Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty

Yeah that's true, it'd be a waste of time to get caught up in every bubble game in early February. What's more disheartening to me is seeing our RPI slowly drop a spot or two day-by-day. What I thought was an 8 spot jump from beating Wisconsin looks like it may only end up being a 2-3 spot jump by Tuesday morning.

I'm okay with the concept of the Tier system. But I agree, the Tiers seem like they need to be reviewed. It's basically saying that winning on the road at Northeastern (that's right... EASTERN, not western) is the equivalent of beating A&M at home since Northeastern is 75th and A&M is 30th. That's clearly stupid. Maybe it should be top 50 road games or something. Now as I'm typing this out, I'm starting to agree with others that the Tier system should probably be abolished. I think it'd be better to supplement RPI with just looking at the teams' best 5-6 wins. That way you get a feel for whether or not the bubble teams are capable of beating good teams. When determining seeds for the better teams (NCAA seeds 1-6 or so), then you start analyzing wins AND losses against top competition. But for the bubble teams, just looking at the wins is the most important since their bubbly resume already implies that they've lost a handful of games to top competition.

Ugh. Washington won. And we’re down to 60 in RPI.

Touché. Although it says 6 of 8 would be close. These projections aren’t going to be exact. Quick glance at their schedule and 6-2 is definitely possible. But yeah, probably just wishful thinking.

Northwestern moving into Q1 isn’t out of the question, either. Just need them in the top 75. They’re at 104 and could jump 10-15 spots with a road win tonight at Wisconsin. Already up 10 points.

Unfortunately I don’t think it’s likely that Michigan stays in the top 30. According to the RPI forecast website they’d have to finish 6-1. Or if they finished 5-2 then beat us in the 4/5 game they’d probably stay in there. So yeah, I think it’s best for us to root for them to go 6-1. As long as we go 5-1 we’d still get the 4 seed. Another thing we need to do is pull for our Quad 2 opponents other than Michigan to stay there.

I thought playing it at MSG was a dumb idea when it was announced. Turns out it was even dumber than I thought.

I'm not downplaying the difficulty of finishing 6-0. While I consider us the favorite in each game, it's hard not to slip up at least once. But I'd still consider finishing 6-0 to be easier than winning the Big Ten tourney. That would require beating Michigan, Purdue, and MSU/OSU. Winning those three in consecutive days is a much bigger challenge than winning four home games and two road games against inferior opponents.

I believe I've read that they no longer consider your "Last Ten" record. That doesn't mean that a late season run won't subconsciously influence the voters decisions, though. Playing well at the end of the year creates a buzz and gives everyone reason to pay attention to your team. So I think it at least helps us in an indirect way. I agree with you that it definitely should influence their decisions. The way your team grows throughout the season should be seen as a positive.

I agree with this for the most part. Like you said, the data reflected by the tiers is already reflected by the RPI. But I think that fact shows us exactly what the tiers are used for: assessing your quality wins. If Team A's RPI is 51 and Team B's RPI is 50, but Team A is 4-7 against the top two tiers and Team B is 2-9, they're probably taking Team A. Yes, the given data implies that Team A likely had more bad losses than Team B, but the committee has shown that they typically like the teams that have proven capable against tournament-level teams because it shows they can win in the tourney. A big win is more significant to the resume than a bad loss. That's why the tiers are used. I'm not saying whether or not the tiers are an appropriate way to determine that, but they do have a use.

Disagree. Lots of ifs ands or buts in that scenario.

It's just another way of breaking it down. You're right, it has its flaws. But so does every other qualification measure. That's why they try their best to consolidate it all and go from there. I'm sure when they're comparing resumes they take note of whether your Tier 1 win was against the #5 team compared to the #30 team.

That's a good question. I don't think it impacts it all that much. Like I said in the last post, the conference RPIs don't change much once conference play begins. We're currently in 6th and I doubt that will change. http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2018/conferencerpi

Because the selection committee doesn't care about your conference. They care about your resume. RPI isn't everything, but it's a pretty good indicator for whether or not you get in. Here's the teams that are in contention for the tournament with their current RPIs. Big East - if the tournament were selected today, they'd have 6 locks and 1 on the bubble: 1. Xavier (3) 2. Villanova (2) 3. Creighton (27) 4. Seton Hall (18) 5. Butler (25) 6. Providence (34) 7. Marquette (53) Big Ten - currently would have 4 locks and 2 on the bubble: 1. Purdue (8) 2. Ohio State (22) 3. Michigan State (23) 4. Nebraska (59) 5. Michigan (32) ... 9. Maryland (58) There's been some discussion on here about how the Big Ten is at a disadvantage for RPI this year because as a whole, the conference started the year so poorly. When you start poorly in the non-con, it's pretty much impossible for your entire conference to improve its RPI because they are only playing against each other. So any time a team within the Big Ten improves its RPI, it comes at the expense of another Big Ten team. This is a flaw in the RPI system, because when a conference has a lot of inexperienced teams that drastically improve as the year goes on (Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State) it doesn't get reflected properly in the rankings.

