(05-08-2014 02:48 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  The reason is because baseball teams play as many as four or five games against the same teams in a given year. If you go 2-2 against a non-conference opponent in the top 50 what's the net result the committee is supposed to draw? Yes, it's a factor, but baseball RPIs are far more manipulated than basketball and they know this. In basketball you're playing that top 50 opponent only once. You either win or lose. Another reason is because more than half of the games in baseball are played in conference whereas in basketball more than half the games are played OOC, so there is less authenticity to baseball RPI than there is basketball RPI and they know that.

It's why a 49-win Campbell team from last year that went 9-1 against the Top 100 didn't get in. They dinged them for lack of schedule strength. And they didn't use RPI to do that, because well they won 90% of their games against the top 100.

The majority of the at-large teams are going to come from the ACC and SEC like it does in most years. The conference bias is extremely strong in baseball much like the other sports. You guys are fooling yourselves if you think RPI is more than just a reference or starting point. Yes, it's a comparison tool between two teams if they are struggling between the two and an important factor but not nearly as important as their overall perceptions about who is good and who performed the best against the best teams. And they're not just using RPI to assess that. At least not those AD's and commissioners on the committee who did their homework and followed the season like they should. The most significant factor the committee uses with respect to the RPI is how many top 50 games did you play and how does your record compare to others against top 50 teams.

In Campbell's case they didn't have enough top 50 games whereas Coastal Carolina lost 13 more games had an RPI 10 points lower than Campbell and got in largely because they played 15 top-50 games. Though they only won five of them.

So, I just showed you an example of how in one sense they ignored the RPI with respect to Campbell's overall performance but used single RPI metric to put CC in instead.

At the time of the tournament selection, their RPI ranking was about 40. Coastal Carolina was inside the top 40 at the time of the selection. Campbell also had a terrible record vs. top 25 and top 50.

For baseball and softball, the RPI is the one metric that the committee uses to determine national seeds and host sites. Seriously, do some digging over the last 5+ years and look at the national seeds and host sites and compare to the Top 8 and Top 16 in the RPI.

The conference bias is in the RPI formula itself. 50% of the RPI formula is your opponent's winning percentage. In the SEC and ACC, nearly every team is over .500 and that will significantly improve those teams' RPI over schools in CUSA and Sun Belt where you can have nearly half of your teams below .500.

(05-08-2014 03:23 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 03:16 PM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 12:55 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Defintitley agree there on the standings. That said, if ODU wins all three on the road against a sub 200 team (though barely) their RPI will not drop. If they lose the series; however, they're done. Their games against Long Island though are all three must win games. They can't afford even one sub 200 loss here at the end of the season.

Yes their RPI will drop. You have to consider the fact that 50% of your RPI calculation is your opponent's winning percentage for each time you play them. In this case, Marshall's 39% WP will now be a part of ODU's OWP calculation of the RPI three times. Just by playing the games, ODU's RPI will drop.

Maybe not though, because they are away games. An away game win counts as 1.3 wins.

Won't offset as much as the hit to the OWP part of the RPI calculation.

Of course, this assumes that everyone else around them remains constant. Should there be some teams around them that lose games, the ranking of ODU may stay close the the same, but the actual RPI will take a hit.

Cajunman if they win all three plus Marshall's opponents winning percentage likely offsets. The opponents opponents section of the caluclation is +34

So 25% for three more wins.
Plus 25% for Marshall's opponents that collectively equates to 34 games over .500
minus 50% for playing a sub .500 club

likely results in not much of a move. They need to win them though. We'll see how it goes.

(05-08-2014 03:26 PM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 02:48 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  The reason is because baseball teams play as many as four or five games against the same teams in a given year. If you go 2-2 against a non-conference opponent in the top 50 what's the net result the committee is supposed to draw? Yes, it's a factor, but baseball RPIs are far more manipulated than basketball and they know this. In basketball you're playing that top 50 opponent only once. You either win or lose. Another reason is because more than half of the games in baseball are played in conference whereas in basketball more than half the games are played OOC, so there is less authenticity to baseball RPI than there is basketball RPI and they know that.

