Palm is a giant turd, but I was wondering this myself.
SLU lost to Seton Hall and Auburn in OOC. And granted these aren't powerhouse teams, but they beat Kansas State, Belmont, BC and Tulane. They lost to Dayton by 2 in OT at home and by 6 on the road. Those are 4 losses to Top-15 ranked teams.
They got swept by Duquesne, lost @ Davidson and lost @ UMass. They also spanked Richmond @ Richmond.
When you look at it, it's a very similar resume to us. They're a solid, but flawed A-10 team that will likely wind up in the NIT.
adam914 wrote: ↑4 years ago
From bubble watch on The Athletic. Sounds about right...
Rhode Island (20-8, 12-4; NET: 51, SOS: 70): Is it really possible that the Atlantic 10, after all this, will end up a one-bid league? It is. It might even be likely. Rhode Island’s home loss to Saint Louis on Sunday was hugely damaging, not because Saint Louis is terrible, but because it (once again) highlights just how much Rhody’s résumé was built on quantity over quality. Yes, there’s a win over Providence here and a sweep of VCU, but those Rams aren’t a tournament team either. Throw in the Jan. 2 loss at Brown and this is starting to look shakier and shakier as we get closer and closer to Selection Sunday. It would be bizarre if this improved Atlantic 10 ended up with only Dayton in the field. But that may be where we’re headed.
The A-10 now being viewed as a 1-bid league.
Since 1981 RPI was used to select and seed teams.
Last year and this year NET replaced RPI.
1981-2017 RPI would have had URI, Richmond and possibly Saint Louis in the hunt.
Not this year.
Real-time RPI as of today:
Dayton RPI = 2
URI RPI = 29
Richmond RPI = 36
Saint Louis RPI = 44
NET as of today:
Dayton NET = 3
URI NET = 51
Richmond NET = 48
Saint Louis NET = 56
0D7FBFE0-F735-4F21-AFE8-8AD6920D08C5.png
4B1B75FF-0104-4FEE-A4B8-79A9E7489A58.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by ramster4 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
I've never seen a more competitive A10 top to bottom (in a few decades at least), defeating more P5 teams then possibly ever before? Plus 5-6+ 20 win teams. Crazy how its working out. Dog eat Dog.
ramster wrote: ↑4 years ago
The A-10 now being viewed as a 1-bid league.
Since 1981 RPI was used to select and seed teams.
Last year and this year NET replaced RPI.
1981-2017 RPI would have had URI, Richmond and possibly Saint Louis in the hunt.
Not this year.
Just because you keep saying this does not make it true.
The RPI, like the NET, is simply an evaluation metric.
It was NOT used to seed teams, just like the NET is NOT used to seed teams.
Teams 1-4 in the RPI were not automatically granted 1 seeds, just like teams 36-40 were not granted 10 seeds.
Teams with RPIs in the 20s have missed the tournament, forget the 30s and 40s.
It’s about RESUME. Who did you beat? That is what matters. Having a good SOS but not beating anyone of quality is meaningless.
I don’t care if you have to play your Q1 games on the road, if your team is any good you will still win some of them.
Here is info I have plus many years of following both the selecting and seeding process.
Where is your info that RPI was not and NET is not used to help in the seeding process?
The rating percentage index, commonly known as the RPI, is a quantity used to rank sports teams based upon a team's wins and losses and its strength of schedule. It is one of the sports rating systems by which NCAA basketball, baseball, softball, hockey, soccer, lacrosse, and volleyball teams are ranked. This system was in use in Division I men's college basketball from 1981 through 2018 to aid in the selecting and seeding of teams appearing in the men's playoffs (see March Madness),[1] and has been used in the women's tournament since its inception in 1982.
During the 2018 offseason, the NCAA announced that the RPI would no longer be used in the selection process for the Division I men's basketball tournament. Effective immediately, it was replaced with the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET). This new metric will initially be used only by the Division I men's selection committee—the Division I women's basketball committee, plus all other NCAA selection committees, continue to use their own versions of the RPI.[2][3]
ramster wrote: ↑4 years ago
The A-10 now being viewed as a 1-bid league.
