(01-23-2018 10:22 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 09:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  NCAA: Wichita St, Cincinnati

NIT Strong: SMU, Houston, UCF, Memphis

Not Too Tough: Tulane, Temple, Tulsa, Uconn

Very very bad: ECU

Possibly worse than Chicago St: USF

USF is not worse than Chicago St by a long shot. Heck, they won 7 games out of conference. They also lost to UCF by 2 and were down to Cincinnati by 2 at halftime. Of course they got blown out in others, but there a couple of very good freshman getting playing time that are going to be great building blocks. Brian Gregory is going to get it done, based on his past history, but he was left with less than nothing by the former coach. Freshman David Collins looks extremely promising.

Back to topic at hand, AAC will get 3 in. The committee will find a way to keep either Houston or SMU out at the last minute.

Agree - 3 tops at this point.

(01-23-2018 10:40 AM)SC-KNIGHT Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 10:22 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 09:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  NCAA: Wichita St, Cincinnati

NIT Strong: SMU, Houston, UCF, Memphis

Not Too Tough: Tulane, Temple, Tulsa, Uconn

Very very bad: ECU

Possibly worse than Chicago St: USF

USF is not worse than Chicago St by a long shot. Heck, they won 7 games out of conference. They also lost to UCF by 2 and were down to Cincinnati by 2 at halftime. Of course they got blown out in others, but there a couple of very good freshman getting playing time that are going to be great building blocks. Brian Gregory is going to get it done, based on his past history, but he was left with less than nothing by the former coach. Freshman David Collins looks extremely promising.

Back to topic at hand, AAC will get 3 in. The committee will find a way to keep either Houston or SMU out at the last minute.

Agree - 3 tops at this point.

Well, the latest Lunardi Bracketology has 4 in, with SMU at 11 and UH at 12, so it's possible. Maybe not probable.

(01-23-2018 11:00 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 10:40 AM)SC-KNIGHT Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 10:22 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 09:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  NCAA: Wichita St, Cincinnati

NIT Strong: SMU, Houston, UCF, Memphis

Not Too Tough: Tulane, Temple, Tulsa, Uconn

Very very bad: ECU

Possibly worse than Chicago St: USF

USF is not worse than Chicago St by a long shot. Heck, they won 7 games out of conference. They also lost to UCF by 2 and were down to Cincinnati by 2 at halftime. Of course they got blown out in others, but there a couple of very good freshman getting playing time that are going to be great building blocks. Brian Gregory is going to get it done, based on his past history, but he was left with less than nothing by the former coach. Freshman David Collins looks extremely promising.

Back to topic at hand, AAC will get 3 in. The committee will find a way to keep either Houston or SMU out at the last minute.

Agree - 3 tops at this point.

Well, the latest Lunardi Bracketology has 4 in, with SMU at 11 and UH at 12, so it's possible. Maybe not probable.

I suspect both SMU and Houston are gonna have to avoid being upset in the first round of the conference tourney.

(01-18-2018 09:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  NCAA: Wichita St, Cincinnati

NIT Strong: SMU, Houston, UCF, Memphis

Not Too Tough: Tulane, Temple, Tulsa, Uconn

Very very bad: ECU

Possibly worse than Chicago St: USF

Even before the Tulsa defeat, Memphis did not possess a strong NIT resume.

BPI:

#6 Cincy
#11 Wichita State
#31 SMU
#37 Houston
----------------
#81 UCF
#84 Temple
----------------
#126 Tulsa

As long as the top 4 only beat up on each other they should all be in. A loss or two to UCF/Temple wouldn't be the end of the world. More losses to Tulsa/Tulane/Memphis/UCONN probably start losing the conference bids.

(01-23-2018 12:51 PM)STL_Wave Wrote:  BPI:

#6 Cincy
#11 Wichita State
#31 SMU
#37 Houston
----------------
#81 UCF
#84 Temple
----------------
#126 Tulsa

As long as the top 4 only beat up on each other they should all be in. A loss or two to UCF/Temple wouldn't be the end of the world. More losses to Tulsa/Tulane/Memphis/UCONN probably start losing the conference bids.

What is BPI, and why is memphis not listed?

They're a team that could ruin it for the Coogs. We only play them once this year at their place. Have we ever beaten them there?

(01-23-2018 12:59 PM)Coog Engineer Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 12:51 PM)STL_Wave Wrote:  BPI:

#6 Cincy
#11 Wichita State
#31 SMU
#37 Houston
----------------
#81 UCF
#84 Temple
----------------
#126 Tulsa

As long as the top 4 only beat up on each other they should all be in. A loss or two to UCF/Temple wouldn't be the end of the world. More losses to Tulsa/Tulane/Memphis/UCONN probably start losing the conference bids.

What is BPI, and why is memphis not listed?

They're a team that could ruin it for the Coogs. We only play them once this year at their place. Have we ever beaten them there?

Quote:The College Basketball Power Index (BPI) is a measure of team strength that is meant to be the best predictor of performance going forward. BPI represents how many points above or below average a team is. Strength of Record (SOR) is a measure of team accomplishment based on how difficult a team's W-L record is to achieve. Game predictions account for opponent strength, pace of play, site, travel distance, day's rest and altitude, and are used to simulate the season 10,000 times to produce season projections. Numbers update daily.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...etball/bpi

Full American:

#6 Cincy
#11 Wichita State
---------------------
#31 SMU
#37 Houston
---------------------
#81 UCF
#84 Temple
---------------------
#126 Tulsa
#133 Tulane
#162 Memphis
#166 UCONN
---------------------
#291 ECU
---------------------
#318 USF

(01-23-2018 01:05 PM)STL_Wave Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 12:59 PM)Coog Engineer Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 12:51 PM)STL_Wave Wrote:  BPI:

#6 Cincy
#11 Wichita State
#31 SMU
#37 Houston
----------------
#81 UCF
#84 Temple
----------------
#126 Tulsa

As long as the top 4 only beat up on each other they should all be in. A loss or two to UCF/Temple wouldn't be the end of the world. More losses to Tulsa/Tulane/Memphis/UCONN probably start losing the conference bids.

What is BPI, and why is memphis not listed?

They're a team that could ruin it for the Coogs. We only play them once this year at their place. Have we ever beaten them there?

Quote:The College Basketball Power Index (BPI) is a measure of team strength that is meant to be the best predictor of performance going forward. BPI represents how many points above or below average a team is. Strength of Record (SOR) is a measure of team accomplishment based on how difficult a team's W-L record is to achieve. Game predictions account for opponent strength, pace of play, site, travel distance, day's rest and altitude, and are used to simulate the season 10,000 times to produce season projections. Numbers update daily.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...etball/bpi

Full American:

#6 Cincy
#11 Wichita State
---------------------
#31 SMU
#37 Houston
---------------------
#81 UCF
#84 Temple
---------------------
#126 Tulsa
#133 Tulane
#162 Memphis
#166 UCONN
---------------------
#291 ECU
---------------------
#318 USF

BPI is being used this year? Not a fan. The BPI is a prediction tool, whereas the tournament should be based on merit. Teams who underperform should not be rewarded, IMO.

(01-23-2018 01:11 PM)vick mike Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:05 PM)STL_Wave Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 12:59 PM)Coog Engineer Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 12:51 PM)STL_Wave Wrote:  BPI:

#6 Cincy
#11 Wichita State
#31 SMU
#37 Houston
----------------
#81 UCF
#84 Temple
----------------
#126 Tulsa

As long as the top 4 only beat up on each other they should all be in. A loss or two to UCF/Temple wouldn't be the end of the world. More losses to Tulsa/Tulane/Memphis/UCONN probably start losing the conference bids.

What is BPI, and why is memphis not listed?

They're a team that could ruin it for the Coogs. We only play them once this year at their place. Have we ever beaten them there?

Quote:The College Basketball Power Index (BPI) is a measure of team strength that is meant to be the best predictor of performance going forward. BPI represents how many points above or below average a team is. Strength of Record (SOR) is a measure of team accomplishment based on how difficult a team's W-L record is to achieve. Game predictions account for opponent strength, pace of play, site, travel distance, day's rest and altitude, and are used to simulate the season 10,000 times to produce season projections. Numbers update daily.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...etball/bpi

Full American:

#6 Cincy
#11 Wichita State
---------------------
#31 SMU
#37 Houston
---------------------
#81 UCF
#84 Temple
---------------------
#126 Tulsa
#133 Tulane
#162 Memphis
#166 UCONN
---------------------
#291 ECU
---------------------
#318 USF

BPI is being used this year? Not a fan. The BPI is a prediction tool, whereas the tournament should be based on merit. Teams who underperform should not be rewarded, IMO.

I don't think it's being used. Just BPI rankings pretty much line up with what I've seen so far in conference. Thought it was useful to post. 4 teams deserving of bids.

UCF needed a couple more breaks out of conference, Temple needed a few more in conference. Both realistically should still have a chance but their rise would probably mean pulling someone else down. That pretty much corresponds to a ~80 ranking.

(01-23-2018 01:15 PM)STL_Wave Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:11 PM)vick mike Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:05 PM)STL_Wave Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 12:59 PM)Coog Engineer Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 12:51 PM)STL_Wave Wrote:  BPI:

#6 Cincy
#11 Wichita State
#31 SMU
#37 Houston
----------------
#81 UCF
#84 Temple
----------------
#126 Tulsa

As long as the top 4 only beat up on each other they should all be in. A loss or two to UCF/Temple wouldn't be the end of the world. More losses to Tulsa/Tulane/Memphis/UCONN probably start losing the conference bids.

What is BPI, and why is memphis not listed?

They're a team that could ruin it for the Coogs. We only play them once this year at their place. Have we ever beaten them there?

Quote:The College Basketball Power Index (BPI) is a measure of team strength that is meant to be the best predictor of performance going forward. BPI represents how many points above or below average a team is. Strength of Record (SOR) is a measure of team accomplishment based on how difficult a team's W-L record is to achieve. Game predictions account for opponent strength, pace of play, site, travel distance, day's rest and altitude, and are used to simulate the season 10,000 times to produce season projections. Numbers update daily.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...etball/bpi

Full American:

#6 Cincy
#11 Wichita State
---------------------
#31 SMU
#37 Houston
---------------------
#81 UCF
#84 Temple
---------------------
#126 Tulsa
#133 Tulane
#162 Memphis
#166 UCONN
---------------------
#291 ECU
---------------------
#318 USF

BPI is being used this year? Not a fan. The BPI is a prediction tool, whereas the tournament should be based on merit. Teams who underperform should not be rewarded, IMO.

I don't think it's being used. Just BPI rankings pretty much line up with what I've seen so far in conference. Thought it was useful to post. 4 teams deserving of bids.

UCF needed a couple more breaks out of conference, Temple needed a few more in conference. Both realistically should still have a chance but their rise would probably mean pulling someone else down. That pretty much corresponds to a ~80 ranking.

BPI should stand for biased probability index, ESPN is being shady with it's set up.

BPI, kenpom, and other computer rankings including the old platinum standard RPI will be used for team comparisons if they have similar resumes i.e. similar tier 1 and 2 wins or losses, similar win records, conferences, conference records.

However the RPI is still a gold standard it's modified for home and away in it's formula and the committee has added weight to the home and away in calculation for tier 1 and 2 wins. Tier victories will be the basis for resumes and accurate comparisons. Because of it's long time use the committee will likely give it more weight as well for ranking comparisons. Remember this is not a young group and many probably have limited exposure or understanding of advanced metrics.

(01-21-2018 08:41 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  RPI..........Team...........Record (Conference)
25........Cincinnati.......17-2 (6-0)
29........Wichita St.......15-4 (5-2)
46........Temple........... 10-9 (2-5)
49........Houston.........15-4 (5-2)
53........SMU...............14-6 (4-3)
55........UCF.................13-6 (4-3)
90........UConn............10-9 (3-3)
91........Tulane............12-7 (3-4)
96........Memphis........13-7 (4-3)
119......Tulsa...............11-9 (4-4)
278......ECU.................8-11 (2-6)
301......USF..................7-13 (0-7)


7th conference over all.
Top 50: 4
Top 100: 9

Possible Tier 1 wins
Home: 2
Away: 6
Neutral: 4

Possible Tier 2 wins
Home: 4
Away: 6
Neutral: 5

Possible bad losses (150+)
Home: 2
Away: 2
Neutral: 2


Neutral is for resumes including the conference tournament, which is held on a neutral court.


For fun and not to leave them out, Navy is 4th in the Patriot, has the second best over all record, and is one of only 3 with a winning record.

233.......Navy..........12-8 (4-4)

RPI says UCF avoids losses to ECU or USF, win at home and steal one on the road and get a victory in the tournament and they are bubble material. Temple getting 18+ wins and they will be bubble as well. Houston and SMU just do what they are suppose to and they are in, probably as 10 seeds. Their top seeds are probably Houston 8 and SMU 7.

I think I threw up a bit when I read someone refer to RPI as the Gold Standard. RPI continues to be an objectively terrible way to measure team quality. Temple is a great illustration of that.

Even if Temple loses by 50 tomorrow, their RPI is likely to go up.

Why? It's a road game over a top 30 RPI team and margin of victor or defeat is irrelevant to RPI.

Why is Temple's RPI so high? Because 50% of RPI is a bad measure of their SOS and 25% of RPI is a bad measure of their opponents strength of schedule. Basically Temple gets credit for teams they play winning, and teams their opponent plays winning. These imperfect measures are basically your record weighted for home/road/neutral with no regard for margin of victory/defeat. A whopping 25% of RPI is a measure of Temple's own accomplishment and even that is just a bad measure record weighted for home/road/neutral with no regard for margin of victory/defeat.

