Good news. Forecasted RPI end of year is now at 57.5. That RPI would put us in the tournament more than 83% of the time.
Need to avoid any clunkers to teams we shouldn't lose to.
Go Warriors
saaawheat
The RPI and the RPI forecast meant nothing in November and December (when they said we sucked and wouldn't make the tournament). They're not worth much more now. It's real simple, like it always was: win more than you lose in the Big East and you're likely in. If you don't you're likely out.
We still have a lot of games to play. Good for right now, but we must continue to improve and play well.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 06, 2011, 01:37:15 PM
The RPI and the RPI forecast meant nothing in November and December (when they said we sucked and wouldn't make the tournament). They're not worth much more now. It's real simple, like it always was: win more than you lose in the Big East and you're likely in. If you don't you're likely out.
No one ever said anything differently, either. It's a fun tool to watch...with more data points the more accurate it gets. Let's home we can improve on that 57.5 number as that's still not a guaranteed lock.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 06, 2011, 01:48:48 PM
No one ever said anything differently, either. It's a fun tool to watch...with more data points the more accurate it gets. Let's home we can improve on that 57.5 number as that's still not a guaranteed lock.
Does the 57.5% factor in the 4 new slots in the tourney?
Quote from: Nukem2 on January 06, 2011, 02:04:13 PM
Does the 57.5% factor in the 4 new slots in the tourney?
The number of teams in the tournament has no bearing on the RPI.
Only three factors are included:
W/L record (adjusted for home/road)
Opponents W/L record
Opponents' Oppponents W/L record
Quote from: Nukem2 on January 06, 2011, 02:04:13 PM
Does the 57.5% factor in the 4 new slots in the tourney?
57.5 is our predicted RPI finish in terms of rating.
In terms of % to make it, those guys actually predict a 54% probability of getting in, and that does include the extra 3 spots.
However, in looking at the last decade or so of teams that finished with a 58RPI (what we are our projected to finish at), I come up with closer to 82% have made it.
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 06, 2011, 02:18:59 PM
The number of teams in the tournament has no bearing on the RPI.
Only three factors are included:
W/L record (adjusted for home/road)
Opponents W/L record
Opponents' Oppponents W/L record
Correct
Chicos should quit his job and become the next Ken Pom
rpiforecast has us beating Syracuse with 52% odds. They've clearly not factored in National Marquette Day, nor the fact that SU owns us.
I'd somehow like to figure in the theory: We're going to win a game we're not supposed to, lose one we're not supposed to lose.
I'd say we'll lose to USF and beat Gtown, flipping those two.
The Jaapanese Bomb pearl harbor...in other old news of the day.
Those trying to hurt the program will attack early season SOS. But like in the first 5 years in the BE the RPI sky rockets...win or lose....due to the 18 murderous games we have.
Buzz has actually upgraded the schedule from the Pretender.
Any other breaking news?
Those trying to hurt the program?
LOL. Good grief. We all know how the RPI works, no one ever said differently. Clearly back when the RPI was posted in December people said things like "of course this will change as the season goes on" or things like "the Big East schedule will help our RPI out greatly"
And here I thought you had me on ignore. ::)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 06, 2011, 02:49:59 PMThose trying to hurt the program?
LOL. Good grief. We all know how the RPI works, no one ever said differently. Clearly back when the RPI was posted in December people said things like "of course this will change as the season goes on" or things like "the Big East schedule will help our RPI out greatly"
And here I thought you had me on ignore. ::)
Oh, sure, deny you were the one on the grassy knoll overlooking Coach Buzz's office! Just try to deny it! We all know it was you, Chicos. And you would have gotten away with it too, if not for that darn dog and those pesky kids! ;D
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 06, 2011, 02:59:18 PM
Oh, sure, deny you were the one on the grassy knoll overlooking Coach Buzz's office! Just try to deny it! We all know it was you, Chicos. And you would have gotten away with it too, if not for that darn dog and those pesky kids! ;D
\
actually, there is a garden outside buzz's office. dirt and patchy grass outside terri mitchell's office.
was the garden an I4 thing?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 06, 2011, 02:22:52 PM
57.5 is our predicted RPI finish in terms of rating.
