2016-17 Bracketology

Talk about the men's team, upcoming opponents and news from around college hoop.
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 »

0 x
Support Coach Miller & Rhody Basketball! Give to the Athletic Director's Fund
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 »

Jerry Palm @ CBS has us in today as 11 seed. First of his Last 4 in group. (he doesn't have best track record, however)

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology
0 x
Support Coach Miller & Rhody Basketball! Give to the Athletic Director's Fund
ramster
Frank Keaney
Posts: 23807
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8857

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by ramster »

Rhodymob05 wrote:So right now excluding the eye test and BPI, we have a 57% chance. Assuming we continue to win, our chance can only go up!
Mob,
Don't you think that the 57% assumes that we defeat St Joseph's and Davidson? For sure the 57% would drop a lot if we lose either or both of those two games but my guess is the wins are already built into the 57%.

Plus my guess is if we lose in the Quarterfinals of the A10 it's over for us. Agree?
0 x
KillSteenKill
Marc Upshaw
Posts: 87
Joined: 9 years ago
x 23

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by KillSteenKill »

winning the next three is a must but I think what happens elsewhere with bid stealing and bubble team results determines our fate. I think we have a better chance than most think in the lose in the win out til the A10 semis scenario.
0 x
kal-65
Jeff Kent
Posts: 189
Joined: 11 years ago
x 23

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by kal-65 »

there are quite a few teams on the bubble with 13 losses,like Syracuse---if these teams do not win their conference tournament,that puts them at 14 losses
I can't remember any non conference selections with 14 losses
0 x
User avatar
Rhodymob05
Tyson Wheeler
Posts: 7384
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Rhode Island
x 3953

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by Rhodymob05 »

ramster wrote:
Rhodymob05 wrote:So right now excluding the eye test and BPI, we have a 57% chance. Assuming we continue to win, our chance can only go up!
Mob,
Don't you think that the 57% assumes that we defeat St Joseph's and Davidson? For sure the 57% would drop a lot if we lose either or both of those two games but my guess is the wins are already built into the 57%.

Plus my guess is if we lose in the Quarterfinals of the A10 it's over for us. Agree?
If I'm reading that chart correctly, its RPI and top 50 wins, so we have 2 top 50 wins and and rpi in the 40s which currently sets us at 57%. If we win then our RPI will improve thus increasing our chances per the chart. Add in the eye test (which we have pasted according to multiple annalist that I've heard) and it should improve our chances further.
Last edited by Rhodymob05 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
GO RAMS
User avatar
SmartyBarrett
Sly Williams
Posts: 3796
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Boston
x 2702

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by SmartyBarrett »

First team out based on today's updated Bracket Matrix.

http://bracketmatrix.com/
1 x
User avatar
RoadyJay
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 1751
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Parkland, FL
x 1103

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by RoadyJay »

I think everyone can agree that we must win at least the next three.... We must win our last two regular season games and also win the Quarterfinal game in the A10 tourney.

After that, I think many are divided on the following scenarios:
-Lose in the Semi-finals (likely against Dayton or VCU). As ramster said we probably need to pray very very hard in the scenario where we lose to Dayton or VCU in the semis. I've been saying we need to get to 22 wins to get in but now I'm feeling like it might not be enough. That Fordham loss was a killer. There may be some that think we still get in even if we lose in the semis to Dayton or VCU, but it's probably fewer and fewer of us. If we lose in the semis to anyone other than VCU or Dayton then I'd say we are out.
-Win in the Semi-finals (likely against Dayton or VCU). I think if we make it to the A10 finals and lose to either Dayton or VCU then we are in. If we face anyone else (Richmond, Bonnies, etc.) and lose to them then I think we don't make it. I just can't see the committee taking four teams from the A10 in that scenario. Dayton is a lock to get in and Unless VCU completely falls apart in their next 2-3 games then I think they are a lock as well. I can't see them taking Dayton, VCU, the A10 champion, AND us.

Best case scenario for at-large is to win the next 3, then beat VCU or Datyon in the semis, then lose to VCU or Dayton in the finals....

...Or just win it all baby!!
2 x
User avatar
adam914
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 9718
Joined: 11 years ago
x 7385

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by adam914 »

RoadyJay wrote:Best case scenario for at-large is to win the next 3, then beat VCU or Datyon in the semis, then lose to VCU or Dayton in the finals....
Yep, I think this right here has been the case since the Fordham loss, and nothing has changed. We just crossed one big hurdle on the path in beating VCU. Still work left to do.
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
PlayMikeMotenMore
Tom Garrick
Posts: 1145
Joined: 9 years ago
x 864

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by PlayMikeMotenMore »

Thanks for the news flash.
1 x
User avatar
adam914
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 9718
Joined: 11 years ago
x 7385

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by adam914 »

PlayMikeMotenMore wrote:Thanks for the news flash.
Man you must be a lot of fun to hang out with.
9 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
josephski
Tom Garrick
Posts: 1085
Joined: 9 years ago
x 440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by josephski »

RoadyJay wrote:I think everyone can agree that we must win at least the next three.... We must win our last two regular season games and also win the Quarterfinal game in the A10 tourney.

