(03-26-2015 12:44 PM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 07:44 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  My point was that it's just too hard to compare using older then 2 years of data in the college basketball world. As the other poster posted, adding the fact that some old BE data is included makes it that much more difficult to calculate with any real meaning.

I guess we just have to disagree on this one. If you are trying to predict the order of finish of the AAC for 2015-2016, maybe 2 years gives you a better picture, but if you are trying to guess a programs finishes for years to come, the longer history the better.

An example would be Illinois. If you look at their history from 1981-2015 you see a team that made the NCAA tournament 25 times in 35 years. Your guess going forward would be a team that will make the tournament more often than not. If you look at the last 2 seasons, you see a team that did not make the NCAA tournament either year. The only guess you could really make based on that is that Illinois is a team that won't make the tournament very often.

If you're only trying to guess if they make the tournament in the 2015-16 season then the last 2 seasons may be an accurate predictor, but if you are trying to estimate their success over the next decade then I don't think it is.

(03-26-2015 07:44 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  As the other poster posted, adding the fact that some old BE data is included makes it that much more difficult to calculate with any real meaning.

This was my thought too when putting this data together, but it doesn't hold up. At least not across the board.

Cincinnati in year one of the AAC with Louisville and co. still around had an RPI of 21. This past year in the AAC in the form it appears it will have for the foreseeable future, they had an RPI of 37.

In 3 of their last 4 years in the Big East they had worse RPIs of 43, 50, and 65. Their best year in the last 4 years of the Big East their RPI was 36. One spot better than their RPI this year in the AAC with the dregs of Tulane, ECU, Houston, UCF.

Here are Cincinnati's tournament seeds over their last 4 conferences.

GMWC
1992 #4
1993 #2
1994 #8
1995 #7
Avg: 5.25
Missed Tournament: 0 times

C-USA
1996 #2
1997 #3
1998 #2
1999 #3
2000 #2
2001 #5
2002 #1
2003 #8
2004 #4
2005 #7
Avg: 3.7
Missed Tournament: 0 times

Big East:
2011 #6
2012 #6
2013 #10
Avg: 7.3
Missed Tournament: 5 times

AAC
2014 #5
2015 #8
Avg: 6.5
Missed Tournament: 0 times

Furthermore, in the AAC, C-USA, and GMWC the Bearcats were ranked 10 out of 16 years in the AP Pre Season Poll and 12 out of 17 years in the final AP Poll. In 15 out of 16 seasons they were ranked in the AP Poll at some point during the season. In 7 years in the Big East they were ranked in the Pre Season AP Poll twice, never finished a season ranked in the AP Poll, and were ranked at some point during the season in 4 years.

So the idea that a team like Cincinnati can't replicate it success in terms of RPI, Rankings, or Tournament seeding outside of the Big East simply doesn't hold up.

(03-26-2015 07:44 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  The real problem is one where if the bottom of the conference doesn't pick it up, both in scheduling OOC and overall wins, the 2014-15 season will become closer to the norm.

I don't disagree, but again, this is where history shows reason for optimism. Obviously we may still be on opposite sides of how far back you look being relevant. In that case I see no reason for you to expect things to get better for UCF, ECU and USF.

RPIs from past 2 seasons:
UCF: 256, 218
ECU: 220, 227
USF: 273, 230

If, like me, you agree that given a long enough period of time teams will return to their average, then you can expect significant improvement from all 3. Not necessarily next season but in the near future. In the cases of UCF and USF who posted their worst RPI marks in the 2014-15 season you can almost guarantee some level of improvement immediately.

Avg RPI over past 6 seasons:
UCF: 148
ECU: 174
USF: 156

Lots of stuff in your post, of which I will not respond individually. In looking at Cincinnati, if put blindly replace Cincy's resume(s) with Temples or perhaps other AAC team, the missed tournament will increase simply because of perception alone.

Let's face it, college sports is all about perception and more importantly (TV) money. If CBS says they want Cincy, they get Cincy, all things being equal. If they don't push for Temple, then Temple is left out on an island and gets snubbed.

Addressing your RPI portion of your post, that becomes more difficult.

In today's game, you don't win without a superstar guard. UCONN was lucky enough to keep replacing great guards with other great guards. Hence they stayed on top.

Additional, coaching has a huge affect on team's successes or failures. Look at Temple in football for example. They were beginning to build a nice program under Al Golden. He left and the program has been scrambling to get back to that point ever since. It happens in basketball too.