In terms of % to make it, those guys actually predict a 54% probability of getting in, and that does include the extra 3 spots.
However, in looking at the last decade or so of teams that finished with a 58RPI (what we are our projected to finish at), I come up with closer to 82% have made it.
Good stuff Chicos.
Question: A "bad loss" (we will say Depaul home or road) hurts you much more than a "good win" (beat a Top 5 team halfway thru big east on the road) can help you, as far as projected RPI goes, correct?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 06, 2011, 02:22:52 PM57.5 is our predicted RPI finish in terms of rating.
In terms of % to make it, those guys actually predict a 54% probability of getting in, and that does include the extra 3 spots.
However, in looking at the last decade or so of teams that finished with a 58RPI (what we are our projected to finish at), I come up with closer to 82% have made it.
At exactly a 58 RPI, or 58 or better? Because it doesn't seem even remotely possible that all the teams with a 58 or better RPI would make the tournament. There's what, 31 conferences? I have to imagine at least half of those would send an automatic qualifier with an RPI well below 58. Even if they strictly went by RPI, that would give slots to at most the top 50 teams, assuming there were no upsets in the other conferences. Which means it wouldn't be a shock for teams below 50 to be left out.
St. Mary's with an RPI of 48 being left out in 2009, Dayton in 2008 being left out with a 32 RPI, Air Force in 2007 missed out with a 30 RPI, I realize they are all mid-majors, but if RPI is the arbiter, you can hardly say that a 58 is going to get us in when those have been left out. Especially with how strong the Big East is this year. It's not unthinkable that this league could have 10-11 legitimate tourney-worthy teams. If that's the case, it should bode well for us, but if we're in that 9-12 range, it will certainly be dicey. Would the committee hand out 10 bids to one conference?
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 06, 2011, 07:34:36 PM
At exactly a 58 RPI, or 58 or better? Because it doesn't seem even remotely possible that all the teams with a 58 or better RPI would make the tournament. There's what, 31 conferences? I have to imagine at least half of those would send an automatic qualifier with an RPI well below 58. Even if they strictly went by RPI, that would give slots to at most the top 50 teams, assuming there were no upsets in the other conferences. Which means it wouldn't be a shock for teams below 50 to be left out.
St. Mary's with an RPI of 48 being left out in 2009, Dayton in 2008 being left out with a 32 RPI, Air Force in 2007 missed out with a 30 RPI, I realize they are all mid-majors, but if RPI is the arbiter, you can hardly say that a 58 is going to get us in when those have been left out. Especially with how strong the Big East is this year. It's not unthinkable that this league could have 10-11 legitimate tourney-worthy teams. If that's the case, it should bode well for us, but if we're in that 9-12 range, it will certainly be dicey. Would the committee hand out 10 bids to one conference?
Good question...here's what I mean
Last year #58 was New Mexico State and they made the tournament.
Teams that were better than #58 that didn't get in were:
(MU was 54 in the RPI last year...pretty wild considering 55, 56, 57 all missed the tournament)
#57 Virginia Tech
#56 Memphis
#55 Ole Miss
#50 Wichita State
#49 UAB
#47 Kent State
#46 VCU
#39 Rhode Island
#35 Dayton (won the NIT)
All other top 58 teams made the NCAA tournament while 9 didn't. About 85% for last year. It changes in other years, my calculations had it at about 83%.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 06, 2011, 12:34:39 PM
Good news. Forecasted RPI end of year is now at 57.5. That RPI would put us in the tournament more than 83% of the time.
Need to avoid any clunkers to teams we shouldn't lose to.
Go Warriors
We will lose a game we shouldn't, most teams at our level should expect that at least once a year, but as long as we also win a game we shouldn't - also pretty standard for recent MU teams - we should be able to make up for it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 06, 2011, 07:47:50 PM
Good question...here's what I mean
Last year #58 was New Mexico State and they made the tournament.
