RPI

[norcalfanParticipant]

No matter how LU finishes this year, Brett Reed needs to play top teams pre season next year. Who cares if we lose, as long as we are a tougher team come league and playoffs. LU is getting handled. We are not tough. The tough players are sitting on the darn bench. McCarthy can handle himself, let him play for goodness sakes. Stop going with the same old rotatation, mix it up a little.

[LU65Participant]

Here we go again, norcalfan. We’re about to agree to disagree.

First, I do side with you on the need for a tougher OOC schedule next year. Perhaps you’ll see it in 2011-12 with an additional year of maturity to handle it. Our team was one of the youngest in the league this year (yes, I know, so was Bucknell’s) at an average year’s experience of 1.55 (236th ranked………while, for example, American weighed in at 2.29 years or 30th in the nation) and perhaps not ready for more than they could handle in the 2010-11 campaign. Who knows. Like so many other issues, there’s a lot that goes on behind the scenes in booking pre-season opponents, not the least of which is the wishes of the other team, compatible open dates, travel needs, etc. Let’s see what 2011-12 brings. I think we’ll both be happy with the outcome.

As for the tough players sitting on the bench, you may be right in terms of personal fouls but not always right in terms of points and rebounds per minute of playing time. I contend that each player was given a chance to prove themselves earlier in the year- some did and some didn’t. Some have come on strong late in the year and just now appear ready for more playing time, e.g., McCarthy. There’s always next year in those cases. What more can I say? Stats are stats. Even then it’s not that simple. Example: You need a potential three point threat from one of your big men, you’re not going to insert Mineri or Adams into the lineup before Hamilton or Greiner. And, let it be known that Mineri is my "home town" boy from northern New Jersey – just like Adams is your home town guy from California. These are guys we each pull for night-in and night-out.

Player Minutes/Game Pts./Minute Rebounds/Minute Personal Fouls/Minute

Knutson 29.7 .408 .194 .066
Greiner 20.4 .315 .208 .084
Hamilton 15.9 .144 .110 .144
Mineri 9.2 .141 .182 .173
Safstrom 8.6 .178 .211 .227
Adams 8.4 .179 .145 .217
McCarthy 5.1 .303 .157 .167

Like a few other loyal fans, I contend there’s another dominating performance or two left in us – just like the Army game from February 12th. In that contest all systems were "go" as the Mountain Hawks won by 14. We shot 41.9% from the field, recorded 16 assists, had seven players with 7 or more points, and pulled down 42 boards. Michael Ojo’s play that day {4-10 (FGs), 3-8 (3’s), 5-6 (FTs), 16 pts. and 4 boards} keyed that win in support of a tiring CJ. Since then, the team has won just one game while losing three. Coincidently, Michael has been a non-factor in each while recovering from the flu. Let’s see what happens come Wednesday night.

GO LEHIGH

[Bison137Participant]

"LU65" wrote:

First, I do side with you on the need for a tougher OOC schedule next year. Perhaps you’ll see it in 2011-12 with an additional year of maturity to handle it. Our team was one of the youngest in the league this year (yes, I know, so was Bucknell’s) at an average year’s experience of 1.55 (236th ranked………while, for example, American weighed in at 2.29 years or 30th in the nation) and perhaps not ready for more than they could handle in the 2010-11 campaign. Who knows. Like so many other issues, there’s a lot that goes on behind the scenes in booking pre-season opponents, not the least of which is the wishes of the other team, compatible open dates, travel needs, etc. Let’s see what 2011-12 brings. I think we’ll both be happy with the outcome.

While youth could theoretically explain the weak ooc schedule, it appears to actually be much more of a philosophy of not seeking out challenging games. The reason I say this is that in 2009-10, when LU had a very good, very experienced team, its ooc SOS was ranked #301 (RPI). In other years, with teams that were fairly experienced the ooc schedules were also very weak:

2009: 337th
2008: 335th
2007: 241st

[LU65Participant]

Bison 137, you may be right on the philosophy of not seeking challenging games. But, then again, our encounters with Penn State (Pomeroy 46) and USC (Pomeroy 43) proved to be challenging enough for us this year. Only Navy and Army played fewer – one each – Pomeroy Top 100 teams in their OOC tour. Anyway, I’m not sure of the correlation you can make between success in the PL and strength of schedule during OOC play. You said it, we won it all in 2009-10 and played to a SOS rating of 301. Hard to figure. Looking over the final results from this year (see below), you have Lafayette – the top team in terms of SOS – losing 8 times within the PL. Holy Cross, the 3rd best in terms of SOS, lost 7 times. Only BU, with one loss, seems to have proven a correlation might in fact exist.

