ESPN ranking of the teams in Illinois

[45otseoj]

Here's the opinion of an unbiased third party that has nothing to do with Bradley or isu, published yesterday (12/25).....

http://tribstar.com/sports/x480665913/FROM-THE-PRESS-BOX-ISU-s-place-in-pecking-order-hasn-t-changed

If we aviod Thurday I'll be more than happy.

Jank has the best Valley record of any coach since he showed up, and he always finds a way to pull out big wins when we least expect them.

The threesome of Carmichael, Wilkins and Ekey has the chance to be something special for the next 3 seasons.

 

[BradleyBrave]

If we aviod Thurday I'll be more than happy.

Jank has the best Valley record of any coach since he showed up, and he always finds a way to pull out big wins when we least expect them.

The threesome of Carmichael, Wilkins and Ekey has the chance to be something special for the next 3 seasons.

I'd love to have Jank's Valley record, Valley finishes, Valley tourney performances, and NIT appearances since his arrival. Les would probably have a giant contract extension if he performed as well over the past 3 years. He'd certainly deserve one. Can you imagine BU finishing in the top 3 of the MVC over the past 3 years, making the MVC title game in two of those years, and going to 3 NIT's? BU would probably come close to selling out every home game with that kind of success.

 

[TheAsianSensation]

I'd love to have Jank's Valley record, Valley finishes, Valley tourney performances, and NIT appearances since his arrival. Les would probably have a giant contract extension if he performed as well over the past 3 years. He'd certainly deserve one. Can you imagine BU finishing in the top 3 of the MVC over the past 3 years, making the MVC title game in two of those years, and going to 3 NIT's? BU would probably come close to selling out every home game with that kind of success.

I'd love to have Jank's Valley record too, because that record combined with Bradley's traditional non-conference schedule would mean at-large bids in the NCAA tournament, not the NIT.

 

[BradleyBrave]

I'd love to have Jank's Valley record too, because that record combined with Bradley's traditional non-conference schedule would mean at-large bids in the NCAA tournament, not the NIT.

True.

But sadly, even NIT's would have been significant upgrades to how our seasons ended up.

 

[Bravesfan]

I thought you said something like "I know that maybe their inflated win total did contribute to some NIT appearances"




Valley RPI? Conference RPI isn't even looked at the selection committee, so why do you think it's important? The 8th rated conference doesn't mean more bids for their teams than the 9th, 10th, 11th, etc. Teams get bids, not conferences.

And while we are debating things like RPI, you did read where only 4 total teams in the MVC have had better RPI's than ISU over the last 3 years, right?





I don't remember the exact %'s but during Jank's first few seasons at ISU he lost over 50% of his scoring, each year. And coming into this season I think they lost like 60-70% scoring from last season.

So the last 3 years, the only schools that scheduled properly were UNI (the last 2 years) and Drake 3 years ago?

Let me address these points really quick. First, yes, I did say that wins against weak teams does contribute to an NIT bid. But it did not help them make the NCAA Tournament when ISU had very few if any opportunities to earn quality non-conference wins. It was even worse as they were a veteran team with a couple of pro prospects on it. Too many games against the lowest tier of Division I did not help showcase their talents as few people got to watch these games.

Next, while I agree ISU has had a better RPI than all but four teams over the last three years, so what? How many NCAA Tournament appearances did that translate to? ZERO! Again, because they had few if any opportunities for quality non-conference wins, and blew most of their games against the Valley elite on top of that. I don't even get your last point, but yes, I think every team has scheduled better over this period than ISU.

And most importantly, I do beg to differ with your assessment that conference RPI doesn't make a difference in multiple bids. It does. Yes, teams do earn bids, not conferences, but it stands to reason that conferences with higher RPI's rank high because they have several NCAA Tournament worthy teams. And while I do agree that conference ranked 7th or lower in the RPI aren't guaranteed multiple bids, I'd much rather take my chances with a higher RPI conference than a lower RPI conference, any year!

So unfortunately cpacmel, most of your arguments don't hold much water when trying to excuse the pathetic scheduling that ISU has shown in recent years, this year's young team notwithstanding.

 

[shaunguth]

BU would probably come close to selling out every home game with that kind of success.

Interesting that a much larger school does not come close to selling out every home game.

 

[theBUer]

Interesting that a much larger school does not come close to selling out every home game.

The devil is in the details. People here have said that BU counts tickets sold as part of attendance, while the other big school does not. I didn't catch the Detroit game, but I'd be surprised if all 7,781 were there.

 

[TheGuy]

And most importantly, I do beg to differ with your assessment that conference RPI doesn't make a difference in multiple bids. It does. Yes, teams do earn bids, not conferences, but it stands to reason that conferences with higher RPI's rank high because they have several NCAA Tournament worthy teams. And while I do agree that conference ranked 7th or lower in the RPI aren't guaranteed multiple bids, I'd much rather take my chances with a higher RPI conference than a lower RPI conference, any year!

