Current state of the program

[quote="dholcombe"]Evidence for improvement: The games prior to UTPA with the exception of the Montana game.

Really? Lost to Ohio U by 29, barely beat Lewis & Clark by 3, Idaho State, lost to WASU by 12, New Mexico by 15, no true road wins - none, played Portland Bible College, and twice against Concordia. Played reasonably well at home in an 8 point loss at home to UNLV. Granted, played a struggling Kentucky squad but it's still Kentucky - but they weren't competitive in one of the few years it is possible to be competitive with Kentucky.

That's improvement?? Really???

There was a brief glimmer of hope after the Kentucky loss. Four out of five wins including the Bradley game....then UTPA happened.

It was no a terribly difficult non-conference schedule when you look at it as a whole.

goldhelmet wrote:
It was no a terribly difficult non-conference schedule when you look at it as a whole.

Three schools in the conference had tougher this year.

Gonzaga, BYU, San Fransisco.


http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/sos

PurpleGeezer wrote:

goldhelmet wrote:
It was no a terribly difficult non-conference schedule when you look at it as a whole.

Three schools in the conference had tougher this year.

Gonzaga, BYU, San Fransisco.


http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/sos

RPI is a very dubious metric, but Jerry Palm has profited handsomely from it's overuse.

What Exactly Does the RPI Measure ?

The RPI is based on winning percentage. While there are some "secret" modifications made on top of the rating, the core of the rating consists of the following:

Parameter % of
Rating
Team Winning % 25 %
Opponent's
Winning % 50 %
Opponent's
Opponent's
Winning % 25 %

It cannot be overemphasized that 75% of the rating comes not from anything the particular team in question actually accomplished on the floor, but how its opponents fared. Understanding that point is an important step in obtaining a clear understanding the RPI.

The other WCC teams had weak non-conference schedules as well. That doesn't make ours particularly tough. It was very average at best.

No, there is nothing secret in the basketball RPI. There was a modification made a few years ago the made an away win = 1.4 wins. Neutral court wins = 1.0 wins, and home wins = .6 wins, to reflect home court advantage. Otherwise anybody can compute it.
http://www.rpiratings.com/WhatisRPI.php

The men haven't used any secret adjustments since 2004.

To just out of hand dismiss RPI is convenient for whoever doesn't agree with the results, but it is as good a predictor as any other method, so if you want to do more than just wave your arms around, tell us which metric you want to use.

And the relative strength of the elements in the RPI isn't 25-50-25, as it turns out, because the total spread in the numbers across D1 isn't the same for all elements.

An idividual team's schedule can be anywhere from perfect wins to total losses, while if you average the opponents results, there is no team that approaches having opponents with all wins or losses, and there really isn't a whole lot of variance with opponents of opponents.

So the end result is that your result counts for about half of the RPI total, and your opponents results count for half also. The whole purpose of the RPI is to be able to compare teams across the country by comparing who they played.

And while it is true that the RPI has a big factor that depends on other team's results, that is EXACTLY what you are saying about UP's opponents, that they were weaker, isn't it?

Ad it happens, UP's opponents were weaker than only three out of the nine team conference

I didn't say anything was "secret" about RPI. It's flaws are well documented.

If you want to say the Pilots had a "tough" non-conference schedule, because other teams in the conference has weak non-conference schedules, I can't stop you.

The cold hard truth is that they were not competitive, and got blown out on the road on numerous occasions. You can't spin this any other way - this is a bad basketball team and it has not improved at all this year, and that was the original point. So let's not get sidetracked because you are contented with the status quo. So if I don't agree with you, you dismiss what I have to say as "waving my arms around"? I don't dimiss the RPI "out of hand". It has been discussed at length by knowledgable basketball people.

RPI is an acronym for Really Poor Indicator. Sagarin and Kenpom.com are more reliable. The "organizational tool" organizes for weak minds. Jay Bilas.

http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/rpi.html

We can get in a sidetracked argument about RPI, which really avoids the state of this program and more importantly, what needs to change. That is difficult to do when some like you seem contended with the status quo, or at the very least, set the bar really low and continue to fight tooth and nail to deny the obvious . Don't you want more than that? Do you enjoy watching bad basketball?

goldhelmet wrote:I didn't say anything was "secret" about RPI. It's flaws are well documented.

If you want to say the Pilots had a "tough" non-conference schedule, because other teams in the conference has weak non-conference schedules, I can't stop you.