Teams that were better than #58 that didn't get in were:
(MU was 54 in the RPI last year...pretty wild considering 55, 56, 57 all missed the tournament)
#57 Virginia Tech
#56 Memphis
#55 Ole Miss
#50 Wichita State
#49 UAB
#47 Kent State
#46 VCU
#39 Rhode Island
#35 Dayton (won the NIT)
All other top 58 teams made the NCAA tournament while 9 didn't. About 85% for last year. It changes in other years, my calculations had it at about 83%.
Though the committee is "supposed" to put more weight on RPI than Pomroy - they are allowed and do use Pomroy to help in their decision-making process. Emphasis has been taken off of the last 10-games record, but we know that the committee still takes that into consideration - based on some things that were said by everyone from Bobby Knight, to Seth Davis. This also can help explain how last year's MU team, though 54 in RPI received the 6 seed. No other way to explain it..and I don't write this to be confrontational..but just to add depth to your point above.
Quote from: Ners on January 07, 2011, 02:29:09 PM
Though the committee is "supposed" to put more weight on RPI than Pomroy - they are allowed and do use Pomroy to help in their decision-making process. Emphasis has been taken off of the last 10-games record, but we know that the committee still takes that into consideration - based on some things that were said by everyone from Bobby Knight, to Seth Davis. This also can help explain how last year's MU team, though 54 in RPI received the 6 seed. No other way to explain it..and I don't write this to be confrontational..but just to add depth to your point above.
Correct, the RPI is only one of several tools. As I've mentioned prior, Doug Elgin (Commissioner of the Missouri Valley Conference) was the chairman of the selection committee and on the committee itself several years. He and I go back about two decades. He's indicated (I believe other chairpersons have publicly) that there are a number of ratings that are used. The reason why the RPI has as much clout as it does with the NCAA is because it was created by the NCAA. They know the formula where the other ratings systems don't always share the exact math behind them. But I've heard Sagarin, Pomeroy, Massey and others are used as tools.
One of the things they like about the RPI is the lack of point differential. You either won or you lost....they do not want to reward teams for piling on opponents. Personally, I find this to be a major weakness in the RPI. A 5 point loss to Duke should be viewed more favorably than a 30 point loss to Duke, but the RPI treats them the same. I would be much more of an advocate of a scoring differential variable that puts a cap on the amount of a win. That way you don't get any additional bonus points for piling on by 25 points, but say anything from 1 to 5 is a bonus, 6 to 10 is another bonus, 11 to 20 is another bonus and then final bonus at 21 to 25. Sagarin does this with his diminishing returns principle.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 06, 2011, 07:47:50 PM
Good question...here's what I mean
Last year #58 was New Mexico State and they made the tournament.
Teams that were better than #58 that didn't get in were:
(MU was 54 in the RPI last year...pretty wild considering 55, 56, 57 all missed the tournament)
#57 Virginia Tech
#56 Memphis
#55 Ole Miss
#50 Wichita State
#49 UAB
#47 Kent State
#46 VCU
#39 Rhode Island
#35 Dayton (won the NIT)
All other top 58 teams made the NCAA tournament while 9 didn't. About 85% for last year. It changes in other years, my calculations had it at about 83%.
Saying the #58 team has an 83% or 85% chance of making the tournament because 83% or 85% of the teams rated 1-58 made it is a math error you wouldn't expect of a 5th grader.
Except that what I said is of the top 58 RPI teams, 85% made it. That's not a math error, that's a true statement. I did not say that the #58 team has a 85% chance, I said that RPI (or better) would get you in about that percentage of the time over the last decade or so.
(http://www.celebritywonder.com/wp/Hugh_Laurie_in_House_M.D._TV_Series_Wallpaper_800.jpg)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 07, 2011, 03:03:37 PM
Except that what I said is of the top 58 RPI teams, 85% made it. That's not a math error, that's a true statement. I did not say that the #58 team has a 85% chance, I said that RPI (or better) would get you in about that percentage of the time over the last decade or so.
