KeaneyBlue - The URI Basketball Forum

Shaolin Swat wrote:Important thing to remember is that it was Jerry Palm that has us as a 5 seed, not the committee. At this point, we can't be sure where the committee has us ranked/seeded.

Actually...the only reason Palm has us at 5 is because he worked off of the committee's top sixteen. Here is his bracket prior to the committee's annoumcement:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... cketology/

Well,
I thought the new Quad System was going to recognize Teams that go out on the Road and be more of an equalizer.
But it looks like the Quadrant System is a reason that caused URI to not make the Top 16 with an RPI of 5. So rather than provide more equality, it looks like it is going more towards the P5 and BE Teams. Not surprising.

Projo's Kevin McNamara wrote:The NCAA’s men’s basketball committee announced its late-season top 16 seeds Sunday and the red hot Rams weren’t included. URI, which is riding a 15-game winning streak, is fifth in the current NCAA Ratings Percentage Index but that factor is apparently overshadowed by a lack of top shelf wins.

Blue Man wrote:

Da_Process_Survivor wrote:

ace wrote:It’s just facts. Why are you looking for things to be pissed about? If anything, it shows that McNamara is more out of touch with the current standards. Just keep winning, and things will sort themselves out.

Gee, I don't know...how about mentioning the FACT that Oklahoma has lost 6 of 8.

Or the FACT that URI has a better RPI, Kenpom and BPI!

Because the FACT is that the committee is heavily weighing quadrant games more than anything else. Oklahoma has 6. We have 1.

Facts 2.0

FACT is we are better than OU in all metrics except Q1. So the committee naturally picks that as the reason to overseed.

Thanks for proving your a fraud. For all the pom pom waving you do you're taking the committee's side? What happened to all the bluster about how great we are? Where's the typical Blue Man temper tantrum rant?

Or could it just be you can't accept that I'm right. Grow up

I agree that we’re a 4 seed. I also understand that the quadrant system is new, and like every time a new system is implemented, they will utilize that a disproportionate amount to show change.

That’s all this is. And to be honest if we were slotted at 4 in this scenario, Oklahoma is the 5. So we’d play Louisiana Lafayette instead of Loyola Chicago for the right to play Oklahoma. Same difference.

Christ, some of you can’t enjoy anything. It’s never enough. The highest prospective seed ever given to this school isn’t good enough now? Last year some of you (process survior) were calling for the coach’s head, and now demanding more respect from the media. FOH.

Da_Process_Survivor wrote:

Blue Man wrote:

Da_Process_Survivor wrote:
Gee, I don't know...how about mentioning the FACT that Oklahoma has lost 6 of 8.

Or the FACT that URI has a better RPI, Kenpom and BPI!

Because the FACT is that the committee is heavily weighing quadrant games more than anything else. Oklahoma has 6. We have 1.

Facts 2.0

FACT is we are better than OU in all metrics except Q1. So the committee naturally picks that as the reason to overseed.

Thanks for proving your a fraud. For all the pom pom waving you do you're taking the committee's side? What happened to all the bluster about how great we are? Where's the typical Blue Man temper tantrum rant?

Or could it just be you can't accept that I'm right. Grow up

I’m the fraud? I’m sorry could you remind me who started the Baron 2.0 thread? Who called for a coaching change? Who said Hurley couldn’t get it done? That happened less than a year ago.

Who said the team should just lose a game 3 weeks ago because they weren’t playing up to your standards in the first 5 minutes?

Now you’re the white knight defending the program from your skewed perceived injustices? GTFOH.

You’re first to battle Koch or Kmac or any national writer, but I never saw them write anything 1/2 as terrible as the shit you said about Hurley or the program last year, or in the middle of a tight game.

I’ve been at this since well before you pretended to give a shit, and I’ll be here long after if things take a turn because idiots like you drive the coach away. Let me know when you put your money where your mouth is and start donating, or when you take a consistent stance supporting this program win or lose.

You’re the worst kind of fan, the worst representation of this fan base on the internet, and if I didn’t like your brother so much I’d have this conversation with you in person.

ramster wrote:

And the AP poll needs more voters who watch games and fewer who read nothing but handouts from the sports-information office at the hideous, disgusting institution located in a mental hospital.

