But but but their RPI was 38! (or better since they just lost)
So is the same thing going to be said when a Top 5 seed loses tomorrow or Friday? Were they a crappy selection too since they couldn’t beat a 12-16 seed? If the RPI isn’t a tool that should be used for both qualification and seeding, then they need to come up with on that can be to eliminate teams getting in or getting a better seed based off of someone’s biased opinion.
Colorado had a few good wins. Alabama had a few good wins. Well, so did Charlotte. The talking heads that bring up the good points of these school’s resumes fail to point out that they both played lousy non-conference schedules. The power conference teams always believe they can play shitty non-conference schedules and then ride their conference RPI into the tourney by going .500 in conference. A blind squirrel will find a few acorns, and these teams will beat a few good teams getting to play several power teams in their conference at home (see us). When UAB loses in the play-in game, everybody poo-poos their selection and the Committee seems to remember it for future seasons to apply to ALL non-BCS teams, as NA has pointed out several times in this thread. They never seem to remember for future purposes when certain BCS teams, or teams all from a certain conference, perform crappy.
/rant Just tired of the overwhelming bias from the Packer-heads.
When I logged into Cbssports.com, it didn’t even give me the option to put in the password to do the brackets. It told me it was a private league.
No conf. should ever get 11. Hell, 7 is pushing it. Take more non-BCS reg season champs over more of the 14 loss BCS teams. Unless you want the US Senate on your BCS monopoly a55! Where’s Sen. Hatch?
SCK, if you’ve been a part of the league before, then you don’t have to enter anything. It goes straight to our league page. The only reason you would need the password for the league is if its your first time.
Am I correct on this? I didn’t have to enter password this year.
Yes, I’m new, but it didn’t even give me the option to enter the password.
Oh no, that’s exactly what it is. A tool. It’s merely a guide. You guys have the wrong impression thinking it is anymore than that. But if you get a high RPI by beating up on a bunch of bad teams and getting no good/great wins and still losing to baddies, you shouldn’t get in.
If the non-BCSs are REALLY having a hard time finding games against good competition, something should be done about that.
Colorado had a few good wins. Alabama had a few good wins. Well, so did Charlotte. The talking heads that bring up the good points of these school's resumes fail to point out that they both played lousy non-conference schedules. The power conference teams always believe they can play shitty non-conference schedules and then ride their conference RPI into the tourney by going .500 in conference. A blind squirrel will find a few acorns, and these teams will beat a few good teams getting to play several power teams in their conference at home (see us). When UAB loses in the play-in game, everybody poo-poos their selection and the Committee seems to remember it for future seasons to apply to ALL non-BCS teams, as NA has pointed out several times in this thread. They never seem to remember for future purposes when certain BCS teams, or teams all from a certain conference, perform crappy./rant Just tired of the overwhelming bias from the Packer-heads.
First, Alabama getting in is an absolute joke. I’ll defend it if you want, but we seem to be on the same side there so I’ll save it.
Colorado on the other hand isn’t so crazy. Nevermind what the OOC SOS number comes out to be. Here’s how I’m seeing this. No one cares if the shitty teams you play are 200 or 300. They better be cupcakes for you if you are a tourney team. So UAB played 5 of those teams, Colo. played 7. Thing is, Colo is in the B12, UAB is in the CUSA. UAB has bona fide cupcakes in their league already. B12, not really. Even TTech and Ok. are a good deal better than So. Methodist, Tulane, and Houston.
Of UAB’s “better” OOC sched, their best win and only top 100 win was VCU. Guessing Arkasas might be above 100 in the RPI but they are 100 on Kenpom. UAB lost the other 2 top 100 games they played, one being against Duke. They really didn’t give themselves a chance here. Colorado played 5 top 100 teams and beat 2 of them. That sounds like a tougher OOC sched and better performance to me. Then, Colo does have the B12 and wins big. And then, UAB didn’t do themselves any favors by losing in the first round of their tourney against ECU while Colorado won 2 games, beating KSU along the way.
