2017-18 Bracketology

[Blue Man]

I like to reiterate this point every so often, there is a spot for URI fans in-between Blue Man's eternal optimism (and his never ending Baron 2.0 talk) and PlayMikeMotenMore's perpetual negativity (only present when the team does bad, otherwise he disappears from the board). It's a place where you can still love your Rhody Rams and celebrate everything they have and will accomplish and at the same time criticize for shortcomings. It's hard to believe, but you can do both!

I'm not eternally optimistic, I just have this gift of perspective that seems to elude a fair amount of board posters.

The Baron 2.0 talk is a great recent historical reference point to use when people start melting down. Just like how last year 1 PC loss in early December didn't mean that we were going to miss the NCAAT 3 months later and Hurley would never make the dance. Pretty sure if you go back and read it (I'm all set), you'd pretty much see me saying exactly that.

I'd like to think I criticize when there are things to criticize, but sue me if I'm able to understand that EC or Jared missing free throws at the end of a game is more of an anomaly since I saw them make and win far more games by hitting those shots.

Color me perplexed as to how 2 losses in games that weren't directly central to our season goals (high NCAA seed wasn't on the list I'd imagine), all of a sudden takes us from "final four contender and guaranteed sweet sixteen participant" down to "barely get in, first weekend exit."

That doesn't seem like a negative/positive thing. That just seems like an unstable worldview.

I can't even imagine how some posters on here would handle a burger not prepared to their liking at a restaurant.

[Blue Man]

BM...you’re going to shove it down our throat? You say this as if we are hoping the pilot crashes the plane we’re on so we can say “haha...we were right”.

Feeling bad about the direction of the team or feeling less optimistic, doesn’t mean anyone here will be pulling for them any less than you.

I'm not shoving anything down anyone's throat. I'll just watch Dan Hurley do it and happily dance afterwards.

You're upside down on the plane crashing bit. You'd be the ones in this scenario screaming that the plane was going to crash and the pilot had us heading for disaster, while we're saying...chill out turbulence is a normal thing that happens on just about every plane ride. You'd then argue and say we were dumb and turbulence doesn't exist, every single plane flight is totally smooth and effortless and turbulence is a sign that we're about to crash into a mountain. We would then be the ones laughing when we safely landed at our destination saying "haha...we were right."

While all of us are rooting for the plane to land safely, there are some people who should've popped xannies because they can't handle flying and are freaking out during mid-flight turbulence, while the rest of us try to calm them down and assure it's normal.

[RF1]

I guess the last two losses had absolutely no bearing on our seeding and the probability of advancing in the NCAA Tournament. Facing a #1 seed in the 2nd round is I guess something really great.

[Blue Man]

I guess the last two losses had absolutely no bearing on our seeding and the probability of advancing in the NCAA Tournament.

I guess I missed the part where we were a 1 seed playing a 16. If we're as terrible as a lot of people all of a sudden think we are, wouldn't we have lost the first round game anyway?

NCAA tournament is about 2 things: draws and depth.

You can't control the draw. You could get lucky as an 11 seed and play a way overseeded 6. You could get screwed as a 5 and play a way underseeded 12.

You can control your depth. Starting lineup differences in college basketball are razor thin. The difference between the elites and the have-nots is when the subs come in. Sorry but I'll take jarvis garrett coming in as my "back-up" point guard, and cyril langevine coming in as my "back-up" big man over anyone else's 2nd unit in the country. I don't think our seed matters to that account.

I think we're a 2nd weekend team whether we're a 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 seed. I've thought that since pre-season, thought that through OOC play without EC, and then pretty much confirmed it by mid-February. A lot of that still depends on the draw. I love us against Virginia or Nova. I don't against Kansas or Xavier.

Just like last year, I thought we were an NCAA team pre-season, thought that through OOC play, and still thought we were good enough to win-out the A10 tourney. Certainly didn't call us being undefeated post-Fordham, but still thought we were good enough to dance and win a game.

If anyone needed to wait until Friday night to decide how good of a team we are, I don't know what to tell you.

[RhodyRam86]

BM...you’re going to shove it down our throat? You say this as if we are hoping the pilot crashes the plane we’re on so we can say “haha...we were right”.

Feeling bad about the direction of the team or feeling less optimistic, doesn’t mean anyone here will be pulling for them any less than you.

I'm not shoving anything down anyone's throat. I'll just watch Dan Hurley do it and happily dance afterwards.

You're upside down on the plane crashing bit. You'd be the ones in this scenario screaming that the plane was going to crash and the pilot had us heading for disaster, while we're saying...chill out turbulence is a normal thing that happens on just about every plane ride. You'd then argue and say we were dumb and turbulence doesn't exist, every single plane flight is totally smooth and effortless and turbulence is a sign that we're about to crash into a mountain. We would then be the ones laughing when we safely landed at our destination saying "haha...we were right."

While all of us are rooting for the plane to land safely, there are some people who should've popped xannies because they can't handle flying who are freaking out during mid-flight turbulence, while the rest of us try to calm them down and assure it's normal.

