Current stats and MVC RPI...

[RoyalShock]

Regarding WSU's non-conf schedule.

At the time we gained entry to the CBE Classic (us, Tex, Pitt, Iowa), nobody expected Iowa to be this bad (and had we beat Pitt, would have played Texas instead). That "tournament" also handed us unFairleigh Dickinson and a D2 (we probably got the worst "play-in" schedule deal of the four marquee teams). Additionally, Cleveland State was expected to be almost as good as last year so a game at their place looked much better than it does now. So a slate of Pitt, Tex/Iowa, @CSU, TCU and TexTech looked solid coming in to the season.

I also think Tex Southern and UMKC will see their RPIs improve a little as the season wears on. Our OOC strength should have been able to withstand Alcorn, SC-Update and NDSU (whose RPI should also improve as they get into conference play).

 

[MacabreMob]

Regarding WSU's non-conf schedule.

At the time we gained entry to the CBE Classic (us, Tex, Pitt, Iowa), nobody expected Iowa to be this bad (and had we beat Pitt, would have played Texas instead). That "tournament" also handed us unFairleigh Dickinson and a D2 (we probably got the worst "play-in" schedule deal of the four marquee teams). Additionally, Cleveland State was expected to be almost as good as last year so a game at their place looked much better than it does now. So a slate of Pitt, Tex/Iowa, @CSU, TCU and TexTech looked solid coming in to the season.

I also think Tex Southern and UMKC will see their RPIs improve a little as the season wears on. Our OOC strength should have been able to withstand Alcorn, SC-Update and NDSU (whose RPI should also improve as they get into conference play).

The Asian Sensation reviewed your OOC schedule here (post #31):

http://www.bradleyfans.com/vb/showthread.php?t=14135

 

[TheAsianSensation]

Anyways, the only thing I object to directly is this:

Our OOC strength should have been able to withstand Alcorn, SC-Update and NDSU

I disagree. Throw Tx Southern in there too. No OOC can withstand that 4-headed monster.

That said, looking into the future, I think WSU will be fine. However, this year is another story.

 

[RoyalShock]

A couple of points. In your linked analysis you used the word "willingly". This will always be an unknown to fans. We have no idea how a coach tried to schedule versus the final result (except for maybe Jankovic, with apologies to the Redbird fans).

You also mentioned being "unlucky". Well, I would speculate (since I can't know the particulars) that if you think you have a nice slate of quality games (Pitt, Tex/Iowa, @CSU, TCU, TTech) you have enough opportunity to make a splash and prepare for league play without adding even more tough opponents. Of course, that doesn't mean you immediately dial Alcorn or SC-Upstate. But I addressed that in my first point.

 

[Bravesfan]

Only way the Valley gets two bids is if one team blows through the conference, close to undefeated, then losses in the Championship game of the conference tourney.

I'm not so sure this year though. I think the conference as a whole is stronger, Bradley and Creighton notwithstanding, and we have two teams that have some good non-conference credentials.

Now I was ticked off big time last year when Creighton did not get an at-large bid after they beat Xavier, George Mason and New Mexico, wins that I thought would be more than enough to get them in especially combined with their first place showing. But this year Wichita St has that great win against then (and still) Top 25 Texas Tech, and Northern Iowa has that solid win over Boston College. In other words, they have BCS wins that the selection committee looks for. And most importantly, both have not lost any games that they should have won.

I think the best way to get two bids is to have four or five solid teams near the top that all finish within two games of the top, have at least four teams with 20+ wins which will enhance everyone's conference SOS, and have UNI and WSU finish amongst the top two. Therefore one gets in if the other wins the automatic bid, and both may get in if a third team wins the conference tourney.

I'm hoping we will be pleasantly surprised come Selection Sunday from at least a Valley point of view, whether Bradley is one of those teams or not. But after last year's snubs, I guess anything is possible, good or bad.

 

[Bravesfan]

ISU's RPI is steadily climbing...comes in at 104 according to Realtime....Is it possible for them to get an RPI of around 35 or 40 by season's end in spite of their easy pre-conf schedule if they play well in conf play? If so, all of the ridicule about their soft schedule will ring a bit hollow...

It depends if their RPI benefits from a stronger Valley. And judging by the latest Valley team RPI's, they very well could move up quite a bit. But I still don't see them winning enough conference games to move them into at-large territory, especially with no great OOC wins. But maybe wins against UNI and WSU would be considered the quality wins the selection committee is looking for.

