Want some optimism? I say the Cats string together some wins, get a favorable seed (hopefully 11) and make a run to the sweet sixteen. Caupain becomes the man of the team, Shaq plays like the Senior he is, and Fard Cobb torments some teams from deep.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

(01-25-2016 07:06 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  man...reading this thread what a bunch of debbie downers

and if I'm calling you that, it's bad

What? 1992 was discussing how good those three wins were, and I supplemented his case by stating that all our other OOC wins were against teams that are much, much worse.

(01-25-2016 08:21 PM)Brian_Johnson Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 07:06 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  man...reading this thread what a bunch of debbie downers

and if I'm calling you that, it's bad

What? 1992 was discussing how good those three wins were, and I supplemented his case by stating that all our other OOC wins were against teams that are much, much worse.

Wasnt referring to you specifically beej....

(01-25-2016 08:12 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Want some optimism? I say the Cats string together some wins, get a favorable seed (hopefully 11) and make a run to the sweet sixteen. Caupain becomes the man of the team, Shaq plays like the Senior he is, and Fard Cobb torments some teams from deep.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Calling your shot....i like it.


Go Cats!!!!

(01-26-2016 10:05 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 08:21 PM)Brian_Johnson Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 07:06 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  man...reading this thread what a bunch of debbie downers

and if I'm calling you that, it's bad

What? 1992 was discussing how good those three wins were, and I supplemented his case by stating that all our other OOC wins were against teams that are much, much worse.

Wasnt referring to you specifically beej....

That's fine. Consider that an admission that I thought my own post seemed a bit negative, and I needed to make some comment defending it

(01-25-2016 04:04 PM)Brian_Johnson Wrote:  About a week ago, I did a quick check on all our OOC wins. Turns out, VCU, GW and NU are the only wins NEARLY any good. I mean, the rest of our OOC wins simply smell very, very, bad.

Isn't Nebraska sub 100 in the RPI?

(01-26-2016 12:42 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 04:04 PM)Brian_Johnson Wrote:  About a week ago, I did a quick check on all our OOC wins. Turns out, VCU, GW and NU are the only wins NEARLY any good. I mean, the rest of our OOC wins simply smell very, very, bad.

Isn't Nebraska sub 100 in the RPI?

GW-32, VCU-53 and Nebraska-153. Not much of a resume.

(01-26-2016 06:59 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 12:42 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 04:04 PM)Brian_Johnson Wrote:  About a week ago, I did a quick check on all our OOC wins. Turns out, VCU, GW and NU are the only wins NEARLY any good. I mean, the rest of our OOC wins simply smell very, very, bad.

Isn't Nebraska sub 100 in the RPI?

GW-32, VCU-53 and Nebraska-153. Not much of a resume.

This blows, I still cant believe we are in this position, with all of the heightened expectations to start the year. I cant even imagine not being in the tourney this year.

(01-26-2016 07:04 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 06:59 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 12:42 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 04:04 PM)Brian_Johnson Wrote:  About a week ago, I did a quick check on all our OOC wins. Turns out, VCU, GW and NU are the only wins NEARLY any good. I mean, the rest of our OOC wins simply smell very, very, bad.

Isn't Nebraska sub 100 in the RPI?

GW-32, VCU-53 and Nebraska-153. Not much of a resume.

This blows, I still cant believe we are in this position, with all of the heightened expectations to start the year. I cant even imagine not being in the tourney this year.

The other league teams we are vying for position: Tulsa-56, UConn-58 and Temple-67.

UC is 32 ( Sagarin )---33 (Kenpom ) and 69 ( RPI ).

Do we get more credit in the Sagrin and Kenpom rankings for the close losses or is it something else? We are significantly higher in Sagrin, Kenpom and ESPN's BPI than our RPI but I'm not sure how to interpret that (esp because our RPI and SOS numbers aren't great).

(01-26-2016 10:15 PM)digibrink Wrote:  Do we get more credit in the Sagrin and Kenpom rankings for the close losses or is it something else? We are significantly higher in Sagrin, Kenpom and ESPN's BPI than our RPI but I'm not sure how to interpret that (esp because our RPI and SOS numbers aren't great).

Rpi is a formula that just isn't very good for ranking teams or their sos. It's no surprise that it is so far off the other rankings.

(01-26-2016 10:20 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 10:15 PM)digibrink Wrote:  Do we get more credit in the Sagrin and Kenpom rankings for the close losses or is it something else? We are significantly higher in Sagrin, Kenpom and ESPN's BPI than our RPI but I'm not sure how to interpret that (esp because our RPI and SOS numbers aren't great).

Rpi is a formula that just isn't very good for ranking teams or their sos. It's no surprise that it is so far off the other rankings.

The problem is that the selection committee primarily uses the RPI. Also, the selection committee is putting stronger than ever emphasis on OOC SOS. Neither of those favor UC at all considering how many teams we played with 300+ RPIs.