After that, I think many are divided on the following scenarios:
-Lose in the Semi-finals (likely against Dayton or VCU). As ramster said we probably need to pray very very hard in the scenario where we lose to Dayton or VCU in the semis. I've been saying we need to get to 22 wins to get in but now I'm feeling like it might not be enough. That Fordham loss was a killer. There may be some that think we still get in even if we lose in the semis to Dayton or VCU, but it's probably fewer and fewer of us. If we lose in the semis to anyone other than VCU or Dayton then I'd say we are out.
-Win in the Semi-finals (likely against Dayton or VCU). I think if we make it to the A10 finals and lose to either Dayton or VCU then we are in. If we face anyone else (Richmond, Bonnies, etc.) and lose to them then I think we don't make it. I just can't see the committee taking four teams from the A10 in that scenario. Dayton is a lock to get in and Unless VCU completely falls apart in their next 2-3 games then I think they are a lock as well. I can't see them taking Dayton, VCU, the A10 champion, AND us.

Best case scenario for at-large is to win the next 3, then beat VCU or Datyon in the semis, then lose to VCU or Dayton in the finals....

...Or just win it all baby!!
I agree with this. Have to make it to the a10 finals against VCU or Dayton to be feeling good about our chances on selection Sunday and even then we'll still be on the bubble. Only other scenario I can think of that you didn't mention is if Dayton or VCU gets upset in the quarterfinals, we win in the semis against whoever beat Dayton/VCU, and then lose in the finals to Dayton/VCU. In that situation we'd end up at 23-10 but neither of our tournament wins would be against good teams.

In my opinion it comes down to getting one more win against VCU or Dayton in the semifinals of the a10 tournament. If we can do that then we can at least go into selection Sunday feeling like we have a shot to get in the tournament. Obviously a lot also depends on how other bubble teams finish the season.

Edit: Also one interesting thing to note is the last time no team was upset in the quarterfinals of the a10 tournament was in 2005. Let's hope if anyone is upset this year it's Richmond.
Last edited by josephski 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
User avatar
RhowdyRam02
Frank Keaney
Posts: 10234
Joined: 11 years ago
x 6501

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by RhowdyRam02 »

We're streaking up the charts!
0 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
PeterRamTime
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 9685
Joined: 9 years ago
x 5517

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by PeterRamTime »

If we get the 4 seed, which seems most likely, then we will likely play either st bonaventure or UMass.
They look to be locked into the 5th and 12th spots respectively.
The Bonnie's still have an RPI in the 100's so that'd be a pretty nice win get.
It would also be nice to beat UMass three times in one season.
It would really be morbid to lose to them in the quarterfinals though...
I don't know about you guys, but I want us to play Dayton in the semis.
Third times a charm :)
Wins over the Bonnie's and Flyers would give us another top 100 win and another top 25 win.
We should be in some alright shape at that point.
Man would it be gut wrenching on selection Sunday.
1 x
User avatar
Rhodymob05
Tyson Wheeler
Posts: 7384
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Rhode Island
x 3953

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by Rhodymob05 »

My god sometimes I question why I put myself through all of this stress.
0 x
GO RAMS
ramsman75
Jeff Kent
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 years ago
x 48

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by ramsman75 »

Sports Illustrated's Pete Thamel was in the house for our win over VCU.

Last edited by ATPTourFan 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Dan Hurley wrote:“To be rewarded for going 17–14 and not doing anything in the non-conference makes no sense,” says Rhode Island coach Danny Hurley. “There’s logo bias.”
4 x
Support Coach Miller & Rhody Basketball! Give to the Athletic Director's Fund
User avatar
Rhodymob05
Tyson Wheeler
Posts: 7384
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Rhode Island
x 3953

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by Rhodymob05 »

Couldn't be more true about the logo bias, its BS.
1 x
GO RAMS
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 »

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 »

They should cap bids per conference (they should have done it before all the absurd conference realignment, but that ship has sailed). No conference should get more than 6 bids.
1 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
User avatar
URI2006_Andy
Jimmy Baron
Posts: 355
Joined: 8 years ago
x 281

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by URI2006_Andy »

I'm curious to see what the committee does with the Big East. Not counting the game they played against each other, Creighton is 4-5 since losing Watson and Xavier is 2-5 since losing Sumner (with 3 of their 6 combined wins coming against DePaul).

Even looking at the season as a whole, X is 3-8 against the top 50 with their only win against a lock tournament team coming against Creighton when Watson was out.

