ESPN Bubble Watch: Scheduling & Shox Mention

[PurpleAcesFootball]

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

Wichita is the only conference team mentioned at the bottom in the "work left to do" category. Nothing surprising there and most of it has been discussed on here before - how will the committee view early season injuries?

The thing that interests me in this article is the first 4 paragraphs regarding the PAC 12 and its gaudy RPI rankings for its teams. It points out things that I would think are common knowledge but it appears some schools still don't know how to schedule properly for RPI purposes. According to the article, the average PAC school only scheduled 4 games with 200+ RPI teams. Compare that to 7 for UE and 9 for SIU.

Meanwhile, the Pac-12 scheduled the most nonconference games per team against the RPI top 25 (1.4) of any of the leagues we tracked.

It went 3-14 in those games. Not important! What is important is that the Pac-12, as a whole, didn't drag itself down with dead RPI weight in nonconference play. It also managed to play more high-quality teams than most major leagues. The differences are fractional. Specifics vary. But with the RPI, it's all relative. And it all adds up.

The MVC should mandate an RPI boosting initiative similar to what it implemented in the early 2000s. It should be tied to finances. Why should schools who made no effort to schedule wisely receive the same benefits from WSU's NCAA tournament winnings?

[Championz]

You bring up some pretty good points PAF.

A lot of the conference seems ride the coattails of others and are perfectly content with that. The PAC-12 did the exact thing the Valley did in 2006 and to a lesser extent 2007. It scheduled a ton of decent teams, a few really good teams, and very little bad teams. More importantly, the Valley won a lot of those games. What's funny is that the Valley was accused of "cheating" the system that year. But has anyone accused the PAC-12 of that this year? Nope. Funny how that works.

There are a lot of teams on that page listed under "still work to do". I'd say that WSU's position still looks pretty solid, assuming the committee holds to their word and still consider the FVV absence factor. If WSU sweeps the regular season and wins 2 in STL, they're in. If they sweep and win 1 in STL, they're likely right smack on the bubble, it could go either way. If they go 3-1 in the regular season, I think they need to win all 3 in STL to get an at-large. 3 regular season losses in this mediocre league + another loss in the tournament would likely send them NIT-ing.

[James__SIU]

Agreed some kind of MVC rules requiring a certain number of quality non-conference opponents would be nice. I doubt the MVC will implement anything. At the end of the day the teams/coaches/Athletic Directors know that the best way to make the NCAA tournament is to first have a team talented enough to go and second schedule tough enough to warrant an invite.

I also think it is a highly overrated stat...with RPI it is always better to lose to a great team rather than beat a bad one. It overvalues Winning percentage of Opponents Opponents. So for instance Bradley should go out and schedule a top 50 SOS and win 2 games in the Non-conference so everyone else in the Valley can benefit when it beats Bradley in conference play? Imperfect system if you ask me.

What should actually be more impressive? Winning at Home against Oakland by 5 or losing at Iowa by 25?

The only 2 things I can say in SIU's defense is...
1. Even Coach Hinson probably thought the team was going to struggle this year. Since they lost 2 starters to Power 6 schools.

2. Regional Rivals were terrible this year. St. Louis down. Murray State down. SIUE always down. SEMO always down.

[PurpleAcesFootball]

Agreed some kind of MVC rules requiring a certain number of quality non-conference opponents would be nice. I doubt the MVC will implement anything. At the end of the day the teams/coaches/Athletic Directors know that the best way to make the NCAA tournament is to first have a team talented enough to go and second schedule tough enough to warrant an invite.

I also think it is a highly overrated stat...with RPI it is always better to lose to a great team rather than beat a bad one. It overvalues Winning percentage of Opponents Opponents. So for instance Bradley should go out and schedule a top 50 SOS and win 2 games in the Non-conference so everyone else in the Valley can benefit when it beats Bradley in conference play? Imperfect system if you ask me.

Agree completely. It is imperfect and CANNOT be used to compare teams for head to head purposes. However when it is a stat clearly used to determine at-large bids, to ignore it completely is foolish. The committee has shown it will reward teams that put together an appropriate non-conference schedule. Playing Top 100 teams is beneficial to SOS and gives the team a chance at a quality win.

If SIU (most likely) and Evansville (quite possible) miss the NIT this year it will be due directly to their lack of 'quality wins' and a tissue soft non-conference schedule. SIU is less troublesome because they had no idea what they might have this year.

[CaliRdBrd]

I've seen the Valley get screwed too many times in favor of the Power 5. If I was a Shocker fan, I'd only feel safe if you ran the rest of the regular season and made it to the championship game.

On another note, .500 or worse in conference play should be an automatic eliminator. I'm talking to you, Pitt, FSU, Tx Tech, Butler, Oregon State, UCLA and 'Bama

[AndShock]

What should actually be more impressive? Winning at Home against Oakland by 5 or losing at Iowa by 25?

You have a point, but beating Oakland at home would actually be better for your RPI. Sorry, couldn't help myself.