"They do a very good job of trying to screw anybody who's not in those Power 5 conferences,"

[itgoeslike]

Well obviously, but looking at the data, they all seem to put a lot more weight into wins against teams ranked 100-150 than sub-150 wins. To me there is no difference when discussing bid worthiness. Most bubble teams don't have more than 1 or 2 sub 150 losses, so what's the point other than tie breakers.

I have the same problem with NASCAR, the parse points between the guys who finishes 40th and 43rd, as if that makes any difference. IMV, if you outside the top 30 you are competing. I'd love to see anyone not on the lead lap at the finish get nothing.

Same for the NCAA, UConn's ranking was killed by the fact they played zero, that's zero, teams ranked between 101-150.

I'd much rather see a system where wins against the top 25, 50, 100 and losses against the sub 150 are over weighted and losses against the top 25, 50 are under weighted. Wins against the 101+ are neutral or valueless and losses are neutral.

I think we are in agreement. A team's record against the top 100 should be weighted more when determining bid worthy teams. These results better represent head-to-head competition against peer teams that are below, at, or near the bubble. In my opinion, there are diminishing returns with regards to the value of a team's victory over an RPI 184 versus an RPI 212. On paper the 184 looks better, when in fact they have equal value in suggesting which team is more worthy of bid.

As for UConn, Houston aside, the worst RPI loss was against 86 Memphis. They are a better team than their RPI suggests, especially when you consider RPI views a 20 point loss the same as 1 point loss at the buzzer. Raw RPI taken at face value is a bad metric. Unfortunately, it can be used as a means to an end when convenient and discounted when not convenient.

 

[SubbaBub]

I think we are in agreement. A team's record against the top 100 should be weighted more when determining bid worthy teams. These results better represent head-to-head competition against peer teams that are below, at, or near the bubble. In my opinion, there are diminishing returns with regards to the value of a team's victory over an RPI 184 versus an RPI 212. On paper the 184 looks better, when in fact they have equal value in suggesting which team is more worthy of bid.

As for UConn, Houston aside, the worst RPI loss was against 86 Memphis. They are a better team than their RPI suggests, especially when you consider RPI views a 20 point loss the same as 1 point loss at the buzzer. Raw RPI taken at face value is a bad metric. Unfortunately, it can be used as a means to an end when convenient and discounted when not convenient.

That is the other problem with these rankings there is a multiplier effect for P5 teams because of the opponents opponent's record. Bottom feeding P5 teams playing each other boosts the RPI of bubble teams in that confernce.

We used to benefit from the C7 playing each other though most they were terrible. There is a reason, Nova, StJ, PC are all having their best runs in decades and it isn't because they are good at basketball.

 

[itgoeslike]

That is the other problem with these rankings there is a multiplier effect for P5 teams because of the opponents opponent's record. Bottom feeding P5 teams playing each other boosts the RPI of bubble teams in that confernce.

We used to benefit from the C7 playing each other though most they were terrible. There is a reason, Nova, StJ, PC are all having their best runs in decades and it isn't because they are good at basketball.

Yes, it slices both ways. There could be a more "balanced" solution developed, more disconnected from influence, but as with many things, I likely goes against the interests of those holding the cards.

 

[sub legacy]

Reminds me exactly of what my dad used to say:

"In order to be greater, somebody has to be lesser."

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Auriemma's voice is unassailable. He's on the Mountain. What's anyone going to say ... He's not really even leveraging UConn as much as his stature as the top Coach in Women's Sport. And he can speak the Truth to Power.

It's unfair to think Aresco has that bully pulpit. He still needs stuff to happen for this conference. Bowl games. TV partnership. Special games & series. Etc

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's the perception, especially among the P5 and the media kiss-ups/P5 groupies. I'll place a substantial bet on Gino's gripes being discounted as:

"only the ravings of a"loud-mouth Women's Coach from the Northeast." Emphasis on "Women's Coach!" and "Northeast!"

A football coach who wins half his games has more credibility with many of these jerks.

 

[BlueDogs]

At least Gino speaks the straight truth. The rest of the squad continues to think they are playing it smart, when they are just whistling on the way to the grave yard. Uconn needs to go on the offensive and start challenging the uncompetitive nature of these alignments, the institutionalized unfairness set up by p5 , etc..

 

[DoctorWho85]

At least Gino speaks the straight truth. The rest of the squad continues to think they are playing it smart, when they are just whistling on the way to the grave yard. Uconn needs to go on the offensive and start challenging the uncompetitive nature of these alignments, the institutionalized unfairness set up by p5 , etc..

Unfortunately, I don't think anything is going to change until the G5 schools all work together or someone finally takes the NCAA to court for the monopoly it is. Personally, I blame ESPN for the state college football is currently in.

 

[Kolumbo]

The AAC has been around 2 years, so they shouldn't expect much representation on important committees. This will probably change in the future.

The AAC has been around for some 35 years.