Good pointmabrowndog said:
It had been brutal to watch
Glorified free throw competition
And why does Williams always end up on the ground ?
UMass hoops 2013-14 - Tourney or Bust
- Thread starter gmogmo
- Start date
It had been brutal to watch
Glorified free throw competition
And why does Williams always end up on the ground ?
They're down 7. They've missed 7 FTs. Kellogg needs to do the math.
Chaz eating a foot-long shit sandwich today.
Chaz eating a foot-long shit sandwich today.
Gordon shouldn't be shooting unless it's an open layup right now. Embarrassing that he consistently hits front rim on FTs.
Three-point game. It's a miracle.
Dayton has actually missed more FTs than UMass today (10). Pierre is just 2 for 8.
Dayton has actually missed more FTs than UMass today (10). Pierre is just 2 for 8.
I absolutely loathe the "roll the ball inbounds and save clock" play that's become so fucking omnipresent in both college and the NBA. It's rarely beneficial, and more often disrupts a team's rhythm and ball-handling mechanics. Sure enough. Chaz coughs it up after trying to pick up his dribble with a defender in his face.
This is a tough loss because it really hurts them in A10 Tourney seeding. It's very unlikely now that they'll get one of the top 3 seeds. As the 4-seed it means you'll likely face somebody like VCU, GW, or Richmond in your first game. If you drop to number 5, you get stuck playing another game before you even get to face one of those teams. And if they lose to SLU in the finale, there's a real chance of losing 3 of their last 4 games going into the NCAA.
It's a guarantee that they will have long stretches of mind-numbingly dumb basketball against whoever their tourney opponent is, but as long as they play a whole game with that "every minute is the last minute" intensity they'll have a chance to advance.
WayBackVazquez said:
Well said.
They also had a golden opportunity to position themselves for a higher seed in the NCAAs, not just by beating Dayton on the road, but because 5 of their potential competitors lost on Thursday: UCLA, Kentucky, Iowa, Memphis & Ohio St. All had been slated as 5-6 seeds in most projections beforehand. A UMass win today would have at least put them in the running with those schools, and a win over St. Louis may have put them over the top of them. Winning the conference tournament would have earned them a 4-seed easily, possibly a 3.
Now, if UMass beats St. Louis & somehow takes the A-10 tournament, they'd be a 5 at best. Lose to St. Louis and in their A-10 opener, and I could see them dropping to a 10.
There is still a pathway to a #3 seed in the A10 tourney. Need Saint Louis to beat VCU today, also need Richmond to lose 1. They are at URI today who has played a lot of good teams tough at home. They also finish with VCU on Thursday and then travel to Dayton next Saturday. Going to be tough for them to win all 3 of those games.
Obviously have to beat Duquesne and Saint Louis, but I think we will be favored in both of those games. I do think Duq could be a trap game but this team has been pretty good in games following losses this year.
Obviously have to beat Duquesne and Saint Louis, but I think we will be favored in both of those games. I do think Duq could be a trap game but this team has been pretty good in games following losses this year.
WayBackVazquez said:
Even if you do get the 3 seed, you're gonna get stuck facing somebody like VCU, GW, or Richmond, as the current 6th seed is Richmond. Hell, even if you're the #1 seed, you're gonna end up playing either SBU (who's beaten UMass) or LaS Salle (who's beaten GW). The A10 is just an absolute beast this season and, amazingly, an argument can be made that the A10 should get the most tournament bids of any conference. Of course that's not gonna happen, because brand name bias is still a persistent scourge in college basketball. All you need to do is compare the current top 7 teams in the A10 vs. the current 7 teams in the AAC. When you dig into the numbers, there is absolutely no question that the A10 is the stronger conference. And yet:
A-10
1. 24-3, RPI #19, AP #10
2. 20-7, RPI #33, AP Not Receiving Votes
3. 21-7, RPI #24, AP Not Receiving Votes
4. 22-6, RPI #12, AP Receiving Votes (#30)
5. 20-7, RPI #30, AP Not Receiving Votes
6. 18-10, RPI #54, AP Not Receiving Votes
7. 19-9, RPI #56, AP Not Receiving Votes
AAC
1. 24-4, RPI #17, AP #11
2. 24-4, RPI #24, AP #7
3. 22-6, RPI #37, AP #23
4. 22-6, RPI #29, AP Receiving Votes (#26)
5. 20-7, RPI #38, AP #21
6. 14-14, RPI #157, AP Not Receiving Votes
7. 9-18, RPI 208, AP Not Receiving Votes
Orel Miraculous said:
Two things: (1) your link hardly presents a colorable argument that the A10 should get the most bids; there are a finite number of slots, it's not as though every team with an RPI of x (apprently for the sake of this argument, 57?) should get a bid. And you MUST understand how crude a metric RPI is anyway. (2) Why is looking at the top 7 teams all you have to do to know there is "absolutely no question" what the stronger conference is? What about the other teams? What about the teams at the top, the means and medians? And anyway, to what end? Which AAC team do you think is being unfairly favored over which more-deserving A10 team?