Meanwhile, bubble teams Marquette, PC, and SH have benefited the most from the injuries as they are a combined 6-1 against short handed Xavier and Creighton . For comparison, PC, Marquette and SH were a combined 0-3 (losing by 14,14, and 26) to Xavier and Creighton when they were at full strength.

Without those 6 top 50 wins, SH would not be in the top 50 (currently 49th) and would have 1 top 50 win. (At home against S Car). PC would have 3 top 50 wins (all at home with 1 being Vermont and 1 being us). Marquette would have 2 top 50 wins (both at home and 1 being against Vanderbilt). The trickle down effect being that all their wins against each other now look better because they all got a pat on the back for beating the injury riddled teams.
6 x
User avatar
RhowdyRam02
Frank Keaney
Posts: 10234
Joined: 11 years ago
x 6501

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by RhowdyRam02 »

TruePoint wrote:They should cap bids per conference (they should have done it before all the absurd conference realignment, but that ship has sailed). No conference should get more than 6 bids.
You should be at least 500 in conference
1 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
User avatar
rjsuperfly66
Carlton Owens
Posts: 3425
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rjsuperfly66 »

TruePoint wrote:They should cap bids per conference (they should have done it before all the absurd conference realignment, but that ship has sailed). No conference should get more than 6 bids.
That might be the dumbest thing I've heard ... So if a conference has 6 Top 25 teams, team 7, who might also be Top 25, or just on it, shouldn't make the tournament because a conference bid cap? The NCAA Tournament should include the best teams in the country, I don't care how they decide that, but that's what it should be. Teams should not be excluded because of bid caps. Let's get rid of Miami and Virginia Tech from the ACC, but let's let Houston into the tournament because their conference hasn't hit a bid cap ... Same with .500 conferences records ... The people that rewards is the people in shit conferences who don't play enough challenging games to have to worry about .500 conference records ... The reality is if they just performed in more of the challenging games on their schedule, they wouldn't be worried about it. There are plenty of teams this year who could have solidified bids with a few more wins, and fell flat over and over again. It's so bad this year, that the bubble is littered with teams who have under .500 records against Top 100 opponents. Maybe people should argue against their inclusion from tourney contention? It's those teams leaving missed opportunities on the table which is the only reason teams like Syracuse are still even on the bubble. The bubble is WEAK this year. Don't complain, because if it wasn't, you wouldn't be on it ... And let's be fair, neither would PC, which is why I'm not complaining about it either.
Last edited by rjsuperfly66 7 years ago, edited 3 times in total.
1 x
User avatar
TruePoint
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13851
Joined: 11 years ago
x 11427

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by TruePoint »

Yes. If you're the 7th best team in your conference we can officially say you're not the best team in the country. Sorry.
Last edited by TruePoint 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
User avatar
rjsuperfly66
Carlton Owens
Posts: 3425
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rjsuperfly66 »

TruePoint wrote:Yes. If you're the 7th best team in your conference we can officially say you're not the best team in the country. Sorry.
Who cares though???
I'll take the best team, regardless of conference. If the 7th in a strong conference (say Miami) is better than the 3rd in a weak conference (say Houston), why would I want Miami left out and Houston added in?
And for the record, teams with mediocre conference records from good conferences have won the NCAA Tournament.
2010-2011 UCONN comes to mind, finished 9th in the Big East and won the National Championship.
Syracuse finished 10th in the ACC last year and made it to the Final Four.
How many low seeds have made Sweet 16+ runs? Can't happen if a team finishes their conference season ranked 7th or lower?
Again, you are trying to set up a system that rewards teams for playing in weaker conferences and punishes teams for playing in harder ones.
Last edited by rjsuperfly66 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
2 x
josephski
Tom Garrick
Posts: 1085
Joined: 9 years ago
x 440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by josephski »

TruePoint wrote:Yes. If you're the 7th best team in your conference we can officially say you're not the best team in the country. Sorry.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't make the NCAA tournament either...
0 x
ramster
Frank Keaney
Posts: 23807
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8857

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by ramster »

ATPTourFan wrote:

RJ,
Did you read the article by this SI writer and Seth Davis agrees with?
What do you think of Clemson having 4 wins and being on the bubble?
What do you think of the ACC going from 18 game conference seasons to 20? People here were complaining about the A10 being too high at 18 now ACC taking their ball and going home.
Mid majors never can get a P5 team to play at their arena.
No reward for mid majors having to go on the road exclusively
What about George Mason and Virginia Commomwealth going to the Final 4? In contrast to your UCONN example
And the NCAA does NOT have the top 68 teams in the tournament - they never have. Only way to do that is to exclude the automatic bids to the many conferences that get them. Are you in favor of that? Just take the top 68 from wherever they come from?
1 x
User avatar
TruePoint
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13851
Joined: 11 years ago
x 11427

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by TruePoint »

I have no sympathy for a team that finishes 7th.
1 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
ramster
Frank Keaney
Posts: 23807
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8857

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by ramster »