The reason kenpom/sagarin/bpi are predictive measures is because they are superior in every respect at measuring team quality. Yea RPI isn't a predictive measure because it is dreadful at measuring team quality. It's also way worse than the predictive measures at measuring accomplishment since only 25% of RPI is even trying to do that and that 25% is doing it in a statistically problematic way. Nobody is saying the committee should just look at the predictive metrics and seed teams just by where they stand there, but the fact that those metrics are predictive is a really bad critique of the metrics. They are predictive precisely because they are great indicators of team quality

(01-23-2018 02:35 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I think I threw up a bit when I read someone refer to RPI as the Gold Standard. RPI continues to be an objectively terrible way to measure team quality. Temple is a great illustration of that.

Even if Temple loses by 50 tomorrow, their RPI is likely to go up.

Why? It's a road game over a top 30 RPI team and margin of victor or defeat is irrelevant to RPI.

Why is Temple's RPI so high? Because 50% of RPI is a bad measure of their SOS and 25% of RPI is a bad measure of their opponents strength of schedule. Basically Temple gets credit for teams they play winning, and teams their opponent plays winning. These imperfect measures are basically your record weighted for home/road/neutral with no regard for margin of victory/defeat. A whopping 25% of RPI is a measure of Temple's own accomplishment and even that is just a bad measure record weighted for home/road/neutral with no regard for margin of victory/defeat.

The reason kenpom/sagarin/bpi are predictive measures is because they are superior in every respect at measuring team quality. Yea RPI isn't a predictive measure because it is dreadful at measuring team quality. It's also way worse than the predictive measures at measuring accomplishment since only 25% of RPI is even trying to do that and that 25% is doing it in a statistically problematic way. Nobody is saying the committee should just look at the predictive metrics and seed teams just by where they stand there, but the fact that those metrics are predictive is a really bad critique of the metrics. They are predictive precisely because they are great indicators of team quality

school is in folks....

gather round Bearcatmark and listen up...

ok, Mark, proceed...

(01-23-2018 02:38 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 02:35 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I think I threw up a bit when I read someone refer to RPI as the Gold Standard. RPI continues to be an objectively terrible way to measure team quality. Temple is a great illustration of that.

Even if Temple loses by 50 tomorrow, their RPI is likely to go up.

Why? It's a road game over a top 30 RPI team and margin of victor or defeat is irrelevant to RPI.

Why is Temple's RPI so high? Because 50% of RPI is a bad measure of their SOS and 25% of RPI is a bad measure of their opponents strength of schedule. Basically Temple gets credit for teams they play winning, and teams their opponent plays winning. These imperfect measures are basically your record weighted for home/road/neutral with no regard for margin of victory/defeat. A whopping 25% of RPI is a measure of Temple's own accomplishment and even that is just a bad measure record weighted for home/road/neutral with no regard for margin of victory/defeat.

The reason kenpom/sagarin/bpi are predictive measures is because they are superior in every respect at measuring team quality. Yea RPI isn't a predictive measure because it is dreadful at measuring team quality. It's also way worse than the predictive measures at measuring accomplishment since only 25% of RPI is even trying to do that and that 25% is doing it in a statistically problematic way. Nobody is saying the committee should just look at the predictive metrics and seed teams just by where they stand there, but the fact that those metrics are predictive is a really bad critique of the metrics. They are predictive precisely because they are great indicators of team quality

school is in folks....

gather round Bearcatmark and listen up...

ok, Mark, proceed...

Lol, I meant as far as the committee is concerned. For a long time it was the end all be all. Now it's important, but other numbers will be taken into account. Platinum to gold.
I don't disagree that it is flawed although I personally believe people put too much on margin of victory. I like that the committee is taking into consideration other metrics especially when considering similar teams.

However it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks. Just guessing but the committee is probably late 40s to early 60s, they will have had limited understanding and little exposure to the advance statistics metrics the other systems use, they will have a habit of depending on the RPI it will have a larger influence the others.

I promise you when you see a big conference low end team get in over a mid major at large the BPI will be sighted as cover for the committee which is why they agreed to start using them. Still it's rare to have huge differences between the various metrics rankings at the end of a season. Good teams are good and metrics just show that.

NCAA: Wichita St, Cincinnati

NIT Strong: SMU, Houston

Not Too Tough: Tulane, Temple, Tulsa, Uconn, Memphis, UCF

Very very bad: ECU

Possibly better than Chicago St: USF

At this point the answer to the original question is 2.