The quadrant system was never going to help uri unless they beat Alabama or Virginia or Nevada. It’s fine. 5 seed would be insane. I am not going to complain about getting a 5 seed considering how terrible the A10 is in everyone’s (and the computers) minds

I'm just glad I haven't had to say "This is a MUST win game" this year.

This year is just atypical for the A-10. In 2016, the league had 2 teams who would be Q1 wins home or away, and 4 teams who would be Q1 away. The league is young this year, both coach wise and players.

I’d sign up for Loyola Chi for a chance to play Oklahoma right now. Xavier doesn’t scare me either (i could see them losing to FSU/Bama winner). Bottom line- it’s a tournament of match ups and every team, especially 4+ on the seed line, has some flaws. Keep winning - losses will see our seed drop very quickly.

Teams from the A-10 never get seeded according to their record and computer numbers. The committee always finds something to devalue them. URI will be up against this in March. Expect a seed worse than projected. Best case scenario ceiling is probably 5. More than likely it will be 6-8 barring a collapse down the stretch. That unfortunately is just how the NCAA operates. Power conference teams are always given the benefit of doubt while non power teams are always suspect.

The last thing to worry about is seeding, especially assuming URI avoids the 8/9 game. Upsets happen, and unless you're a top two or three seed, it's possible to draw a difficult matchup. I remember Georgetown a few years ago played great team basketball and had a star in Otto Porter. Their only problem was they weren't very athletic, and drew FGCU in the first round in a 2/15 game. Dunk City ran them out of the building.

If you keep making the tournament, eventually you catch a break or two and make a run.

ramsman75 wrote:

Shaolin Swat wrote:Important thing to remember is that it was Jerry Palm that has us as a 5 seed, not the committee. At this point, we can't be sure where the committee has us ranked/seeded.

Actually...the only reason Palm has us at 5 is because he worked off of the committee's top sixteen. Here is his bracket prior to the committee's annoumcement:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... cketology/

Right, but that still doesn't mean that the committee has us as a 5 seed. It just means that Palm though we deserved to be a top 16 seed and, when he found out the committee didn't consider us a top 16 seed at this point, moved us down to a 5 seed as a result.

sounds like we were right there possibly even #17 (will know more when the interview gets posted)

Blue Man wrote:

Ramulous wrote:I think our ceiling is a 6 seed if all goes well.....the poor level of the A10 this year hurts us....

....I think the A10 will be appreciably better next year but we will have a dropoff due to our senior losses this year....

I agree that the ceiling may be lower than 4... but running the table should have us at 5.

Either way it’s a long way til then.

We were 17-3 at this point once before too. Obviously a very different situation and team (and schedule and wins), but predicting a bracket in January is almost the same as predicting it in November.

Blue Man, Ramulous,
I think that today's CBS Prediction of the Top 16 shows that higher than 4th round is possible. Pundits are now conjecturing about who should have been in the Top 16. It is great to hear URI mentioned so often. You could EASILY argue that we should be a 4th seed right now - today!
If we win our next 6 games my guess is we are in the Top 8 or higher in AP and ESPN. RPI already predicts we will be 4.4 if we win our last 6. You could argue that is a 1-seed
That 4.4 certainly makes us a 2-seed. Will be get that? The higher we get in AP and ESPN Polls the more difficult it will be for the "Committee" to keep a high seed from us. That is why the Rankings are so important - because we are discriminated against quite honestly by not being a P5, Big East or even a AAC school. It is what it is. All the more important to have the whole country beating our drum

RPI Forecast gives us only a 10.57% probability of getting that 26-3 record so it's not likely BUT that is why I think it is so exciting to go to every possible home game as possible including Richmond, Dayton and St Joseph's. It is a long shot at 10.57% but it's a wonderful long shot to be a part of. we are literally in the middle of history in the making. The Final History is yet to be written for this season but it certainly is being written and it is a great ride.

RF1 wrote:Teams from the A-10 never get seeded according to their record and computer numbers. The committee always finds something to devalue them. URI will be up against this in March. Expect a seed worse than projected. Best case scenario ceiling is probably 5. More than likely it will be 6-8 barring a collapse down the stretch. That unfortunately is just how the NCAA operates. Power conference teams are always given the benefit of doubt while non power teams are always suspect.

I disagree.
Right now RPI Forecast has URI 5.3 RPI if we win our last 6 games saying we have a 14.18% probability of achieving that.
That makes us arguably a 2-seed but a pretty good argument

That does not include the A10 Tournament which if we were to win would make us an even stronger candidate for a higher seed.

URI is in unchartered waters, even for an A10 Team.

Monday we will be Ranked 15th or higher

We have 4 starting Seniors and a PG who plays like one. Everyone is healthy. Very experienced team and with a Bench that has Hurley saying he has 8 Starters - and guess what - he is right!!

If URI keeps winning URI will keep climbing the AP Rankings. Everyone sees those rankings everyday. In the Paper, on the Score Ticker below every basketball game shown on TV, everyone in Sports Bars across the country knows which teams are in the Top 25. It's great free publicity

We have never experienced anything like this 15 game winning streak and this kind of in-season National Ranking

That is why the Rankings are so important to teams like URI, Nevada, St Mary's, Gonzaga..............the Rankings put pressure on the Committee, and the idea is to put SO much pressure on the Committee that they cannot screw you without the Court of Public Opinion going bonkers.

Just keep winning URI - that is the key. Don't let anybody take anything away from you.

This is how I felt, that this Committee had not been watching the action the last week, but this guy said 3 weeks.

I think it was quite clear that Oklahoma did not belong. Even Clemson is too high. They lost Donte Grantham, a Senior, to an ACL on January 20th vs Notre Dame. Grantham was averaging 14.2 ppg and 6.9 rpg. He was shooting a career high 56% FG and 42% on 3 pointers. He was a big loss for Clemson which is a shame. But a Committee should consider that 2 of our losses were without the A10 Tournament MVP from last year. They should consider injuries during the season and how they impacted and injuries now like this one. They say they do, but I am not so sure they even are up on this kind of detail - my guess is no.

The Tennessee 28 point loss to Alabama has to be very concerning to Tennessee fans.

Quadrant system DOES help teams like URI.

Last year, with "blind" Top 25, Top 50 RPI wins, a team in a Power 5 conference could just stack up wins (and many losses) from HOME games where top teams come to play in conference. It's so much easier to win at home, so they wanted to make sure the location of the win is factored into the groupings.

Quadrant system heavily rewards neutral/road wins as you earn a Q1 against a top-75 RPI team on the road and must beat a Top 30 team at home, or Top 50 at neutral sites.

If not for the Quad system this year, you'd be seeing Rhody's lack of traditional Top 25 or Top 50 RPI wins compared to these same Power 5 teams.

What’s hurting URI is simple, the A10 suck factor. I actually think from a national standpoint we are getting respect in line with where we should be. We are rising in rankings by beating 100+ RPI teams. That is respect.
But we are all going to have to be fine with the fact that our league is bad this year and ultimately that will lower our seeding ceiling. It’s fine. 5,6,7 whatever, let’s go storm the dance! When have we ever been playing for seeding in early February. Soak it in.

Grid shows the 16 Teams with the 4 for Each Regional

Current Live RPI, Expected RPI, AP Ranking last Monday and Tomorrow's Ranking TBA

The Purdue Seeding seems to lend credence to the Committee who selected this not taking into effect the past week

Rhode Island should easily be in the Top 16 based on Current RPI and Expected RPI and by tomorrow based on AP Ranking as well

bigappleram wrote:What’s hurting URI is simple, the A10 suck factor. I actually think from a national standpoint we are getting respect in line with where we should be. We are rising in rankings by beating 100+ RPI teams. That is respect.
But we are all going to have to be fine with the fact that our league is bad this year and ultimately that will lower our seeding ceiling. It’s fine. 5,6,7 whatever, let’s go storm the dance! When have we ever been playing for seeding in early February. Soak it in.

It's glaring because of who they put in at 16.

If it were Gonzaga no one here or nationally would be complaining.

It's snubbing us and Zaga for a plummeting Oklahoma team in a 2-6 Baron-esque freefall

It is possible nobody has ever wanted to play someone else as badly as I want to play Oklahoma in the NCAA tournament.

ramster - that's a good job on the chart. If I may suggest: add in BPI and kenpom either in place of or in addition to the AP rankings? If you don't feel like it, I'm glad to do it tomorrow. I think that would probably be the most telling thing in terms of making sense of the 16.