The cold hard truth is that they were not competitive, and got blown out on the road on numerous occasions. You can't spin this any other way - this is a bad basketball team and it has not improved at all this year, and that was the original point. So let's not get sidetracked because you are contented with the status quo. So if I don't agree with you, you dismiss what I have to say as "waving my arms around"? I don't dimiss the RPI "out of hand". It has been discussed at length by knowledgable basketball people.

RPI is an acronym for Really Poor Indicator. Sagarin and Kenpom.com are more reliable. The "organizational tool" organizes for weak minds. Jay Bilas.

http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/rpi.html

We can get in a sidetracked argument about RPI, which really avoids the state of this program and more importantly, what needs to change. That is difficult to do when some like you seem contended with the status quo, or at the very least, set the bar really low and continue to fight tooth and nail to deny the obvious . Don't you want more than that? Do you enjoy watching bad basketball?

Like I said, dissing the RPI is really fashionable with people who don't like the results.

You are just going in circles. pomeroy and sagarin aren't any better trackers of teams strengths , as it turns out. They are designed as predictors and include data from other seasons.

And they don't tell you opponents strength of schedule directly, so they are useless for this discussion.

Your cute acronym for the RPI shows just how little you understand the RPI, and also demonstrates you have a cavalier attitude for the facts.

So every time you say we had a weaker schedule than the rest of the teams in the conference, I'll tell you you are spewing crap with the same level of statistical accuracy you seem willing to use.



I don't like losing anymore than you do, but talking about a weak schedule is just irrelevant to the discussion. You are the one getting sidetracked.

That isn't the problem, it's being competitive with the schedule we have. Last year it was in the top 20 schedules in the country. We're you happier then?

wrv wrote:DD: are you seriously suggesting your sources comments are about 2015-2016.

Nope!

When I inferred UP is looking for a shooter and a Nicholas replacement (common knowledge, really), you stated,

".......there would have to be two scholarships available, not the one we know of."

"Change coming to the roster?"

I stated, "Not necessarily." Meaning UP has one open scholarship for next year and it is not anticipated there will be other openings next year. The staff is recruiting for this coming high school graduation year ('13), the year after that ('14), and the year after that ('15).

The team needs a shooter NOW, but there is also a need to work Ryan's replacement into the team for one year while Ryan is still around....it is a dilemma, but one that will be resolved whenever someone that has been offered a scholarship finally accepts....either a shooter or a 4....hopefully a shooter!

Sorry if I mislead you…..

PurpleGeezer wrote:

goldhelmet wrote:I didn't say anything was "secret" about RPI. It's flaws are well documented.

If you want to say the Pilots had a "tough" non-conference schedule, because other teams in the conference has weak non-conference schedules, I can't stop you.

The cold hard truth is that they were not competitive, and got blown out on the road on numerous occasions. You can't spin this any other way - this is a bad basketball team and it has not improved at all this year, and that was the original point. So let's not get sidetracked because you are contented with the status quo. So if I don't agree with you, you dismiss what I have to say as "waving my arms around"? I don't dimiss the RPI "out of hand". It has been discussed at length by knowledgable basketball people.

RPI is an acronym for Really Poor Indicator. Sagarin and Kenpom.com are more reliable. The "organizational tool" organizes for weak minds. Jay Bilas.

http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/rpi.html

We can get in a sidetracked argument about RPI, which really avoids the state of this program and more importantly, what needs to change. That is difficult to do when some like you seem contended with the status quo, or at the very least, set the bar really low and continue to fight tooth and nail to deny the obvious . Don't you want more than that? Do you enjoy watching bad basketball?

Like I said, dissing the RPI is really fashionable with people who don't like the results.

You are just going in circles. pomeroy and sagarin aren't any better trackers of teams strengths , as it turns out. They are designed as predictors and include data from other seasons.

And they don't tell you opponents strength of schedule directly, so they are useless for this discussion.

Your cute acronym for the RPI shows just how little you understand the RPI, and also demonstrates you have a cavalier attitude for the facts.

So every time you say we had a weaker schedule than the rest of the teams in the conference, I'll tell you you are spewing crap with the same level of statistical accuracy you seem willing to use.



I don't like losing anymore than you do, but talking about a weak schedule is just irrelevant to the discussion. You are the one getting sidetracked.

That isn't the problem, it's being competitive with the schedule we have. Last year it was in the top 20 schedules in the country. We're you happier then?

It wan't my acronym, it was a quote from Jay Bilas, who knows a little more than you or I do.

