2016-17 Bracketology

Talk about the men's team, upcoming opponents and news from around college hoop.
User avatar
rhodyrudder
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 1817
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1033

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rhodyrudder »

Fine, don't look at 7 in a row.
But look at this year's teams, honestly.
We would not beat them 7 or 8 out of 10.
It would be the exact opposite, or worse.
The Rams don't beat good teams. (Hardly) Ever.
The Friars do.
We would blow game after game, and then fail to
show up for two or three of them.
They deserve NCAA bubble talk.
We do not.
Maybe we would pull one or two out at most.
Not 7. No chance.
0 x
User avatar
TruePoint
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13851
Joined: 11 years ago
x 11427

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by TruePoint »

Ha your (understandable) frustration is making you say insane things.
1 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
josephski
Tom Garrick
Posts: 1085
Joined: 9 years ago
x 440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by josephski »

ATPTourFan wrote:TP was talking about this year's teams relative strength. The previous annual game outcomes are not relevant.
I'd say our last two home games against PC are fairly relevant. PC was able to take advantage of playing at home this year even though we were the better team on paper. Three years ago when we were home PC was the better team but we kept the game close and missed a shot at the buzzer to lose by 1. Last year similar situation, we kept the game close, even had a lead at half time but lost on a buzzer beater to lose by 2. Cooley finds ways to win and Hurley finds ways to lose, that's been the difference between the two programs.
0 x
UCH21377
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 1591
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1001

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by UCH21377 »

The guys are stepping in for Rambone as he takes his FL vacation
2 x
UCH21377
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 1591
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1001

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by UCH21377 »

That being said I think PC is better than we may think. Cooley has them playing at a much higher level now. Cartright has really stepped up.
0 x
eli#10
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 2038
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1000

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by eli#10 »

PC beat Xavier who played without their 2 best players. They then beat Creighton who played without their 1st team all Big East point guard who torched the Friars in their 1st game at the Dunk. Creighton wound up playing an inexperienced freshman point guard who was invisible the entire game.
2 x
User avatar
rhodyrudder
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 1817
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1033

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rhodyrudder »

TruePoint wrote:Ha your (understandable) frustration is making you say insane things.
What's insane is that you keep thinking this team is good.
That they might win against good teams more than once a year.
I saw them personally lose to Richmond, Fordham and LaSalle.
Top 25 NCAA at-large teams don't lose all those games. They just don't.
They also blew a 4-point lead with 24 seconds left in a MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST win game to AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! send a packed house home saying WTF?!?!? Did you seriously just WASTE YOUR LAST FUCKING TIMEOUT on the crucial inbounds play after a tv review gave you four fucking minutes to figure out which of the three plays you have for that situation is the best?
Really?
What if it breaks down and you can't get the ball in for a decent look? What then Einstein?
They also choked away every other big game all year except one.
PC, Valpo, Houston, at Dayton...
They also blew a fucking 18-point second-half lead to almost choke away another game.
How on earth do you think this team is going to beat VCU twice, win all their other games on the way to the finals, lose AGAIN to Dayton in a huge game, and then with a 50-something RPI and a crap resume get an at-large?
It's not happening.
Might they win Saturday? I guess, but I'm sure as hell not holding my breath. They stink!!!
And Hurley has NEVER EVER BEATEN VCU. NOT ONCE.
Hope springs eternal, but the reality is this team stinks. Let's play 4 or 5 guards, none of whom can shoot consistently, then spend EVERY FUCKING MINUTE OF THE GAME SCREAMING ABOUT EVERY FUCKING CALL to the refs. Have at it, Dan. I'm not buying the hype any more until I see wins. Plural.
2 x
User avatar
section(105)
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 7572
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: narragansett
x 4110

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by section(105) »

......my take on the rr post.....hard reality? Maybe.....short time will tell......take away the F bombs, change "stink" to hugely disappointing.....I coulda hit the heart.....
Last edited by section(105) 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
Ram logo via Grist 1938
User avatar
ATPTourFan
Frank Keaney
Posts: 12094
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Wakefield, RI
x 4789
Contact:

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by ATPTourFan »

Whoa Rudder
1 x
Support Coach Miller & Rhody Basketball! Give to the Athletic Director's Fund
User avatar
TruePoint
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13851
Joined: 11 years ago
x 11427

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by TruePoint »

I don't know that I would say I think any of the things you just said I think, rudder. But I also think there are a few assertions you're making in there that I wouldn't agree with.

