fordhamfans.com
March 26, 2017, 10:52:49 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Login Register  

Fordham @ St. John's 12/08/2016 Official Game Thread


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Fordham @ St. John's 12/08/2016 Official Game Thread  (Read 3315 times)
drunkle
Freshman
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 388


View Profile
« Reply #180 on: February 17, 2017, 10:16:54 am »

I get the others, but how is Lipscomb, St. Peters and Fairfield higher than us in these rankings?

Ah, good point.  And on closer inspection I guess I should stop blindly parroting kenpom, which is a good source mostly.  Saint Peter's it seems pretty valid.  That's a big discrepancy.   They don't have any win as good as Fordham's big wins.  We beat them handily, of course.  They beat Monmouth.  They beat Manhattan twice handily, once at Draddy, which Fordham couldn't do.  Manhattan is Kenpom 291 so that's a bad loss.  Sacred Heart was a bad loss for Fordham.

Lipscomb obviously lost to Fordham.  Their best win is over Belmont (95).  And they beat Florida Gulf Coast, 212, and Mizzou, but Mizzou is bad this year, Kenpom 154.

Kenpom is adjusted for opponent quality.  I'm not sure if he weeds out Lipscomb's games against DII opponents the way RPI does.  He lists Lipscomb with 17 wins, but 3 were Div II blowouts, including Fisk by 79 points.

Other ranking systems:

Massey Composite (which is a composite of many raters, about 55 or so):

Saint Peter's 143
Lipscomb 150
[Whoops, editing this to take out fairfield; I think I both was confusing with Fairleigh Dickinson AND Rider, which is in the MAAC like Fairfield]
Fordham 212

Massey himself (kenpom likes him and Sagarin better than RPI)

Lipscomb 145
Saint Peter's 157
Fordham 200


Sagarin I know doesn't count DII games and lists Lipscomb with 14 wins:

Saint Peter's 143
Fordham 184
Lipscomb 190

That may be most accurate.  We had a DII game as well with NYIT, of course.  Fordham has by far the best wins of that group.  By this time I think we are clearly better.  And we beat all 3 of those teams.  We have recovered and they seem to have done so as well, to differing degrees.  Almost every system suggests Saint Peter's is better.  But I'd be fairly confident playing them again now.

Old school RPI has it:

Saint Peter's 156
Lipscomb 181
Fordham 190


They were all home games but those are mostly fair fights. Pretty much only Sagarin has Lipscomb behind us.  saint Peter's may be better than we think, although we beat them by a lot; fairly close losses to Notre Dame and Maryland.  We all prefer wins over Rhode Island, VCU and Davidson.

We definitely lost to some cupcakes (Sacred Heart and manhattan), and we went into a tailspin in non-conference and early in the conference.  No doubt.  But the overall picture of our non-conference schedule given the ranking now is it wasn't as bad as it seemed.  St. John's was coming off a horrible season but was so young last year, and although it shouldn't have been a blow out, they are pretty decent, even at 12-15 in the Big East.  ETSU and Arlington are consistently high rated.  Arlington's RPI is 43, so they almost have a chance at an at-large if they lose their conference tournament.

Anyway, you are right to question them being rated more highly.  On closer look I'd say sagarin has it about right    

« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 10:52:55 am by drunkle » Report Spam   Logged
drunkle
Freshman
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 388


View Profile
« Reply #181 on: February 17, 2017, 10:47:09 am »

You beat me to it FDU is ranked 264.  As for our ranking when you lose to teams ranked 291 304 206 you are not going to have a respectable ranking.  As for our OOC schedule it was ranked 255 in the nation.  Better than last year but not murders row. 

Damn, yup, Fairleigh Dickinson.  And they aren't very good.  I should have read ahead before going over all the ranking systems.

And you are right, overall not a murderer's row, but some team's better than we thought. It was losing to the bad teams that really hurt.  But would a really strong OOC have made sense for this team?  Given how they performed?

Some other teams:  Duquesne non-conference rank 340, George Mason 271, the Bonnies 267, UMass 287.  All worse than Fordham.  Richmond 195.  Davidson, Rhode Island and Saint Joe's played tough schedules.  It's funny I just saw that NC State's OOC SOS was 304.  That definitely didn't help them prepare for the ACC, although they did play (and lose to) Illinois and Creighton.

255 is not an outlier for Fordham.  Last year was.  350.  Oof.  I think I read where some thought this year was worse, but clearly not.