(01-26-2016 10:31 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  The problem is that the selection committee primarily uses the RPI. Also, the selection committee is putting stronger than ever emphasis on OOC SOS. Neither of those favor UC at all considering how many teams we played with 300+ RPIs.

Not true. It is one of but it isn't the primary metric any more.

(01-26-2016 11:07 PM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 10:31 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  The problem is that the selection committee primarily uses the RPI. Also, the selection committee is putting stronger than ever emphasis on OOC SOS. Neither of those favor UC at all considering how many teams we played with 300+ RPIs.

Not true. It is one of but it isn't the primary metric any more.

Maybe, but playing all those crappy a$$ games sure as heck did not help us

I am sure that if you have some insight as to how to solve the Rubic's Cube of scheduling, Mick would welcome them.

Remember, you need to fulfill ALL of these needs. You must schedule a designated number of home games..you must find teams that will come to play at the Shoe..you must find teams that will offer us to come into their house, hopefully 1-1...and you must do all of this within a set budget.

Have at it. Mick's direct phone number is listed in the Administration Directory. He is waiting for your call.

(01-26-2016 11:07 PM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 10:31 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  The problem is that the selection committee primarily uses the RPI. Also, the selection committee is putting stronger than ever emphasis on OOC SOS. Neither of those favor UC at all considering how many teams we played with 300+ RPIs.

Not true. It is one of but it isn't the primary metric any more.

Please give us your sources for this. If true, why then does the NCAA have it's own RPI system.

(01-27-2016 09:08 AM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  I am sure that if you have some insight as to how to solve the Rubic's Cube of scheduling, Mick would welcome them.

Remember, you need to fulfill ALL of these needs. You must schedule a designated number of home games..you must find teams that will come to play at the Shoe..you must find teams that will offer us to come into their house, hopefully 1-1...and you must do all of this within a set budget.

Have at it. Mick's direct phone number is listed in the Administration Directory. He is waiting for your call.

I've said this before, two of those +300 games always come with these tourneys we play in. Need to get in the big time early season tourneys ( Puerto Rico, Bahamas, Etc. ).

(01-27-2016 09:08 AM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  I am sure that if you have some insight as to how to solve the Rubic's Cube of scheduling, Mick would welcome them.

Remember, you need to fulfill ALL of these needs. You must schedule a designated number of home games..you must find teams that will come to play at the Shoe..you must find teams that will offer us to come into their house, hopefully 1-1...and you must do all of this within a set budget.

Have at it. Mick's direct phone number is listed in the Administration Directory. He is waiting for your call.

Other teams do a significantly better job of avoiding RPI killers than UC. Go look at Xavier's nonconference SOS... it's textbook RPI manipulation. No team worse that 275... Only 2 teams even in the 200s. 7 teams between RPI 65 and 197.... A couple of those are real, legitimate tests... most of those are games they are extremely likely to win, but are great for the RPI.

Texas Tech is another great example of RPI manipulation. Playing the RPI game hasn't been a priority at UC since Huggs left, which is a shame, because it's such a simple way to just give you a couple seed line advantage come tournament time. RPI ranking isn't the end all be all, but playing the RPI game well can be the difference between an 8 seed and a 6 seed.

RPI is still the primary tool used by the selection committee, though the way they use it your actually number means less than most think. The key is getting wins and having a solid record against the RPI top 50 / RPI top 100 (and a couple of those being wins away from home).

(01-27-2016 09:45 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 09:08 AM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  I am sure that if you have some insight as to how to solve the Rubic's Cube of scheduling, Mick would welcome them.

Remember, you need to fulfill ALL of these needs. You must schedule a designated number of home games..you must find teams that will come to play at the Shoe..you must find teams that will offer us to come into their house, hopefully 1-1...and you must do all of this within a set budget.

Have at it. Mick's direct phone number is listed in the Administration Directory. He is waiting for your call.

Other teams do a significantly better job of avoiding RPI killers than UC. Go look at Xavier's nonconference SOS... it's textbook RPI manipulation. No team worse that 275... Only 2 teams even in the 200s. 7 teams between RPI 65 and 197.... A couple of those are real, legitimate tests... most of those are games they are extremely likely to win, but are great for the RPI.

Texas Tech is another great example of RPI manipulation. Playing the RPI game hasn't been a priority at UC since Huggs left, which is a shame, because it's such a simple way to just give you a couple seed line advantage come tournament time. RPI ranking isn't the end all be all, but playing the RPI game well can be the difference between an 8 seed and a 6 seed.

RPI is still the primary tool used by the selection committee, though the way they use it your actually number means less than most think. The key is getting wins and having a solid record against the RPI top 50 / RPI top 100 (and a couple of those being wins away from home).

We have 0 top 50 away wins and no chances to get any, that's why this game Thurs. is so, so important, at least it's a Top 100 away game.