KeaneyBlue - The URI Basketball Forum

Wasn't really sure where to put this so giving it it's own thread.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/med ... uality-win

Interesting to see if elite programs change their scheduling.

Rhody74 wrote:Interesting to see if elite programs change their scheduling.

*cough cough* Syracuse *cough*

Like i said in the schedule thread it's just dumb to play so few away games given how valuable Road wins are in getting in the Tourny. Hopefully we beat Alabama and don't get burned by playing 90% ooc home games nest year..

Overall this should be good for us as it encourages better teams to play at away venues. Maybe we could see some of the better North East teams play in Kingston in the future.

In conference, road games against St. Bonaventure, VCU, Dayton, Davidson, and maybe La Salle and Saint Louis provide opportunities for solid wins as well, plus the non-home tournament games.

I remember looking at the team sheets last year right before tournament selection. Lots of interesting info.

SmartyBarrett wrote:

Rhody74 wrote:Interesting to see if elite programs change their scheduling.

*cough cough* Syracuse *cough*

If anything it might just reinforce it - in conference they will still play road games at some combination of Duke, UNC, Louisville, Notre Dame, etc.

I think the big thing is that itll be harder to make a tournament beating decent teams at home and mediocre teams on the road. You'll need to win home, neutral, and road against quality opponents.

For URI I don't think the formula changes. There is a bias for teams that have made it in the past or have some type of pull when youre squeezing in.

Maybe we turned the corner on that, maybe not.

Even though the road games last year aren't something they want to duplicate. I wonder how valuable those games were in exposing URI to competition. Because when they doubled down for the last stretch they really had some meddle in the tank. Have to think the first half of the season gave them something there.

Excuse the string of tweets, but I think this is a nice summary-



full article:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... t-process/

And this, regarding RPI (which is still in play but may be on its way out):

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... lf-measure

"The committee previously defined a quality win as any victory over a team with an RPI rank from 1 to 50. Now, it has changed the definition of quality win to mean one that comes at home against an opponent ranked 1 to 30, at a neutral site over a foe ranked 1 to 50 or on the road versus a team ranked 1 to 75.

That roughly jibes with BPI-based analysis indicating that in the 2016-17 season, a road victory by the 50th-ranked team -- your average bubble team -- over the 75th-ranked team would more or less be equivalent to that same team beating the 29th-best team at home."

Last season,
70% of the Big East made the tournament
60% for the ACC and Big 12, 50% of Big Ten teams

Overall, I think it's a good move to at least address it, but I'm skeptical of the committee actually being comfortable with shutting out a major conference team.

Will this mean that the power conference teams will be less likely to play rhody. They will have the tough road games already in their schedule from within their conference. Why schedule a tough mid major and give them a better chance of looking good for the committee. I think this may help the power conference more than increase the chances for the mid major.

When a P5 team wins it is a quality win....

When a mid major wins it is a fluke to be written off....

Got it ?

When a P5 team has an RPI of 69 they still get in....

When a mid major has an RPI of 37 it was gaming the system and dismissed and that team gets left out...

Got it ?

Interesting read. DH and staff need to read that and continue to schedule accordingly which I am sure he will do

Love this change by the NCAA, solid first step. How does this change URI's scheduling strategy? Will play more home and homes with true mid's that have a strong possibility to be a top 75 RPI team? Great convo's to be had over the new potential strategies with this change.

ace wrote:And this, regarding RPI (which is still in play but may be on its way out):

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... lf-measure

"The committee previously defined a quality win as any victory over a team with an RPI rank from 1 to 50. Now, it has changed the definition of quality win to mean one that comes at home against an opponent ranked 1 to 30, at a neutral site over a foe ranked 1 to 50 or on the road versus a team ranked 1 to 75.

That roughly jibes with BPI-based analysis indicating that in the 2016-17 season, a road victory by the 50th-ranked team -- your average bubble team -- over the 75th-ranked team would more or less be equivalent to that same team beating the 29th-best team at home."

So if my quick scan was right, last year we were 3-3 in quality games (Cincinnati, Duke, Dayton x2, VCU x2). Under the new formula we would have been 3-6 in quality games (same games as above plus Houston, Providence and Valparaiso).

We were in regardless of the A10 championship game, so for a thought exercise during a dead time, let's assume a loss and our records become 2-4 and 2-7. I wonder if we would have been in with a 2-7 record in quality games. I suspect we wouldn't have been. I mean, it's the same record against the same teams, only now those three losses are quality games instead of regular games, so we shouldn't be hurt, but it feels like the committee wouldn't have had a bubble A10 team in with that record.

I want to like this, and I might. It's too hot to really think, but... so take a conference like the Big East. They got seven teams in last year. Their 3-6 teams had conference records of 10-8, the 7th place team was 9-9 in conference play. Regardless of the metric, most of their teams are ranked well. Doesn't this reward their conference play even more? I could be wrong, I don't really know.