Since 1981 RPI was used to select and seed teams.
Last year and this year NET replaced RPI.
1981-2017 RPI would have had URI, Richmond and possibly Saint Louis in the hunt.
Not this year.
Just because you keep saying this does not make it true.
The RPI, like the NET, is simply an evaluation metric.
It was NOT used to seed teams, just like the NET is NOT used to seed teams.
Teams 1-4 in the RPI were not automatically granted 1 seeds, just like teams 36-40 were not granted 10 seeds.
Teams with RPIs in the 20s have missed the tournament, forget the 30s and 40s.
It’s about RESUME. Who did you beat? That is what matters. Having a good SOS but not beating anyone of quality is meaningless.
I don’t care if you have to play your Q1 games on the road, if your team is any good you will still win some of them.
The rating percentage index, commonly known as the RPI, is a quantity used to rank sports teams based upon a team's wins and losses and its strength of schedule. It is one of the sports rating systems by which NCAA basketball, baseball, softball, hockey, soccer, lacrosse, and volleyball teams are ranked. This system was in use in Division I men's college basketball from 1981 through 2018 to aid in the selecting and seeding of teams appearing in the men's playoffs (see March Madness),[1] and has been used in the women's tournament since its inception in 1982.
Just because you keep saying this does not make it true.
The RPI, like the NET, is simply an evaluation metric.
It was NOT used to seed teams, just like the NET is NOT used to seed teams.
Teams 1-4 in the RPI were not automatically granted 1 seeds, just like teams 36-40 were not granted 10 seeds.
Teams with RPIs in the 20s have missed the tournament, forget the 30s and 40s.
It’s about RESUME. Who did you beat? That is what matters. Having a good SOS but not beating anyone of quality is meaningless.
I don’t care if you have to play your Q1 games on the road, if your team is any good you will still win some of them.
The rating percentage index, commonly known as the RPI, is a quantity used to rank sports teams based upon a team's wins and losses and its strength of schedule. It is one of the sports rating systems by which NCAA basketball, baseball, softball, hockey, soccer, lacrosse, and volleyball teams are ranked. This system was in use in Division I men's college basketball from 1981 through 2018 to aid in the selecting and seeding of teams appearing in the men's playoffs (see March Madness),[1] and has been used in the women's tournament since its inception in 1982.
It is becoming more apparent over time that the NCAA likely crafted the NET to benefit the top conferences and prevent teams from supposed lesser conferences getting at larges. The fact that the NCAA refuses to release the formula used to calculate the ratings speaks volumes. The selection process is rigged and run by the cartel.
Because by the end, it wasn’t. It’s how Nevada, with an RPI of 13, was a 7 seed. It’s how URI, with an RPI of 6, was a 7 seed. It’s how Gonzaga, with an RPI of 37, was a 4 seed. It’s how Middle Tennessee, with an RPI of 27, missed the tournament. If that is the RPI aiding in seeding, than so be it. IMHO, The only use of the RPI by the end (which I believe is mostly true of the NET now) is that it could be a metric to break teams into quadrants. That's about it.
These are just examples from 2018, the last year of the RPI. 2018 was always when the quadrant system was introduced, a system which I believe favors mid-majors. The old system of "Top 50" or "Top 100" reduced the pool of eligible teams, where as the quadrant system, specifically for road games, increases "quality" opportunities. It also reduces home game Q1 or Q2 opportunities for teams that traditionally benefited.
The committee looks at many metrics, but it’s still largely about resume. Who you played, where you played, how’d you play? It's not about simply playing Q1 games, but winning Q1 games. It's not about simply playing Q2 games, but winning Q2 games.
Also, uncapped efficiency is a metric that clearly favors mid-majors, FYI. So I wouldn’t say that the purpose of the NET is just to favor P5 schools. If it were they’d use adjusted efficiency.
Last edited by rjsuperfly664 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
You have been in my case because I keep saying RPI was used for seeding and you have consistently said it was never used for seeding - and you get agitated with me over and over.
Then I show you proof and you change your story to this “Because by the end, it wasn’t.”????????
You always said RPI was never used for seeding. I give proof and now it’s “well in the end it wasn’t used.”