 

[RoyalShock]

I think the best way to get two bids is to have four or five solid teams near the top that all finish within two games of the top, have at least four teams with 20+ wins which will enhance everyone's conference SOS, and have UNI and WSU finish amongst the top two.

I agree. Having several teams near the top almost ensures that the top two teams are going to have some quality in-conference wins. That's how those mid-tier BcS teams get at-large bids. They may not have a great OOC resume, but with many built-in opportunities for quality wins, they stumble across a couple and get credit for it. You just can't absorb very many poor losses.

 

[Bravesfan]

the NCAA selection committee pays attention to the non-conference RPI and SOS, ISU's recent rise in RPI can be credited mostly to the fact that their conference mates, although not always strong, differ by LIGHT YEARS from the guys they were playing in the pre-conference portion of the schedule.
ISU could end the season with an RPI of 10 and likely still be passed over for an at-large bid.

Unless a win over UNI weighs the same as a win over a top 25 BCS team, which this year just may be as UNI is knocking on the door to the top 25 themselves. This is how the conference got four teams into the NCAA Tournament back in 2006. And while the Valley is not nearly as strong this year as in 2006, it's definitely taken a step up from last year. Maybe good enough for at least two bids this year.

 

[versace4pres]

Unless a win over UNI weighs the same as a win over a top 25 BCS team, which this year just may be as UNI is knocking on the door to the top 25 themselves. This is how the conference got four teams into the NCAA Tournament back in 2006. And while the Valley is not nearly as strong this year as in 2006, it's definitely taken a step up from last year. Maybe good enough for at least two bids this year.

Another point we have going for us is that the bcs conferences might not receive as many as they normally get as the Pac 10 is rather weak this year. Less for them means more for the rest of us. Hopefully, their "allotted" bids will not go to other bcs schools.

The Valley needs a few teams to break away. Right now, UNI, ISU, MSU, WSU and SIU could beat on each other to the detriment of the Valley when March rolls around.

 

[versace4pres]

the NCAA selection committee pays attention to the non-conference RPI and SOS, ISU's recent rise in RPI can be credited mostly to the fact that their conference mates, although not always strong, differ by LIGHT YEARS from the guys they were playing in the pre-conference portion of the schedule.
ISU could end the season with an RPI of 10 and likely still be passed over for an at-large bid.

In order for ISU to get to an RPI of 10 they would have to run the table with many road wins against other Valley teams currently in the top 50 and top 100. If they were to do that, get to an RPI of 10, they would easily receive an at large invite. This, however, is easier said than done.

 

[TheAsianSensation]

A couple of points. In your linked analysis you used the word "willingly". This will always be an unknown to fans. We have no idea how a coach tried to schedule versus the final result (except for maybe Jankovic, with apologies to the Redbird fans).

You also mentioned being "unlucky". Well, I would speculate (since I can't know the particulars) that if you think you have a nice slate of quality games (Pitt, Tex/Iowa, @CSU, TCU, TTech) you have enough opportunity to make a splash and prepare for league play without adding even more tough opponents. Of course, that doesn't mean you immediately dial Alcorn or SC-Upstate. But I addressed that in my first point.

Well, I tried to focus as much of my analysis on the impact scheduling has on at-large bids and the "computer numbers". It's just that the SoS numbers ended up a lot worse than what was intended by WSU given the type of schedule they had. Hence, unlucky.

Long-term, I anticipate WSU being at the top of the league from a scheduling standpoint, anyways.

 

[Bravesfan]

and their FINISHING RPI was? And our FINISHING RPI was? We could dissect the numbers and stats all day. The fact of the matter remains the same...they have two NIT bids and a higher RPI and we get to write a check and get to play in the CBI and CIT tourneys.

All that being said...a couple guys I play ball with at the Y are ISU alums and they think there scheduling sucks too.

That's a great point! I think winning percentage in the long run weighs more than the SOS, when the selection committee begins to make their postseason assessments. Probably though, also even more important than the raw SOS number is who a team has beaten.

If ISU plays a similar schedule next season as they have recently, except that they add and beat two top 25 BCS teams, their SOS will still be bad (though not as bad as this year), but the committee will notice their two great wins, and probably award ISU an at-large bid if they finish near the top of the Valley. That's how a good team can overcome a bad SOS.

Unfortunately for them, they don't have any great non-con wins this year, so their SOS number is a moot point anyway.

