I'm not down. UConn fans should look forward to a good conference...

[upstater]

Except RPI is only one of those things and is a very specific mathematical equation. This is a bunch of guys sitting around picking teams from 4 conferences unless Florida State or Clemson goes undefeated.

You only think that is RPI because you don't know what RPI is.

You're making absolutely no sense now. The article you linked to said they will be choosing by criteria which are precisely the RPI parameters. In other words, they are duplicating what the NCAA bball tourney committee does. And your own article showed that of the 14 selectors, at least 6 will be coming from the smaller conferences including the BE.

 

[whaler11]

You're making absolutely no sense now. The article you linked to said they will be choosing by criteria which are precisely the RPI parameters. In other words, they are duplicating what the NCAA bball tourney committee does. And your own article showed that of the 14 selectors, at least 6 will be coming from the smaller conferences including the BE.

They are not. You have no idea what RPI is.

RPi is a mathematical formula that measures your w/l, your opponents w/l and their opponents w/l. That is all it measures.

It does not measure home versus away. It does not take injuries into account.

Just saying strength of schedule is a piece of the criteria means nothing. Strength of schedule determined how, by whom.

You are honestly just clueless if you think anyone from the Group of 5 is playing in the four team playoff. That you've decided that the criteria is like RPI just shows you have no idea what the RPI is or the difference between a mathematical equation and the broad definition of 'strength of schedule'.

Seriously please stop. You have no idea why you are talking about. I have no idea how anyone could see what they have created and fool themselves into thinking the Group of 5 have access to the playoff - but here we are, you really seem to believe it.

And it's five of maybe fourteen. That gives you about as much say as a democratic state rep in Texas.

 

[upstater]

They are not. You have no idea what RPI is.

RPi is a mathematical formula that measures your w/l, your opponents w/l and their opponents w/l. That is all it measures.

It does not measure home versus away. It does not take injuries into account.

Just saying strength of schedule is a piece of the criteria means nothing. Strength of schedule determined how, by whom.

You are honestly just clueless if you think anyone from the Group of 5 is playing in the four team playoff. That you've decided that the criteria is like RPI just shows you have no idea what the RPI is or the difference between a mathematical equation and the broad definition of 'strength of schedule'.

Seriously please stop. You have no idea why you are talking about. I have no idea how anyone could see what they have created and fool themselves into thinking the Group of 5 have access to the playoff - but here we are, you really seem to believe it.

And it's five of maybe fourteen. That gives you about as much say as a democratic state rep in Texas.

LOL, you're the ignorant one on RPI. Unbelievable. I've been writing about RPI on this site for a while. You seem unaware of its basic parameters.

First, stop with the strawmen. I never said injuries are counted in RPI. Stop with your lies.

Second, look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratings_Percentage_Index

In its current formulation, the index comprises a team's winning percentage (25%), its opponents' winning percentage (50%), and the winning percentage of those opponents' opponents (25%). The opponents' winning percentage and the winning percentage of those opponents' opponents both comprise the strength of schedule (SOS).

This is what I was referrring to when I mentioned Strength of Schedule!

Next you write that it doesn't account for home and away games.

LOL.

For Division 1 NCAA Men's basketball, the WP factor of the RPI was updated in 2004 to account for differences in home, away, and neutral games. A home win now counts as 0.6 win, while a road win counts as 1.4 wins. Inversely, a home loss equals 1.4 losses, while a road loss counts as 0.6 loss. A neutral game counts as 1 win or 1 loss.

Brush up, whaler, brush up.

 

[whaler11]

LOL, you're the ignorant one on RPI. Unbelievable. I've been writing about RPI on this site for a while. You seem unaware of its basic parameters.

First, stop with the strawmen. I never said injuries are counted in RPI. Stop with your lies.

Second, look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratings_Percentage_Index




This is what I was referrring to when I mentioned Strength of Schedule!

Next you write that it doesn't account for home and away games.

LOL.



Brush up, whaler, brush up.

You are comparing an actual formula that attempts to get at SOS (poorly) with the broad idea of people determining SOS.

The basketball formula has ridiculous factors for home and away that don't vet at the actual worth of home and away - which doesn't come close to valuing football home and away correctly.

The AP Top 25 includes strength of schedule by the playoff definition, the people voting think they understand the SOS and vote accordingly.

Answer a simple question: do the 5 conference have realistic access to the playoff? The entire world but you understands that they don't.

 

[Whale22]

You're making absolutely no sense now. The article you linked to said they will be choosing by criteria which are precisely the RPI parameters. In other words, they are duplicating what the NCAA bball tourney committee does. And your own article showed that of the 14 selectors, at least 6 will be coming from the smaller conferences including the BE.

