There's something to that
I especially like it because I'd love for major-conference teams to be able to play in-state minnows without being overly penalized for it. Having said that, that change wouldn't move the numbers that much against, for example, Miami. (I picked them because I perceive them as the weakest of the projected 7 seeds and I could click right to their schedule from VT's on RealtimeRPI.) The dropped teams would be:
VT: #284 Citadel, #288 Morehead, #304 Detroit, #337 Houston Baptist, #347 UMES
Miami: #224 Boston U, #227 Princeton, #228 Hawaii, #232 Gardner-Webb, #333 Florida A&M
Just for comparison's sake, UVA: #170 Austin Peay, #190 Monmouth, #200 Savannah State, #205 Lehigh, #250 Hampton - I'm assuming you wouldn't be able to drop a conference game, so #207 Pitt stays on the record, and reading it again, you said exactly that and I didn't look closely enough, but I'm leaving it in anyway because, holy crap, how hilariously bad is Pitt?
That's a major difference in quality of teams played. There's an argument to be made that it's just too difficult to predict which low-majors are going to be in the 220 range and which are going to be in the 320s, but outside of Kentucky and the UW, you guys really played a dog of a non-conference schedule this year, and you're getting (preliminarily) seeded accordingly.
[Post edited by darkstar at 02/28/2018 12:45PM]
(In response to this post by coshokie)
Posted: 02/28/2018 at 12:38PM
+0
Insert a Link
Enter the title of the link here:
Enter the full web address of the link here -- include the "http://" part:
Enter the full web address of the link here -- include the "http://" part:
Current Thread:
|