The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(03-22-2014 05:10 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  It's because our ooc schedule had too many crappy games. Our rpi never stood a chance, even with the few good games we had. I really don't get why this is so complicated.

We had OOC conference games against teams with crappy RPIs before. UAB typically win those games as well. What we haven't done in the past is lose the amount games we did this year to crappy RPI teams in conference.

Trust me, I know what I am talking about. UAB beats La Tech, UTEP, and MTSU once, and not lose to FAU, FIU, Tulane, ECU, and UNT, UAB would have had an RPI in the 50's and with wins against Nebraska, USM, and UNC would have gotten the Blazers in the conversation for an at-large. And yes you can get into the Dance with an RPI in the 50's. UAB has done it before.

I agree the rpi would have been in the 50s with all those wins. That's very, very iffy in the current cusa. I'm not saying we wouldn't have made it but it definitely wouldn't have been guaranteed. Simply not losing to the crappy teams wouldn't have been enough. Also, our ooc was too home heavy, which also hurts the rpi. We don't disagree as much as we thought here.

(03-22-2014 06:16 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  I agree the rpi would have been in the 50s with all those wins. That's very, very iffy in the current cusa. I'm not saying we wouldn't have made it but it definitely wouldn't have been guaranteed. Simply not losing to the crappy teams wouldn't have been enough. Also, our ooc was too home heavy, which also hurts the rpi. We don't disagree as much as we thought here.

Yes it is very iffy. But UAB has usually come out on the positive side of iffy. And I do agree with you that the OOC schedule was not up to par from an RPI and SOS perspective. But we won those crappy RPI OOC games except for Temple.

Let me put it another way, even if we had played less crappy OOC games and still lost to the teams we lost to in conference, UAB would have been in the same predictament as today, no Dance.

But yeah, we agree more than we disagree.

I really don't think you guys are disagreeing at all.

I think if you could manipulate two variables from last season, the one that would've helped us the most would have been to NOT lose to those 5 really bad teams in conference vs having a stronger OOC schedule. If we had beaten those teams, and everything else played out like it did, we would've been in the convo for an at large (probably outside looking in).

I think everyone assumes we aren't going to lose to those crappy teams next year, at least not FIVE of them. But as we've said, without a better OOC schedule, that by itself won't be enough. We need a stronger OOC schedule.

(03-23-2014 11:00 AM)The Answer UAB Wrote:  I really don't think you guys are disagreeing at all.

I think if you could manipulate two variables from last season, the one that would've helped us the most would have been to NOT lose to those 5 really bad teams in conference vs having a stronger OOC schedule. If we had beaten those teams, and everything else played out like it did, we would've been in the convo for an at large (probably outside looking in).

I think everyone assumes we aren't going to lose to those crappy teams next year, at least not FIVE of them. But as we've said, without a better OOC schedule, that by itself won't be enough. We need a stronger OOC schedule.

That assumption seems to be correct. Just keep in mind that every one of those "crappy teams" is going to have the best new talent in place for the 2014-2015 season as they can manage - just like UAB will be trying to do. Some will be more successful than others and we hope to be on the plus side of the list as well.

The OOC schedule will be subject to the same variables as the conference schedule with some getting better, some remaining the same and some perhaps declining due to the vagaries of their fortunes. All UAB can even attempt to control is their own fortunes based upon good recruiting amplified by good coaching.