Team PL Record SOS(RPI) SOS Rank

BU 13-1 212 2nd
AU 11-3 261 4th
HC 7-7 219 3rd
LU 6-8 300 7th
Navy 6-8 296 6th
LC 6-8 194 1st
CU 4-10 280 5th
Army 3-1 314 8th

[StablerBumParticipant]

I don’t think this should be looked at as a direct correlation between OOC schedule difficulty and in league success. I have been a little frustrated for years with Lehigh’s lack of desire to put together a competitive OOC schedule (and again, I don’t mean playing 2 good "name" teams a year – I mean playing a number of challenging games against teams/leagues that are as good or better than you). I think the positives of playing a difficult OOC schedule are also:

-an opportunity to improve any potential seedings if you are a PL title contender
-exposure for the program and university
-increased fan interest
-a potential selling point to recruits (i.e. "We may not play in the biggest league, but we play X,Y, and Z in OOC and we aren’t afraid to play anyone")
-playing a variety of styles of play

Look at BU, they have played a very athletic Big East team (Marquette), a disciplined and talented ACC team (B.C.), a top-level mid major that schools like BU & LU would like to emulate (Richmond), and a team with tremendous guard play (Villanova). No matter who they draw in the posteason (NIT or NCAA) they will have played a team at least with a similar level of athleticism and style of play. And they got an upset, and 2 near misses out of it. THAT is how you build an OOC schedule for a PL contender (which I hope we are in over the next two years).

[LU65Participant]

Agree with you Stabler Bum and envious of what BU and others have been able to accomplish. I’d love to see us schedule upwards of 6 "quality" opponents each year with varying styles of play and not the 3 to 4 we seem content with each year. That’s truly an agressive plan (40% of our opponents, assuming 15 OOC games each year) but one worth purusing for all the reasons you cite. Two additional "money games" would certainly help pad the LU checkbook, as well. In year’s past, it seems we’ve settled on the number "4" and been happy with a composite RPI of 200 or thereabouts. For example, back in 2006-07 it was: Oregon, Norte Dame, Miami, and Rutgers. Since then there’s been a similar display or 3 or 4 teams each year. Actually, we entered this year with 4 named opponents – all in or close to being Top 100 teams at the end of 2009-10. They were: Penn. St., Cornell, Kent State, and USC. Of course, Cornell and Kent State slipped along the way and fell out of the TOP 100 by year end. Let’s hope for bigger and better things in the coming years.

[norcalfanParticipant]

"LU65" wrote: Here we go again, norcalfan. We’re about to agree to disagree.

First, I do side with you on the need for a tougher OOC schedule next year. Perhaps you’ll see it in 2011-12 with an additional year of maturity to handle it. Our team was one of the youngest in the league this year (yes, I know, so was Bucknell’s) at an average year’s experience of 1.55 (236th ranked………while, for example, American weighed in at 2.29 years or 30th in the nation) and perhaps not ready for more than they could handle in the 2010-11 campaign. Who knows. Like so many other issues, there’s a lot that goes on behind the scenes in booking pre-season opponents, not the least of which is the wishes of the other team, compatible open dates, travel needs, etc. Let’s see what 2011-12 brings. I think we’ll both be happy with the outcome.

As for the tough players sitting on the bench, you may be right in terms of personal fouls but not always right in terms of points and rebounds per minute of playing time. I contend that each player was given a chance to prove themselves earlier in the year- some did and some didn’t. Some have come on strong late in the year and just now appear ready for more playing time, e.g., McCarthy. There’s always next year in those cases. What more can I say? Stats are stats. Even then it’s not that simple. Example: You need a potential three point threat from one of your big men, you’re not going to insert Mineri or Adams into the lineup before Hamilton or Greiner. And, let it be known that Mineri is my "home town" boy from northern New Jersey – just like Adams is your home town guy from California. These are guys we each pull for night-in and night-out.

Player Minutes/Game Pts./Minute Rebounds/Minute Personal Fouls/Minute

Knutson 29.7 .408 .194 .066
Greiner 20.4 .315 .208 .084
Hamilton 15.9 .144 .110 .144
Mineri 9.2 .141 .182 .173
Safstrom 8.6 .178 .211 .227
Adams 8.4 .179 .145 .217
McCarthy 5.1 .303 .157 .167

Like a few other loyal fans, I contend there’s another dominating performance or two left in us – just like the Army game from February 12th. In that contest all systems were "go" as the Mountain Hawks won by 14. We shot 41.9% from the field, recorded 16 assists, had seven players with 7 or more points, and pulled down 42 boards. Michael Ojo’s play that day {4-10 (FGs), 3-8 (3’s), 5-6 (FTs), 16 pts. and 4 boards} keyed that win in support of a tiring CJ. Since then, the team has won just one game while losing three. Coincidently, Michael has been a non-factor in each while recovering from the flu. Let’s see what happens come Wednesday night.

