Random Thought That Just Occurred to Me...
by TB on Mar 8, 2009 4:39 PM CDT
Email
PrintThere can be no doubt that the biggest factor pulling down our NCAA Tournament chances right now is our RPI and/or Strength of Schedule, at least from what I've seen. After yesterday's harmful win -- yes, harmful -- against Colorado, our RPI fell from 74 to 77. We are listed on Joe Lunardi's list of "Vegetarians" because of our 12-1 record against the RPI Sub-150. That made me curious, so I checked out the sub-150 teams we've played in non-conference. They are listed below:
Southern Miss (162)
Oregon (168)
Idaho State (198)
Gardner-Webb (217)
Chicago State (237)
Wagner (252)
Centenary (295)
Florida A&M (309)
NCCU (338)
SE Missouri State (339)
Not an impressive list, to be sure. But, from a purely national perception perspective -- in other words, not taking into account the actual quality of the teams, but only looking at how they are seen nationally -- would our schedule have looked any more impressive if we had played the following 10 teams? (Note, I'm not using ESPN's RPI, so I only have 10 sub-150 games)
Belmont (122)
Drexel (128)
Radford (132)
Sam Houston State (135)
Morgan State (136)
Texas A&M -- Corpus Christi (137)
Tennessee-Martin (141)
Southern Illinois (145)
Jacksonville (149)
Kent State (150)
Obviously the answer to my rhetorical question above is "No, the national perception of our schedule would not be any better had we played the latter 10 teams rather than the 10 teams we actually played." We would not have gained any marquee wins by playing those 10 teams. We likely would have had the same record against the latter 10 teams as we did the 10 teams we actually played. The only thing that would have changed would be a numerical ranking that Ken Pomeroy doesn't believe in anymore.
Let's hope the NCAA Tournament Committee has a similar feeling.
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You are mostly correct.
The RPI is depended upon far too often, and is a stat that should only be used to break absolute ties, IMO.
However, the biggest thing that hurts you all, IMO, is not just that you beat up on bad teams. It’s that you didn’t beat a SINGLE good team, and lost to a pretty bad Oregon team.
If you beat up on all of the little guys, then turn around and beat a West Virginia, or something, then that’s one thing. You have one marquee win in the non-con to point to, and to compliment the bevy of solid conference wins (vs. Missouri, @ Texas, etc.).
You guys are close, but unless you make a run to the conference finals, you won’t have piled up enough solid victories.
Your non-conference slate added virtually zero credibility to an at-large profile. It didn’t hurt you much at all, IMO, except for the loss to Oregon (and maybe Iowa, although probably not), but it provided zero benefit. So, you had to storm through Big 12 play making up for lost ground in November and December, which you weren’t quite able to pull off.
That’s just my two cents.
Fair point, but...
…the category isn’t “Marquee Non-Conference Victories,” it’s “Marquee Victories.” We have wins over Texas, Texas A&M, and Missouri. Those are marquee wins, even if they didn’t come in the non-conference.
In the end, we could use a few more big wins. Getting Texas and KU in Oklahoma City next week would give us a chance.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Mar 8, 2009 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions
What the frak?
Thanks for proving once again that rooting for the beakers causes brain damage.
Missouri, Texas and Texas A&M ARE all marquee wins. They’re all going to be in the tournament, and yet you think we haven’t beaten a “single good team?” Unbelievable…
This is coming from a fan of a team whose only “marquee” non-conference wins are over Washington, 4-loss champion of the 5th rated RPI conference, and Tennessee, who will sneak into the tournament on fumes.
KU’s entire resume is built on losing to semi-good to good RPI non-con teams and then blitzing the Big 12. You know, the segment of the schedule where all our good wins came, too?
See, that's the point.
You guys have plenty of solid conference victories. That’s why you are even in the discussion, and if you would’ve beaten Oklahoma State, why you’d currently be “IN” IMO.
All I was saying, is that you don’t have any non-conference victories to ADD to that portfolio, making it weaker overall than most other bubble teams. For example, Oklahoma State. They beat Baylor, Texas A&M, Texas and K-State and @ Nebraska in conference play. About the same as you all, to me. But, they add that with solid, if not great, wins over Rhode Island (who was likely “IN” until blowing it on Saturday by losing at home to Massachusetts), Tulsa and Siena. While this isn’t an awesome non-con resume, it significantly beats yours, IMO, which puts them ahead.
And with the Big 12 Tournament, I still think that you guys could sneak in with a run to the finals. That should (provided Colorado doesn’t beat Texas and we don’t lose to Nebraska/Baylor) give you another two resume victories, which might put you over the top.
As TB said, it’s all about total marquee victories. Right now, you have 3, while other teams have more. They have more because they just beat one-or-two teams in the non-con, while you guys, frankly, beat zero. Cleveland State is pretty good, but that’s it.
