Is the difference between RPI 200 and RPI 300 really that big? It's huge in figuring up your RPI but in terms of quality of team you play?
Printable View
Is the difference between RPI 200 and RPI 300 really that big? It's huge in figuring up your RPI but in terms of quality of team you play?
I see your point, but when Delaware is your highest ranked team out of those 8 that I named, and that's still 71 places lower than the lowest ranked team (Radford) out of the 2nd 8 that I named, that speaks volumes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pvfan
Even more than that, Richmond's RPI was 25th in the nation, highest out of those 2nd 8 I named. Take 25th vs. 239th (Delaware) and that's 214 spots' difference in your potential toughest opponent vs. your actual toughest opponent. That's a big deal.
The real story would be that if those 2nd 8 teams took the place of who they actually scheduled, they would have added 2 more top 50 RPI teams w/o leaving the state at all. ODU ended up 27th, 2 spots behind Richmond. They could have added 2 more top 100 RPI teams in VCU (66) and William & Mary (58). Also note that VT's RPI ended up 59th.
I honestly believe that if you switched out those groups of 8 teams in VT's schedule, and VT somehow drops 2 games in those new 8 to finish 21-10 (ACC play held as-is), they make the tournament, maybe even as a 7-8 seed. Simple fact is they scheduled for success by beating up on tomato cans, and it came back to bite them. Play some better competition throughout the year and you'll make it in.
I agree they scheduled "down" however they didn't get much help with the "big" teams they played:
win vs. Penn State (defending NIT champs)
win vs. Seton Hall
win vs. Iowa
win vs. Georgia
loss vs. Temple
More than anyting it bothers me that a 20 win ACC team that went 10-6 in league play is not getting in. It doesn't set a good precedent for the league.
I can see the ACC angle too, but the truth is as much as we follow it and love the league--the ACC was down this year. We were lucky to get the teams in that we got in. I thought all we would get in was Duke/MD/Clemson/FSU. Instead, we got those plus GT/Wake, and VT was one of the last ones out. The committee, I think, gave the ACC more than its' due this year, all things considered.Quote:
Originally Posted by pvfan
As for VT and those games you just listed--keep those games the same and swap the 8 out that they had w/the 8 teams I mentioned. Don't you think that would have made a huge SOS difference and made those teams that underachieved like Iowa/Georga/Penn St/Seton Hall a null point when looking at the schedule come selection time?
Honestly, had VT beat Maryland at home (lost 104-100 in 2 OT) or beat Miami in the ACC Tournament none of this would even be mentioned. They shot themselves in the foot but at the same time I have a hard time seeing how their resume is worse than some of those that got in.
my only complaint with VT not getting in goes back to WF as well. VT finished with a better record within the conference (VT 10-6 ; WF 9-7) and beat WF head to head.
Yeah, perhaps Wake had some other big wins there, but how do you punish VT for losing to Miami in the first round of the ACC tourny but not punish WF who has played terrible the past 2 weeks?
I'm a fan of neither and actually share PVFan's concern that a 10-6 ACC team missed out on the tournament.
Im a Duke fan, but it seemed as though the committee contradicted themselves on this one. How do they see a 10-6 ACC team as not worthy of a bid, but then give the ACC Champ and Tourny champ a 1 seed and have them as the 3rd overall team?
My opinion of you just hit the floor.Quote:
I'm a Duke fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7teen
sorry to hear that
Not saying they couldn't have scheduled better, which definitely would've helped. I had no issue with VT being excluded the prior two years because 1) Their overall record wasn't quite good enough and 2) Other teams were a little more deserving.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoeburnCane
My original point was (and still is): make the case that Cal, UTEP and Utah State somehow had a better resume' than VT. The same criticisms can be leveled against those three that were leveled against Tech and Tech played in a much tougher league.
Those three all won their regular season league titles. So what? None of those leagues (except for MAYBE the Pac 10 with Washington) would have gotten more than one bid without conference tournament upsets.
The ACC had six teams make the tournament, VT beat three of them (plus they were 0-2 vs the top two, not 0-4) and finished tied for third. The bottom teams in the ACC are capable of beating the top teams (NC State beat FSU twice, plus Wake, Duke and Clemson, AND Marquette OOC; Miami beat Wake and VT twice, plus GT and Minnesota). Does anyone think the worst (or even the middle) teams in the Pac 10, WAC and CUSA are capable of that?
And, here are each of the four teams records vs #s 101-200 and 201+ respectively
Utah State: 6-2, 10-0 (total 16-2)
California: 16-3, 1-0 (17-3)
UTEP: 8-2, 10-0 (18-2)
VT: 6-1, 9-0 (15-1)
Interesting how VT gets all the criticism for the soft schedule.
Your complaint has some validity in terms of VT vs. other teams' resumes (for instance, I don't think Cal in particular should be in the tourney), but the truth remains what I said--schedule better, and it's not an issue.
I posted those 8 tomato cans they played versus 8 teams that they could have easily scheduled to make sure they had a better SOS than a bunch of other teams that got into the tourney. That comparison illustrates the glaring weakness of their schedule. It's not like that schedule w/the teams I suggested would have been murderer's row, if VT's good enough to be in the tourney--they could have navigated it at 6-2 at worst. They may have still been on the bubble at 21-10, but they would have probably gotten the nod due to actually playing someone other than powerhouses like Longwood/Brown/UMBC/etc.
Throw around what other numbers you want, but that's what it ultimately came down to, that and they couldn't beat Miami in the ACCT.