UTEP finished ahead of ECU in the rpi

(11-15-2013 02:03 AM)Dracorex Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 01:49 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 01:33 AM)Dracorex Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 11:15 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  How many times are you guys going to bring up our schedule? I mean really, like we haven't been down this road 1000 times. What F do you want? None of us make the schedule, most hate it. Move on. This is getting old. Yes, too many non-D-1's that a garbage teams.

With apologies but we had to hear from SJ et. al. all off season about your CIT/CBI championship. The issue for us is that your SOS is the only reason ECU was above .500 and even got an invite to a postseason to that tournament.

On top of that, you guys are leaving for the AAC and SJ et. al. ran their mouth about how your recruiting will improve now and how ECU is gonna be world beaters.

It has nothing to do with most of the ECU fans on this board but a certain few. Most of you are fun.

Take it up with SJ then No one likes the schedule. Like I said in another thread... at least we won the damn games, we could've just lost them and looked even worse.

How do you propose we take it up with that stupid troll? The mods won't ban him, because technically he doesn't break enough of the rules to deserve it. He walks a very fine line and is very good with what he does.

The simple solution is to ignore him and not respond if you don't like what he says. Clearly arguing with him online doesn't go anywhere so do us all a favor and stop.

keep spinning!!!

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...eason/2013

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...conference

http://espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=330260151

What was that about pomeroy???

18-14 on a schedule that included

Arizona
Oregon
UNLV
CSU
NMSU x 2
Oklahoma

vs an ECU (14-12) schedule which included

Charlotte
UNC

You know what the same formula/rank said when the season were complete. More wins, less loses, better rank.

19-12 #67
18-14 #97

(11-18-2013 03:19 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  One of those crap teams was 2-0 vs a Final 4 team. Another won 30 games. You can pretend they were crap or that those wins were irrelevant or didn't add to our entire season reasume, but it's not reality.

BTW FGCU regular season RPI was 93. Their final RPI was significantly higher was a more accurate reflection of the season they had, just like it is for everyone else than the same rankings with incomplete data. Thanks for making my point. I can't even believe idiots would argue the same formula/rankings is better with incomplete data.

and Evansville was 15-14 against all other D1s... nice try though...

Weber st was 3-3 ooc vs D1, two of those losses came against schools who did not play in the post season and 1 against a school who finished 8-20... They did manage to beat the snot out of power houses Utah Valley and UC irvine and a 1 point win over 17-14, Dayton.

(11-18-2013 03:47 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  You know what the same formula/rank said when the season were complete. More wins, less loses, better rank.

19-12 #67
18-14 #97

I was thinking, should we not include the win UTEP had over CIT champion ECU on their home court.... It would be only fair to compare apples to apples, right?

19-11 vs 17-14... good job

(11-18-2013 03:53 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  and Evansville was 15-14 against all other D1s... nice try though...

They had 20 D1 wins. Nice try though.

(11-18-2013 01:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 01:14 PM)Rojogrande Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 01:08 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 01:05 PM)Rojogrande Wrote:  I don't really have a dog in this fight as I could care less about ECU basketball. From an unbiased outsiders perspective playing in the CIT does not mean you had a better season then UTEP. You honestly believe UTEP couldn't have played in the CIT tournament if they had wanted to. The CIT would have undoubtedly jumped at the opportunity to have them in the field. However, there are some teams that do not relegate themselves to playing in the lowest rung post season tournament. I'd be willing to bet that most of the teams in CUSA have turned down CIT invites multiple times. Thumping your chest for winning that tournament is like bragging to everyone you know about sleeping with a 500 lb chick named Big Mama that you met at a biker bar. Yes you may have gotten laid, but it is not one you want to brag about around town.

Let the jonesing begin in 3...2...1....

Is UTEP even allowed to play in something like the CIT? I know some schools AD's don't allow that.

My whole point. Some schools have higher aspirations then playing in tournaments like these. I know WKU would never play in it either. Whether our not are AD would allow it (I don't believe he would), our fan base certainly would not allow it.

