ESPN: MU Still In

[NavinRJohnson]

If Michigan and Michigan State are in at 9-9 in the Big Ten, we HAVE to be in. Neither of them beat anyone all year, we have 4 top 25 wins. Just goes to show you how critical it is to close the year out strong.

Agreed. Throw Illinois onto that list as well. They have a couple nice wins (UNC and Wisconsin), but the bad losses to match. Still games to be played, but the more I look, the more convinced I am that the only impact of Tuesday will be on the number next to MU's name.

[GO MU!!]

Does anyone else think that they should pick a starting line up and then maybe stick with it for the first 10 minutes of a game and see what happens. I didn't like it when we were 6 deep for two years, but this idea to play 9 players in the first four minutes makes it so hard for them to get in a groove with each other. I always thought subs were just that subs. Unless every single player is that equal and they are all practicing that equal, why do all this subbing?

[IrwinFletcher]

As an example:

Boston College RPI is 41
Marquette RPI is 68

See what I mean?

Boston College strength of schedule is 18
Marquette strength of schedule is 31


BC is 18-11.  MU is 18-13

BC has wins over Texas A&M, Bucknell, California, Maryland, Va Tech twice.  Nothing great aside from the A&M victory.
I would agree that MU's wins are better but who knows what the committee is going to look at, and that's the scary part in my opinion. 
[/quote]

The fact that BC needs to put Maryland and Cal under their "good wins" category speaks volumes about their resume.  Maryland just got spanked at home by Virginia.  Cal is 17-13 overall and in the middle of an average Pac10

[NavinRJohnson]

TYou have to feel for fans of the Golden Eagles and the Hokies both: For yet another year, their teams seem determined to make their respective fans as nervous as possible on Selection Sunday."

???? When's the last time any of you were nervous?

[TJ]

This might sound asinine, but I kinda like right where MU is at. This way they sneak into the tourney as a 10, 11, or 12 with a win or two(gotta at least get that first one though of ocurse). Now, I know they aren't playing the best, however, all you have to do is get there and anything can happen.

That sounds asinine.

[TJ]

???? When's the last time any of you were nervous?

I was nervous for the last time at the beginning of the Cincy game.  From then on I'm going to watch with relative indifference, because anything else just leads to disappointment with this team.

[GO MU!!]

I was nervous for the last time at the beginning of the Cincy game.  From then on I'm going to watch with relative indifference, because anything else just leads to disappointment with this team.

Yeah me too, bad feeling going into that game and it has carried over for two games now. We hit Cincy when they were hot and we hit Seton Hall after they got hot, bad timing by us I guess.

[TallTitan34]

If we lose Tuesday, I don't know if we're still in, many of you have given strong arguments as to why we would be, so I won't get into that.  BUT, if we lose to Providence, we enter the Big dance on a three game slide

If Villanova loses it's first round game they will enter the tournament on a five game slide.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The fact that BC needs to put Maryland and Cal under their "good wins" category speaks volumes about their resume.  Maryland just got spanked at home by Virginia.  Cal is 17-13 overall and in the middle of an average Pac10

I don't disagree with you, but that's the entire point...it all depends on what criteria you are using.  If a committee member relies more on RPI, that hurts us.  Whether we like it or not, our RPI is not very good.  When you have 13 losses, your RPI is going to suffer...especially when you throw in four home losses (those hurt the RPI more) and only four road wins....2 of those against 100+ teams.  It's just the reality of how that formula works.  No one likes it, but it's used.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

I don't disagree with you, but that's the entire point...it all depends on what criteria you are using.  If a committee member relies more on RPI, that hurts us.  Whether we like it or not, our RPI is not very good.  When you have 13 losses, your RPI is going to suffer...especially when you throw in four home losses (those hurt the RPI more) and only four road wins....2 of those against 100+ teams.  It's just the reality of how that formula works.  No one likes it, but it's used.

I am sure this has been said on one of the many threads on this board, but last night during the Texas-Baylor game, Jay Bilas said, "If you ask any committee member, they will all say RPI is not even mentioned." He then went on to say that RPI is close to useless and that he believes that if it is not used, college basketball should just get rid of it. He also mentioned that if you look at the top 100 RPI team's that it logically makes zero sense.