TP,
I think you might be on the right track, but maybe it's a percentage of teams. Can't allow 6 from the BE with only 10 teams and 6 also from the ACC with 15 teams or 50% more teams. Maybe it's a 50 percent limit. Also could put the limits in but also have a certain number of wild cards as the NFL and MLB do.
Also could have a designated number of slots available to mid majors. Like the writer says, mid majors are dying off in invitations and the big conferences are taking them.
0 x
User avatar
rjsuperfly66
Carlton Owens
Posts: 3425
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rjsuperfly66 »

ramster wrote:RJ,
Did you read the article by this SI writer and Seth Davis agrees with?
Yes, there are some aspects I agree with and some I disagree with.
People enjoy upsets, always have, always will.
But you shouldn't be throwing teams in the tournament for the sake of throwing them in.
They mention Davidson and Steph Curry, that team deserved to be there.
Or those Butler and Gonzaga teams, they weren't just given spots in the tournament.
They earned it, and because they earned it, they actually had a legitimate shot at winning tournament games.
So if you want to tell me you have a team like Monmouth last year, I would argue they should have had a chance to make the tournament since they won legit games last season.
But for every Monmouth, there are dozens of others who play a soft schedule and pump up their win totals, but haven't done a damn thing against anyone who mattered.
The article mentions Vermont, great story, but Vermont went 0-4 against Top 100 teams this year, and only one of those was actually a competitive game, and that team, Houston, won't even make the tournament without winning their conference tournament.
So if they lose their conference tournament, they should be gifted a spot because it'd be a good story?
The NCAA Tournament isn't fun because we are gifting births to people.
Like I said, imagine taking Miami out, and Houston in, because of a bid cap?
Or removing a legit at-large team, for a true mid-major/low-major, because their had to be a set number.
It makes the tournament become a farce.
If you want to make the tournament, win some of the fucking games on your schedule.
If you go 4-8 against Top 100 teams, newsflash, you probably don't deserve to make the tournament.
But let's blame the P5 schools for that...
ramster wrote:What do you think of Clemson having 4 wins and being on the bubble?
What do you think of the ACC going from 18 game conference seasons to 20? People here were complaining about the A10 being too high at 18 now ACC taking their ball and going home.
Mid majors never can get a P5 team to play at their arena.
No reward for mid majors having to go on the road exclusively
Well, Clemson really isn't on the bubble now, but at one point, they were 7-2 against Top 100 teams.
At another, they were 9-8. Now they are 10-14, and really don't have a chance.
But even when they were 9-8, they still have a crappy conference record.
But at that time, yes, I would rather have that team, then a team that was something like 8-4 in their conference, but had beaten no Top 100 teams in conference play.
At this point, the answer is different, I wouldn't want them, because they have failed too many times.

Ramster, if you were the ACC, the conference game change is a huge plus.
It's the toughest conference in America, at worst this year in a 20 game schedule, a team would play 4 games against RPI teams over 100.
Does it hurt everyone else?
Of course, but it's smart scheduling on their part. Why not want more when your conference consistently delivers?
You'll find me arguing the same for the Big East, traditionally now having only 1 or 2 teams with RPI's outside of 100, why not add another team and go to a 20 game conference schedule? If that team can bring in, 16 Top 100 games in conference.
ramster wrote: What about George Mason and Virginia Commomwealth going to the Final 4? In contrast to your UCONN example
And the NCAA does NOT have the top 68 teams in the tournament - they never have. Only way to do that is to exclude the automatic bids to the many conferences that get them. Are you in favor of that? Just take the top 68 from wherever they come from?
I have no problem with mid-majors being included in the tournament, but their margin has to be considered smaller than teams that come from legit strong basketball conferences.
A mid-major can't go to Duke and lose by 40, and then play South Carolina and lose by 20, and then play Notre Dame and lose by 15, and lose 2 or 3 bad games in conference, and get pissed because they were left out of the tournament with a 26-6 record.

And I'm sorry for misspeaking on the tournament, I love the way it's set up now. I like that you get your at-large teams, being the best teams in the country, and then your automatic teams. I understand that the at-large teams might not always be the best, but I'm not for altering it drastically to help mediocre teams in bad conferences pass mediocre teams in great conferences.
If a team wants to guarantee it's spot, we all know what they have to do -- win the dang conference tournament.
If not, hope you built a good resume.
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 »

I really just threw a number out to make a point ramster. I don't know the right formulation, but you're right to point out that my statement wasn't a thought out policy proposal. I just don't understand the desire to reward these programs for being middle of the pack in their league and in some cases losing as much or more than they won against their peers. We get to see the NC States play the Purdues or Vanderbilts all the time. The fun of the tournament is rewarding the Valpos and Indiana States for good seasons relative to their peers and giving them the chance to take down a program with a budget 3 or 4 times the size of theirs. So what if you can make an argument (probably buoyed by SOS which they didn't do anything to earn) that NC State might be marginally better than Valpo - NC State got endless chances to prove themselves during the year, and if they finished 7th or 10th in their conference I don't care that they cashed in on 2 or 3 of their 20 chances to beat a good team.
Last edited by TruePoint 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
1 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
ramster
Frank Keaney
Posts: 23807
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8857

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by ramster »

I knew what you meant TP.