It's why a 49-win Campbell team from last year that went 9-1 against the Top 100 didn't get in. They dinged them for lack of schedule strength. And they didn't use RPI to do that, because well they won 90% of their games against the top 100.

The majority of the at-large teams are going to come from the ACC and SEC like it does in most years. The conference bias is extremely strong in baseball much like the other sports. You guys are fooling yourselves if you think RPI is more than just a reference or starting point. Yes, it's a comparison tool between two teams if they are struggling between the two and an important factor but not nearly as important as their overall perceptions about who is good and who performed the best against the best teams. And they're not just using RPI to assess that. At least not those AD's and commissioners on the committee who did their homework and followed the season like they should. The most significant factor the committee uses with respect to the RPI is how many top 50 games did you play and how does your record compare to others against top 50 teams.

In Campbell's case they didn't have enough top 50 games whereas Coastal Carolina lost 13 more games had an RPI 10 points lower than Campbell and got in largely because they played 15 top-50 games. Though they only won five of them.

So, I just showed you an example of how in one sense they ignored the RPI with respect to Campbell's overall performance but used single RPI metric to put CC in instead.

At the time of the tournament selection, their RPI ranking was about 40. Coastal Carolina was inside the top 40 at the time of the selection. Campbell also had a terrible record vs. top 25 and top 50.

For baseball and softball, the RPI is the one metric that the committee uses to determine national seeds and host sites. Seriously, do some digging over the last 5+ years and look at the national seeds and host sites and compare to the Top 8 and Top 16 in the RPI.

The conference bias is in the RPI formula itself. 50% of the RPI formula is your opponent's winning percentage. In the SEC and ACC, nearly every team is over .500 and that will significantly improve those teams' RPI over schools in CUSA and Sun Belt where you can have nearly half of your teams below .500.

Thank you. Campbell not getting in last year despite a 45-10 record was precisely because their RPI was not within the top 35. Any team with an RPI below 40 is not going to get an at large invite. Period.

So, no one over an RPI of 40 is getting in? Ok, would you guys please alert the committee of this new policy...

2013 (7)
UC Santa Barbara (55)
Oklahoma State (52)
New Mexico (51),
San Francisco (50)
Sam Houston (48)
Coastal Carolina (44)
Illinois (40)

Just to show how rediculous RPI can be as a metric in baseball, Florida was higher than all of them at #35 with a losing record.

2012 (3)
Indiana State (49),
Michigan State (45)
College of Charleston (43)

Again, it's a factor but not the factor.

(05-08-2014 03:26 PM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 02:48 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  The reason is because baseball teams play as many as four or five games against the same teams in a given year. If you go 2-2 against a non-conference opponent in the top 50 what's the net result the committee is supposed to draw? Yes, it's a factor, but baseball RPIs are far more manipulated than basketball and they know this. In basketball you're playing that top 50 opponent only once. You either win or lose. Another reason is because more than half of the games in baseball are played in conference whereas in basketball more than half the games are played OOC, so there is less authenticity to baseball RPI than there is basketball RPI and they know that.

It's why a 49-win Campbell team from last year that went 9-1 against the Top 100 didn't get in. They dinged them for lack of schedule strength. And they didn't use RPI to do that, because well they won 90% of their games against the top 100.

The majority of the at-large teams are going to come from the ACC and SEC like it does in most years. The conference bias is extremely strong in baseball much like the other sports. You guys are fooling yourselves if you think RPI is more than just a reference or starting point. Yes, it's a comparison tool between two teams if they are struggling between the two and an important factor but not nearly as important as their overall perceptions about who is good and who performed the best against the best teams. And they're not just using RPI to assess that. At least not those AD's and commissioners on the committee who did their homework and followed the season like they should. The most significant factor the committee uses with respect to the RPI is how many top 50 games did you play and how does your record compare to others against top 50 teams.

