A10 Coaches not happy about ranking

[Sheltiedave]

The key is not just to win the majority of the OOC games, but to get these wins against the best team in lower conferences, AND to not play a team below 150 or so in RPI otherwise.

Keep in mind it doesn't help the conference rpi unless everyone upgrades, including GW. The MVC did this, and their individual RPIs kept climbing when they started the conference play. Everyone in the A10 saw their RPIs fall once league play begin.

Martelli and Chaney were the advocates of playing anyone, anywhere, and Hobbs and Bruno advocated against that. If Hobbs had Chaney's schedule, GW would be battle tested and primed for an Elite 8. Instead, they are a cipher that will get an undeserved lower seed, and maybe wash out early.

[kshoe]

the other day.

What if we played a non-conference schedule of just Valley teams?

It would satisfy all those that feel we should be in the Valley, would provide some non-conference excitement and would be good for the RPI. We would need to win our fair share which would be difficult but not impossible. 6-6 vs. that schedule would be better than the 6-6 we ended up this year.

Probably the biggest problem is the lack of "style diversity" as we'd really only be measuring ourselves against two leagues. Nobody would be able to tell how we measure up agaisnt the BCS guys. Plus, we'd lose the sexy games like NC and Gonzaga.

It'll never happen of course.

[JMM28]

>Some SLU fans may say they don't care or even be happy for

>them but this could cause some significant problems for SLU

>in the future if the A-10 doesn't step it up. The next

>Ahearn won't be lost because we weren't smart enough to take

>him but rather because he wanted to go to the better

>conference. Its one thing to lose Shaw because we were

>out-recruited early or Faulkner because we don't have his

>major but if all things being equal, players start

>preffering the Valley programs then we are in BIG trouble.

That is a very good point. If the MVC gets 5 in, you have to figure theyll win a few games. SIU has made a pretty solid name for itself by making 5 straight NCAAs and getting deep in a few.

I think what I fear more though is some of these MVC players start going to the pros. To many kids who, as bad as this sounds, have no chance of graduating/doing anything else with their lives, going to the pros is going to be a major factor. If these schools start pumping out NBA players, watch out. Factor in the NBA's 19 year old age limit, and maybe a guy like Shaun Livingston stays at home at Bradley for a year, shows he can star on that team, makes a tourney run, maybe sticks around for more than a year to try and win, gasp, an NCAA title. Obviously that is an extreme case, but not too far off.

I can see the Valley keeping this up, especially if coaches like Altman, Lowery, Turgeon, Les, etc. stay around. All have strong ties to those programs.

[slufanskip]

what do you mean "stick with the program" ... there is no program that says all teams under a certain rpi make the tourney. They changed the formula this year and the rpi is still only a part of the equation. IMO they should take into account that their new formula is flawed and realize that between all 6 of the MVC stars there are only a few big wins out of conference.

The rpi has what 6 teams with an rpi under 40 and I think 5 under 30. Is there anyone who really thinks the MVC has 5 of the top 30 teams in the country.

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman

[Cowboy]

if you are saying this is the mvc's year of years vs the a10 AND i disagree that there is always one conf that pulls this trick...because if you look at the trend of mvc vs a10, the mvc is getting more ncaa teams than the a10 for the past two yrs (at least) and certainly this yr

-what other conf has pulled this trick of going from one bid one ncaa game, to multi bid-one game per team, to multi bid-at least one team in sweet 16 recently and could do that this yr??

-imo what the mvc has done is radical enough that it will cause change in the rpi formula from bcs confs

-if you are not saying either of these than this post is worthless like most, if not, all of mine

-also, i am not trying to say we should be in the mvc, i understand the reason for the a10, i think

-the real key to whole deal is getting the teams in the a10 to adopt the mvc scheduling and winning formula, but this is also not a one or two yr project, imo

[davidnark]

in the RPI calculation. That is an enormous spread!

Teams in the valley don't have the budget to schedule half a dozen "buy" games at home, so they are forced to schedule more home-and-home games against mid-major programs. I would make an educated guess that the valley "cracked the code" of the RPI by limiting weak home games during the non-conference schedule.

For example, SIUC played only 1 nonconference home game against a team with an RPI over 150 (Arkansas-Little Rock). Similarly, Wichita State only played 2 nonconference home games against 150+ RPI teams.