I’m not a Packer-head man. I want to see the little guys succeed just as much as anyone. I’m just not going to distort the facts for them. I agree tho, they need a solid, set in stone system for teams to be measured on. They frequently seem to change the criteria with little explanation.
Anyone know anything about this? Deadline to get in is tomorrow at 12pm. Don’t want people to miss out who want in.
I’ll see if I can figure it out.
edit: Yea I checked, thing is set to private and we need whoever the admin for the league is to send out an invite or change it to public. I’m thinking it is jcl49er.
Give this a try. Remember you need to have a cbssports username to register.
You are invited to join the Niner Nation Bracket Challenge! To accept this invitation and join the group, click the link below (or cut and paste the link into your browser’s address field). You’ll be asked to enter the password before you can join. The group password is included in this e-mail.
http://cusa-talk.mayhem.cbssports.com/e?ttag=BM10_EM_all_cspt_os_inlk_0001
Our Group password is: halton
Oh no, that’s exactly what it is. A tool. It’s merely a guide. You guys have the wrong impression thinking it is anymore than that. But if you get a high RPI by beating up on a bunch of bad teams and getting no good/great wins and still losing to baddies, you shouldn’t get in.
If the non-BCSs are REALLY having a hard time finding games against good competition, something should be done about that.
Colorado had a few good wins. Alabama had a few good wins. Well, so did Charlotte. The talking heads that bring up the good points of these school's resumes fail to point out that they both played lousy non-conference schedules. The power conference teams always believe they can play shitty non-conference schedules and then ride their conference RPI into the tourney by going .500 in conference. A blind squirrel will find a few acorns, and these teams will beat a few good teams getting to play several power teams in their conference at home (see us). When UAB loses in the play-in game, everybody poo-poos their selection and the Committee seems to remember it for future seasons to apply to ALL non-BCS teams, as NA has pointed out several times in this thread. They never seem to remember for future purposes when certain BCS teams, or teams all from a certain conference, perform crappy./rant Just tired of the overwhelming bias from the Packer-heads.
Colorado on the other hand isn’t so crazy. Nevermind what the OOC SOS number comes out to be. Here’s how I’m seeing this. No one cares if the shitty teams you play are 200 or 300.
They better be cupcakes for you if you are a tourney team. So UAB played 5 of those teams, Colo. played 7. Thing is, Colo is in the B12, UAB is in the CUSA. UAB has bona fide cupcakes in their league already. B12, not really. Even TTech and Ok. are a good deal better than So. Methodist, Tulane, and Houston.[/quote]
Colorado’s non-conference SOS was 307. 307!!! UAB’s was 159. That’s a huge difference, and the main reason Colorado got left out. They can discount it all they want, but the bottom line is they scheduled very weak and they did not win enough conference games to make up for it.
You can’t narrow the entire season down to a few games, otherwise, there are several teams up towards 100 in the RPI that you could put in the mix as having that many good wins. Minnesota beat UNC-CH, West Virginia, and Purdue. That’s better than the best 3 wins of Colorado or UAB. 12 of UAB’s conference games were against Top 100 RPI teams. Not Big 12 caliber, but definitely no slouches of that bunch. UAB actually had more Top 100 RPI conference games than Colorado did.
Indeed. At least we agree on that. Even the terrible BCS has a strict formula that they follow to determine 1 and 2.
[quote=“X-49er, post:49, topic:25107”]Colorado’s non-conference SOS was 307. 307!!! UAB’s was 159. That’s a huge difference, and the main reason Colorado got left out. They can discount it all they want, but the bottom line is they scheduled very weak and they did not win enough conference games to make up for it.[/quote] Does overall not make up for that? This is part of my problem with relying too much on RPI. I can tell Colorado played more difficult teams OOC than UAB did. That makes me think their sched is harder. How do I know these teams were hard/easy? Their RPI (for me, their Kenpom rank).
Overall SOS by RPI
UAB - 79, Colo. - 53
Top 50 record
UAB 0-5, Colo. 5-7
You can't narrow the entire season down to a few games, otherwise, there are several teams up towards 100 in the RPI that you could put in the mix as having that many good wins. Minnesota beat UNC-CH, West Virginia, and Purdue. That's better than the best 3 wins of Colorado or UAB. 12 of UAB's conference games were against Top 100 RPI teams. Not Big 12 caliber, but definitely no slouches of that bunch. UAB actually had more Top 100 RPI conference games than Colorado did.I wasn't. We were talking about people's OOC sched.