RJ,
I think you throw out some rather extreme cases but as the writer for Sports Illustrated said, really no mid majors made the NCAA last year since he considers Dayton and some others high level programs. He wants to see more mid majors and fewer middle conference teams in.

But lets look at Lunardi

His last 4 in includes 3 BE Teams, Seton Hall, Marquette and PC. The Next 4 out include Georgia Tech, Wake Forest and Georgia. So there is little difference between those teams in Lunardi's thinking. So the BE could be close to having only 3 teams in the Dance. The next 4 out include Tennessee, TCU, Kansas State and Houston. A bunch of Football Schools make up the last 8 out and 3 BE Teams could be very vulnerable. Let's see if your thinking changes on March 12..................
0 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) »

......the argument few make, is to open it up to all D-1 teams.....although I have not heard that lately.....for me that basically happens cause of the conference tourneys....even the Ivy has one now right?........is there a conference that does not??....keep it the way it is now......controversy, conflict, teams having pressure to deliver, upset specials, underdogs rise, money making conference tourneys?......fan interest, March Madness in February.....love it as is.....love you all discussions.....
0 x
Ram logo via Grist 1938
User avatar
Bigsnoop
Steve Chubin
Posts: 133
Joined: 11 years ago
x 245

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by Bigsnoop »

I'm a Friar fan, but try to be objective. Regarding Lunardi's latest, Providence, Seton Hall, and Marquette are better than his last four byes (Va Tech, Syracuse, USC, and Cal). Cal in particular wouldn't win six games in the Big East, and Syracuse lost to Georgetown and St. John's at home (they have only two road/neutral wins all season, Clemson by one and NC State in ot).

Similarly, Georgia Tech isn't as good as URI. They get more attention because they're in the ACC, but with the imbalanced schedule have only played UNC, Duke, Louisville, Florida State, and Virginia once each. URI would also beat Cal and Syracuse at least six out of ten times.
0 x
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 »

Until the NCAA forces cartel teams to play true road games against non-cartel opponents, the system will always be heavily skewed toward the cartel.
4 x
Proudly supplying the Internet with online wisecracks, impertinent comments and loathing of all things mental hospital since 1996.
User avatar
rhodysurf
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 1524
Joined: 9 years ago
Location: The Pier
x 1711

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rhodysurf »

TruePoint wrote:I really just threw a number out to make a point ramster. I don't know the right formulation, but you're right to point out that my statement wasn't a thought out policy proposal. I just don't understand the desire to reward these programs for being middle of the pack in their league and in some cases losing as much or more than they won against their peers. We get to see the NC States play the Purdues or Vanderbilts all the time. The fun of the tournament is rewarding the Valpos and Indiana States for good seasons relative to their peers and giving them the chance to take down a program with a budget 3 or 4 times the size of theirs. So what if you can make an argument (probably buoyed by SOS which they didn't do anything to earn) that NC State might be marginally better than Valpo - NC State got endless chances to prove themselves during the year, and if they finished 7th or 10th in their conference I don't care that they cashed in on 2 or 3 of their 20 chances to beat a good team.
I think RJs point is that a lot of mid majors have their chances to get top 100 wins (Like Vermont) and they dont capitalize on them. This includes a team like URI I would think. Its a hard balance because its really hard to adjust for playing on the road, injuries, etc and comparing conference play to OOC is definitely different.
0 x
User avatar
860_rhody
Lamar Odom
Posts: 295
Joined: 9 years ago
Location: Straight Outta Kingston
x 35

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by 860_rhody »

Rhode_Island_Red wrote:Until the NCAA forces cartel teams to play true road games against non-cartel opponents, the system will always be heavily skewed toward the cartel.
It's not really the lack of true road games - it's that the best interests of the "committee" lie in putting as many cartel teams as possible in the Tournament. They have vested interests in who gets in and who doesn't. Why people really believe that the "committee" is some unbiased group of baseketball junkies comparing resumes is beyond me.
1 x
User avatar
rjsuperfly66
Carlton Owens
Posts: 3425
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rjsuperfly66 »

860_rhody wrote:
Rhode_Island_Red wrote:Until the NCAA forces cartel teams to play true road games against non-cartel opponents, the system will always be heavily skewed toward the cartel.
It's not really the lack of true road games - it's that the best interests of the "committee" lie in putting as many cartel teams as possible in the Tournament. They have vested interests in who gets in and who doesn't. Why people really believe that the "committee" is some unbiased group of baseketball junkies comparing resumes is beyond me.
Of course the committee is biased ... It's in their benefit to create revenue for the NCAA ... So whether it's ticket sales or TV viewers, they all count into the same bucket. But at the same time, 90% of the revenue is going to come from putting on quality games on TV, so it is important to make sure the best teams possible are on the court. But if two teams are close, or within a hair from each other, you can almost bet that the committee is going to find a way to get a drastically better traveling fanbase into the field. If that's close, they'll look at compelling storylines, etc. If LSU was good last year, or Washington was good this year, of course it would be in the NCAA's best interest to get Simmons or Fultz in the tournament.

