LIfted this off Bearcatlair....thought it was pretty telling:
RPI FORECAST by FINAL RECORD
Here is the RPI forecast broken down by final record along with the probability of the final record:
Final Record Expected RPI Probability
24-7 47.9 0.70%
23-8 57.8 6.80%
22-9 69.4 20.26%
21-10 81.7 29.86%
20-11 94.2 26.10%
19-12 105.9 12.95%
18-13 118.0 3.03%
17-14 130.4 0.29%
I would say at 22-9 and 21-10 we would have to make some kind of run in the BE tourney, like to the finals etc to get in.
20-11 and worse you can forget it other than winning the Big East Tourney...
thoughts?
Agree more with the other thread that the other rating systems are better, and not just because they help UC's chances. But if you look at some of the other teams ahead of UC in the basic rpi system, you really find yourself questioning it.
4-2 and they are in good shape with who those 4 Ws would be.
People may not agree but its been a bubble team from the start. However, they are right where they need to be to have a chance. Go 3-3 snd the chance is blown and they will deserve the extra home game in the NIT.
USF could be an elimination game for the Committee.
Sagarin is in better shape at 47. 3-3 is NIT at best without a strong run at MSG. 4-2 could get the Cats in but I think a win over Marquette and Louisville will be needed. (wins over Hall, Prov, @USF, @Nova, not enough without a good win at MSG). 5-1 should be in.
Besides RPI, I am looking at top 50 wins, top 100 wins, Sagarin, and league standings. Finish 6th place or above and we are good shape, finish below that line we are in trouble. One issue I have with RPI forecasting at this moment is that it doesn't take into consideration the conference tournament.
I just can not fathom that it will take 12 BE wins to get in. Teams like WVU and UCONN could finish 9-9 and get in. Stay 2 games ahead of them in the L column and we will be fine. No way they are going to jump UC with teams that are 2 games back when UC beat one on the road and lost to the other in OT on the road.
(02-12-2012 11:06 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I just can not fathom that it will take 12 BE wins to get in. Teams like WVU and UCONN could finish 9-9 and get in. Stay 2 games ahead of them in the L column and we will be fine. No way they are going to jump UC with teams that are 2 games back when UC beat one on the road and lost to the other in OT on the road.
Tell that to Alabama last year, who finished 3 games ahead of Georgia, beat them twice, had a better overall record and got left out in favor of Georgia. It clearly came down to their non-conference strength of schedule.
Particularly because schedules you play in each conference are not balanced the committee does not pay that much attention to conference record. I am not sure where I will feel comfortable, but unless UC plays great basketball down the stretch they are in a position where getting left out is a likely possibility.
(02-12-2012 11:14 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2012 11:06 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I just can not fathom that it will take 12 BE wins to get in. Teams like WVU and UCONN could finish 9-9 and get in. Stay 2 games ahead of them in the L column and we will be fine. No way they are going to jump UC with teams that are 2 games back when UC beat one on the road and lost to the other in OT on the road.
Tell that to Alabama last year, who finished 3 games ahead of Georgia, beat them twice, had a better overall record and got left out in favor of Georgia. It clearly came down to their non-conference strength of schedule.
Particularly because schedules you play in each conference are not balanced the committee does not pay that much attention to conference record. I am not sure where I will feel comfortable, but unless UC plays great basketball down the stretch they are in a position where getting left out is a likely possibility.
Not to be nitpicky but Bama had like 5 loses to teams outside of the top 100 and the SEC last year was nowhere near where the BE is this year even in a down year. And that west division Bama was in was God Awful. Think the SEC was rated 4-5 in conference RPI last year. BE is 2. Not exactly apples to apples.
Go 4-2, UC will have 3-4 more top 100 wins than Bama had last year. With how the schedule shakes out, go 4-2 down the stretch, get a 1st round bye in MSG and we should be fine. They are not going to jump UC with 2 teams behind them. If it was just one, I'd be more concerned.
