(03-22-2013 08:33 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  Mountain West was incredibly inflated by their rpi's, which 8 or 10 years ago all mid majors figured out how to artificially inflate their rpi's to impress committee, somewhere there has to be a better way to judge how good teams really are. The BPI on ESPN comes a lot closer than the RPI does, but still is very lacking. The MW was not now nor ever will be the number one league in anything, other than say mountain climbing.

Exactly. If you look at the conference top to bottom, you'll notice that they played a ton of DivII opponents. I think you can play two of those that count on your win/lose record. The result of playing a Div II opponent and winning is like beating Duke on the RPI. You get credit for the win on the RPI (based on your wins and loses) AND you don't take a hit for the non-quality opponent because there is no way to quantify your opponent in the RPI because they are in a different division (their wins and losses and their opponents wins and loses).

The result is a conference top/down with good RPIs. So, if you lose to the last place team in conference, it doesn't affect your RPI. Compare that to the Big East. Depaul schedules horrible Div I opponents and gets a low RPI and brings down the confernce RPI as a result. If some of the Big East lower RPI teams scheduled some Div II teams, the conference RPI could have been highers, and we probably could have got another team in the field.

Tulane needs to learn how to cook the books going forward. Our RPI is always terrible - even when our record at a certain point in the season is good.

(03-22-2013 08:41 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 08:33 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 07:45 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Metropolitan schools have an inherent advantage in college basketball for obvious reasons. We are going to have a killer basketball conference in the future.

Right now I see UConn, Memphis and Cincy as Top 35 programs. Maybe Temple in there too...the rest not so much. Houston/SMU maybe can rise up.

Agreed new conference will be nothing like old BE, but truthfully as of today, how many teams in the new ACC will be in that fold ( top 35 ). Duke,Syracuse, UL, N.C., to me that is about it. Maybe Pitt, NCST ( I don't think so on either one). I will agree that new ACC will be best bb conf., no doubt about it, but you were talking about top 35.

I'd easily add Pitt, NCSt and Miami in Top 35 status.

(03-22-2013 08:47 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Tulane needs to learn how to cook the books going forward. Our RPI is always terrible - even when our record at a certain point in the season is good.

Do like the MWC schools and USM. Play a lot of road and neutral site games to open the season. Totally game the system.

(03-22-2013 08:47 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Tulane needs to learn how to cook the books going forward. Our RPI is always terrible - even when our record at a certain point in the season is good.

see above....play your two Div II teams and win (take advantage of the win/lose record part of the RPI formula). then schedule high quality competition to lose to. even if you lose to high quality competition, your RPI will rise.

(03-22-2013 08:43 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 08:33 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  Mountain West was incredibly inflated by their rpi's, which 8 or 10 years ago all mid majors figured out how to artificially inflate their rpi's to impress committee, somewhere there has to be a better way to judge how good teams really are. The BPI on ESPN comes a lot closer than the RPI does, but still is very lacking. The MW was not now nor ever will be the number one league in anything, other than say mountain climbing.

Exactly. If you look at the conference top to bottom, you'll notice that they played a ton of DivII opponents. I think you can play two of those that count on your win/lose record. The result of playing a Div II opponent and winning is like beating Duke on the RPI. You get credit for the win on the RPI (based on your wins and loses) AND you don't take a hit for the non-quality opponent because there is no way to quantify your opponent in the RPI because they are in a different division (their wins and losses and their opponents wins and loses).

The result is a conference top/down with good RPIs. So, if you lose to the last place team in conference, it doesn't affect your RPI. Compare that to the Big East. Depaul schedules horrible Div I opponents and gets a low RPI and brings down the confernce RPI as a result. If some of the Big East lower RPI teams scheduled some Div II teams, the conference RPI could have been highers, and we probably could have got another team in the field.

I don't think non- D1 games count towards RPI. If they did, then ECU would have the top RPI in the nation and be the D2, D3 and NAIA national champions.

(03-22-2013 08:47 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Tulane needs to learn how to cook the books going forward. Our RPI is always terrible - even when our record at a certain point in the season is good.

Our RPI is terrible because we lose too many league games. That said, the way we schedule OOC is GOOD for the conference because we win most of those OOC games. So when other teams play us, they get the benefit of a pretty good record.
And that's the key: play the best teams you can that you can BEAT. Losing to a good team is good for that team's RPI but not so good for the teams that have to play you.
Note Wyoming had a gaudy ooc record; that boosted the RPIs of New Mexico, etc.
This idea that everyone should play killer OOC games is wrong; heck, the SWAC does that, and how does their league RPI look?

(03-22-2013 08:49 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 08:41 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 08:33 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 07:45 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Metropolitan schools have an inherent advantage in college basketball for obvious reasons. We are going to have a killer basketball conference in the future.

Right now I see UConn, Memphis and Cincy as Top 35 programs. Maybe Temple in there too...the rest not so much. Houston/SMU maybe can rise up.

Agreed new conference will be nothing like old BE, but truthfully as of today, how many teams in the new ACC will be in that fold ( top 35 ). Duke,Syracuse, UL, N.C., to me that is about it. Maybe Pitt, NCST ( I don't think so on either one). I will agree that new ACC will be best bb conf., no doubt about it, but you were talking about top 35.

I'd easily add Pitt, NCSt and Miami in Top 35 status.

Like I said Pitt., NCSt and Temple are debateable, Miami is excellent this year but don't know what they have coming back, historically not so much in Top 35.

(03-22-2013 09:01 AM)DrBox Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 08:47 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Tulane needs to learn how to cook the books going forward. Our RPI is always terrible - even when our record at a certain point in the season is good.