So if you don't want to deal with the games ... win the games left on your schedule, and don't put yourself in a position where the committee may have to come down to an either/or between you and 1 or 2 other teams.
Last edited by rjsuperfly66 7 years ago, edited 4 times in total.
1 x
ramster
Frank Keaney
Posts: 23807
Joined: 11 years ago
x 8857

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by ramster »

Agree with your 860, the "committee" sounds like this super smart, extremely unbiased, highly moral, fair, rational, supremely respected group and I really don't know why they are revered to such a high extent

This is the group that put Tulsa in against a humongous backlash and then it came down to who knew someone. Tulsa was not in a single bracket - a complete shock so much so that the players didn't even expect to get in.
0 x
josephski
Tom Garrick
Posts: 1085
Joined: 9 years ago
x 440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by josephski »

TruePoint wrote:I really just threw a number out to make a point ramster. I don't know the right formulation, but you're right to point out that my statement wasn't a thought out policy proposal. I just don't understand the desire to reward these programs for being middle of the pack in their league and in some cases losing as much or more than they won against their peers. We get to see the NC States play the Purdues or Vanderbilts all the time. The fun of the tournament is rewarding the Valpos and Indiana States for good seasons relative to their peers and giving them the chance to take down a program with a budget 3 or 4 times the size of theirs. So what if you can make an argument (probably buoyed by SOS which they didn't do anything to earn) that NC State might be marginally better than Valpo - NC State got endless chances to prove themselves during the year, and if they finished 7th or 10th in their conference I don't care that they cashed in on 2 or 3 of their 20 chances to beat a good team.
Virginia is 7th in the ACC, I'd consider that middle of the pack. If you really think that a team like Virginia and URI should be fighting for the same spot in the tournament then you really need to watch some college basketball outside of URI.
4 x
RIFan
Carlton Owens
Posts: 2533
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1280

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by RIFan »

I think TPs plan would have made sense before all the realignment and these supersized conferences. Say the average conference size was around 10 teams...then a cap may have made sense...I think he even stated that in his post. But now with there being such a concentration of top teams in fewer conferences the cap would not make sense. I wonder if there had been a cap, if it would have made any difference in realignment since that was done mostly for FB money...
Last edited by RIFan 7 years ago, edited 2 times 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 »

josephski wrote:
TruePoint wrote:I really just threw a number out to make a point ramster. I don't know the right formulation, but you're right to point out that my statement wasn't a thought out policy proposal. I just don't understand the desire to reward these programs for being middle of the pack in their league and in some cases losing as much or more than they won against their peers. We get to see the NC States play the Purdues or Vanderbilts all the time. The fun of the tournament is rewarding the Valpos and Indiana States for good seasons relative to their peers and giving them the chance to take down a program with a budget 3 or 4 times the size of theirs. So what if you can make an argument (probably buoyed by SOS which they didn't do anything to earn) that NC State might be marginally better than Valpo - NC State got endless chances to prove themselves during the year, and if they finished 7th or 10th in their conference I don't care that they cashed in on 2 or 3 of their 20 chances to beat a good team.
Virginia is 7th in the ACC, I'd consider that middle of the pack. If you really think that a team like Virginia and URI should be fighting for the same spot in the tournament then you really need to watch some college basketball outside of URI.
I don't care about Virginia or anyone that finishes 7th in any conference. You had plenty of opportunities to finish better than 7th. Better luck next year.
0 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
User avatar
rjsuperfly66
Carlton Owens
Posts: 3425
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by rjsuperfly66 »

TruePoint wrote:
josephski wrote:
TruePoint wrote:I really just threw a number out to make a point ramster. I don't know the right formulation, but you're right to point out that my statement wasn't a thought out policy proposal. I just don't understand the desire to reward these programs for being middle of the pack in their league and in some cases losing as much or more than they won against their peers. We get to see the NC States play the Purdues or Vanderbilts all the time. The fun of the tournament is rewarding the Valpos and Indiana States for good seasons relative to their peers and giving them the chance to take down a program with a budget 3 or 4 times the size of theirs. So what if you can make an argument (probably buoyed by SOS which they didn't do anything to earn) that NC State might be marginally better than Valpo - NC State got endless chances to prove themselves during the year, and if they finished 7th or 10th in their conference I don't care that they cashed in on 2 or 3 of their 20 chances to beat a good team.
Virginia is 7th in the ACC, I'd consider that middle of the pack. If you really think that a team like Virginia and URI should be fighting for the same spot in the tournament then you really need to watch some college basketball outside of URI.
I don't care about Virginia or anyone that finishes 7th in any conference. You had plenty of opportunities to finish better than 7th. Better luck next year.
So Virginia should leave the ACC and join the A10, roll to a 17-1 conference record, get the top seed in the A10 tournament, and that's admissible for them to make the tournament under your scenario? Just shows how flawed your argument is, Virginia is better than any A10 team, but you're arguing for a 3rd and 4th A10 team, or a 3rd or 4th American team, or a 5th or 6th SEC team, because of an unbalanced conference ranking?
Last edited by rjsuperfly66 7 years ago, edited 2 times in total.
1 x
PeterRamTime
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 9685
Joined: 9 years ago
x 5517

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by PeterRamTime »

TruePoint wrote:
josephski wrote:
TruePoint wrote:I really just threw a number out to make a point ramster. I don't know the right formulation, but you're right to point out that my statement wasn't a thought out policy proposal. I just don't understand the desire to reward these programs for being middle of the pack in their league and in some cases losing as much or more than they won against their peers. We get to see the NC States play the Purdues or Vanderbilts all the time. The fun of the tournament is rewarding the Valpos and Indiana States for good seasons relative to their peers and giving them the chance to take down a program with a budget 3 or 4 times the size of theirs. So what if you can make an argument (probably buoyed by SOS which they didn't do anything to earn) that NC State might be marginally better than Valpo - NC State got endless chances to prove themselves during the year, and if they finished 7th or 10th in their conference I don't care that they cashed in on 2 or 3 of their 20 chances to beat a good team.
Virginia is 7th in the ACC, I'd consider that middle of the pack. If you really think that a team like Virginia and URI should be fighting for the same spot in the tournament then you really need to watch some college basketball outside of URI.
I don't care about Virginia or anyone that finishes 7th in any conference. You had plenty of opportunities to finish better than 7th. Better luck next year.
Virginia isn't a very good example of a middle of the pack team.
The ACC is better than usual this year, so you have to treat them a little differently in this conversation.
Virginia just beat UNC and has clobbered Louisville twice.
They just recovered from a 4 game losing streak.
A middle of the pack ACC team would be in the top 4 of the A-10 easily this year.
As far as Wake forest Georgia Tech and teams like them go, they should be penalized more for losing almost half their games.
Even though I do think they are pretty good teams, but somebody like Middle Tennessee should get in ahead of those teams anytime.

Part of the mid-majors problem this year has been the fact that they haven't faired well in non-conference play.

Monmouth and St Bonaventure were snubbed last year, big time in my opinion and are very good examples of when the system goes against what's right.
They had mediocre Tulsa and Michigan teams in and left out two teams that for the most part played really well and won the vast majority of their games. Even though many of the games were against bad teams, they still had good wins. Especially Monmouth. They beat UCLA GTOWN Rutgers and 1 or two more high majors in the non-conference and slipped up a couple times in conference play.
They were penalized for being who they were.
We've seen plenty of 27-5 type mid majors get hosed while some swathe of 18-13 "just good enough" power conference teams get in ahead of them.
Often with bad RPI's and everything.
It's better for the tournament to put more potential cinderellas in there instead of the regulars when they're in a down year.
When things trend towards the favor of the elites, it's often terrible for the little guys...which is a universal truth.
The thought of the ACC and Big 12 having 20 conference games so they can stack up the good wins and take all the TV money sounds like a wicked formula.
The few non-conference games they'd play would be in tournaments with other big conference teams and they'd get to play at home just about every time, which would help their chances to win more games against good teams and win more games in general, so they'd head into the conference portion all beefed up to the point where it's difficult to play themselves out of the tournament.

There could be two sides to that coin though.
The potential wins we could secure against teams from power conferences would be even better than before. And if the rest of the A-10 gets a fair amount of upsets we can see our league get 5 or so teams in the tournament like has happened in the past.

As long as we can compete in the top 4 of the A-10 on a yearly basis we will always have a shot at an at-large bid.

Maybe the more people speak out for the middle Tennessees and monmouths of the world the better they chances will be.
There should be more value on teams for dominating their conference.
0 x
josephski
Tom Garrick
Posts: 1085
Joined: 9 years ago
x 440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by josephski »

RIFan wrote:I think TPs plan would have made sense before all the realignment and these supersized conferences. Say the average conference size was around 10 teams...then a cap may have made sense...I think he even stated that in his post. But now with there being such a concentration of top teams in fewer conferences the cap would not make sense. I wonder if there had been a cap, if it would have made any difference in realignment since that was done mostly for FB money...
That's one problem, that football rules everything. Even if football wasn't as important as it is, you have 351 division 1 basketball programs, how would you evenly sort them? There's no trivial answer to figure out how to rank every team fairly. Making conferences have 10 teams each would be insane. Now you have 35 conferences with what, 2 bids for 33 conferences and 1 bid for the other two?