Considering these points, how can one predict the unknown future with unknown facts, albeit steady coaching.

(03-26-2015 10:37 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  I don't think we have to worry about Temple's scheduling.

Temple deserved to be in, and that was on display last night as they played their way into the Final 4 NIT.

That said, Temple was a tale of two teams this year. The team on the floor before the transfers arrived... and after.

To talk about "building your profile" without taking into account what the Owls did when they were whole, is missing the mark.

How many teams in the country could have gutted Kansas like that? I highly doubt that number is in the 60s. The committee just blew it, plain and simple. In contrast, UCLA "passed an eye test" in a loss to Arizona.

Swing and a miss.

(03-26-2015 10:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Temple scheduled fine. They just needed to win one or two more key games. Its the bottom that needs to upgrade their schedules. They don't need top 10 schedules at the bottom--but an SOS nearing or exceeding 300 is ridiculous. The AAC needs to set a standard for basketball scheduling and make the schools get their intended schedule league approved prior to setting the dates. Schedules in the 150-200 are easy to structure. It will cost the bottom some wins, but the tougher schedule will better prepare the bottom to play quality league basketball (leading to more in conference wins) and it will prevent the bottom from being a complete albatross to the RPI's of schools with a legit chance at an NCAA bid.

Strike 2

(03-26-2015 10:44 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  Like playing 3 teams that finished in the top 5 RPI ratings OOC? That's what Temple did. Not many teams in the nation can match that. Beside that, they are committed to 4 games as part of the Big 5 every year.

It's the weakness of the conference, particularly the bottom half that did Temple in.

Strike three, yer out.

Love the hive mentality while completely missing the point of my post. I have stated multiple times that Temple deserved to get in, and that post has NOTHING to do with their OOC scheduling, nor did my point at all.

I said Temple and Tulsa needed to have better resumes in OOC work in order to get an at large. I'm trying to tell you what the committee thinks, not what I think. Temple absolutely deserved the consideration of their performance with all hands on deck, but the committee is the one who decides.

I'm trying to say the committee doesn't respect the AAC for whatever reason, and to balance that teams need to do serious work OOC. Why do you think UC had so much cushion despite going 13-5 in conference? Why do you think Tulsa wasn't really too close to the final bubble despite going 14-4? It's because of the OOC resume. Temple and Tulsa's scheduling is mostly fine (exception being the D2 school for Tulsa). Now I'm talking about building a tournament resume in November and December.

I think this illustrates stx's point.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketba...emple-owls

OOC opponents sorted by RPI
Wins------------------------------Losses
3 - Kansas------------------------2 - Villanova
58 - LA Tech----------------------6 - Duke
101 - La Salle--------------------114 - UNLV
136 - American-------------------178 - St Joes
205 - Del State
253 - Delaware
255 - LIU Brooklyn
262 - Penn
281 - Towson

Aside from beating Kansas this OOC resume really isn't that impressive. I mean, the next best win is LA Tech which is a CUSA NIT team. Also, of note Temple lost to SMU three times, split with Cincy and to Tulsa twice. Tulsa's OOC resume is even worse. Combine that OOC with playing the dregs of the AAC 7 or 8 times and you should get the picture.

And yes, ECU sucks.

(03-26-2015 01:25 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I think this illustrates stx's point.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketba...emple-owls

OOC opponents sorted by RPI
Wins------------------------------Losses
3 - Kansas------------------------2 - Villanova
58 - LA Tech----------------------6 - Duke
101 - La Salle--------------------114 - UNLV
136 - American-------------------178 - St Joes
205 - Del State
253 - Delaware
255 - LIU Brooklyn
262 - Penn
281 - Towson

Aside from beating Kansas this OOC resume really isn't that impressive. I mean, the next best win is LA Tech which is a CUSA NIT team. Also, of note Temple lost to SMU three times, split with Cincy and to Tulsa twice. Tulsa's OOC resume is even worse. Combine that OOC with playing the dregs of the AAC 7 or 8 times and you should get the picture.

And yes, ECU sucks.

Exactly. Temple scheduled well, but they only beat one tournament team in the non conference, and 2 for the entire season. We all know Temple should have been in the tournament, but another quality win is really what they needed. That said, UCLA also only had 2 quality wins, so I do think Temple got screwed. But when you're playing in a weak conference (which is what we were this season) and you don't have a big name, you have to do a little more. It's not fair and I think it stinks, but that's the situation right now.