I like the A10, but let's not go deeming it the new tobacco road just yet.
WayBackVazquez said:
The answer to the bolded is the AP top 25 vote totals I posted up there. Despite the fact that the top 5 teams in both the A10 and the AAC have remarkably similar RPIs, those AAC teams are all over the top 25 polls while the A10 teams aren't even getting votes. That's purely brand name bias. As for why I only looked at the top 7 teams, well, once I hit a freaking sub-200 RPI team in the middle of the pack in the AAC, it didn't seem like there was much point in going further. But fine, here are the complete standings:
A-10
1. 24-3, RPI #19, AP #10
2. 20-7, RPI #33, AP Not Receiving Votes
3. 21-7, RPI #24, AP Not Receiving Votes
4. 22-6, RPI #12, AP Receiving Votes (#30)
5. 20-7, RPI #30, AP Not Receiving Votes
6. 18-10, RPI #54, AP Not Receiving Votes
7. 19-9, RPI #56, AP Not Receiving Votes
8. 16-12 RPI #98
9. 13-14 #91
10. 12-15 #192
11. 10-17 146
12. 12-17 152
13. 9-17 201
AAC
1. 24-4, RPI #17, AP #11
2. 24-4, RPI #24, AP #7
3. 22-6, RPI #37, AP #23
4. 22-6, RPI #29, AP Receiving Votes (#26)
5. 20-7, RPI #38, AP #21
6. 14-14, RPI #157, AP Not Receiving Votes
7. 9-18, RPI 208, AP Not Receiving Votes
8. 12-16, RPI, 172
9. 11-15, RPI, 209
10. 7-20, RPI, 156
So amongst the top tier (the top 4 teams), we see a grouping of teams that are relatively equal, but the A10 probably has a slight edge as, of those 4 teams, the team with the highest RPI is SLU, and the team with the lowest RPI is SMU. Amongst the next four teams, the A10 has an incredibly massive edge with 4 top 100 teams including a top 30 team, while the AAC has a collection of one top 40 team and 3 sub-150 RPI teams. As for the 9 and 10 slots, once again the A10 is clearly the winner, with a top 100 team in freaking ninth place in the conference. And even with 3 more teams, the bottom of the A10 barrel is still far superior to the AAC, as the 11th, 12th, and 13th place teams in the A10 would have the 6th, 7th, and 9th best RPIs in the AAC. There is no comparison. Top to bottom, the A10 is far superior, and yet the AAC teams--being big brand names--get far more national respect.
And yes, the RPI is a flawed metric (just like every single other metric that has so far been devised). But given that it is by far the most ubiquitous metric used to compare tournament resumes, I don't know how you could quibble with my use of it here.
And by the way, the assertion that the A10 getting more bids than a "big name" conference would never happen because of the "brand-name bias" is both factually wrong and a misidentification of the "persistent scourge," which I believe is the selection committee's continued reliance on RPI, when there are much better tools available.
You do remember that last year the MWC got 5 bids out of its 9-team conference, don't you? And that was one more than the biggest "brand name" in college basketball, the ACC. They did it on the backs of high RPIs, and they got high seeds, to boot. And then what happened? New Mexico, a 3-seed, lost to 14-seed Harvard; UNLV, a 5-seed, lost to 12-seed Cal; SDSU, a 7-seed, lost in the second round to 15-seed Florida Gulf Coast. Only Colorado State lost to a higher seed.
Leagues like the A10 this year and the MWC the last couple of years really have a great advantage getting into the tourney over equivalent talent level teams in leagues like the Big 10, or even the SEC. The SEC may get only 3 teams in this year, and there are plenty more that would be competitive in the A10.
You do remember that last year the MWC got 5 bids out of its 9-team conference, don't you? And that was one more than the biggest "brand name" in college basketball, the ACC. They did it on the backs of high RPIs, and they got high seeds, to boot. And then what happened? New Mexico, a 3-seed, lost to 14-seed Harvard; UNLV, a 5-seed, lost to 12-seed Cal; SDSU, a 7-seed, lost in the second round to 15-seed Florida Gulf Coast. Only Colorado State lost to a higher seed.
Leagues like the A10 this year and the MWC the last couple of years really have a great advantage getting into the tourney over equivalent talent level teams in leagues like the Big 10, or even the SEC. The SEC may get only 3 teams in this year, and there are plenty more that would be competitive in the A10.
Orel Miraculous said:
Every advanced computer rating system I've seen has the AAC either better or essentially tied with the A10. If all you care about is tournament bids, then you should probably stop whining until and unless the AAC unfairly gets more bids than the A10. As I wrote above, that's unlikely to occur, based on the committee's moronic continued reliance on RPI.