(http://www.celebritywonder.com/wp/Hugh_Laurie_in_House_M.D._TV_Series_Wallpaper_800.jpg)
So does this mean the #58 team makes it 85% of the time or teams 1-58 make it 85% of the time?
Quote from: M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS on January 07, 2011, 03:08:21 PM
So does this mean the #58 team makes it 85% of the time or teams 1-58 make it 85% of the time?
I believe what he means is 85% of teams ranked 1-58 make the tournament in a given year.
Quote from: w0bbie on January 07, 2011, 03:10:45 PM
I believe what he means is 85% of teams ranked 1-58 make the tournament in a given year.
Correct, if you are in the top 58 over the last decade (and if we're splitting hairs, it's actually 83% of the time the last decade..85% was for last year).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 07, 2011, 03:22:12 PM
Correct, if you are in the top 58 over the last decade (and if we're splitting hairs, it's actually 83% of the time the last decade..85% was for last year).
So in this case we would actually need to know the chances of the #58 team...
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 07, 2011, 03:03:37 PM
Except that what I said is of the top 58 RPI teams, 85% made it. That's not a math error, that's a true statement. I did not say that the #58 team has a 85% chance, I said that RPI (or better) would get you in about that percentage of the time over the last decade or so.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 06, 2011, 12:34:39 PM
Good news. Forecasted RPI end of year is now at 57.5. That RPI would put us in the tournament more than 83% of the time.
These bolded parts do not seem to reconcile. Perhaps you should proofread a little better before you post so that you don't appear to contradict yourself later on.
Quote from: jmayer1 on January 07, 2011, 03:23:51 PM
These bolded parts do not seem to reconcile. Perhaps you should proofread a little better before you post so that you don't appear to contradict yourself later on.
Which is why I followed up and clarified it in the other posts....of course Lenny House didn't reference that first post, either....if we're going to get into contradictions you might as well point his out as well....right?
:D
Quote from: M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS on January 07, 2011, 03:23:12 PM
So in this case we would actually need to know the chances of the #58 team...
You're asking for trouble there and here's why.
Say the last 10 years the #58 team made the NCAA tournament all 10 years, someone might infer that #58 has a 100% chance of making the NCAA tournament based on that historical data set.
However, in the examples I've already shown, number #57, #56, #55 have missed in the past as have better RPI ranked teams. I don't think you want to go there with isolating one individual position when there is so much uncertainty with the ranked positions just below and above it. If this were rpi #10 or something, I'd see no problem with it but think you're asking for trouble if you pinpoint it to a specific ranking that far down the list.
IMO
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 07, 2011, 03:40:25 PM
You're asking for trouble there and here's why.
Say the last 10 years the #58 team made the NCAA tournament all 10 years, someone might infer that #58 has a 100% chance of making the NCAA tournament based on that historical data set.
However, in the examples I've already shown, number #57, #56, #55 have missed in the past as have better RPI ranked teams. I don't think you want to go there with isolating one individual position when there is so much uncertainty with the ranked positions just below and above it. If this were rpi #10 or something, I'd see no problem with it but think you're asking for trouble if you pinpoint it to a specific ranking that far down the list.
IMO
I actually agree. But also think that if we are #58 we are treading on thin ice. Although I dont think rpi has as much weight as it used to.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 07, 2011, 03:40:25 PM
You're asking for trouble there and here's why.
Say the last 10 years the #58 team made the NCAA tournament all 10 years, someone might infer that #58 has a 100% chance of making the NCAA tournament based on that historical data set.
However, in the examples I've already shown, number #57, #56, #55 have missed in the past as have better RPI ranked teams. I don't think you want to go there with isolating one individual position when there is so much uncertainty with the ranked positions just below and above it. If this were rpi #10 or something, I'd see no problem with it but think you're asking for trouble if you pinpoint it to a specific ranking that far down the list.
