(02-27-2018 11:32 AM)AndShock Wrote:  Would love to see Temple make it over St. Mary’s.

St Mary’s is 0-0 against Q1 in the non-con and 1-1 against Q2 in the non-con.
Temple is 2-2 against Q1 in the non-con and 3-0 against Q2 in the non-con.

I am all for mid-majors getting a fair look but when you’re in a crappy conference and you don’t even try to put together a decent non-con schedule you deserve to be punished.

I think St. Mary’s might be in more trouble than people think if they lose to anyone other than Gonzaga in the conference tournament. They really don’t have a good profile at all.

(02-27-2018 11:43 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:32 AM)AndShock Wrote:  Would love to see Temple make it over St. Mary’s.

St Mary’s is 0-0 against Q1 in the non-con and 1-1 against Q2 in the non-con.
Temple is 2-2 against Q1 in the non-con and 3-0 against Q2 in the non-con.

I am all for mid-majors getting a fair look but when you’re in a crappy conference and you don’t even try to put together a decent non-con schedule you deserve to be punished.

At the moment, St Mary's are shown as a 7 seed in CBS and 10 seed in ESPN. No way Temple jumps them verse an at-large. I am confused why AAC fans think an RPI is the primary factor for teams getting in. It is the COMMITTEE that decides and uses the RPI as a tool. Every year there is a "controversy" of a lower ranked RPI getting in over a higher ranked RPI. It reminds me of the how the Fans used the AP/Coaches Poll as indicators of how the CFP polls would look. It is just not the real world.

Few people think it is your actual RPI number that gets you in. Every person who pays attention knows the RPI is used disproportionately for all the evaluations the committee does to compare teams. (Not just your own RPI but RPI of opponents, record against different groups of RPI opponents)

(02-27-2018 11:32 AM)AndShock Wrote:  Would love to see Temple make it over St. Mary’s.

St Mary’s is 0-0 against Q1 in the non-con and 1-1 against Q2 in the non-con.
Temple is 2-2 against Q1 in the non-con and 3-0 against Q2 in the non-con.

I am all for mid-majors getting a fair look but when you’re in a crappy conference and you don’t even try to put together a decent non-con schedule you deserve to be punished.

Granted that St Mary's schedule is very weak, but that's the same argument folks used to make about WSU.

Have you considered that they almost certainly have the same problems that we used to have about getting quality opponents to even return calls?

(02-27-2018 11:43 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:32 AM)AndShock Wrote:  Would love to see Temple make it over St. Mary’s.

St Mary’s is 0-0 against Q1 in the non-con and 1-1 against Q2 in the non-con.
Temple is 2-2 against Q1 in the non-con and 3-0 against Q2 in the non-con.

I am all for mid-majors getting a fair look but when you’re in a crappy conference and you don’t even try to put together a decent non-con schedule you deserve to be punished.

At the moment, St Mary's are shown as a 7 seed in CBS and 10 seed in ESPN. No way Temple jumps them verse an at-large. I am confused why AAC fans think an RPI is the primary factor for teams getting in. It is the COMMITTEE that decides and uses the RPI as a tool. Every year there is a "controversy" of a lower ranked RPI getting in over a higher ranked RPI. It reminds me of the how the Fans used the AP/Coaches Poll as indicators of how the CFP polls would look. It is just not the real world.

St. Mary's is the 10th from last team in on the bracket matrix and the last team in on the Dance Card. Considering their profile is largely weighted on only having four losses they will drop like a rock if they drop another one. If St Mary's loses in the conference tournament, at the very least Temple and St. Mary's are going to be involved in the same conversation.

(02-27-2018 11:46 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:43 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:32 AM)AndShock Wrote:  Would love to see Temple make it over St. Mary’s.

St Mary’s is 0-0 against Q1 in the non-con and 1-1 against Q2 in the non-con.
Temple is 2-2 against Q1 in the non-con and 3-0 against Q2 in the non-con.

I am all for mid-majors getting a fair look but when you’re in a crappy conference and you don’t even try to put together a decent non-con schedule you deserve to be punished.

At the moment, St Mary's are shown as a 7 seed in CBS and 10 seed in ESPN. No way Temple jumps them verse an at-large. I am confused why AAC fans think an RPI is the primary factor for teams getting in. It is the COMMITTEE that decides and uses the RPI as a tool. Every year there is a "controversy" of a lower ranked RPI getting in over a higher ranked RPI. It reminds me of the how the Fans used the AP/Coaches Poll as indicators of how the CFP polls would look. It is just not the real world.

Few people think it is your actual RPI number that gets you in. Every person who pays attention knows the RPI is used disproportionately for all the evaluations the committee does to compare teams. (Not just your own RPI but RPI of opponents, record against different groups of RPI opponents)

RPI itself is rarely used. It's only used to determine where a team fits in a Quadrant (or if they were a quality win in past years). It's not used at all to directly compare two teams for inclusion

(02-27-2018 11:50 AM)Wheatshock Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:32 AM)AndShock Wrote:  Would love to see Temple make it over St. Mary’s.

St Mary’s is 0-0 against Q1 in the non-con and 1-1 against Q2 in the non-con.
Temple is 2-2 against Q1 in the non-con and 3-0 against Q2 in the non-con.

I am all for mid-majors getting a fair look but when you’re in a crappy conference and you don’t even try to put together a decent non-con schedule you deserve to be punished.

Granted that St Mary's schedule is very weak, but that's the same argument folks used to make about WSU.

Have you considered that they almost certainly have the same problems that we used to have about getting quality opponents to even return calls?

We had 3 Q1 games (vs their 0) and 1 Q2 game with an OoC SoS 100 spots better than theirs. My level of sympathy is low. Regardless of how I feel about it, if our resume was worthy of a 10 seed last year, I don't see how anyone can say St. Mary's is a lock for the NCAA tournament.

(02-27-2018 11:53 AM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:46 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:43 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:32 AM)AndShock Wrote:  Would love to see Temple make it over St. Mary’s.

St Mary’s is 0-0 against Q1 in the non-con and 1-1 against Q2 in the non-con.
Temple is 2-2 against Q1 in the non-con and 3-0 against Q2 in the non-con.

I am all for mid-majors getting a fair look but when you’re in a crappy conference and you don’t even try to put together a decent non-con schedule you deserve to be punished.

At the moment, St Mary's are shown as a 7 seed in CBS and 10 seed in ESPN. No way Temple jumps them verse an at-large. I am confused why AAC fans think an RPI is the primary factor for teams getting in. It is the COMMITTEE that decides and uses the RPI as a tool. Every year there is a "controversy" of a lower ranked RPI getting in over a higher ranked RPI. It reminds me of the how the Fans used the AP/Coaches Poll as indicators of how the CFP polls would look. It is just not the real world.

Few people think it is your actual RPI number that gets you in. Every person who pays attention knows the RPI is used disproportionately for all the evaluations the committee does to compare teams. (Not just your own RPI but RPI of opponents, record against different groups of RPI opponents)

RPI itself is rarely used. It's only used to determine where a team fits in a Quadrant (or if they were a quality win in past years). It's not used at all to directly compare two teams for inclusion

Rarely used I would argue is false as is your limiting how it is used by saying "only" used to determine where a team fits in quadrant. But yea... my last post specifically made the point that RPI of opponents and record against opponents in different RPI groups is a big way it is used. It's also used often to look at SOS and nonconference SOS which the committee likes to factor separately at times. When I'm projecting a bracket (and I nailed every team last year the vast majority within a seed line) I use RPI almost exclusively and mostly focus on record vs. various RPI groups (now done in Q1, Q2) giving small bumps / penalties for things like your actual RPI, SOS, nonconference SOS, road/neutral record, and really strong/weak predictive metrics.

A
Q1: 5-6
Q2: 6-5
Q3 and Q4 losses: 1
SOS: 7

B
Q1: 1-2
Q2: 2-1
Q3 and Q4 losses: 2
SOS: 156

C
Q1: 1-1
Q2: 2-1
Q3 and Q4 losses: 2
SOS: 162

D
Q1: 4-2
Q2: 4-2
Q3 and Q4 losses: 2
SOS: 87

E
Q1: 3-3
Q2: 1-1
Q3 and Q4 losses: 1
SOS: 94

F
Q1: 3-8
Q2: 5-0
Q3 and Q4 losses: 4
SOS: 9

G
Q1: 1-1
Q2: 2-2
Q3 and Q4 losses: 2
SOS: 128

rank 'em

edit: would probably help if I gave them each letters

D
A
E
F
C
B
G

(02-27-2018 12:06 PM)AndShock Wrote:  A
Q1: 5-6
Q2: 6-5
Q3 and Q4 losses: 1
SOS: 7

B
Q1: 1-2
Q2: 2-1
Q3 and Q4 losses: 2
SOS: 156

C
Q1: 1-1
Q2: 2-1
Q3 and Q4 losses: 2
SOS: 162

D
Q1: 4-2
Q2: 4-2
Q3 and Q4 losses: 2
SOS: 87

E
Q1: 3-3
Q2: 1-1
Q3 and Q4 losses: 1
SOS: 94

F
Q1: 3-8
Q2: 5-0
Q3 and Q4 losses: 4
SOS: 9

G
Q1: 1-1
Q2: 2-2
Q3 and Q4 losses: 2
SOS: 128

rank 'em

edit: would probably help if I gave them each letters

D
A
F
E
G
B
C

F and E are really close, B and C are even closer.

Interesting that we already have some disagreement.