WayBackVazquez said:
Hold on. I'm gonna have to go ahead and make you show your work here on this statement. Let me make sure I have this right. You're saying that (1) A10 teams actually have an advantage over the power conferences in making the tournament; and (2) there are teams in the SEC that would have a shot at making the tournament if they played in the A10? What are you basing either of those assertions on? The second one is particularly perplexing and I can't think of any possible basis for that statement that's not ultimately some version of "Obviously the SEC is better than the A10. It's the SEC."
The A10 is 5-2 against the SEC this year. Here are those results (note that the A10 teams played a grand total of 2 home games in the seven match-ups):
Richmond 58 - Florida 67
Georgia 55 - GW 73
LSU 90- UMass 92
Dayton 83 - Ole Miss 80
SLU 57 - Vanderbilt 49
SJU 65 - LSU 82
UMass 62 - Clemson 56
Orel Miraculous said:
Is it really that hard to understand? The selection committee leans heavily on RPI. The Atlantic 10's schedule this year has been such that it has set up well for its teams to do well with RPI's simple formula (WP, opp's WP, opp's opp's WP), while the SEC's schedule does not.
Here are Sagarin SOS rankings:
Florida 55
Kentucky 37
Arkansas 69
Tennessee 42
Missouri 57
LSU 68
Mississippi 79
Meanwhile, the A10 only has one team (UMass) with an SOS in the top 70.
So, for example, St. Joe's 20-7 with the 84th toughest SOS gets it a #34 RPI, and safely in the tourney, while Arkansas's 19-9 with the 69th SOS has it at #55th, and not even on the bubble in most projections. Yet every computer system except RPI has Arkansas as a considerably better team than St. Joe's.
Orel Miraculous said:
Okay, so if polls don't correlate with RPI rankings, it conclusively demonstrates "pure brand name bias." Why didn't you put the names of the teams next to your data? And why don't you include some non-biased computer metrics alongside of them. For example, KenPom, BPI, Sevenovertimes, Massey? Is it because they all also are participating in this grand scourge of name-brand bias?
Here's your "pure name-brand bias" when compared against leading computer-generated metrics. What this would seem to indicate is that there is no significant AP bias toward the AAC over the A10, but that the RPI formula (which of course matters when it comes time to getting teams into the tournament, not the opinions of media douches) is an outlier in favoring the A10.
A-10
1. Saint Louis 24-3, RPI #19, AP #10: KenPom #25; Sagarin 29; SevenOvertimes #20; BPI #25 (AP Overrates) (RPI overrates)
2. St. Joseph's 20-7, RPI #33, AP Not Receiving Votes : KenPom #57; Sagarin #63; SevenOvertimes #27; BPI #55 (AP Correct) (RPI overrates)
3. VCU 21-7, RPI #24, AP Not Receiving Votes: KenPom #22; Sagarin #26; SevenOvertimes #29; BPI #21 (AP Slightly underrates) (RPI Correct)
4. UMass 22-6, RPI #12, AP Receiving Votes (#30): KenPom #45; Sagarin #38; SevenOvertimes #30; BPI #29 (AP slightly overrates) (RPI overrates)
5. GWU 20-7, RPI #30, AP Not Receiving Votes: KenPom #40; Sagarin #47; SevenOvertimes #49; BPI #38 (AP Correct) (RPI overrates)
6. Richmond 18-10, RPI #54, AP Not Receiving Votes: KenPom #72; Sagarin #74; SevenOvertimes #66; BPI #71 (AP Correct) (RPI overrates)
7. Dayton 19-9, RPI #56, AP Not Receiving Votes: KenPom #62; Sagarin #65; SevenOvertimes #55; BPI #59 (AP Correct) (RPI slightly overrates)
AAC
1. Cincinnati 24-4, RPI #17, AP #11: KenPom #20; Sagarin #22; SevenOvertimes #25; BPI #22 (AP overrates) (RPI slightly overrates)
2. Louisville 24-4, RPI #24, AP #7: KenPom #2; Sagarin #4; SevenOvertimes #13; BPI #5 (AP slightly underrates) (RPI underrates)
3. SMU 22-6, RPI #37, AP #23: KenPom #21; Sagarin #28; SevenOvertimes #46; BPI #27 (AP slightly overrates) (RPI underrates)
4. Connecticut 22-6, RPI #29, AP Receiving Votes (#26): KenPom #24; Sagarin #23; SevenOvertimes #34; BPI #24 (AP slightly underrates) (RPI underrates)
5. Memphis 20-7, RPI #38, AP #21: KenPom #44; Sagarin #46; SevenOvertimes #48; BPI #42 (AP overrates) (RPI overrates)
6. Houston 14-14, RPI #157, AP Not Receiving Votes: KenPom #137; Sagarin #144; SevenOvertimes #134; BPI #137 (AP correct) (RPI underrates)
