Bracketology

[98Jackfarmer]

Re: Bracketology

I apologize in advance for this dumb question. It maybe has been beat to death on here but I haven't seen it. Why don't we have the regional, close, rivalry matchups on a Saturday night instead of weeknights? It doesn't seem to me like it would be that hard? I must be missing something, but it seems like it would be beneficial to all involved? Sorry for the sidetrack, if one person has a quick answer that would be great, Thanks.

I realize this is off thread, sorry

[98Jackfarmer]

Re: Bracketology

I apologize in advance for this dumb question. It maybe has been beat to death on here but I haven't seen it. Why don't we have the regional, close, rivalry matchups on a Saturday night instead of weeknights? It doesn't seem to me like it would be that hard? I must be missing something, but it seems like it would be beneficial to all involved? Sorry for the sidetrack, if one person has a quick answer that would be great, Thanks.

[filbert]

Re: Bracketology

I agree. I don't know anyone that understands Summit MBB who would argue that point. I guess that we better just run the table.

If the Summit ever wants to become a multi-bid league, we need to either have one team become highly competitive on the national scene (WCC) or have multiple teams have success in the big dance (MVC).

The only way it would be different is if SDSU had managed to beat both Kansas and Wichita State. An at-large might be an outside possibility that way. Otherwise . . . nah bro.

[SoDakJack]

Re: Bracketology

We are a one-bid conference. This year will be the same. Wish it was different but it isnt.

SUPERBUNNY

I agree. I don't know anyone that understands Summit MBB who would argue that point. I guess that we better just run the table.

If the Summit ever wants to become a multi-bid league, we need to either have one team become highly competitive on the national scene (WCC) or have multiple teams have success in the big dance (MVC).

[SUPERBUNNY]

Re: Bracketology

We are a one-bid conference. This year will be the same. Wish it was different but it isnt.

SUPERBUNNY

[SoDakJack]

Re: Bracketology

New bracketology is out. Jackrabbits are a #13 playing against #4 Tennessee. The interesting part? They would play Wichita State in the second round and Kansas in the third. I would really like another shot at the Shockers.

[JimmieTuba]

Re: Bracketology

I think the main problem we have is we live in fly-over county and nobody cares. Until they quit confusing the Jacks with the Aztecs we have a problem.

SVP can keep making the mistake. Gives us good coverage when he has to wear some Jackrabbit apparel.

[98Jackfarmer]

Re: Bracketology

I think the main problem we have is we live in fly-over county and nobody cares. Until they quit confusing the Jacks with the Aztecs we have a problem.

[NebraskaJack]

Re: Bracketology

So... let's say we run the table and lose in the Summit League Championship (knock on wood). I assume there would be no chance we sneak in with an at large. With that assumption, how many of our 5 previous losses do you think would have needed to be wins?

I bet if we only got 2 but they were Kansas and Wichita State it would be close. That would be 29 or 30-4 with 2 top 20 wins. That's got to be close.

[mitchellrabbit]

Re: Bracketology

Wyoming and then either Colorado or Missouri St. Probably still on the bubble.

I agree Wyoming was a bad loss. Had we beat the Cowboys and run the table in the Summit, we end up 27-4. Two wins and one loss in the Summit Tourney and we end up 29-5. Ive seen them leave teams out before with a good record like that. So who knows. One more win over Colo or MO St would be 30-4. That looks more impressive. How about if we would have beat Wyoming and Witchita St? BTW, we wont run the table......

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: Bracketology

So... let's say we run the table and lose in the Summit League Championship (knock on wood). I assume there would be no chance we sneak in with an at large. With that assumption, how many of our 5 previous losses do you think would have needed to be wins?

Wyoming and then either Colorado or Missouri St. Probably still on the bubble.

[Justwin]

Re: Bracketology

So... let's say we run the table and lose in the Summit League Championship (knock on wood). I assume there would be no chance we sneak in with an at large. With that assumption, how many of our 5 previous losses do you think would have needed to be wins?

All of them.

[CappinHard]

Re: Bracketology

So... let's say we run the table and lose in the Summit League Championship (knock on wood). I assume there would be no chance we sneak in with an at large. With that assumption, how many of our 5 previous losses do you think would have needed to be wins?

[NebraskaJack]

Re: Bracketology

I figured you understood how RPI worked. You are right, there is too much value put in to who you have lost to. But we are a benefactor of that along with Buffalo. Our 12 wins have come against teams that are 46 games below .500. Only 4 wins have come against opponents with winning records that are currently 10-9, 10-9, 10-8 and Buffalo at 12-5.....yet we have an RPI of 59. Buffalo has 8 wins against teams with winning records so they have that going for them.

[bigticket1]

Re: Bracketology

As of today Buffalo's opponents they have already played are 62 games above .500......the Jacks previous D-1 opponents are 6 games below. That's the difference right there.

I understand the RPI system, what I'm trying to say that is that the system is weighted too heavily on who you have lost to compared to who you have beaten. Buffalo has lost to 5 top 50 teams, and they account for over 40 of those games over .500. Buffalo's best win is Toledo at #93. The Jacks have two "better" RPI wins, including #25 Buffalo head-to-head. RPI is the only game in town, and it's what we have to deal with, but it seems to me that it relies too much on strength of schedule. It has to be tough on mid-major coaches who have to decide if they want to spend a big part of their non-conference schedule on the road getting beat by highly ranked teams to get a good RPI, or schedule more winnable games that may allow you to develop your players but result in a lower RPI.