I probably wouldn't count...
…Baylor and Nebraska as “marquee” victories. Otherwise, point taken.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Mar 8, 2009 10:59 PM CDT up reply actions
I wouldn't label them that way either...
but they were wins on their schedule and losses on yours.
by hiphopopotamus on Mar 9, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions
Then by the same token...
…we have wins at Texas, at Texas A&M, and at home to Missouri that Okie State cannot claim.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Mar 9, 2009 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions
Very true...
though they can each claim a couple of those wins. I think we’re on the same page.
by hiphopopotamus on Mar 9, 2009 7:06 PM CDT up reply actions
The sad thing is that beating Rhode Island, Tulsa and Siena
Would probably be more impressive, RPI-wise, than beating Kentucky, Iowa and Oregon.
I’m just going to chalk it up to extremely bad scheduling luck. Next year, we will play Washington State, Xavier, Cleveland State, in Puerto Rico and so on, so you’d like to think it will finally stop being a problem.
I just don't think those will be enough
we don’t necessarily need to add top 5 teams to our non-conference schedule, but at least get rid of teams that are consistently above the RPI mark of 150.
And for the love of god, please no more North Carolina Central games. Take them away.
Man do I hate Longhorn fans, well except for the ones that actually went there.
Put me on record as saying the problem is Bad Losses
I don’t think the committee really cares about RPI except as a way to define Good Wins and Bad Losses.
We’re 3-5 against Top 50 RPI teams, and will likely play two more if we can beat Texas and advance to face Kansas.
The problem is losses to Iowa, Oregon, Nebraska and Baylor. Hell, even Kentucky – a team that now seems likely to miss the tournament.
In a normal year, 3 Top 50 wins would be enough for a team that went 9-7 in the Big 12 and accrued 2 of those wins on the road. The problem is that our bad losses are SO bad that they drag us down, and we need to win more Top 50 games than most teams to offset that.
I still think beating UT and KU will do it. I doubt any other bubble team will have 5 Top 50 wins and make it to its conference finals. Maybe one or two others will, but that’s it.
Just for the record.
Northwestern now has 6 Top 50 wins. Six.
And, they have no losses out of the Top 100 (according to KenPom, although I think that Iowa is out of the Top 100 in the RPI…).
But, they won’t make the Tournament, likely even with a run to the conference finals? Why?
They’ve just lost too many games. It isn’t JUST about marquee victories.
We've lost 10 games
I would hope you’re not arguing that 10 losses, 7 of which are in conference play (something that has failed to hold out 11 of 13 previous teams to hit that record and still make the NCAAs), will be our downfall.
As for Northwestern, I assume most of those RPI Top 50 wins are over other Big Ten teams. Somehow, that conference has conspired to incestuously boost its teams in such a way that almost all of them benefit. Along with the Missouri Valley, they appear to have deconstructed the RPI to a tee. Yet another reason to do away with that crappy measurement…
No.
Just saying that you can’t blindly point to Top 50 wins as the only sticking point.
In your case, your Top 50 wins are negated by a combination of your non-conference SOS and, more importantly, the bad losses.
Theirs are destroyed just because they lost far too many games.
Just pointing out that more than one thing, marquee victories, is being considered, here.
Unfortunately...
the national consensus seems to be that A&M is a lock and O-State only needs to win a game at the least in the tournament to lock up what is probably the final Big 12 slot. I think the only way we get in is a deep run in the tournament. A second round win will probably not cut it for us. However, I’m perplexed as to how the “bracketologists” seem to completely dismiss the point that we’re seeded ahead of A&M, Texas, and O-State in the tournament. How do they suppose that happened?
We would be in so much better shape...
…if we had taken fourth in the conference outright at 10-6. Because we tied at 9-7, the national pundits will say “well, they just won a tiebreaker.” That really isn’t fair, but national perception usually isn’t.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Mar 9, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm guessing it's the perceived difference in talent between the two divisions
and the unbalanced schedules that Big XII teams play
Key word there is "perceived"
or ‘assumed’ there’s a difference between the two divisions.
In reality, the north is top heavy producing better overall teams than the south, but the south has more parity. Overall it’s a pretty even conference.
Man do I hate Longhorn fans, well except for the ones that actually went there.
Yes, very much perceived
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Mar 9, 2009 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions
Unbalanced?
The very use of that term is part of the perception problem.
No matter which division you played in, you played two games apiece against divisional foes who collectively went 18-18 against the other division.
Where’s the imbalance?
Considering that every single South coach finished lower in seed order than in preseason predictions, I’d say any imbalance isn’t the overachieving North’s fault.