So unfortunately cpacmel, most of your arguments don't hold much water when trying to excuse the pathetic scheduling that ISU has shown in recent years, this year's young team notwithstanding.

I think you missed his point. Although ISU has scheduled weak, his point was that ISU lost a significant % of their scoring every year Jank has been at ISU. I know most ISU fans would like a better schedule, but I imagine this is the main reason why he wasn't loading up on good teams (otherwise games like UNLV happen on a regular basis). Throwing your team to the wolves doesn't help make them any better, learn anything or prepare them for the valley. Obviously Jankovich miscalculated how good the team actually was the past couple of years and I am guessing he wishes ISU wasn't locked into that Basketball travelers tournament for 3 years in a row. You also have to look at the basketball culture at ISU before Jankovich arrived. The team was in the dumps and needed a serious pick me up. My guess is that scheduling weak non-con's may have been a part of a rebuilding plan. Him and the AD needed people to get interested in redbird basketball again after Porter Moser. Getting wins at home no matter how weak, was probably the best way to do it while trying to boost recruiting (who wants to play for a team that gets their butts handed to them every game? If that was true, low majors would be pulling in the best recruits). Either way, there is no excuse going forward (after this year) for ISU to schedule weak. Jankovich has had enough time to get guys that he wants to create a successful program. I will give him this year because the team is extremely young, but next year the schedule better improve since they will be one of the better teams in the valley.

I am kind of tired about hearing how everyone thinks ISU's scheduling is costing the valley bids. The whole conference RPI thing doesn't hold any water. Plain and simple, if you want your team to get into the NCAA tournament, then you need to win the games on your schedule and beat the teams that you should beat. If you get beat by a redbird team that scheduled poorly or has a significant loss that costs your team a NCAA bid, well too bad. Maybe your team (and I am talking about the entire valley) should take care of business and beat the teams you are supposed to beat. If you can't take care of ISU, then maybe you don't belong after all.

 

[TheAsianSensation]

I am kind of tired about hearing how everyone thinks ISU's scheduling is costing the valley bids. The whole conference RPI thing doesn't hold any water. Plain and simple, if you want your team to get into the NCAA tournament, then you need to win the games on your schedule and beat the teams that you should beat. If you get beat by a redbird team that scheduled poorly or has a significant loss that costs your team a NCAA bid, well too bad. Maybe your team (and I am talking about the entire valley) should take care of business and beat the teams you are supposed to beat. If you can't take care of ISU, then maybe you don't belong after all.

Here's the problem with that: The last couple of years, ISU was the 2nd or 3rd best Valley team. Traditionally, in basically every year prior to '08, wins over the 2nd or 3rd place Valley teams counted as quality wins. However, because ISU's RPI was shot because of their weak SoS, a win over ISU was not valued as much as it should have.

Just to use an example, last year, Wichita St. They split with ISU. When you split with the 3rd place Valley team, that's supposed to be a reasonable outcome, one that doesn't hurt the resume. However, since ISU's RPI and SoS were so bad, Wichita's loss to them slipped into "marginal loss" territory, while Wichita's win didn't end up being a quality win. Same thing with Creighton/Illinois St in '08.

The Valley doesn't offer many chances at quality wins anymore. ISU prevented themselves from becoming a quality win for any at-large contender that beat them, and when ISU did beat at-large contenders, they weren't able to count as "good losses". And that's a direct result of the poor SoS.

 

[TheGuy]

Here's the problem with that: The last couple of years, ISU was the 2nd or 3rd best Valley team. Traditionally, in basically every year prior to '08, wins over the 2nd or 3rd place Valley teams counted as quality wins. However, because ISU's RPI was shot because of their weak SoS, a win over ISU was not valued as much as it should have.

Just to use an example, last year, Wichita St. They split with ISU. When you split with the 3rd place Valley team, that's supposed to be a reasonable outcome, one that doesn't hurt the resume. However, since ISU's RPI and SoS were so bad, Wichita's loss to them slipped into "marginal loss" territory, while Wichita's win didn't end up being a quality win. Same thing with Creighton/Illinois St in '08.

The Valley doesn't offer many chances at quality wins anymore. ISU prevented themselves from becoming a quality win for any at-large contender that beat them, and when ISU did beat at-large contenders, they weren't able to count as "good losses". And that's a direct result of the poor SoS.

