Buffalo is ranked higher than Houston? These early rankings...

Buffalo beat #13 West Virginia early in the season and jumped into the rankings. Furman did the same; beat #8 Villanova a week after Buffalo beat West Virginia but didn’t get into the rankings for 2 more weeks. Buffalo though has shot up the rankings while Furman has stayed in place though due to some teams losing in front of them.

Houston beat #18 Oregon later into the season and has jumped into the rankings. If they would have beat them earlier, they would be ranked higher. If teams belong in the top 25, they’ll make it eventually. Thing still work themselves out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, the early rankings defy logic. I mean, Buffalo has only won one game to be impressed with. Meanwhile Houston has several impressive wins. I guess anyone who beats one of the sainted Eastern teams has got to be placed upon a plinth.

Actually Buffalo is legit as they were last year and the year before. I’m ok with their ranking. Houston has home friendly schedule.

bpd wrote: ↑

December 16th, 2018, 10:18 pm

Actually Buffalo is legit as they were last year and the year before. I’m ok with their ranking. Houston has home friendly schedule.

I notices that too and thought it was an error on espn or some of the home games were actually neutral sites. I had no clue it was possible to schedule basically everyone of your games at home. Crazy.

Usu0505 wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 9:26 am

bpd wrote: ↑

December 16th, 2018, 10:18 pm

Actually Buffalo is legit as they were last year and the year before. I’m ok with their ranking. Houston has home friendly schedule.

I notices that too and thought it was an error on espn or some of the home games were actually neutral sites. I had no clue it was possible to schedule basically everyone of your games at home. Crazy.

Oh it's possible. Just gotta have a big pocketbook. Duke and many of the other "blue bloods" do it pretty much every year.

treesap32 wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 9:30 am

Usu0505 wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 9:26 am

bpd wrote: ↑

December 16th, 2018, 10:18 pm

Actually Buffalo is legit as they were last year and the year before. I’m ok with their ranking. Houston has home friendly schedule.

I notices that too and thought it was an error on espn or some of the home games were actually neutral sites. I had no clue it was possible to schedule basically everyone of your games at home. Crazy.

Oh it's possible. Just gotta have a big pocketbook. Duke and many of the other "blue bloods" do it pretty much every year.

Crazy a mid major could do it tho. Some nice teams going in to play there this year. Maybe it flips next year. I thought i remembered seeing our game with them was home and home, anyone know for sure?

Our wins against Hartford and Montana State have been interesting. Hartford and Montana State are currently on win streaks. Hartford got their 5th win on the season. Hartford went from 300ish in the Net Rankings to possible top 200. This changes the SOS for us by a good amount.

Usu0505 wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 9:32 am

treesap32 wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 9:30 am

Usu0505 wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 9:26 am

bpd wrote: ↑

December 16th, 2018, 10:18 pm

Actually Buffalo is legit as they were last year and the year before. I’m ok with their ranking. Houston has home friendly schedule.

I notices that too and thought it was an error on espn or some of the home games were actually neutral sites. I had no clue it was possible to schedule basically everyone of your games at home. Crazy.

Oh it's possible. Just gotta have a big pocketbook. Duke and many of the other "blue bloods" do it pretty much every year.

Crazy a mid major could do it tho. Some nice teams going in to play there this year. Maybe it flips next year. I thought i remembered seeing our game with them was home and home, anyone know for sure?

I don't believe we've ever gotten any confirmation on the Houston agreement.

ProvoAggie wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 10:06 am

Usu0505 wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 9:32 am

treesap32 wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 9:30 am

Usu0505 wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 9:26 am

bpd wrote: ↑

December 16th, 2018, 10:18 pm

Actually Buffalo is legit as they were last year and the year before. I’m ok with their ranking. Houston has home friendly schedule.

I notices that too and thought it was an error on espn or some of the home games were actually neutral sites. I had no clue it was possible to schedule basically everyone of your games at home. Crazy.

Oh it's possible. Just gotta have a big pocketbook. Duke and many of the other "blue bloods" do it pretty much every year.

Crazy a mid major could do it tho. Some nice teams going in to play there this year. Maybe it flips next year. I thought i remembered seeing our game with them was home and home, anyone know for sure?

I don't believe we've ever gotten any confirmation on the Houston agreement.

