Games of Importance for UC's Resume

[sedziobs]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

Weekly resume update.

Picked up a couple of non-quality wins in the last week. We're still at 5-3 in Group 1, 7-1 in Group 2 and no bad losses. We have one more chance for a Group 1 win @Wichita St.

Going into the last week of the season, most of the resume is locked in. Tulsa can sneak into Group 2 if they win @ECU and vs Temple. Florida can get back into Group 1 if they win @Alabama and vs UK.

End of season resume update.

Picked up a big Group 1 win this week @Wichita St. UCF barely dropped out of Group 1, and Florida moved back in. We're at 5-4 in Group 1, 8-0 in Group 2 and no bad losses.

Tulsa and Miss St are at 68 and 69, and probably need to win their first games this week to stay in the top 75. UCF is at 78, but only .0009 points behind top 75. That's a small enough margin that they could move up in the next few days. Still, they need to beat ECU and pass three teams to get back into Group 1.

Looking ahead to the AAC tournament, UConn is at 107 and could be a top 100 Group 2 game. Tulsa is at 68 and would be a Group 2 game.

It's interesting that 75 is the most important cutoff - Charleston, UNC Greensboro, and Utah Valley are occupying spots 73-75, which is keeping major conference teams Penn State, South Carolina, and UCF just on the wrong side. It's a small difference that can have a big impact on a lot of resumes. We'll see how that evolves over the week.

[Alum2013]

Anyone else think this group stuff is kind of dumb? I don't understand how it's even possible to think beating UCF on the road (providing they get back up to group 1) should count same as beating Wichita St. On the road, Duke at home, or Michigan on a neutral floor. A top 75 team in the NCAA isn't even close to being the same as beating a top 15 team at home. Those teams are light years apart in quality.

[cincrulz11]

Originally Posted by Alum2013

Anyone else think this group stuff is kind of dumb? I don't understand how it's even possible to think beating UCF on the road (providing they get back up to group 1) should count same as beating Wichita St. On the road, Duke at home, or Michigan on a neutral floor. A top 75 team in the NCAA isn't even close to being the same as beating a top 15 team at home. Those teams are light years apart in quality.

you are right, but it isn't about trying to match beating the best of the best.


its about saying beating a team like seton hall or penn state at home is about as tough as beating a team like providence or indiana on the road.




but the old system said beating duke at home and on the road were the same. thats messed up too.

[Alum2013]

Originally Posted by cincrulz11

you are right, but it isn't about trying to match beating the best of the best.


its about saying beating a team like seton hall or penn state at home is about as tough as beating a team like providence or indiana on the road.




but the old system said beating duke at home and on the road were the same. thats messed up too.

Agreed; that is dumb too and needed fixed. But who logically thought the number should be put at 75? That's absurdly and stupidly high.

[tonka]

Originally Posted by Alum2013

Agreed; that is dumb too and needed fixed. But who logically thought the number should be put at 75? That's absurdly and stupidly high.

I agree. I think there should be an additional quad for the top 15. There is a big difference between the top 10-15 teams and teams in the 50s and 60s.

[sedziobs]

Originally Posted by Alum2013

Agreed; that is dumb too and needed fixed. But who logically thought the number should be put at 75? That's absurdly and stupidly high.

75 was chosen because on the road it is roughly equivalent to a 50 neutral court game. Top 50 has always been the first group, and it's now adjusted for location.

The quadrant system isn't a wholesale change. It simply adjusts for game locations. Lots of people are struggling with this. Jim Nantz said during the Mich St/Michigan game that the quadrant system is bad because it doesn't give Mich St credit for beating Notre Dame with Bonzi Colson. That has absolutely nothing to do with the new quadrant system. It would be the same with the old RPI system. Tim Miles blamed the new quadrant system for Nebraska probably being left out, when in fact it makes their resume better than the old system.

[tonka]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

75 was chosen because on the road it is roughly equivalent to a 50 neutral court game. Top 50 has always been the first group, and it's now adjusted for location.

The quadrant system isn't a wholesale change. It simply adjusts for game locations. Lots of people are struggling with this. Jim Nantz said during the Mich St/Michigan game that the quadrant system is bad because it doesn't give Mich St credit for beating Notre Dame with Bonzi Colson. That has absolutely nothing to do with the new quadrant system. It would be the same with the old RPI system. Tim Miles blamed the new quadrant system for Nebraska probably being left out, when in fact it makes their resume better than the old system.

I didn't realize this. Thanks for the clarification.

[Cartel]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

75 was chosen because on the road it is roughly equivalent to a 50 neutral court game. Top 50 has always been the first group, and it's now adjusted for location.

The quadrant system isn't a wholesale change. It simply adjusts for game locations. Lots of people are struggling with this. Jim Nantz said during the Mich St/Michigan game that the quadrant system is bad because it doesn't give Mich St credit for beating Notre Dame with Bonzi Colson. That has absolutely nothing to do with the new quadrant system. It would be the same with the old RPI system. Tim Miles blamed the new quadrant system for Nebraska probably being left out, when in fact it makes their resume better than the old system.

MSU needs to schedule better and win more of their big games. I get tired of the BIG apologists.

[Alum2013]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

75 was chosen because on the road it is roughly equivalent to a 50 neutral court game. Top 50 has always been the first group, and it's now adjusted for location.

I understand that concept for the change. But it makes no sense that beating the 75th ranked team counts just as much as beating a top 5 team. They both still just count as 1 group 1 win.

[sedziobs]

Originally Posted by Alum2013

I understand that concept for the change. But it makes no sense that beating the 75th ranked team counts just as much as beating a top 5 team. They both still just count as 1 group 1 win.

We've been over this. Start at page 9 in the bracketology thread.

Originally Posted by sedziobs

RPI groups are simply designed to initially sort teams. Sorting hundreds of teams would be next to impossible for a human if you didn't have a small number of criteria to compare. But when splitting hairs between a few teams, then it's easier to compare more details. Still, the number of Group 1 wins is really important even if they're all at the bottom of Group 1, because it puts you on the right side of the first process used to sort teams.

Originally Posted by sedziobs

Two teams being in the same quadrant does not mean they are valued the same. It just means they passed the first sorting algorithm together. RPI Groups are meant to be used as aggregates, not to analyze individual games. Over an entire season, Group records generally are a good unbiased way to initially rank teams. If a team has only Group 1 wins that are of similar quality to @Rider, then there is a problem. But realistically, everyone's Group 1 games will be a mixture of teams in the top, middle and bottom of the Group. Complaining about the extremes is shortsighted. The new system is way better than the old one.