masthead.jpg

switchconcepts.com, U3dpdGNo-a25, DIRECT rubiconproject.com, 14766, RESELLER pubmatic.com, 30666, RESELLER, 5d62403b186f2ace appnexus.com, 1117, RESELLER thetradedesk.com, switchconcepts, RESELLER taboola.com, switchconceptopenrtb, RESELLER bidswitch.com, switchconcepts, RESELLER contextweb.com, 560031, RESELLER amazon-adsystem.com, 3160, RESELLER crimtan.com, switch, RESELLER quantcast.com, switchconcepts , RESELLER rhythmone.com, 1934627955, RESELLER ssphwy.com, switchconcepts, RESELLER emxdgt.com, 59, RESELLER appnexus.com, 1356, RESELLER sovrn.com, 96786, RESELLER, fafdf38b16bf6b2b indexexchange.com, 180008, RESELLER nativeads.com, 52853, RESELLER theagency.com, 1058, RESELLER google.com, pub-3515913239267445, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
February 17, 2005

Some Non-Con Comparisons

Filed under: Uncategorized — Chas @ 11:07 pm

I’m going to blather on a little more about the non-con. Two things that really hurt Pitt in the RPI with their non-con. Playing only one road game, and losing to Bucknell. The RPI formula was tweaked this year. A road win is far more valuable than a home win. Conversely, a road loss is not so bad as a home loss. Neutral site games are in the middle.

I’m going to set out the non-con schedules of 4 teams with significantly higher RPIs than Pitt.

Boston College (RPI = 5)
Average RPI of Opponents = 139.64
Opponent —– RPI
Maine ———– 212
New Hampshire – 249
Clemson ——— 103
Long Island —— 245
@ UCLA ——— 37
Holy Cross ——- 38
Boston U ——— 41
Yale ————- 161
Duquesne ——– 287
Kent St. ———– 39
@ UMass ——— 124

Duke (RPI = 6)
Average RPI of Opponents = 121
Opponent ——– RPI
Tenn.-Martin —— 307
@ Davidson ——– 64
UNC-Greensboro — 180
Mich. St. ———– 17
@ Valpo ———– 185
Toledo ————- 84
Ill.-Chicago ——– 106
@ Oklahoma ——- 21
Princeton ———- 101
Temple ———— 91
St. John’s ———- 175 (Feb. 26)

Syracuse (RPI = 13)
Average RPI of Opponents = 158.14
Opponent ——– RPI
Northern Colo. —– 291 (Neutral Site)
Princeton ———- 101 (Neutral Site)
Miss. St. ———– 24 (Neutral Site)
Memphis ———- 109 (Neutral Site)
@ Siena ———– 292
St. Bonaventure — 323
Colgate ———— 235
Oklahoma St. —— 4 (Loss) (Neutral Site)
Binghampton —— 171
Drexel ————- 72
Cornell ————- 205
Rice —————- 94
Albany ————- 183
Hofstra ————- 110

UConn (RPI = 26)
Average RPI of Opponents = 145.50
Opponent ——– RPI
Buffalo ————- 53
Fla. Int’l ———— 210
Northeastern ——- 78
@ UMass ———– 124 (Loss)
Rice —————– 94
Cent. Conn. ———- 250
Sacred Heart ——– 322
Quinnipiac ———– 295
@ Oklahoma ——— 21 (Loss)
UNC —————– 8 (Loss)

This is what I’m talking about. Some balance. You can schedule a non-con with 1, maybe 2 games against teams in the lower 6th (271-330), but you need to counter with some teams in the top-50. If you are going to play primarily all your games at home, you need to take a reasonable risk and schedule some mid-majors.

For Pitt, this should be easy. Geographically, there are MAC teams nearby that will come to Pittsburgh for the exposure and the money. I accept playing the Duquesne, Robert Morris, even the St. Francis-PA. Everyone plays the nearby patsies. It’s another thing to import Howard, Loyola-MD and Coppin State from the Maryland-DC area.

Look at the RPI teams ahead of Pitt. There are only 7 teams who have Strength of Schedule rankings lower than Pitt’s (as of Feb. 13). All 7, by the way are from the non-power conferences and are hurt by their conference schedule. Pitt, even with the BE play has, at this point, a SOS of 137. There’s weak scheduling, and then there is pathetic scheduling.





Powered by WordPress © PittBlather.com

Site Meter