This team just isn't one of the best 25 teams in the country. That's obvious. Both the coaching staff and the players have done a subpar job, on the whole, in "big" games and especially at the end of those games. On the other hand, if they were actually a bad team, those things probably wouldn't be so bothersome. The issue is that they are pretty good, but frustratingly incapable of taking what I think is a pretty small leap to being a good team, instead crumbling in the face of all these opportunities.
Last edited by TruePoint 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
2 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
User avatar
NYGFan_Section208
Frank Keaney
Posts: 12015
Joined: 8 years ago
Location: West K
x 6528

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by NYGFan_Section208 »

...if they were bad, it would be easier, but....they just don't suck 'enough' to jump ship....which is why, well...see you in western PA...
0 x
jmck
Lamar Odom
Posts: 300
Joined: 11 years ago
x 55

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by jmck »

To add insult to injury PC just sold out their game vs Marquette on Saturday and if you look at the green dots for the VCU game there are still plenty of seats available
0 x
User avatar
NYGFan_Section208
Frank Keaney
Posts: 12015
Joined: 8 years ago
Location: West K
x 6528

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by NYGFan_Section208 »

The Ry will be jumpin' Saturday, sellout or no...pre-game at .... :P :lol:
0 x
reef
Frank Keaney
Posts: 14778
Joined: 11 years ago
x 5148

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by reef »

I agree if we don't get in we have nobody to blame but ourselves so many lost opportunities
0 x
User avatar
Running Ram
Carlton Owens
Posts: 2511
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1345

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by Running Ram »

sure bring up all the players that didn't play against PC in their latest 3-0 run against top 25 teams hahahahahahaha. PC is fun to watch right now, as a coach, Cooley is head and shoulders above Hurley, the last time Cooley stole the show from the players with his demeanor was when he and Hurley almost came to blows. Did anyone see how he coached the Creighton game from the seated position? He's smart and two steps ahead of other coaches not one step behind with his mind on blown calls or what excuse will work next. Anyone who still thinks URI will ever be as good as PC while we have DH and they have Cooley, go down to your local bar and order the new mixed drink called REALITY!

Old dad (URI man through and through) told me just yesterday that he's too old to not watch and enjoy PC, that was a life lesson for me, I'm not waiting til the twilight of my life for that, I'm now a PC fan, I'm admitting this. I still want us to be better, the best really, but will be routing for URI and PC going forward. URI because of my history as a fan, PC because Cooley and the Friars are fun to watch, Cooley does more with less and that's why I consider him one of the best coaches in CBB, I would be a fool to not enjoy PC basketball being the team most local to me. Nothing changes as far as how I feel about the history of the schools' programs or the bias that is clearly still going on with regard to local coverage etc., but I'm no longer letting that noise prevent me from enjoying a local team that EXCEEDS expectations.
0 x
Go Rhody!!!
Birthplace of 'Fastbreak Basketball'
User avatar
TruePoint
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13851
Joined: 11 years ago
x 11427

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by TruePoint »

I will always root for PC. To burn to the ground. Fuck that place as a basketball program, college, institution and as an idea in general. As 2pac would say, fuck them as a staff, record label, and motherfucking crew.

Cooley is a great coach, though.
Last edited by TruePoint 7 years ago, edited 2 times in total.
3 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
CTRamfan
Jimmy Baron
Posts: 493
Joined: 11 years ago
x 157

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by CTRamfan »

Agreed RR....I don't pull for PC, except their success helps URI's RPI. They help us year in and out more than URI helps itself. They are fun to watch.

During the LaSalle post game interview on CBS, Hurley made the comment that "the team that started the season had only played twelve games together due to injuries"........Does he hear himself? Good grief, so have 300 other teams !......sounds like Baron's PR's lines.

.....I watched the Duke Syracuse game...............both coaches sat the whole time the clock was running. not interrupting the offensive flow, or concentration at the line.
.....I watched a St. Anthony's game on SNY last month, you could hear Bob Sr. barking out ten instructions a play louder than the announcers. They have four losses this year. It was like watching Dan on steroids. I was worried he would have a stroke.
.....THE POINT - I think a lot of what happens on the court is not instinctive. Too much game coaching. I give the players credit that they manage to play in a system like that.
Last edited by CTRamfan 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
hrstrat57
Sly Williams
Posts: 3850
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Kingston
x 2315

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by hrstrat57 »

Re injury comment in TV interview after game in Philly Hurley IMO was playing the selection Sunday game.