If you had read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I never said we had a weaker schedule than all the other teams in the conference. I said that just because there were other teams in the conference with weaker schedules, that doesn't make ours tough. Using winning % as an indicator of strength of schedule is a joke and it's the whole foundation of the RPI.

I only responded to the strength of the non-conference schedule because non-conference results were used by someone else as a sign of improvement.

Hey everyone; thanks for your comments so far. We do seem to be drilling down a bit too far into word selection and phrasing here... this topic obviously stirs a lot of passion in folks--and that is a good thing. But, that also means we sometimes mis-interpret or do not choose the best wording...

Can we re-focus our discussion on our feelings about the program (and not going after each other), what we think we can do from here, etc...

I know that our voices are being heard--lets use this opportunity to move forward. Thank you!

GO PILOTS!

Wait....WAIT!


You can't have somebody bring up Jay without a discussion of his relevance....

Aw hell. Never mind

But I don't think we can leave this without Jay's own assessment of his own genius.

Why is The Bilas Index the most reliable measure to capture the various dimensions of basketball worth? One could point to the scholarly recipe of the best metrics in the game, from KenPom.com to Sagarin to Basketball Prospectus to ESPN's magnificent Basketball Power Index (which is, immodestly, the best of all metrics), but that would be facile interpretation.

The Bilas Index is so reliable because the data is brought together and interpreted by The Bilastrator himself. With The Bilas Index, you have all of the answers relating to college basketball, and all of the answers are absolutely right. You're welcome.~Jay Bilas

Kinda makes you all tingley about him, don't it?

The best of all metrics has the UP SOS exactly the same as the RPI SOS is.

He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak. 
Michel de Montaigne

I'll leave you all to the great fun of pretending it's our schedule and not our wins that are at issue. We can lose to anybody at any part of any computer rankings.

Jay Bilas or Pomeroy or RPI aren't part of the problem. the only reason to bring them up is because you have a sour taste in your mouth and its fun to beat up on the team because you aren't happy.

Gold Helmet and Geezer both have valid points. My opinion on the discussion of RPI and other rankings are that they are only relevant when in a position of using them to bolster your NCAA tournament bid selection, of which UP isnt in the discussion.

I will add that this years schedule imho wasnt weak nor was it as tough as last year. It was a decent blend that could have benefitted from a little tweeking like the Portland Bible game etc.
Ohio, Kentucky, New Mexico, WSU, Colorado State and UNLV are good examples of money games that tested the team. CS Bakersfield, Portland State, Montana State etc were examples of games that UP should have either won or ended up very competitive in. Throw a couple patsies in there and you have a decent OOC lineup.

GH mentioned that UP got hammered "on the road". Yes, playing Ohio and Kentucky can end up like that. In fact the Kentucky game at the Rose Garden in 2010 was a blowout as well. It happens and you take those games with an ESPN showing to bolster your budget.

In fact the only two losses that UP had in OOC that were head scratchers were Montana State and Texas Pan AM. The others- Ohio, New Mexico, Kentucky, UNLV, and Colorado State were all very solid opponents and many other WCC teams would have suffered the same losses as UP did.

It could be argued that in OOC, the Pilots pretty much won the games they were supposed to win (minus the two mentioned), and lost the ones they werent supposed to win. Playing WSU to a 12 point loss, UNLV to an 8 point loss, even New Mexico to a 15 point loss werent blow outs, they were competitive games. And the Bradley win was a good indicator at the time.

Fast forward to the conference schedule. Again imho, the Pilots should have won the first two games vs San Diego and Pepperdine. Kevin wasnt back yet and of course David went down in the San Diego game. If and yes a big if, they had taken care of those two games would we have been having this discussion?

Next game is a win vs LMU. Good win, the boys played well and took one on the road. Could have easily been 3-0 at this point.

Now it gets interesting. Gonzaga, St Marys, USF and BYU. Yes all at home and an 0-4 record during that stretch. USF was a buzzer beater and inho the other three games are ones that went as they should. Top three teams in the conference etc etc.
Then they turn around and play Santa Clara and St Marys. I dont care what anyone says, Santa Clara is a demn good team and they showed it last week.

Point is this. UP didnt play that badly in OOC, and to date they have had a grueling conference schedule. The test will be how they handle the next two games, LMU and Pepperdine at home. Both are winnable but more importantly seeing how they actually compete will be a better guage on how this team is performing.

This team has better personel than the record suggests. Im not saying they are at the level of GU or St Marys but they are better than this.

Who does the staff try to sign with the one available scholarship? Whats the most pressing need? Hard to say. DD talks about both the need for a shooting guard and also a replacement for Nicholas. Both are valid points.

