA a feat equal to making a final four? If you said no, then you're agreeing with pretty much everyone who had an issue with the original methodology.

Yes, CUSA was a bad basketball conference. Still, the attitude of "Memphis was only in CUSA" (and yes, read the entire thread, there have been posts made to this effect) is frustrating when we look at four undefeated conference records in 10 years. Did any other school in the country go undefeated in conference play more than once in that time frame? I know it's 'just CUSA' but teams like ECU and UAB had wins vs Cincinnati, Louisville, and Marquette during CUSA v1.0 so it ain't as easy as it sounds, kids. Memphis has a half dozen losses to schools with losing records since 2005.

(09-23-2013 09:36 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  I've read the argument that the old Big East was a beast but in fact each year they had questionable/soft teams at the bottom of the conference like all conferences did.

What made the Big East a special conference was that the middle of the Big East was generally as good as if not better than the collection of teams at the top of conferences like C-USA, A-10, etc. Don't believe me? Let's look at the records and RPIs of the teams that finished 6-10 in the Big East versus the top 5 teams from C-USA and A-10 respectively.

Big East
ND 25-9 RPI: 35
Villanova 20-13 RPI: 52
UConn 20-10 RPI: 49
Cincinnati 22-11 RPI: 50
Providence 17-14 RPI: 90

C-USA
Memphis 30-4 RPI: 12
USM 23-9 RPI: 31
UTEP 18-14 RPI: 96
UCF 18-11 RPI: 102
ECU 14-12 RPI: 104

A-10
Saint Louis 27-6 RPI: 16
Butler 25-8 RPI: 22
VCU 26-8 RPI: 25
Temple 23-9 RPI: 41
La Salle 21-9 RPI: 46

The middle teams in the Big East might not have won either of those leagues (Memphis, SLU, Butler, and VCU had extremely good teams last season), but I think they would have easily competed for a spot near the top of those conferences. That is why the Big East was always talked about as a beast in basketball.

(09-23-2013 09:36 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  Most of the time, the top teams of the conference feasted of those teams for easy victories similar to top teams of every conference feasting on the bottom teams. Why would Memphis feasting on the middle to bottom of their conference be any different?

That is an easy question to answer. Let's compare Louisville conference schedule last year to Memphis' conference schedule last year. I'll include both the regular season and the conference tournament since both teams won their respective leagues.

Louisville

Regular season
Providence RPI: 90
Seton Hall RPI: 138
USF RPI: 156
UConn RPI: 49
Syracuse RPI: 14
Villanova RPI: 52
Georgetown RPI: 11
Pittsburgh RPI: 43
Marquette RPI: 13
Rutgers RPI: 110
ND RPI: 35
St. John's RPI: 94
USF RPI: 156
Seton Hall RPI: 138
DePaul RPI: 204
Syracuse RPI: 14
Cincinnati RPI: 50
ND RPI: 35

Tournament
Villanova RPI: 52
ND RPI: 35
Syracuse RPI: 14


Memphis

Regular season
ECU RPI: 104
UAB RPI: 145
Rice RPI: 324
Tulane RPI: 178
Marshall RPI: 208
ECU RPI: 104
Tulsa RPI: 128
SMU RPI: 219
USM RPI: 31
UCF RPI: 102
Marshall RPI: 208
Houston RPI: 197
USM RPI: 31
UCF RPI: 102
UTEP RPI: 96
UAB RPI: 145

Tournament
Tulane RPI: 178
Tulsa RPI: 128
USM RPI: 31

Here's a quick breakdown for each team.

Louisville

Conference Regular Season
Opponents in top 25 RPI: 4
Opponents in Top 50 RPI: 9
Opponents in Top 100 RPI: 12
Opponents 150+ in RPI: 3

Conference Tournament
Average RPI ranking of opponent: 33.67

Memphis

Conference Regular Season
Opponents in top 25 RPI: 2
Opponents in Top 50 RPI: 2
Opponents in Top 100 RPI: 3
Opponents 150+ in RPI: 7

Conference Tournament
Average RPI ranking of opponent: 112.3

Memphis had a great team last year and winning 30 games is always an impressive feat. On the other hand, I don't think anyone can really argue with a straight face that the conference schedule Memphis played last season was anywhere near as a difficult as the conference slate Louisville (or any other Big East team) played last season. Winning Big East titles was a lot harder than winning C-USA titles and I think the methodology should reflect that.

I should also point out that it wasn't Memphis' fault whatsoever that C-USA was in basketball and the Tigers still had a great team regardless of what their conference opponents looked like. I'm not trying to devalue the team they had or how good they were. I'm simply pointing out that you shouldn't (IMO) give equal weight to all conference titles without taking into consideration that some leagues are much more challenging to win versus others.