I see

Current MWC Rankings by SOS:

PTS/G SRS
School.................W....L.....Own PPG...Opp PPG.....SRS.......SOS
Nevada...............11....0.......83.8.............67.6...........20.5.......4.3
SDSU....................6....4.......76.1.............71.8.............8.2.......3.9
Fresno State........7....2.......77.8.............68.3...........13.2.......3.7
New Mexico.........5....4.......80.2.............83.4............-0.5.......2.8
UNLV.....................5....4.......73.2.............68.7.............6.4.......1.8
Colorado State.....5....6.......74.8.............78.6............-4.1......-0.3
Boise State..........4....6.......69.6.............68.8............-0.2......-1.0
Utah State...........9....2.......84.0.............66.0............16.6......-1.4
Wyoming.............3....7.......74.5.............78.8.............-6.1......-1.8
Air Force..............4....6.......67.0.............72.2............-8.0......-2.8
San Jose State....3....6.......68.5.............74.5............-9.9......-3.9

I love the way we have been playing, but any chance it has been fool's gold? Our Strength of Schedule currently sits at 213th out of 353 D1 BB programs. We held our own against ASU, whose only loss is a narrow loss to Nevada. We looked very vulnerable in the loss to BYU. The win against Weber State was nice, but Weber turned around and lost their next game at home by almost the exact same score to Utah Valley. How will we fare against Houston? That should tell us a lot about this team.

On the plus side, our SRS (Simple Ratings System) is 27th best in the country. That takes into account both strength of schedule and point differential, so maybe we'll be fine heading into conference play . . . .

A bit off topic, but it's interesting how the old WAC schools own the MWC in both football and basketball.

Every school in the conference was in some version of the WAC. A lot of the schools have been in multiple versions of the MW too..

bpd wrote: ↑

December 16th, 2018, 10:18 pm

Actually Buffalo is legit as they were last year and the year before. I’m ok with their ranking. Houston has home friendly schedule.

Maybe so, but that seems to be a subjective opinion since their schedule only has one game that proves it. It's that subjective nature of the early polls that bothers me.

nvspuds wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 11:56 am

Every school in the conference was in some version of the WAC. A lot of the schools have been in multiple versions of the MW too..

Okay, not founding members of the MWC.

Well that narrows it down..
So I guess you mean. WY, CSU, AFA, SDSU, NM, and UNLV

Fresno, SJSU and Hawaii were in the WAC before the airport meeting.

So we are essentially talking about three schools. USU, Boise and Nevada.

justinmorrey wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 11:40 am

A bit off topic, but it's interesting how the old WAC schools own the MWC in both football and basketball.

It’s difficult for me to believe USU “owns” either basketball or football. In football we had a break-out season but didn’t make it to the CCG. The last three seasons we had losing records. The closest we’ve come to being the MWC champion is losing in the CCG.

As to basketball we are 10 games under .500 in conference games since joining the MWC, have never finished higher than tied for 4th, and have only made it as far as the semi-finals of the conference tournament once in five tries, where we were summarily throttled.

Your definition of “owning” the conference is apparently different than mine.

utaggies wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 1:37 pm

justinmorrey wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 11:40 am

A bit off topic, but it's interesting how the old WAC schools own the MWC in both football and basketball.

It’s difficult for me to believe USU “owns” either basketball or football. In football we had a break-out season but didn’t make it to the CCG. The last three seasons we had losing records. The closest we’ve come to being the MWC champion is losing in the CCG.

As to basketball we are 10 games under .500 in conference games since joining the MWC, have never finished higher than tied for 4th, and have only made it as far as the semi-finals of the conference tournament once in five tries, where we were summarily throttled.

Your definition of “owning” the conference is apparently different than mine.

They didn't say that USU owned the conference, they said that the old WAC schools owned the conference. In the Mountain Division this year the top 2 teams were Boise and USU. In the West division the top 3 teams were Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii. The only former WAC team that didn't finish ahead of all of the founding MW members in their division was San Jose. Last year also had Boise and Fresno on top of the 2 divisions.

For basketball, Nevada finished on top last year with Boise in 2nd. The season before had Nevada on top with 3 of the top 4 being WAC transplants.

ProvoAggie wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 1:52 pm

utaggies wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 1:37 pm

justinmorrey wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 11:40 am

A bit off topic, but it's interesting how the old WAC schools own the MWC in both football and basketball.

It’s difficult for me to believe USU “owns” either basketball or football. In football we had a break-out season but didn’t make it to the CCG. The last three seasons we had losing records. The closest we’ve come to being the MWC champion is losing in the CCG.

As to basketball we are 10 games under .500 in conference games since joining the MWC, have never finished higher than tied for 4th, and have only made it as far as the semi-finals of the conference tournament once in five tries, where we were summarily throttled.

Your definition of “owning” the conference is apparently different than mine.

They didn't say that USU owned the conference, they said that the old WAC schools owned the conference. In the Mountain Division this year the top 2 teams were Boise and USU. In the West division the top 3 teams were Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii. The only former WAC team that didn't finish ahead of all of the founding MW members in their division was San Jose. Last year also had Boise and Fresno on top of the 2 divisions.

