[skip-zip]

Interesting observation this morning.

Even with 6 losses, we're at #75 in CBS's RPI. Does anyone know when we have ever been that high, if ever, at mid-season?

I'll say this for the hundreth time. The higher SOS (94) has certainly helped. It pays to play tougher teams, even if you lose more games. And giving yourself plenty of chances to knock off big programs has to be a necessary part of growing a program. It won't be long before another Mississippi State upset happens, if we keep challenging ourselves with the scheduling. And could this have better prepared us for the beginning of conference play than we've been in years past?

I don't think the schedule is where it should be yet because it's not good enough to get at-large consideration. But, I think this is a little taste of what it can produce, even if you do take a few beatings, and don't have a stellar overall record.

[trimmy10]

Interesting observation this morning.

Even with 6 losses, we're at #75 in CBS's RPI. Does anyone know when we have ever been that high, if ever, at mid-season?

I'll say this for the hundreth time. The higher SOS (94) has certainly helped. It pays to play tougher teams, even if you lose more games. And giving yourself plenty of chances to knock off big programs has to be a necessary part of growing a program. It won't be long before another Mississippi State upset happens, if we keep challenging ourselves with the scheduling. And could this have better prepared us for the beginning of conference play than we've been in years past?

I don't think the schedule is where it should be yet because it's not good enough to get at-large consideration. But, I think this is a little taste of what it can produce, even if you do take a few beatings, and don't have a stellar overall record.

I disagree. Had we not lost to Duquesne and Valpo, we'd be right where we need to be for consideration thus far. Even closing the game out against VCU would have made a big difference. The team is good enough and the schedule strong enough for an at-large bid, but it would likely require around 7 losses or less for the entire season. A tougher schedule?...maybe 10 losses would be acceptable. We just have to stop losing OOC games to teams we should beat early in the season.

[Ada Zip]

I wish there was a way to find out what our RPI would have been with valpo & duquesne games being 2 wins. My guess is high 40's. Also come tournament time, we have the miss state and Marshall games as good wins. But those are negated by the valpo/duquesne bad losses. I know it is too late now, but if it wasn't for these 2 losses we would have been definitely on track for an at large bid, if needed of course. I hope this team starts taking the ooc schedule as seriously as the Mac schedule because, when you're that good, the whole season matters.

[lance99]

It does help. I do not want to see another 27 win season and get no invite at all(and yes, the CBI does not count). They had to up the RPI just to get noticed.

[skip-zip]

I wish there was a way to find out what our RPI would have been with valpo & duquesne games being 2 wins. My guess is high 40's. Also come tournament time, we have the miss state and Marshall games as good wins. But those are negated by the valpo/duquesne bad losses. I know it is too late now, but if it wasn't for these 2 losses we would have been definitely on track for an at large bid, if needed of course. I hope this team starts taking the ooc schedule as seriously as the Mac schedule because, when you're that good, the whole season matters.

Well, one of them is around 102, and the other is about 135. Those numbers would be slightly worse with them each subtracting a win and adding a loss. So, it could have possibly helped us, but probably not significantly.

Plus, I think it's probably foolish to think that adding wins against teams like that would change the opinion of a selection committee.

Remember, we're talking about 30-some at-large bids. Even with only 4 OOC losses and a a 94 SOS (which will drop further during conference play), we're not even close to being in the discussion.

[Hilltopper]

Valpo just took down Cleveland State.

http://stats.cleveland.com/cbk/recap.asp?g...&final=true

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/csu/index....t_maintain.html

[Dave in Green]

RPI is only one of many considerations for a team receiving an at-large invitation to the NCAA tournament.

Below is the average percentage of teams from the 2006-2010 seasons for various ranges of RPI that received at-large invitations:

RPI Range / % Teams Invited (2006-2010)
01-29 / 99%
30-39 / 80%
40-49 / 50%
50-59 / 37%
60-69 / 11%

[skip-zip]

RPI is only one of many considerations for a team receiving an at-large invitation to the NCAA tournament.