(03-26-2015 01:25 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Aside from beating Kansas this OOC resume really isn't that impressive.

In a million years, you can't set aside the Kansas OOC victory. It's a signature win.
You only "set it aside" if you have reason to suspect it was a fluke. That game was dominated by Temple.
Not only that, but anyone who followed the team after the transfers became eligible knows that it was another story during the second half of the season.
Not taking into account the change in the personnel across the spectrum on the resume is flawed analysis of the record.
There is a reason for the media backlash of Temple being left out.

(03-26-2015 12:44 PM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  I don't disagree, but again, this is where history shows reason for optimism. Obviously we may still be on opposite sides of how far back you look being relevant. In that case I see no reason for you to expect things to get better for UCF, ECU and USF.

RPIs from past 2 seasons:
UCF: 256, 218
ECU: 220, 227
USF: 273, 230

If, like me, you agree that given a long enough period of time teams will return to their average, then you can expect significant improvement from all 3. Not necessarily next season but in the near future. In the cases of UCF and USF who posted their worst RPI marks in the 2014-15 season you can almost guarantee some level of improvement immediately.

Avg RPI over past 6 seasons:
UCF: 148
ECU: 174
USF: 156

Sometimes I wonder (maybe others do as well) is do you even pay attention to what you even write in your long diatribes?

Anyone that has followed UCF even remotely realizes that they have suffered greatly over the last 2-3 years do to probation/recruiting/scholarship sanctions...but PRIOR to the probation years, UCF had a somewhat respectable RPI for being in a normal 1 bid league without much history/tradition to go on.

UCF RPI's in other years:
2012-2013: 103 RPI
2011-2012: 54
2010-2011: 69

When at full strength and obviously not on probation and dealing with sanctions, it seems UCF could become a pretty good respectable hoop program once again...and while it might take 2-3 years to get back there...I think because UCF has done it before, they can easily do it again, once back at full strength.

(03-26-2015 02:14 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 01:25 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Aside from beating Kansas this OOC resume really isn't that impressive.

In a million years, you can't set aside the Kansas OOC victory. It's a signature win.
You only "set it aside" if you have reason to suspect it was a fluke. That game was dominated by Temple.

Sure you can set it aside. It stands out like a sore thumb. The problem is there's no other big wins on Temple's OOC worth noting.

(03-26-2015 02:24 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 02:14 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 01:25 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Aside from beating Kansas this OOC resume really isn't that impressive.

In a million years, you can't set aside the Kansas OOC victory. It's a signature win.
You only "set it aside" if you have reason to suspect it was a fluke. That game was dominated by Temple.

Sure you can set it aside. It stands out like a sore thumb. The problem is there's no other big wins on Temple's OOC worth noting.

It only "stands out like a sore thumb" because Kansas is a blueblood program.

There aren't many of those around.

So, when one gets dominated from start to finish, it's not treated as an anomaly because that happens sooooooooo rarely. Hell, UCLA played Arizona tough in a loss, and that was credited with getting them in the dance.

Ok, but what about the rest if the ooc?

(03-26-2015 02:32 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Ok, but what about the rest if the ooc?

Have you not been following this thread?

As many in the media have pointed out in their analysis, Temple was a different team once the transfers became eligible.

(03-26-2015 02:35 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 02:32 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Ok, but what about the rest if the ooc?

Have you not been following this thread?

As many in the media have pointed out in their analysis, Temple was a different team once the transfers became eligible.

You are ignoring the real argument in some AAC hero attempt to show Temple's worth, except no one is disagreeing with you.

The committee looked at the Kansas win and said 'fluke, they have nothing to back that up'. The rest of the country (evidenced by the backlash) saw that win and said 'tournament team'.

Again, the committee, who I disagree with, was able to justify Temple out in their own minds. What I was saying is, you can't even let them have the chance to justify it. Do more than you think is required. It's not Temple's fault, but it is still a reality because the committee gets the say and not you, me, or the country/bracketologist consensus.

(03-26-2015 02:24 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 12:44 PM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  I don't disagree, but again, this is where history shows reason for optimism. Obviously we may still be on opposite sides of how far back you look being relevant. In that case I see no reason for you to expect things to get better for UCF, ECU and USF.