I would say this goes for schools like UTEP, UAB, Charlotte, etc etc.

Pretty sure the Charlotte AD doesn't allow playing in something like the CIT, etc. Although we've sucked for a while now, we still have higher expectations than that.

Now hold on a second, this is what pisses me off and what is pissing Jonesing off. Stop bashing a team for choicing to play in a tournament. "Higher Expectations" like your above someone? Give me a damn break. Are going to give others this much crap for playing in that tournament? USM? ODU (played in it twice)? MTSU? Marshall?

What about the CBI? UTEP, ODU, TULSA.............

No it not a big deal, but we had no history, at least we won the damn thing.

I don't even care about that. Games are games, doesn't matter where they come from. These clowns just want to pretend we didn't win them though or that other teams didn't lose another game is what's so stupid.

(11-18-2013 04:06 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  I don't even care about that. Games are games in my view, doesn't matter where they come from. These clowns just want to pretend we didn't win them though or that they didn't lose another game is what's so stupid.

Look man, there are many times that I even agree with you on things which is insane, but there is zero way ECU had a better season than UTEP last year. It is a great thing ECU won the CIT, but that is the equivalent to saying that you had a better overall season than Harvard because you kept playing games in the CIT and they lost in the second round of the NCAA to Arizona. That is an incredibly stupid argument to make. RPI is only important for making tournaments and you know that.

Or that's like saying you had as good of a season as Davidson because they finished with an RPI of 65 after losing to Elite 8 team Marquette by 1 in the first round and ECU had an RPI of 67 at the end of the year. Lol. You just can't compare like that.

That's like saying Baylor had a better season than multiple NCAA teams because they won the NIT.

You can do the same thing with teams from the NIT. If you had thrown those NIT teams into the CIT then ECU wouldn't have made it past the first or second. Do you understand where this is going?

Conference Champion
Conference Tourney Champion
NIT bid
NCAA bid

Anything else is somewhere between icing on the cake and irrelevant. Take a guess which side of the spectrum most of CUSA ended up last year.

BTW, 2013-14 season is underway. Last year dont mean shet anymore suckas!

(11-18-2013 04:04 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 03:53 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  and Evansville was 15-14 against all other D1s... nice try though...

They had 20 D1 wins. Nice try though.

Evansville was 17-14 going into the cit vs d1... Nice try

(11-18-2013 01:57 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 01:40 PM)HSV_BLAZER Wrote:  Does anyone really believe that RPI is an effective way to rank teams? The tournament selection committee definitely doesn't. Going into the tournament, the #1 team in RPI was Duke. They were given a 2 seed. The #2 team in RPI was New Mexico. They were given a 3 seed. Move further down, and there are even more divergent cases. North Carolina was #18 in RPI and received an 8 seed. Belmont was #19 in RPI and only received an 11 seed. Comparing seasons using RPI as your metric is incredibly flawed.

They start bringing in things like how you performed the last 10 games etc and way it differently just about every year with who ever is sitting on the committee. Beyond that are you so sure it's not the NCAA selection committee that's not the one that's incredibly flawed? It is after all a bunch of athletic administrators with their own agendas and interest at stake in many cases. It's like a bunch of politicians cutting back room deals. If you think they always get seeds right or that they don't leave out deserving teams you are nuts. The RPI is the most unbiased, consistent and best formula to judge a season there is. It really boils down to these people looking at the entire season or pretending 3 weeks of it didn't happen.

I never said the Selection Committee was perfect. I think they look at other factors rather than just RPI since it is such an incomplete metric. I think that is a better process than just looking at RPI alone. I strongly disagree that RPI is the best formula to judge a season. Let's take a look at some other rankings, from names that you mentioned earlier in this thread.

Jeff Sagarin
East Carolina - 110
UTEP - 111
Teams are separated by 0.06 points.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/2013/team/

Ken Pomeroy
UTEP - 111
East Carolina - 115
Teams are separated by 0.078 points.
http://kenpom.com/index.php?y=2013

At best, it's a draw.