In the end? I was never talking about “in the end”
Are you EVER wrong about anything?
I have taken a beating over this from you for how long now?
In the end the Mid Majors will be in worse shape with the NET than before. I will show my proof once all data is in after the last regular season game is played.
Just because you keep saying this does not make it true.
The RPI, like the NET, is simply an evaluation metric.
It was NOT used to seed teams, just like the NET is NOT used to seed teams.
rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑4 years agoBecause by the end, it wasn’t. It’s how Nevada, with an RPI of 13, was a 7 seed. It’s how URI, with an RPI of 6, was a 7 seed. It’s how Gonzaga, with an RPI of 37, was a 4 seed. It’s how Middle Tennessee, with an RPI of 27, missed the tournament. These are just examples from 2018. 2018 was also the start of the quadrant system.
The committee looks at many metrics, but it’s still largely about resume. Who you played, where you played, how’d you play?
Also, uncapped efficiency is a metric that clearly favors mid-majors, FYI. So I wouldn’t say that the purpose of the NET is just to favor P5 schools. If it were they’d use adjust efficiency.
There is some missing context there -- When I said the RPI was not used to seed people, I was focusing more on the last decade, where there is empirical evidence that the RPI was devalued more and more by the committee. I'll take people's word on it that when the RPI first came out in the 1980s, it was a more significant metric.
Can you tell me how the RPI aided seeding URI in 2018, when URI had an RPI of 6 and a seed of 7? By the end, the RPI was not used for seeding. Sorry. You can quote me 100 different Wikipedia articles that say otherwise, I witnessed it with my own eyes, and gave you plenty of examples above.
If you can correlate how the RPI in the last decade related to seeds, specially for mid-majors, I'd love to see it. I'm sure you'd find some mid-majors where it was somewhat correlative, and then many where it wasn't even in the ballpark, including most of the major snubs where teams in the 20s were omitted from the bracket all together.
Here is 2018 for your records:
URI - RPI of 6/Seeding Strictly By RPI: 2 Seed/Real Seed: 7
Cincinnati - RPI of 10/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 3 Seed/Real Seed: 2
Nevada - RPI of 13/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 4 Seed/Real Seed: 7
Wichita St - RPI of 17/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 5 Seed/Real Seed: 4
Houston - RPI of 21/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 6 Seed/Real Seed: 6
Middle Tennessee - RPI of 27/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 7 Seed/Real Seed: Out
Saint Mary's - RPI of 28/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 7 Seed/Real Seed: Out
Buffalo - RPI of 35/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 9 Seed/Real Seed: 13
Gonzaga- RPI of 37/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 10 Seed/Real Seed: 4
Temple - RPI of 38/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 10 Seed/Real Seed: Out
St. Bonaventure: RPI of 40/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 10 Seed/ Real Seed: 11 (play-in)
Vermont: RPI of 44/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 11 Seed/ Real Seed: Out
Last edited by rjsuperfly664 years ago, edited 2 times in total.
Rhody15 wrote: ↑4 years ago
I am so goddam sick of seeing the word “cartel.”
Give it up people, we’re an average team this year, had a hot streak, and in no way shape or form are worthy of the NCAA tournament this year.
Sorry if you can't handle the truth. It doesn't just impact URI. It affects ALL teams outside the very top conferences. CARTEL CARTEL CARTEL
FIXED FIXED FIXED
Rhody15 wrote: ↑4 years ago
I am so goddam sick of seeing the word “cartel.”
Give it up people, we’re an average team this year, had a hot streak, and in no way shape or form are worthy of the NCAA tournament this year.
Sorry if you can't handle the truth. It doesn't just impact URI. It affects ALL teams outside the very top conferences. CARTEL CARTEL CARTEL
FIXED FIXED FIXED
Gonzaga, Dayton, SDSU will all be Top 2 seeds.
Why should we be rewarded for beating shit teams, and also losing to a shit Brown team, and Davidson team without two projected starters and who were 1 game above .500 when we played them?
You have repeatedly told me RPI was Never used for seeding
You have said “no matter how many times I say it that it won’t change”, basically making me look stupid and saying so
Now I show you and yet you want further proof.
Now “never”, has been changed in the vernacular to, well “I was focusing more on the last decade,”. What???
It’s not a question of to what degree RPI was used for seeding, you said over and over it never was!!
And now you need to “take peoples word for it”. How gracious of you. Now you want to denigrate Wikipedia but you yourself have no proof to back up your saying RPI was never used for seeding.
It would kill you to say I was right all along and you were wrong all along.........
And what do you mean by empirical evidence that the RPI was devalued more and more? Not being used at all for seeding as in your past statements already had a value of zero. But now it’s no longer it was never used, but it was used less and less.
Ok
And “The Dog Ate My Homework Too”
rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑4 years ago
There is some missing context there -- When I said the RPI was not used to seed people, I was focusing more on the last decade, where there is empirical evidence that the RPI was devalued more and more by the committee. I'll take people's word on it that when the RPI first came out in the 1980s, it was a more significant metric.
Can you tell me how the RPI aided seeding URI in 2018, when URI had an RPI of 6 and a seed of 7? By the end, the RPI was not used for seeding. Sorry. You can quote me 100 different Wikipedia articles that say otherwise, I witnessed it with my own eyes, and gave you plenty of examples above.
If you can correlate how the RPI in the last decade related to seeds, specially for mid-majors, I'd love to see it. I'm sure you'd find some mid-majors where it was somewhat correlative, and then many where it wasn't even in the ballpark, including most of the major snubs where teams in the 20s were omitted from the bracket all together.
Here is 2018 for your records:
URI - RPI of 6/Seeding Strictly By RPI: 2 Seed/Real Seed: 7
Cincinnati - RPI of 10/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 3 Seed/Real Seed: 2
Nevada - RPI of 13/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 4 Seed/Real Seed: 7
Wichita St - RPI of 17/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 5 Seed/Real Seed: 4
Houston - RPI of 21/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 6 Seed/Real Seed: 6
Middle Tennessee - RPI of 27/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 7 Seed/Real Seed: Out
Saint Mary's - RPI of 28/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 7 Seed/Real Seed: Out
Buffalo - RPI of 35/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 9 Seed/Real Seed: 13
Gonzaga- RPI of 37/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 10 Seed/Real Seed: 4
Temple - RPI of 38/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 10 Seed/Real Seed: Out
St. Bonaventure: RPI of 40/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 10 Seed/ Real Seed: 11 (play-in)
Vermont: RPI of 44/Seeding Strictly by RPI: 11 Seed/ Real Seed: Out
Ramster, my direct quote was "It was NOT used to seed teams, just like the NET is NOT used to seed teams." My version of NOT, was speaking about the RPI as it was being used when it was still an NCAA metric. That metric was NOT being used to seed teams, in that as I explained, 1-4 in the RPI were not 1 seeds, 5-8 were not 2 seeds, 9-12 were not 3 seeds, etc. You later pulled up an article that said the RPI "aided" the committee. Sure, I guess.
I said further, that perhaps it was used more directly to seed teams a long time ago, I don't know because I was like 12 years old in 2001 so I can't tell you how closely the RPI and committee selections lined up. But I do know for most of the last decade, it had little importance other than to help designate Top 50 and Top 100 opponents. Perhaps that is what was meant by "aiding?" I seriously don't know.
Further, I literally just took the 12 mid-majors with Top 44 RPI's in 2018, the last year of the NET, and gave you their data. Yes, there were some teams where the RPI was correlative. Many were not. In fact, for just 33% of those teams, the RPI was within 1 seed-line, and for 66% of those teams, the RPI was 3+ seed lines off. If you choose to keep believing "If the RPI was still in use, URI would be competing for a 5 seed in the tournament," which I'm pretty sure is something you have stated in the past, you can do that, but you'd still be very wrong. URI would be in the SAME exact position whether the RPI or NET were being utilized as the "primary" tournament metric.
Perhaps you can actually provide some evidence to support your position, like actual tournament history when the RPI was still a metric in 2018, or 2017, or 2016, or 2015.
