|
Post by bonawolf02 on Feb 7, 2016 13:57:49 GMT -5
Siena just took the gas from Marist - who's now 2-11 in the MAAC and 5-17 overall. How's that Siena loss looking now? Ouch.
|
|
|
Post by orangehater on Feb 7, 2016 21:53:31 GMT -5
That was terrible. Marist was 320, Siena just moved into bad loss territory for the first time, hopefully they and the Dukes bounce back into double digits. They are part of the reason we won today and dropped five slots
|
|
|
Post by elitetaylor33 on Feb 7, 2016 23:53:39 GMT -5
Let's say the Bonnie's lose to Dayton(as they should) and win rest of their reg season games? That would give them 22 regular season wins....I would think with One A10 tournament win (now 23 wins) that the Bonnie's should get in the NCAA. according to this article they have to beat Dayton......that's tough. I mean beating a top 25 team on the road? It's so hard to know. Last year before A-10 tourney everyone said Dayton with 23 wins was a "lock" for NCAA tournament. They went on to get to A-10 final and lost by a couple. They ended up being one of the "last teams in" playing in the First round on their home court no less but still were clearly not a lock going into A-10 tourney like everyone thought. You're absolutely right, but i also think this yr, there's no stand out team, or even conference for that matter (by conference, i mean there shouldn't be 8 to 9 teams coming out of the ACC).. Every top team keeps getting "upset", to the point that its really not an "upset" anymore. So hopefully this yr, the A10 gets more recognition from the committee and gets atleast 3 (hopefully 4) at large bids..
|
|
|
Post by Bona84 on Feb 8, 2016 6:39:21 GMT -5
Did you really dig out an article from 7 years ago?
|
|
|
Post by ohs73 on Feb 8, 2016 8:27:49 GMT -5
Siena just took the gas from Marist - who's now 2-11 in the MAAC and 5-17 overall. How's that Siena loss looking now? Ouch. My thoughts exactly. Knew the RPI would take a hit. Yeesh.
|
|
|
Post by class70 on Feb 8, 2016 8:52:09 GMT -5
By whose criteria is Siena a bad loss? Their RPI is still pretty good at 110 and we played them at their home, the same situation as with our loss to #111 Duquesne. The loss to 78th rated Hofstra is probably worse than both of these because it happened at our home, but they are not bad losses. It only becomes a problem when there are too many of them, so let's keep winning and add a few more quality wins while we're at it.
|
|
|
Post by orangehater on Feb 8, 2016 9:10:35 GMT -5
The selection criteria accounts for losses to RPI 100+ teams as bad losses. Siena had been under 100 for the entire year before losing to Marist. Duquesne also crossed that threshold this weekend, so while up until now we had 0 bad losses, we now have two.
|
|
|
Post by bigdobber on Feb 8, 2016 9:31:28 GMT -5
The denial of the obvious implications of a weak OOC schedule is very much the reality. Perhaps the schedule was necessary to get the team needed wins going into the A10 schedule but that schedule is part of who we are so far this year. Two very obtainable options for us are to win the A10 regular season or the A10 Tourney. This is a tough bunch and yesterdays sub par performance proves that out. I really don't see any team in the league being better than us. VCU was hard fought on their court. That game would have been a win had it been played at the RC. We have a chance to avenge the Dayton and Duquesne games. The St. Louis game will be the wake up call we needed as we head into Rose Hill because we are a better team. Bona will win by 10 at Rose Hill. Schmidt's teams always play well in February and this year will be no different. Staying positive.
|
|
|
Post by orangehater on Feb 8, 2016 10:22:00 GMT -5
Unless we're permanently done with the big four, I'm not sure what the answer is. I suppose we could dispense with the Bingo tuneup, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with scheduling top third opponents like Siena and Hofstra. We simply have to win those games if we want to be elite.
|
|
|
Post by class70 on Feb 8, 2016 10:25:32 GMT -5
Once again, BD, the schedule has served our purposes because it has us in the top 50 of the RPI here in February. It is impossible to say what would have happened in some alternative hypothetical case, but we know that all that stands between the Bonnies and an at-large bid is how they perform in the remainder of the schedule. That is as it should be. Now as to RPI, orangehater, can you document what you wrote about RPI 100+ losses? I would be grateful if you would because it is not what is said in the official guidance to the Committee, which specifically states the following about RPI and other statistical data: Rating Percentage Index (RPI) Several independent elements are combined to produce the RPI. These elements are a part of the statistical information that may or may not be utilized by each member in any manner they choose. The RPI is one of many resources/tools available to the committee in the selection, seeding and bracketing process. Computer models cannot accurately evaluate qualitative factors such as games missed by key players or coaches, travel difficulties, the emotional effects of specific games, etc. Beginning each December, the NCAA will release the official RPI on a daily basis at www.ncaa.com. Each committee member independently evaluates a vast amount of information during the process to make individual decisions. It is these qualitative, quantitative and subjective opinions -- developed after hours of personal observations, discussion with coaches, directors of athletics and commissioners, and review and comparison of various data -- that each individual ultimately will determine their vote on all issues related to selections, seeding and bracketing. The individual components (i.e., win-loss record, opponents‟ record, opponent opponents‟ record, where the game is played) of the RPI in and of themselves, are important in the evaluation process. You can find the full guidance here: www.ncaa.com/content/di-principles-and-procedures-selection
|
|
|
Post by orangehater on Feb 8, 2016 10:29:43 GMT -5
I think we're all agreed that bad losses is a significant component of the selection criteria. If you are saying there isn't particular evidence that 100+ RPI losses necessarily fit that definition, I'd have to do some digging because it may just be what I heard.
|
|
|
Post by sbu79 on Feb 8, 2016 10:36:58 GMT -5
I don't know if the site "Real Time RPI" has any validity in its use of "Bad Loss", but they assign a bad loss marker at >100RPI and multiple markers >200RPI.
|
|
|
Post by orangehater on Feb 8, 2016 13:27:49 GMT -5
For more bracket fun, this outfit has established itself recently as the Nate Silver of tourney predictors. Interestingly enough, they don't think Wichita State deserves their ridiculous ranking either. We're on the outside looking in, but barely. www.unf.edu/~jcoleman/dance.htm
|
|
|
Post by tastylicks on Feb 8, 2016 13:42:14 GMT -5
For more bracket fun, this outfit has established itself recently as the Nate Silver of tourney predictors. Interestingly enough, they don't think Wichita State deserves their ridiculous ranking either. We're on the outside looking in, but barely. www.unf.edu/~jcoleman/dance.htmthanks for sharing. Wichita State is interesting. They definitely don;'t deserve all the love they are getting from some of the media. Their resume is actually extremely close to St. Bona's. (RPI in the 40s, few top 50 wins & losses, no "bad" losses, biggest wins are within their conference) Yet they are ranked 21st in the AP Poll, a solidly projected 7 seed while our Bonnies are on the outside looking in. It doesn't seem right at all on the surface but their recent march runs (final four, close loss to kentucky in round 3 , sweet sixteen last year) means people in the media are giving them the benefit of the doubt. I guess its unfair but at the same time thats what winning consistently brings you. Someday I hope our Bonnies can get to that place. The place where they get added benefit from "reputation" even if its unfair.
|
|
|
Post by orangehater on Feb 8, 2016 14:07:46 GMT -5
And the Bonnies have no loss as "bad" as their recent defeat at the hands of #125 (147 when they played them) Illinois State. What was wild is they didn't lose a whit of ranking after the loss once all the other games swirling around them shifted the various RPIs. Their conference is ranked #12/#13 with only two are three teams that aren't complete dumpster fires.
|
|