Again, I don't care who is on the committee -- experience shows us that non-cartel teams frequently get screwed.

bigappleram wrote:What’s hurting URI is simple, the A10 suck factor. I actually think from a national standpoint we are getting respect in line with where we should be. We are rising in rankings by beating 100+ RPI teams. That is respect.
But we are all going to have to be fine with the fact that our league is bad this year and ultimately that will lower our seeding ceiling. It’s fine. 5,6,7 whatever, let’s go storm the dance! When have we ever been playing for seeding in early February. Soak it in.

It is not glaring in Current RPI, or in Expected RPI or in AP or ESPN Rankings

But it is a blessing that this Top 16 came out now because there is a lot of noise right now regarding URI NOT being included in the Top 16.

And also a noise as to those who were included and at what seed.

So whatever the new Quadrant System and all the other info they used to select and seed this Top 16 it seems they still have some homework to do.

And that is for the Top 16, imagine when it comes time to select the Last 4 in - that is where it really gets ugly

This was a poor Top 16 Selection at this point in time. I don't see how Purdue is a 1-seed having lost their last 2 games.

But again, glad this is Top 16 is out now.

I agree using the Quadrant System the A10 strength hurts.

But continuing to win will give URI an RPI of 5 and a Top 10 AP ranking - Quadrant System or no Quadrant System

The Trae Young factor.

Ramster have you seen Purdue play? Despite a loss or two they are legit and they would be high on my list of teams I would want to avoid. You can take offense to some of the teams in the 12-16 range but hard to argue that Uva, Purdue and Nova haven’t been far and away the most consistent teams in the land.

I would see Purdue as a 2-seed and not a 1 seed. If they had not lost the last 2 games I would have them a 1-seed.

I am not alone saying they did not take into account the last week or more either.

Personally I would have Cincinnati a 1-seed before I would have Purdue in there

Unfortunately they aren't seeding teams based on RPI or AP rankings.

talk about URI with about 4:45 left in the video, says they were very high on URI and just felt like Oklahomas Q1 wins put them just ahead. sounds like we were #17

So they confirmed what we thought. Simply picked whatever goalposts they could to justify being P5 ball washers.

If they're using Q1 wins, how is Ohio St in the top 16 with only 2?

Ramster, Cincinnati’s best win based on RPI is a neutral court W against Buffalo. You need to do a lot more than that to get a top 2 seed. We have a comparable resume to Cincy.

TruePoint wrote:Unfortunately they aren't seeding teams based on RPI or AP rankings.

RPI is included on the sheets. It was never removed. And the Committee members can look at anything they want to look at to form their opinion. The Committee Members can look at the AP and ESPN Rankings just like anyone else can.

bigappleram wrote:Ramster, Cincinnati’s best win based on RPI is a neutral court W against Buffalo. You need to do a lot more than that to get a top 2 seed. We have a comparable resume to Cincy.

i respectfully disagree with that
cincy is 4-2 vs Q1 against our 1-3
cincy is 12-2 vs Q1+2 against our 6-3

ramster wrote:

TruePoint wrote:Unfortunately they aren't seeding teams based on RPI or AP rankings.

RPI is included on the sheets. It was never removed. And the Committee members can look at anything they want to look at to form their opinion. The Committee Members can look at the AP and ESPN Rankings just like anyone else can.

They can look at whatever they want, and they aren't looking at RPI and AP. They definitely can, and they definitely aren't. I know what is on the team sheet, I'm just telling you that they aren't emphasizing RPI. They're giving more credence to the advanced metrics and their quadrant system. It is unfortunate for URI, but that's what they're doing.

bigappleram wrote:Ramster, Cincinnati’s best win based on RPI is a neutral court W against Buffalo. You need to do a lot more than that to get a top 2 seed. We have a comparable resume to Cincy.

I think we need to remember that RPI has lost some of its importance.
Read Palm’s article.

ATPTourFan wrote:

Excellent job by Andy Katz.

I was not impressed by Bruce Rasmussen. I would not want to be one of the last few teams out with this guy leading the Committee.

Surprising to me was that Rasmussen said that the Committee does not look at Margin of Victory AT ALL. Not at all. This was in response to Andy Katz bringing up the 28 point crushing that Tennessee experienced at Alabama yesterday. Obvious Katz was not aware of this. What Rasmussen says does not make sense anyway because some of the new measures that the Committee now looks starting this year at DO consider margin of victory or loss.

