Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
skip-zip

RPI

30 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
#75 right now:

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

AR- Pine Bluff and FL A&M really bring down the SOS. 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.

I think you're on the right track. The bottom line is, if you don't schedule enough good teams, then you are forced to achieve near-perfection. And young kids play bad games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a great team. We should be playing opposing OOC teams of similar talent. Bottom line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the losses to Valpo and Duquesne matter as much to Joe as winning big games against regional name schools. Joe Akron is Joe Akron because he does not follow the Zips religiously like us. He doesn't stream games on a crappy Horizon league feed to see the losses. The team needs to win at home and take care of business regionally. Granted the Zips should eliminate those tough losses but more importantly the program needs to be on the court with better competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wonder which loss is considered the bad one. Valpo and Duquesne weren't terrible losses, but they were games we should have (and could have) won.

Had to be referring to Valpo. Although, they just shot up quite a few spots to #119 after the CSU win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Had to be referring to Valpo. Although, they just shot up quite a few spots to #119 after the CSU win.

I don’t think it’s obvious at all what our “one bad loss” would be. We’re focusing on Valpo and Duquesne, games that I agree we probably should have won (hard to see us losing to either in our current form). But those games were at least competitive. And it’s pretty hard to differentiate between them. Duquesne is in a better conference, but we played them at a neutral site (as opposed to playing AT Valpo).

I’m not saying I would agree with the following, but it’s not out of the question that the writer might be thinking of the blowout loss at Middle Tennessee as the “one bad loss”. Middle has a much better resume than either Valpo or Duquesne, but the game was a rout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured Duquesne was the bad loss because it was on a neutral court, but you are right...there was no silver-lining to the MTSU butt-whippin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Valpo is 12-7 and have beat 3 MAC teams.

Duquesne is 11-7 and don't have a bad loss that stands out.

WVU is 13-5 worst loss is to Can't

MTU is 17-2 and have thumped everyone they have played including UCLA by 20.

CSU is 15-4 worst loss is to YSU

VCU is 13-5 who we are all familiar with.

Comined record of our opponents who have beaten us is 81-30. So who does ESPN consider as our bad loss? I have to go with Valpo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0