IMO
The better statistic would be to show the chances of making the tournament from the expected high-low range of our RPI (like 45-65), rather than 1-58, unless anyone seriously believes we are going to be higher than 30 in the RPI by the end of the season.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 06, 2011, 12:34:39 PM
Good news. Forecasted RPI end of year is now at 57.5. That RPI would put us in the tournament more than 83% of the time.
First you say this
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 06, 2011, 02:22:52 PM
57.5 is our predicted RPI finish in terms of rating.
In terms of % to make it, those guys actually predict a 54% probability of getting in, and that does include the extra 3 spots.
However, in looking at the last decade or so of teams that finished with a 58RPI (what we are our projected to finish at), I come up with closer to 82% have made it.
Then you said this
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 06, 2011, 07:47:50 PM
Good question...here's what I mean
Last year #58 was New Mexico State and they made the tournament.
Teams that were better than #58 that didn't get in were:
(MU was 54 in the RPI last year...pretty wild considering 55, 56, 57 all missed the tournament)
#57 Virginia Tech
#56 Memphis
#55 Ole Miss
#50 Wichita State
#49 UAB
#47 Kent State
#46 VCU
#39 Rhode Island
#35 Dayton (won the NIT)
All other top 58 teams made the NCAA tournament while 9 didn't. About 85% for last year. It changes in other years, my calculations had it at about 83%.
Then this. It's clear that your brain is unable to understand that because 83% of the teams 1-58 make the tournament, team #58's odds aren't nearly that good. The #1,#2,#3, etc,etc,etc teams are 100% and the #58 team is around 54% (as the study you cited pointed out). Your "calculation" gives an equal chance (83%) to the #1 and the #58 teams to make it which is patently absurd. All the pictures, the use of my last name and other childish stunts can't hide the stupidity of your statement. You love to point out other's shortcomings, why not "man up" and admit that 4th grade arithmatic is over your head?
This is so productive.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 07, 2011, 10:02:52 PM
Then this. It's clear that your brain is unable to understand that because 83% of the teams 1-58 make the tournament, team #58's odds aren't nearly that good. The #1,#2,#3, etc,etc,etc teams are 100% and the #58 team is around 54% (as the study you cited pointed out). Your "calculation" gives an equal chance (83%) to the #1 and the #58 teams to make it which is patently absurd. All the pictures, the use of my last name and other childish stunts can't hide the stupidity of your statement. You love to point out other's shortcomings, why not "man up" and admit that 4th grade arithmatic is over your head?
From an engineer who got an A in his graduate level class named "Statistics, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes"
McCoy children, the Hatfields are coming from Pennsylvania tomorrow. Save the ammo!
Statistically we have moved from out of the NCAA to on the bubble or barely in. Most of us get the gist!!!!
Save the venom for the Panther posters that are sure to show up!
:-)
Regardless, Chichos is always right.
Quote from: National Champs on January 08, 2011, 12:19:44 AM
Regardless, Chichos is always right.
Yes so is your wife, you live with it!
LOL
Quote from: APieperFan3 on January 06, 2011, 03:41:33 PM
Question: A "bad loss" (we will say Depaul home or road) hurts you much more than a "good win" (beat a Top 5 team halfway thru big east on the road) can help you, as far as projected RPI goes, correct?
I actually think you're better off to have a good win and a bad loss than neither of both on the schedule. No way to directly prove that with no one in the room, but I'd think for some members of the committee that would have to be a deciding factor at the end, i.e. Who have you beaten as opposed to who have you lost to?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 07, 2011, 10:02:52 PM
Then this. It's clear that your brain is unable to understand that because 83% of the teams 1-58 make the tournament, team #58's odds aren't nearly that good. The #1,#2,#3, etc,etc,etc teams are 100% and the #58 team is around 54% (as the study you cited pointed out). Your "calculation" gives an equal chance (83%) to the #1 and the #58 teams to make it which is patently absurd. All the pictures, the use of my last name and other childish stunts can't hide the stupidity of your statement. You love to point out other's shortcomings, why not "man up" and admit that 4th grade arithmatic is over your head?
