stever20 wrote:DudeAnon wrote:Only conclusion to be made based on this year is they will choose whatever stat they can to exclude the non P5 (plus AAC and BE).
Top 50, OOC SOS, RPI, TOP 200 losses. There are enough metrics that they can just cherry pick a bad one for each mid-major bubble team and use that as their excuse. Of course the p5 programs don't have to endure such scrutiny.
South Carolina says hi.
The fact is conferences like the MWC, WCC were down this year. MWC was 12 in RPI, WCC 14.
in Ken pom:
2016-
AAC .6764 #7
MWC .5426 #10
WCC .5254 #11
2015
WCC .5796 #9
AAC .5547 #10
MWC .5131 #12
so MWC improved some- but the WCC fell way back.... Meanwhile the AAC had a much stronger year.
DudeAnon wrote:stever20 wrote:DudeAnon wrote:Only conclusion to be made based on this year is they will choose whatever stat they can to exclude the non P5 (plus AAC and BE).
Top 50, OOC SOS, RPI, TOP 200 losses. There are enough metrics that they can just cherry pick a bad one for each mid-major bubble team and use that as their excuse. Of course the p5 programs don't have to endure such scrutiny.
South Carolina says hi.
The fact is conferences like the MWC, WCC were down this year. MWC was 12 in RPI, WCC 14.
in Ken pom:
2016-
AAC .6764 #7
MWC .5426 #10
WCC .5254 #11
2015
WCC .5796 #9
AAC .5547 #10
MWC .5131 #12
so MWC improved some- but the WCC fell way back.... Meanwhile the AAC had a much stronger year.
So you honestly think the committee was fair towards the non P7?
Return to Big East basketball message board
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 22 guests