In Campbell's case they didn't have enough top 50 games whereas Coastal Carolina lost 13 more games had an RPI 10 points lower than Campbell and got in largely because they played 15 top-50 games. Though they only won five of them.

So, I just showed you an example of how in one sense they ignored the RPI with respect to Campbell's overall performance but used single RPI metric to put CC in instead.

At the time of the tournament selection, their RPI ranking was about 40. Coastal Carolina was inside the top 40 at the time of the selection. Campbell also had a terrible record vs. top 25 and top 50.

For baseball and softball, the RPI is the one metric that the committee uses to determine national seeds and host sites. Seriously, do some digging over the last 5+ years and look at the national seeds and host sites and compare to the Top 8 and Top 16 in the RPI.

The conference bias is in the RPI formula itself. 50% of the RPI formula is your opponent's winning percentage. In the SEC and ACC, nearly every team is over .500 and that will significantly improve those teams' RPI over schools in CUSA and Sun Belt where you can have nearly half of your teams below .500.

Hate to be the bearer of such news but nearly every team in C-USA has a record of .500 or better. Only four of the 13 schools have a losing record. Also, Coastal was not inside the top 40 at the time of the selection. They were 44. Campbell was 38. Apologies for using the wrong numbers earlier.

(05-09-2014 07:44 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  So, no one over an RPI of 40 is getting in? Ok, would you guys please alert the committee of this new policy...
2013 (7)
UC Santa Barbara (55)
Oklahoma State (52)
New Mexico (51),
San Francisco (50)
Sam Houston (48)
Coastal Carolina (44)
Illinois (40)
Just to show how rediculous RPI can be as a metric in baseball, Florida was higher than all of them at #35 with a losing record.
2012 (3)
Indiana State (49),
Michigan State (45)
College of Charleston (43)
Again, it's a factor but not the factor.

It has to do with the compounding effect of playing in a stronger conference. So a mediocre team in the SEC will have every conference win compounded by the record (and RPI) of their opponent (and their opponents opponent). Good or bad; that's the system. But you can't tell me that a top 3 C-USA school this year isn't better than a .500 Georgia team with a 48 RPI.

Then the arguement progresses to record v. top 50 schools and you see Georgia has 9 wins against them but 17 losses. They play a top 50 every weekend of course their going to have more wins and a better RPI; are they better than a team from a still strong conference with a lower RPI? No.

This was a marginal example but it goes to show that bubble SEC/ACC teams are not any better than Stronger C-USA or AAC schools, their RPI is being goosed by their league and the compounding factor used to determine an RPI.

I would agree with that FIUFan. You have to give the SEC credit though. They probably deserve it given they have won 75% of their non-conference games this year.

But because of the way the baseball schedules are set up with three game series and playing the same teams over and over again in the mid-week they get many more top 50 games as you mentioned and that's what makes the RPI in baseball a secondary measure for the selection committee. I've worked in two ahtletic departments including one SEC school and at Middle Tenn. I'm quite familiar with this process, which is the reason I'm so adamant about putting this in perspective. When they look at who you have played they don't just use the RPI. It's a little more complex than that.

(05-09-2014 08:18 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I would agree with that FIUFan. You have to give the SEC credit though. They probably deserve it given they have won 75% of their non-conference games this year.

But because of the way the baseball schedules are set up with three game series and playing the same teams over and over again in the mid-week they get many more top 50 games as you mentioned and that's what makes the RPI in baseball a secondary measure for the selection committee. I've worked in two ahtletic departments including one SEC school and at Middle Tenn. I'm quite familiar with this process, which is the reason I'm so adamant about putting this in perspective. When they look at who you have played they don't just use the RPI. It's a little more complex than that.

