MountainCoug, my wife and I had the pleasure of sitting with the BYU donors at the B12 CCG today. I must say, they were the nicest group of people I have met. From little kid to grandparents. They were all rooting for UH but at the same time, they cannot stand ISU fans. I’m not sure who can positively like ISU fans during the game either. LOL. I’m so looking forward to heading out to Provo for the football game in November.
2 Likes
How does UTSA beat out UNT? Recent football success?
So stupid. The B12 would instantly be downgraded with those additions. It doesn’t follow what we have seen Yormark accomplish.
So would the Pac remain P5 with only two former P5 teams? The AAC in the beginning had a lot of former Power teams in UH, Cinncy, USF., but was relegated to G6 status.
1 Like
The CFP already said the PAC 12 will be a G5 by not including them in the P4 money distribution and distributing only $300k to OSU and WSU. In a G5, schools will get $1.8M each.
The PAC 12 may not die, but their power status is no more.
True, but there still aspects of the original PAC12 deal where Wazzo/OSU are getting money
perhaps more money than if they were to just join the MWC.
It’s quite the dillemma
The high academic schools and service academies need to break away and become a second IVY League.
There is no reason for a Stanford to fund up to get football players. A successful football program doesn’t enhance Stanford. But trying and failing at this new professional model will hurt the high academics.
As of today, both of these conference rankings have the MWC as 4th:
Conference RPI is not just based on the top teams, but the middle and bottom teams.
I would guess market has something to do with it along with their recent success. Probably also looking at commitment to sports by the administration.
UTSA is the only team actually in SA at this level. UNT is north of DFW and then there is TCU and SMU to share with.
I remain unconvinced.
I can imagine teams in five other conferences as final four contenders.
Not seeing any MWC team as one.
It is what it is. You won’t convince me that the MWC is a top four conference in the face of that.
RPI says one thing……NET appears to say another.
And putting the MWC aside….adding Tulane, Rice, and UTSA wouldn’t impress anyone in basketball.
For that matter, adding a conference like the WCC that is often a one bid league historically won’t help much either.
The original comment was top 4 in RPI.
I showed you documented proof that two rankings show them in the top 4. You don’t have to be convinced. You are flat wrong.
Then you change the numbers from top 40 to top 30 to distort the argument to your favor even though the teams 30+ are still calculated in rankings.
Sometimes it is necessary to man up and give SamHouston1 credit for being right.
1 Like
And my method of debunking him was pointing to NET instead.
As I said, the MWC has zero teams in the NET top 15, and only one in the Top 20.
Five other conferences have more.
Based on that, you and he need to man up and admit that I’m right, and he is debunked:
Net does not debunk RPI, it is simply a different system. Also you are only stating top teams and changing from 40 to 30 for no reason other than ego. A conference ranking includes all teams.
Cannot admit someone else was right if it disagrees with personal assumptions.
2 Likes
If you think RPI is a better system, then fine.
The NCAA seems to prefer NET though, as do I.
And based on the NCAA’s preference for it, I consider NET ratings to be a weightier and more persuasive authority than RPI.
The NCAA’s endorsement is a strong and persuasive one, in my view.
Feel free to disagree if you wish.
And no. Given that.
You will not convince me that a conference that has so few teams highly ranked by NET is a better one than those that have more such teams.
Based on NET, he should admit that he is wrong.
In fact, looking at the March 16 NET rankings, the MWC now has NO Top 20 teams, and several of its teams aren’t even in the Top 50.
Not seeing that as a Top BBall conference.
The P4 and Big East are better represented.
No one was “debunked” except possibly you. I realize you just like to argue so not going to continue, but the standard metric for conference RPI is . . . conference RPI. All measures of conference RPI show the MWC as the #4 overall conference in . . . RPI. I mean I don’t really know what there is to argue about, but I do know that I have zero intention of looking for something.
3 Likes
I think that NET is a better evaluation and rating system.
And apparently the NCAA agrees, which is why they use NET as a metric for basketball, NOT RPI.
And by that….the MWC simply does NOT measure up.
NO Top 20 teams.
FIVE conferences have more. The MWC is simply NOT a Top Four BBall conference in that regard.
Hang your hat on RPI all you want.
I’ll go by what the NCAA uses.
Where does the NCAA or NET rank conferences? I didn’t realize they did. The strength of a conference is a holistic ranking, not based solely on who is in the top 10. That’s pretty basic stuff. Whatever!
1 Like
Hey listen, every conference has NET outliers, even the Big 12 has Okie State and WVU.
But you won’t convince me that a conference that can’t produce ANY NET Top 20 teams is better than those that produce more than one.
The MWC is not top four, given that.
That would be like saying that a football conference with no Top 20 teams is a better conference than one with more than one such team. No one in their right mind does that.
As you know, a no win situation. Only ranking the top few teams to compare whole conferences is incorrect.
According to him, the WCC is far superior to the MWC because it has 2 top 20 NET teams.
Nevermind that the WCC has 6 of 9 teams ranked worse than 100 (4 worse than 200, 44%). While the MWC has 7 or 11 ranked in the top 80 (only 3 worse than 200, 27%)
1 Like