Last edited by rjsuperfly664 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑4 years ago
Ramster, my direct quote was "It was NOT used to seed teams, just like the NET is NOT used to seed teams." My version of NOT, was speaking about the RPI as it was being used when it was still an NCAA metric. That metric was NOT being used to seed teams. I said further, that perhaps it was used to seed teams a long time ago, I don't know because I was like 12 years old in 2001 so I can't tell you how closely the RPI and committee selections lined up. But I do know for most of the last decade, it had little importance other than to help designate Top 50 and Top 100 opponents. So excuse me for not going into a full-blown dissertation on that point. Now you know what I mean.
Further, I literally just took the 12 mid-majors with Top 44 RPI's in 2018, the last year of the NET, and gave you their data. Yes, there were some teams where the RPI was correlative. Many were not. In fact, for just 33% of those teams, the RPI was within 1 seed-line, and for 66% of those teams, the RPI was 3+ seed lines off. If you choose to keep believing "If the RPI was still in use, URI would be competing for a 5 seed in the tournament," you can do that, but you'd still be very wrong. URI would be in the SAME exact position whether the RPI or NET were being utilized as the "primary" tournament metric.
It’s not what I believe, I just try to look at the data and let the data speak.
For all any one of us knew before the NET came into being last year we might see:
1. enabled more Mid Majors to get into the NCAA Tournament
2. maintained the same number of Mid Majors
3. reduced the number of Mid Majors
1. improved Mid Major Seeding
2. maintained average Mid Major Seeding
3. reduced quality of Mid Major Seeding
The jury is still out.
Let’s see what it looks like the night of selection Sunday when the secret formula NET flexes its muscles
I can say I don’t have a good feeling based on what I’m seeing but let’s let it play itself out
Rhody15 wrote: ↑4 years ago
I am so goddam sick of seeing the word “cartel.”
Give it up people, we’re an average team this year, had a hot streak, and in no way shape or form are worthy of the NCAA tournament this year.
Sorry if you can't handle the truth. It doesn't just impact URI. It affects ALL teams outside the very top conferences. CARTEL CARTEL CARTEL
FIXED FIXED FIXED
Gonzaga, Dayton, SDSU will all be Top 2 seeds.
Why should we be rewarded for beating shit teams, and also losing to a shit Brown team, and Davidson team without two projected starters and who were 1 game above .500 when we played them?
Those three teams in the top 5 NET have a combined total of just FIVE losses. The only way a non elite conference team can get an NET rank like that or a comfortable at large is to basically lose NO games. How often and reasonable is it to expect that of teams?
This cartel mantra about good wins is bogus when you can have many bad losses which end up hardly being considered a liability.
Even PC and Big East schill Kevin McNamara admitted as much in the Projo today that it is a cartel which has a rigged selection system favoring teams from just a few leagues:
Everyone isn’t happy that college basketball offers virtually unending chances at redemption for the chosen few. Schools from mid- and low-major programs operate under very different rules, but that’s not changing anytime soon. The big money schools have the heavy hand in how the NCAA operates its tournament and those guidelines aren’t about to change.
If you are a great team and you play shit teams you shouldn’t have many losses...
If Dayton wins the A10T, it’s very possible they would have played 23 straight games against non-tournament teams, and very possible they played 3 tournament teams all season long.
ramster wrote: ↑4 years ago
The Question is how accurate is the NET?
How is it calculated?
But most of all is the NET Fair to all teams in all conferences.
Let’s see what happens. I’m seeing some strange stuff with the NET but don’t know how to explain since the Coca Cola, ooops, I mean NET is a secret.
If you saw Coca-Cola being made, it probably wouldn't be that bad...this tourney selection thing...is sausage, not a soft drink, with the recipe equally under wraps.
rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑4 years ago
If you are a great team and you play shit teams you shouldn’t have many losses...
If Dayton wins the A10T, it’s very possible they would have played 23 straight games against non-tournament teams, and very possible they played 3 tournament teams all season long.
The thing is you have to be a very good to a great team to make it from outside of the top 6 conferences but sometimes just good teams are invited from the top 6. PC proved in the OOC that they could not consistently beat shit teams yet they still are very likely in. PC is just a good team in my opinion.
rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑4 years ago
If you are a great team and you play shit teams you shouldn’t have many losses...