2015 237
2014 269
2013 was a clear outlier as far as how good it was, 78
2012 281
2011 252
2010 251
2009 258
2008 163
2007 123
2006 102

Other than 2013, the OOC was last pretty quality the last time Fordham had some decent teams.

I think a lot of the complaints this year was the name recognition of opponents and the times and dates of the games.  Casual fans don't know Arlington is any good.  Traditional rivals Manhattan and St. John's were scheduled.  Been a bit since Hofstra or Iona.  And Notre Dame used to be a thing but not for a real while.  Georgetown in 2007 but before that 1979.

Conference schedules are getting longer so harder to get prime match-ups.  A blue blood like North Carolina.  Gave them a good game in 1988 at a "neutral site."  haha, in Greensboro.  That game went to overtime!  UNC was ranked 4th, and went to the Elite 8. J.R. Reid, Rick Fox, Scott Williams and King Rice.    Actually played them in '83, '84, '86 and '88, too.

Fordham finished kenpom 161 last year, but losing Rhoomes, Thomas and Severe, probably made sense not to ramp up the schedule too much.

They will probably ramp it up as they improve, and next year should be a little tougher.
Report Spam   Logged
Rich93
Class of 93
Hall of Famer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11776


View Profile
« Reply #182 on: February 17, 2017, 10:51:18 am »

The strength of the schedule was good for where we are as a program.  The problem, as with all weak schedules, is you need to rack up the wins. Last year we did that, this year we failed miserably for whatever reason. To be clear there is no excuse to lose to Manhattan and Sacred Heart. 
Report Spam   Logged

WINNING MATTERS
drunkle
Freshman
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 388


View Profile
« Reply #183 on: February 17, 2017, 11:03:36 am »

The strength of the schedule was good for where we are as a program.  The problem, as with all weak schedules, is you need to rack up the wins. Last year we did that, this year we failed miserably for whatever reason. To be clear there is no excuse to lose to Manhattan and Sacred Heart. 


True.  Manhattan being a rivalry game adds a bit more variance.  For example, Duquesne beat Pitt this year.  Beating saint Peter's was actually a decent win.  Lipscomb is not bad but we should win at home.  And no excuses, but Chartouny missed most of Sacred Heart and was awful still against Manhattan.  He was hurt those two games against St. John's and Manhattan.

Which shouldn't have mattered as much as it did.  Still at that point you have lost 4 of the top 6 scorer's and the 3 best players from the first decent Fordham team in 8 or 9 years the year before. And you are 8 games into the season.  An awful loss.

Having gone through all that, the team seems far more prepared to be able to deal with Chartouny absences, as they have done so at times when he has fouled out.

Sorry for the word salad posts and rehashing this stuff.  I am sure everyone is saying Not This Thread Again!  Die St. John's Game Thread, Die!!
Report Spam   Logged
VTRAM
Senior
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2369


View Profile
« Reply #184 on: February 17, 2017, 11:31:56 am »

The strength of the schedule was good for where we are as a program.  The problem, as with all weak schedules, is you need to rack up the wins. Last year we did that, this year we failed miserably for whatever reason. To be clear there is no excuse to lose to Manhattan and Sacred Heart. 

Yeah those games sucked. No way around it. You need to beat Sub 200 teams even if you are banged-up. Just not enough experienced depth on the team yet.
Report Spam   Logged
KPW
Junior
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1436


View Profile
« Reply #185 on: February 17, 2017, 12:06:52 pm »

Sorry for the word salad posts and rehashing this stuff.  I am sure everyone is saying Not This Thread Again!  Die St. John's Game Thread, Die!!
Keep the analysis coming, please! You put out the best coverage of our program available. A pleasure to read. Very insightful and informative.
Report Spam   Logged
drunkle
Freshman
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 388


View Profile
« Reply #186 on: February 17, 2017, 12:17:11 pm »

Yeah those games sucked. No way around it. You need to beat Sub 200 teams even if you are banged-up. Just not enough experienced depth on the team yet.