Right, but for arguement sake, let's say you magically slot a UAB or ODU into the SEC at the start of this year and give them Georgia's schedule; I'd bet you dimes to doughnuts, they'd have a much higher RPI than they do now.

In baseball esp., you're not going to win all your games no matter who you are (recent ODU win over VA and ECU over NC or what ever bears that out). So the compounding of records, within a strong conference, really goes to exacerbate a mediocre teams performance rankng while undervaluing those teams who don't have the luxury of playing a top-50 week in and week out.

(05-09-2014 07:44 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  So, no one over an RPI of 40 is getting in? Ok, would you guys please alert the committee of this new policy...

2013 (7)
UC Santa Barbara (55)
Oklahoma State (52)
New Mexico (51),
San Francisco (50)
Sam Houston (48)
Coastal Carolina (44)
Illinois (40)

Just to show how rediculous RPI can be as a metric in baseball, Florida was higher than all of them at #35 with a losing record.

2012 (3)
Indiana State (49),
Michigan State (45)
College of Charleston (43)

Again, it's a factor but not the factor.

Most of us agree the RPI is a flawed and heavily biased metric, but the historical reality is that it is THE most heavily considered criteria by the Selection Committee. That is not an opinion; rather, a historical fact. Most of those teams you mention with the 40+ RPI were conference champions who receive an automatic birth. You'd be VERY hard pressed to find more than a very select few non-BCS programs who earned at large bids into the baseball post-season with RPIs above 40. It just doesn't happen, and in those very rare instances when it does occur, it is the exception.

(05-09-2014 09:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Most of us agree the RPI is a flawed and heavily biased metric, but the historical reality is that it is THE most heavily considered criteria by the Selection Committee. That is not an opinion; rather, a historical fact. Most of those teams you mention with the 40+ RPI were conference champions who receive an automatic birth. You'd be VERY hard pressed to find more than a very select few non-BCS programs who earned at large bids into the baseball post-season with RPIs above 40. It just doesn't happen, and in those very rare instances when it does occur, it is the exception.

So let's see: From the #11 Conference on down, they are all one bid leagues (that's 20 right there). Now there are a handful, maybe three who have a school with such a high RPI that if they lose their tourny they still get a bid. So 23 go to the bottom 20 conferences.

Now the next two conferences up the latter also have one team that is a shoe-in and if they win the tourney, the Sun and Mountain are a one bid, let's say one of them wins and the other loses, that's another 3 we're up to 26. So we're down to 38 spots and 8 conferences.

Up next is C-USA; given RPI, which is your point, C-USA hs two schools in, Rice and ODU at 5 and 28, resp. Down to 36. The AAC has 2 in and UCF on the bubble. Down to 33. MVC has no stand-out and few teams but a #6 conf. RPI gets them 2. Down to 31. Big West has two deserving and if one of them wins the tourney, they get 2. Down to 29.

Now we're down to the Top-4 conferences and 29 slots; that's an average of 8 apiece. However, the PAC only has 4 teams with an RPI <40, so one of them wins the tourney they get 4. Down to 25. Big XII has 6 teams at <40, hmmm, down to 21 with only 2 conferences remaining. ACC has 6 schools <40 RPI now we're down to 15 and only the SEC remaining.

Drum-roll, the SEC has 9 teams with an RPI <40, which leaves 6 Regional spots to be filled. Now, with those 6 teams, which conference schools are more deserving of them? A team with more or less the same RPI as a school from a top-4 but finishes in the top third of their top-10 conference or a .500 school from the top-4 who finishes 10th?

(05-09-2014 09:38 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Most of us agree the RPI is a flawed and heavily biased metric, but the historical reality is that it is THE most heavily considered criteria by the Selection Committee. That is not an opinion; rather, a historical fact. Most of those teams you mention with the 40+ RPI were conference champions who receive an automatic birth. You'd be VERY hard pressed to find more than a very select few non-BCS programs who earned at large bids into the baseball post-season with RPIs above 40. It just doesn't happen, and in those very rare instances when it does occur, it is the exception.