GO LEHIGH

LU 65,

It’s all good. We disagree, but I can’t help but believe that if LU played a tougher OOC schedule, we would have won those close games.
In regards to our guys, I like Maneri too. My best friend is in Jersey, so he must be a good guy too. My only point is Maneri and Adams did well at the beginning of the season and suddenly they are benched. LU needs toughness as well as scorers. Adams and Maneri were both getting some points, not sure how many pre season. Greiner has one good game and suddenly he is the starter, which is fine, but I believe Reed made a huge mistake in benching guys who can go in and show the other team we can be physical. Starters need to be able to play defense, otherwise you lose games as LU has done. It’s a shame that Adams and Maneri have one more year and who knows. At this point, I am sure they are focused on graduating. I will see Adams when he comes home this summer. He will probably be hanging out at the Mitty gym. He has a legacy there for his defensive skills, was never a really a scorer. I assumed Reed would have developed his talent or found a way to use him, but hey the kid is always cheering his teammates on and he will graduate with a degree from LU. Not a bad deal.

[norcalfanParticipant]

"Bison137" wrote: [quote="LU65"]

While youth could theoretically explain the weak ooc schedule, it appears to actually be much more of a philosophy of not seeking out challenging games. The reason I say this is that in 2009-10, when LU had a very good, very experienced team, its ooc SOS was ranked #301 (RPI). In other years, with teams that were fairly experienced the ooc schedules were also very weak:

2009: 337th
2008: 335th
2007: 241st

[/quote]

Bison 137,

That’s my point. In the 4 years I have been watching LU, 2009-10 was their best team. Why did they play such a weak schedule? It seems Reed is more interested in wins than developing the team. A few losses make you tougher. Sorry about the broken record, but BU and HC played some tough teams pre season and it paid off. Play a tough schedule and lose a few.

[norcalfanParticipant]

"StablerBum" wrote: I don’t think this should be looked at as a direct correlation between OOC schedule difficulty and in league success. I have been a little frustrated for years with Lehigh’s lack of desire to put together a competitive OOC schedule (and again, I don’t mean playing 2 good "name" teams a year – I mean playing a number of challenging games against teams/leagues that are as good or better than you). I think the positives of playing a difficult OOC schedule are also:

-an opportunity to improve any potential seedings if you are a PL title contender
-exposure for the program and university
-increased fan interest
-a potential selling point to recruits (i.e. "We may not play in the biggest league, but we play X,Y, and Z in OOC and we aren’t afraid to play anyone")
-playing a variety of styles of play

Look at BU, they have played a very athletic Big East team (Marquette), a disciplined and talented ACC team (B.C.), a top-level mid major that schools like BU & LU would like to emulate (Richmond), and a team with tremendous guard play (Villanova). No matter who they draw in the posteason (NIT or NCAA) they will have played a team at least with a similar level of athleticism and style of play. And they got an upset, and 2 near misses out of it. THAT is how you build an OOC schedule for a PL contender (which I hope we are in over the next two years).

I love the positives you have listed. Man up LU. Play some tough teams.

[Bison137Participant]

"StablerBum" wrote: Look at BU, they have played a very athletic Big East team (Marquette), a disciplined and talented ACC team (B.C.), a top-level mid major that schools like BU & LU would like to emulate (Richmond), and a team with tremendous guard play (Villanova). No matter who they draw in the posteason (NIT or NCAA) they will have played a team at least with a similar level of athleticism and style of play. And they got an upset, and 2 near misses out of it. THAT is how you build an OOC schedule for a PL contender (which I hope we are in over the next two years).

In addition to the four you name, BU also scheduled four other good mid-major teams. They played two teams at the CBE tournament who Sagarin curently ranks in his top 85 (Princeton and JMU), plus America East pre-season favorite Boston U., plus LaSalle, who was expected to be pretty good (although they have underachieved in the A-10). Also it turned out that Loyola (MD), who BU played on the road, ended up in the first division of the MAAC. Those five were good preparation for PL games, in addition to Villanova, Marquette, BC, and Richmond.

[norcalfanParticipant]

Oh if only the Good Doctor would take some notes from the pages of Paulsen. I just watched a very good high school team pick apart another very good team. The difference was, player made a mistake, coach pulled him out, talked to him, settled him, subbed in another in the meantime, then put the kid back in. The game was over in less than two hours. The winning team rotated their players very well. I know this is college ball, but the idea sounds great. I like winning or at least giving it your best shot. Good luck tomorrow!

[LU65Participant]

Here’s a look at how our OOC opponents finished league play in 2010-11. Shown are conference rankings, standings within, overall record, and present RPI.