I really don't even understand why this is an argument this year. The a10 is having one of it's worst season in a long time and still might get 3 teams selected. I'm curious as to what other mid major teams people on this board think should be selected who aren't being talked about?
0 x
josephski
Tom Garrick
Posts: 1085
Joined: 9 years ago
x 440

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by josephski »

TruePoint wrote:
josephski wrote:
TruePoint wrote:I really just threw a number out to make a point ramster. I don't know the right formulation, but you're right to point out that my statement wasn't a thought out policy proposal. I just don't understand the desire to reward these programs for being middle of the pack in their league and in some cases losing as much or more than they won against their peers. We get to see the NC States play the Purdues or Vanderbilts all the time. The fun of the tournament is rewarding the Valpos and Indiana States for good seasons relative to their peers and giving them the chance to take down a program with a budget 3 or 4 times the size of theirs. So what if you can make an argument (probably buoyed by SOS which they didn't do anything to earn) that NC State might be marginally better than Valpo - NC State got endless chances to prove themselves during the year, and if they finished 7th or 10th in their conference I don't care that they cashed in on 2 or 3 of their 20 chances to beat a good team.
Virginia is 7th in the ACC, I'd consider that middle of the pack. If you really think that a team like Virginia and URI should be fighting for the same spot in the tournament then you really need to watch some college basketball outside of URI.
I don't care about Virginia or anyone that finishes 7th in any conference. You had plenty of opportunities to finish better than 7th. Better luck next year.
Funny stuff considering you're one of the people on this board who loves to tell others how dumb certain posts make this fanbase look.
1 x
User avatar
TruePoint
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13851
Joined: 11 years ago
x 11427

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by TruePoint »

rjsuperfly66 wrote:
TruePoint wrote:
josephski wrote:
Virginia is 7th in the ACC, I'd consider that middle of the pack. If you really think that a team like Virginia and URI should be fighting for the same spot in the tournament then you really need to watch some college basketball outside of URI.
I don't care about Virginia or anyone that finishes 7th in any conference. You had plenty of opportunities to finish better than 7th. Better luck next year.
So Virginia should leave the ACC and join the A10, roll to a 17-1 conference record, get the top seed in the A10 tournament, and that's admissible for them to make the tournament under your scenario? Just shows how flawed your argument is, Virginia is better than any A10 team, but you're arguing for a 3rd and 4th A10 team, or a 3rd or 4th American team, or a 5th or 6th SEC team, because of an unbalanced conference ranking?
Yes, but that's the feature, not a bug. Obviously there is no way my proposal would ever happen. But if I was the Czar of Sports and could do anything I wanted, I would do this day one specifically with the intent of making schools rethink whether they want to concentrate so much firepower in these conferences. I think it's bad for the sport overall. It's why I find UConn women's basketball and the Golden State Warriors and the old Yankees teams of the late 90s uninteresting and unimpressive - all of that talent should be spread around. All pro sports playoffs provide for some level of balance among their divisions.
0 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
RIhoopz14
Kenny Green
Posts: 243
Joined: 11 years ago
x 7

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by RIhoopz14 »

There is a bet on 5dimes sportsbook that URI makes the tournament (-160), URI doesn't make tournament (+120). So vegas has us as a favorite to make the tournament
0 x
User avatar
TruePoint
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13851
Joined: 11 years ago
x 11427

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by TruePoint »

Specifically with respect to Virginia this year, since this seems to have a bunch of people excited, the way I would handle that specific situation (if I were making a serious proposal here) would be not to have a hard cap per conference but rather assign a certain number of spots to each conference based on certain factors, probably most importantly would be prior performance in the tournament by conference. So you'd have 60 or so spots pre-assigned by conference, and conferences could set up whatever system they choose to send full their allotment. Then, you'd have 4 or 8 "wild card" spots that could go to team like Virginia, irrespective of which conference they are in. Maybe I'd even cap the wild cards so that no more than two could come from a single conference.

Honestly this is not an idea I've been developing for a long time, I just kind of threw it out there out of frustration for what I think is a broken system that rewards teams just for playing good teams even if they end up with losing records in their league. Those kinds of teams are rewarded by RPI way more than non-power conference teams that figure out how to "manipulate" their OOC schedules to maximize RPI.
Last edited by TruePoint 7 years ago, edited 2 times in total.
0 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
reef
Frank Keaney
Posts: 14778
Joined: 11 years ago
x 5148

Re: 2016-17 Bracketology

Unread post by reef »

I like the idea of must finish at least .500 in conference to get in

Also agree that sucks most of the committee members are from P5 conf so they have a bias against mid majors
0 x
Post Reply