(03-13-2018 01:08 PM)DBSUC1982 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 02:33 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:54 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Texas A&M and Alabama got into the NCAAs with worse records than Mississippi State who finished 22-11. 'Bama was 8-10 in conference play. MS ST & A&M were both 9-9 in conference. Supposedly, the RPI defined the differences. Still, a 4th seed in the NIT looks low for the Bulldogs. MS ST wasn't considered a bubble team for the NCAAs either.

Penn State is another that seems NIT low, given their season wins over OSU who did comfortably squeeze into the NCAAs.

NC-SOS was, supposedly, the moral of this year's story. TAMU was 11, Bama 28, and MSU 284.

That Louisville wasn't in the first-out group, and that Nebraska doesn't even get a home game was most intriguing. Maryland was the highest major snub...no clue what happened there.

But doesn't RPI already factor that in if 75% of a team's ranking is comprised of opponents (about 11-13 of which are OOC teams) and opponents' opponents records? Why count it twice? I never understood that.

Yes, and just as the new grouping system, it's yet another dimension to (dis)qualify the metric.

I think, where it comes to the groupings and other dimensions, you look for teams that still produce against top teams, in and out of the conference, but take some damage in their overall number. TAMU was 6-8 against Group 1, Bama 7-7...when we consider the NC-SOS for Mississippi State, and then flip it on the group breakdown, at 2-8...MSU's 22-11 to TAMU's 20-12 and Bama's 19-15 looks a lot different. MSU got to the same or better conference mark than others who may be in the tournament, but, perhaps clearly, not the same way.