Texas: RPI Rank - 13, SOS Rank - 19 Win - Tennessee - RPI: 4 Win - UCLA - RPI: 14 Loss - Mich State - RPI 6 Loss - Wisconsin - RPI 19 Win - St Mary's - RPI: 3 Mizzou - 101 Colorado - 153 Okie State - 126 T Tech - 71 TAMU - 22 Baylor - 69 OU - 40 Iowa St - 136 Kansas - 7 K State - 86 Nebraska - 144 Top 20 by RPI: 1. Memphis 2. UNC 3. St Marys 4. Tenn 5. Vandy 6. Mich St 7. Dayton 8. Kansas 9. Syracuse 10 Pitt 11. Zona 12. Butler 13. Texas 14. Mass 15. UCLA 16. Xavier 17. RI 18. Ohio St 19. Wisconsin 20. Drake
Tough to win on the road in the Big 12, try and win most or all at home and win 50 percent on road and you are in good shape.
If DJ gets into foul trouble like against TCU Mizzou's press will give us problems, they are a lot more aggressive and will do it for 40 mins unlike TCU.
How the hell is our SOS only 19. We played 5 top 20 teams including 3 top 10 team RPI teams. I find it very hard to believe that 18 other teams have played a tougher schedule thus far. I thought our SOS would be top 5.
Take St Mary's for instance. Their SOS this morning is around 12th. Then look at their schedule: They have played 13 games. Nine out of those 13 games have been against teams with an RPI in the top 100. Texas has played 14 games. Only 7 have been against top 100 teams. Six of our wins have come against teams ranking between 222 and 303.
Doesn't it behoove you NOT to play the 150+ teams at all? I hav enoticed that trend for a few years. You could play the #1, #2, and #3 teams but average in a #234 and a #248 and the "average" flies up. Meanwhile, these mid conference teams place mostly major conferences in the OOC and pule up games against #48, #67, and #82. It just is not the same. Playing UNC and UCLA is so different that playing Vanderbilt and Northwestern. Why do teams continue to pile up games againt the Florida A&Ms and UNC-Verizons of the world? I understand a few, but teams like Texas and A&M play a very healthy dose of 'em.
It's a confidence factor. Take two teams with the same skills/lineup. One has played 16 games, 8 against teams between #25 - #50 and gotten W's and 8 against teams #1-#8 and gotten L's. They end up being 8-8. The other has played 16 games, 12 against teams #50+ and 4 against teams in the Top #25. They end up being 12-4. While the RPI of the two teams is likely pretty similar, the second team has a LOT more confidence going into conference play that they are a good team. That, and teams like to work on things during the season in real games. Tough to work on a new gameplan versus a Tennessee, Ohio State or Michigan State -- lot easier to work on that gameplan vs Whatsamatta U.
It's also hard to gauge your depth if you're constantly throwing your players in against top-flight competition. This not only plays off of mh's confidence factor -- you can't throw a freshman against a talented senior and expect him to come out positive about the experience -- but also you don't know against what kind of players he can be successful. Let's take Ian Mooney. (No Henny Youngman lines, thankyouverymuch.) He played 14 minutes against TCU and held his own. I might disagree with Rick Barnes about the value of using Ian Mooney, but at least we both saw him play good minutes. So he used him again Saturday, knowing that Mooney won't automatically commit a stupid foul, and at least that he knows what he needs to be doing out there. Then, practically speaking, there is the good neighbor angle. Both Texas and A&M have plenty of chances to fill the schedule with local teams who are willing to take a check in exchange for a beating. You never know what type of favor might be done in the coaching business, and you don't need to be bringing in schools from across the country to fill out the schedule if you have someone close to home who could use the money. If you actually are looking to boost the RPI, you have to schedule the teams that are going to win those smaller leagues, but those coaches know what they have and are going to want to be paid more.
I give Ian more credit than most around here. Sure he doesn't look like your typical basketball player, but I'll tell you what... he plays hard AND smart. He does a lot away from the ball and I think Barnes really values that.
It's clear that Mooney does things that Barnes wants. He screens, he blocks out, doesn't get lost on defense. My problem is that's the sum of what he does. He doesn't have to be guarded (not seriously, anyway), and he's not a threat to get rebounds. In the 14 minutes that Barnes praised so highly last week, IM got an offensive board and a garbage bucket, and a blocked shot (from behind, IIRC). In 12 minutes on Saturday, a rebound. In both games, three fouls. I submit that if Chapman, Pittman and Wangmene had stats like that, they'd re-earn seats on the bench. I don't think Barnes really wants placeholders off the bench, but that's what Mooney is. <shrug>