By contrast, SLU played 5 nonconference home games against 200+ RPI teams, and GW played a whopping 7 nonconference home games against 200+ RPI teams.

If anyone on Brad's staff is reading this message, take note. Do not schedule home games against 150+ RPI teams.

[Taj79]

.. I'm just blowing smoke with no real research behind it. All I'm saying is that what if the MVC got somewhat lucky, that's all.

Here in Dayton, the local paper is listing some of this stuff and it has the fiv ebiggest MVC wins of the year listed .... No Iowa over Iowa, No Iowa over LSU, Indiana State over Indiana, Creighton over Xavier adn Wichita State over Providence. How many years does NIU beat and LSU or Iowa? In the same year? Same goes for Indiana State over the big boy sin Bloomington. Xavier? Why is that a big win? Maybe its local paper bias, I don't know. And Providence sucked last I checked. I guess beating a bad Big Conference team is good because their RPI goes up based on who they play and that helps you? I don't know and I don't profess to be an expert. I'm just mumbling.

But I feel, contrary to some, that the MVC star will fall almost as quick as its risen. Things tend to be cyclical and I believe that will be the case. No proof. No facts. Just mumbling. I hope they enjoy ... and I hope they post an 0-fer.

Frankly, I dont' think Bradley or Creighton get in right now.

[slufanskip]

3 big wins for the entire conference. Iowa, LSU, and an average Indiana team.

Mo St's biggest noncon opponnent was 45 Arkansas and they lost

N. Iowa had 2 very good wins Iowa and LSU ... but they lost to 84 Iowa St. and had to go to 2 overtimes to beat 51 Bucknell at home.

Wichita St lost to 9 Illinois, 16 Mich St and 29 George Mason. They beat 67 Northwestern St. and 74 Miami of Ohio.

SIU lost to 96 SLU, 156 Monmouth and a Not rated Alaska Anchorage, they beat 60 Kent St and 64 Murray St

Bradley beat 89 DePaul and 53 W. Kentucky. They lost to 79 Butler and 139 Loyola Chicago

Crieghton beat 29 George Mason and 98 Xavier. They lost to 89 DePaul and 172 Chatanooga.

Then they beat each other up in conference. My question is still why did their RPI's go up after beating each other in conference. Except for N. Iowa ... no one else deserved to be ranked higher than 60-100. What is the big deal ... one mediocre team beating another mediocre team. They should be well represented in the NIT's though.

Sorry but there are not 6 teams that deserve to dance, nor or there 5, not even 4, or 3 ... I don't even see how they have more than 1 team in the top 50. If the selection committee takes a real close look at the MVC ... they will see their rpi formula is flawed and the MVC is in trouble. The selection committee's goal should be to put the 34 best at large teams in the tourney. Not the 34 best rpi teams, especially when it is clear the new rpi formula is seriously flawed

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman

[billiken_roy]

we dont have to play all valley games ooc. just instead of any buy games play valley or even top tier horizon or cusa games. that would still leave plenty of room for 2 - 3 top 50 teams if they will play us.

[billiken_roy]

see skip here is where you have flawed thinking the bcs conference teams dont normally play any "big" out of conference teams and win as well. they too are feeding off of their conference wins. let's look at some of the bcs schools that think they deserve these spots instead of the mvc teams.

California played kansas and lost. no one else stands out.

colorado's top ooc games are nc wilmington and penn

texas a & m played auburn and norhtwestern state

florida state played florida and that is pretty much it

seton hall lost to duke by 50 and their next best game was marist

syracuse lost to florida and their next best game was davidson

and if you check, most of the bubble like teams didnt play but one or two name schools as well and most didnt fair well.

just because espn tells us to worship at the big east and acc and big ten idols doesnt mean it is fact. the truth is there isnt a lot of difference once you get by the top 10-15 teams.

[JMM28]

> Sorry but there are not 6 teams that deserve to dance, nor

>or there 5, not even 4, or 3 ... I don't even see how they

>have more than 1 team in the top 50. If the selection

>committee takes a real close look at the MVC ... they will

>see their rpi formula is flawed and the MVC is in trouble.