I apologize. In a previous post, I thought it was you, but you said Hurley's boys would shove it down our throats. either way...I don't think anyone here is saying the plane is going to crash...we are all just on heightened alert and feeling a little more tense than we were a week ago. the two losses incurred were brutal for different reasons and I truly do admire you for being able to shrug them off so easily. Next November I would be happy to buy you a beer and have you laugh and tell me.."see...you were doing all that worrying for nothing".

[RhodyRam86]

I guess the last two losses had absolutely no bearing on our seeding and the probability of advancing in the NCAA Tournament.

I guess I missed the part where we were a 1 seed playing a 16. If we're as terrible as a lot of people all of a sudden think we are, wouldn't we have lost the first round game anyway?

NCAA tournament is about 2 things: draws and depth.

You can't control the draw. You could get lucky as an 11 seed and play a way overseeded 6. You could get screwed as a 5 and play a way underseeded 12.

You can control your depth. Starting lineup differences in college basketball are razor thin. The difference between the elites and the have-nots is when the subs come in. Sorry but I'll take jarvis garrett coming in as my "back-up" point guard, and cyril langevine coming in as my "back-up" big man over anyone else's 2nd unit in the country. I don't think our seed matters to that account.

I think we're a 2nd weekend team whether we're a 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 seed. I've thought that since pre-season, thought that through OOC play without EC, and then pretty much confirmed it by mid-February. A lot of that still depends on the draw. I love us against Virginia or Nova. I don't against Kansas or Xavier.

Just like last year, I thought we were an NCAA team pre-season, thought that through OOC play, and still thought we were good enough to win-out the A10 tourney. Certainly didn't call us being undefeated post-Fordham, but still thought we were good enough to dance and win a game.

If anyone needed to wait until Friday night to decide how good of a team we are, I don't know what to tell you.

so BM...you have no concern that Jarvis is scoreless in his last 4 games? that EC had an 0-5 at the line against LaSalle and missed a big one vs. Davidson? Or that his 3 point attempts aren't just missing...they are missing badly...and really for most of the year? or that Fatts' shooting percentage has been woeful? or that Andre seems to have put on some weight and appears much slower than at the start of the year? these aren't 2 game trends. this has been going on for a bit...it's just that they've been more glaring in the last 2 games because we've lost. so yes...some here are a bit less optimistic than you. doesn't make us bad people. doesn't mean we love to be miserable. doesn't mean we aren't still rooting and hoping for a run in the dance...

[URI'21]

BM - fans becoming nervous (within reason of course... excluding those who really lost their minds) when our team performed worse than usual going into the post-season is normal and I don't see a problem with it.

We didn't look like ourselves against St Joes & Davidson and discussing what happened & how to correct it for championship season is absolutely fair game for a message board. As mentioned above by '86 there are a couple of other concerning trends from previous games that should be pointed out and corrected by the team soon. Again there's no problem with discussing these and it doesn't make fans that do "miserable". Of course somebody announcing that the team is less special or talented than we were a month ago is a different story.

[josephski]

I guess the last two losses had absolutely no bearing on our seeding and the probability of advancing in the NCAA Tournament.

I guess I missed the part where we were a 1 seed playing a 16. If we're as terrible as a lot of people all of a sudden think we are, wouldn't we have lost the first round game anyway?

NCAA tournament is about 2 things: draws and depth.

You can't control the draw. You could get lucky as an 11 seed and play a way overseeded 6. You could get screwed as a 5 and play a way underseeded 12.

The actual statistics were mentioned in another thread but a 4 seed or higher gives you a much better chance to win the first round than a 5 through 8. Add in the fact that to get to the sweet sixteen we'll most likely need to play a 1 or 2 it's safe to say those two losses hurt our chances at the sweet sixteen. Not saying it's not possible but it's going to be a tougher challenge and hopefully we get lucky with a decent draw.

[Blue Man]

I guess the last two losses had absolutely no bearing on our seeding and the probability of advancing in the NCAA Tournament.

I guess I missed the part where we were a 1 seed playing a 16. If we're as terrible as a lot of people all of a sudden think we are, wouldn't we have lost the first round game anyway?

NCAA tournament is about 2 things: draws and depth.

You can't control the draw. You could get lucky as an 11 seed and play a way overseeded 6. You could get screwed as a 5 and play a way underseeded 12.

You can control your depth. Starting lineup differences in college basketball are razor thin. The difference between the elites and the have-nots is when the subs come in. Sorry but I'll take jarvis garrett coming in as my "back-up" point guard, and cyril langevine coming in as my "back-up" big man over anyone else's 2nd unit in the country. I don't think our seed matters to that account.

I think we're a 2nd weekend team whether we're a 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 seed. I've thought that since pre-season, thought that through OOC play without EC, and then pretty much confirmed it by mid-February. A lot of that still depends on the draw. I love us against Virginia or Nova. I don't against Kansas or Xavier.

Just like last year, I thought we were an NCAA team pre-season, thought that through OOC play, and still thought we were good enough to win-out the A10 tourney. Certainly didn't call us being undefeated post-Fordham, but still thought we were good enough to dance and win a game.