I ask you this. Is UP content with having one incoming point guard as a freshman and hoping that Carr can make a timely and successful return off his injury? I believe David just had surgery so 8 months would put his return to September.
The team has 5 of its players wrapped up in the 4 and 5 spot. Nicholas, Thomas, Barker, Ehlers, and Bailey. The 2 and 3 guard have Korey, Kevin, Tanner, Bryce and Oskars . Point guards would be Wintering and Carr with Ahern available.
I suppose the most pressing would be either a point guard or a shooting guard but if one just looks at the numbers the PG would be more pressing.

As a casual observer of the Pilot program, I hope that UP can give Reveno a mulligan this season.

Bottom line, the WCC has and always will be a guard driven league.

Looking at SMC's run of success the past few years, they have had great fortune in Mills to McConnell to Dellavedova

If UP can bring in a talent like TJ Campbell every couple years, the UP program trends higher

I never said the schedule was the problem geezer. I've maintained all along that it is talent evaluation, recruiting, and player development, and I've been consistent from the get go on that point.

If you look back on the thread, I'm not the one who brought up the schedule or RPI, and those issues are really not important - they are side issues. My point was that we have been blown out way too many times - by double digits in both non-conference and WCC play. Someone else brought up that the non-conference play demonstrated improvement, and I disagreed. You were actually the one who brought up RPI, and then we both got sidetracked from there.

I think we can shelf this conversation about the schedule and performance indexes, because the eye test is glaringly clear that the program has not improved this year.

Urika wrote:As a casual observer of the Pilot program, I hope that UP can give Reveno a mulligan this season.

Thanks, Urika... the problem with a mulligan is that he got one last season. And really, the end of the season before that... and there does not appear to be a game-changing factor on the horizon for the near future.

It will be interesting to see how the rest of this season pans out... if the wheels continue to fall off (I could argue they already have), it will be a difficult decision for sure. The items that are directly in Rev's control (recruiting & recruiting decisions/strategy, player development and in-game x's & o's) have been suspect of late. On a personal level, we like him, and he is a wonderful representative of the university otherwise... that is what makes this difficult.

……the attitude you take is a decision you make. And each day you can choose to be positive or choose to be negative. You can see things through a set of eyes that sees the good or a set that sees the bad.

The choice is yours and enthusiasm is a force multiplier in any endeavor. How are you reminding yourself and your people to look at the day and whatever adversity it may bring with a positive set of eyes?

The bottom line is that if it were easy, everyone would be doing it and everyone would be successful but it’s not easy. Nothing worthwhile ever is. Remind yourself and your people of this fact and that those who stay with you will be champions.

Excerpt from an article by John Brubaker about the parallels in developing a competitive edge in business and in sports….

http://www.tlnt.com/2013/01/31/dealing-with-adversity-those-who-stay-will-be-champions/

We are all depressed about our team's performance. Could be worse, I guess. Found this rant on Jon Wilner's College Hotline:

Corty says:
January 31st, 2013 at 8:25 am

Santa Clara put alot of money into their program in the last 6 years via Keating salary, recruiting budget, and the overall program (gym big screen, strength coach etc.).

What exactly have they got for it? There are 4 more losses coming w/ trips to BYU, Zags, and a home and home w/ SMC. This senior laded team will finish 9-7 in league (10-6 if they steal an SMC game). Is 4th place what all the $ went for? Is this the best SCU can do w/ the genius of KK recruiting and coaching?

Look at what is left on next year’s team. A center who shoots 36% from the line. A power forward who shoots 43% from line. A would be senior 6-9 power forward backup who avgs 1.8 a game. And don’t forget about the undersized backcourt. The cupboard is bare.

That’s OK though, SCU will find a way to 20 wins while scheduling home games vs. Cal Poly, Simpson U, Utah Valley, and Pacific Union. CIT here we come!!!!

Boy I miss the days of at least saying SCU was mediocre while playing a real schedule w/ a team that was decent to watch. But at least the broncos are the best of the second tier!!!!!

DoubleDipper wrote:

……the attitude you take is a decision you make. And each day you can choose to be positive or choose to be negative. You can see things through a set of eyes that sees the good or a set that sees the bad.

The choice is yours and enthusiasm is a force multiplier in any endeavor. How are you reminding yourself and your people to look at the day and whatever adversity it may bring with a positive set of eyes?