So let's see: From the #11 Conference on down, they are all one bid leagues (that's 20 right there). Now there are a handful, maybe three who have a school with such a high RPI that if they lose their tourny they still get a bid. So 23 go to the bottom 20 conferences.

Now the next two conferences up the latter also have one team that is a shoe-in and if they win the tourney, the Sun and Mountain are a one bid, let's say one of them wins and the other loses, that's another 3 we're up to 26. So we're down to 38 spots and 8 conferences.

Up next is C-USA; given RPI, which is your point, C-USA hs two schools in, Rice and ODU at 5 and 28, resp. Down to 36. The AAC has 2 in and UCF on the bubble. Down to 33. MVC has no stand-out and few teams but a #6 conf. RPI gets them 2. Down to 31. Big West has two deserving and if one of them wins the tourney, they get 2. Down to 29.

Now we're down to the Top-4 conferences and 29 slots; that's an average of 8 apiece. However, the PAC only has 4 teams with an RPI <40, so one of them wins the tourney they get 4. Down to 25. Big XII has 6 teams at <40, hmmm, down to 21 with only 2 conferences remaining. ACC has 6 schools <40 RPI now we're down to 15 and only the SEC remaining.

Drum-roll, the SEC has 9 teams with an RPI <40, which leaves 6 Regional spots to be filled. Now, with those 6 teams, which conference schools are more deserving of them? A team with more or less the same RPI as a school from a top-4 but finishes in the top third of their top-10 conference or a .500 school from the top-4 who finishes 10th?

Deserving or not, the Selection Committee gives far more weight to RPI in selecting the final at large births than conference standing...and if you're not in the Top 3 in any of the non-BCS conferences, you can just about forgitaboutit. That's reality. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but it's what has been done historically.

(05-09-2014 09:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 07:44 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  So, no one over an RPI of 40 is getting in? Ok, would you guys please alert the committee of this new policy...

2013 (7)
UC Santa Barbara (55)
Oklahoma State (52)
New Mexico (51),
San Francisco (50)
Sam Houston (48)
Coastal Carolina (44)
Illinois (40)

Just to show how rediculous RPI can be as a metric in baseball, Florida was higher than all of them at #35 with a losing record.

2012 (3)
Indiana State (49),
Michigan State (45)
College of Charleston (43)

Again, it's a factor but not the factor.

Most of us agree the RPI is a flawed and heavily biased metric, but the historical reality is that it is THE most heavily considered criteria by the Selection Committee. That is not an opinion; rather, a historical fact. Most of those teams you mention with the 40+ RPI were conference champions who receive an automatic birth. You'd be VERY hard pressed to find more than a very select few non-BCS programs who earned at large bids into the baseball post-season with RPIs above 40. It just doesn't happen, and in those very rare instances when it does occur, it is the exception.

First and foremost, NONE of the teams I referenced above earned its conferences automatic bid. Every single one of them were at-large selections from 40 RPI and above. Would you like me to go back to 2011, 2010, or 2009. There are actually a lot of non-BCS type schools that have gotten an NCAA invite with a 40+ RPI.

Second, please provide evidentiary prove that is the most used metric by the baseball selection committee. I would really enjoy seeing that. Is it a fact, because you say it is? I'm very curious to know why this is a fact. It may be for basketball but is absolutely a false fan assumption in baseball. The RPI hasn't even been used very long as part of the baseball tournament. They have a method for doing it that's very different than basketball. Everyone wants to keep bringing their opinions but there hasn't been a single proof of evidence to substantiate that RPI is the most used element. I have been one degree of separation from this selection process, so unless someone has been in the room with the committeee as they made the selections please enlighten us.

(05-09-2014 11:16 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 07:44 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  So, no one over an RPI of 40 is getting in? Ok, would you guys please alert the committee of this new policy...