If anyone needed to wait until Friday night to decide how good of a team we are, I don't know what to tell you.

so BM...you have no concern that Jarvis is scoreless in his last 4 games? that EC had an 0-5 at the line against LaSalle and missed a big one vs. Davidson? Or that his 3 point attempts aren't just missing...they are missing badly...and really for most of the year? or that Fatts' shooting percentage has been woeful? or that Andre seems to have put on some weight and appears much slower than at the start of the year? these aren't 2 game trends. this has been going on for a bit...it's just that they've been more glaring in the last 2 games because we've lost. so yes...some here are a bit less optimistic than you. doesn't make us bad people. doesn't mean we love to be miserable. doesn't mean we aren't still rooting and hoping for a run in the dance...

No, no, not really, and I would if he was our only option at center.

Jarvis affects the games in ways that aren't scoring related, so that doesn't worry me. Senior PG with big game experience going up against another team's 2nd unit.

EC has had a career of hot-and-cold, and after his cold streaks comes games where he takes over and dominates. He's going to be 3rd or 4th in scoring all-time at URI. I'll ride with him any day of the week.

Fatts is a freshman who will make freshman mistakes and have freshman inconsistencies. Seeing as how he's 3rd off the bench, I really don't need him to be shooting at a high percentage. The scouting report on him will say he's capable of scoring double digits just as likely as he is going 0-fer. He still is one of the better ballhandlers and on-ball defenders other teams will face. If the 8th guy in your rotation is an inconsistent scorer but consistently good defender and ball-handler, your team is probably really really good.

Langevine has re-emerged to who we all thought he was and takes a lion's share of the minutes now. Dre is a great kick starter to score points early in halves and generate offense from the inside. If we're depending on him for low-post defense it means we have much bigger problems to worry about; like a perimeter defensive breakdown (what's supposed to be our strength), or worse, a langevine injury or foul trouble.

Certainly not saying anyone is a bad person because they choose to only focus on the most negative aspects of what they view as entertainment that they've chosen of their own free will. Personally, if I only found negative things to look at in the thing meant to distract me from my day-to-day, I would probably find another entertainment pursuit, but that's me.

I certainly don't think anyone on here isn't rooting for a long run in the dance, just like I don't think anyone who gets on a plane isn't rooting for a safe landing at their destination. I just don't understand how people can't see the forest for the trees. If my tone comes off as harsh to any, it comes from a place of frustration and love.

I really don't understand how or why, with all that we've been through as a fanbase, that anyone would willingly choose to only see the negative in all the good that we're doing. That 15 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago - even 3 years ago - we'd all do UNSPEAKABLE things to be sitting at #25 in the country after SEVEN WEEKS in the top 25, with a 23-6 record, #1 in the conference, and a lock for an at-large bid.

I hate that anyone can't enjoy this like some of us can. So me trying to jostle any of you out of this funk and just enjoy the ride isn't coming from anger, it's coming from compassion.

For the love of GOD everyone just get on board and enjoy the damn ride. Critiques and rain storms can happen AFTER the season. Let's just enjoy what we literally had to wait almost 2 decades to get.

[RhodyRam86]

i'll agree with some of that BM.

Fatts is not your typical 3rd man off the bench. I would guess his average number of shots per minutes played is pretty high compared to most of his teammates. so his misses are a bit more magnified than the typical 8th man.

EC is streaky, but I don't remember his three point shooting being as off as it's been for the better part of the season. let's be honest...lately it's become 50/50 if he can as much as hit the rim.

Cyril...I don't know what the hell got to him, but it's hard to believe he is the same guy that began the year. He has gotten so much better and for all intents and purposes, while not the starter, he has become the number 1 big on this team.

Jarvis...it's okay to say he brings a lot more to the table than scoring, but his contributions were a godsend earlier in the year when he came off the bench and hit a couple threes. his recent struggle offensively are an issue now because the rest of the team (except JT) is struggling as well.

So unless at least one of the guys (EC, Jarvis, or Fatts) steps up and starts making some shots, we are going to struggle. JT can't do it alone.

[TruePoint]

I guess the last two losses had absolutely no bearing on our seeding and the probability of advancing in the NCAA Tournament. Facing a #1 seed in the 2nd round is I guess something really great.

I want to plant a flag here because I think there is some nuance being missed (or ignored).

There are two reactions to the games last week that I can totally relate to and completely share: (1) disappointment about how the games last week could impact our seeding and potentially our outcome in the tournament, and (2) anger at watching my team lose two games in the worst possible ways: being curb stomped at home on Senior Night by a lousy team and giving away a quality win in the last minute after having already won the game for all intents and purposes. Anyone expressing any version of these two ideas will not get any pushback from me.

There is a third reaction that some fans here have expressed, though, that I disagree with vehemently: that in light of the games last week, this team is actually not that good after all and will likely lose its next two games and end this this promising season with a whimper. I'll repeat myself here just in case that's necessary: anything is possible. That could happen. But I find it very, very, very unlikely.