So, according to Rasmussen, URI can play @ Alabama to a 4 point loss and Tennessee can lose @ Alabama by 28 points and there is no consideration for that. The 4th round or 5th round seed could come down to URI and Tennessee and the margin of that common opponent would not matter - what nonsense.

Nice we have Bruce Rasmussen from Creighton as the Head of the Selection Committee and Dan Gavitt (son of the guy who refused to allow URI into the Big East) as Senior Vice President in charge of Men's Basketball and the NCAA tournament

We just need to win, win, win. No favors coming our way.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... s-seedings

ATPTourFan wrote:

This is great news. The Selection Committee (which is all that matters) seems to have Rhody 17 based on the interview comments. They were the only team not in the Top 16 that were discussed.

I am so glad the NCAA picked up Katz. And if URI is indeed 17 (or thereabouts), I'm 100% confident they can surpass an inconsistent Oklahoma team over the next four weeks.

TruePoint wrote:

ramster wrote:

TruePoint wrote:Unfortunately they aren't seeding teams based on RPI or AP rankings.

RPI is included on the sheets. It was never removed. And the Committee members can look at anything they want to look at to form their opinion. The Committee Members can look at the AP and ESPN Rankings just like anyone else can.

They can look at whatever they want, and they aren't looking at RPI and AP. They definitely can, and they definitely aren't. I know what is on the team sheet, I'm just telling you that they aren't emphasizing RPI. They're giving more credence to the advanced metrics and their quadrant system. It is unfortunate for URI, but that's what they're doing.

That is what they are doing. But RPI is on the Sheet. Never came off.

bigappleram wrote:Ramster, Cincinnati’s best win based on RPI is a neutral court W against Buffalo. You need to do a lot more than that to get a top 2 seed. We have a comparable resume to Cincy.

Cincinnati beat Houston with a RPI of 31.8 at home by 10

Cincinnati just went to Moody Coliseum today as 8 point favorites and SMU RPI of 64.3 (5th best in AAC) Cincinnati won easily by 76-51. Which of course, listening to Bruce Rasmussen with Any Katz today, the Selection Committee does not look at Margin of victory at all. Hard to believe but he said it.

I'd agree URI and Cincinnati are similar resumes but both schools are underrated based on this Top 16 Selection imho.

Big tests for Cincinnati are upcoming:
@ Houston this Thursday Night
Wichita State next Sunday
@ Wichita State last game of season March 4

twisted3829 wrote:talk about URI with about 4:45 left in the video, says they were very high on URI and just felt like Oklahomas Q1 wins put them just ahead. sounds like we were #17

Agreed. I was just about to post this. The committee had a very long discussion about URI and are on the borderline. The committee feels very strongly on URI's caliber (I'm paraphrasing the remarks).

Overall, I feel like the committee is well aware of URI and if they keep winning will likely sneak into a 4 seed.

Rasmussen said URI had to keep winning. And I would not call getting a 4 seed sneaking in. If URI wins out they should be a legitimate 2 seed.

No way two seed. No way.

not even close to a 2, if we had beat nevada and virginia maybe

To repeat, we’re a 4 seed at best.

This is fun, 2 seed is like winning the lottery. 4 Seed and I'm ecstatic.

ramster wrote:

ATPTourFan wrote:

Excellent job by Andy Katz.

I was not impressed by Bruce Rasmussen. I would not want to be one of the last few teams out with this guy leading the Committee.

Surprising to me was that Rasmussen said that the Committee does not look at Margin of Victory AT ALL. Not at all. This was in response to Andy Katz bringing up the 28 point crushing that Tennessee experienced at Alabama yesterday. Obvious Katz was not aware of this. What Rasmussen says does not make sense anyway because some of the new measures that the Committee now looks starting this year at DO consider margin of victory or loss.

So, according to Rasmussen, URI can play @ Alabama to a 4 point loss and Tennessee can lose @ Alabama by 28 points and there is no consideration for that. The 4th round or 5th round seed could come down to URI and Tennessee and the margin of that common opponent would not matter - what nonsense.

Nice we have Bruce Rasmussen from Creighton as the Head of the Selection Committee and Dan Gavitt (son of the guy who refused to allow URI into the Big East) as Senior Vice President in charge of Men's Basketball and the NCAA tournament

We just need to win, win, win. No favors coming our way.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... s-seedings

Winning and losing matters most. Always will and always should. Margin of victory is impossible to judge without watching every game