For basketball, Nevada finished on top last year with Boise in 2nd. The season before had Nevada on top with 3 of the top 4 being WAC transplants.

Yep. That's what I meant. The top teams are interchangeable but they've fairly consistently been non-founding MWC members.

I still believe the best basketball programs overall since Nevada joined the MW are SDSU, NM, UNLV and CSU. These things tend to be cyclical and it is very hard for mid majors to be really good in their conference year after year..

I think the lines between what you refer to as MW founding members and non-founding members is pretty blurry. We are more alike than different. I think it is great..I have very little nostalgia for any of the various versions of the WAC that had Nevada as a member. It was just a big old spread out marriage of convenience for schools with no other options.

nvspuds wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 2:48 pm

I think the lines between what you refer to as MW founding members and non-founding members is pretty blurry. We are more alike than different. I think it is great..I have very little nostalgia for any of the various versions of the WAC that had Nevada as a member. It was just a big old spread out marriage of convenience for schools with no other options.

I don't see it as being that blurry. The founding MW members excluded schools like Nevada, Fresno, Utah State, Boise State, Hawaii and San Jose because they felt like they were on another level. All those years that we were in the WAC together (2005-2012) MW fans talked about the WAC like it was the Big Sky or Summit league. They said that if you put those teams into the MW they'd be sitting at the bottom. Now those same teams that they spent years putting down have moved over and are finishing ahead of them.

Big games of the week
Utah State vs Houston
All Arizona State games especially the one with Kansas
BYU vs San Diego State

For a more objective look at this I reviewed the MWC standings since USU joined the conference. For basketball that was for the 2013-14 season and for football it was for the 2013 season. Noted below are the average finishes in an 11-team basketball league and a two-division, 12-team football league. For football the average shown is based on the finish within the division. The teams which were “original” MWC members are marked with an asterisk.

Basketball:
1. SDS - 2.6*
2. BSU - 2.8
3. Nev - 3.8
4. FSU - 4.2
5. NM - 4.4*
6. CSU - 6.0*
7. Wyo - 6.0*
8. UNLV - 6.6*
9. USU - 7.0
10. AFA - 9.6*
11. SJS - 10.4

Football
1. BSU - 1.3
2. SDS - 1.8*
3. FSU - 2.3
4. USU - 2.7
5. AFA - 2.9*
6. CSU - 3.0*
7. Nev - 3.2
8. Wyo - 3.5*
9. NM - 3.5*
10. SJS - 4.0
11. Haw - 4.2

The takeaway? For both football and basketball the conference’s non-founding members appear to be a little bit stronger. But I would stop short of saying that the newbies have owned the conference. If the data set is shortened to the last year or two then I agree that the newbies have a decided edge at the top.

ProvoAggie wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 3:58 pm

nvspuds wrote: ↑

December 17th, 2018, 2:48 pm

I think the lines between what you refer to as MW founding members and non-founding members is pretty blurry. We are more alike than different. I think it is great..I have very little nostalgia for any of the various versions of the WAC that had Nevada as a member. It was just a big old spread out marriage of convenience for schools with no other options.

I don't see it as being that blurry. The founding MW members excluded schools like Nevada, Fresno, Utah State, Boise State, Hawaii and San Jose because they felt like they were on another level. All those years that we were in the WAC together (2005-2012) MW fans talked about the WAC like it was the Big Sky or Summit league. They said that if you put those teams into the MW they'd be sitting at the bottom. Now those same teams that they spent years putting down have moved over and are finishing ahead of them.

When the MW was formed Nevada was a Big West school and simply not ready to compete in the MW. Boise wasn't ready either. Folks on message boards say lots of stuff but the reality is the MW had a very successful model and really didn't need to add. Nevada was in the WAC for 5 years before USU joined. That version had TCU, SMU, Tulsa, UTEP and Rice along with Nevada, Fresno State, Hawaii and San Jose State. I feel just as connected to that configuration as any that came later.

When Nevada was added to the MW, only because USU turned them down, we simply weren't ready to compete in what was a watered down MW. I have never felt for a second that anyone who mattered was keeping Nevada down. We were just working our way up trying to give ourselves options, should options arise. Who cares what folks on the MW board think. The best part of being in the MW is the similarity..Nobody dominates anything for long and different schools rise and fall. As far as I am concerned the MW never did anything bad to Nevada ever..

Bunch of wet behind the ears kids.

To ME, the "old WAC" is Arizona, Arizona State, BYU, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming (schools that founded the conference in 1962), and maybe the Johnny-come-latelys CSU and UTEP (joined in 1968).

Of course, I still remember using human teeth for money, so there's that....