4th grade? A few days ago it was 5th grade? Weird, I tutor my son in 6th grade (he's a California distinguished math medalist in the state two years running) and I hold my own, I'm going to have to use this as an excuse now not to help him any more.
At any rate, my calculation does NOT give an equal chance to number #58 that it does #1. That would be foolish on all levels. Go back and read what I said....83% of the time teams in the top 58 have made the tournament. That is a true statement...yes or no? Please answer that question!! I did not say 83% for #58 or 68% for #34 or whatever. I made a very general statement that the top 58 have made it 83% of the time.
I totally agree with you that if you focus on individual ranks then obviously the math is totally different....I believe I mentioned that in a post.
(http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/blog/hughl.jpg)
Quote from: APieperFan3 on January 06, 2011, 03:41:33 PM
Good stuff Chicos.
Question: A "bad loss" (we will say Depaul home or road) hurts you much more than a "good win" (beat a Top 5 team halfway thru big east on the road) can help you, as far as projected RPI goes, correct?
Since I didn't see the point addressed directly, For the RPI itself, neither a good win or a bad loss has any greater impact other than the home/road adjustment.
Lets take two home games--Syracuse and Longwood. Our RPI will be the same for a Syracuse win/Longwood loss as it would be for a Longwood win/Syracuse loss.
There used to be a "bonus and penalty" system for good wins and bad losses, but the NCAA eliminated it several years ago. Now any good wins and bad losses are just qualitative factors of the overall body of work that the committee uses in addition to the RPI.
As far as which is better, it really depends on the circumstances. When did each occur in the season, were any players on either team injured, were there any other circumstances involved, how does it fit with the body of work, etc?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 08, 2011, 11:27:17 AM
At any rate, my calculation does NOT give an equal chance to number #58 that it does #1. That would be foolish on all levels. Go back and read what I said....83% of the time teams in the top 58 have made the tournament. That is a true statement...yes or no? Please answer that question!! I did not say 83% for #58 or 68% for #34 or whatever. I made a very general statement that the top 58 have made it 83% of the time.
Nice try, Einstein. You said that by your calculation, an RPI of 57.5 "would put us in the tournament more than 83% of the time". Patently false. Then you said, "these guys give 57.5 a 54%probability (true). However, I come up with closer to 83%" (false, again). Your "calculation" is only correct if the top 58 teams are given the same probability of making it. Your "calculations" resulted from a misunderstanding of basic statistics and probabilities, plain and simple.
Answer the question Lenny, true or false that the top 58 RPI teams have made it 85% of the time?
Man up, answer the question...that's all I ask.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 08, 2011, 12:55:46 PM
Answer the question Lenny, true or false that the top 58 RPI teams have made it 85% of the time?
Man up, answer the question...that's all I ask.
True. So what? The top 130 RPI teams make it 50% of the time. And the top 260 teams make it 25% of the time. But the 130th team no way makes it 50% of the time. And the 260th team doesn't make it 25% of the time. They would based on your "calculations". Stop digging, you're just making yourself look even more foolish.
Thanks. I'm not digging at all. I made a true statement, 82% of the time in the last decade the top 58 RPI teams have made the NCAA.
I appreciate you finally acknowledging it.
(http://www.cha.lt/uploads/posts/1206496402_housedance.jpg)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 08, 2011, 03:35:49 PM
Thanks. I'm not digging at all. I made a true statement, 82% of the time in the last decade the top 58 RPI teams have made the NCAA.
Your conclusion was 100% wrong. That you drew your incorrect conclusion based on a true statment is meaningless.
Only you could say "I have a dog, therefore the sky is red" and want to be credited for being "right" about the fact that you have a dog.
Thanks guys. When I said this was productive, I was being sarcastic.