realtimerpi.com missing at least one game

#27
#27
We're not going to be ranked above everyone we've beaten (or below everyone we've lost to).
 
#28
#28
bleedingTNorange said:
I don't know that any of the computer formulas actually take this into account, my understanding was its the committee themselves. When they go in and have their list of teams for at large bids, my understanding is that they then take into consideration losses/additions to each team.

With that said, they DO NOT take into consideration suspensions what do ever, and I don't think they put much weight on one or two game injuries. I believe it has to be a lengthy injury or in our case a lengthy addition of a new player, for them to really put much weight on it.

TIFWIW
Click to expand...

ESPN's new formula (BPI?) claims to take missed players into account. I agree with you though - the extent of consideration it should have is the committee essentially attaching a post-it note to a team's resume noting the missed player. If it's close between us and another team, maybe we'll get in because of Stokes.
 
#30
#30
Keep in mind that the win over Chaminade doesn't count in computer polls. Games against teams that are not in Division 1 are thrown out.
 
#34
#34
mscc1998 said:
My previous post did not include Tuesday's FL/VU game. The updated standings has us at 68.
Games through Tuesday Night 2/28. Massey Ratings: http://masseyratings.com/team.php?t=14028&s=179268
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for bringing down the average. I do think that with Stokes the Vols are more around the 70-80 range right now, but as was said previously.. Accounting for an injury adds a serious amount of subjectivity. There's no way anyone could have reasonably said with any certainty which games Tennessee would have won or lost if Stokes had been in the lineup all year. I am 100% certain that the Vols will not get an at large bid to the NCAA tournament. It's SEC tournament or bust.
 
#35
#35
If the Vols somehow win the next four games, and lose in the SECT final, I think they're in. But, I'm nearly "100% certain" we won't do that. I will be delighted to be wrong.

Regarding Stokes, in a technical sense, it's not like he was "missing." He wasn't even enrolled in college. And, unfortunately, those games still count. I don't think it's even "real" to discount those losses; it wasn't even an injury; he simply wasn't on the team.

I am honestly surprised at the extent of the minority we are in for having Tennessee ranked below 100. The other polls must either be placing a very heavy weight on strength of schedule, or they're placing greater weight on the second (and more recent) half of the season, or they're somehow accounting for missing players. Otherwise, I don't see how a 15-13 team is ranked in the Top 70 in so many polls.
 
#36
#36
The first half of the season is when most of the non-conference games are played, so if you discount the first half simply because it's older, then the whole system is thrown off, because that's mainly how the conferences are weighed against each other.

The 92 ranking in the RPI is high enough for me to buy. But, I don't understand all of these systems that have us in the 60s (and Lunardi having us in the 30s). The numbers just don't add up for us to be in the 60s with a 15-13 record, unless either strength of schedule or recent games are worth quite the anvil.
 
#37
#37
ukvols said:
The first half of the season is when most of the non-conference games are played, so if you discount the first half simply because it's older, then the whole system is thrown off, because that's mainly how the conferences are weighed against each other.

The 92 ranking in the RPI is high enough for me to buy. But, I don't understand all of these systems that have us in the 60s (and Lunardi having us in the 30s). The numbers just don't add up for us to be in the 60s with a 15-13 record, unless either strength of schedule or recent games are worth quite the anvil.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was overestimating a little with the "100% certain", but I just don't see it. Assuming the Vols lose one more game this season (which they obviously have to to be in the at-large discussion), the worst 14 loss team to ever make the tournament was USC last year.

That team finished with an RPI of 67 and had 8 top 100 wins. They also had 5 true road wins, and bad losses (none as bad at home as Austin Peay). Under our best case scenario of winning 4 in a row, there would be 8 top 100 wins and 3 true road wins. Final RPI for Tennessee would probably end up around 70. I personally don't think the 8 top 100 would be enough to overcome the lack of road wins, plus the bad losses, but I can hope.

My system weights overall wins and losses a little higher, so that's why the Vols are currently a little low, but in the 30's is absolute crazy talk.
 
#38
#38
I add a winning % component to the final number to avoid complete nonsense like Ken Pomeroy listing Syracuse at #5. Any computer poll listing Cuse at something besides #1 or #2 requires major offseason tweaking.
 
#39
#39
Cro said:
Perhaps I was overestimating a little with the "100% certain", but I just don't see it. Assuming the Vols lose one more game this season (which they obviously have to to be in the at-large discussion), the worst 14 loss team to ever make the tournament was USC last year.

That team finished with an RPI of 67 and had 8 top 100 wins. They also had 5 true road wins, and bad losses (none as bad at home as Austin Peay). Under our best case scenario of winning 4 in a row, there would be 8 top 100 wins and 3 true road wins. Final RPI for Tennessee would probably end up around 70. I personally don't think the 8 top 100 would be enough to overcome the lack of road wins, plus the bad losses, but I can hope.

My system weights overall wins and losses a little higher, so that's why the Vols are currently a little low, but in the 30's is absolute crazy talk.
Click to expand...

If they go 4-1, losing in sec championship as your referring to, the rpi will be 45-55 at most.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top