326


#1

Anyone wanna guess what this # is? :stuck_out_tongue:


#2

Penn State Tickets sold to the B10 Tourney?


#3

The number of teams the NCAA would like to get into the “expanded tournament” to capitalize on TV revenue? :wink:


#4

327-1

163x2

((1+1+1+1+1)x((5+5)x5))+(3x(5x5))+1

seriously, I could go all day…don’t tempt me. 8)


#5

Non-conference SOS?


#6

Bingo.


#7

For all the talk before the season about how much better this season’s OOC schedule should be, it really didn’t pan out that way. While it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things since we are nowhere’s close to getting a bid for anything, should we be concerned that the program really failed in this area for the 2nd straight year? Or just chalk this year up to just some bad luck…

Seems like this would be a huge issue again if we were back on the bubble this year again… did we not learn anything from last year?


#8

Not to nitpick (ok, I will anyways), but Pomeroy ratings aren’t a good way to determine the non-conference strength of schedule. Since the committee is much more concerned with RPI, then I’d be looking more in that direction.

For example, a top team in a bad conference will impact your RPI in a much more positive way than they’d impact your Pomeroy SOS. Since Opponents record is such a huge chunk of your RPI (50%), then it’s important to play teams with good records. A Pomeroy rating is much better at telling you how good a team actually is. If someone really wants to positively impact their RPI in the best way possible to do it would be to schedule teams who will have a much higher RPI SOS Impact than their Pomeroy rating. It’s obviously much easier to do this in hindsight, but if you have a DOBO or someone else in the basketball office that really researches this stuff heading into the season, you can at least make some educated guesses at who will be good to play.

Here are some examples for this season of teams who had a pretty big discrepency:
New Mexico Pomeroy - 38 RPI SOS Impact - 4
Northern Iowa Pomeroy - 45 RPI SOS Impact - 10
UAB Pomeroy - 60 RPI SOS Impact - 15
Murray St Pomeroy - 59 RPI SOS Impact - 17
Cornell Pomeroy - 71 RPI SOS Impact - 14
Coastal Carolina Pomeroy - 127 RPI SOS Impact - 37
Northern Colorado Pomeroy - 134 RPI SOS Impact - 45
Sam Houston St Pomeroy - 103 RPI SOS Impact - 51
Quinnipiac Pomeroy - 179 RPI SOS Impact - 79

Playing teams like this is obviously “tricking the RPI” in some ways, since the positive impact on the RPI should be greater than the quality of the opponent. It may seem like a small deal, but if I were a head coach I’d be making a huge deal out of it since every little advantage could help push you over the hump from the NIT to the NCAA. For example, Georgetown is 41st in the SOS Impact, Oklahoma St is 38th. Yet beating Coastal Carolina would help our RPI more than beating either Georgetown or Oklahoma St. These are all extreme examples, but just go to show how much scheduling can mean to a team’s RPI come Selection Sunday.


#9
Not to nitpick (ok, I will anyways), but Pomeroy ratings aren't a good way to determine the non-conference strength of schedule. Since the committee is much more concerned with RPI, then I'd be looking more in that direction.

I’ll disagree with this a little bit. They are in fact a good way to determine actual strength of schedule, but not so much how to determine how the selection committee will look at you.

So you’re right, it doesn’t really matter what kenpom’s numbers say, and the people in charge of making the schedule should be much more concerned with what you’re talking about - but that doesn’t mean this isn’t a good way to determine strength of schedule. :wink: Just nitpicking also.


#10

I’ll disagree with this a little bit. They are in fact a good way to determine actual strength of schedule, but not so much how to determine how the selection committee will look at you.

So you’re right, it doesn’t really matter what kenpom’s numbers say, and the people in charge of making the schedule should be much more concerned with what you’re talking about - but that doesn’t mean this isn’t a good way to determine strength of schedule. :wink: Just nitpicking also.[/quote]

True, the Pomeroy ratings would give a much truer sense of the strength of opponents. However I (and hopefully our basketball staff) don’t care about how strong our opponents actually are, as much as how much they will help our RPI (and thus how good we’ll look in the committee’s eyes). To me, I’d much rather that we figure out a way to get a good RPI SOS vs. getting a good Pomeroy SOS (and ideally, the bigger the gap between the RPI SOS and the Pomeroy SOS, the better)!!!


#11

Team – RPI
Penn - 302
Robert Morris - 160
NC Wilmington - 219 LOSS
Tulane* - 273 LOSS
Davidson* - 162
Sacred Heart - 262
@Virginia** - 113
@Temple - 19 LOSS
UMBC - 334
Virginia Tech - 52 LOSS
Gardner Webb - 316
American - 296

    • Didn’t exactly schedule these two games since they were in the tournament, but PSU played themselves into these terrible games by losing to bad teams.
      ** - B10-ACC Challenge

Three 300+ teams were SCHEDULED.
Two 200+ teams were SCHEDULED.

Temple and Virginia Tech were very good scheduled games. But we thought this horse was beaten to a pulp during and after last season… No 200-250+ teams! Replace American, Gardner Webb, Penn, Sacred Heart and UMBC with teams such as these:

Indiana State (80), Iona (81), Duquesne (90), Providence (114), Vermont (121), Drexel (124), Princeton (142), Rider (156).