Top 100 RPI conference games:
UAB - 10
Colorado - 12
Warrennolan.com is my source. What is yours?
[quote="49or bust, post:46, topic:25107"]I agree tho, they need a solid, set in stone system for teams to be measured on. They frequently seem to change the criteria with little explanation.[/quote]Indeed. At least we agree on that. Even the terrible BCS has a strict formula that they follow to determine 1 and 2.
I don’t like a strict calculation tho. No matter how well they make it, I feel like the calculation should just be used as a tool, not the rule.
Does overall not make up for that?
Overall SOS by RPI
UAB - 79, Colo. - 53[/quote]
Not unless you win a ton of games in conference. Conference SOS pulled Colorado’s overall SOS up, and lowered UAB’s. That’s the spoils that come from playing in a good conference. But even when you play in a great conference, you can’t go .500 with the type of weak non-con schedule they assembled and expect your RPI to be Top 50.
[quote=“49or bust, post:50, topic:25107”]Top 50 record
UAB 0-5, Colo. 5-7[/quote]
Of Colorado’s 5 wins over Top 50 teams, 3 were at home and 1 was at a neutral site. UAB was actually 1-4, but only got to play two home games versus Top 50 competition to Colorado’s 6. Makes a big difference when you can get them at your place.
I wasn’t. We were talking about people’s OOC sched.
Top 100 RPI conference games:
UAB - 10
Colorado - 12
Warrennolan.com is my source. What is yours?[/quote]
I use realtimerpi.com. Iowa State (2 games), Texas Tech (2 games), nor Oklahoma were in the Top 100. For UAB, the only conference games they played of teams above 100 were SMU, Tulane, Rice, and Houston.
[quote=“X-49er, post:51, topic:25107”][quote=“49or bust, post:50, topic:25107”]Does overall not make up for that?
Overall SOS by RPI
UAB - 79, Colo. - 53[/quote]
Not unless you win a ton of games in conference. Conference SOS pulled Colorado’s overall SOS up, and lowered UAB’s. That’s the spoils that come from playing in a good conference. But even when you play in a great conference, you can’t go .500 with the type of weak non-con schedule they assembled and expect your RPI to be Top 50.[/quote] Yup. Total disagreement lol. While UAB doesn’t get to play a bunch of good teams in conference, they get to play several more mediocre teams in conference. While UAB goes 12-4 against easier competition, Colo. goes 8-8 against better. That’s only 4 games. How about replace the 2 Kansas games, Mizzou, and Texas A&M with 100+ RPI teams and see how Colo. does? That’s why they get an easy OOC sched, that still has some worthwhile teams, and UAB needs to schedule a harder OOC sched (and don’t include Duke), and win some tourney games too.
[quote="49or bust, post:50, topic:25107"]Top 50 record UAB 0-5, Colo. 5-7[/quote]Of Colorado’s 5 wins over Top 50 teams, 3 were at home and 1 was at a neutral site. UAB was actually 1-4, but only got to play two home games versus Top 50 competition to Colorado’s 6. Makes a big difference when you can get them at your place.
Top 100 RPI conference games: UAB - 10 Colorado - 12 Warrennolan.com is my source. What is yours?I use realtimerpi.com. Iowa State (2), Texas Tech (2), nor Oklahoma were in the Top 100. For UAB, the only conference games they played of teams above 100 were SMU, Tulane, Rice, and Houston.
Gah. We don’t even know which website is right. Hard enough as it is and everyone is using different #s lol.
Fun facts about the 2nd (…3rd) round.
7 of the 16 teams that played yesterday were from non-BCS leagues. 44%
But only 2 teams today for a total percentage of 28%.
4 of the 7 non-BCS at-large bids were still playing in the 2nd round. 57% success rate.
17 of the 30 BCS at-large bids were still playing. 57% success rate.