Since KPW has given me dispensation (and thanks!):


Yes, those games were bad.  And partly the reason why we are, say, Kenpom 200, or Sagarin 184 (with a bullet!), and not higher.  But they are not that anomalous or unusual.  Losses akin to that happen to programs all the time.  Carolina in 2014 beat Louisville, Michigan State, Kentucky and Duke.  But they ended up Kenpom 29.  They lost at home to Belmont (97), @ UAB (156), and at home to NC State (62).  The Belmont loss is to a team 68 spots back in the ratings.  Almost like losing to Sacred Heart, 104 back (especially when your best player goes down).  Inexcusable.  It was the late game execution that was really deplorable against Sacred Heart.  At UAB loss for UNC (127 back of Carolina) is akin to loss to Manhattan (91 back of Fordham).  And really worse.  A team like UNC is heavily favored against UAB, the more you go down the rankings, the lower the spreads between teams.  Per sagarin's current ratings of the teams in those slots, UNC would have been a 10 point favorite.  Fordham would be a 3 point favorite today in Draddy per Sagarin.  If Sacred Heart was played today at Rose Hill Fordham would be about an 11.5 point favorite.  UNC would have been a 12 point favorite at home to Belmont that year (likely Vegas had it much bigger, at the time UNC was ranked higher and Belmont lower, but Belmont was coming off a kenpom top 50 finish).

Of course those were bad losses for UNC.  You get some fire Roy idiots come out of the woodwork now and then.

For Fordham perhap our expectations maybe were too high considering the losses of good vet players, and especially when JC went down.  Those were bad losses but nothing out of the ordinary.  But they piled up.  The team is obviously in a much better place now.  I thought at the time you have to see how it played out, because last year the team got better as the conference season played out.  The OOC last year was ranked 350 and we had a veteran team (JC accepted, but what an addition) that JN had improved, so they racked up wins.  This year we stumbled OOC and early in conference but luckily the players showed a lot more resilience than we did.
Report Spam   Logged
85
Hall of Famer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11278


View Profile
« Reply #187 on: February 17, 2017, 12:18:33 pm »

Its tough on these OOC games. Teams can be so up and down from year to year its a crap shoot when you schedule them and then where they end up during year in the RPI.  You have an idea at the outset but things do tend to change quite a bit.
Report Spam   Logged
rambacker
Hall of Famer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11050


View Profile
« Reply #188 on: February 17, 2017, 04:51:59 pm »

.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 05:15:48 pm by rambacker » Report Spam   Logged
rambacker
Hall of Famer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11050


View Profile
« Reply #189 on: February 17, 2017, 05:15:31 pm »

Conference schedules are getting longer so harder to get prime match-ups.  A blue blood like North Carolina.  Gave them a good game in 1988 at a "neutral site."  haha, in Greensboro.  That game went to overtime!  UNC was ranked 4th, and went to the Elite 8. J.R. Reid, Rick Fox, Scott Williams and King Rice. Actually played them in '83, '84, '86 and '88, too.


I sat behind our bench for the 1984 game vs. UNC as Coach Tom Penders guest. The game was tied at the half and Carolina fans were looking at each other like "what's happening here?' We gave the Tar Heels quite a scare that day. At the post-game Carolina reception I talked to Dean Smith, who said Tom Penders was one of the best young game coaches he had seen, and complimented our backcourt of Tony MacIntosh and Jerry Hobbie. A class act.

Report Spam   Logged
drunkle
Freshman
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 388


View Profile
« Reply #190 on: February 17, 2017, 05:39:21 pm »

I sat behind our bench for the 1984 game vs. UNC as Coach Tom Penders guest. The game was tied at the half and Carolina fans were looking at each other like "what's happening here?' We gave the Tar Heels quite a scare that day. At the post-game Carolina reception I talked to Dean Smith, who said Tom Penders was one of the best young game coaches he had seen, and complimented our backcourt of Tony MacIntosh and Jerry Hobbie. A class act.



Always liked Penders.  He won wherever he went.

I went to Dean's basketball camp in 1977 and went to UNC, class of '86.  Hard to believe I'm older now then he was back when I was a freshman.  Good memories. RIP.
Report Spam   Logged
rambacker
Hall of Famer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11050


View Profile
« Reply #191 on: February 17, 2017, 06:00:58 pm »

Always liked Penders.  He won wherever he went.

I went to Dean's basketball camp in 1977 and went to UNC, class of '86.  Hard to believe I'm older now then he was back when I was a freshman.  Good memories. RIP.

Dean was a really good man.

You are fortunate to have such a great program to support as a UNC grad. Did you go to Fordham for grad school?
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Buy traffic for your forum/website
traffic-masters
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.172 seconds with 13 queries.