No, I think weak is a fair characterization for UCSB's non-conference schedule. LMU, Oregon State, Gonzaga, Seattle, Harvard and Stanford are all having poor seasons. This is not a case where they tried to schedule good teams and those good teams ended up having a bad season. All these teams had poor seasons in 2011, so UCSB knew what they were getting into by putting them on the schedule. Not a case of regional limitation, either, because Valpo and Harvard are out-of-region teams and there are at least a dozen in-region teams better than LMU, Gonzaga and Seattle. Bottom line for UCSB is that if they had won the games they were supposed to win based on talent levels, they would be in the Top 10 and an NCAA lock. They have lost 5 out of 6; four of those losses were at home, in the supposed palace of college soccer.
Just because you say it......doesn't make it so.... Niagara plays in the Metro Atlantic which just happens to be one of those conferences that has a website with a composite schedule that drops nicely into an Excel spreadsheet.... When you go over the schedule the Metro Atl created a benefit for the ACC .......twice Fairfield 0 Boston College 1 Fairfield, Conn. North Carolina State 3 Marist 1 Raleigh, N.C. the Metro Atl created a benefit for the Big East ....... six times Pittsburgh 1 Niagara 1 2OT Pittsburgh, Pa. Syracuse 1 Niagara 2 Syracuse, N.Y. Seton Hall 2 Rider 1 OT South Orange, N.J. Seton Hall 1 Saint Peter's 3 South Orange, N.J. Manhattan 1 Villanova 5 Riverdale, N.Y. Connecticut 2 Iona 0 Storrs, Conn. it is interesting to see that the Metro Atl created a benefit for Ivy League teams...eight times Brown 0 Fairfield 0 2OT Providence, R.I. Columbia 0 Fairfield 1 New York, N.Y. Columbia 2 Manhattan 0 New York, N.Y. Rider 2 Penn 7 Princeton, N.J. Princeton 3 Rider 1 Princeton, N.J. Columbia 2 Saint Peter's 1 New York, N.Y. Fairfield 1 Yale 0 Fairfield, Conn. Marist 1 Yale 2 Poughkeepsie, N.Y. The reason that Ivy league observation is interesting is that those eight cupcakes the Ivy had this season are still less than what teams out of the West enjoyed...... the West helped themselves to nine...more than the Big East and the ACC combined.... Loyola 2 Cal St. Northridge 1 Baltimore, Md. Canisius 4 Cal State Fullerton 2 Las Vegas, Nev. UNLV 5 Canisius 1 Las Vegas, Nev. Fairfield 1 Denver 2 Albuquerque, N.M. New Mexico 2 Fairfield 0 Albuquerque, N.M. Gonzaga 3 Manhattan 0 Spokane, Wash. Manhattan 0 Oregon State 6 Spokane, Wash. Iona 0 UC Riverside 1 New Rochelle, N.Y. Marist 0 UC Riverside 3 Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
Is Niagara really gonna get snubbed if they end up with only one or two losses, but don't win the MAAC tournament?
I simply took the top 20 positive and negative differences. The reason why it is mostly east and west is detailed in the RPI explained thread. Unless the distribution of talent changes or the NCAA forces a different scheduling, this will likely remain the same for some time.
Worth or value. You can raise your RPI by losing at home 10-0 to a very weak team that has a very good record because they played a schedule of the weakest teams in the country and lower your RPI because you tied on the road to one of the better teams in the country that has a poor record because they have a schedule of mostly the best. What is it about this concept that you don't understand?
How is it a snub if you are not a top 48 team and you can't win the championship in one of the worst conferences in the country? A snub is a top 25 team like Washington last year with 3 kids on the team picked in the MLS draft after the season, another player signed to a home grown contract, plays in one of the best conferences in the country and has just four losses all season.
It's a snub in the sense that Niagara would finish with only one or two losses overall. No team should ever be left out with a record like that, regardless of conference. UC Riverside was in the same boat as Washington last year - in one of the best conferences in the country. They didn't get in either.
Yes they are. I'm not sure what his point is. When I throw these into excel I show the MAAC plays team WCC 0 times; Pac12 1 time and MPSF 3 times and Big West 4 times. In contrast I see 10 non-West leagues (led by the Atlantic 10 with 15 games) with four or more games against the MAAC. Furthermore, if you look at the individual games many of these are losers for the West. As was detailed in the RPI explained, what you want to do has have these bottom level teams feed wins to your opponents, not play them directly. If you look at the details of the games you can see how the better RPI teams get better games and the worse get stuck with the worse. While the better West teams get some benefit, it is far less than better non-West teams get.
Neither did Northridge which Massey rated higher than Riverside last year. Looking at Northridge's record this year, they had a pretty good team. Davis was also better than teams that got at-large bids. But they played the most difficult schedule in the country were one game below 500 and thus a non-qualifier.
One key difference between Northridge and Riverside last year - Northridge did not even make the Big West tournament. Riverside did. For what it was worth, UCR also won their only meeting of 2011.
So let me try to understand West Coast Fans complaints with the RPI. Is the complaint is there are not enough strong teams in weak conferences in western time zones so they cannot properly manipulate the RPI? Is that the issue that travel budgets prohibit west coast teams from gaming the RPI?
it would probably be the second issue. But I am not talking about the western teams. My thing is all about Niagara now.
having few losses doesn't automatically = good team. If you want to reward teams like Niagara if they fail to win their tournament then start a soccer NIT.
This was the point of my questio before....should the tourney be the best 48...or should it be local results based. Im torn...local results makes it possible for any team in any conference a chance at winning...or atleast getting in the field...best 48 limits the opportunity to a few very dtrong conferences...I think local results can...and should...create conference parity....but ut will take a long time...best 48...you will see more but fewer very strong cobferences
Let's face it - the tournament identifies the best 16. The others are just playing for a chance to be recognized.
From what I can find ( I don't have access to Sandon's database), since 2000, these are the UNSEEDED teams who have advanced to the semis or finals: 2011 Charlotte - final 2007 U Mass - semis 2006 UCSB - champion ( Snow/Ice bowl over UCLA) 2005 SMU - semis Clemson - semis 2004 Duke - semis 2003 Santa Clara - semis 2002 Stanford - semis Creighton - semis 2000 U Conn - champion Creighton - final Indiana - semis Note - only 8 seeds from 2000-2002, would think these teams would have been seeded if seeding had been expanded to 16
If Maryland doesn't win the ACC Tourney, they may not get a top four seed. That was tough to imagine 10 days ago.
Yes it was almost impossible to imagine. BTW, do you think UCLA deserves to be as highly ranked as they are and if so why?