Re coaches sitting somebody get Dan a chair please.

Re friartown my hatred for pc hoops is well documented and whoever is playing them is my favorite team. However do any of you really see us showing up in Omaha and beating Creighton amidst a sea of royal blue?

Sadly they are almost off the bubble....I don't understand how we are still on it....
Last edited by hrstrat57 7 years ago, edited 3 times in total.
0 x
We're gonna run the picket fence at "em.....now boys don't get caught watchin' the paint dry!
User avatar
Rhode_Island_Red
Carlton Owens
Posts: 2726
Joined: 11 years ago
x 2587

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by Rhode_Island_Red »

The best thing I can say about that hideous, disgusting institution that shall not be named is that half its "campus" is a former mental hospital.

Since the loony bin closed, the neighborhood has gone downhill.
Last edited by Rhode_Island_Red 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
Proudly supplying the Internet with online wisecracks, impertinent comments and loathing of all things mental hospital since 1996.
User avatar
Ram1019
ARD
Posts: 509
Joined: 10 years ago
x 233

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by Ram1019 »

Have to win Saturday and the remaining schedule and make the finals (which means beating a VCU or Dayton in semi's to get there) for any at-large chances. It's doable but not probable. I hope they prove me wrong.

Just focus on one game at a time. Play with confidence. WIN!
0 x
User avatar
RhowdyRam02
Frank Keaney
Posts: 10234
Joined: 11 years ago
x 6501

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by RhowdyRam02 »

Running Ram wrote:sure bring up all the players that didn't play against PC in their latest 3-0 run against top 25 teams hahahahahahaha.
When we beat a top 25 team, we have to hear people say how it really didn't count as a top 25 win. Do you really think Creighton is a top 25 team without their point guard? They won't be on Monday. Do you think Xavier is a top 25 team without those players? Nope. Maybe it's you that needs that mixed drink called reality. You can't have it both ways. Either all top 25 wins count if the team has a number when you play or all wins are subject to the "do they or don't they count" game.
1 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
User avatar
SmartyBarrett
Sly Williams
Posts: 3796
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Boston
x 2702

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by SmartyBarrett »

RhowdyRam02 wrote:When we beat a top 25 team, we have to hear people say how it really didn't count as a top 25 win.
Not to mention all those games Rhody almost lost. Can't believe people are counting those as wins, too.
Last edited by SmartyBarrett 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
3 x
User avatar
rhodyrudder
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 1817
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1033

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rhodyrudder »

We're 3-7 vs top 100 this year, that ain't even close to good enough.
We're 1-3 vs top 50.
Last 4 years we're 3-32 vs top 50.
Spin it however you want.
The committee doesn't give a rats ass about games against teams ranked higher than 100.
Last edited by rhodyrudder 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
2 x
User avatar
woodennickel1
ARD
Posts: 558
Joined: 11 years ago
x 288

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by woodennickel1 »

Ram1019 wrote:Have to win Saturday and the remaining schedule and make the finals (which means beating a VCU or Dayton in semi's to get there) for any at-large chances. It's doable but not probable. I hope they prove me wrong.

Just focus on one game at a time. Play with confidence. WIN!
Have to break it to you but URI has no chance of getting in as an at large. They have 3 wins in the rpi top 100 and 1 in the top 50. PC has 9 top 100 and 5 top 50 and supposedly they are not in either. Not to mention the straight up win against them.
2 x
User avatar
Ram1019
ARD
Posts: 509
Joined: 10 years ago
x 233

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by Ram1019 »

woodennickel1 wrote:
Ram1019 wrote:Have to win Saturday and the remaining schedule and make the finals (which means beating a VCU or Dayton in semi's to get there) for any at-large chances. It's doable but not probable. I hope they prove me wrong.