Agree. If we win out we will get in, no doubt in my mind. We'd be 23-8 with an RPI in the low 40s. Even if we lost to Michigan in the 4/5 game, our RPI wouldn't drop much at all. Losing to a high-RPI team can be better than beating a bad team. For example, Maryland actually jumped us last night after losing at Purdue. That was better for them than a home win would have been against Rutgers. If our RPI is in the top 50, I see no way the committee keeps us out with the way we're currently playing. I stand by my statement from last week that 23 is the number that makes me feel comfortable. The only way I could see 23 not being enough is if we finish 5-1 and end up with the 5 seed, meaning our 23rd and final win would be against the 12 seed, followed by a loss to Michigan in the 4/5 game. But the only way a 5-1 finish would not result in the 4 seed is if Michigan wins out, which is unlikely given their schedule. 22 wins would make it really close, IMO. I think it might be enough if we went 4-2, secured the 4 seed, beat Michigan in the 4/5 game, then lost a close one to Purdue. Any other scenario with only 22 wins, and my bet is that we're on the outside looking in.

Yep. We’re probably considered anywhere between a two and a four seed right now in the NIT. A bad finish would drop us out because the 6-8 seeds are typically taken by automatic qualifiers.

KU, WVU, and Texas all looking at him. Our advantage here is proximity (as long as KU doesn’t offer). Fingers crossed.

Nobody would be happy with the results if we miss the tourney this year. Before the season I would have said tourney or bust for Miles. But now that it’s playing out, this might be the only scenario where the NIT might be enough to keep him. We clearly look like a tourney team, but may have just turned on the switch too late. With next year’s potential it’d be crazy to fire him. Our top two players are already threats to leave if Miles is still here. I’d be shocked if they’d stay if they had to get acquainted with a new staff and learn a new system at their ages. I bet they’re ready to cash some paychecks whether it’s here or overseas.

Are you saying you think there's a chance he's fired after this year? Because unless we miss the NIT, that's not going to happen. There's way too much potential for next season to blow this up now. For a program who's #1 goal is to win its first NCAA tournament game, we wouldn't throw that opportunity away by canning Miles and breaking up this team.

It's absolutely in the realm of possibility. I really like our odds of winning a game if we can manage to get in. I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you ask what I would do. I've already said I'm in favor of making sure his contract is four years for recruiting purposes. Winning a game in the tournament wouldn't change that for me. If he makes a run to the Sweet 16 I could get behind a longer extension. But until he starts recruiting the HS ranks at a higher level I'm going to remain skeptical. Maybe he can continue to attract transfers, but it seems like a second rate formula for building a consistent program. I will say I'm excited to see if Xavier Johnson is the real deal. Seems like he should be rated higher than he is. Otherwise, the 2016-2018 classes have been a bit of a disappointment with all of them falling outside the top 50.

I haven't necessarily committed to one way or the other. Just bringing it up for discussion. And yeah, I think the tiers are very important. So you're right, it's important for Maryland to stay in Tier 2. Look at their schedule, if they finish 3-5 (very possible) they could easily drop out of Tier 2. So yeah, I definitely agree we want them to lose tonight to Purdue. We don't want to be up against any team with that caliber of a road win. But I'll be rooting for them to go 4-4 or 5-3 down the stretch. That should keep them in T2 but not ahead of us for a tourney bid.

I know this has been discussed on the board a bit, but I'm not convinced we want Maryland losing. If Maryland ended the year on a nice run but we beat them, it'd be a good win for our resume. With our lack of signature wins, I think strengthening our best wins (BC, Minnesota, @NW, Michigan, and in this scenario, Maryland) is really important. Even if it means that Maryland builds a better bubble resume in the process. They're just one team we're competing against for spots, but adding another quality win could boost us over multiple other teams. And like I've said before, conference standings don't matter. The committee will not say that the Big Ten only deserves five teams, meaning they'd have to omit Nebraska or Maryland. They look at resumes on an individual basis. If Nebraska and Maryland are both deemed to have worthy resumes, they'll both get in.

I'm on board for now. Just saying I'm still very skeptical of him and that we shouldn't consider him successful for building a bubble team in Year Six. I love the potential this team has to close out the season and for next year, and for that reason I think you need to have him under contract for four years for recruiting purposes. If it turns out we tank next year or the year after, I can deal with riding his contract out and having some more crappy Nebrasketball seasons given the current state of excitement in Memorial Stadium.

Agree with this. Miles has proven that he can land high-end transfer talent. If we want to be known as Transfer U, I guess that's fine as long as it's producing March Madness berths. But I'm wondering how often the Petteways, Palmers, and Copelands really come around. And when they don't, we've seen what these Miles teams are like with just his HS recruits. I love Glynn and Roby, but if they were options 1 and 2 this year we'd be bad again. It's a down year in the Big Ten and we're contending for 4th place and are currently on the outside looking in for the dance. That shouldn't be the bar we set for this program. Barring a major collapse, Miles has clearly earned himself another year because of the in-season improvement. And they could be really dangerous next year if Palmer and Copeland stay. But I'm certainly not sold on him being our coach of the future. This program can really do great things with our facilities and fan support. The media is astounded at our home court advantage every time they visit. Imagine if we were actually a Final Four contender. I don't think we should hitch our wagon to Tim Miles just because he's doing things that the last two coaches couldn't.

Good point. For RPI, it would be better for us to lose a road game. Here's what our overall RPI "record" would be under the following scenarios: 5-1 with a road loss: 17.2 - 6.6 = 72.3% WP 5-1 with a home loss: 18.0 - 7.4 = 70.9% WP And actually, that difference could equate to a five spot difference in the RPI standings. So I take back my point from the last post. It might not be a negligible difference. But at the same time, it looks better to the committee if we have more road wins (and could be better for our Quadrant records, too). So in the end, maybe it's just a wash?