In other words, I wouldn't be terribly worried about the RPI. It's the aggregate loses that may hurt.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I am sure this has been said on one of the many threads on this board, but last night during the Texas-Baylor game, Jay Bilas said, "If you ask any committee member, they will all say RPI is not even mentioned." He then went on to say that RPI is close to useless and that he believes that if it is not used, college basketball should just get rid of it. He also mentioned that if you look at the top 100 RPI team's that it logically makes zero sense.

In other words, I wouldn't be terribly worried about the RPI. It's the aggregate loses that may hurt.

So that's what Jay said...hmm.  Well here's what the chairman of the NCAA Selection committee said...by the way, Jay Bilas is not on the committee. Just sayin'

UCLA athletics director Dan Guerrero is the 2010 chairman. "The RPI continues to be one of the criteria we evaluate," he said. "The RPI is indicative of the measure of several things that are very, very important to the committee. So we will certainly take that into consideration as we make our decisions."

Bilas hates the RPI, and I don't blame him.  But his statement last night is ludicrous.  Look at the statistical analysis as well over the last 15 years.  Some members use it, some really really use it.  For him to say "it's not even mentioned" flies in the face of what actual committee members ACTUALLY HAVE SAID.  Jay might want to get up to speed.


http://www.bostonsportshub.com/ncaa_selection.htm

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

So that's what Jay said...hmm.  Well here's what the chairman of the NCAA Selection committee said...by the way, Jay Bilas is not on the committee. Just sayin'

UCLA athletics director Dan Guerrero is the 2010 chairman. "The RPI continues to be one of the criteria we evaluate," he said. "The RPI is indicative of the measure of several things that are very, very important to the committee. So we will certainly take that into consideration as we make our decisions."

Bilas hates the RPI, and I don't blame him.  But his statement last night is ludicrous.  Look at the statistical analysis as well over the last 15 years.  Some members use it, some really really use it.  For him to say "it's not even mentioned" flies in the face of what actual committee members ACTUALLY HAVE SAID.  Jay might want to get up to speed.


http://www.bostonsportshub.com/ncaa_selection.htm

Fair enough. Just thought I would throw that out there. He was referencing Baylor's RPI in the mid 80's and was pretty much laughing at the possibility of there being 80 better teams. And that is when he went on to say that if you logically look at the some of the teams in the top 100 and their overall body of work, it makes absolutely no logical sense. I would tend to agree.

[Lennys Tap]

So that's what Jay said...hmm.  Well here's what the chairman of the NCAA Selection committee said...by the way, Jay Bilas is not on the committee. Just sayin'

UCLA athletics director Dan Guerrero is the 2010 chairman. "The RPI continues to be one of the criteria we evaluate," he said. "The RPI is indicative of the measure of several things that are very, very important to the committee. So we will certainly take that into consideration as we make our decisions."

Bilas hates the RPI, and I don't blame him.  But his statement last night is ludicrous.  Look at the statistical analysis as well over the last 15 years.  Some members use it, some really really use it.  For him to say "it's not even mentioned" flies in the face of what actual committee members ACTUALLY HAVE SAID.  Jay might want to get up to speed.


http://www.bostonsportshub.com/ncaa_selection.htm

Do you really expect the guy who represents the organization (NCAA) who INVENTED the now outdated, inferior and irrelevant RPI to admit as much publicly? A "perception is everything" guy like yourself knows that's not possible.

Bilas may not be on the committee, but he knows the people who are. If he says RPI is viewed as an anachronism which is largely ignored I believe him. You're guy has a reason to "spin" the argument. Bilas doesn't.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Fair enough. Just thought I would throw that out there. He was referencing Baylor's RPI in the mid 80's and was pretty much laughing at the possibility of there being 80 better teams. And that is when he went on to say that if you logically look at the some of the teams in the top 100 and their overall body of work, it makes absolutely no logical sense. I would tend to agree.

Well, that's always been the issue.  There probably aren't 80 teams better than Baylor, though losing to Iowa State according to some here is paramount to losing to a DIII team.  They also lost to Texas Tech at home, lost to a bad Oklahoma team...those are RPI killers.  I guess I would put it this way, in their overall body of work, they are probably a top 75 team, but they have shown some epic poor displays this year to show they can be well below that 75 mark and on multiple occasions.  This is where the RPI will drill you if you lose to crappy teams, especially at home.

Jay needs to reel it back in and also realize the NCAA Tournament isn't about taking the best 68 teams, either.  If the NCAA wants to start doing that, scrap the conference tournaments and pick the top 68.  We all know that isn't going to happen.