This devolved rather quickly since I last checked. I think the point is more there are going to be far less Boise opportunities in this new model. It will be much more difficult to build your brand if you're in the "have not" pool which besides "upstater" I think everyone on this site agrees we are currently aligned with. Again, I understand and appreciate upstater's positive energy. I'm just reiterating I cannot get excited for the teams in this league no matter how hard I try. I naturally think Kate Upton is attractive. You can't force me to think Hillary Clinton is attractive. Most of America feels the same way when it comes to Michigan vs Memphis football.

 

[upstater]

This devolved rather quickly since I last checked. I think the point is more there are going to be far less Boise opportunities in this new model. It will be much more difficult to build your brand if you're in the "have not" pool which besides "upstater" I think everyone on this site agrees we are currently aligned with. Again, I understand and appreciate upstater's positive energy. I'm just reiterating I cannot get excited for the teams in this league no matter how hard I try. I naturally think Kate Upton is attractive. You can't force me to think Hillary Clinton is attractive. Most of America feels the same way when it comes to Michigan vs Memphis football.

Many points to make here.

1. Boise was in the WAC. They had no BCS tie. They got that BCS bid by being ranked high. The same opportunity is available to them now. So what has changed again? Precisely? Why are things more difficult as you say?

2. The discussion largely is related to all the moaning I hear about the CYO7. This week's game against Seton Hall was a dud. Last week's game against St. John's was a dud. These games have never moved the needle, just like games against Houston and UCF won't move the needle. It doesn't matter. Marquette and Georgetown and Villanova are interesting, but so are games against Cincy and Temple and Memphis.

This is really a silly argument. No one here prefers playing Memphis to Michigan. That's just strawman stuff.

And anyone who looks at the current set-up for football bowls cannot make the argument that the opportunities that Boise had are not still out there. You say I'm the only on this board that thinks that. I'd say you're very mistaken. Not only that, but it's another strawman argument to say that I claimed being in the "have not" pool does not hurt the brand. Where did you get that?

 

[upstater]

You are comparing an actual formula that attempts to get at SOS (poorly) with the broad idea of people determining SOS.

The basketball formula has ridiculous factors for home and away that don't vet at the actual worth of home and away - which doesn't come close to valuing football home and away correctly.

The AP Top 25 includes strength of schedule by the playoff definition, the people voting think they understand the SOS and vote accordingly.

Answer a simple question: do the 5 conference have realistic access to the playoff? The entire world but you understands that they don't.

Ha ha, so do you admit you were absolutely wrong on RPI? It does have a formula that measures SOS, and it does home and away weighting. You took issue when I wrote the very link that you sent me to listed criteria that were the key components of RPI. The New Orleans writer that I linked to was right all along--and you accused me of ignorance of the RPI. This is rich.

 

[Whale22]

"This is really a silly argument. No one here prefers playing Michigan to Memphis. That's just strawman stuff." - upstater

In football? You're delusional if you think that.

 

[upstater]

"This is really a silly argument. No one here prefers playing Michigan to Memphis. That's just strawman stuff." - upstater

In football? You're delusional if you think that.

Hilarious. You edited your post. I read the first iteration. So I went back to clarify things for you.

Let's do this again:

1. Boise was in the WAC when it got to its BCS bowl game. It is in no worse shape today in the MWC. It can still make the very same bowl game from its current position by having the same record it did back then.

2. I never said UConn's brand is not hurt by being in a weak conference.

3. No one here is arguing that Ohio State or Georgia Tech or heck, NC State! wouldn't make for a better football game than anyone we will play in conference (excepting Cincy, since an argument can be made that that will be a better game than a game against half the B1G and half the ACC).

The points I made are simple.

 

[whaler11]

Hilarious. You edited your post. I read the first iteration. So I went back to clarify things for you.

Let's do this again:

1. Boise was in the WAC when it got to its BCS bowl game. It is in no worse shape today in the MWC. It can still make the very same bowl game from its current position by having the same record it did back then.

2. I never said UConn's brand is not hurt by being in a weak conference.

3. No one here is arguing that Ohio State or Georgia Tech or heck, NC State! wouldn't make for a better football game than anyone we will play in conference (excepting Cincy, since an argument can be made that that will be a better game than a game against half the B1G and half the ACC).

The points I made are simple.

Upstater answer the question. Getting to BCS bowl by being in the top 16 by an ACTUAL formula. Is this similar to getting into a 4 team playoff selected by people who are told to consider SOS in whatever way they want to determine SOS. You are living in a dreamland. There is no access.

 

[upstater]

Upstater answer the question. Getting to BCS bowl by being in the top 16 by an ACTUAL formula. Is this similar to getting into a 4 team playoff selected by people who are told to consider SOS in whatever way they want to determine SOS. You are living in a dreamland. There is no access.