Just focus on one game at a time. Play with confidence. WIN!
Have to break it to you but URI has no chance of getting in as an at large. They have 3 wins in the rpi top 100 and 1 in the top 50. PC has 9 top 100 and 5 top 50 and supposedly they are not in either. Not to mention the straight up win against them.
Both teams are in the mix. I'm not saying that path will guarantee anything but it will at least keep URI in the conversation. To say there is no chance (in a year with a weak bubble) after winning out the remaining schedule and making the finals is kind of absurd. I agree that the odds don't look good anyway.
0 x
User avatar
URI2006_Andy
Jimmy Baron
Posts: 355
Joined: 8 years ago
x 281

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by URI2006_Andy »

woodennickel1 wrote:
Ram1019 wrote:Have to win Saturday and the remaining schedule and make the finals (which means beating a VCU or Dayton in semi's to get there) for any at-large chances. It's doable but not probable. I hope they prove me wrong.

Just focus on one game at a time. Play with confidence. WIN!
Have to break it to you but URI has no chance of getting in as an at large. They have 3 wins in the rpi top 100 and 1 in the top 50. PC has 9 top 100 and 5 top 50 and supposedly they are not in either. Not to mention the straight up win against them.
If they win out and go the A-10 finals, Uri will have at least 5 top 100 wins (which would turn into 7 if Davidson cracks the top 100) including 3 top 50 wins. PC has two 200+ rpi losses, URI has zero. Just about every objective forumlua whether rpi, ken Pom, bpi have PC and URI pretty much even right now if not URI ahead. Personally, I give little weight to the arbitrary vs top 100 record that doesn't factor in venue. I would give the most weight to overall SOS rank and overall win loss record as compared to other teams with similar SOS. URI is in solid shape and PC in good shape when doing that. So I wouldn't say URI has no chance at an at-large. If they lose tomorrow, sure then you can break the news to us.
1 x
User avatar
SmartyBarrett
Sly Williams
Posts: 3796
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Boston
x 2702

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by SmartyBarrett »

woodennickel1 wrote:
Ram1019 wrote:Have to win Saturday and the remaining schedule and make the finals (which means beating a VCU or Dayton in semi's to get there) for any at-large chances. It's doable but not probable. I hope they prove me wrong.

Just focus on one game at a time. Play with confidence. WIN!
Have to break it to you but URI has no chance of getting in as an at large. They have 3 wins in the rpi top 100 and 1 in the top 50. PC has 9 top 100 and 5 top 50 and supposedly they are not in either. Not to mention the straight up win against them.
PC beating URI is irrelevant as committee doesn't look at head-to-head.
0 x
ramster
Frank Keaney
Posts: 23805
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8857

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by ramster »

So if the final selection comes down to Houston, PC, dayton, VCU and URI your saying that head to head performance between them is not even looked at? You'll have to show me something printed somewhere that supports that. I have difficulty believing that one of the most deciding factors would not be included in deciding.
Last edited by ramster 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
User avatar
woodennickel1
ARD
Posts: 558
Joined: 11 years ago
x 288

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by woodennickel1 »

URI2006_Andy wrote:
woodennickel1 wrote:
Ram1019 wrote:Have to win Saturday and the remaining schedule and make the finals (which means beating a VCU or Dayton in semi's to get there) for any at-large chances. It's doable but not probable. I hope they prove me wrong.

Just focus on one game at a time. Play with confidence. WIN!
Have to break it to you but URI has no chance of getting in as an at large. They have 3 wins in the rpi top 100 and 1 in the top 50. PC has 9 top 100 and 5 top 50 and supposedly they are not in either. Not to mention the straight up win against them.
If they win out and go the A-10 finals, Uri will have at least 5 top 100 wins (which would turn into 7 if Davidson cracks the top 100) including 3 top 50 wins. PC has two 200+ rpi losses, URI has zero. Just about every objective forumlua whether rpi, ken Pom, bpi have PC and URI pretty much even right now if not URI ahead. Personally, I give little weight to the arbitrary vs top 100 record that doesn't factor in venue. I would give the most weight to overall SOS rank and overall win loss record as compared to other teams with similar SOS. URI is in solid shape and PC in good shape when doing that. So I wouldn't say URI has no chance at an at-large. If they lose tomorrow, sure then you can break the news to us.
PC bad losses to BC and Depaul were on the road and they did not have one of their starters for Depaul. I believe the committee gives some kind of leeway there. URI'S bad loss to Fordham was at home think that will hurt as much as the BC loss prov has. Pc's strength of schedule is 34 compared to 58 for URI.
Last edited by woodennickel1 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
User avatar
adam914
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 9718
Joined: 11 years ago
x 7385