The bottom line is that if it were easy, everyone would be doing it and everyone would be successful but it’s not easy. Nothing worthwhile ever is. Remind yourself and your people of this fact and that those who stay with you will be champions.

Excerpt from an article by John Brubaker about the parallels in developing a competitive edge in business and in sports….

http://www.tlnt.com/2013/01/31/dealing-with-adversity-those-who-stay-will-be-champions/

Yes, attitude is very, very important. However, I don't think that is the problem with this team. I think they are trying as hard as they can. But positive attitude alone is not enough. You have to know that you are doing the right things every day to get better. If your plan is bad, and you are doing the wrong things every day, but you are positive about doing those things which aren't making you better, well, you are a dog chasing his tail.

We've had several teams and coaches who have tried their best, but still weren't able to field competitive teams. The character of these players and coaches is very good, but obviously there is something wrong with the plan itself, or execution of the plan. That's the really hard part... figuring out exactly what are the problem areas - the real problems - and developing a plan to correct them. I think we're still in the stage of sorting out the roots of the things that prevent us from being competitive. Once you know you've identified the real problems and have a good plan, then you can go about executing that plan each and every day with the positive attitude and perseverance in the face of adversity that will inevitably arise.

I figured it out. Definetly had a dream where I was called upon to play for the Pilots and Jake Ehlers and I dominated San Fran. But I realized it was a dream when during the post game handshakes Rex Walters was actually a nice guy and gracious loser. Literally. That was my dream.

Hey... At least we aren't getting sued!

An_Undergrad wrote:Hey... At least we aren't getting sued!

Well, not so far this year, anyway.

PilotNut wrote:

PilotNut wrote:I decided to research WCC regular-season records of recent coaches. I want to make it clear that I am not advocating for a coaching staff change; I am looking for progress/growth in the program, relative to the rest of the WCC:

Larry Steele (7 seasons): 25-73, 0.255
Rob Chavez (7 seasons): 39-59, 0.398
Michael Holton (5 seasons): 20-50, 0.286
Eric Reveno (7th season): 36-55, 0.396 (through the 1/5/12 game @Pepp)

So, currently, we are doing better than Holton & Steele, but slightly worse than Chavez (who also had a WCC tourney championship). I cant imagine that the 0.396 will improve this season, in fact the trend is significantly down the past 2.5 seasons or so.

Just food for thought... are we growing/improving?

I just thought I would update the results. We are now 37-58, 0.389 in WCC play under Rev with tonight's loss vs. USF. The next 3 games are BYU, @SCU, @SMC.

Update, through the home loss to Pepp: We are now 38-62 in WCC play under Reveno, for a 0.380 winning percentage. Ugh... that is an ugly trend. With the 5 remaining regular season games being @USF, @BYU, USD, SCU, @GU, I am not seeing a game I can point to as a good chance for a win...

While I am not a fan of the Coach at USF, lets compare results. USF recruited 9 new players for this year, and while you can question the strategy of over-recruiting, they are clearly getting higher-level talent to sign than we are. Those 9 new faces have helped USF to a 4-7 WCC record so far, including a win @BYU (and OOC over St. Johns). Looking at their losses, they were quite close (Link to USF results). As we have all stated, recruiting is a serious concern for the program right now; not only do I feel that we are not gaining on the top of the conference, I feel that we are slipping backward overall.

Nut - I've wondered this to myself a lot, and i will say it out loud hear for the first time. Why do you think it is that given those numbers, Rev seems to have so much support from the fan base than his three predecessors? I know he had two 20 win seasons, but Chavez did also, and also a WCC title to boot. He beat Santa Clara teams with Steve Nash on them. I know he inherited Chatman/Ross in his first year, but still, he was the only coach who won a WCC title in a 40 year time span, and no other coach has done so since. I know, his ensuing recruiting classes were awful and I have no problem with his dismissal - and I really can't argue with Steele or Holton as well.

But with all that said, Reveno's support seems to be much, much stronger than any of those coaches, and Chavez's record is almost identical. I'm just wondering what is it that makes Reveno so much more popular ? His downward trajectory after two 20 win seasons is almost identical to that of Chavez after his first two years. I'm not saying he should be fired after this year, but there seems to be a subjective favor for Reveno that the other coaches did not enjoy, given similar circumstances - or at the very least, fast approaching those circumstances. I just remember Chavez for example, having very little support, if any, in his 6th/7th years.

goldhelmet wrote:Why do you think it is that given those numbers, Rev seems to have so much support from the fan base than his three predecessors?

Maybe because he is so good at Twittering? People feel like they know him.