 

[versace4pres]

That's a great point! I think winning percentage in the long run weighs more than the SOS, when the selection committee begins to make their postseason assessments. Probably though, also even more important than the raw SOS number is who a team has beaten.

If ISU plays a similar schedule next season as they have recently, except that they add and beat two top 25 BCS teams, their SOS will still be bad (though not as bad as this year), but the committee will notice their two great wins, and probably award ISU an at-large bid if they finish near the top of the Valley. That's how a good team can overcome a bad SOS.

Unfortunately for them, they don't have any great non-con wins this year, so their SOS number is a moot point anyway.

They don't have any great non-con wins because they played no great non-con games. This year they have to win the Valley tourney or it's back to NITville again.

 

[Bravesfan]

I agree. Having several teams near the top almost ensures that the top two teams are going to have some quality in-conference wins. That's how those mid-tier BcS teams get at-large bids. They may not have a great OOC resume, but with many built-in opportunities for quality wins, they stumble across a couple and get credit for it. You just can't absorb very many poor losses.

That's what I'm hoping the Valley can become again. A "BCS"-like conference where we can get some built-in opportunites for conference quality wins if we can't get that great OOC win.

And to add to my previous post, having one team dominate the Valley like Drake did in 2008 and IL. St. did in 1998 & 1999 won't do any good unless they lose in the Valley championship. Having two dominating teams like last year won't do much good either because the selection committee will find an excuse to keep the other team out, and two great teams don't create enough opportunities for those built-in conference wins anyway. Hence my theory that we need four of five teams to finish well ahead of the lower tier teams, which would create enough in-conference opportunities for quality wins, and which would create a pool of four or five good teams for the selection committee to choose from.

We'll see how it all plays out this year, but I see signs that we should see four or five very solid teams by the end of the season.

 

[versace4pres]

That's what I'm hoping the Valley can become again. A "BCS"-like conference where we can get some built-in opportunites for conference quality wins if we can't get that great OOC win.

And to add to my previous post, having one team dominate the Valley like Drake did in 2008 and IL. St. did in 1998 & 1999 won't do any good unless they lose in the Valley championship. Having two dominating teams like last year won't do much good either because the selection committee will find an excuse to keep the other team out, and two great teams don't create enough opportunities for those built-in conference wins anyway. Hence my theory that we need four of five teams to finish well ahead of the lower tier teams, which would create enough in-conference opportunities for quality wins, and which would create a pool of four or five good teams for the selection committee to choose from.

We'll see how it all plays out this year, but I see signs that we should see four or five very solid teams by the end of the season.

I would love to see four or five in. That would be fantastic. I don't see it. However, I'd be thrilled if we could get 2-3 in. Anything better than 1 would be a victory.

 

[TheAsianSensation]

If ISU plays a similar schedule next season as they have recently, except that they add and beat two top 25 BCS teams, their SOS will still be bad (though not as bad as this year), but the committee will notice their two great wins, and probably award ISU an at-large bid if they finish near the top of the Valley. That's how a good team can overcome a bad SOS.

I'm not so sure, the selection committees have been somewhat notorious SoS Nazis the past few years.

 

[Bravesfan]

I'm not so sure, the selection committees have been somewhat notorious SoS Nazis the past few years.

Yeah, your probably right, but I'd like to think a great win or two combined with a great record would attract the attention of the selection committee. WSU fits right in that category. But I am all the wiser this year after Creighton's snub last year. I still don't get that one!

 

[Bravesfan]

I would love to see four or five in. That would be fantastic. I don't see it. However, I'd be thrilled if we could get 2-3 in. Anything better than 1 would be a victory.

Right, I never said they would get four or five in this year, but it's something to shoot for in the future. Two or three would be great this year though!

 

[ER3]

They don't have any great non-con wins because they played no great non-con games. This year they have to win the Valley tourney or it's back to NITville again.

I wish we would get invited to NITville again. That would be progress.

 

[jasonpeoria911]

This is all fine and dandy if we actually won most of those games. However, with the lackluster play lately, we are likely facing the possibility of being 2-6 or 3-5 in the next 12 days. We can re-visit the RPI and SOS on January 20th if Bradley can at least go 2-2 over the next 4 games.

Jason

Bradley is th eonly MVC team whose RPI and SOS are BOTH in the Top 100 and nobody else is even close to BU!!
http://bubravesblogger.blogspot.com/2010/01/bradleys-strength-of-schedule-is-now.html

BU's SOS is now Top 30!