So for URI being 3-3 under the old metric and now 3-6, that would actually help URI because now that's 6 "quality" losses. 3 of URI losses would of been viewed more favorable under the new rules.

ace wrote:I want to like this, and I might. It's too hot to really think, but... so take a conference like the Big East. They got seven teams in last year. Their 3-6 teams had conference records of 10-8, the 7th place team was 9-9 in conference play. Regardless of the metric, most of their teams are ranked well. Doesn't this reward their conference play even more? I could be wrong, I don't really know.

Let's look at PC. They were fifth to last in with a 20-12 record and a 56 RPI, while we were one of the last four in with a 24-9 record and an RPI of 31. A big part of the reason they were ahead of us is they went 9-5 in top 50 games. However, under this new format, they would have gone 5-6 in quality games. Their home wins against us, Vermont, Seton Hall and Xavier would no longer count as quality wins plus they pick up a quality loss on the road against Marquette.

A couple thoughts based on a ridiculously small and not meaningful sample size and not knowing how the committee will use these new cutoffs. Maybe higher ranked conferences will be hurt because their large amounts of home games against RPI 31-50 schools will no longer be quality wins. I can especially see this as the case for conferences that don't play a round robin. Teams could be heavily influenced just by how their conference assigns home and road games in a particular season. Also, is a system really great if beating us wouldn't be considered a quality win? A10 champion with an RPI of 31 and PC wouldn't have gotten credit for a quality win because only the top 30 count? Maybe instead of 30-50-75 the numbers should be 50-75-100? Then again, perhaps the 30-50-75 was done specifically to negate some of the quality games top conferences are able to play at home?

CT Rhody wrote:So for URI being 3-3 under the old metric and now 3-6, that would actually help URI because now that's 6 "quality" losses. 3 of URI losses would of been viewed more favorable under the new rules.

That's how it probably should play out. Then again, the committee could say, they have a losing record against quality competition, therefore they're not an NCAA caliber team, let's put in Illinois State or power 5 team x because they have more quality wins or we don't know how they'll play against quality competition and they'd be a good story.

RhowdyRam02 wrote:

CT Rhody wrote:So for URI being 3-3 under the old metric and now 3-6, that would actually help URI because now that's 6 "quality" losses. 3 of URI losses would of been viewed more favorable under the new rules.

That's how it probably should play out. Then again, the committee could say, they have a losing record against quality competition, therefore they're not an NCAA caliber team, let's put in Illinois State or power 5 team x because they have more quality wins or we don't know how they'll play against quality competition and they'd be a good story.

You can view this multiple ways but I believe the committee will assess how many "quality" games were schedule out of conference and reward those teams who challenge themselves. Remember most people say this teams has X amount of top 50 wins because that was a "quality" win. Nobody ever says but they had 6 "quality" losses. So with that in mind, schedule more opportunities and you have more chances for "quality" wins.

rjsuperfly66 wrote:

SmartyBarrett wrote:

Rhody74 wrote:Interesting to see if elite programs change their scheduling.

*cough cough* Syracuse *cough*

If anything it might just reinforce it - in conference they will still play road games at some combination of Duke, UNC, Louisville, Notre Dame, etc.

I think the big thing is that itll be harder to make a tournament beating decent teams at home and mediocre teams on the road. You'll need to win home, neutral, and road against quality opponents.

It could go either way - if a mid level P5 team can't get a good RPI road win in conference because the top of the conference is Duke, UNC, etc. you may see them seek a perceived easier quality road win out of conference. Maybe it will force the Virginia Tech's and NC states of the world to play out conference to prove they are the better bubble team than a mid-major rather than cry because they weren't the 10th ACC team in the tourney with no good road win, and a couple nice home wins.

RhowdyRam02 wrote: Also, is a system really great if beating us wouldn't be considered a quality win? A10 champion with an RPI of 31 and PC wouldn't have gotten credit for a quality win because only the top 30 count? Maybe instead of 30-50-75 the numbers should be 50-75-100? Then again, perhaps the 30-50-75 was done specifically to negate some of the quality games top conferences are able to play at home?

This does not bother me. I think the issue is calling it a "quality" win though. We were a "quality" win last year, we were not a "great" or "elite" win. Beating a bubble team at home is a nice win but it does not compare to beating a lock NCAA team at home, or beating that same bubble team at their gym. A10 was down last year, we all know that. We didn't play to our level most of the season last year, we all saw that. Beating us last year was a nice win, not a great win.

Beating URI in December was a quality win, in late February or March it was a better win, but there's logically never going to be that level of specificity. rhodylaw, I see your point about middle of the pack power conference teams, but I don't think scheduling will change much at all. Those teams are always going to have opportunities to get great wins in conference. I don't know if I see them taking their chances on putting a good MM team on the schedule for 2 to 3 years in a home and home or 2 and 1. I think Rhode Island has a good system and approach for scheduling in the current climate in getting good MMs and being recognized as a solid enough program to get invites to strong in-season tournaments. I do think some of the presented guidelines may better reward those kinds of wins.

I clearly was looking at PC's information too quickly. Here's the team sheet the committee used last year:



And what it would have looked like using this coming year's sheet: