2017 Rankings

[JayPak]

Regarding hosting...Can't confirm that CU definitely put in a bid but it would stun me, and the fans I've asked about it, if they didn't. Booth and players have talked all season about hosting as one of their team goals, and they have total scheduling control of their campus arena.
Is it possible that PBP guy was telling a story about the 2015 season? Creighton was given the #16 seed, but forced to travel to North Carolina because Jays infamously had not put in a bid to host. It solved a problem for the committee, because they had three at-large teams from NC, none of which were seed-worthy, but they didn't want to fly them all to Omaha so the subregional was played on the Tar Heels' floor... and the Jays won it.

[flyingMoose]

The Shockers remain at #18 in this week's RPI. Northern Iowa and Missouri State are at #46 and #48 respectively.

[1972Shocker]

The Shockers remain at #18 in this week's RPI. Northern Iowa and Missouri State are at #46 and #48 respectively.

Obviously moving up from this level will be very difficult to do even if the Shocks win out. We had a week where we won 2 road matches and our non-con opponents won 77% of their games including a win over #11 Kansas.

In fact, with our final 2 regular season matches against Memphis and it's #269 RPI rank I would thingk staying in the Top 20 of the RPI even if we win out may not be in the cards.

[flyingMoose]

In the Coaches' Poll, the Shockers remain at #21.

[flyingMoose]

The Projected RPI for the Shockers is now 17. They have a 44% chance of making the Top 16.

The Projected RPIs of interest in the Valley are Northern Iowa at 41 and Missouri State at 46.

The projected end-of-season record of our opponents is now at 205-104 for .663, a pickup of two wins. I suppose this is reflected in moving up one spot in Projected RPI.

[flyingMoose]

This week's "scary" thoughts on who is in and who is out.

His thoughts on the American

AAC - Despite Temple's jump in RPI, I just don't see an at-large case for them. Now, if they won the rest of their matches, I could see a potential argument, but they would be riding 2 wins over SMU (not even top 50 RPI) and 1 win over Wichita State (if they won out). But I don't see that happening. Wichita State has looked more vulnerable as of late, but I'm not sure I see them dropping at least two matches. Wichita State still has tough matches remaining with SMU and Temple, but with a 2-game lead over both teams in conference standings, I feel pretty confident saying Wichita St should win the conference with ease. SMU and Temple are not NCAA teams, but they may come really close in RPI. Temple has just awful losses, and neither of them have beaten anybody really significant.


and on the Valley

Missouri Valley - Northern Iowa's inconsistent ways are going to catch up with them. Missouri State is 13-0 in conference and I think if they run the table and lose in the conference tournament they should definitely be in. The MVC is getting absolutely murdered in RPI this year, and losing Wichita State made matters even worse. Northern Iowa's inconsistency might make this bid a 1-bid league, but I could easily see the committee letting in UNI as a higher RPI team. But then again, with a very sketchy loss (UMKC) maybe that could be a deal breaker. When in doubt, RPI rules. Keep a very close eye on the valley, UNI has been able to play with the best and struggle against 200+ RPI teams. Really strange.


The jump in RPI by Temple that is referenced brings them to 60 with SMU at 68.

[WuDrWu]

It appears to me there are 21 teams vying for 16 host spots, assuming all 21 put in bids.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that Penn State, Minnesota, Kentucky, Nebraska, Florida, Texas and Stanford are all but locks. Washington and Oregon are near locks too and for the sake of this discussion, not falling behind WSU in any reasonable pecking order. So that's 9 spots.

Now things get dicey from the standpoints both of separating teams and geography. I've got Wisconsin, Utah, Kansas, Michigan State, Iowa State, Creighton, Southern Cal, Colorado, WSU, Cal Poly, BYU, & San Diego. Teams beyond that like UCLA, Louisville, Purdue, Illinois and even Western Kentucky and Colorado State with their gaudy records need too much help.

First things first. WSU has to finish 28-3 or they are out of a host. And that starts with a very tough match in 2 hours so get your butts in gear.

I think we could host ahead of KU as long as the Hawks don't beat Texas in Texas. Also have a sweep of CU which helps (but the loss to Cal Poly certainly gives them an edge over us as does ISU's sweep at the Chuck).

Michigan State is overrated imho. They lose one of the final 6 and they fall behind us in the pecking order. They could lose 2 or more. I think we have a shot at hosting, but the geography hurts. I can't see Kansas and WSU both hosting. ISU probably deserves it more too, Nebraska will for sure, how many I-35ish teams will host?

If we can win out, and KU loses to UT I think we've got a 30-40% chance to host. If KU loses twice, I think it's 60-70%. But it's all moot if we can't get Temple today.

Go Shocks!

[1972Shocker]

I clicked Like on your post WuDrWu but got a error message then clicked again and said I could not undue my previous click. Not sure if this is the same problem flyingMoose and Kung Wu were dealing with or not.

[Kung Wu]

I clicked Like on your post WuDrWu but got a error message then clicked again and said I could not undue my previous click. Not sure if this is the same problem flyingMoose and Kung Wu were dealing with or not.

Try it again. I bet his message box is full. I wonder if the built in Like system behaves the same way. I might shut down the Thanks/Like system if the built-in one doesn't create a stupid personal message for every like. I bet it does though.

[1972Shocker]

Shortly after posting this message I posted a message on the UConn/Temple match thread mentioning WuDrWu using the @ prefix and linking to his post above. I got the Array message. So this all must tied together to full mail boxes.
I like the thanks/likes system but it's not that important. Also deleting thanks/likes is kind of a pain. A guy like WuDrWu especially would spend a lot of time n that.

If we can't restrict the message box to strictly PM's then I vote to shut off the thanks/likes system.

[1972Shocker]

Try it again. I bet his message box is full. I wonder if the built in Like system behaves the same way. I might shut down the Thanks/Like system if the built-in one doesn't create a stupid personal message for every like. I bet it does though.

Just tried it again but got the message that WuDrWu has exceeded his private message quota.

[flyingMoose]

Shortly after posting this message I posted a message on the UConn/Temple match thread mentioning WuDrWu using the @ prefix and linking to his post above. I got the Array message. So this all must tied together to full mail boxes.
I like the thanks/likes system ...

If we can't restrict the message box to strictly PM's ...

I understand what we have now to be an upgrade to the previous system, a new version of the previous system. I thought the previous incarnation was perfect - you were notified of PMs and the Thanks/Likes (T/L names in the old version, counter increments in this one would be okay, too) appeared with no notification.

Are others using the upgrade in a similar uproar? Does the provider have workarounds for the conundrum we are in? Are patches forthcoming?

Plus I get the "Working..." window a lot. Is this version that much slower?

[flyingMoose]

Array

[1972Shocker]

flyingMoose this just a test post.

[WuDrWu]

I've tried emptying my folder many times. I've deleted many, many emails I wanted to hold on to (call me stupid) but it seems a bunch have reappeared from the depths of deletion from the previous board. IE I have messages I know I deleted months if not years ago that are in my folder here now.

I know I owe some of you some responses, I apologize, but I'm sure Kung Wu is going to get it working the way everyone wants soon.