If Dayton wins the A10T, it’s very possible they would have played 23 straight games against non-tournament teams, and very possible they played 3 tournament teams all season long.
The thing is you have to be a very good to a great team to make it from outside of the top 6 conferences but sometimes just good teams are invited from the top 6. PC proved in the OOC that they could not consistently beat shit teams yet they still are very likely in. PC is just a good team in my opinion.
But then Deandome, you change from losing to the shit teams thing to the Quad Wins narrative, or maybe Quad Losses narrative. Just change the narrative to whatever works best.
Kind of like making sausage or presidential debating or arguing on a message board.
Just keep the formulas secret, that’s the key.
rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑4 years ago
If you are a great team and you play shit teams you shouldn’t have many losses...
If Dayton wins the A10T, it’s very possible they would have played 23 straight games against non-tournament teams, and very possible they played 3 tournament teams all season long.
The thing is you have to be a very good to a great team to make it from outside of the top 6 conferences but sometimes just good teams are invited from the top 6. PC proved in the OOC that they could not consistently beat shit teams yet they still are very likely in. PC is just a good team in my opinion.
You were prolly one of the ones that wanted Pipkins deported from pc. pc is a mediocre team.
RF1, when the bracket comes out, let’s hear you list the P5 teams that didn’t deserve to get in over us, Richmond, and the other mid majors who didn’t make it.
Last edited by Rhody154 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑4 years ago
If you are a great team and you play shit teams you shouldn’t have many losses...
If Dayton wins the A10T, it’s very possible they would have played 23 straight games against non-tournament teams, and very possible they played 3 tournament teams all season long.
The thing is you have to be a very good to a great team to make it from outside of the top 6 conferences but sometimes just good teams are invited from the top 6. PC proved in the OOC that they could not consistently beat shit teams yet they still are very likely in. PC is just a good team in my opinion.
You were prolly one of the ones that wanted Pipkins deported from pc. pc is a mediocre team.
I mean, they’ve beaten 5 straight ranked teams. 5 straight!
I’d love to know how many years its taken us to beat the last 5 ranked teams we’ve beaten.
We sound like whiny little kids now because we’ve shit the bed.
PC is clearly not a mediocre team and would blow us out of the water if we played now.
I've watched Richmond many times this season and this is definitely a Tournament team. They're loaded with skilled players with high basketball IQs, who can light it it up on the offensive end. Would not surprise me if they make it in and make a sweet sixteen run.
Joe95 wrote: ↑4 years ago
I've watched Richmond many times this season and this is definitely a Tournament team. They're loaded with skilled players with high basketball IQs, who can light it it up on the offensive end. Would not surprise me if they make it in and make a sweet sixteen run.
They just totally took control of this game vs. Davidson. We’re down 55-52 with about 8 to play. Now 72-61 with 1:15 left. That’s a 17-9 run.
Bleed Keaney Blue!
”I'm not coming there to be in the top 3 of the Atlantic 10. I'm coming to win the damn thing!”
The Scarlet Knights (19-11, 10-9 Big Ten) ran their home record to 18-1 and notched a big win in their quest to reach the NCAA Tournament for the first time in 29 years.
18-1 at home
Rutgers is 1-10 on the road/neutral
Maryland has lost 3 of last 4.
Big 10 looking good for Dancing
Purdue and Minnesota with good NETs
B2F834B0-F51E-498B-AED7-9A9F124F01D0.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑4 years ago
If you are a great team and you play shit teams you shouldn’t have many losses...
If Dayton wins the A10T, it’s very possible they would have played 23 straight games against non-tournament teams, and very possible they played 3 tournament teams all season long.
The thing is you have to be a very good to a great team to make it from outside of the top 6 conferences but sometimes just good teams are invited from the top 6. PC proved in the OOC that they could not consistently beat shit teams yet they still are very likely in. PC is just a good team in my opinion.
But then Deandome, you change from losing to the shit teams thing to the Quad Wins narrative, or maybe Quad Losses narrative. Just change the narrative to whatever works best.
Kind of like making sausage or presidential debating or arguing on a message board.
Just keep the formulas secret, that’s the key.
