PonyFans.com

Boise State is a horrible loss. A 100 plus SOS. A 4 or 5 is more than generous.

A loss to a ~60 RPI team on the road is not a horrible loss. SMU's SOS will end up in the 80's. Beyond that, I do agree that we will get a 4-5 if we win out.

Stallion wrote:the NCAA isn't going to let SMU be a 3 or 4 seed with our schedule-have we ever been seeded where we thought we deserved or where our ranking indicated-No its always a shock that we regarded so poorly. Get yourself prepared because we don't have the wins to be seeded high

So true. I really don't see a 3 or 4 seed. Two years ago we won the AAC outright and won the conference tourney. We got a 6 seed. Assuming we do the same this year, I bet we're a 6 seed again. . .maybe a 5. If we don't win the conference tourney, we could be lower.

I bet most teams have at least one loss worse than Boise on the Road. Boise is sitting at 59 right now on Real Time RPI and guess who is No. 60 TCU-Who?

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote:

Stallion wrote:the NCAA isn't going to let SMU be a 3 or 4 seed with our schedule-have we ever been seeded where we thought we deserved or where our ranking indicated-No its always a shock that we regarded so poorly. Get yourself prepared because we don't have the wins to be seeded high

So true. I really don't see a 3 or 4 seed. Two years ago we won the AAC outright and won the conference tourney. We got a 6 seed. Assuming we do the same this year, I bet we're a 6 seed again. . . maybe a 5. If we don't win the conference tourney, we could be lower

Stallion wrote:I bet most teams have at least one loss worse than Boise on the Road. Boise is sitting at 59 right now on Real Time RPI and guess who is No. 60 TCU-Who?

I looked at the top 20 projected RPI teams (smu projected at 18) on rpiforecast and counted their losses to teams with projected RPI worse than Boise (60).

Those 19 teams (excluding smu) collectively have 25 losses to teams with a projected rpi over 60. Just 5 teams do not have any "horrible" losses and one (FSU) has 4 (Including a neutral court loss to Temple).

Of the 25 losses, 3 were neutral court and 3 were home court.

Butler has losses to two teams with projected RPI over 120: St. John's (124) and Indiana State (223). No team has a loss to a lower projected RPI team.

In other words, while a lack of quality wins might keep us from a seed better than 4-5, Boise on the road is not a horrible loss relative to other teams.

Grant Carter wrote:

Stallion wrote:I bet most teams have at least one loss worse than Boise on the Road. Boise is sitting at 59 right now on Real Time RPI and guess who is No. 60 TCU-Who?

I looked at the top 20 projected RPI teams (smu projected at 18) on rpiforecast and counted their losses to teams with projected RPI worse than Boise (60).

Those 19 teams (excluding smu) collectively have 25 losses to teams with a projected rpi over 60. Just 5 teams do not have any "horrible" losses and one (FSU) has 4 (Including a neutral court loss to Temple).

Of the 25 losses, 3 were neutral court and 3 were home court.

Butler has losses to two teams with projected RPI over 120: St. John's (124) and Indiana State (223). No team has a loss to a lower projected RPI team.

In other words, while a lack of quality wins might keep us from a seed better than 4-5, Boise on the road is not a horrible loss relative to other teams.

This is spot on. Boise is most definitely not a "horrible" loss and I doubt you see it very often listed as even a "bad" loss when showing our profile. The issue is quality wins - completely different than when we were left out a few years ago because of some bad losses. We're in good shape in the top 100 category but not the top 25 or 50 categories (Houston could really help us there though if they could beat Cincy and get into the top 50). Jerry Palm has modeled his bracket after the way the selection committee ranked teams in their "preview" more closely than anyone else that I have seen. He has had us as a 7 until last night, when he moved us to a 6. I think 5 is the highest we could get (if we win out), with 6 if we win all but AAC title game, and 7 with a loss before that. Lose either of these next two and 8 or 9 could be in play. I think we're much better than that of course, but that's just reality. I'm good with a 6 - much more concerned with who the opponent is in round one and two than what our seed is. For instance if we are a 6, to me there is a huge difference between Baylor in round 2 and Arizona (give me the bears). Also in that first game, would much rather see a Cal, Illinois St or Marquette than someone just rounding into form like Rhode Island (or Michigan State, although looking now like they will keep moving up to potentially as high as a 7).

Boise could win the MWC tournament and our "worst loss" would be a tournament team

Fresno Mustang wrote:Boise could win the MWC tournament and our "worst loss" would be a tournament team

How sweet would a rematch with them be?

The bottom line is we don't have anything really bad on our resume but we don't have anything really good either. Very hard to imagine getting a 4 out of that, but a 5 if we run the table is very realistic.

To be honest if we looked at an unnamed team with our resume and SOS I bet we would put them as a 5. Anything lower than 6 (5 if we win out) would be BS

sadderbudweiser wrote:

Fresno Mustang wrote:Boise could win the MWC tournament and our "worst loss" would be a tournament team

How sweet would a rematch with them be?

Pass. I want to play name schools to get maximum exposure. Boise - SMU will draw flies.

I love the speculation. But reality is, even if SMU won the NCAA National Championship, we would be no better than a 7 seed.

Stallion has pointed out in other threads, The AAC doesn't have representation on the selection committee. The other conferences will put in and seed better their schools for money. It really is a about money.

On merit, I think we are a 4 seed. What I have seen watching other conferences games doesn't scare me. I don't think the Big XII-II-II+I+I (total X now) is all that impressive. The SEC has some good teams but over all I don't see that we couldn't be very competitive. I think the same of the PAC Xii as well.

But it doesn't matter how good we are, money will hurt us.

The computer is either reliable or it isn't. The notion that the committee can use RPI as justification in some instances for its decisions but dismiss it in other cases is just total bs. Even if you expect them to screw us, that doesn't make it one damn bit ok if they do it. AP rankings should be one data point considered, it is a valid gauge of the eye test and momentum. They should refine it by throwing out high and low votes that suggest ignorance or bias. If you are ranked in the AP top 20 and also have have a top 20 RPI, you just shouldn't be shafted with a worse seed than a 5. One reform they need to make is every comference should have at least an observer on the committee at all times. That would prevent some screw jobs from happening.

Hoop Fan wrote:The computer is either reliable or it isn't. The notion that the committee can use RPI as justification in some instances for its decisions but dismiss it in other cases is just total bs. Even if you expect them to screw us, that doesn't make it one damn bit ok if they do it. AP rankings should be one data point considered, it is a valid gauge of the eye test and momentum. They should refine it by throwing out high and low votes that suggest ignorance or bias. If you are ranked in the AP top 20 and also have have a top 20 RPI, you just shouldn't be shafted with a worse seed than a 5. One reform they need to make is every comference should have at least an observer on the committee at all times. That would prevent some screw jobs from happening.

This has been a constant concern. How do we get a rep on the committee