just win baby

It's been a while since we've been in the 80's. We are #82-85 depending on what site you look at. Here's an interesting stat after today's fourth top 50 win. They are only 18 teams that have at least 4 top 50 wins and an above .500 record Vs the top 50. We are one of those teams with a 4-3 record.

Cincinnati moved up to #39 in the KenPom and #42 in the Sagarin, yet are 84 in the RPI. Which one of those numbers seems off?

#51 in the new BPI.

#42 in the Sagarin ratings (#40 in the Predictor which takes into account margin of victory; #49 in ELO_CHESS which does not).

The mock selection committee confirmed what we had already suspected... the RPI is no longer the determining factor. Sorry Jerry Palm.

Quote:The Ratings Percentage Index plays a part but did not ultimately determine the postseason fate of any team in our mock exercise.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/2...t|Sports|p

(02-21-2012 02:10 AM)Bearcat04 Wrote:  The mock selection committee confirmed what we had already suspected... the RPI is no longer the determining factor. Sorry Jerry Palm.

Quote:The Ratings Percentage Index plays a part but did not ultimately determine the postseason fate of any team in our mock exercise.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/2...t|Sports|p

It's still the system they use to group teams, it is still what they generally look at for top 50 wins. It is still the number they use with non-conference SOS. It still clearly has the most influence over the committee. It has never been the end all, but it has always been where the strongest correlation is.

They are allowed to use anything, and their general charge is the 37 best at large teams, but when you track who gets in year after year the RPI clearly is the biggest factor (though not necessarily your actual RPI rank).

The only reason why our RPI is sucking so bad is we have the worst OOC in all of basketball (or very nearly). We have some really good wins. We have a couple of bad losses. We got to get that OOC SOS up into the 150 or lower category by next year. I hate sweating this stuff out.

(02-21-2012 02:10 AM)Bearcat04 Wrote:  The mock selection committee confirmed what we had already suspected... the RPI is no longer the determining factor. Sorry Jerry Palm.

Quote:The Ratings Percentage Index plays a part but did not ultimately determine the postseason fate of any team in our mock exercise.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/2...t|Sports|p

In fact this will tell you in more detail, the RPI is still the lens used to evaluate teams

http://eye-on-college-basketball.blogs.c...6/34887185

It may not be the only metric they use, but my guess is that it's at the top of their list.

The mock committee also left Cincinnati out of their final bracket. We still have work to do.

(02-21-2012 07:48 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 02:10 AM)Bearcat04 Wrote:  The mock selection committee confirmed what we had already suspected... the RPI is no longer the determining factor. Sorry Jerry Palm.

Quote:The Ratings Percentage Index plays a part but did not ultimately determine the postseason fate of any team in our mock exercise.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/2...t|Sports|p

It's still the system they use to group teams, it is still what they generally look at for top 50 wins. It is still the number they use with non-conference SOS. It still clearly has the most influence over the committee. It has never been the end all, but it has always been where the strongest correlation is.

They are allowed to use anything, and their general charge is the 37 best at large teams, but when you track who gets in year after year the RPI clearly is the biggest factor (though not necessarily your actual RPI rank).

Of course they still use it, but this is what I was getting at. Contrary to popular belief there is no longer a magic RPI number that you have to reach to be considered for or be secured of a bid. The strict RPI guys like Palm who simply look at our RPI in the 80's and say we don't even belong on the bubble are clueless. At the same time they have Southern Miss as a lock because of their #11 RPI ranking when they are actually trending towards the bubble with recent bad losses to UAB and Houston.

(02-21-2012 10:20 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  The mock committee also left Cincinnati out of their final bracket. We still have work to do.

It was also completed before the SH victory and numerous losses by bubble teams. We likely would have been left out if the committee met last week.

(02-21-2012 10:27 AM)Bearcat04 Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 07:48 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 02:10 AM)Bearcat04 Wrote:  The mock selection committee confirmed what we had already suspected... the RPI is no longer the determining factor. Sorry Jerry Palm.

Quote:The Ratings Percentage Index plays a part but did not ultimately determine the postseason fate of any team in our mock exercise.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/2...t|Sports|p

It's still the system they use to group teams, it is still what they generally look at for top 50 wins. It is still the number they use with non-conference SOS. It still clearly has the most influence over the committee. It has never been the end all, but it has always been where the strongest correlation is.

They are allowed to use anything, and their general charge is the 37 best at large teams, but when you track who gets in year after year the RPI clearly is the biggest factor (though not necessarily your actual RPI rank).