I get what your saying, but the problem with your argument is that RPI means nothing now as stated by the NCAA tourney committee last year. They said they don't even look at it anymore. Again, if ISU is not good enough to make the NCAA tourney and they are in 2nd or 3rd place, what does that say about the valley overall anyways? I get what your saying about having quality chances in conference, but again, if your team is going to make the NCAA tourney you are going to win the games that you need to, to get in. If the valley is to get multiple teams in, we need multiple teams at the top taking care of business all together. Those top teams can split in the valley, but its no good for any of them to lose to teams that they shouldn't. If they do, they don't deserve to be in. That is how it has always been. ISU's problem isn't so much the scheduling as they are not winning games they are "supposed" to in order to get a bid (we lost to drake 3 times that one year). Hence they are not deserving of a bid as it should be. Does scheduling harder give them a better chance of getting in? Sure, but they still need to win the games in order to prove that they belong. If ISU is winning enough games in conference (against teams that did well enough to deserve consideration) to be in 2nd/3rd place in the valley and not have a chance of getting in, then no one else is getting it done either meaning the valley is weak and only deserves 1 bid.

I think Elgin said it best about scheduling philosophy. If you are a valley coach and you know you are going to be one of the better teams in the valley that year, you need to schedule accordingly. When you are down, you should also schedule accordingly. You want the top teams to beat top teams in other conferences and you want the valleys lower teams to rack up wins against lower competition that they can beat. That is the recipe for multi-bids. That is why BU scheduled Duke this year. As I mentioned, Jank can be accused of not abiding by this when having better teams and some of that can be attributed to him not knowing what he has had the past couple of years because of the percieved dropoff in scoring % and also ISU being locked into the bball travelers tourney, but still, if your team is good enough to make it into the NCAA tourney, you will by winning all the games on your schedule that you need to in order to get in.

 

[TheAsianSensation]

I get what your saying, but the problem with your argument is that RPI means nothing now as stated by the NCAA tourney committee last year. They said they don't even look at it anymore.

Technically correct, but it leads to a more important point. They say they don't look at the RPI of the at-large team in question. But they DO look at the RPI of your opponents to help determine strength of victory, bad losses, etc. So ISU's poor RPI, SoS, etc., does impact Wichita St and Creighton's profile, etc.

Again, if ISU is not good enough to make the NCAA tourney and they are in 2nd or 3rd place, what does that say about the valley overall anyways?

I think people are selling ISU way short. That team in the past 2 years was good enough to make the NCAA tournament and do damage in that tournament. They underachieved a bit, IMO.

After reading the rest of your thoughts, it almost feels like Jank is not giving his own squad enough credit for being good. He seems to schedule down, but he needs to give his team more opportunites to win better games, because they're capable of it.

but still, if your team is good enough to make it into the NCAA tourney, you will by winning all the games on your schedule that you need to in order to get in.

Completely fair point, but when you schedule like Jank, the number of opportunities to prove you belong in the NCAA tourney reduce to a precious few opportunities compared to everyone else. Tougher schedules mean more margin for error. The attitude that you have to win every single game you're supposed to win is a dangerous one, because it's so hard to be so perfect.

 

[TheGuy]

Completely fair point, but when you schedule like Jank, the number of opportunities to prove you belong in the NCAA tourney reduce to a precious few opportunities compared to everyone else. Tougher schedules mean more margin for error. The attitude that you have to win every single game you're supposed to win is a dangerous one, because it's so hard to be so perfect.

I agree 100%. It is very dangerous, which is why I hope the schedule is better next year when we should be one of the better teams in the valley. Actually barring injury/transfer, there should be quite a few good teams next year, BU included. Although the record doesn't show it, I am impressed with how your team is playing considering what you have had to deal with. You never wish injury upon players, but assuming there will be medical redshirts awarded, it could actually be a blessing in disguise. Just like I want our team too, your younger guys by necessity are getting extremely valuable experience this year and you could have one of the strongest benches in the valley next year because of it.

Next year ISU is tentatively scheduled to be in the Cancun Challenge where supposedly Illinois and Rutgers are confirmed to play. It is 8 teams total with 2 games being played in the U.S. and 2 in Cancun. There are two divisions, so even though a team like Illinois is scheduled to be in it, there is no guarantee that we would play them. Assuming Bruce gets his way, we won't get the opportunity. Rutgers isn't a basketball powerhouse, so we will have to wait and see who else will be in, but hopefully it is an improvement. At this point, I don't think ISU fans even care about going out and getting BCS teams on the schedule. All we are asking for is an opportunity to get games against better mid-major teams out of the A10, CUSA and CAA. The team I think they need to start a series with now before they become relevant again is DePaul.

The cancun challenge might be our only chance besides maybe one other scheduled OOC game to have a decent schedule next year so I am crossing my fingers. Right now we are locked in to.

@Morehead St. (no fahried)
SIU-E
UNC-W
UALR
@MWC Challenge (might be a home game though-or we might not get one at all depending on how that all works out)
Bracketbuster
*not sure if we are playing UIC or not again.

Include 4 games from the Cancun challenge and thats a total of 10 leaving about 2 more games to be scheduled. So we will see, but there should be no excuse not to get something better next year given the fact they should be one of the better teams in the valley next year.