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by adam914 »

woodennickel1 wrote: PC bad losses to BC and Depaul were on the road and they did not have one of their starters for Depaul. I believe the committee gives some kind of leeway there. URI'S bad loss to Fordham was at home think that will hurt as much as the BC loss prov has. Pj's strength of schedule is 34 compared to 58 for URI.
Who's Pj? Sounds like a jerk.
0 x
"Our goals have not changed, we want to be the best program in the Atlantic 10, and even more than that we want to get to a Final Four someday." - Thorr Bjorn - March 22, 2018
ramster
Frank Keaney
Posts: 23805
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8857

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by ramster »

adam914 wrote:
woodennickel1 wrote: PC bad losses to BC and Depaul were on the road and they did not have one of their starters for Depaul. I believe the committee gives some kind of leeway there. URI'S bad loss to Fordham was at home think that will hurt as much as the BC loss prov has. Pj's strength of schedule is 34 compared to 58 for URI.
Who's Pj? Sounds like a jerk.
That's the current SOS. Tell PJ to also post the expected SOS which is much closer because URI has VCU Saturday and the PC schedule weakens compared to previous BE game strength:
Expected SOS:
URI 61
PC 53
Last edited by ramster 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
User avatar
woodennickel1
ARD
Posts: 558
Joined: 11 years ago
x 288

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by woodennickel1 »

ramster wrote:
adam914 wrote:
woodennickel1 wrote: PC bad losses to BC and Depaul were on the road and they did not have one of their starters for Depaul. I believe the committee gives some kind of leeway there. URI'S bad loss to Fordham was at home think that will hurt as much as the BC loss prov has. Pj's strength of schedule is 34 compared to 58 for URI.
Who's Pj? Sounds like a jerk.
That's the current SOS. Tell PJ to also post the expected SOS which is much closer because URI has VCU Saturday and the PC schedule weakens compared to previous BE game strength:
Expected SOS:
URI 61
PC 53
Yes, agreed will not be much of a difference there
Last edited by woodennickel1 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
User avatar
rjsuperfly66
Carlton Owens
Posts: 3425
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rjsuperfly66 »

The committee has long stated that a good win (especially on the road) is weighted significantly more than a bad loss. I believe this was reiterated as recently as yesterday by Gary Parrish. For PC, the win at Creighton probably offset the DePaul and BC losses just like for URI the Cincy win probably offsets both LaSalle and Fordham.
Last edited by rjsuperfly66 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
User avatar
TruePoint
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13851
Joined: 11 years ago
x 11427

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by TruePoint »

Death to the committee. Straight RPI vote.
0 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
User avatar
rodfromcranston
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13068
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1517

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rodfromcranston »

A camel is a horse designed by a committee.
1 x
< Arthur is my spirit animal.
User avatar
rjsuperfly66
Carlton Owens
Posts: 3425
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rjsuperfly66 »

TruePoint wrote:Death to the committee. Straight RPI vote.
Because it can be abused?
0 x
ramfan85
Carlton Owens
Posts: 2983
Joined: 11 years ago
x 447

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by ramfan85 »

rodfromcranston wrote:A camel is a horse designed by a committee.

I never heard this quote before. Love it. lol
0 x
User avatar
URI2006_Andy
Jimmy Baron
Posts: 355
Joined: 8 years ago
x 281

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by URI2006_Andy »

woodennickel1 wrote: PC bad losses to BC and Depaul were on the road and they did not have one of their starters for Depaul. I believe the committee gives some kind of leeway there. URI'S bad loss to Fordham was at home think that will hurt as much as the BC loss prov has. Pc's strength of schedule is 34 compared to 58 for URI.
That's why I prefer looking at overall SOS coupled with overall win-loss record. That way you look at the season as a whole and avoid any subjective cross cancellation of games. The problem with this method is you could have a team with a good SOS and a good record but who has yet to prove it can compete against NCAA tournement level teams. This is where looking at top 50 games would be a big factor and where having no bad losses can't offset the inability to compete against the best teams (i.e Vermont). But I would be looking at these top 50 results for the purpose of seeing who is competing against the top teams versus who is overmatched.
0 x
User avatar
URI2006_Andy
Jimmy Baron
Posts: 355
Joined: 8 years ago
x 281

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by URI2006_Andy »

rjsuperfly66 wrote:
TruePoint wrote:Death to the committee. Straight RPI vote.
Because it can be abused?
RPI: URI 49, PC 55
sagarin: URI 54, PC 59
kenpom: URI 55, PC 56
BPI: URI 41, PC 53

