link

ESPN clearly isn't impressed. I think these sub-300 wins are leaving people with a bad taste in their mouths. I think to get a top 4 seed, we will need to win the conference.

I think we would beat half of the teams on that list on a neutral floor.

Until we stop playing these crappy OOC games, we're not going to get any respect from the committee playing in the G5.

I cant really blame them. We have played a bad schedule (based on SOS...last I saw purs was over 200) and we have lost to two of the best four teams we have played.

I think its time UC start a new capitol campaign (similar to the $18.19 one a few years ago). This time, they should earmark the revenue for men's basketball scheduling.

Only played one team on the list, and got our brains knocked out. To be ranked, you have to beat ranked teams.

(12-26-2017 01:14 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I cant really blame them. We have played a bad schedule (based on SOS...last I saw purs was over 200) and we have lost to two of the best four teams we have played.

I certainly agree with that. Isn't the ESPN Power Ranking really just one man's opinion though? As I recall, he's never been very high on the 'Cats while showing a lot of love for the bunch in Norwood. Right now, his love for X is justified by their record. But it's a long season.

Weren't we ranked higher on ESPN's power rankings than the national polls had us early in the season? Odd to see such a drastic swing, but it's not something I'm sweating either way. As others have mentioned, we have zero top 25 wins and a trail of cupcakes in our wake. I don't think the committee puts a ton of weight on polls anyway. If we want a top 4 seed this year, we need to win the AAC. It's going to take 3 wins over Wichita and SMU to get the numbers we need to get the protected seed.

Polls are mostly irrelevant, but power rankings are especially so. UC just needs to rack up top 50/100 wins in conference play. They'll get plenty of chances. UC's computer numbers are strong which tells me they can compete with anyone. Now they just need to put together a high seed caliber resume. Haven't done that yet, but power rankings don't reflect what the committee will do in March.

I was about to post something about how we could afford a much better schedule if we paid Mick a more reasonable (smaller) salary, but then I realized this:

Mick is the #21 paid coach in NCAA basketball. We are currently ranked #21. By looking solely at AP rankings, he is earning his salary.

(12-26-2017 05:33 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Polls are mostly irrelevant, but power rankings are especially so. UC just needs to rack up top 50/100 wins in conference play. They'll get plenty of chances. UC's computer numbers are strong which tells me they can compete with anyone. Now they just need to put together a high seed caliber resume. Haven't done that yet, but power rankings don't reflect what the committee will do in March.

At this point in the season I look at two numbers for UC are Kenpom and nonconference SOS. Everything else isn't close to an accurate representation.

The other number that I think matters a little bit at this point is conference RPI and overall conference ranking. Right now the American is clearly a top 7 conference and closer to the PAC-12 than the Mountain West, Missouri Valley, A-10, or WCC. The reason this is important is that committees has used the conference's ranking to determine how they want to seed a team. Right now the I can easily see the American's champion earning a 4 seed if they finish 15-3 or better, assuming that champion is Wichita State, Cincinnati, or SMU. The second and third place finishers look like they will earn in the 5 to 7 seed range. The chances to earn a fourth or fifth bid are decent if a team can get to 12 conference wins.

A couple thoughts, the American has never earned better than a 4 seed; however, the year SMU was on probation would have been interesting to see where they would have landed 25-5 (14 RPI, Kenpom 16) 9-5 against the top 100. I believe that resume would have been a 4 seed. The year UConn won the national title the entire league was underrated by the committee because the bottom was so bad but UC probably did deserve a five seed based on the numbers.

(12-26-2017 02:33 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  Only played one team on the list, and got our brains knocked out. To be ranked, you have to beat ranked teams.

Spot on with that Lurker... If your schedule consists of a limited amount of good teams, you have to win them, or at a very minimum, show a hint of respectability.

(12-26-2017 08:24 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 05:33 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Polls are mostly irrelevant, but power rankings are especially so. UC just needs to rack up top 50/100 wins in conference play. They'll get plenty of chances. UC's computer numbers are strong which tells me they can compete with anyone. Now they just need to put together a high seed caliber resume. Haven't done that yet, but power rankings don't reflect what the committee will do in March.

At this point in the season I look at two numbers for UC are Kenpom and nonconference SOS. Everything else isn't close to an accurate representation.

The other number that I think matters a little bit at this point is conference RPI and overall conference ranking. Right now the American is clearly a top 7 conference and closer to the PAC-12 than the Mountain West, Missouri Valley, A-10, or WCC. The reason this is important is that committees has used the conference's ranking to determine how they want to seed a team. Right now the I can easily see the American's champion earning a 4 seed if they finish 15-3 or better, assuming that champion is Wichita State, Cincinnati, or SMU. The second and third place finishers look like they will earn in the 5 to 7 seed range. The chances to earn a fourth or fifth bid are decent if a team can get to 12 conference wins.

A couple thoughts, the American has never earned better than a 4 seed; however, the year SMU was on probation would have been interesting to see where they would have landed 25-5 (14 RPI, Kenpom 16) 9-5 against the top 100. I believe that resume would have been a 4 seed. The year UConn won the national title the entire league was underrated by the committee because the bottom was so bad but UC probably did deserve a five seed based on the numbers.

You are going to go with Kenpom and non conf. SOS. Kenpom has UC at 10th in Adjusted Efficiency Margin yet has UC 324th in Non Conf. Adjusted Efficiency Margin (OR NON conf. SOS). Yea, I don't think that works, try again.

(12-27-2017 07:05 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  You are going to go with Kenpom and non conf. SOS. Kenpom has UC at 10th in Adjusted Efficiency Margin yet has UC 324th in Non Conf. Adjusted Efficiency Margin (OR NON conf. SOS). Yea, I don't think that works, try again.

I don't think you understand his point. His point isn't that both those things will tell you how good a team is. The reason it makes sense to look at nonconference SOS right now is most teams are basically done with their nonconference schedule and the committee will look at it come tournament time. UC's nonconference SOS will absolutely hurt them with the committee this year. That does not mean they can't get a good seed or overcome it with enough big wins in conference, but when you're trying to figure out what needs to happen for the purpose of seeding it's incredibly relevant and at this point is something you can pay attention to. My guess is UC loses a seedline due to their nonconference SOS.

You look at kenpom/sagarin and other computer numbers because you're trying to figure out what they can do the rest of the year to make the tournament / earn a beneficial seed. Those are good measures of team quality and will give you an idea of how you match up. The rest of the polls are pretty much noise right now. They'll change a ton based on whims of pollsters and results any given week. If a pollster watched a team look great one week you may see them jump. The human polls don't tell you that much relevant information from week to week. And the committee largely ignores them when they make the bracket.

Well this week our friend at the ESPN Power Rankings was gracious enough to include UC...@ #25. And he's almost apologetic about it. I could really care less as long as the 'Cats keep winning in January.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...no-1-while

(01-01-2018 05:09 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  Well this week our friend at the ESPN Power Rankings was gracious enough to include UC...@ #25. And he's almost apologetic about it. I could really care less as long as the 'Cats keep winning in January.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...no-1-while

I'm sure many here won't care about that stuff, but I believe Fickell is a breath of fresh air into the underdog mentality around here:

"If they're keeping score, we want to win."

(01-01-2018 06:26 PM)TubaCat Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:09 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  Well this week our friend at the ESPN Power Rankings was gracious enough to include UC...@ #25. And he's almost apologetic about it. I could really care less as long as the 'Cats keep winning in January.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...no-1-while

I'm sure many here won't care about that stuff, but I believe Fickell is a breath of fresh air into the underdog mentality around here:

"If they're keeping score, we want to win."

+1.