If this is your first visit, feel free to
check out the Frequently Asked Questions by clicking this
LINK.
You are welcome as a guest, but you will have to REGISTER
before you can post messages.
To register, click the link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions.
If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
A couple of points. In your linked analysis you used the word "willingly". This will always be an unknown to fans. We have no idea how a coach tried to schedule versus the final result (except for maybe Jankovic, with apologies to the Redbird fans).
You also mentioned being "unlucky". Well, I would speculate (since I can't know the particulars) that if you think you have a nice slate of quality games (Pitt, Tex/Iowa, @CSU, TCU, TTech) you have enough opportunity to make a splash and prepare for league play without adding even more tough opponents. Of course, that doesn't mean you immediately dial Alcorn or SC-Upstate. But I addressed that in my first point.
Well, I tried to focus as much of my analysis on the impact scheduling has on at-large bids and the "computer numbers". It's just that the SoS numbers ended up a lot worse than what was intended by WSU given the type of schedule they had. Hence, unlucky.
Long-term, I anticipate WSU being at the top of the league from a scheduling standpoint, anyways.
and their FINISHING RPI was? And our FINISHING RPI was? We could dissect the numbers and stats all day. The fact of the matter remains the same...they have two NIT bids and a higher RPI and we get to write a check and get to play in the CBI and CIT tourneys.
All that being said...a couple guys I play ball with at the Y are ISU alums and they think there scheduling sucks too.
That's a great point! I think winning percentage in the long run weighs more than the SOS, when the selection committee begins to make their postseason assessments. Probably though, also even more important than the raw SOS number is who a team has beaten.
If ISU plays a similar schedule next season as they have recently, except that they add and beat two top 25 BCS teams, their SOS will still be bad (though not as bad as this year), but the committee will notice their two great wins, and probably award ISU an at-large bid if they finish near the top of the Valley. That's how a good team can overcome a bad SOS.
Unfortunately for them, they don't have any great non-con wins this year, so their SOS number is a moot point anyway.
That's a great point! I think winning percentage in the long run weighs more than the SOS, when the selection committee begins to make their postseason assessments. Probably though, also even more important than the raw SOS number is who a team has beaten.
If ISU plays a similar schedule next season as they have recently, except that they add and beat two top 25 BCS teams, their SOS will still be bad (though not as bad as this year), but the committee will notice their two great wins, and probably award ISU an at-large bid if they finish near the top of the Valley. That's how a good team can overcome a bad SOS.
Unfortunately for them, they don't have any great non-con wins this year, so their SOS number is a moot point anyway.
They don't have any great non-con wins because they played no great non-con games. This year they have to win the Valley tourney or it's back to NITville again.
I agree. Having several teams near the top almost ensures that the top two teams are going to have some quality in-conference wins. That's how those mid-tier BcS teams get at-large bids. They may not have a great OOC resume, but with many built-in opportunities for quality wins, they stumble across a couple and get credit for it. You just can't absorb very many poor losses.
That's what I'm hoping the Valley can become again. A "BCS"-like conference where we can get some built-in opportunites for conference quality wins if we can't get that great OOC win.
And to add to my previous post, having one team dominate the Valley like Drake did in 2008 and IL. St. did in 1998 & 1999 won't do any good unless they lose in the Valley championship. Having two dominating teams like last year won't do much good either because the selection committee will find an excuse to keep the other team out, and two great teams don't create enough opportunities for those built-in conference wins anyway. Hence my theory that we need four of five teams to finish well ahead of the lower tier teams, which would create enough in-conference opportunities for quality wins, and which would create a pool of four or five good teams for the selection committee to choose from.
We'll see how it all plays out this year, but I see signs that we should see four or five very solid teams by the end of the season.
That's what I'm hoping the Valley can become again. A "BCS"-like conference where we can get some built-in opportunites for conference quality wins if we can't get that great OOC win.