Little food for thought (this includes conference tournaments):
Final Record RPI Probability
27-7 79.41% 23.3 0.07%
26-8 76.47% 30.5 0.52%
25-8 75.76% 50.0 0.31%
24-8 75.00% 64.2 0.44%
26-9 74.29% 28.9 0.16%
25-9 73.53% 41.1 1.57%
24-9 72.73% 57.1 2.15%
23-9 71.88% 72.2 3.44%
25-10 71.43% 38.6 1.00%
24-10 70.59% 53.0 2.78%
23-10 69.70% 67.6 6.53%
25-11 69.44% 36.0 0.01%
22-10 68.75% 83.4 9.63%
24-11 68.57% 49.2 2.21%
23-11 67.65% 64.9 4.46%
24-12 66.67% 46.1 0.07%
22-11 66.67% 80.7 11.88%
23-12 65.71% 59.1 1.83%
21-11 65.62% 97.0 11.02%
22-12 64.71% 75.6 3.34%
23-13 63.89% 59.8 0.18%
21-12 63.64% 91.1 10.43%
22-13 62.86% 73.0 0.63%
20-12 62.50% 107.9 10.44%
21-13 61.76% 89.5 2.42%
22-14 61.11% 70.8 0.13%
20-13 60.61% 104.0 5.35%
21-14 60.00% 85.1 0.16%
19-13 59.38% 120.3 3.92%
20-14 58.82% 102.3 0.98%
21-15 58.33% 78.5 0.02%
19-14 57.58% 118.8 0.99%
20-15 57.14% 91.5 0.02%
18-14 56.25% 136.2 0.63%
19-15 55.88% 115.7 0.07%
18-15 54.55% 132.0 0.10%
17-15 53.12% 148.5 0.10%
I think 22-11 will get them in.
(02-12-2012 11:53 AM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote: [ -> ]Little food for thought (this includes conference tournaments):
Final Record RPI Probability
27-7 79.41% 23.3 0.07%
26-8 76.47% 30.5 0.52%
25-8 75.76% 50.0 0.31%
24-8 75.00% 64.2 0.44%
26-9 74.29% 28.9 0.16%
25-9 73.53% 41.1 1.57%
24-9 72.73% 57.1 2.15%
23-9 71.88% 72.2 3.44%
25-10 71.43% 38.6 1.00%
24-10 70.59% 53.0 2.78%
23-10 69.70% 67.6 6.53%
25-11 69.44% 36.0 0.01%
22-10 68.75% 83.4 9.63%
24-11 68.57% 49.2 2.21%
23-11 67.65% 64.9 4.46%
24-12 66.67% 46.1 0.07%
22-11 66.67% 80.7 11.88%
23-12 65.71% 59.1 1.83%
21-11 65.62% 97.0 11.02%
22-12 64.71% 75.6 3.34%
23-13 63.89% 59.8 0.18%
21-12 63.64% 91.1 10.43%
22-13 62.86% 73.0 0.63%
20-12 62.50% 107.9 10.44%
21-13 61.76% 89.5 2.42%
22-14 61.11% 70.8 0.13%
20-13 60.61% 104.0 5.35%
21-14 60.00% 85.1 0.16%
19-13 59.38% 120.3 3.92%
20-14 58.82% 102.3 0.98%
21-15 58.33% 78.5 0.02%
19-14 57.58% 118.8 0.99%
20-15 57.14% 91.5 0.02%
18-14 56.25% 136.2 0.63%
19-15 55.88% 115.7 0.07%
18-15 54.55% 132.0 0.10%
17-15 53.12% 148.5 0.10%
I think 22-11 will get them in.
Great job finding all the projections. I hope you are right. I still see a sky high rpi and a bad non-conference SOS which has me thinking that UC and Xavier will see each other in the NIT.
(02-12-2012 11:44 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Not to be nitpicky but Bama had like 5 loses to teams outside of the top 100 and the SEC last year was nowhere near where the BE is this year even in a down year. And that west division Bama was in was God Awful. Think the SEC was rated 4-5 in conference RPI last year. BE is 2. Not exactly apples to apples.
Go 4-2, UC will have 3-4 more top 100 wins than Bama had last year. With how the schedule shakes out, go 4-2 down the stretch, get a 1st round bye in MSG and we should be fine. They are not going to jump UC with 2 teams behind them. If it was just one, I'd be more concerned.
Don't we have at least 3 or 4? I agree our schedule overall is tougher, but I'm not counting on the likes of Bobinski looking at us with the glass half full.
According to Lunardi:
Last 4 in- Cincinnati, Seton Hall, NC State, Miami (FL)
First 4 out- Xavier, Washington, Northwestern, Belmont
Yep. 3 I think. And if we have any more (Providence), put a fork in us. Wouldn't deserve a bid anyways.
No way if X is in the discussion will they be in the Last Four Out. Nice to have friends in high places.
(02-12-2012 12:45 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]No way if X is in the discussion will they be in the Last Four Out. Nice to have friends in high places.