I guess URI has figured out a way to manipulate and abuse all 4 major objective formulas at the same time. Good thing we have a committee to straighten things out.
Last edited by URI2006_Andy 7 years ago, edited 2 times in total.
1 x
User avatar
rjsuperfly66
Carlton Owens
Posts: 3425
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rjsuperfly66 »

URI2006_Andy wrote:
rjsuperfly66 wrote:
TruePoint wrote:Death to the committee. Straight RPI vote.
Because it can be abused?
RPI: URI 49, PC 55
sagarin: URI 54, PC 59
kenpom: URI 55, PC 56
BPI: URI 41, PC 53

I guess URI has figured out a way to manipulate and abuse all 4 major objective formulas at the same time. Good thing we have a committee to straighten things out.
All systems are very flawed which is why none of them can be standalone metrics with no interpretation required.
For example with KenPom, a team is a 5 point underdog. They lose by 3 points. Their KenPom goes up.
Or flip it. A team is a 5 point favorite. They win by 3 point. Their KenPom goes down.
RPI in nature is too simplistic. Play a tough schedule, yippie. The goal of basketball is to win, regardless of location or opponent strength. Obviously strength of wins matter, but look at Wake...
Forecasted 17-13 Wake Forest, forecasted 1-9 vs Top 50, forecasted RPI of 42. KenPom 33... FLAWED!!!
Tournament team? Eyes say no, metrics say yes. Thank God for the committee!!!!!!
Not trying to debate one team versus another, just that particular system.
Last edited by rjsuperfly66 7 years ago, edited 2 times in total.
1 x
User avatar
ATPTourFan
Frank Keaney
Posts: 12094
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Wakefield, RI
x 4789
Contact:

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by ATPTourFan »

That's not how KenPom works. The KenPom ranks are based on adjusted efficiency ratings used to create the Adjusted Efficiency Margin.
0 x
Support Coach Miller & Rhody Basketball! Give to the Athletic Director's Fund
User avatar
rhodysurf
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 1524
Joined: 9 years ago
Location: The Pier
x 1711

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rhodysurf »

ATPTourFan wrote:That's not how KenPom works. The KenPom ranks are based on adjusted efficiency ratings used to create the Adjusted Efficiency Margin.
Yes but efficiency is used to calculate how well one team will perform against another. One good example of how you can game KenPon is say you are favored by 5. If you are blowing a team out by 20 at some point in the game you would typically start to slow your play down and your efficiency regresses. However if you run up the score you will improve your KenPom. The same goes for if you are supposed to lose by 12 according to KenPom, then the other team lays off in garbarge time and the game is decided by only 5 or 6 points.

I know that simplifies it a bunch, but thats the idea I think RJ is talking about with Wake
0 x
User avatar
URI2006_Andy
Jimmy Baron
Posts: 355
Joined: 8 years ago
x 281

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by URI2006_Andy »

No objective metric is perfect but they have different flaws making it difficult to manipulate all of them at the same time. (I.e stB had a great RPI last year but had an 82 Kenpom). Using objective formulas is not perfect but it's better than starting with a premise that one team is better than another and finding a stat (that is already factored into those formulas) as evidence. Or using the eye ball test when it's impossible for one human being to see every game for every team.
0 x
User avatar
ATPTourFan
Frank Keaney
Posts: 12094
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Wakefield, RI
x 4789
Contact:

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by ATPTourFan »

Slowing down your play would probably increase your efficiency. Stretching out your offensive possessions and taking a more calculated shot rather than trying to score quickly. Reducing tempo to bleed the clock isn't going to hurt your efficiency for the game unless you also just stop scoring and thus don't win by 20.

Plus, KenPom's secret sauce doesn't take the straight points per possession. He adjusts for opponent and other factors.
0 x
Support Coach Miller & Rhody Basketball! Give to the Athletic Director's Fund
User avatar
TruePoint
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13851
Joined: 11 years ago
x 11427

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by TruePoint »

My issue with the committee is that they will make ex post facto adjustments to the "criteria" on an ongoing basis to justify whatever they want to do at the time. Whatever argument will allow them to put in the team that their collective feelings tell them to put in, that's the argument they'll go with when asked to explain their decision.