And to add to my previous post, having one team dominate the Valley like Drake did in 2008 and IL. St. did in 1998 & 1999 won't do any good unless they lose in the Valley championship. Having two dominating teams like last year won't do much good either because the selection committee will find an excuse to keep the other team out, and two great teams don't create enough opportunities for those built-in conference wins anyway. Hence my theory that we need four of five teams to finish well ahead of the lower tier teams, which would create enough in-conference opportunities for quality wins, and which would create a pool of four or five good teams for the selection committee to choose from.
We'll see how it all plays out this year, but I see signs that we should see four or five very solid teams by the end of the season.
I would love to see four or five in. That would be fantastic. I don't see it. However, I'd be thrilled if we could get 2-3 in. Anything better than 1 would be a victory.
If ISU plays a similar schedule next season as they have recently, except that they add and beat two top 25 BCS teams, their SOS will still be bad (though not as bad as this year), but the committee will notice their two great wins, and probably award ISU an at-large bid if they finish near the top of the Valley. That's how a good team can overcome a bad SOS.
I'm not so sure, the selection committees have been somewhat notorious SoS Nazis the past few years.
I'm not so sure, the selection committees have been somewhat notorious SoS Nazis the past few years.
Yeah, your probably right, but I'd like to think a great win or two combined with a great record would attract the attention of the selection committee. WSU fits right in that category. But I am all the wiser this year after Creighton's snub last year. I still don't get that one!
I would love to see four or five in. That would be fantastic. I don't see it. However, I'd be thrilled if we could get 2-3 in. Anything better than 1 would be a victory.
Right, I never said they would get four or five in this year, but it's something to shoot for in the future. Two or three would be great this year though!
They don't have any great non-con wins because they played no great non-con games. This year they have to win the Valley tourney or it's back to NITville again.
I wish we would get invited to NITville again. That would be progress.
This is all fine and dandy if we actually won most of those games. However, with the lackluster play lately, we are likely facing the possibility of being 2-6 or 3-5 in the next 12 days. We can re-visit the RPI and SOS on January 20th if Bradley can at least go 2-2 over the next 4 games.
They scheduled well, got real lucky with WCU and Loyola. But the lenght of time between games in December was absurd.
I know for a fact that JL did all he could do to rectify that gap. He was looking for a decent game home or on the road for the 12/23 and trust me there was zero to be had. I'm sure he could have scored a game with someone terrible but look how most of us went crazy regarding the NIU game.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people...they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
??” Thomas Jefferson
sigpic
Another point we have going for us is that the bcs conferences might not receive as many as they normally get as the Pac 10 is rather weak this year. Less for them means more for the rest of us. Hopefully, their "allotted" bids will not go to other bcs schools....
True - but each team's resume is taken into consideration (supposedly Conferences don't get bids, teams do).
We will see fewer PAC10 teams this year than what a normal BCS Conference will draw to the NCAA... but I think other middle of the pack BCS conference teams will snag up bids along with the Atlantic 10 getting more than recent years for them (not to mention maybe the Mtn West or other Upper Mid's besides the MVC getting multiple bids).
True - but each team's resume is taken into consideration (supposedly Conferences don't get bids, teams do).
We will see fewer PAC10 teams this year than what a normal BCS Conference will draw to the NCAA... but I think other middle of the pack BCS conference teams will snag up bids along with the Atlantic 10 getting more than recent years for them (not to mention maybe the Mtn West or other Upper Mid's besides the MVC getting multiple bids).
I was just going to say that whatever extra bids the Pac-10 normally gets will just be "redistributed" to other BCS conferences.
I was just going to say that whatever extra bids the Pac-10 normally gets will just be "redistributed" to other BCS conferences.
I believe that is called "spreading the wealth"!
Yes... but no.
The "wealth" isn't "spread"... it's "shared"... amongst themselves in BCS conferences. Doesn't matter if there are 8 B10 and 2 Pac10 versus 4 B10 and 6 Pac10. They "share" amongst themselves.
Tweet
Comment