My perspective on the last week is that on Tuesday a slightly weary and exhausted group took a game completely for granted and was not mentally prepared to get punched in the face, and on Friday that shell shocked group shook it off and went out and beat a pretty quality team on the road - only to inexplicably and uncharacteristically give the game back at the last second. I see the two as nearly equally frustrating but completely unrelated in all other respects, and I don't think it really portends much of anything going forward as long as the team is not (in the words of Pete "the Meat" Shephard) psychologically damaged by how the last two games went. This is a veteran team that has responded well to adversity before, so I don't expect that to be an issue. But, we shall see.

[Seawrightspostgame]

I just think they have had a concerning two weeks.

At the end I just watch and hold my breath.

[TruePoint]

It's funny, I don't remember too many people sounding the alarm after they ran Dayton off the court 10 days ago, outscoring them by 30+ points over an 18 minute stretch at one point before emptying the bench. I felt that was the best basketball they'd played in a while. I also feel like even though they didn't play a perfect game last Friday night, if JT and EC made their FTs (as we would expect and as I still expect if we find ourselves in the same situation again) and we won the game by 8 points everyone would have had their confidence restored and we'd have been spared all this handwringing and revisionist history about the "last two weeks."

[Billyboy78]

I think what this team needs the most is some rest. They're getting that this week. I'm sure Dan has backed off on the grueling practices. He even admitted that guys like Stan need a little rest. I'm sure that applies to several of the guys. The way we like to play, the intense defensive pressure and the uptempo offense, requires healthy bodies and fresh legs. I think we'll look more we rid earlier in the year beginning this Friday. Hey, I admit I react badly when we lose. But I'm still very optimistic going forward. Time to start kicking ass again.

[theblueram]

I still don't see an 8 seed happening. If we win the tournament we should be a 6 seed. A loss should have us a 7 seed. Just like we didn't fall out of the Top 25, we are not going from the first 5 seed to an 8 seed after last week.

[Roz]

Anything other than an 8 or 9. I would rather have a damn 10 thank an 8 or 9. That being said, i think we make the finals of the A10 and get a 7

[Seawrightspostgame]

It's funny, I don't remember too many people sounding the alarm after they ran Dayton off the court 10 days ago, outscoring them by 30+ points over an 18 minute stretch at one point before emptying the bench. I felt that was the best basketball they'd played in a while. I also feel like even though they didn't play a perfect game last Friday night, if JT and EC made their FTs (as we would expect and as I still expect if we find ourselves in the same situation again) and we won the game by 8 points everyone would have had their confidence restored and we'd have been spared all this handwringing and revisionist history about the "last two weeks."

You're right. When they win I don't really have anything to say. I just clap and get told to sit down in my seat. I come home tired and don't look at the board.

When they lose I blame it on Hurley's reluctance to play big guys. or reluctance to play my personal preference of some combo of big guys. Anything negative I say is rooted in that. Unreasonable? Certainly.

That and Bill Koch's reluctance to recognize Tom Brady has no peer.

[rambone 78]

If we lose before the final we're likely a 10 imo.

If we lose in the final we're either an 8 or 9.

If we win the thing we're a 7 with an outside shot at a 6.

I do think we're about as close to a lock as we can get, after looking at the various brackets the last couple of days.

I was concerned about possibly being left out....not really anymore.

[rambone 78]

Reading the A10 board, there's a post stating that the at larges should be determined at the end of the regular season, and should only be adjusted if there's bid stealers....I think it's Bilas who's in favor of that. In other words deemphasize the conference tourneys.

Makes sense, since borderline at large P5 schools can play their way in a lot easier since they have more opportunities for Q1 wins than say the A10, where us and the Bonnies can only hurt themselves by losing earlier in the weekend.....

[RamIt!]

Reading the A10 board, there's a post stating that the at larges should be determined at the end of the regular season, and should only be adjusted if there's bid stealers....I think it's Bilas who's in favor of that. In other words deemphasize the conference tourneys.

Makes sense, since borderline at large P5 schools can play their way in a lot easier since they have more opportunities for Q1 wins than say the A10, where us and the Bonnies can only hurt themselves by losing earlier in the weekend.....

I don't quite follow that philosophy. Wouldn't that open the door for more of those "bid stealers" as P5 schools would bow out by playing lax? Possibly creating more controversy from teams that deserve to dance but are replaced by more bid stealers. Should completely do away with conference tournaments in that case, not try to deemphasize.

IMO conference tourneys help weed out those that are not tournament caliber, filters out those bubble teams. If they do well in a tournament but don't win, they've proven themselves tournament quality and deserve to dance.

[Seawrightspostgame]

I'm a big fan of conference tournaments. They're very fun to watch. All of them.

IDK why fans would want to cut something out to ensure the Dance seat. It gives you less to watch and enjoy. Some of the most fun performances to watch have come in a conference tournament.

[RhowdyRam02]

I know it would never happen, but I would make it so you need a winning record in your conference to be able to participate in it.

[rjsuperfly66]

I'm a big fan of conference tournaments. They're very fun to watch. All of them.