Yep... if it's as close as Bounce quotes, then I'd look for X to sneak in, in lieu of us.
I hope 22-11 gets us in, but we'd have an RPI in the 80s or 90s, some 20-30 spots behind the lowest RPI team to make the field since they made the adjustments in 2005.
(02-12-2012 01:40 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]I hope 22-11 gets us in, but we'd have an RPI in the 80s or 90s, some 20-30 spots behind the lowest RPI team to make the field since they made the adjustments in 2005.
Alabama with an RPI of 80 being one of the first teams left out last year tells me the committee is paying less and less attention to that number. It really wasn't even that great of a resume either. They had 4 Top 50 wins, but just 5 Top 100 wins with only one of them coming on the road. We already have 3 Top 50 wins, 7 Top 100 wins, and three of those came on the road.
(02-12-2012 01:59 PM)Bearcat04 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2012 01:40 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]I hope 22-11 gets us in, but we'd have an RPI in the 80s or 90s, some 20-30 spots behind the lowest RPI team to make the field since they made the adjustments in 2005.
Alabama with an RPI of 80 being one of the first teams left out last year tells me the committee is paying less and less attention to that number. It really wasn't even that great of a resume either. They had 4 Top 50 wins, but just 5 Top 100 wins with only one of them coming on the road. We already have 3 Top 50 wins, 7 Top 100 wins, and three of those came on the road.
I do think we are an interesting case. I thought Bama should have made it last year, particularly over Georgia whom they beat twice. The committee historically has not been kind to bubble teams that have really poor non-conference Strength of Schedules.
If UC gets to 11-7 in the Big East we'll have the top 50 and top 100 wins that would make us seem like a tournament team, BUT the RPI and particularly the non-conference SOS would scream otherwise. I honestly don't know what the committee would do, but I'd be worried because of how often bubble teams with horrible non conference SOS's end up on the wrong side of the bubble.
(02-12-2012 02:09 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2012 01:59 PM)Bearcat04 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2012 01:40 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]I hope 22-11 gets us in, but we'd have an RPI in the 80s or 90s, some 20-30 spots behind the lowest RPI team to make the field since they made the adjustments in 2005.
Alabama with an RPI of 80 being one of the first teams left out last year tells me the committee is paying less and less attention to that number. It really wasn't even that great of a resume either. They had 4 Top 50 wins, but just 5 Top 100 wins with only one of them coming on the road. We already have 3 Top 50 wins, 7 Top 100 wins, and three of those came on the road.
I do think we are an interesting case. I thought Bama should have made it last year, particularly over Georgia whom they beat twice. The committee historically has not been kind to bubble teams that have really poor non-conference Strength of Schedules.
If UC gets to 11-7 in the Big East we'll have the top 50 and top 100 wins that would make us seem like a tournament team, BUT the RPI and particularly the non-conference SOS would scream otherwise. I honestly don't know what the committee would do, but I'd be worried because of how often bubble teams with horrible non conference SOS's end up on the wrong side of the bubble.
Completely agree with your last point because it is true. I just think at 11-7 we'll have more Top 50/100 wins over the competition that the committee will just have to hold their nose with the RPI and non-conference SOS because other bubble teams just won't have the wins to justify a bid. My best guess would be that we finish the regular season with 5 Top 50 wins and 10 Top 100 wins. There will be teams that are a lock for a bid that won't have those kind of wins.
At least next year we get the early season tournament in Vegas. Hopefully Whit can fix some of the budget woes to cut the number of 200+ games down from 8 to 4 or 5.
(02-12-2012 02:09 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]I do think we are an interesting case. I thought Bama should have made it last year, particularly over Georgia whom they beat twice. The committee historically has not been kind to bubble teams that have really poor non-conference Strength of Schedules.
Bearcatmark, I could be wrong but I feel like they have said in the past that they do not compare teams to other teams, rather they simply compare teams resumes. For instance if they thought GA had a better resume than Bama they would go with GA. Maybe I'm wrong, and it is probably a bunch of BS anyways, but I think they have said that before.
Again, I know this comes up every year, but if they televised the process I, and most college fans, would be glued to the TV for those 5 or 6 hours and their would be complete transparency.
Last year the committee also claimed that they had members assigned to watch certain regions, and they were supposed to report back how the teams "looked". In other words, did Cincinnati "look" like a better team than Xavier. I have no idea how much they used that compared to the numbers on the resumes.