2008-2009 College Basketball Thread......

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My argument is that view by the selection committee has less to do with their view on road wins and more to do with the NCAA wanting more power conference schools in the tournament.

So let me get this straight ... you believe the selection committee with a MAJORITY of members from mid-majors or less, wants more power conference teams in the tournament.

Unless they simply know which side their financial bread is buttered on and are willing to sacrifice their own ambitions for the good of the whole and that none of those members, past or present would mention any pressure to cook the selection process then all I think that's left for you is to go national with the story.

[molson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Again, this is not as easy as you say it is. Top CAA teams consistently have trouble getting games even when they are willing to travel.

I'm not sure that should be a part of the commitee criteria at all, however unfair. How would you quantify that? Do we make an adjustment to the RPI, crediting points every time a mid-major AD leaves a voicemail with a BCS school AD asking for a game?

That's basically what you're saying (I think) - that since it's "not easy" to schedule tough games, we should forgive the bad strength of schedule, and essentially award them bonus/forgiveness points that the BCS schools don't get (because presumably, BCS schools can schedule anywhere they want, against anyone). Of course, that leads to a slipperly slope argument that maybe even BCS schools should get RPI bonus points if say, their conference is having a bad year. I mean, that's not their fault, it's not fair for their SOS/RPI to be impacted by that.

Isn't a more workable solution for mid-major schools to be creative and figure out how to schedule tougher games, even if it is, god forbid, "not easy"? I mean, it's THEIR interest at stake, not anyone else's.

Assuming that it's just impossible for mid-majors to schedule quality opponents (despite the evidence to the contrary) - what's the solution to that? Just pretend that they did schedule tough games and pretend that they won them for purposes of NCAA tournament selection?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So let me get this straight ... you believe the selection committee with a MAJORITY of members from mid-majors or less, wants more power conference teams in the tournament.

Unless they simply know which side their financial bread is buttered on and are willing to sacrifice their own ambitions for the good of the whole and that none of those members, past or present would mention any pressure to cook the selection process then all I think that's left for you is to go national with the story.

The mid-majors are clearly in on the conspiracy.

Which makes one wonder who's left to be conspired against.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So let me get this straight ... you believe the selection committee with a MAJORITY of members from mid-majors or less, wants more power conference teams in the tournament.

Unless they simply know which side their financial bread is buttered on and are willing to sacrifice their own ambitions for the good of the whole and that none of those members, past or present would mention any pressure to cook the selection process then all I think that's left for you is to go national with the story.

I understand that it's completely off the wall to believe that the NCAA would somehow put money above fairness. Especially with how fair their other largest money maker sport football is.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not sure that should be a part of the commitee criteria at all, however unfair. How would you quantify that? Do we make an adjustment to the RPI, crediting points every time a mid-major AD leaves a voicemail with a BCS school AD asking for a game?

That's basically what you're saying (I think) - that since it's "not easy" to schedule tough games, we should forgive the bad strength of schedule, and essentially award them bonus/forgiveness points that the BCS schools don't get (because presumably, BCS schools can schedule anywhere they want, against anyone).

Isn't a more workable solution for mid-major schools to be creative and figure out how to schedule tougher games, even if it is, god forbid, "not easy"? I mean, it's THEIR interest at stake, not anyone else's.

Assuming that it's just impossible for mid-majors to schedule quality opponents (despite the evidence to the contrary) - what's the solution to that? Just pretend that they did schedule tough games and pretend that they won them for purposes of NCAA tournament selection?

The correction was made by giving more credit for road wins in the RPI.

The NCAA has tried to help by adding the bracketbusters to the season. I do think discrediting teams who don't leave their campus till January would be a good way to get more even schedules. Perhaps a rule that requires teams to play a certain percentage of their out of conference games on the road would help some of these schools get games.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The correction was made by giving more credit for road wins in the RPI.

The NCAA has tried to help by adding the bracketbusters to the season. I do think discrediting teams who don't leave their campus till January would be a good way to get more even schedules. Perhaps a rule that requires teams to play a certain percentage of their out of conference games on the road would help some of these schools get games.

Yeah, at the time the road/home adjustment was made to the RPI, I thought that would basically solve the scheduling issue. In theory it should have greatly encouraged majors to play some games at mid-majors -- it's a game that should give them a pretty good chance to secure this newly precious commodity, a road win. Meanwhile, the mid-major gets a big home crowd and a crack at a win over a BCS school. Everybody benefits.

Instead, the RPI just got largely devalued, so there is no incentive to change scheduling practices in this way.

[molson]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

Instead, the RPI just got largely devalued, so there is no incentive to change scheduling practices in this way.

I'd love to see actual evidence of the RPI being largely devalued. That's a conclusiory statement that's pretty signficant to this argument, yet noboby seems able to support it. We had a #70 Air Force team making it as an at-large back in the "glory days" of mid-major at-large invites. A lot of the "mid-major" at-large invites in the past were teams like Louisville and Cincinnatti

Every single tournament involved teams with higher RPIs being passed over for teams with lower RPIs. RPI has never been the exclusive tool.

Maybe the conspiracy was actually happening back then, where teams like Air Force were invited to try to generate compelling storylines, and today things have been straightened out to look at teams more fairly. I mean what's the more interesting 11 seed - Arizona or St. Mary's?

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by molson

I'd love to see actual evidence of the RPI being largely devalued. That's a conclusiory statement that's pretty signficant to this argument, yet noboby seems able to support it. We had a #70 Air Force team making it as an at-large back in the "glory days" of mid-major at-large invites. A lot of the "mid-major" at-large invites in the past were teams like Louisville and Cincinnatti

Every single tournament involved teams with higher RPIs being passed over for teams with lower RPIs. RPI has never been the exclusive tool.

The Air Force pick came out of left field, granted.

I do know that before the RPI formula switch, the common wisdom was that as long as you were in the 30s, you were in great shape barring some extreme circumstances. And in the 40s, you were at least very much in the conversation. A few of those 30s/40s teams left out, like Niagara, weren't even on the table this year.

Pre-switch, I believe the best RPI ever left out of the tournament was 33. Post-switch, Missouri State got left out with an incredible 20. I, too, would love to see more concrete numbers on this than just that example, as I am not married to this point of view -- it is only the impression I have after following this stuff very closely for many years, but it's still not concrete.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not sure that should be a part of the commitee criteria at all, however unfair. How would you quantify that? Do we make an adjustment to the RPI, crediting points every time a mid-major AD leaves a voicemail with a BCS school AD asking for a game?

That's basically what you're saying (I think) - that since it's "not easy" to schedule tough games, we should forgive the bad strength of schedule, and essentially award them bonus/forgiveness points that the BCS schools don't get (because presumably, BCS schools can schedule anywhere they want, against anyone). Of course, that leads to a slipperly slope argument that maybe even BCS schools should get RPI bonus points if say, their conference is having a bad year. I mean, that's not their fault, it's not fair for their SOS/RPI to be impacted by that.

Isn't a more workable solution for mid-major schools to be creative and figure out how to schedule tougher games, even if it is, god forbid, "not easy"? I mean, it's THEIR interest at stake, not anyone else's.

Assuming that it's just impossible for mid-majors to schedule quality opponents (despite the evidence to the contrary) - what's the solution to that? Just pretend that they did schedule tough games and pretend that they won them for purposes of NCAA tournament selection?

Yeah, you definitely missed my point .

I'm not saying that the difficulty to schedule should have anything to do with the selection process. I'm just saying that the chest-thumpers that say it is so easy are wrong. It's quite difficult at times. It's a tough situation for the mid-majors and there is no easy answer. I think the RPI adjustments were an attempt to find a balance, but I do not know that it had the intended impact. I'd love it if the majors had more incentive to play the mid-majors, especially at home - but what incentive is there? When you can consistently make the tourney simply by going over .500 in-conference, what incentive is there to expose yourself to mid-majors that might beat you?

There are a few majors in the country that are consistently willing to schedule mid-majors - the top 20 teams in the nation mostly. Teams like Duke, UNC, Georgetown, Oklahoma, etc. But, two things. 1) Those are the absolute top teams in the nation. Most majors would lose 8 out of 10 times playing these teams (that's why they have often less than 5-8 losses all year). 2) That's only about 20 teams. There are a lot more mid-majors than that that would like to schedule a major OOC game.

In reality the ideal matchups for quality mid-majors are those bubble major teams they are fighting with. The Virginia Tech, Arizona State, Maryland, etc's of the world. But those teams avoid good mid-majors like the plague.

I gave a specific example earlier. ODU had a 4 year series with Virginia Tech. ODU won 2 or 3 of those games. Now Virginia Tech and UVA won't schedule ODU, VCU, GMU, etc. There are a lot of these middle of the pack majors that react this way.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The correction was made by giving more credit for road wins in the RPI.

The NCAA has tried to help by adding the bracketbusters to the season.

The first change was instituted by the NCAA to try to encourage the big conference teams to do more than sit home and play guarantee games. This was presumably to help the little guys.

The second was NOT the NCAA, it was ESPN.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Samdari

The first change was instituted by the NCAA to try to encourage the big conference teams to do more than sit home and play guarantee games. This was presumably to help the little guys.

The second was NOT the NCAA, it was ESPN.

So why would the NCAA, if they were determined to leave mid-majors out, change the RPI formula to benefit them? Even if they were going to completely disregard RPI in the future, why not just keep the formula the same?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by wade moore

In reality the ideal matchups for quality mid-majors are those bubble major teams they are fighting with. The Virginia Tech, Arizona State, Maryland, etc's of the world. But those teams avoid good mid-majors like the plague.

Maryland's schedule includes: American, GWU, Vermont, Charlotte.
Arizona St.'s includes San Diego St.,Pepperdine, Charlotte,UTEP and UNLV.
VPI's: OK, you're right, but Richmond and Xavier are on there.
Arizona St. wasn't really a bubble team, Arizona was. Their schedule was littered with quality mid-majors, many of whom ended on or near the bubble. UAB, Gonzaga, San Diego St., UNLV, Houston. OK, Houston was not on the bubble, but they were 4th in C-USA and 21-11 overall. Looks good to the computer.

All of those teams have been good in various recent years. Everyone saw what happened to Penn St. - their conference record warranted a bid. But, their noncon SOS was so bad, they got skipped. Major conference teams are looking for ways to boost that without taking a real risk. Guarantee games against good mid-majors are an excellent way to do that. Teams are indeed looking for those.

I lived in Fairfax for 7 years, until last summer, and heard Larranaga interviewed on the radio at least 20 times since they made the final 4, and he flat out is not willing to play those guarantee games. He is pretty adamant about it, in fact. He wants the big boys to give him equal standing because they made the final four. Now, he can want that all he wants, but at some point, it becomes whining. Mason is still enough of a name from that performance that ESPN would televise any game they played against a "name" school. That, plus the good RPI factor in playing Mason, makes such a game attractive to the name school. One off, $100,000 revenue away games ARE available to Mason, according to radio interviews I've heard with their coach. They just don't want them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I'd love to see actual evidence of the RPI being largely devalued. That's a conclusiory statement that's pretty signficant to this argument, yet noboby seems able to support it. We had a #70 Air Force team making it as an at-large back in the "glory days" of mid-major at-large invites. A lot of the "mid-major" at-large invites in the past were teams like Louisville and Cincinnatti

Every single tournament involved teams with higher RPIs being passed over for teams with lower RPIs. RPI has never been the exclusive tool.

Maybe the conspiracy was actually happening back then, where teams like Air Force were invited to try to generate compelling storylines, and today things have been straightened out to look at teams more fairly. I mean what's the more interesting 11 seed - Arizona or St. Mary's?

Slive has repeatedly devalued the RPI in recent interviews. And while you can point out teams that have been passed over RPI wise in recent years, you'd be hard pressed to find many power conference schools. I do find it odd that we are never arguing about a power conference school not getting in with a higher RPI than a mid-major. Your Air Force argument is irrelevant as their RPI would have been in 30-50 range under the newer system. If the RPI is a tool being used, why are so many teams with better RPIs being passed up?

Here's a tidbit of information. When a power conference has been the 7th ranked conference, they have never had under 3 teams in the tournament. Often times they end up with more. The Mountain West was 7th ranked and only received two. This included SDSU that had an RPI of 34. Perhaps it's just another in a long line of coincidences that seem to always go against the non-BCS conferences.

Now here is my problem with Arizona and the selection. The committee says how teams finish the years is important. Arizona lost 6 of their last 7. The committee says road/neutral wins weigh heavily on their decision. Arizona won 2 road games against the worst teams in their conference. That's it. They essentially did everything you're not supposed to and still got in.

And it's not just for the mid-majors. I'd rather have Auburn or even Florida in the tournament over Arizona. Auburn went 9-1 down the stretch in the SEC and actually won some decent road games. Florida won at Washington and Auburn. They both have higher RPIs. I think either of those teams has a better case than Arizona. The Arizona pick just flies in the face of what they've said and done over the years, and reeks of wanting to keep a tournament streak alive.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

So why would the NCAA, if they were determined to leave mid-majors out, change the RPI formula to benefit them? Even if they were going to completely disregard RPI in the future, why not just keep the formula the same?

And further, why disregard the selection committee having a consistent majority of non-major conference members for at least the past 3-5 years during the decline? Or are we supposed to believe that they're all part of this mythical conspiracy?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Samdari

The first change was instituted by the NCAA to try to encourage the big conference teams to do more than sit home and play guarantee games. This was presumably to help the little guys.

The second was NOT the NCAA, it was ESPN.

I did not know that was all ESPN. Guess it's not surprising. It's a nice tool to get some of these schools games against quality schools that they normally couldn't get.

The change didn't have any effect though on how teams schedule. Since the RPI seemingly isn't a factor in the selections, most power schools won't leave their campus for the first two months of the season. Plus the money trumps everything in the NCAA and these schools are not going to give up home games.

I would be for a rule that requires teams to play two-thirds of their OOC games on the road.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If the RPI is a tool being used, why are so many teams with better RPIs being passed up?

Because how much weight it carries as a tool is left to the discretion of the selection committee members. If they decide it's worth 1% of the total equation process, that's their call.

The committee says how teams finish the years is important.

Actually they don't say that anymore. I'm 99% sure that was part of Slive's comments on Sunday about how they considered the complete body of work from a team and there was a specific comment/question about the last 10 games thing that triggered at least one mention of the "body of work" mantra.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

So why would the NCAA, if they were determined to leave mid-majors out, change the RPI formula to benefit them? Even if they were going to completely disregard RPI in the future, why not just keep the formula the same?

I think there were two reasons behind it. The home games were getting ridiculous for some of the power conference schools. You literally had no one leaving their campus in November and December. I do think they wanted to create better OOC games which included teams within power conferences playing each other.

The other reason was that every other computer ranking system factored in home court advantage. The RPI became an innaccurate system.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually they don't say that anymore. I'm 99% sure that was part of Slive's comments on Sunday about how they considered the complete body of work from a team and there was a specific comment/question about the last 10 games thing that triggered at least one mention of the "body of work" mantra.

This is correct. They stated several times leading up to the tournament selection and then right after that total body of work was what they were looking at and the last 10-12 was no longer used.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Because how much weight it carries as a tool is left to the discretion of the selection committee members. If they decide it's worth 1% of the total equation process, that's their call.

Actually they don't say that anymore. I'm 99% sure that was part of Slive's comments on Sunday about how they considered the complete body of work from a team and there was a specific comment/question about the last 10 games thing that triggered at least one mention of the "body of work" mantra.

That's what I've been saying this entire thread. That the changes in the selection committee over the last few years have seemingly had its biggest impact on mid-majors.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's what I've been saying this entire thread. That the changes in the selection committee over the last few years have seemingly had its biggest impact on mid-majors.

But what you haven't been saying is that those changes have been occurring while the committee had a majority of members from NON-power conferences.

So if you want to blame the committee for not including enough so-called mid-majors then you have to start with {gasp} the representatives from mid-major schools or below.

So what's your theory there, that they're so filled with self-loathing that they're sabotaging the process or something?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But what you haven't been saying is that those changes have been occurring while the committee had a majority of members from NON-power conferences.

So if you want to blame the committee for not including enough so-called mid-majors then you have to start with {gasp} the representatives from mid-major schools or below.

So what's your theory there, that they're so filled with self-loathing that they're sabotaging the process or something?

I don't think many of these guys give two shits about other schools within their conference, or other mid-majors. They are also much more inclined to act in the best interest of their career and not other random schools. Many of these lower end athletic directors ultimately want to move on to bigger schools. Slive for example went from the Great Midwes to Conference USA to the SEC.

There has been a reason that non-BCS member commsioners who are on the board of the BCS in football have kept their mouths shut over the years while getting screwed in the pooper. It's only taken the Mountain West to this time before they actually had the guts to stand up for themselves in that process. Lets see what happens to Craig Thompson's career.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Maryland's schedule includes: American, GWU, Vermont, Charlotte.
Arizona St.'s includes San Diego St.,Pepperdine, Charlotte,UTEP and UNLV.
VPI's: OK, you're right, but Richmond and Xavier are on there.
Arizona St. wasn't really a bubble team, Arizona was. Their schedule was littered with quality mid-majors, many of whom ended on or near the bubble. UAB, Gonzaga, San Diego St., UNLV, Houston. OK, Houston was not on the bubble, but they were 4th in C-USA and 21-11 overall. Looks good to the computer.

Yeah, I meant Arizona - not ASU. I cherry-picked teams on the bubble this year and lost without checking. I'm sure I could look at other bubble teams and find an opposite example, maybe i'll try to do that if I have time.

All of those teams have been good in various recent years. Everyone saw what happened to Penn St. - their conference record warranted a bid. But, their noncon SOS was so bad, they got skipped. Major conference teams are looking for ways to boost that without taking a real risk. Guarantee games against good mid-majors are an excellent way to do that. Teams are indeed looking for those.

I lived in Fairfax for 7 years, until last summer, and heard Larranaga interviewed on the radio at least 20 times since they made the final 4, and he flat out is not willing to play those guarantee games. He is pretty adamant about it, in fact. He wants the big boys to give him equal standing because they made the final four. Now, he can want that all he wants, but at some point, it becomes whining. Mason is still enough of a name from that performance that ESPN would televise any game they played against a "name" school. That, plus the good RPI factor in playing Mason, makes such a game attractive to the name school. One off, $100,000 revenue away games ARE available to Mason, according to radio interviews I've heard with their coach. They just don't want them.

And see - I've heard the opposite from ODU coach Blaine Taylor - so idano. that being said, as others have stated, it is pretty ridiculous how these majors are able to bascially have all (or a very, very large majority) of their OOC games at home.

[molson]

It's really not all that surprising that life at Kansas or North Carolina is far, far easier than life in the CAA or MVC. Is that such a big crisis? Are we really now concerned about competitive balance in college sports?

[Arles]

At some point in time, Rainmaker is going to understand that for the past 3-4 years, the top influences for at-large bids are quality wins, low number of poor losses and nonconference/overall strength of schedule. This concept was made famous in the past couple seasons by Arizona State and Syracuse. Both had strong win seasons but didn't play anyone non conference and had few quality wins. Here's a story on syracuse from just last year:

SN: 'Cuse failed when it came to 'tougher' schedule - College basketball- nbcsports.msnbc.com

Now, let's take direct quotes from the past few seasons from committee members on bubble teams:

Gary Walters in 2007 (Chair):
(Asked what the committee looks at when choosing at-large teams)
"We really do look at the full resumé. We look at and evaluate these teams across any number of criteria: how have you done against the top 25, against the top 50, against the top hundred. What is the strength of your schedule, what is the strength of your conference schedule, especially your non conference. I mean, you know, I could go on and on and on."

(Nothing about road wins or performance in the last 10 games)

Tom O'Connor in 2008 (chair):
Teams making it -
Arizona: "They had the No. 2 strength of schedule in the country, the No. 4 nonconference strength of schedule in the country. And they were 16-6 with (Nic) Wise and (Jerryd) Bayless in the lineup."

Baylor: "I think they had a No. 40 strength of schedule. They had four top wins as well."

teams left out
Arizona State: "Their strength of schedule was extremely (poor). If Arizona State would have been selected for the tournament, they would have been the highest RPI ever to go into the NCAA. They were 2-7 vs. the top four teams in the Pac-10."

Virginia Tech: "They had four losses against teams below 100 (in RPI). They had no wins (against) the top 50 until they got to the ACC Tournament and beat Miami."

Illinois State: "They had four losses versus teams below 100. They had a strength of schedule somewhere in the 70s."

(Again - Nothing about road wins or performance in the last 10 games)

If anyone at this point is shocked the quality (top 25 and 50) wins, few poor losses, nonconference SOS and overall SOS are the biggest factors when looking at potential at-large bids, you are simply not paying attention.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

It's really not all that surprising that life at Kansas or North Carolina is far, far easier than life in the CAA or MVC. Is that such a big crisis? Are we really now concerned about competitive balance in college sports?

a) I didn't say it's about equalizing
b) I never said a rule should be made

you seem to be wanting to apply motivation and words to things that I'm not saying. I'm just saying it's not as easy as some folks here make it out to be for mid-majors to create a tough OOC schedule.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

At some point in time, Rainmaker is going to understand that for the past 3-4 years, the top influences for at-large bids are quality wins, low number of poor losses and nonconference/overall strength of schedule. This concept was made famous in the past couple seasons by Arizona State and Syracuse. Both had strong win seasons but didn't play anyone non conference and had few quality wins. Here's a story on syracuse from just last year:

SN: 'Cuse failed when it came to 'tougher' schedule - College basketball- nbcsports.msnbc.com

Now, let's take direct quotes from the past few seasons from committee members on bubble teams:

Gary Walters in 2007 (Chair):
(Asked what the committee looks at when choosing at-large teams)
"We really do look at the full resumé. We look at and evaluate these teams across any number of criteria: how have you done against the top 25, against the top 50, against the top hundred. What is the strength of your schedule, what is the strength of your conference schedule, especially your non conference. I mean, you know, I could go on and on and on."

(Nothing about road wins or performance in the last 10 games)

Tom O'Connor in 2008 (chair):
Teams making it -
Arizona: "They had the No. 2 strength of schedule in the country, the No. 4 nonconference strength of schedule in the country. And they were 16-6 with (Nic) Wise and (Jerryd) Bayless in the lineup."

Baylor: "I think they had a No. 40 strength of schedule. They had four top wins as well."

teams left out
Arizona State: "Their strength of schedule was extremely (poor). If Arizona State would have been selected for the tournament, they would have been the highest RPI ever to go into the NCAA. They were 2-7 vs. the top four teams in the Pac-10."

Virginia Tech: "They had four losses against teams below 100 (in RPI). They had no wins (against) the top 50 until they got to the ACC Tournament and beat Miami."

Illinois State: "They had four losses versus teams below 100. They had a strength of schedule somewhere in the 70s."

(Again - Nothing about road wins or performance in the last 10 games)

If anyone at this point is shocked the quality (top 25 and 50) wins, few poor losses, nonconference SOS and overall SOS are the biggest factors when looking at potential at-large bids, you are simply not paying attention.

If it's all about quality wins, than fine. It doesn't change anything I've said about the selection process slowly changing toward one that makes it very difficult for mid-majors to get in.

Quality wins are much tougher for mid-majors to acquire. They don't have the luxury of Arizona who will see half a dozen quality teams on their home court throughout the season. Most mid-majors are lucky to get one good team into their arena every year. Winning on the road is tough in college basketball, just ask Arizona who went 2-9 on the road with no quality wins. Force a few quality power conference schools to play at Creighton or St. Mary's and they end up with those quality wins that are so desired.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The other reason was that every other computer ranking system factored in home court advantage. The RPI became an innaccurate system.

Yeah -- the RPI was terribly flawed when it didn't take home court into account at all. Though I think they may have gone too far in the other direction, as I believe a road win now counts as 1.4 wins and a home win 0.6 wins (I'm sure this is a bit oversimplified but these were the basic numbers I heard). This has skewered the numbers significantly, which is I think part of why they're not taken as seriously.

I'd rather find a more moderate happy medium like 1.2 road and 0.8 home, but then a commitment to take the RPI more seriously after that's done.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

Yeah -- the RPI was terribly flawed when it didn't take home court into account at all. Though I think they may have gone too far in the other direction, as I believe a road win now counts as 1.4 wins and a home win 0.6 wins (I'm sure this is a bit oversimplified but these were the basic numbers I heard). This has skewered the numbers significantly, which is I think part of why they're not taken as seriously.

I'd rather find a more moderate happy medium like 1.2 road and 0.8 home, but then a commitment to take the RPI more seriously after that's done.

I think it was based off the winning/losing % of home/road teams during a college season.

[molson]

The bad losses criteria is a tough one for the mid-majors. Even a "very good" record out of a mid-major conference usually involves some losses outside the top 150 or worse. Major conferences can't survive those kind of losses without MAJOR victories (and I imagine very few at-large teams, regardless of conferences, have losses outside the top 150).

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

The bad losses criteria is a tough one for the mid-majors. Even a "very good" record out of a mid-major conference usually involves some losses outside the top 150 or worse. Major conferences can't survive those kind of losses without MAJOR victories (and I imagine very few at-large teams, regardless of conferences, have losses outside the top 150).

Definitely. Major Bubble teams would have more bad losses if they played 15 or so games against RPI less than 150 teams.

It's really just a "bad setup" if you're a mid-major. As someone stated you have to pick between a complete cupcake schedule and hoping you find a way to only lose 5 games, or you fight to schedule some tough OOC games (probalby on the road) and you have to do what most major bubble teams can't do - win all/most of your "quality" games (and on the road to boot). As someone said - there's no margin for error, whereas there is a lot of margin for error for major bubble teams.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

The bad losses criteria is a tough one for the mid-majors. Even a "very good" record out of a mid-major conference usually involves some losses outside the top 150 or worse. Major conferences can't survive those kind of losses without MAJOR victories (and I imagine very few at-large teams, regardless of conferences, have losses outside the top 150).

It puts them at a level where they can't make one mistake. I guarantee that if these bubble mid-majors had to play those 150+ RPI schools on the road as often as mid-majors do, they'd have a loss or two in their every season.

[Chubby]

I'm glad we have someone on the selection committee in Rainmaker here to straighten all of us out.

[molson]

At the end of the day, isn't 29 out of 65 teams from smaller conferences in the tournament (in an down year) pretty darn good, and a clear overrpresentation of the smaller conferences considering that they take only only 22 of the top 65 spots in the RPI?

I think people take for granted those automatic bids from smaller conferences, which give every Division 1 school a clear path to the tournament. It tells me the argument from the mid-major fanatics is always going to be "more!" no matter how overepresented they already are.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I guarantee that if these bubble mid-majors had to play those 150+ RPI schools on the road as often as mid-majors do, they'd have a loss or two in their every season.

The only team I checked to test your assertion here was Syracuse, who has won 54 of its last 55 games against 150+ RPI schools. The one blip was South Florida last year - a year Syracuse was on the bubble and didn't make the tournament.

And Syracuse isn't an elite team - the numbers for the power conference teams that have been in the tournament the last 5 years are probably much more impressive.

Is it really too much to ask that a tournament team not lose to ANY horrible teams during the season (or at the very least, no more than once?, no matter how many times they play horrible teams?

OK, I checked one more - Duke has won 30 straight 150+ RPI games going back to 2003 (the farthest realtimerpi.com lets me go back).

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

The only team I checked to test your assertion here was Syracuse, who has won 54 of its last 55 games against 150+ RPI schools. The one blip was South Florida last year - a year Syracuse was on the bubble and didn't make the tournament.

And Syracuse isn't an elite team - the numbers for the power conference teams that have been in the tournament the last 5 years are probably much more impressive.

Is it really too much to ask that a tournament team not lose to ANY horrible teams during the season (or at the very least, no more than once?, no matter how many times they play horrible teams?

OK, I checked one more - Duke has won 30 straight 150+ RPI games going back to 2003 (the farthest realtimerpi.com lets me go back).

Not that I want to associate myself too tightly with RM here, but he mentioned bubble teams playing 150+ RPI teams on the road. Duke is not even close to a bubble team and Syracuse numbers do not show home/away numbers. Syracuse is, in-general, a good bubble example imo so i'd be curious as to the home/away splits.

What site are you using for data? I'd be curious to dig around a little.

[wade moore]

Duh, you said it right in your post.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

At the end of the day, isn't 29 out of 65 teams from smaller conferences in the tournament (in an down year) pretty darn good, and a clear overrpresentation of the smaller conferences considering that they take only only 22 of the top 65 spots in the RPI?

I think people take for granted those automatic bids from smaller conferences, which give every Division 1 school a clear path to the tournament. It tells me the argument from the mid-major fanatics is always going to be "more!" no matter how overepresented they already are.

Well, I personally feel like (and this will sound amusing coming from me) there are too many auto-bids for the low-majors. These are schools that combined win a tourney game once every few years, whereas mid-majors usually win at least a few games a year.

But, outside of that it's not about numbers. It's about team vs. team for me. If the high-major teams are really the best teams when you line it up, that's fine. But when they're not, they shouldn't get in over a "better" team. The auto-bids are what they are. They have their criteria for getting in and that is adhered to. The at-large should be the same way - there is a criteria and it used to select teams (even if there is grey in it).

This year, I think they got it right - or at least close enough that there's no point in arguing it. So from me, a big mid-major guy, I have no complaints with this year specifically.

[wade moore]

I'm looking at realtimerpi and i have no idea where on here you're getting that info - a little help?

[molson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Not that I want to associate myself too tightly with RM here, but he mentioned bubble teams playing 150+ RPI teams on the road. Duke is not even close to a bubble team and Syracuse numbers do not show home/away numbers. Syracuse is, in-general, a good bubble example imo so i'd be curious as to the home/away splits.

What site are you using for data? I'd be curious to dig around a little.

Ya, doing the Duke one made no sense.

A more relevant question might be, how many teams, from any conference, lost any 150+ RPI games and made the tournament, and how many lost more than 1? And how many of those were bubble teams?

[wade moore]

I do see this year - looks like Syracuse against 150+ this year (can't figure out how to get to past years):

Home: 6-0 (4 OOC)
Away: 2-0 (0 OOC)

But, bad example since Syracuse was clearly not a bubble team this year.

[molson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I'm looking at realtimerpi and i have no idea where on here you're getting that info - a little help?

Sure:

Go to NCAAM in the left column, and then to "daily RPI" - that will give you 2008-2009.

If you click on an individual team, you get their whole resume for this year. On the bottom, you'll see a link to last year's resume for that team, and so forth, going back to '03 (it's in very small type, and for Syracuse, says "2007-2008 Syracuse Orange Records"). Then once you get to '07-'08, that link will say, "2006-2007 Syracuse Orange Records", and so on.

Not the most elegant web design ever, if someone has a more useful site let me know.

[wade moore]

Let's look at Maryland (i've picked them without looking at numbers first, but i know they were a clear bubble team).

63 in RPI.

10-1 against 150+

Home: 9-0 (7 OOC - and there are some real stinkers in there)
Away: 1-1 (0 OOC)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

The only team I checked to test your assertion here was Syracuse, who has won 54 of its last 55 games against 150+ RPI schools. The one blip was South Florida last year - a year Syracuse was on the bubble and didn't make the tournament.

And Syracuse isn't an elite team - the numbers for the power conference teams that have been in the tournament the last 5 years are probably much more impressive.

Is it really too much to ask that a tournament team not lose to ANY horrible teams during the season (or at the very least, no more than once?, no matter how many times they play horrible teams?

OK, I checked one more - Duke has won 30 straight 150+ RPI games going back to 2003 (the farthest realtimerpi.com lets me go back).

I doubt many of those games were on the road. There is a big difference in home/away games in college basketball. While I understand your arguments, you keep ignoring the fact that it's much easier to beat poorer teams when you don't leave your campus for the first two months of the season. It's a little different than a St. Mary's squad who didn't play a home game for a month and flew all over the country for games.

And it's fine if you want to punish teams who had horrible losses during the year. If not losing a game to a 150+ RPI is something that should be a requirement, I have no problem with it. But make it consistent and don't give teams like USC and Marquette a pass when they have a horrible loss as they did this year.

[wade moore]

I looked at Arizona - only two OOC games against 150+, both in-conference, both wins.

I looked at Syracuse last year - 1-1 against 150+ away, no OOC 150+

Looked at Maryland last year, no 150+ away games.


USC this year - 1-1 in away 150+ games, no OOC games

See - this is the problem you start to have when trying to prove/disprove RM. You can't. These major bubble teams do not schedule 150+ away games, so you can't really draw any conclusions outside of their Conference games. But looking at some bubble teams you're seeing a lot of 1-1 against 150+.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Let's look at Maryland (i've picked them without looking at numbers first, but i know they were a clear bubble team).

63 in RPI.

10-1 against 150+

Home: 9-0 (7 OOC - and there are some real stinkers in there)
Away: 1-1 (0 OOC)

Maryland lost to Morgan State at home too which is a borderline 150 RPI team.

[Arles]

Here's Arizona vs RPI 150+ since 2004:

33-0 at home
14-1 on the road

Their one road loss came to Oregon state. It was the season one of their assistants took over for Oregon State (Jay John) and Arizona was without 2 starters. It's hard to make the claim that Arizona would lose 1-2 times against cupcakes (even on the road) when they've won 47 of their last 48 - with the one loss being an odd combination of a former assistant and losing 2 starters.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, doing the Duke one made no sense.

A more relevant question might be, how many teams, from any conference, lost any 150+ RPI games and made the tournament, and how many lost more than 1? And how many of those were bubble teams?

California lost twice to 150+ RPI schools and even Kansas slipped up against one.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I doubt many of those games were on the road. There is a big difference in home/away games in college basketball. While I understand your arguments, you keep ignoring the fact that it's much easier to beat poorer teams when you don't leave your campus for the first two months of the season. It's a little different than a St. Mary's squad who didn't play a home game for a month and flew all over the country for games.

And it's fine if you want to punish teams who had horrible losses during the year. If not losing a game to a 150+ RPI is something that should be a requirement, I have no problem with it. But make it consistent and don't give teams like USC and Marquette a pass when they have a horrible loss as they did this year.

I think you make this much harder on yourself than you need to when you pimp St. Mary's. They're just not a good case.

3-4 against the RPI top 100 (3-0 at home/neutral, 0-4 away)
They have a bad L to an RPI 198 team and a not so great lost to RPI 120 (both away).
They got beaten by some pretty good teams.
They beat a ton of TERRIBLE teams.
SOS 150

Compare that to the whipping boy Arizona:

9-12 against RPI top 100 teams (8-4 at home/neutral, 1-8 on away)
One loss to an RPI 100+ team (106 Stanford, away)
SOS 34

I would argue they are relatively equal in all but SOS. So, all other things being equal, it is perfectly logical to give Arizona the nod for a dramatically better SOS.

Look, if St. Mary's had gone say 4-3 or 5-2 against those RPI top 100 I think this is a completely different argument. but they didn't.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Arles

Here's Arizona vs RPI 150+ since 2004:

33-0 at home
14-1 on the road

Their one road loss came to Oregon state. It was the season one of their assistants took over for Oregon State (Jay John) and Arizona was without 2 starters. It's hard to make the claim that Arizona would lose 1-2 times against cupcakes (even on the road) when they've won 47 of their last 48 - with the one loss being an odd combination of a former assistant and losing 2 starters.

Well, to be fair in 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 Arizona wasn't really a bubble team.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I think you make this much harder on yourself than you need to when you pimp St. Mary's. They're just not a good case.

3-4 against the RPI top 100 (3-0 at home/neutral, 0-4 away)
They have a bad L to an RPI 198 team and a not so great lost to RPI 120 (both away).
They got beaten by some pretty good teams.
They beat a ton of TERRIBLE teams.
SOS 150

Compare that to the whipping boy Arizona:

9-12 against RPI top 100 teams (8-4 at home/neutral, 1-8 on away)
One loss to an RPI 100+ team (106 Stanford, away)
SOS 34

I would argue they are relatively equal in all but SOS. So, all other things being equal, it is perfectly logical to give Arizona the nod for a dramatically better SOS.

Look, if St. Mary's had gone say 4-3 or 5-2 against those RPI top 100 I think this is a completely different argument. but they didn't.

I'm not necessarily just pimping them out. I would honestly take Auburn, Florida, Creighton, San Diego State, and St. Mary's over them. My biggest issue is Arizona who I feel got in based on reputation.

St. Mary's is a tough case to judge though. With Patty Mills they are 20-2 and without they were 6-4. Both their bad losses came without their best player. They were also beating Gonzaga pretty well in Spokane when Mills broke his hand. They beat Utah State without Mills and had a real close game the second time around with Gonzaga. I just think without the Mills injury, there's a good chance they go 29-3 or 30-2 and cakewalk into the tournament.