(09-23-2013 12:18 AM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(09-22-2013 09:02 PM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  In 2007-2008 We went 38-2 with our only losses coming against #2 Tennessee at the time, we were #1 and then to Kansas in the National Title game. That season we beat UConn, Oklahoma, USC, Georgetown, Arizona, Michigan State, Gonzaga, Texas, UCLA, UAB x2 who was a good team that year, SEC West Champs Mississippi State, Siena who won their conference and advanced int he NCAA Tournament.

Of course we all know the NCAA vacated those 5 NCAA wins. It doesn't count when you played ineligible players no matter how much Memphis fans want to believe otherwise.

Memphis fans believe otherwise when the NCAA shows NO consistency on who is eligible. We'll stop claiming final fours when Duke (Maggette- took money) and Kansas(Arthur- had high school grades changed) stop claiming theirs.

Ole Miss had a football player with a retroactively invalidated ACT score this past year. Ok, that is the EXACT SAME situation, correct? The NCAA didn't take ONE game away from Ole Miss.

(09-23-2013 10:55 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 09:36 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  Most of the time, the top teams of the conference feasted of those teams for easy victories similar to top teams of every conference feasting on the bottom teams. Why would Memphis feasting on the middle to bottom of their conference be any different?

That is an easy question to answer. Let's compare Louisville conference schedule last year to Memphis' conference schedule last year. I'll include both the regular season and the conference tournament since both teams won their respective leagues.

One of the problems of looking at solely conference games is that it is skewed. Teams like Gonzaga and Memphis long ago realized that they had to strengthen their OOC schedule in an attempt to make up for lessor conference foes. It's a similar argument that L-Ville should have done in their football program for this year seeing that the conference schedule is perceived weak. It may wind up costing them a shot at the NC game.

The OOC schedule has bolstered Gonzaga to the point that their conference weak schedule is offset by the strong OOC schedule. I'm not a Memphis basketball knowledge person, but my guess is that their OOC schedule does the same thing that Gonzaga does. It's not that important for me to confirm that. I'm sure you'll provide the numbers to dispute that if true.

(09-23-2013 10:55 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 09:36 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  I've read the argument that the old Big East was a beast but in fact each year they had questionable/soft teams at the bottom of the conference like all conferences did.

What made the Big East a special conference was that the middle of the Big East was generally as good as if not better than the collection of teams at the top of conferences like C-USA, A-10, etc. Don't believe me? Let's look at the records and RPIs of the teams that finished 6-10 in the Big East versus the top 5 teams from C-USA and A-10 respectively.

Big East
ND 25-9 RPI: 35
Villanova 20-13 RPI: 52
UConn 20-10 RPI: 49
Cincinnati 22-11 RPI: 50
Providence 17-14 RPI: 90

C-USA
Memphis 30-4 RPI: 12
USM 23-9 RPI: 31
UTEP 18-14 RPI: 96
UCF 18-11 RPI: 102
ECU 14-12 RPI: 104

A-10
Saint Louis 27-6 RPI: 16
Butler 25-8 RPI: 22
VCU 26-8 RPI: 25
Temple 23-9 RPI: 41
La Salle 21-9 RPI: 46

The middle teams in the Big East might not have won either of those leagues (Memphis, SLU, Butler, and VCU had extremely good teams last season), but I think they would have easily competed for a spot near the top of those conferences. That is why the Big East was always talked about as a beast in basketball.

(09-23-2013 09:36 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  Most of the time, the top teams of the conference feasted of those teams for easy victories similar to top teams of every conference feasting on the bottom teams. Why would Memphis feasting on the middle to bottom of their conference be any different?

That is an easy question to answer. Let's compare Louisville conference schedule last year to Memphis' conference schedule last year. I'll include both the regular season and the conference tournament since both teams won their respective leagues.

Louisville

Regular season
Providence RPI: 90
Seton Hall RPI: 138
USF RPI: 156
UConn RPI: 49
Syracuse RPI: 14
Villanova RPI: 52
Georgetown RPI: 11
Pittsburgh RPI: 43
Marquette RPI: 13
Rutgers RPI: 110
ND RPI: 35
St. John's RPI: 94
USF RPI: 156
Seton Hall RPI: 138
DePaul RPI: 204
Syracuse RPI: 14
Cincinnati RPI: 50
ND RPI: 35

Tournament
Villanova RPI: 52
ND RPI: 35
Syracuse RPI: 14


Memphis

Regular season
ECU RPI: 104
UAB RPI: 145
Rice RPI: 324
Tulane RPI: 178
Marshall RPI: 208
ECU RPI: 104
Tulsa RPI: 128
SMU RPI: 219
USM RPI: 31
UCF RPI: 102
Marshall RPI: 208
Houston RPI: 197
USM RPI: 31
UCF RPI: 102
UTEP RPI: 96
UAB RPI: 145

Tournament
Tulane RPI: 178
Tulsa RPI: 128
USM RPI: 31

Here's a quick breakdown for each team.