IDK why fans would want to cut something out to ensure the Dance seat. It gives you less to watch and enjoy. Some of the most fun performances to watch have come in a conference tournament.

People always argue the advantageous way but forget the disadvantage.
Syracuse needs a good win in the ACCT, and that opponent will happen to be UNC.
The odds of Syracuse beating UNC are what, 20%?
It's a much harder road than beating a bunch of mediocre pumpkins.
Further, I would add if Syracuse gets hot and runs off wins against Wake Forest, UNC, Miami, Duke, and loses in the ACCT game to Virginia, that they deserve a tournament bid and should not be dismissed because of regular season performance.
If conferences do not want "major conference bias," the conferences need to perform stronger.
No one in the A10 was sporting their "major conference bias" hats when they put 6 teams in the field in 2014.
So they take advantage of the easier wins in conference play and then get mad about it later when people talk about how stronger other conferences are.
I get it's not a 100% fair playing field, but if you beat the teams in front of you, and don't lose games to bad opponents, then you don't even need to have the discussion.

[TruePoint]

In the conference tournament or the NCAAT? Because there is a small but vocal movement in favor of the latter. I would definitely limit the NCAAT at-large bids to teams with .500 or better conference records. For the conference tournament, though, I like how every team in the country has a shot to make it into the dance by winning their league's autobid. And even if you don't like it as much as I do, it doesn't happen frequently enough that a low seeded team wins their conference tournament to be worried about it.

[RhowdyRam02]

In the conference tournament or the NCAAT? Because there is a small but vocal movement in favor of the latter. I would definitely limit the NCAAT at-large bids to teams with .500 or better conference records. For the conference tournament, though, I like how every team in the country has a shot to make it into the dance by winning their league's autobid. And even if you don't like it as much as I do, it doesn't happen frequently enough that a low seeded team wins their conference tournament to be worried about it.

I was saying the conference tournament. I think having it this way devalues the regular season.

[Seawrightspostgame]

Many ppl think that. I personally agree with how it works now. I hope they keep the fun in college basketball.

I get antsy on the .500 in conference record thing myself. I wouldn't mind if there is an unspoken bias against teams under .500. No need to make it policy to keep them out.

[rjsuperfly66]

Many ppl think that. I personally agree with how it works now. I hope they keep the fun in college basketball.

I get antsy on the .500 in conference record thing myself. I wouldn't mind if there is an unspoken bias against teams under .500. No need to make it policy to keep them out.

My problem with the .500 rule is this ...
The ACC has the #1, #3, #8, #18, #27, #31, #34, #35, #36, #41, and #51 teams in the country.
In a conference that has an uneven schedule, it's possible that team #51 would face the first 3 teams 5 times, while team #41 could play them 3 times, therefore, higher probability for loss.
So if team #41 is 9-9, they are ok, but if they are 8-10, it's not ok?

[TruePoint]

My counterargument there is that if you're the 11th best team in your conference (maybe with a balanced schedule you're actually the 9th best), we know you're not one of the best teams in the country. You're not even one of the best teams in your league. A big part of why your RPI in that scenario you laid out is simply because you had 13 games scheduled against top-40 RPI teams, presumably about half of those on the road. I'd rather give the shot to the second or third best team in a league a tier down, because there is less certainty surrounding their actual quality coming out of a lesser league.

For instance, Davidson isn't even in contention for a bid. But if they played any of the last teams in from each of the 6 leagues that will get a half dozen bids on a neutral court, I'd probably take Davidson. They just haven't the chances in the second half of the year to make up any ground, so their resume is subpar.

[PlayMikeMotenMore]

In the conference tournament or the NCAAT? Because there is a small but vocal movement in favor of the latter. I would definitely limit the NCAAT at-large bids to teams with .500 or better conference records. For the conference tournament, though, I like how every team in the country has a shot to make it into the dance by winning their league's autobid. And even if you don't like it as much as I do, it doesn't happen frequently enough that a low seeded team wins their conference tournament to be worried about it.

I was saying the conference tournament. I think having it this way devalues the regular season.

Agree. Conference tourney devalues the regular season...especially in a league like the Ivy League where it's a true round robin. Harvard and Penn should be playing 1-game playoff for the bid, not this ridiculous 4-team Ivy Tourney with Yale and Cornell. It's a shame that the Ivy Leauge sold out for $$$. I believe you have 4-months to prove worthy of a shot at NCAA tourney. 4-day crapshoot proves nothing other than you got hot and maybe a little lucky. This is why I believe URI's accomplishment of an A-10 title this year is far more noteworthy than winning any postseason tournament. Rhody is the 2017-'18 A-10 champs and last year they were the 2017 A-10 TOURNEY champs, despite what the ribbon along the top of this board proclaims.

.500 or better conference records mean very little. I'll give you an example, which you can go look up so you can see I'm not making this stuff up. Nebraska this year. They went 13-5 in the Big Ten, which put them in 4th place. Seems impressive on the surface. However, 12 of their 13 wins were against teams below them in the standings. Due to unbalance Big Ten schedule, they played Purdue, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Michigan just once. (They beat Michigan in Lincoln.) So basically they beat up on the bottom of the league. 22-10 and 13-5 in the Big Ten looks great on paper but you'd have to look a little bit deeper. Conference expansion has made relying on conference records almost worthless.

