Tweet
Originally posted by Scrub
View Post
-
I personally like when more of the better teams in the regions do cross over and play against each other. I know that he doesn't, but I've said before that I think the quality of basketball in the Atlantic is really, really good. There's enough good teams that they should all be playing 2-3 solid games out of conference each year. Like you said with Shaw and Daemen. There's nothing wrong with playing 2-3 games like that every year. -
Comment
-
Beleive me Boro would be WAY different with Anthony Coleman. I feel bad for him. He worked real hard to come back after missing almost all of last season. He's a special player. But ... as is without him ... yeah .. not good.Comment
-
I'm boared so I'll rehash old territory. First one question, were do you suppose a 17-2 WLU team would be positioned within the Atlantic right now?Originally posted by Scrub View Post
Who a team chooses to schedule is a simple risk/reward discussion. Does the risk of playing and losing to a team outweigh the reward for beating them? The NCAA has a set of criteria that they supposedly use exclusively for their playoff selection and seeding. The major ones we talk about primarily reward winning against poorer teams over losing to better teams. Here are some of the biggies we often talk about:
W/L - Quite obviously a team benefits from a win over a loss...even if that win is against a poor team.
W/L v DII Opponents - Same as raw W/L, losses hurt...wins help, regardless of the record of the opponent.
PI - Again, a team garners more points by beating a bad team than they ever do by losing to a good one. Here's this years example...Damien is currently .773. WLU, loss to them earned WLU 11 PI points. Had WLU played and beaten a team that won ZERO games this year, the lowest number of PI points they would get is 12.
RPI - the NCAAs attempt to cut the baby so to speak. It includes W/L and SOS. There's a reason the NCAA deleted it as a D1 criteria. But for discussion, as a formula that attempts to balance two extremes so the difference between beating a poorer team over losing to a better team is muted.
SOS - Ah the mighty SOS! Never has so much been pinned on one little stat. It is the number that ever fan of a team with more losses than another pains their hope's and dreams for a higher seeding on. Wonder how many message posts have started with "Yea, but our SOS is higher so that proves we should be seeded higher" or something like that. Yes, this one stat does favor losing to a good team over beating a poorer team. I find it funny that a team can go 0-28 but have a nation leading SOS.
So what do we have? Three selection criteria that clearly favor winning over a poorer team over losing to a better one, one criteria were it depends and one criteria that favors losing to better teams over winning vs poorer ones.
If I'm doing a risk/reward calculation when choosing my OOC opponents, pretty clear which way I'm going. And NO...its not all .250- teams OR all .750+ ones...it is teams that I think are going to finish roughly .500.Last edited by boatcapt; 01-30-2020, 08:34 AM.Comment
-
In order of losses only:
Atlantic Region NCAA MEN'S contenders:
IUP (13-1, 18-1)
Shippensburg (13-1, 17-3)
West Liberty (11-2, 16-3)
Charleston (10-3, 16-3)
Pitt-Johnstown (11-3, 17-4)
Fairmont State (9-4, 14-4)
West Virginia State (8-5, 13-5)
Fayetteville State (5-5, 16-5)
Virginia State (9-1, 15-6)
California (10-4, 14-6)
West Chester (8-6, 14-6)
Johnson C. Smith (7-4, 13-6)
Bubble (For now cut off at 8 losses):
Glenville State (9-4, 12-7)
Mercyhurst (9-5, 11-7)
Bowie State (5-3, 13-8)
East Stroudsburg (7-7, 11-8)
Winston-Salem State (8-2, 10-8)
Wheeling (6-7, 9-8)Comment
-
Can't you cut it off at nine losses so that GU fans can pretend that we are on the bubble? :-)Originally posted by IUPbigINDIANS View Post
Comment
-
-
Any team in the East can probably give you a game on a given night. On the other hand, most are capable of looking bad on a given night as well.Comment
-
Think you can effectively scrap the "Bubble" teams you ID'ed and divide the "Contender" list into "Front Runners" and "Bubble Teams":Originally posted by IUPbigINDIANS View Post
Front Runners:
IUP
WLU
Ship
UC
UPJ
Fairmont
WV State
Fayet State
Bubble Teams:
Va State
Cal
WCU
JC Smith
Comment
-
Massey Atlantic "Top 10":
1. IUP
2. UC
3. WLU
4. Ship
5. UPJ
6. VA State
7. Cal
8. Fairmont
9. Fayet State
???????10. JC SmithComment
-
It will take care of itself in the coming weeks. Always does.Originally posted by boatcapt View PostComment
-
Comment
-
Any idea why your system seems to be so much higher on Fairmont than most other ranking/projection systems? I'm not doubting your method (you've clearly put much more into it than my armchair observations), but it just seems to rank Fairmont higher than others. Do you have a sense of what factor in your mix might be giving them the bump? Just curious.Comment
-
Their SOS is much higher than that of UC, WLU, and UPJ.Originally posted by Scrub View PostComment
-
Atlantic Region MEN'S teams with 8 or less losses (listed in order of losses only):
Note: Rough day for the top teams. IUP, Shippensburg, UPJ, Fairmont State, Johnson C. Smith and Virginia State all lost.
IUP (13-2, 18-2)
West Liberty (12-2, 17-3)
Charleston (11-3, 17-3)
Shippensburg (13-2, 17-4)
Pitt-Johnstown (11-4, 17-5)
Fayetteville State (6-5, 17-5)
Fairmont State (9-5, 14-5)
West Virginia State (9-5, 14-5)
California (11-4, 15-6)
West Chester (9-6, 15-6)
Virginia State (9-2, 15-7)
Glenville State (10-4, 13-7)
Johnson C. Smith (7-4, 13-7)
Mercyhurst (10-5, 12-7)
Winston-Salem State (10-2, 12-8)
Wheeling (7-7, 10-8)Comment
Comment