Mid-American (East – 6 team division) – 21st ranked conference
Kent State….1st….20-10….RPI 97

PAC 10 (10 team league) – 7th ranked conference
USC….4th….17-12….RPI 81

BIG 10 (13 team league) – 2nd ranked conference
Penn State….7th….15-13….RPI 56

A-10 (14 team league) – 9th ranked conference
Fordham….14th….6-20….RPI 253

Ivy (8 team league) -15th ranked conference
Yale….3rd….13-12…RPI 153
Cornell….6th….8-18….RPI 225

NEC (12 team league) – 18th ranked conference
Quinnipiac….2nd….21-8….RPI 132
Wagner….6th….13-16….RPI 169
Bryant….8th….9-21….RPI 255
St. Francis (PA)….9th….9-20….RPI 265
Monmouth….11th….9-21….RPI 289

MAAC (10 team league) – 16th ranked conference
St. Peter’s….4th….17-13….RPI 124
Marist….10th….5-26….RPI 309

American East (10 team league) – 28th ranked conference
Stony Brook….5th….13-16….RPI 261

Independents (13 teams) – 32 ranked conference
NJIT….6th….10-13…RPI 303

Opponent RPIs within the……
Top 100 = 3
101-200 = 4
201-299 = 6
300 – 345 = 2

Opponents with a………..
Better RPI than our 219th ranking = 6
Worse RPI than our 219th ranking = 9

While we all hope for bigger and better things in terms of OOC class and stature in the coming seasons.

[lfnadminKeymaster]

Remember when Cornell was seen as a great OOC game, fresh off their Sweet 16 appearance? And now it’s seen as a liability? And hands up those who thought Kent State would be our toughest OOC game. Anyone?

Goes to show that handicapping GPI is real, real easy to do before the season is over, and much, much harder to do in preseason. For example, the Penn State and USC games have veered from being great tests against top teams to tests against NIT contenders.

[norcalfanParticipant]

"LU65" wrote: Here’s a look at how our OOC opponents finished league play in 2010-11. Shown are conference rankings, standings within, overall record, and present RPI.

Mid-American (East – 6 team division) – 21st ranked conference
Kent State….1st….20-10….RPI 97

PAC 10 (10 team league) – 7th ranked conference
USC….4th….17-12….RPI 81

BIG 10 (13 team league) – 2nd ranked conference
Penn State….7th….15-13….RPI 56

A-10 (14 team league) – 9th ranked conference
Fordham….14th….6-20….RPI 253

Ivy (8 team league) -15th ranked conference
Yale….3rd….13-12…RPI 153
Cornell….6th….8-18….RPI 225

NEC (12 team league) – 18th ranked conference
Quinnipiac….2nd….21-8….RPI 132
Wagner….6th….13-16….RPI 169
Bryant….8th….9-21….RPI 255
St. Francis (PA)….9th….9-20….RPI 265
Monmouth….11th….9-21….RPI 289

MAAC (10 team league) – 16th ranked conference
St. Peter’s….4th….17-13….RPI 124
Marist….10th….5-26….RPI 309

American East (10 team league) – 28th ranked conference
Stony Brook….5th….13-16….RPI 261

Independents (13 teams) – 32 ranked conference
NJIT….6th….10-13…RPI 303

Opponent RPIs within the……
Top 100 = 3
101-200 = 4
201-299 = 6
300 – 345 = 2

Opponents with a………..
Better RPI than our 219th ranking = 6
Worse RPI than our 219th ranking = 9

While we all hope for bigger and better things in terms of OOC class and stature in the coming seasons.

I second that! Round 2. The worst that can happen is LU’s basketball team will have a Spring Break, the best is they go on to face AU or LC.

[norcalfanParticipant]

"lfnadmin" wrote: Remember when Cornell was seen as a great OOC game, fresh off their Sweet 16 appearance? And now it’s seen as a liability? And hands up those who thought Kent State would be our toughest OOC game. Anyone?

Goes to show that handicapping GPI is real, real easy to do before the season is over, and much, much harder to do in preseason. For example, the Penn State and USC games have veered from being great tests against top teams to tests against NIT contenders.

You know looking back at that USC game, it seemed sd if USC was a tough team. Now you are saying they are going to the NIT?

Despite all my rants and frustration, this is what I think should happen. The players need to remain in PA for a month, play and practice hard, go home for the summer and play in every league they can find. Come back next year and everyone is improved so we can go 10-13 deep. How does that sound?

BU took their team to Europe or some place like that. LU needs a fresh start. Do something radical Reed. Take them on a tour to get the motivated. Hey, it worked for BU!

[Author]

Posts