For the last decade plus, the committee has put an emphasis on quality wins. That is not a new, NET-created concoction. That’s not a narrative, just the facts.
That doesn’t excuse bad losses. That’s why PC needs to go 12-6 in one of the best conferences in America to lock in a bid before the conference tournament. If PC played a reasonably ok OOC, 9-9 is likely sufficient.
If PC were to be 10-8, they’d almost guaranteed need to win the BET to get a bid.
The thing is you have to be a very good to a great team to make it from outside of the top 6 conferences but sometimes just good teams are invited from the top 6. PC proved in the OOC that they could not consistently beat shit teams yet they still are very likely in. PC is just a good team in my opinion.
But then Deandome, you change from losing to the shit teams thing to the Quad Wins narrative, or maybe Quad Losses narrative. Just change the narrative to whatever works best.
Kind of like making sausage or presidential debating or arguing on a message board.
Just keep the formulas secret, that’s the key.
For the last decade plus, the committee has put an emphasis on quality wins. That is not a new, NET-created concoction. That’s not a narrative, just the facts.
That doesn’t excuse bad losses. That’s why PC needs to go 12-6 in one of the best conferences in America to lock in a bid before the conference tournament. If PC played a reasonably ok OOC, 9-9 is likely sufficient.
If PC were to be 10-8, they’d almost guaranteed need to win the BET to get a bid.
And it’s why URI was a 7 in 2018.. a lack of quality wins
Rhodymob05 wrote: ↑4 years ago
Boy I swear the NCAA gods are doing everything they can to keep Rhody out. Everyone is getting hot.
That’s what tournament teams do.
Those teams are winning big games. We have not. We are lucky to still be this close. Last chance tonight.
It’s easy to say URI doesn’t deserve this and that, but what I want to see when Selection Sunday arrives is who got in ahead of URI. Then compare resumes.
The narrative changes:
Good wins
Bad losses
Quad this
Quad that
But I did hear Dick Vitale talk at length last Friday night on the Dayton ESPN Game about how upset he was that Mid Major Teams with Outstanding Records were likely to be bypassed for the likes of teams like Purdue. He was not happy at all.
What I don’t hear is much at all about Road and Neutral Court Performance, but let’s see how this plays out. It’s too early to tell now.
I’m also looking forward to how the Seeding takes place.
Last edited by ramster4 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
Joe Lunardi was just talking about URI on ESPNU radio. He said they had a bad loss on Sunday and as bad a win as a win can be against Fordham. He said that him and a couple guys could beat Fordham. He said that URI is going in the wrong direction and was thinking Purdue maybe should be ahead of URI on his brackets. He did say a win tonight would take care of a lot of the mishaps they have had and they would be just outside or one of the last two teams possibly in the field, but hard to justify Richmond being behind URI. Pretty much summarizing what he said is beat Dayton, Umass, quarterfinal game and semi final vs Richmond. He said the URI resume isn’t that good, but wining these games could change things. Now all they have to do is win the games-lol.
"........For those who care to read...Let me vent to you a reality that often hits me square between the eyes this time of the year. We are NOT a great program. We are an OK program. We are a middle of the road, average, mid-major program. We lack the all around consistency to be more than that. We are by definition consistently inconsistent!
When the stars align every now and again we show glimmers of greatness. Recent years... 2017 we got hot at the right time and stole a bid. 2018 we rolled all season but nearly shit the bed come March. 2019 we are nothing to write home about but decide to beat VCU in the A10 tournament - got run out of the gym the next day. 2020 - One game we can lock down defense and the next we'll let a team shoot 70%. One night we can shoot 3's and the next we shoot airballs. We had a player of the year candidate a month ago, but now have just another player. These examples trickle down to everything this program touches. There hasn't been one thing that has been steady or reliable through the years. Not players, not coaches, not recruiting, not facilities, none of it. All this is why we will never ever feel comfortable with where we stand come the end of the season..........."