A-10
1. Saint Louis 24-3, RPI #19, AP #10: KenPom #25; Sagarin 29; SevenOvertimes #20; BPI #25 (AP Overrates) (RPI overrates)
2. St. Joseph's 20-7, RPI #33, AP Not Receiving Votes : KenPom #57; Sagarin #63; SevenOvertimes #27; BPI #55 (AP Correct) (RPI overrates)
3. VCU 21-7, RPI #24, AP Not Receiving Votes: KenPom #22; Sagarin #26; SevenOvertimes #29; BPI #21 (AP Slightly underrates) (RPI Correct)
4. UMass 22-6, RPI #12, AP Receiving Votes (#30): KenPom #45; Sagarin #38; SevenOvertimes #30; BPI #29 (AP slightly overrates) (RPI overrates)
5. GWU 20-7, RPI #30, AP Not Receiving Votes: KenPom #40; Sagarin #47; SevenOvertimes #49; BPI #38 (AP Correct) (RPI overrates)
6. Richmond 18-10, RPI #54, AP Not Receiving Votes: KenPom #72; Sagarin #74; SevenOvertimes #66; BPI #71 (AP Correct) (RPI overrates)
7. Dayton 19-9, RPI #56, AP Not Receiving Votes: KenPom #62; Sagarin #65; SevenOvertimes #55; BPI #59 (AP Correct) (RPI slightly overrates)
AAC
1. Cincinnati 24-4, RPI #17, AP #11: KenPom #20; Sagarin #22; SevenOvertimes #25; BPI #22 (AP overrates) (RPI slightly overrates)
2. Louisville 24-4, RPI #24, AP #7: KenPom #2; Sagarin #4; SevenOvertimes #13; BPI #5 (AP slightly underrates) (RPI underrates)
3. SMU 22-6, RPI #37, AP #23: KenPom #21; Sagarin #28; SevenOvertimes #46; BPI #27 (AP slightly overrates) (RPI underrates)
4. Connecticut 22-6, RPI #29, AP Receiving Votes (#26): KenPom #24; Sagarin #23; SevenOvertimes #34; BPI #24 (AP slightly underrates) (RPI underrates)
5. Memphis 20-7, RPI #38, AP #21: KenPom #44; Sagarin #46; SevenOvertimes #48; BPI #42 (AP overrates) (RPI overrates)
6. Houston 14-14, RPI #157, AP Not Receiving Votes: KenPom #137; Sagarin #144; SevenOvertimes #134; BPI #137 (AP correct) (RPI underrates)
Tonight's game may be viewable thru this link: http://www.atlantic10.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?&db_oem_id=31600&mid=80312
nothing is loading for me with that link
edit: had to go in through the umass athletics site and go from there
edit: had to go in through the umass athletics site and go from there
Umass has to win this one Otherwise they will most likely go 9-7 in conference which is pretty poor and end up as a 10 or 11 probably in the tourney.
And once again they are off to a really poor start and trail by 10 early on. 18-8
And once again they are off to a really poor start and trail by 10 early on. 18-8
A 10 or 11 is what they would rightly deserve.
Down 22-16 to fucking Duquesne, inside of 12:00 in the 1st half. It was a 9-pt deficit before Carter hit a three.
Down 22-16 to fucking Duquesne, inside of 12:00 in the 1st half. It was a 9-pt deficit before Carter hit a three.
Umass up 41-40 at the half, they survived another horrific start where they were down by 11 at one point to take the lead into the half. They need to build that lead up in the second half
On the one hand, I'm shocked they're leading after playing such horrible basketball for most of the half, getting out-rebounded 18-14, and with early foul trouble for Cady & Carter and later for Esho, all fortunate to only have 2 apiece at the break.
On the other hand, I'm shocked it's only a 1-pt lead considering both Chaz & Putney are having much better games tonight.
On the other hand, I'm shocked it's only a 1-pt lead considering both Chaz & Putney are having much better games tonight.
Also forgot to say, they need to win this if they want a chance at a bye in the conference tourney
WIth 10:13 left, UMass on an 18-9 run since the TV timeout with 15:37 to play. Carter nailed three straight shots including 2 treys, while Chaz & Gordon also hit from downtown.
EDIT - Dukes get a pair back on a lay-in. Timeout UMass, up 3 with 10:00 left.
EDIT - Dukes get a pair back on a lay-in. Timeout UMass, up 3 with 10:00 left.
RedSoxFan said:
Sunday is senior day and the last game Chazz, Putney and Carter will ever play in Amherst. I expect that they will come out hard in this game.
I agree, however St. Louis is very good defensively and umass plays no defense. If umass has trouble scoring in this one it could be a long night.SaveBooFerriss said: