RPI Discussion.

#901
#901
And when teams like this get in sometimes how can you say 50 is safe? Or that RPI is the main ingredient in the decision making. That is what I am saying you are wrong on.

And this from more recent from the NCAA itself:

•The lowest rated teams to get at-large bids (ALB): #67 USC, #64 Marquette (2011), #63 NC State (2005), #63 Stanford (2007).
 
#902
#902
Maxwell said:
And when teams like this get in sometimes how can you say 50 is safe? Or that RPI is the main ingredient in the decision making. That is what I am saying you are wrong on.

And this from more recent from the NCAA itself:

•The lowest rated teams to get at-large bids (ALB): #67 USC, #64 Marquette (2011), #63 NC State (2005), #63 Stanford (2007).
Click to expand...
You really aren't understanding what I'm saying.

If I go post teams that got left out when the field was 40, would that really seem relevant since the field is now 68?

How about providing teams since 1. The formula changes and 2. The field expanded.
 
#903
#903
bleedingTNorange said:
You're talking about ~75 teams.

That's not a decent sample size?
Click to expand...

I'm saying 3 years of a 68 team field isn't enough to infer a general trend. However, what you can do is go back and look at the 65 team fields and see who got in during that time period. While it may not be exactly perfect, it's still a good way to infer who would get in. 3 teams isn't going to completely change the game so much that you can't infer general trends between the two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#904
#904
KingNick865 said:
I'm saying 3 years of a 68 team field isn't enough to infer a general trend. However, what you can do is go back and look at the 65 team fields and see who got in during that time period. While it may not be exactly perfect, it's still a good way to infer who would get in. 3 teams isn't going to completely change the game so much that you can't infer general trends between the two.
Click to expand...

Who's to say the 1 team that got left out each of the years wouldn't have been in with a 68 team field?

A more accurate project would be to look back at the teams that missed when it was 64, and take the one with the 4th worst RPI, and post it.
 
#905
#905
bleedingTNorange said:
Who's to say the 1 team that got left out each of the years wouldn't have been in with a 68 team field?

A more accurate project would be to look back at the teams that missed when it was 64, and take the one with the 3rd worst RPI, and post it.
Click to expand...

That becomes an issue, mainly because we don't know who #66, #67, and #68 were during the 64 and 65 team fields. We can guess, but we don't have any true idea who those teams were. That stems from the fact that RPI isn't the only metric that the selection committee uses for evaluating teams that get into the field.
 
#906
#906
KingNick865 said:
That becomes an issue, mainly because we don't know who #66, #67, and #68 were during the 64 and 65 team fields. We can guess, but we don't have any true idea who those teams were. That stems from the fact that RPI isn't the only metric that the selection committee uses for evaluating teams that get into the field.
Click to expand...

Correct, and I've said as much, but it can be used as a pretty accurate guide. Naming 5 teams over the last 10 years doesn't discredit that at all, there's always outliers.

Looking at the current data, which sample size can be argued, no high major team with a RPI of less than 56 has been left out. So I played it safe and said, inside of 50 as a high major and it would appear you're pretty much in.

Like I said, if you wanna expand to 68, sure you can point to a few teams inside of 50 that got left out. However, how many outside of 50 got in, compared to how many inside of 50 got left out?
 
#907
#907
bleedingTNorange said:
Correct, and I've said as much, but it can be used as a pretty accurate guide. Naming 5 teams over the last 10 years doesn't discredit that at all, there's always outliers.

Looking at the current data, which sample size can be argued, no high major team with a RPI of less than 56 has been left out. So I played it safe and said, inside of 50 as a high major and it would appear you're pretty much in.

Like I said, if you wanna expand to 68, sure you can point to a few teams inside of 50 that got left out. However, how many outside of 50 got in, compared to how many inside of 50 got left out?
Click to expand...

It doesn't necessarily say that whatever data you may be using is unreliable, but it does show that you can get left out of the tourney, even when your RPI is considered acceptable enough to get put in the tournament most years -- especially with as big of a clusterf*** as the bubble is this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#911
#911
KingNick865 said:
I'm saying 3 years of a 68 team field isn't enough to infer a general trend. However, what you can do is go back and look at the 65 team fields and see who got in during that time period. While it may not be exactly perfect, it's still a good way to infer who would get in. 3 teams isn't going to completely change the game so much that you can't infer general trends between the two.
Click to expand...
I 100% agree with this. It is outrageous to use a few year period as enough evidence to infer who can or can't be left out. Using since 65 is reasonable as it is a much higher sample size. 68 is wishful thinking.
 
#912
#912
utvols88 said:
I 100% agree with this. It is outrageous to use a few year period as enough evidence to infer who can or can't be left out. Using since 65 is reasonable as it is a much higher sample size. 68 is wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Ok, then use 64. Since the field expanded to 64, how many teams got left out with a RPI of better than 59, and how many made it with a RPI of 50 or better?
 
#914
#914
Reading through all the pages of this thread I am shocked at the number of people that don't understand the relevance of the RPI! If UT is inside 50 they are dancing. It's that simple.
 
#916
#916
Chops said:
Reading through all the pages of this thread I am shocked at the number of people that don't understand the relevance of the RPI! If UT is inside 50 they are dancing. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

I think they have to be under 45 to be a certainty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#918
#918
Exactly KingKnick gets what I am saying. Has nothing to do with my reading comprehension. That is too funny volball. None of my bosses ever had a problem with me on that. And I have had an excellent work history.
 
#922
#922
Yikes

In Coach Martin's third year at Missouri State, the team won their first regular season Missouri Valley Men's Basketball title and entered the Arch Madness conference tournament as the #1 seed. After reaching the finals, they lost to the Indiana State Sycamores. Although having an RPI of 44, the team was not selected as an at-large team to the 2011 NCAA Men's Basketball tournament.
Click to expand...

This committee isn't very fond of Cuonzo Martin...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top