The perception probably comes from the RPI (which goes back to the whole point of the thread)
OU – 5 KU – 8
OSU – 25 MU – 12
A&M – 28 NU – 68
UT – 35 KSU – 76
BU – 75 ISU – 158
TTU – 127 CU – 229
Perhaps the following phrase is more accurate...?
I’m guessing it’s the perceived difference in talent between the two divisions
and the unbalanced non-conference schedules that Big XII teams play
Hail to the Purple, Hail to the White
Wildcat in spirit, Wildcat in fight
Hail Alma Mater from sea to sea
Onward forever, Hail Victory!
RPI is crazy
The whole argument about marquee victories is ludicrous. Bottom line KSU wont AT TEXAS AND A&M, Okie State beat both of them at home. The only other top 50 RPI win for them is on a neutral court vs Siena. We beat Missouri. Would you rather play Siena or Missouri? They are 3-8 vs top 50, we are 3-5. Thus because they played and lost by double digits to three other top 50 teams skyrockets their RPI into the 20’s, while ours is in the 70’s. RPI is worthless no matter how you argue it. You don’t need a masters in math to know that, but I do have one. BTW, notice the selection committee is likely to take three south teams over KSU who finished above them. Why do we have the tie break?…..for beating the south teams.
Hey, this is good...
…now we have someone on board who can explain all these numbers to us. Welcome aboard, MJK.
At this point, I feel like I’d trade the win over Texas A&M for a win over Oklahoma State. Our case against OSU would be really difficult to argue with if we had managed to win in Stillwater.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
Oklahoma State, Texas, and Texas A&M
all have more victories than you guys over the Top 75.
I just posted a graph showing victories vs. top 75 for the conference schools at RockChalkTalk.
http://www.rockchalktalk.com/2009/3/9/787730/big-12-wins-breakdown
I just got back from your mom's basement.
We know...
…but we’re arguing that the RPI isn’t a good metric for deciding how good teams really are. There are others who back us up on that, namely Ken Pomeroy. I haven’t looked at how many wins each team has against highly rated teams in his rankings, and I don’t have time to do so right at the moment (maybe sometime this afternoon). It’s entirely possible that UT, TAMU and OSU all have more good wins using his metric, too. But the point remains that the RPI is not a reliable indicator of any one team’s overall quality.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
where did you see that???
texas wahoo, where did you see that BU is a 14 seed. i already hate that ksu is skipped but if baylor got in before ksu that would put really up in arms. i dont think right now we should even be talking about ksu being out. they should already be in the big tourney. but they are not, so it gives us time to talk. Lets go, Cats. please show up and beat texas, again and ku would be nice too.
GO CATS!!! Keep playing hard!!!
i think he was refering to the chart
and noticed baylor has more wins against top 50 teams than us and okie state and also tied with aTm. i believe it was a little sarcasm.
Man do I hate Longhorn fans, well except for the ones that actually went there.
Yes
Sorry if that wasn’t clear. It was just a little fun at K State’s expense. I in no way think Baylor should get in over K-State.
To be honest, I think Kansas State has a good claim to an at large bid (comperable to Penn State, etc. – certainly way better than Baylor).
by Texas Wahoo on Mar 11, 2009 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Ah well that chart doesn't help us out either...
but damn Colorado is awful.
Man do I hate Longhorn fans, well except for the ones that actually went there.
The real reason we are left out
I’m sure Catfan33 already knows the answer to the question….money…always money. Ask yourself why two years ago we also finished 4th and beat texas tech by 21 in the tourney and were left out over them. It wasn’t bc they because they beat KU like the analysts said, it bc Bobby Knight brings ratings. If you don’t get texas teams in, that part of the country won’t watch and the networks lose money.
Thanks tb and you could make that trade, but more than likely they would just leave us both out if we’d beat them and lost to A&M. KSU needs to go beat some east coast teams, or at least schedule some to get seen more. Good news, beat Texas and we will be in. Lose to Texas and I will stop arguing lol.
Do you really think it's about the money for the first round or two about the tourney?
That many more people are going to watch Texas than would watch KSU during one of the most watched sporting events every year? If that’s true, then I find it amazing.
by Texas Wahoo on Mar 10, 2009 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions
Texas fans should understand how numbers are faulted
Should OU or Texas have played for the BCS championship? No question Texas because they beat them head to head. Any statistician knows that numbers can be manipulated any way you want, I deal with it every day teaching math. That’s why I think too much emphasis is put on RPI’s, and charts like the above. It’s a good chart by the way, but it doesn’t explain the teams. You have to watch the games and see that, for instance, Nebraska for the last several years has an amazing home record, but never wins on the road. Kudos for beating baylor, but they are not the same team as at the start of the season. I think when you beat teams head to head you deserve the rewards. I think Texas and A&M deserve to go, but if KSU beat both of them on their own floor, there is a solid argument that we should also.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