[rjsuperfly66]

My counterargument there is that if you're the 11th best team in your conference (maybe with a balanced schedule you're actually the 9th best), we know you're not one of the best teams in the country. You're not even one of the best teams in your league. A big part of why your RPI in that scenario you laid out is simply because you had 13 games scheduled against top-40 RPI teams, presumably about half of those on the road. I'd rather give the shot to the second or third best team in a league a tier down, because there is less certainty surrounding their actual quality coming out of a lesser league.

For instance, Davidson isn't even in contention for a bid. But if they played any of the last teams in from each of the 6 leagues that will get a half dozen bids on a neutral court, I'd probably take Davidson. They just haven't the chances in the second half of the year to make up any ground, so their resume is subpar.

Do we know that though?
In 2016, Syracuse went 9-9 in the ACC.
They finished with a #9 seed (really 10th because Louisville vacated), and lost to the #8 seed Pittsburgh.
Syracuse goes to the Final Four.
In 2011, UCONN finished 9-9 in the BE.
They finished in a 3 way tie, but won the tiebreaker to get the 9 seed.
That team did win the Big East Championship, and a national championship.
But if UCONN lost one more BE regular season game, they are 8-10 and not eligible unless they win the BE?
The goal of the tournament should be to get the best teams possible in, not to give teams a "pass" because they were one of the better teams in a weak conference.

[Seawrightspostgame]

I agree with both. That is why I say unspoken. So you can get in at 8-10 but 7-11 is too much.

I also really believe in the argument that the teams have already played and established who is better. They already had their shot and if they are that good then the conference tournament is their last shot.

I really don't like that with the College Football Playoff.

[Seawrightspostgame]

Nobody elevates the conference record PMMM. They are just saying should there be a cutoff at the bottom.

[sf2010]

.500 or better conference records mean very little. I'll give you an example, which you can go look up so you can see I'm not making this stuff up. Nebraska this year. They went 13-5 in the Big Ten, which put them in 4th place. Seems impressive on the surface. However, 12 of their 13 wins were against teams below them in the standings. Due to unbalance Big Ten schedule, they played Purdue, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Michigan just once. (They beat Michigan in Lincoln.) So basically they beat up on the bottom of the league. 22-10 and 13-5 in the Big Ten looks great on paper but you'd have to look a little bit deeper. Conference expansion has made relying on conference records almost worthless.

Well shit - all15 of our conference wins were against teams below us in the standings...

[TruePoint]

When you have 351 teams and decades of history to sort through, you're bound to find a few outliers and exceptions. Maybe in those cases there were injuries or other factors that contributed to those teams having disappointing regular seasons, and perhaps the committee should have the discretion to take those things into account while still having a policy of favoring more competitive teams from slightly less competitive leagues.

[URI'21]

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/2/ ... s-brackets

Good argument against conference tournaments. I agree with what the authors are saying here

[adam914]

Rhody is the 2017-'18 A-10 champs and last year they were the 2017 A-10 TOURNEY champs, despite what the ribbon along the top of this board proclaims.

Actually, when creating the banner along the top of this board, I was very careful to do some research and make sure I was using the correct terminology so as to not upset anyone. The conference refers to the tournament champion each year as the A-10 Champion and the regular season winner as the A-10 Regular Season Champions. I refer you to page 112 of the A-10 Media Guide for reference. Or the recap on the official conference website that refers to us as "A-10 MBB Champions".

Just some facts for you there, my good friend.

https://issuu.com/atlantic10conference/ ... 6/55939004

http://www.atlantic10.com/ViewArticle.d ... M_ID=31600

[TruePoint]

hashtag facts

[theblueram]

Great interview with Rasmussen on CBS Sports. (On my phone so no linky). Talks about anomaly games or outliers( like the Joes) game that they don’t want to put much value in. Also good mentions on Rhody

[PlayMikeMotenMore]

.500 or better conference records mean very little. I'll give you an example, which you can go look up so you can see I'm not making this stuff up. Nebraska this year. They went 13-5 in the Big Ten, which put them in 4th place. Seems impressive on the surface. However, 12 of their 13 wins were against teams below them in the standings. Due to unbalance Big Ten schedule, they played Purdue, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Michigan just once. (They beat Michigan in Lincoln.) So basically they beat up on the bottom of the league. 22-10 and 13-5 in the Big Ten looks great on paper but you'd have to look a little bit deeper. Conference expansion has made relying on conference records almost worthless.

Well shit - all15 of our conference wins were against teams below us in the standings...

Well duh, sure. By definition, 1st place teams always have no wins against teams higher than them in the standings. Thanks for the insight.

The point is a 4th place team (like Nebraska) has 1 win against a team equal or higher than them in the standings. This is due to 1) unbalanced scheduling and 2) perhaps Nebraska not being good enough. The whole conference record thing you can throw out the window.

An 8-10 team in any league could very well be much better than a team that finished at 10-8 and two spots higher in the standings. You follow?

[PlayMikeMotenMore]

Rhody is the 2017-'18 A-10 champs and last year they were the 2017 A-10 TOURNEY champs, despite what the ribbon along the top of this board proclaims.

Actually, when creating the banner along the top of this board, I was very careful to do some research and make sure I was using the correct terminology so as to not upset anyone. The conference refers to the tournament champion each year as the A-10 Champion and the regular season winner as the A-10 Regular Season Champions. I refer you to page 112 of the A-10 Media Guide for reference. Or the recap on the official conference website that refers to us as "A-10 MBB Champions".

Just some facts for you there, my good friend.

https://issuu.com/atlantic10conference/ ... 6/55939004

http://www.atlantic10.com/ViewArticle.d ... M_ID=31600

Agree. The point is that there's a distinction between the two labels by the conference. You can't have two teams named "A-10 Champs." One is the regular season champ and one is the tourney (or postseason) champ...even if the word "tourney" is omitted. We agree that the regular season champion is given the #1 seed.

For example in the Big East this year, I would think that Xavier will hang a banner as Big East (regular season) Champs. And if Villanova wins the Big East tourney, they'll probably hang a banner too.

Solid post, Adam.

[NYGFan_Section208]

.500 or better conference records mean very little. I'll give you an example, which you can go look up so you can see I'm not making this stuff up. Nebraska this year. They went 13-5 in the Big Ten, which put them in 4th place. Seems impressive on the surface. However, 12 of their 13 wins were against teams below them in the standings. Due to unbalance Big Ten schedule, they played Purdue, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Michigan just once. (They beat Michigan in Lincoln.) So basically they beat up on the bottom of the league. 22-10 and 13-5 in the Big Ten looks great on paper but you'd have to look a little bit deeper. Conference expansion has made relying on conference records almost worthless.

Well shit - all15 of our conference wins were against teams below us in the standings...

Well duh, sure. By definition, 1st place teams always have no wins against teams higher than them in the standings. Thanks for the insight.

The point is a 4th place team (like Nebraska) has 1 win against a team equal or higher than them in the standings. This is due to 1) unbalanced scheduling and 2) perhaps Nebraska not being good enough. The whole conference record thing you can throw out the window.

An 8-10 team in any league could very well be much better than a team that finished at 10-8 and two spots higher in the standings. You follow?

So...the insight is...the lower you finish in the standings, the more chances you have for wins against teams in your conference that have better records?

[PlayMikeMotenMore]

Well shit - all15 of our conference wins were against teams below us in the standings...

Well duh, sure. By definition, 1st place teams always have no wins against teams higher than them in the standings. Thanks for the insight.

The point is a 4th place team (like Nebraska) has 1 win against a team equal or higher than them in the standings. This is due to 1) unbalanced scheduling and 2) perhaps Nebraska not being good enough. The whole conference record thing you can throw out the window.

An 8-10 team in any league could very well be much better than a team that finished at 10-8 and two spots higher in the standings. You follow?

So...the insight is...the lower you finish in the standings, the more chances you have for wins against teams in your conference that have better records?

The insight is that a conference record as a standalone statistic with no context tells you very little as to how good that team is in relation to the teams near them in the standings. Nebraska and Michigan both finished 13-5. You tell me if you think those two teams are close to being equal.

[reef]

ASU is 8-10 in conference and the 9th seed in PAC 12 tourney

PAC 12 is not a good conference

They best beat Colorado or they may not make it

[RhodyRam86]

.500 or better conference records mean very little. I'll give you an example, which you can go look up so you can see I'm not making this stuff up. Nebraska this year. They went 13-5 in the Big Ten, which put them in 4th place. Seems impressive on the surface. However, 12 of their 13 wins were against teams below them in the standings. Due to unbalance Big Ten schedule, they played Purdue, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Michigan just once. (They beat Michigan in Lincoln.) So basically they beat up on the bottom of the league. 22-10 and 13-5 in the Big Ten looks great on paper but you'd have to look a little bit deeper. Conference expansion has made relying on conference records almost worthless.

Well shit - all15 of our conference wins were against teams below us in the standings...

I know you're joking, but to take it a step further, we are 2-3 vs 2nd thru 4th place and 13-0 vs. teams from 5th place down.

[theblueram]

Here's the link to the CBS report. Good read and makes me feel even better that the St Joes anomaly won't hurt us too much in seeding.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... ns-matter/

[Roz]

We are now an 8 seed in the bracket matrix. We need to do some work this weekend

[TruePoint]

Here's the link to the CBS report. Good read and makes me feel even better that the St Joes anomaly won't hurt us too much in seeding.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... ns-matter/

This was good - informative and interesting. I think hearing Rasmussen gives me a little more comfort with what the committee is doing. Of course, he could be talking out of his ass about some things and at the end of the day the same issues could exist that people have always complained about it. But this guy won't have being dumb as an excuse. He is at least aware of the right things.