>The selection committee's goal should be to put the 34 best

>at large teams in the tourney. Not the 34 best rpi teams,

>especially when it is clear the new rpi formula is seriously

>flawed

>

Well, you seem to be this boards version of Digger Phelps. If only 2 or 3 MVC teams get in, the mid major schools might as well stop trying. It is not fair to develop a system, originally developed to benefit the bcs-type schools, and then say it doesn't apply because it didn't put enough big name schools in. It is not like we are talking about teams with 15 wins getting in. These teams have 20 wins. WSU has 23, SIU has 22, UNI has 21, Bradley and SMS have 20. They all have 11+ wins in conference. The Valley should get a minimum of 4 teams. Dickie V, Lunardi, and several others are saying 5. It would set a bad precedent if they get screwed. Like it or not, we are in a conference similar to the MVC, not similar to the BCS.

[Schasz]

Selection Sunday will be very interesting to watch from the standpoint of how closely the committee does follow the RPI. Obviously, the MVC fans hope that they follow it to the letter; however, normally the makeup of the committee is heavily made up of BCS schools. I don't have a copy of the makeup of this year's committee, but it would be surprising to see more than one representative of a mid major conference on it. 3-4 MVC teams would not surprise me, but 5-6 teams would be an upset in my mind and you would definitely see a revamp of the RPI. There have been recent examples of BCS schools getting in the NCAA with higher RPI's and I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't the case this year. Of course, then there are teams like Loyola Maramount that saved an at large bid with the miss of a layup at the buzzer.

[slufanskip]

where the thinking is flawed is not on my end. Colorado and A&M had to play UT, OU and KS in conference which are real top 25 teams. Syracuse had to play the Big East teams.

MVC teams only had to play the other MVC teams in conference which were just as overrated as they were. The MVC has all these top 50 wins and they are all against other MVC teams which had no business being top 50. It inflated their rpi's

Here is an example.

Mo St. SOS 46

Played 54 Wisc Milw (W) and 49 Arkansas (L) out of conference and then played the 6th ranked conference

UT SOS 44

UT played 26 W Virg.(W), 14 Iowa (W), 1 Duke (L), 6 Tenn(L),

4 Memphis (W), 2 Villanova(W). and then the 5th ranked conference.

Now how do they end up with almost identical SOS. It is a joke it is flawed.

Is it tougher to play UT's schedule plus 6 or 7 200-300 ranked teams or Mo States and 10-12 100-220 ranked teams. By far the better schedule is the UT schedule ... when trying to figure out the top 50 schools in the country ... what difference does it make thet you played and beat the #180 or the #280. ... it shouldn't make any difference they should both be easy wins.

Roy you didn't answer my question though ... do you think that 6 of the top 40 teams in the country are in the MVC?

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman

[slufanskip]

i don't care what conference we are in. We also played UNC, Gonz, Iowa, Wisc Milw and SIU out of conference. Why didn't the MVC play a tougher non conference schedule.

IMO the NCAA tourney should try to put the best 34 at large teams in ... Yes the MVC has alot of wins ... based upon beating teams ranked in the 150 range ... so what. I don't buy the no one will play us routine.

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman

[cheeseman]

I have been following this long thread and both sides make good points. One question I have is how did the MVC know when they scheduled these OOC teams a year or 2 out that they would be a 150 RPI team? They could have just as easily fallen to 200 or 250. This makes me wonder if maybe this year was a fluke - time will tell. Also, about the MVC having 70% of their players returning next year, actually it is 66% from what I heard reported - that does not necessarily mean they will be good - look at the Bills last year, we had 60% of our players returned that year and look at our record. That % being reported means nothing if the the returning players are not good.

[slufanskip]

Is that 66% of players or starters. ... If the classes are divide equal and don't lose anyone to grades or transfers ... you should have 75% of your players returning.

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman

[Sheltiedave]

Cheeseman, scheduling and team predictions will normally run in 2.5 year cycles. For a statician, the rise of a given conference would be relatively easy to forecast - it's not exactly a random process.

RPI is driven by strength of schedule, and performance both in OOC games, and in away OOC games, followed by performance in conference games.

If you look at the weak conferences, there are only three teams max that can normally contend for the conference title. Judge the talent appropriately, barring injuries, and you have the conference champ. Schedule them for a home and home, with the away game in their waeker season if possible.

Ditto the mid echelon teams in a BCS league on scheduling.