Of course they still use it, but this is what I was getting at. Contrary to popular belief there is no longer a magic RPI number that you have to reach to be considered for or be secured of a bid. The strict RPI guys like Palm who simply look at our RPI in the 80's and say we don't even belong on the bubble are clueless. At the same time they have Southern Miss as a lock because of their #11 RPI ranking when they are actually trending towards the bubble with recent bad losses to UAB and Houston.

To say Palm only looks at the RPI number is to not follow at Palm. He evaluates teams through the Lens of an RPI looking at things like RPI, SOS, Non-conference SOS, Top 100 Wins, Top 50 Wins, Bad losses and historically how those things have correlated.

(02-21-2012 10:32 AM)Bearcat04 Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 10:20 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  The mock committee also left Cincinnati out of their final bracket. We still have work to do.

It was also completed before the SH victory and numerous losses by bubble teams. We likely would have been left out if the committee met last week.

Yeah, we were eliminated after being compared with Illinois according to tweets by participants while it was going on. I doubt that comparison would eliminate us if it happened today. Don't know what their final bracket would look like today, but things can change quickly, as indicated by the changing perceptions of Illinois (considered to be done by many) and Xavier (trying to think of an opposite example compared to Illinois, and for whatever reason X seemed to have made the biggest jump among bubble teams after their win over UD, at least according to Lunardi and Palm) after this past weekend.

(02-21-2012 11:00 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 10:27 AM)Bearcat04 Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 07:48 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 02:10 AM)Bearcat04 Wrote:  The mock selection committee confirmed what we had already suspected... the RPI is no longer the determining factor. Sorry Jerry Palm.

Quote:The Ratings Percentage Index plays a part but did not ultimately determine the postseason fate of any team in our mock exercise.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/2...t|Sports|p

It's still the system they use to group teams, it is still what they generally look at for top 50 wins. It is still the number they use with non-conference SOS. It still clearly has the most influence over the committee. It has never been the end all, but it has always been where the strongest correlation is.

They are allowed to use anything, and their general charge is the 37 best at large teams, but when you track who gets in year after year the RPI clearly is the biggest factor (though not necessarily your actual RPI rank).

Of course they still use it, but this is what I was getting at. Contrary to popular belief there is no longer a magic RPI number that you have to reach to be considered for or be secured of a bid. The strict RPI guys like Palm who simply look at our RPI in the 80's and say we don't even belong on the bubble are clueless. At the same time they have Southern Miss as a lock because of their #11 RPI ranking when they are actually trending towards the bubble with recent bad losses to UAB and Houston.

To say Palm only looks at the RPI number is to not follow at Palm. He evaluates teams through the Lens of an RPI looking at things like RPI, SOS, Non-conference SOS, Top 100 Wins, Top 50 Wins, Bad losses and historically how those things have correlated.

Palm has all kinds of breakdowns, but ultimately he uses your RPI number as the determining factor and that is contrary to what the selection committee does.

Southern Miss is one of those strange RPI sagas. How in the hell did they get there and how are they possibly still there?

Quote:Southern Miss [22-5 (9-3), RPI: 13, SOS: 43] On Friday, when we last checked in with the Golden Eagles, their RPI figure was 10. This was inexplicable, given that Southern Miss' schedule and results, while solid, were hardly top-10-type stuff, and no one in their right mind would claim the Eagles are anywhere near the 10th-best team in the country. This RPI figure makes even less sense after Saturday, when Larry Eustachy's team lost at Houston (RPI: 221). Naturally, its RPI rank dramatically plummeted ... all the way to No. 11. We're not going to dismiss Southern Miss because of one bad loss, but it is worth noting because it came a few losses after another bad loss (at UAB). Another setback or two could legitimately put this team in trouble. Or will the insane RPI be its saving grace?

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bubblewatch

Palm was the only major projector that I followed last year that had the field 100% right. Palm does not merely look at the RPI number as the determining factor and it is silly to say he does.

Why don't they just rename the NCAA Tourny the RPI Tourny? Seems the commentators keep referring to the rpi as thee criteria out there. Might as well schedule well enough to have a top 60 sos and rpi, regardless of wins and losses.

Just to name a couple of examples; UConn and Seton Hall. Both have good RPI numbers, however not great overall records and below .500 in the conf. Plus, both are losing a majority of their last 6 games played.

UConn is going to get preferential treatment since they won it all last year, and because of their 'name' value. So they keep getting penciled into the tournament despite their on court performance.