Louisville

Conference Regular Season
Opponents in top 25 RPI: 4
Opponents in Top 50 RPI: 9
Opponents in Top 100 RPI: 12
Opponents 150+ in RPI: 3

Conference Tournament
Average RPI ranking of opponent: 33.67

Memphis

Conference Regular Season
Opponents in top 25 RPI: 2
Opponents in Top 50 RPI: 2
Opponents in Top 100 RPI: 3
Opponents 150+ in RPI: 7

Conference Tournament
Average RPI ranking of opponent: 112.3

Memphis had a great team last year and winning 30 games is always an impressive feat. On the other hand, I don't think anyone can really argue with a straight face that the conference schedule Memphis played last season was anywhere near as a difficult as the conference slate Louisville (or any other Big East team) played last season. Winning Big East titles was a lot harder than winning C-USA titles and I think the methodology should reflect that.

I should also point out that it wasn't Memphis' fault whatsoever that C-USA was in basketball and the Tigers still had a great team regardless of what their conference opponents looked like. I'm not trying to devalue the team they had or how good they were. I'm simply pointing out that you shouldn't (IMO) give equal weight to all conference titles without taking into consideration that some leagues are much more challenging to win versus others.

All any program can do is play their conference schedule, do the best they can to schedule appropriate OOC games, and win as many games as possible. Fans can then assign any formula or ranking as they wish, it doesn't change the season's results or W/Ls.

(09-23-2013 12:15 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 10:55 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 09:36 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  I've read the argument that the old Big East was a beast but in fact each year they had questionable/soft teams at the bottom of the conference like all conferences did.

What made the Big East a special conference was that the middle of the Big East was generally as good as if not better than the collection of teams at the top of conferences like C-USA, A-10, etc. Don't believe me? Let's look at the records and RPIs of the teams that finished 6-10 in the Big East versus the top 5 teams from C-USA and A-10 respectively.

Big East
ND 25-9 RPI: 35
Villanova 20-13 RPI: 52
UConn 20-10 RPI: 49
Cincinnati 22-11 RPI: 50
Providence 17-14 RPI: 90

C-USA
Memphis 30-4 RPI: 12
USM 23-9 RPI: 31
UTEP 18-14 RPI: 96
UCF 18-11 RPI: 102
ECU 14-12 RPI: 104

A-10
Saint Louis 27-6 RPI: 16
Butler 25-8 RPI: 22
VCU 26-8 RPI: 25
Temple 23-9 RPI: 41
La Salle 21-9 RPI: 46

The middle teams in the Big East might not have won either of those leagues (Memphis, SLU, Butler, and VCU had extremely good teams last season), but I think they would have easily competed for a spot near the top of those conferences. That is why the Big East was always talked about as a beast in basketball.

(09-23-2013 09:36 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  Most of the time, the top teams of the conference feasted of those teams for easy victories similar to top teams of every conference feasting on the bottom teams. Why would Memphis feasting on the middle to bottom of their conference be any different?

That is an easy question to answer. Let's compare Louisville conference schedule last year to Memphis' conference schedule last year. I'll include both the regular season and the conference tournament since both teams won their respective leagues.

Louisville

Regular season
Providence RPI: 90
Seton Hall RPI: 138
USF RPI: 156
UConn RPI: 49
Syracuse RPI: 14
Villanova RPI: 52
Georgetown RPI: 11
Pittsburgh RPI: 43
Marquette RPI: 13
Rutgers RPI: 110
ND RPI: 35
St. John's RPI: 94
USF RPI: 156
Seton Hall RPI: 138
DePaul RPI: 204
Syracuse RPI: 14
Cincinnati RPI: 50
ND RPI: 35

Tournament
Villanova RPI: 52
ND RPI: 35
Syracuse RPI: 14


Memphis

Regular season
ECU RPI: 104
UAB RPI: 145
Rice RPI: 324
Tulane RPI: 178
Marshall RPI: 208
ECU RPI: 104
Tulsa RPI: 128
SMU RPI: 219
USM RPI: 31
UCF RPI: 102
Marshall RPI: 208
Houston RPI: 197
USM RPI: 31
UCF RPI: 102
UTEP RPI: 96
UAB RPI: 145

Tournament
Tulane RPI: 178
Tulsa RPI: 128
USM RPI: 31

Here's a quick breakdown for each team.