You have confused things.

1. The BCS bowl Boise played in was not for the national championship. It was the same type of bowl that UConn played in. Unlike UConn, Boise coming out of the WAC did not have an autobid. They were ranked 5th, undefeated, and they were given a Fiesta Bowl game against the 7th ranked team in the country. How is that any different than the current set-up, where Boise has no autobids, but still has access to what were formerly BCS bowls? There's no difference whatsoever. If Boise (or UConn for that matter) finish ranked that high, they will draw a #7 team like Oklahoma or even a #5 team. So nothing has changed in that regard.

2. "Whatever way they want to determine SOS." Do you have a link for that? The New Orleans reporter was certain this would be part of a ratings index, which would require a formula. Is it going to be exactly like the basketball formula. No one knows. What we do know is that the parameters so far look very much like the basketball selection. And in basketball (as well as all other NCAA sports, like soccer and hockey) use an index that incorporates a formula for SOS. Not to mention that 6 of the 14 selection committee members will be from the smaller conferences.

 

[ZooCougar]

If you liked the idea of joining Conference USA, then you should be happy. It's really that simple.

Our best hope is a good OOC schedule.

 

[whaler11]

You have confused things.

1. The BCS bowl Boise played in was not for the national championship. It was the same type of bowl that UConn played in. Unlike UConn, Boise coming out of the WAC did not have an autobid. They were ranked 5th, undefeated, and they were given a Fiesta Bowl game against the 7th ranked team in the country. How is that any different than the current set-up, where Boise has no autobids, but still has access to what were formerly BCS bowls? There's no difference whatsoever. If Boise (or UConn for that matter) finish ranked that high, they will draw a #7 team like Oklahoma or even a #5 team. So nothing has changed in that regard.

2. "Whatever way they want to determine SOS." Do you have a link for that? The New Orleans reporter was certain this would be part of a ratings index, which would require a formula. Is it going to be exactly like the basketball formula. No one knows. What we do know is that the parameters so far look very much like the basketball selection. And in basketball (as well as all other NCAA sports, like soccer and hockey) use an index that incorporates a formula for SOS. Not to mention that 6 of the 14 selection committee members will be from the smaller conferences.

Nothing has changed except now access to the championship is based off a selection committee versus a formula.

So yeah other than that huge piece nothing has changed.

Boise could have plausibly made it to #2 in the BCS. They aren't getting picked by a committee. Having a selection committee by definition means thats they we weigh the criteria how they like. The basketball committee does this every year, because the committee constantly changes so does the criteria.

 

[upstater]

Nothing has changed except now access to the championship is based off a selection committee versus a formula.

So yeah other than that huge piece nothing has changed.

Boise could have plausibly made it to #2 in the BCS. They aren't getting picked by a committee. Having a selection committee by definition means thats they we weigh the criteria how they like. The basketball committee does this every year, because the committee constantly changes so does the criteria.

You do realize that my reply was to someone who said that UConn would not be able to accomplish what Boise did when it played Oklahoma, right? That was a BCS bowl pitting the #5 team against the #7 team in the country.

UConn can indeed still get there. This was the whole genesis of the current argument. Go back and read it, and you'll see it.

Now, about your other argument about the final 4. I do think an undefeated team like UConn can get to the playoffs if there aren't 4 one loss teams from the top 4 conferences. With 6 members of the committee from small conferences and a national swell for an undefeated team, yes, I think such teams will be chosen regularly. Go back and look at the rankings of the last several years. If the new system were in place, this is what I'd predict:

2006: Ohio State, Florida, Michigan in. 10-2 LSU or 12-0 Boise? I say Boise.
2007: three 2 loss teams in the playoffs, one 1 loss team. No undefeateds.
2008: four 1 loss teams. Utah undefeated. Utah or #4 Alabama? Alabama.
2009: 5 undefeated teams, 2 of them (TCU, Boise St from non-autobid conferences). After that, four 2-loss BCS schools. TCU or 2-loss #7th ranked Oregon? TCU
2010: 3 undefeated teams (TCU the only non-BCS). TCU or 1 loss Wisky, Stanford, Ohio St., Michigan St.? Toss-up. Don't know.
2011: No non-BCS schools in the running.
2012: No non-BCS schools in the running.

Lastly, you had a few choice words directed at me when it came to my knowledge of the RPI. Turned out you were wrong. I know how hard it is for you to admit it, but you'd gain some respect.