This scheduling stuff is exactly like playing the stock market. Good performers with talent and good CEOs will perform well over time. The maturity rate is quicker, the performance is talent and coach driven, and the payout is far greater than the investment for the winners.

Sabermetric analysis will really help guide the perceptive ADs and leagues to schedule appropriately. I had to laugh seeing the MVC teams' RPIs rise from the 30s into the 20s during the tournament, BECAUSE OF THEIR GOOD SCHEDULING and WINNING DURING THE SEASON. It is no secret.

[davidnark]

The MVC used a three-year RPI averages to add some meaningful statistics to the RPI guesswork.

See http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2006/03...e5538774717.txt

The conference decided to withhold an annual $50,000 NCAA tournament distribution from programs that did not play a nonconference schedule consisting of opponents with a three-year average RPI of 149 or better.

[cheeseman]

Sheltie - thanks for the explanation but still injuries, academic problems, transfers are things you can not predict about the schools you are playing 2 years out. All it takes is one of these things to happen to a couple of teams you are expecting to be a top 150 and they can quickly drop deep. Your point about the 2.5yrs. cycle indicates that maybe the MVC is going through this and this would be their 2nd year. So the question is - is next year the .5 or 1.5 year of the cycle?

Skip, good point about players or starters - but your math is not realistic. First of all very few teams have an even distribution of schollies given out each year - JUCCOs cause this cycle to be disturbed, redshirting players throws it off, transfers can have the same effect. But lets look at the Bills a year ago - only 2 seniors grad from the previous year's starting line up, Sloan and Fish. Reggie, IO, and AD were all back. So we had 60% of our returning starters back and our year was a disaster. My point is the MVC having 66% of their starters back does not necessarily mean anything as a conference. It could be all the top players are graduating from a few teams or even if just one from each team was the case, it could still spell trouble for the team and conf. I have not done the research so I don't know the answer but the law of avgs. would have to point to some MVC teams not being as good next year.

[Sheltiedave]

Cheeseman, the MVC is in their first full year after starting their half year ascendacy last year. Next year will be their final full year with virtually all the top teams returning 80% of their upperclass starters. The following year will reveal the top programs/coaches vs. the flash in the pans.

I peg the cycle at 2.5 years because most programs do not have their underclass starters locked in to the system until 2nd semester of their sop years. Tommie and Kevin are obviously major exceptions at SLU, while Dwayne, Ian, and Luke are more the norm.

If I am not mistaken, Bradley is one of the flash in the pans.

Also, one or two of the hot young coaching stars(Turgeon, McDermott, or Lowrey,) will jump for big cash to a downtrodden BCS school, as previous hot coaches did.(Ex. Stan Heath to Arkansas, Brian Gregory to Dayton, Bruce Pearl to Tennessee.) It is extremely hard for the young coaches not to get greedy, with programs like Mizzou desperate to change their fortunes, and having a warchest filled with the filthy lucre.

Interesting will be the Karl Hobbs watch at GW, as he was primed to make a major jump before the high school accredidation flap. He has turned a number of ADs off with the new perception that he is running a renegade program.

[StLouBlue]

I just did some quick checking on senior leaders in the MVC.

35 players averaged 9.0 or more points this year. 9 of these were seniors from 7 teams. Bradley (losing 3 players) is the only team losing more than one player.

21 players averaged 5.0 or more rebounds this year. 5 of these were seniors from 4 teams. Again Bradley lost 2, otherwise rest from 1 team each.

24 players averaged 29.0 or more minutes. 7 of these were seniors. Bradley and Northern Iowa each lost 2, rest one team each.

Bradley and Northern Iowa are being hit the hardest as far as graduating seniors. I will also throw in Indiana State becaue they are losing Moss, easily their best player as well. Bradley is returning one of their stars in O'Bryant along with 3 others with starting experience.

Northern Iowa I think will have the hardest time replacing their 3 seniors on a team that really only played 6 players. This is part of the reason I think McDermott might be coaching somewhere else next year. He does have a couple of good reasons to stay with a talented 7'0" coming in along with a solid recruiting class and UNI will be opening their new arena next year. Also both him and his wife along with their families are from Iowa and his wife is fighting breast cancer, which I am sure will play are part of any decision they make.

As I have said before I think the future is very bright for the MVC and while some times might slip a little I also expect some to also be better.