Tweet
I'm kinda worried about the conference schedule for WSU next year. I bet the AAC is on a three year rotation. This year we played Rice, Tulsa, UAB and Memphis twice. Next year WSU will probably play four difference teams twice. The year after that, the Shockers will play the remaining four teams twice. (Barring teams leaving or joining the conference.) We are probably only going to play Rice, Tulsa, UAB, and Memphis once next year.
Over the course of this season the best four teams, RPI-wise, were Rice, USF, Tulsa, and WSU. These teams had above 100 RPIs for most all the year. ECU did have a couple weeks above 100 and Tulsa went under 100 at the end of the year. Four teams were hanging in that 100-200 RPI range for most of the year- ECU, FAU, Temple, and Tulane. Tulane dropped below 200 at the end of the year. Five teams were sub 200 all season long- UAB, Memphis, UTSA, N TX, and Charlotte.
The RPIs- First (10/2) and Latest (11/24)
Rice 39...41
Tulsa 68...113
WSU 72...65
USF 98...61
ECU 103...104
FAU 106...119
Tulane 153...216
Temple 162...168
UAB 216...226
N TX 232...230
UTSA 244...234
Memphis 266...244
Charlotte 297...300
As you can see, we played two of the three highest RPI teams twice this year (Rice and Tulsa). If this trend continues, and my scheduling prediction is correct for next year, the only above 100 RPI team we might play twice next year is USF, maybe ECU. It isn't going to help our RPI to play four sub 200 teams twice next year, which might happen.
Why do teams have low RPIs (and why do some have RPIs over 100)? It's easy to see when you look at nonconference schedules.
There are four teams that played multiple top 25 ranked opponents. You guessed it- Rice (0-3), Tulsa(1-3), USF(1-4 (played Dayton twice)) and WSU(0-4). Five teams played top 25 teams once- ECU (0-1), FAU (0-1), Memphis (0-1), N TX (0-1), and Temple (0-1). The remaining four team didn't play ranked teams- UAB, UTSA, Tulane, and Memphis. There is a correlation between RPI ranking and non-conference scheduling. The AAC went 2-19 against top 25 teams, four teams played 16 of the 21 matches. (I have the list of the top 25 teams played if anyone is interested and doesn't want to look them all up).
This is what Coach Lamb is talking about when he mentions asking the other AAC coaches to schedule tougher non-con opponents. When USF, and possibly Rice, misses a shot at an NCAA tournament at-large bid, it's because four (or arguably nine) teams had weak non-con schedules. I really hope all AAC teams try to schedule more than two top 25 or at least several top 50 teams. While the top 25 (and top 50) changes from year to year, it doesn't take a psychic to predict five teams that will be in the top 25 at the beginning of next year. I'll do it right now- Nebraska, Texas, Wisconsin, Pitt, and Louisville (bonus teams: Stanford, Oregon, Creighton, Penn State, Kentucky, Florida). Sure, those teams may not want to schedule sub 200 AAC teams, but those low RPI teams need to schedule better than they did...for the good of the conference.
The AAC doesn't have five (or more) top 25 teams like the Big10 does. That means we (AAC teams) have to schedule those top 25 teams during nonconference matches. We would have a much better chance of getting multiple teams in the NCAA tournament if every team played two or more (emphasis on "or more") top 25 teams. This year, USF suffered because of this, even with a top 25 win. Next year it could be WSU, and that worries me.
Sure, there is the post season AAC tournament, but it's not going to be in Wichita next year (I think the Shocker definitely benefitted from playing at home), and that shouldn't be the only way for an AAC team to get into the big dance. The AAC has never gotten three teams into the NCAA tourney. It could, if the all the teams scheduled like WSU, Rice, Tulsa, and USF.
Over the course of this season the best four teams, RPI-wise, were Rice, USF, Tulsa, and WSU. These teams had above 100 RPIs for most all the year. ECU did have a couple weeks above 100 and Tulsa went under 100 at the end of the year. Four teams were hanging in that 100-200 RPI range for most of the year- ECU, FAU, Temple, and Tulane. Tulane dropped below 200 at the end of the year. Five teams were sub 200 all season long- UAB, Memphis, UTSA, N TX, and Charlotte.
The RPIs- First (10/2) and Latest (11/24)
Rice 39...41
Tulsa 68...113
WSU 72...65
USF 98...61
ECU 103...104
FAU 106...119
Tulane 153...216
Temple 162...168
UAB 216...226
N TX 232...230
UTSA 244...234
Memphis 266...244
Charlotte 297...300
As you can see, we played two of the three highest RPI teams twice this year (Rice and Tulsa). If this trend continues, and my scheduling prediction is correct for next year, the only above 100 RPI team we might play twice next year is USF, maybe ECU. It isn't going to help our RPI to play four sub 200 teams twice next year, which might happen.
Why do teams have low RPIs (and why do some have RPIs over 100)? It's easy to see when you look at nonconference schedules.
There are four teams that played multiple top 25 ranked opponents. You guessed it- Rice (0-3), Tulsa(1-3), USF(1-4 (played Dayton twice)) and WSU(0-4). Five teams played top 25 teams once- ECU (0-1), FAU (0-1), Memphis (0-1), N TX (0-1), and Temple (0-1). The remaining four team didn't play ranked teams- UAB, UTSA, Tulane, and Memphis. There is a correlation between RPI ranking and non-conference scheduling. The AAC went 2-19 against top 25 teams, four teams played 16 of the 21 matches. (I have the list of the top 25 teams played if anyone is interested and doesn't want to look them all up).
This is what Coach Lamb is talking about when he mentions asking the other AAC coaches to schedule tougher non-con opponents. When USF, and possibly Rice, misses a shot at an NCAA tournament at-large bid, it's because four (or arguably nine) teams had weak non-con schedules. I really hope all AAC teams try to schedule more than two top 25 or at least several top 50 teams. While the top 25 (and top 50) changes from year to year, it doesn't take a psychic to predict five teams that will be in the top 25 at the beginning of next year. I'll do it right now- Nebraska, Texas, Wisconsin, Pitt, and Louisville (bonus teams: Stanford, Oregon, Creighton, Penn State, Kentucky, Florida). Sure, those teams may not want to schedule sub 200 AAC teams, but those low RPI teams need to schedule better than they did...for the good of the conference.
The AAC doesn't have five (or more) top 25 teams like the Big10 does. That means we (AAC teams) have to schedule those top 25 teams during nonconference matches. We would have a much better chance of getting multiple teams in the NCAA tournament if every team played two or more (emphasis on "or more") top 25 teams. This year, USF suffered because of this, even with a top 25 win. Next year it could be WSU, and that worries me.
Sure, there is the post season AAC tournament, but it's not going to be in Wichita next year (I think the Shocker definitely benefitted from playing at home), and that shouldn't be the only way for an AAC team to get into the big dance. The AAC has never gotten three teams into the NCAA tourney. It could, if the all the teams scheduled like WSU, Rice, Tulsa, and USF.