RPIs from past 2 seasons:
UCF: 256, 218
ECU: 220, 227
USF: 273, 230

If, like me, you agree that given a long enough period of time teams will return to their average, then you can expect significant improvement from all 3. Not necessarily next season but in the near future. In the cases of UCF and USF who posted their worst RPI marks in the 2014-15 season you can almost guarantee some level of improvement immediately.

Avg RPI over past 6 seasons:
UCF: 148
ECU: 174
USF: 156

Sometimes I wonder (maybe others do as well) is do you even pay attention to what you even write in your long diatribes?

Anyone that has followed UCF even remotely realizes that they have suffered greatly over the last 2-3 years do to probation/recruiting/scholarship sanctions...but PRIOR to the probation years, UCF had a somewhat respectable RPI for being in a normal 1 bid league without much history/tradition to go on.

UCF RPI's in other years:
2012-2013: 103 RPI
2011-2012: 54
2010-2011: 69

When at full strength and obviously not on probation and dealing with sanctions, it seems UCF could become a pretty good respectable hoop program once again...and while it might take 2-3 years to get back there...I think because UCF has done it before, they can easily do it again, once back at full strength.

I get pretty long winded and don't blame people if they don't want to read the whole thing, but I like backing up my opinions. With that said, don't reply if you don't bother reading. UCF's sanctions were mentioned in the very first post. Also that is your average over the last 6 years. I don't know what you want me to do about that. Seeing as your RPI's from 2013/14 and 2014/15 were listed (256 and 218) and your average over the last 6 years was listed (156) you would have to deduce that the other 4 years were much better. Also in the first post I showed best and worst RPIs for each team and listed UCF's 2011-12 RPI of 54.

I don't know what you are mad about. The fact that I said this was a down year for UCF? The exception and not the rule? That UCF will likely be much improved in the near future and their average season is way better than the one they just had?

From original post:

(03-25-2015 08:39 PM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  Best and Worst RPIs from 2009/10 - 2014/15:
UCF: 54 (2011-12) / 256 (2014-15)

Sanctions at UCF going away could help

(03-26-2015 03:49 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 02:35 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 02:32 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Ok, but what about the rest if the ooc?

Have you not been following this thread?

As many in the media have pointed out in their analysis, Temple was a different team once the transfers became eligible.

You are ignoring the real argument in some AAC hero attempt to show Temple's worth, except no one is disagreeing with you.

The committee looked at the Kansas win and said 'fluke, they have nothing to back that up'. The rest of the country (evidenced by the backlash) saw that win and said 'tournament team'.

Again, the committee, who I disagree with, was able to justify Temple out in their own minds. What I was saying is, you can't even let them have the chance to justify it. Do more than you think is required. It's not Temple's fault, but it is still a reality because the committee gets the say and not you, me, or the country/bracketologist consensus.

Trust me, it's not a hero attempt. I know what you're saying. However, I think its such a great stretch to say that Temple would lose to teams like St. Joes (a game decided by 2) and UNLV (a game decided by 7) with Jaylen Bond, Jesse Morgan and Devin Coleman, eligible.

Short of having them start from the beginning of the season, there is no way that Temple team - who is going to NY (for the NIT) - could have done much more to show their wares for the committee. Temple's only losses in conference came to SMU, Tulsa, and UC (all good teams). Temple beat UConn and Memphis both times they played, home/away.

Here are the RPIs of all AAC teams from the 2009-10 season to the 2014-15 season before anyone else gets pissy.

(03-26-2015 01:02 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 10:44 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  Like playing 3 teams that finished in the top 5 RPI ratings OOC? That's what Temple did. Not many teams in the nation can match that. Beside that, they are committed to 4 games as part of the Big 5 every year.

It's the weakness of the conference, particularly the bottom half that did Temple in.

Strike three, yer out.

Love the hive mentality while completely missing the point of my post. I have stated multiple times that Temple deserved to get in, and that post has NOTHING to do with their OOC scheduling, nor did my point at all.

I said Temple and Tulsa needed to have better resumes in OOC work in order to get an at large. I'm trying to tell you what the committee thinks, not what I think. Temple absolutely deserved the consideration of their performance with all hands on deck, but the committee is the one who decides.

I'm trying to say the committee doesn't respect the AAC for whatever reason, and to balance that teams need to do serious work OOC. Why do you think UC had so much cushion despite going 13-5 in conference? Why do you think Tulsa wasn't really too close to the final bubble despite going 14-4? It's because of the OOC resume. Temple and Tulsa's scheduling is mostly fine (exception being the D2 school for Tulsa). Now I'm talking about building a tournament resume in November and December.

Perhaps we're talking apples and oranges. My reply wasn't to you at all, it was to EastPurple. Therefore your answer makes no sense when considering the context of my reply to someone else.

the AAC sucked this year

SMU, UC carried the league

Temple and Tulsa were game

everyone else sucked balls

(03-26-2015 08:43 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 01:02 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 10:44 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  Like playing 3 teams that finished in the top 5 RPI ratings OOC? That's what Temple did. Not many teams in the nation can match that. Beside that, they are committed to 4 games as part of the Big 5 every year.

It's the weakness of the conference, particularly the bottom half that did Temple in.

Strike three, yer out.

Love the hive mentality while completely missing the point of my post. I have stated multiple times that Temple deserved to get in, and that post has NOTHING to do with their OOC scheduling, nor did my point at all.

I said Temple and Tulsa needed to have better resumes in OOC work in order to get an at large. I'm trying to tell you what the committee thinks, not what I think. Temple absolutely deserved the consideration of their performance with all hands on deck, but the committee is the one who decides.

I'm trying to say the committee doesn't respect the AAC for whatever reason, and to balance that teams need to do serious work OOC. Why do you think UC had so much cushion despite going 13-5 in conference? Why do you think Tulsa wasn't really too close to the final bubble despite going 14-4? It's because of the OOC resume. Temple and Tulsa's scheduling is mostly fine (exception being the D2 school for Tulsa). Now I'm talking about building a tournament resume in November and December.

Perhaps we're talking apples and oranges. My reply wasn't to you at all, it was to EastPurple. Therefore your answer makes no sense when considering the context of my reply to someone else.

Fair enough, I just assumed you were replying to me since you quoted me, clearly accidentally.

I thought it was funny three straight period apparently quoted me while missing my point, hence the sharp sarcastic response.

Over the top? Sure. But what else are message boards for?

(03-26-2015 08:48 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  the AAC sucked this year

SMU, UC carried the league

Temple and Tulsa were game

everyone else sucked balls

We got it. Do you have to post this in every thread?

Also Cincinnati split with 4 of those 7 ball sucking teams.

(03-26-2015 04:37 PM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 02:24 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 12:44 PM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  I don't disagree, but again, this is where history shows reason for optimism. Obviously we may still be on opposite sides of how far back you look being relevant. In that case I see no reason for you to expect things to get better for UCF, ECU and USF.

RPIs from past 2 seasons:
UCF: 256, 218
ECU: 220, 227
USF: 273, 230

If, like me, you agree that given a long enough period of time teams will return to their average, then you can expect significant improvement from all 3. Not necessarily next season but in the near future. In the cases of UCF and USF who posted their worst RPI marks in the 2014-15 season you can almost guarantee some level of improvement immediately.

Avg RPI over past 6 seasons:
UCF: 148
ECU: 174
USF: 156

Sometimes I wonder (maybe others do as well) is do you even pay attention to what you even write in your long diatribes?

Anyone that has followed UCF even remotely realizes that they have suffered greatly over the last 2-3 years do to probation/recruiting/scholarship sanctions...but PRIOR to the probation years, UCF had a somewhat respectable RPI for being in a normal 1 bid league without much history/tradition to go on.

UCF RPI's in other years:
2012-2013: 103 RPI
2011-2012: 54
2010-2011: 69

When at full strength and obviously not on probation and dealing with sanctions, it seems UCF could become a pretty good respectable hoop program once again...and while it might take 2-3 years to get back there...I think because UCF has done it before, they can easily do it again, once back at full strength.

I get pretty long winded and don't blame people if they don't want to read the whole thing, but I like backing up my opinions.

[/quote]

That's find and dandy...but maybe next time, don't write about things you don't know about (i.e. like UCF's recent past...when they averaged a pretty decent RPI of 75 from 2010-2013), yet you say there is no reason to expect UCF to get better (from their current probationary/recruiting/scholarship sanction state).

Maybe UCF fans should stop bitching about self inflicted wounds. It's funny how clowns like KnightLight keep referencing "decent RPI's" when that's the era that they've been punished for... smh.