2013 (7)
UC Santa Barbara (55)
Oklahoma State (52)
New Mexico (51),
San Francisco (50)
Sam Houston (48)
Coastal Carolina (44)
Illinois (40)

Just to show how rediculous RPI can be as a metric in baseball, Florida was higher than all of them at #35 with a losing record.

2012 (3)
Indiana State (49),
Michigan State (45)
College of Charleston (43)

Again, it's a factor but not the factor.

Most of us agree the RPI is a flawed and heavily biased metric, but the historical reality is that it is THE most heavily considered criteria by the Selection Committee. That is not an opinion; rather, a historical fact. Most of those teams you mention with the 40+ RPI were conference champions who receive an automatic birth. You'd be VERY hard pressed to find more than a very select few non-BCS programs who earned at large bids into the baseball post-season with RPIs above 40. It just doesn't happen, and in those very rare instances when it does occur, it is the exception.

First and foremost, NONE of the teams I referenced above earned its conferences automatic bid. Every single one of them were at-large selections from 40 RPI and above. Would you like me to go back to 2011, 2010, or 2009. There are actually a lot of non-BCS type schools that have gotten an NCAA invite with a 40+ RPI.

Second, please provide evidentiary prove that is the most used metric by the baseball selection committee. I would really enjoy seeing that. Is it a fact, because you say it is? I'm very curious to know why this is a fact. It may be for basketball but is absolutely a false fan assumption in baseball. The RPI hasn't even been used very long as part of the baseball tournament. They have a method for doing it that's very different than basketball. Everyone wants to keep bringing their opinions but there hasn't been a single proof of evidence to substantiate that RPI is the most used element. I have been one degree of separation from this selection process, so unless someone has been in the room with the committeee as they made the selections please enlighten us.

So I guess you're closer to the process than Kendall Rogers, Aaron Fitt, Kyle Peterson and Eric Sorenson? PLEASE! If you're going to continue this ridiculous line of argument then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Anyone who truly follows college baseball closely recognizes that the Selection Committee worships the RPI god above all else, and often to the exclusion of all else. Hey, but keep telling yourself it's not so...and come back to me when CUSA gets no more than 2 births into the post-season this year.

BTW, are the 2013 RPIs your using the ones BEFORE the post-season began, or the final ones provided by Boyds or the NCAA?

(05-09-2014 01:38 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  So I guess you're closer to the process than Kendall Rogers, Aaron Fitt, Kyle Peterson and Eric Sorenson? PLEASE! If you're going to continue this ridiculous line of argument then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Anyone who truly follows college baseball closely recognizes that the Selection Committee worships the RPI god above all else, and often to the exclusion of all else. Hey, but keep telling yourself it's not so...and come back to me when CUSA gets no more than 2 births into the post-season this year.

I have no idea what their access is to the committee. My guess is not much considering they're all AD's and Commissioners. I don't know of a lot of college baseball reporters who have a direct line of communications to Division I athletic directors. I also worked part time doing media relations and stats at Baseball American one year and I didn't see any our folks dialing up executives like that, so I suspect a lot of what you see from folks like Aaron Fitt are educated guesses. And that's a dude that's wrong as much as he's right about bubble teams at selection time.

(05-09-2014 01:38 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  BTW, are the 2013 RPIs your using the ones BEFORE the post-season began, or the final ones provided by Boyds or the NCAA?

Before.

I guess I'm wrong then since you guys have it all figured out. I will tell you what I understand to be the key metrics and then you can continue to dismiss what I'm saying and go on with your lives.

Criteria # 1 - Number of wins/losses (self explantory)
Criteria #2 - RPI Strength of Schedule - Looking at your overall SOS and then how many Top 50 and Top 100 games were played and number of games won against them.
Criteria # 3 - Other SOS factors - a lot of respect and weight is given to the ranking services like BA and College Insider. So, when they look at who you played and who you beat they will first look at the Top 25 and Top 30 rankings through the course of the season. Playing teams from the better conferences is also factored here.
Criteria # 4 - RPI Ranking (Bottom Line #) - Least important important factor of the four.