I guess scheduling these national power houses is just too difficult? PSU has the two pretty good OOC games in VT and Temple, as well as the in-state cupcake in UPenn, but the rest are inexcusable… in my opinion.


#12

We’ve got the 76 classic next year right?


#13

Indeed. I believe I listed the RPIs of all the teams… besides 1 or 2 teams they were all relatively good.


#14

[quote=“noobd, post:11, topic:905”]Team – RPI
Penn - 302
Robert Morris - 160
NC Wilmington - 219 LOSS
Tulane* - 273 LOSS
Davidson* - 162
Sacred Heart - 262
@Virginia** - 113
@Temple - 19 LOSS
UMBC - 334
Virginia Tech - 52 LOSS
Gardner Webb - 316
American - 296

    • Didn’t exactly schedule these two games since they were in the tournament, but PSU played themselves into these terrible games by losing to bad teams.
      ** - B10-ACC Challenge

Three 300+ teams were SCHEDULED.
Two 200+ teams were SCHEDULED.

Temple and Virginia Tech were very good scheduled games. But we thought this horse was beaten to a pulp during and after last season… No 200-250+ teams! Replace American, Gardner Webb, Penn, Sacred Heart and UMBC with teams such as these:

Indiana State (80), Iona (81), Duquesne (90), Providence (114), Vermont (121), Drexel (124), Princeton (142), Rider (156).

I guess scheduling these national power houses is just too difficult? PSU has the two pretty good OOC games in VT and Temple, as well as the in-state cupcake in UPenn, but the rest are inexcusable… in my opinion.[/quote]

Replace American, Gardner Webb, Penn, Sacred Heart and UMBC with teams such as…

That’s easy to say AFTER the fact, but at the time the schedule was drawn up

American was 87 in the RPI,
UMBC was 162 in the RPI,
Sacred Heart was 183 in the RPI,

so you shouldn’t have any problem with them on the schedule (and we didn’t at the time).

and some of those teams that you say we should have booked as replacements were above 200 last year - Princeton was 284, Indiana St was 204. So unless you have a crystal ball, you really can’t point them out as schools we should have scheduled.

Also Penn was a home and home and was a necessary booking to get us a game in the Palestra before the Philly Classic - so I have no problem with that one either.

And as far as Gardner-Webb goes, they were 218 in the RPI, which in my book isn’t a problem (my rule is to eliminate the lower quartile which is 260+).


#15

So how do we do a better job identifying the right teams to schedule? I know rokk had his list of teams that were in the right range that were bringing a certain amount of players back and therefore expected to get better or at least stay in the same range… is it really that simple, considering most were pretty pleased with the schedule coming into this season?


#16

Good points, Lar.

However, I don’t believe this is coincidence.

-American lost 4 of their top 5 scorers and is in the Patriot League… clearly not a safe schedule. (#28 RPI conference)
-UMBC lost their top 3 scorers (only averaging double digits) and is an American East team (#24 RPI conference)
-Sacred Heart lost two of their top 4 scorers (both averaged 10+, 1 was leading scorer) and the Northeast is the #29 RPI conference. Sacred Heart is probably the best schedule out of these 3, but their RPI was actually the worst of these 3 from last year.

Around 2/3rds or more of the teams in these conferences have RPIs 240+ and only a select few have an RPI better than 200. I’m sure this trend is rather consistent year to year. So simply: scheduling these TYPES of teams is not safe year-in year-out.

Conferences to schedule mid-tier teams from:
A-10
CUSA
MVC
CAA
MAAC


#17

A little research is all it takes. I said back in November that UMBC and American were bad schedules. Gardner-Webb falls into the crystal ball excuse. They (and Grayson Flittner) haven’t had the year they were expected.

However, I expect the 2010 OOC to be much more difficult with:

3 games at 76 Classic
@ Virginia Tech
@ Siena (no sources but I’d put money on this happening)
Big Ten-ACC home game.


#18

Gotta agree w/ Lar on this one. I remember a the time the schedule was announced, most people were not thrilled with it but I don’t think most people thought the schedule was too awful either. In fact, I remember some people said GW was the sort of team we should schedule (last year they were in the 200 range). Just FYI, the Bob Morris game was a good one to schedule.

In the thread about next year’s schedule it was stated that we’re opening the season w/ Lehigh. I think they’re in the 200ish range this year but I think they lose a couple key players…seems like they could easily end up w/ an RPI north of 250 next year which is bad news…I hope I’m wrong.


#19
@ Siena (no sources but I'd put money on this happening)

it needs to. I’m still upset it didn’t happen this year after I was assured it was going down.


#20

[quote=“eric17, post:17, topic:905”]However, I expect the 2010 OOC to be much more difficult with:

3 games at 76 Classic
@ Virginia Tech
@ Siena (no sources but I’d put money on this happening)
Big Ten-ACC home game.[/quote]
Definitely.

Here is a slightly outdated RPI list of the teams in the field:

Cal St.-Northridge - 245 DePaul - 188 Oklahoma St. - 30 Penn State Stanford - 140 Tulsa - 75 UNLV - 44 Virginia Tech - 48
Took that from my post in another thread. Depaul loses Walker, but Koshwal is a beast when healthy. They should be slightly improved. At their best, they almost beat Syracuse and Tennessee this year..

Northridge should be the only major blemish in this field. They lose their leading scorer.

Stanford should be around the same or better. They lose Fields but bring in a strong class.

UNLV brings back everyone, should be better.