(12-12-2017 10:19 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 09:36 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Here's the problem: As soon as mid-majors figure out how to work the RPI in their favor, the committee will use a different data point to justify selecting at-large teams only from P5 conferences. In fact, in the past few years, they've hinted at the fact that they are moving away from the RPI and using other advanced ratings. Basically, they will continue to move the mark to ensure they have an excuse to select middling P5 teams over a 24-6 mid-major.

They haven't hinted at it. They have already released information that they are changing the selection criteria this year. I mentioned this earlier in this thread.

In that case, hey everyone, listen to him, he knows what he's talking about!

(12-12-2017 09:36 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Here's the problem: As soon as mid-majors figure out how to work the RPI in their favor, the committee will use a different data point to justify selecting at-large teams only from P5 conferences. In fact, in the past few years, they've hinted at the fact that they are moving away from the RPI and using other advanced ratings. Basically, they will continue to move the mark to ensure they have an excuse to select middling P5 teams over a 24-6 mid-major.

100% accurate, waste of time discussing RPI to benefit any of our teams...

Seems like they've already done that. How many times have we heard them talking about the eye test over the past few years. WTF is that?

There is no question the number of non-power teams getting at large bids has been trending down year after year.

(12-12-2017 09:36 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Here's the problem: As soon as mid-majors figure out how to work the RPI in their favor, the committee will use a different data point to justify selecting at-large teams only from P5 conferences. In fact, in the past few years, they've hinted at the fact that they are moving away from the RPI and using other advanced ratings. Basically, they will continue to move the mark to ensure they have an excuse to select middling P5 teams over a 24-6 mid-major.

That has already happened. The MVC was the first conference to make the RPI work for them. They hardly ever played top schools and most of the conference bought 2 home OOC games each year.

The only key to working the RPI....win OOC games. The RPI doesn't look at names of the school you play. Only the winning%. The MVC figured it out when home games still counted as 1.

Once they started working the system and the A-10 started working the system. The RPI was to exclude not include schools from the non bcs/G5 conference. About 10 years ago I charted the type of schools the MVC was playing. I will see if I can find the spreadsheet

Here the MVC 2005 OOC schedule with bought games in red. While playing the lower RPI schools will hurt you ...if the conference as a whole does it and wins those games. It's compounded each and every time you play a conference game. So it will become a positive mid way through the season. For the most part this is how the SEC and other P5s do it. Play a couple bigtime schools and then load up with home wins.

Back then the MVC hardly ever played pay check games

Used to be at one time how you did in your last ten games was a deciding factor, but I haven't heard that even mentioned in many years. The goal line not only moves but changes completely.

(12-12-2017 04:20 PM)SpaceRaider Wrote:  Used to be at one time how you did in your last ten games was a deciding factor, but I haven't heard that even mentioned in many years. The goal line not only moves but changes completely.

Last 10 isn't a metric any more, but I'm sure how a team ends its season enters the conversation at some point.

...IF they want it to enter the conversation.

Just in case anyone was wondering what the MVC RPI and SOS was in 2005 (charts above) ...6th and 6th and they had 4 teams in the NCAA Tourney

Bradley 22-11...32 RPI
Northern Iowa 23-10...30
Southern Illinois 22-11...31
Wichita State 26-9....19

If all of your metrics look good, the committee will just say that you "didn't pass the eye test" in order to exclude you.

Or they will put qualifying mid-major at larges into the 11 or 12 seed play-in games. I believe last year they structured the bracket in a way so the mid-majors could take each other out.

(12-13-2017 09:18 AM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  If all of your metrics look good, the committee will just say that you "didn't pass the eye test" in order to exclude you.

Or too many Under 200 wins and not enough Top 50 wins...

What is the deepest NCAA run in the last 10 years, or so, for a non-Privileged school that plays D-1A football ?

(12-13-2017 09:46 AM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  What is the deepest NCAA run in the last 10 years, or so, for a non-Privileged school that plays D-1A football ?

UConn winning it all in 2014? I'd imagine some others like Cincy, Memphis, San Diego State, etc.

I was going to suggest Memphis but they had it vacated, so I guess technically not

(12-13-2017 09:46 AM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  What is the deepest NCAA run in the last 10 years, or so, for a non-Privileged school that plays D-1A football ?

Well for sure UCONN, but I guess non privileged, probably San Diego St. and their run with Steve Fisher...

Ole Fisher... still going strong.

(12-13-2017 11:00 AM)Theflash Wrote:  Ole Fisher... still going strong.

Fisher retired last season I believe, but still San Diego St. probably has the best 1-2 punch out of any non privileged schools good at both FBS football and D1 hoops...

(12-13-2017 09:37 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 09:18 AM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  If all of your metrics look good, the committee will just say that you "didn't pass the eye test" in order to exclude you.

Or too many Under 200 wins and not enough Top 50 wins...

The arbitrary '50','100','200', etc cutoffs drive me nuts.

(12-11-2017 07:17 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 07:51 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 05:39 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 04:32 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  RPI has everything to do with average winning % and nothing to do with where a team is in the RPI

Oh yeah? Then why does a win against a top RPI team move you up higher in the RPI than a win over a team with a bad RPI? Even if the teams have identical records.

Because it's opponents' opponents win percentages, too. Beating good (high win percentage) who beat other good teams will boost your RPI. Beating a 10-2 team that has played a lot of really bad teams will not help. And losing to one will kill ya.

Actually this is not necessarily true. Depends on what you are comparing it to and whether you are comparing it to something realistic. If you beat a 10-2 team whose opponents are collectively 15 games below .500 then it's going to be better than beating a 2-10 whose opponents are 15 games above .500 (and without doing the math I would say as high 40 games over .500). Reason? Last time I checked 50% is higher than 25%. That main opponent whether 10-2 or 2-10 is going to count double what that team's opponents records are and thus impact your own RPI to a higher degree. That is unless the 2-10 teams opponents are all undefeated, which isn't realistic. YG is correct here.

Wasn't arguing with YG. Was answering the question I quoted which was why do same record teams give you different RPIs if it's all about winning percentage. And I said because the winning percentage of the opponents and their opponents affects that RPI. And it does. The example was just that, to illustrate. But sure if you break it down to a 10-2 team vs a 2-10 team you'll find my little illustration won't hold up. It was never meant to as just a tool for explaining that RPI goes further than who you played.

But between 2, 10-2 teams, which is what he asked, the winning percentages of the opponent's opponents will be the difference in the RPI gained for your team and losing to a 10-2 team that has played no one will negatively affect you RPI as you said in another reply on here. You have to beat the good teams from bad conferences if you schedule them.

Instead of saying beating a 10-2 team that has played no one won't help, I should have said won't help as much as beating a 10-2 team with lots of quality wins. But I didn't see it as necessary to answer his question and didn't foresee the self-proclaimed expert on RPI was going to jump in with a completely polarized example that just really muddied the water of his answered question.