Our RPI is terrible because we lose too many league games. That said, the way we schedule OOC is GOOD for the conference because we win most of those OOC games. So when other teams play us, they get the benefit of a pretty good record.
And that's the key: play the best teams you can that you can BEAT. Losing to a good team is good for that team's RPI but not so good for the teams that have to play you.
Note Wyoming had a gaudy ooc record; that boosted the RPIs of New Mexico, etc.

Also when you join the league you will get added boost from playing UC, Temple and UConn twice besides still playing Memphis twice.

(03-22-2013 08:54 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 08:43 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 08:33 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  Mountain West was incredibly inflated by their rpi's, which 8 or 10 years ago all mid majors figured out how to artificially inflate their rpi's to impress committee, somewhere there has to be a better way to judge how good teams really are. The BPI on ESPN comes a lot closer than the RPI does, but still is very lacking. The MW was not now nor ever will be the number one league in anything, other than say mountain climbing.

Exactly. If you look at the conference top to bottom, you'll notice that they played a ton of DivII opponents. I think you can play two of those that count on your win/lose record. The result of playing a Div II opponent and winning is like beating Duke on the RPI. You get credit for the win on the RPI (based on your wins and loses) AND you don't take a hit for the non-quality opponent because there is no way to quantify your opponent in the RPI because they are in a different division (their wins and losses and their opponents wins and loses).

The result is a conference top/down with good RPIs. So, if you lose to the last place team in conference, it doesn't affect your RPI. Compare that to the Big East. Depaul schedules horrible Div I opponents and gets a low RPI and brings down the confernce RPI as a result. If some of the Big East lower RPI teams scheduled some Div II teams, the conference RPI could have been highers, and we probably could have got another team in the field.

I don't think non- D1 games count towards RPI. If they did, then ECU would have the top RPI in the nation and be the D2, D3 and NAIA national champions.

They count because up to two wins count in your win/lose record. That is one component of the RPI. They don't count toward strength of schedule and the opponent component of the RPI, because the schools aren't involved in Div I. BUT YOU HAVE TO WIN. If you lose, it really hurts you.

The problem that ECU has is that you lose to teams in conference (and out of conference) with bad RPI numbers...and that kills you. Everyone has to get their RPI up before conference play (see the MWC) or else, loses in conference will kill you. Also, only Memphis and So Miss have decent RPI numbers. Even wins against CUSA competition lowers your RPI because your conference schedules weak Div I competition.

(03-22-2013 09:04 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 09:01 AM)DrBox Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 08:47 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Tulane needs to learn how to cook the books going forward. Our RPI is always terrible - even when our record at a certain point in the season is good.

Our RPI is terrible because we lose too many league games. That said, the way we schedule OOC is GOOD for the conference because we win most of those OOC games. So when other teams play us, they get the benefit of a pretty good record.
And that's the key: play the best teams you can that you can BEAT. Losing to a good team is good for that team's RPI but not so good for the teams that have to play you.
Note Wyoming had a gaudy ooc record; that boosted the RPIs of New Mexico, etc.

Also when you join the league you will get added boost from playing UC, Temple and UConn twice besides still playing Memphis twice.

Yea, it will. If everyone schedules so that they have, say, a 10-4 OOC record at least, the league will have a strong RPI. Us, ECU, SMU and HOuston weren't terrible teams. Now we need to improve our ooc scheduling for our own sake; we don't get well prepared for league play under the status quo. But you still need to win them.
If Cincy, Temple, U Conn and Memphis stay at the top of their game, and ECU, TU et al don't get terrible and improve a bit, this league will have a RPI similar to the C7.

(03-22-2013 08:47 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Tulane needs to learn how to cook the books going forward. Our RPI is always terrible - even when our record at a certain point in the season is good.

Wrong. Tulane needs to do what Temple has typically done - play anyone, anywhere. Don't "cook the books"because you will be exposed. Schedule the toughest teams you can find. Your players/recruits get to play against Kansas or Kentucky or Louisville, it gets your program in the right direction.

(03-21-2013 11:19 PM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  UNM's RPI was ridiculously inflated. I had them losing in the second round.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not trying to start and argument..... But could you please explain
how UNM or any other school can inflate or manipulate their rpi ?

(03-23-2013 12:23 AM)paco Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 11:19 PM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  UNM's RPI was ridiculously inflated. I had them losing in the second round.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not trying to start and argument..... But could you please explain
how UNM or any other school can inflate or manipulate their rpi ?

UNM didn't do it, more like the conference as a whole.

They scheduled quite a few non-Div 1 teams instead of the usual crap Div 1 teams. RPI only factors in games against Div 1 teams. Most MWC teams were playing 2 non-Div 1 teams. Essentially, these gimme games don't weigh down the SOS. The end result is a bunch of Top 100 RPI teams heading into conference play.

UCF scheduled 2 of these teams. ECU scheduled 4 of them. If we replaced those teams with Grambling State and IUPUI, our RPI's would have dropped.

(03-23-2013 12:23 AM)paco Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 11:19 PM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  UNM's RPI was ridiculously inflated. I had them losing in the second round.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not trying to start and argument..... But could you please explain
how UNM or any other school can inflate or manipulate their rpi ?

There are some posts on the previous page of back and forth about this.

(03-22-2013 10:18 PM)vick-mike Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 08:47 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Tulane needs to learn how to cook the books going forward. Our RPI is always terrible - even when our record at a certain point in the season is good.

Wrong. Tulane needs to do what Temple has typically done - play anyone, anywhere. Don't "cook the books"because you will be exposed. Schedule the toughest teams you can find. Your players/recruits get to play against Kansas or Kentucky or Louisville, it gets your program in the right direction.

I like teams that play those type of games too. These creampuff "DePaulesqe" schedules that schools put together these days are complete garbage.