Your second paragraph above is a good appraisal of what I have always thought about this program having followed it from the days of Al Skinner and even through the miserable period of Jerry D listening to games on WHJJ with Steve McDonald when the players couldn't even make their free throws. Even when this team is playing well,they only seem to be able to do so 75% of the time leaving a 25% chance they could suffer a bad loss( or "shit the bed" as some of you describe it LOL!) Obviously I'm a loyal fan to enduring the Jerry DiGregorio years but it is a shame they can't be more consistent and not completely fall apart during games they should easily be able to control.
TulaneGradRamFan wrote: ↑4 years ago
I think part of the reason they have played poorly recently is because the fans have been putting so much pressure on them. If you remember back to articles where they interviewed Cyril and he was asked what he thought explained why they were playing so well, he said it was because Cox was telling them to go out and just "have fun". I read at least two articles where he was quoted saying that. I think they started to falter after the fans began to EXPECT them to keep winning.
There is no pressure on the team any longer contrary to what people think. Where did you read the article on feeling pressure because the fans expected them to win? We can’t even fill the arena with the student body like most schools on big games like yesterday was. Cyril, Dowtin and Fatts have all played in much bigger games than yesterday the last three years and those games weren’t always at home. Pretty tough to believe that they felt pressure from the URI fan base
I didn't read that they felt pressure from the fans. That is what I offered as a possibility of what might be going on. What I read was about Cyril emphasizing the Coach was telling them to have fun. Maybe they just began to feel like they were no longer having as much fun and it started to affect how they were playing. It is just a thought.
Those teams are winning big games. We have not. We are lucky to still be this close. Last chance tonight.
It’s easy to say URI doesn’t deserve this and that, but what I want to see when Selection Sunday arrives is who got in ahead of URI. Then compare resumes.
The narrative changes:
Good wins
Bad losses
Quad this
Quad that
But I did heat Dick Vitale talk at length last Friday night on the Dayton ESPN Game about how upset he was that Mid Major Teams with Outstanding Records were likely to be bypassed for the likes of teams like Purdue. He was not happy at all.
What I don’t hear is much at all about Road and Neutral Court Performance, but let’s see how this plays out. It’s too early to tell now.
I’m also looking forward to how the Seeding takes place.
I do agree that away/neutral should be some part of the equation. I do not think a team like Rutgers belongs, I don’t care what their home record is, unless they beat legit teams at the B1G Tournament. Teams need to prove they can beat some legit competition away from home.
RF1 wrote: ↑4 years ago
Checking out the projected brackets and seeding is fun but there is still a long way off until Selection Sunday. They really are pretty meaningless right now. Rhody needs to concentrate on each game at hand without looking too far ahead. Need to basically win all the games that they are expected to. A single bad slip up can put them on the wrong side of the bubble. Nothing is guaranteed at this point and a there is still a long road ahead to reach the goal of getting to the tournament.
I still have bad memories of the 2009-10 season when URI had a record of 19-3 (with OOC wins over PC, BC, and Ok St) at the end of the first week of Feb that year. Rhody then collapsed down the stretch losing five of seven to close out the regular season. Even two wins in the A-10 Tournament did not add enough for an NCAA bid. Had to settle for the NIT where URI eventually lost at MSG to UNC in OT.
If we lose 3 of our last 6 games it won’t matter who we lost to. It’s wasted brain cells and anxiety to try to differentiate the proposed 3 losses.
I know we would need minimum Championship game appearance if we lose 3 of last 6 which would really be 4 of last 7 - a mini disaster.
I don’t care what the NET, BPI, Ken Pom, Joe Luniticardi, the Bilastrator, RPI or whatever say today - 3 losses in the next 3 weeks would put us out.
I even think 2 losses in our last 6 is too many and puts us at risk but 3 is a humongous reach to think the NCAA will come calling imho.
I think it is comical they people think we would be in at 3-3. I agree that 4-2 is going to be very close. A-10 tourney would be huge is we finish 4-2. Last four in/first four out stuff
100% agree
Only 3 weeks later we unfortunately landed where nobody thought we would - going 3-3 in our last 6 games
And the 3 losses were to the ideal teams being Dayton, SLU and Davidson. We avoided the 3 bad loss teams St Joseph’s, Fordham and UMASS. Although Fordham and UMASS came down to the last seconds.
Not only did going 3-3 not keep us on the bubble, it moved us well off it.