Below is the average percentage of teams from the 2006-2010 seasons for various ranges of RPI that received at-large invitations:

RPI Range / % Teams Invited (2006-2010)
01-29 / 99%
30-39 / 80%
40-49 / 50%
50-59 / 37%
60-69 / 11%

Thanks for the stat, Dave.

What might give us a good barometer is to see the profiles of the teams that have made it in the past at the lower end, since there might be a chance that we can duplicate that, and at least have a remote chance at a bid. Especiallly if any of them are from non-power conferences.

[Zipmeister]

Thanks for the stat, Dave.

What might give us a good barometer is to see the profiles of the teams that have made it in the past at the lower end, since there might be a chance that we can duplicate that, and at least have a remote chance at a bid. Especiallly if any of them are from non-power conferences.

Ah there's the rub. I don't have Dave's numbers in front of me, but I'm pretty sure being from a non-power conference drops the probability of a bid very very very close to ZERO.

[skip-zip]

Ah there's the rub. I don't have Dave's numbers in front of me, but I'm pretty sure being from a non-power conference drops the probability of a bid very very very close to ZERO.

If none of them are from non-power conferences, that would indeed be discouraging. But for me, that's not an excuse to stop trying.

[zipboy]

RPI is only one of many considerations for a team receiving an at-large invitation to the NCAA tournament.

Below is the average percentage of teams from the 2006-2010 seasons for various ranges of RPI that received at-large invitations:

RPI Range / % Teams Invited (2006-2010)
01-29 / 99%
30-39 / 80%
40-49 / 50%
50-59 / 37%
60-69 / 11%

Thanks Dave, very interesting. Not correlated as much as I thought.

[Dave in Green]

The story I got those stats from did not identify who the teams were. I couldn't find any stories that went that deep into their analysis.

Below is a link to a 2004 story that goes into more detail about qualities the NCAA tournament selection committee looks at when determining at-large bids. It's an older story, but is well written and includes lots of details that other, more recent stories do not.

NCAA Tournament Bubble Watch - Statistical Approach

[Ada Zip]

Plus, I think it's probably foolish to think that adding wins against teams like that would change the opinion of a selection committee.

Remember, we're talking about 30-some at-large bids. Even with only 4 OOC losses and a a 94 SOS (which will drop further during conference play), we're not even close to being in the discussion.

It is not adding wins against teams like that that would help, it is more removing losses against teams like that.

In march, assuming we have a 23-24 wins season and a loss in the MAC tournament final, the committee's conversation will be something like that:

1: here is another mid major with 24 wins and a 48 RPI...what do you guys think?
2: But they play in the MAC, did they really beat anyone good?
3: They beat Miss. State and Marshall.
4: Any bad losses?
5: not really, VCU, CSU, MTSU, WVU are all good teams.
6: well I want to see what they can do in the tournament

That is soo much better than saying 21-22 wins with a 85 RPI with two bad losses to Valpo and Duquesne.

[trimmy10]

#75 right now:

http://www.realtimerpi.com/rpi_261_Men.html

AR- Pine Bluff and FL A&M really bring down the SOS (327 and 339, respectively). Replacing those opponents in the future with more middle of the road teams that we still pull wins out against would help dramatically IMO. And if we ever stop losing in the OOC to the likes of Valpo and Duquesne, Joe Akron might get interested and show up for MAC games.

[skip-zip]

It is not adding wins against teams like that that would help, it is more removing losses against teams like that.

In march, assuming we have a 23-24 wins season and a loss in the MAC tournament final, the committee's conversation will be something like that:

1: here is another mid major with 24 wins and a 48 RPI...what do you guys think?
2: But they play in the MAC, did they really beat anyone good?
3: They beat Miss. State and Marshall.
4: Any bad losses?
5: not really, VCU, CSU, MTSU, WVU are all good teams.
6: well I want to see what they can do in the tournament

That is soo much better than saying 21-22 wins with a 85 RPI with two bad losses to Valpo and Duquesne.

I don't disagree with you that one scenario is better than the other. But, it's not enough. Adding "we beat Valpo and Duq." to our resume isn't going to elevate us to an at-large candidate.