[reef]

It was a good article indeed

Sounds like these guys on the committee put in some long hours and do their homework??

[Blue Man]

The great thing about conference tournaments is that they’re a microcosm of the NCAAT.

The beauty of the tournament is that the “best” or “most deserving” or “most qualified” team wins.

It’s the team that just catches the perfect amount of fire, luck, and good fortune wrapped around talent and coaching.

Of course it’s “ridiculous” that a team could go 0-31 then win 5 games and get an invite to the NCAA tournament. It’s as “ridiculous as the fact that all a team has to do is win 7 random games at the end of the year and they’re national champions no matter what happened before that.

The more of that stuff the better. Don’t change a damn thing. This is the best part of sports.

[collegehoopsjunky]

I guess I missed the part where we were a 1 seed playing a 16. If we're as terrible as a lot of people all of a sudden think we are, wouldn't we have lost the first round game anyway?

NCAA tournament is about 2 things: draws and depth.

You can't control the draw. You could get lucky as an 11 seed and play a way overseeded 6. You could get screwed as a 5 and play a way underseeded 12.

You can control your depth. Starting lineup differences in college basketball are razor thin. The difference between the elites and the have-nots is when the subs come in. Sorry but I'll take jarvis garrett coming in as my "back-up" point guard, and cyril langevine coming in as my "back-up" big man over anyone else's 2nd unit in the country. I don't think our seed matters to that account.

I think we're a 2nd weekend team whether we're a 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 seed. I've thought that since pre-season, thought that through OOC play without EC, and then pretty much confirmed it by mid-February. A lot of that still depends on the draw. I love us against Virginia or Nova. I don't against Kansas or Xavier.

Just like last year, I thought we were an NCAA team pre-season, thought that through OOC play, and still thought we were good enough to win-out the A10 tourney. Certainly didn't call us being undefeated post-Fordham, but still thought we were good enough to dance and win a game.

If anyone needed to wait until Friday night to decide how good of a team we are, I don't know what to tell you.

so BM...you have no concern that Jarvis is scoreless in his last 4 games? that EC had an 0-5 at the line against LaSalle and missed a big one vs. Davidson? Or that his 3 point attempts aren't just missing...they are missing badly...and really for most of the year? or that Fatts' shooting percentage has been woeful? or that Andre seems to have put on some weight and appears much slower than at the start of the year? these aren't 2 game trends. this has been going on for a bit...it's just that they've been more glaring in the last 2 games because we've lost. so yes...some here are a bit less optimistic than you. doesn't make us bad people. doesn't mean we love to be miserable. doesn't mean we aren't still rooting and hoping for a run in the dance...

No, no, not really, and I would if he was our only option at center.

Jarvis affects the games in ways that aren't scoring related, so that doesn't worry me. Senior PG with big game experience going up against another team's 2nd unit.

EC has had a career of hot-and-cold, and after his cold streaks comes games where he takes over and dominates. He's going to be 3rd or 4th in scoring all-time at URI. I'll ride with him any day of the week.

Fatts is a freshman who will make freshman mistakes and have freshman inconsistencies. Seeing as how he's 3rd off the bench, I really don't need him to be shooting at a high percentage. The scouting report on him will say he's capable of scoring double digits just as likely as he is going 0-fer. He still is one of the better ballhandlers and on-ball defenders other teams will face. If the 8th guy in your rotation is an inconsistent scorer but consistently good defender and ball-handler, your team is probably really really good.

Langevine has re-emerged to who we all thought he was and takes a lion's share of the minutes now. Dre is a great kick starter to score points early in halves and generate offense from the inside. If we're depending on him for low-post defense it means we have much bigger problems to worry about; like a perimeter defensive breakdown (what's supposed to be our strength), or worse, a langevine injury or foul trouble.

Certainly not saying anyone is a bad person because they choose to only focus on the most negative aspects of what they view as entertainment that they've chosen of their own free will. Personally, if I only found negative things to look at in the thing meant to distract me from my day-to-day, I would probably find another entertainment pursuit, but that's me.

I certainly don't think anyone on here isn't rooting for a long run in the dance, just like I don't think anyone who gets on a plane isn't rooting for a safe landing at their destination. I just don't understand how people can't see the forest for the trees. If my tone comes off as harsh to any, it comes from a place of frustration and love.

I really don't understand how or why, with all that we've been through as a fanbase, that anyone would willingly choose to only see the negative in all the good that we're doing. That 15 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago - even 3 years ago - we'd all do UNSPEAKABLE things to be sitting at #25 in the country after SEVEN WEEKS in the top 25, with a 23-6 record, #1 in the conference, and a lock for an at-large bid.

I hate that anyone can't enjoy this like some of us can. So me trying to jostle any of you out of this funk and just enjoy the ride isn't coming from anger, it's coming from compassion.

For the love of GOD everyone just get on board and enjoy the damn ride. Critiques and rain storms can happen AFTER the season. Let's just enjoy what we literally had to wait almost 2 decades to get.

Great great post. No one I would be happier for than you if URI makes that dream run.

Good luck,

Sincerely