Louisville

Conference Regular Season
Opponents in top 25 RPI: 4
Opponents in Top 50 RPI: 9
Opponents in Top 100 RPI: 12
Opponents 150+ in RPI: 3

Conference Tournament
Average RPI ranking of opponent: 33.67

Memphis

Conference Regular Season
Opponents in top 25 RPI: 2
Opponents in Top 50 RPI: 2
Opponents in Top 100 RPI: 3
Opponents 150+ in RPI: 7

Conference Tournament
Average RPI ranking of opponent: 112.3

Memphis had a great team last year and winning 30 games is always an impressive feat. On the other hand, I don't think anyone can really argue with a straight face that the conference schedule Memphis played last season was anywhere near as a difficult as the conference slate Louisville (or any other Big East team) played last season. Winning Big East titles was a lot harder than winning C-USA titles and I think the methodology should reflect that.

I should also point out that it wasn't Memphis' fault whatsoever that C-USA was in basketball and the Tigers still had a great team regardless of what their conference opponents looked like. I'm not trying to devalue the team they had or how good they were. I'm simply pointing out that you shouldn't (IMO) give equal weight to all conference titles without taking into consideration that some leagues are much more challenging to win versus others.

All any program can do is play their conference schedule, do the best they can to schedule appropriate OOC games, and win as many games as possible. Fans can then assign any formula or ranking as they wish, it doesn't change the season's results or W/Ls.

All you can do is play the hand you are dealt and catch a break in the NCAA's. But no one blames Memphis for the hand they were dealt. They obviously took advantage of their conference schedule. Yes it is unfortunate in college sports where some teams are judged fairly or unfairly by the teams they face. But that's why the NCAA tournament seperates the creme from the fools gold. Hopefully the football playoff will do the same so people will stop making the same scheduling arguments.

While Memphis blew away CUSA 'competition'-- Memphis did OK during the 2000s in the NCAA Tournament as well --- a couple of Elite 8s and a Championship Game is much more than most can say. Not sure what the argument here is about ---. IMO - if we don't win the AAC this year we're in the top three - easy.

(09-23-2013 11:51 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  One of the problems of looking at solely conference games is that it is skewed.

The problem is that the goal post keep moving in this discussion. The original point of contention was whether or not the OP's methodology overvalued conference titles. Because the OP assigned a high point value to conference titles (same value as making the final four) and did not differentiate between the quality of the conferences, his rankings became biased towards good programs in bad/weaker conferences (Memphis, Xavier, Butler, etc). This was pointed out in posts #7-13, 15, 24, etc.

You then stated that Memphis should not be penalized for feasting on the middle to bottom of their conference since that is what Big East teams did. I pointed out that this issue with that statement was the C-USA's middle and bottom were vastly inferior to the middle and bottom of the league. As a result, it was much harder for teams to win and dominate in the Big East and by extension, to earn points in the OP's original methodology. That is why you saw Memphis ranked above two time national champion UConn in the initial posting.

In order to avoid skewing results towards good programs winning bad conference, you have to do one of two things. Either you have to devalue conference titles equally (i.e. reduce how many points they are worth so that winning a lot of titles in a bad conference doesn't unbalance the rankings) or you have to weight them to account for the differences in conference quality (e.g. what I suggested in post #11).

(09-23-2013 11:51 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  Teams like Gonzaga and Memphis long ago realized that they had to strengthen their OOC schedule

What does the OOC schedule have to do with the debate on whether conference titles were overvalued in the original methodology? Again, the original debate was not on OOC scheduling or how good a program was, it was on whether or not conference titles should be weighted as heavily as they were and whether the quality of the conference should be factored into the point totals.

(09-23-2013 11:51 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  The OOC schedule has bolstered Gonzaga to the point that their conference weak schedule is offset by the strong OOC schedule.

You seem to be missing my argument entirely. I'm not saying that Memphis is a bad program because they played in C-USA or that they should receive a penalty because of their conference schedule. My argument was that the original methodology overvalued conference championships specifically because it did not differentiate between the conferences based on quality. As such, you ended up with a ranking system that returned non-nonsensical results as Orangecrush22 pointed out in post #15.

OOC scheduling is irrelevant when talking about whether conference titles should be weighed equally or worth as much as a final four appearance.

I think the only method that's the wrong method where Memphis is concerned is one that places them outside of the Top 20 during this period. Memphis was clearly one of the 20 best basketball schools during that decade.