BTW, Aaron Fitt of BA has written a good article on the RPI. If he knows this. And everyone of you know the system is flawed then why do you guys so vehemently think the committee puts all their eggs in the RPI basket? They too know its flawed and adjust their perspectives and assessments accordingly. It's why a 58-rated mid-major program can get an at-large over 30-something power school. You would never see that in basketball. I simply don't understand why if everyone knows it's f'd up that you also believe the powers that be would not only fail to understand this but instead treat it as the holy grail. If you want to believe that I apologize for getting in your way.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/college/r...oser-look/

(05-09-2014 02:29 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I guess I'm wrong then since you guys have it all figured out. I will tell you what I understand to be the key metrics and then you can continue to dismiss what I'm saying and go on with your lives.

Criteria # 1 - Number of wins/losses (self explantory)
Criteria #2 - RPI Strength of Schedule - Looking at your overall SOS and then how many Top 50 and Top 100 games were played and number of games won against them.
Criteria # 3 - Other SOS factors - a lot of respect and weight is given to the ranking services like BA and College Insider. So, when they look at who you played and who you beat they will first look at the Top 25 and Top 30 rankings through the course of the season. Playing teams from the better conferences is also factored here.
Criteria # 4 - RPI Ranking (Bottom Line #) - Least important important factor of the four.

BTW, Aaron Fitt of BA has written a good article on the RPI. If he knows this. And everyone of you know the system is flawed then why do you guys so vehemently think the committee puts all their eggs in the RPI basket? They too know its flawed and adjust their perspectives and assessments accordingly. It's why a 58-rated mid-major program can get an at-large over 30-something power school. You would never see that in basketball. I simply don't understand why if everyone knows it's f'd up that you also believe the powers that be treat it as the holy grail. If you want to believe that I apologize for getting in your way.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/college/r...oser-look/

This indicates how out of touch you are. The weekly polls are given almost no weight , and the only poll at the Selection Committee's disposal is the USA Todsy/ESPN Coaches poll. That's a fact disclosed by the NCAA themselves. Second, W- L are not considered as a separate criteria as it's factored into the overall RPI. If wins was theist important criteria, no way Campbell would have gotten screwed last year.

The criteria used by the Committee include overall RPI, conference record/standing, record vs Top 25/50/100, road record and the Coaches poll-- and most believe based on past actions, that is the relative order of importance. RPI is, without question, THE most heavily weighted criteria, and often trumps everything else (for no other reason as it makes their decision-making easy). Yes, each year there are a couple exceptions, but that is the rule and historical precident.

Wins and losses mean nothing if the SOS schedule factor is not there. I didn't say it was wins and losses and nothing else matters, which is precisley what you're implying.

And I also know there are markers or criteria that have to be met first such as an RPI in the top 75, a top-two conference finish or a regional advisory committee recommendation.

Those are elements that just get you in the discussion. But then the things above are where the real discussions begin.

As for the polls that's a change. Those were key factors as late as 2009. Whether its USA Today or BA they use that as a measure of schedule strength aside from just RPI. All I'm saying to you bro is they're not using one factor.

(05-09-2014 02:59 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  And I also know there are markers or criteria that have to be met first such as an RPI in the top 75, a top-two conference finish or a regional advisory committee recommendation.

Those are elements that just get you in the discussion. But then the things above are where the real discussions begin.

As for the polls that's a change. Those were key factors as late as 2009. Whether its USA Today or BA they use that as a measure of schedule strength aside from just RPI. All I'm saying to you bro is they're not using one factor.

Geez. No one has said they use just one criteria; however, the RPI is the most heavily weighted, and by a long shot. You're the one arguing against that point... And you 're just plain wrong...and it's been that way got at least the past 10 years.