As I've said before, I say use RPI as shorthand for any system that purports to do what RPI does. If the consensus is that there is a better objective metric, go with that. To me, there is a value in simplicity. That occasionally a metric might produce an anomaly or outlier is easier to live with than a committee just doing whatever they please on an ad hoc basis with no accountability. At least if "gaming" the system produces an occasional unfair result, everyone has more or less the same opportunity to game it. You don't find out after the fact that you were trying to put your resume together on criteria that turned out to be deemphasized.
Last edited by TruePoint 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
ramfan85
Carlton Owens
Posts: 2983
Joined: 11 years ago
x 447

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by ramfan85 »

I've said for a long time that the committee picks the teams they want and then spends time justifying their selections. That's what leads to all the discussions on ESPN afterwards.
1 x
User avatar
rjsuperfly66
Carlton Owens
Posts: 3425
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rjsuperfly66 »

ATPTourFan wrote:That's not how KenPom works. The KenPom ranks are based on adjusted efficiency ratings used to create the Adjusted Efficiency Margin.
Exactly to what Surf wrote ... I guess it's not as simple as taking the spread and beating expectations, but that's roughly how it works. There's got to be an average in there somewhere, the average is basically the spread calculation. The spread calculation comes from the output of the efficiency numbers versus another teams efficiency numbers.

If you were projected to lose 70-60 but only lose 67-63, it's likely your offensive and defensive efficiency both increase because you beat expectations. And of course possessions factor in there on either side, but if the game played higher than expected possessions, your offensive efficiency goes down but your defensive one goes up. It's all relative.
URI2006_Andy wrote:No objective metric is perfect but they have different flaws making it difficult to manipulate all of them at the same time. (I.e stB had a great RPI last year but had an 82 Kenpom). Using objective formulas is not perfect but it's better than starting with a premise that one team is better than another and finding a stat (that is already factored into those formulas) as evidence. Or using the eye ball test when it's impossible for one human being to see every game for every team.
But the problem is, that's just not true ... Many ACC teams have been able to manipulate every metric this season ... They play tough schedule because their conference is tough so their RPI's are inflated ... It's also helped with their KenPom, they've won some tough games but not many, but they aren't often blown out, and also outperform expectations when an underdog.
Last edited by rjsuperfly66 7 years ago, edited 3 times in total.
1 x
User avatar
rjsuperfly66
Carlton Owens
Posts: 3425
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rjsuperfly66 »

TruePoint wrote:My issue with the committee is that they will make ex post facto adjustments to the "criteria" on an ongoing basis to justify whatever they want to do at the time. Whatever argument will allow them to put in the team that their collective feelings tell them to put in, that's the argument they'll go with when asked to explain their decision.

As I've said before, I say use RPI as shorthand for any system that purports to do what RPI does. If the consensus is that there is a better objective metric, go with that. To me, there is a value in simplicity. That occasionally a metric might produce an anomaly or outlier is easier to live with than a committee just doing whatever they please on an ad hoc basis with no accountability. At least if "gaming" the system produces an occasional unfair result, everyone has more or less the same opportunity to game it. You don't find out after the fact that you were trying to put your resume together on criteria that turned out to be deemphasized.
I understand where you are going, and ultimately agree with it, but I'd rather create a good system, that utilize a broken one. Every major system is broken. The strength metrics (KenPom, Sagarin, etc.) admit faults and how their systems are not equipped for the task. The RPI is too simplistic in nature. So something that can measure SOR will need to be created. And that's a start, at least they are talking about it, rather than leading us down the same rabbit hole year after year after year.
Last edited by rjsuperfly66 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
User avatar
URI2006_Andy
Jimmy Baron
Posts: 355
Joined: 8 years ago
x 281

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by URI2006_Andy »

rjsuperfly66 wrote: Many ACC teams have been able to manipulate every metric this season ... They play tough schedule because their conference is tough so their RPI's are inflated ... It's also helped with their KenPom, they've won some tough games but not many, but they aren't often blown out, and also outperform expectations when an underdog.
If you're worried about ACC teams getting in that don't deserve to be in then you want an objective system over a committee. Trust me.
0 x
theblueram
Frank Keaney
Posts: 10420
Joined: 11 years ago
x 7551

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by theblueram »

Can we change the title of this thread to The Bubble? The only schools debating metrics, committees, good wins vs bad losses etc, etc are the teams who didn't do enough during the season. Put em all in a hat and pick the last four in.
1 x
Post Reply