I hate these blind resumes without more context. Predictive metrics, who the games were against, etc.

important games to follow for Temple today:
Tennessee at Mississippi St - We want TN
Florida at Bama - Want FL to win
Missouri at Vandy - Want Vandy to win
Akron at Buffalo - Want Akron to win although buffalo probably gets the auto bid anyways
Oklahoma at Baylor - Want OU to win
Davidson at St. Bonnie - Want davidson to win
Boise St at SDSU - want SDSU to win
Kansas St at TCU - Want TCU

(02-27-2018 01:24 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I hate these blind resumes without more context. Predictive metrics, who the games were against, etc.

I would have no objection to the committee seeding the entire tournament according to KenPom. The committee has shown they don’t care about predictive metrics unless they want to use it to justify overseeing a P5 school with a crappy resume. The closer we can get to removing humans from the equation the better, imo. For now we’re stuck with using the committee’s own tools against them to expose their biases.

(02-27-2018 01:28 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 01:24 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I hate these blind resumes without more context. Predictive metrics, who the games were against, etc.

I would have no objection to the committee seeding the entire tournament according to KenPom. The committee has shown they don’t care about predictive metrics unless they want to use it to justify overseeing a P5 school with a crappy resume. The closer we can get to removing humans from the equation the better, imo. For now we’re stuck with using the committee’s own tools against them to expose their biases.

horrible idea for too many reasons to count

(02-27-2018 01:31 PM)Doglando Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 01:28 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 01:24 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I hate these blind resumes without more context. Predictive metrics, who the games were against, etc.

I would have no objection to the committee seeding the entire tournament according to KenPom. The committee has shown they don’t care about predictive metrics unless they want to use it to justify overseeing a P5 school with a crappy resume. The closer we can get to removing humans from the equation the better, imo. For now we’re stuck with using the committee’s own tools against them to expose their biases.

horrible idea for too many reasons to count

I think our current method is a horrible idea too. I prefer the horrible idea that bones my team less.

(02-27-2018 12:02 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:53 AM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:46 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:43 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:32 AM)AndShock Wrote:  Would love to see Temple make it over St. Mary’s.

St Mary’s is 0-0 against Q1 in the non-con and 1-1 against Q2 in the non-con.
Temple is 2-2 against Q1 in the non-con and 3-0 against Q2 in the non-con.

I am all for mid-majors getting a fair look but when you’re in a crappy conference and you don’t even try to put together a decent non-con schedule you deserve to be punished.

At the moment, St Mary's are shown as a 7 seed in CBS and 10 seed in ESPN. No way Temple jumps them verse an at-large. I am confused why AAC fans think an RPI is the primary factor for teams getting in. It is the COMMITTEE that decides and uses the RPI as a tool. Every year there is a "controversy" of a lower ranked RPI getting in over a higher ranked RPI. It reminds me of the how the Fans used the AP/Coaches Poll as indicators of how the CFP polls would look. It is just not the real world.

Few people think it is your actual RPI number that gets you in. Every person who pays attention knows the RPI is used disproportionately for all the evaluations the committee does to compare teams. (Not just your own RPI but RPI of opponents, record against different groups of RPI opponents)

RPI itself is rarely used. It's only used to determine where a team fits in a Quadrant (or if they were a quality win in past years). It's not used at all to directly compare two teams for inclusion

Rarely used I would argue is false as is your limiting how it is used by saying "only" used to determine where a team fits in quadrant. But yea... my last post specifically made the point that RPI of opponents and record against opponents in different RPI groups is a big way it is used. It's also used often to look at SOS and nonconference SOS which the committee likes to factor separately at times. When I'm projecting a bracket (and I nailed every team last year the vast majority within a seed line) I use RPI almost exclusively and mostly focus on record vs. various RPI groups (now done in Q1, Q2) giving small bumps / penalties for things like your actual RPI, SOS, nonconference SOS, road/neutral record, and really strong/weak predictive metrics.

I think we are saying the same thing. By rarely used, I meant the raw number. Very few decisions are made such as Team A has RPI 40 and Team B is 45. Team A is in over Team B due to the better RPI.

Bribe the committee.

(02-26-2018 07:37 PM)pesik Wrote:  they have to beat houston, cincy or wichita atleast once in the tourney imo

that means they win the first and second round of the tourney ...finishing 20-13

they are almost guaranteed to play ecu round one and that wont do anything for them
then they are most likely to play houston..

yeah i think they need 20 wins.

(02-27-2018 01:02 PM)AndShock Wrote:  Interesting that we already have some disagreement.

There always will be. When you get to the last four bids there are usually ten teams with near identical resume's. That's where things like name and conference come in. If one of those close ones is a multi bid conference and the other one upset in the conference tourny it will make a difference. What their conference record is will matter too. If they have a losing conference record and the other team was second place with a 13-3 type record, the second place team should go.