 

[Calhoun's Court]

UConn needs to win versus quality opponents and their wins need to matter. A win vs Tulane that may get us in a bowl game in Toronto wont help fill the seats. UConn is where it is today, both the football and basketball programs, because at the time each program respectively used "stronger" big east teams as a springboard. It helped get better recruits and better coaches. Coach Calhoun always said that at first, he went into homes telling guys in the late 80s that they can play vs teams like "Georgetown, St. Johns, Syracuse, etc"......The NBE is a death sentence anyway you look at it and this tv deal is the nail in the coffin.

Totally agree. The NBE has no curb appeal in football(especially). These teams offer no buzz(no matter how good they can be).


IF TCU and Boise came regardless of the conference being spread all over the map they would have created interest to our fanbase.

UCONN vs. UCF in football has 22k showing up written all over it.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

UConn is finished as an athletic program. We are standing on the deck of the Titanic as the last life boat pulls away. There is no hope of rescue. Pasqualoni will stumble along for a couple of more years before retiring, and then we will be a training ground for future Big 10 coaches when we don't outright suck. The rent will average 15-20k. Ollie will fight the good fight and keep us competitive for a few years before getting tired of pissing into the wind, and then he will take a Pac 12 job that pays 2x what we could ever hope to.

The declining interest in the athletic program will hurt donations to the school, and Herbst will jump to another school before she has to slash costs and make us into UMass. UMass is right sized for being UMass, so they can handle it. We can not. UConn will drop out of the Top 100 academically and go back to where it was in the early 80's. A commuter safety school.

There is no hope for being saved. The ACC and Big 10 are not interested. The only chance we had was to take the best of the MWC, but the Big East added Tulane and ECU instead. Sooner or later, Houston and SMU will bolt for the MWC, and one or more schools will drop down a conference to save on travel. Eventually, UConn, Temple, UMass and Buffalo will form the basis of some borderline FBS/FCS northeastern league that sells its schedule to the ACC for guarantee games. The next time UConn plays BCU it will be for a paycheck so BCU can beat us by 20, in basketball.

It is over. No reason to hope for salvation. Enjoy the Kevin Ollie era. Maybe he can get us to a Sweet 16 before he leaves.

 

[djct1999]

UConn is finished as an athletic program. We are standing on the deck of the Titanic as the last life boat pulls away. There is no hope of rescue. Pasqualoni will stumble along for a couple of more years before retiring, and then we will be a training ground for future Big 10 coaches when we don't outright suck. The rent will average 15-20k. Ollie will fight the good fight and keep us competitive for a few years before getting tired of pissing into the wind, and then he will take a Pac 12 job that pays 2x what we could ever hope to.

The declining interest in the athletic program will hurt donations to the school, and Herbst will jump to another school before she has to slash costs and make us into UMass. UMass is right sized for being UMass, so they can handle it. We can not. UConn will drop out of the Top 100 academically and go back to where it was in the early 80's. A commuter safety school.

There is no hope for being saved. The ACC and Big 10 are not interested. The only chance we had was to take the best of the MWC, but the Big East added Tulane and ECU instead. Sooner or later, Houston and SMU will bolt for the MWC, and one or more schools will drop down a conference to save on travel. Eventually, UConn, Temple, UMass and Buffalo will form the basis of some borderline FBS/FCS northeastern league that sells its schedule to the ACC for guarantee games. The next time UConn plays BCU it will be for a paycheck so BCU can beat us by 20, in basketball.

It is over. No reason to hope for salvation. Enjoy the Kevin Ollie era. Maybe he can get us to a Sweet 16 before he leaves.

I tried so hard to look past the sarcasm but I am afraid you are right. This is precisely what will happen if Herbst/Warde don't pull a wild card from out of no where. Or at best, at least show us some fight/balls.

 

[The Funster]

Nobody does Eeyore better than you, nelson.

 

[whaler11]

If UConn doesn't have a new athletic home in 3-5 years the program is destroyed. Not sure I see the connection to academics. If anything you could sell me that this administration is happy to sacrifice athletics for academics.

There aren't many outs. It all depends on the Big 10 and if they can either sell Virginia or if they hold their nose and invite Florida State. The Big 10 can rescue UConn but not in the way some here have deluded themselves.

 

[upstater]

Totally agree. The NBE has no curb appeal in football(especially). These teams offer no buzz(no matter how good they can be).


IF TCU and Boise came regardless of the conference being spread all over the map they would have created interest to our fanbase.

UCONN vs. UCF in football has 22k showing up written all over it.

Have you seen Boise's schedule in the past? It's interesting you tout them, because they were nowhere 10 years ago.

 

[upstater]

Like this wasn't the case in the BE. Let's face it, from G'town on down, basketball and football players were cut a lot of breaks. Does the name Michael Graham ring a bell? What about Patrick Ewing?

 

[upstater]

The point is, this is irrelevant when it comes to sports. Look at your own school and its standards. These school let any good athlete in!