Not sure how espn calculates this but BPI has us at 32 which sounds good to me. Anyone know how accurate this is?
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/20163677/surprise-experienced-wichita-state-shockers-top-summer-bpi-update
It is interesting.
I'll just be patient and wait on Kenpom.
Never been a big fan of BPI. I'm gonna go on record and say the following rankings are way off:
#4 Notre Dame (too high)
#8 Oklahoma (too high)
#21 Arkansas (too high)
#23 Iowa (too high)
#24 Auburn (too high)
#27 Florida (too low)
#29 Ohio State (too high)
#34 Mississippi State (too high)
#35 Mississippi (too high)
#36 Davidson (too high)
#41 Temple (too high)
#43 USC (too low)
NR UCLA (too low)
NR Gonzaga (too low)
OSU a true 29 lmao.
Oklahoma hahah
USC and Gonzaga barely ranked and not ranked.
Unreal
All in means is that people are waking up to the fact that we may well have something at Marquette.
The Motown Trio, Froling plus strong returning guards in Rowsey and Howard plus emerging really good players in Sam and Hanni and we have the makings of a team.
I was wondering how long it would take before the rest of the world began to notice.
This is ahead of schedule.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on July 28, 2017, 01:01:09 PM
Not sure how espn calculates this but BPI has us at 32 which sounds good to me. Anyone know how accurate this is?
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/20163677/surprise-experienced-wichita-state-shockers-top-summer-bpi-update
Probably has as much credibility as the crystal bowel....
Quote from: dgies9156 on July 28, 2017, 02:16:40 PM
All in means is that people are waking up to the fact that we may well have something at Marquette.
The Motown Trio, Froling plus strong returning guards in Rowsey and Howard plus emerging really good players in Sam and Hanni and we have the makings of a team.
I was wondering how long it would take before the rest of the world began to notice.
This is ahead of schedule.
I hope so but BPI is based on an objective formula. So ESPN put some data in a formula and it spit out these rankings.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on July 28, 2017, 02:39:56 PM
I hope so but BPI is based on an objective formula. So ESPN put some data in a formula and it spit out these rankings.
The nice thing is that once everybody gets on the court, the ref doesn't pretend to toss the ball, hold it instead, laugh, and say, "I declare XXXXXX the winner because they have the better BPI!"
Comparing BPI, AP and USA Today to the final top 25 rankings, I don't see that BPI is all that far off--they had some misses, but so did AP and USA Today. And they had Michigan and Notre Dame in their preseason top 25, which both AP and USA Today left out.
| Team | BPI Pre | Ap Pre | USA pre | AP Final | USA Final |
| Duke | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Villanova | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Kansas | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| North Carolina | 4 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 8 |
| Kentucky | 5 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 5 |
| Oregon | 6 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Purdue | 7 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Louisville | 8 | 13 | 14 | 10 | 10 |
| West Virginia | 9 | 20 | 18 | 13 | 12 |
| NC State | 10 | unr | unr | unr | unr |
| Syracuse | 11 | 19 | 17 | unr | unr |
| Ohio State | 12 | unr | unr | unr | unr |
| Virginia | 13 | 8 | 7 | 24 | 23 |
| UCLA | 14 | 16 | 20 | 8 | 6 |
| Arizona | 15 | 10 | 11 | 4 | 5 |
| Michigan | 16 | unr | unr | 23 | 26 |
| Xavier | 17 | 7 | 8 | unr | unr |
| Gonzaga | 18 | 14 | 13 | 2 | 2 |
| Indiana | 19 | 11 | 12 | unr | unr |
| Michigan State | 20 | 12 | 9 | unr | unr |
| Georgetown | 21 | unr | unr | unr | urn |
| Saint Mary's | 22 | 17 | 19 | 22 | 21 |
| Notre Dame | 23 | unr | unr | 14 | 14 |
| Cincinnati | 24 | unr | 25 | 18 | 16 |
| Dayton | 25 | unr | unr | unr | unr |
You're chart shows that BPI gets most right but then is way off the deep end on some. NC State finished as a Sub 100 team. Ohio State was barely top 75. Georgetown was barely top 75.
I'm not sure what it is about their formula but there's something that makes it overvalue certain teams by a ton. Decently accurate for most but way off for a few.
Nice. But it means nothing.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe BPI ignores transfers until they play for their new team but does count high school recruits.
Quote from: source? on July 28, 2017, 07:04:26 PM
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe BPI ignores transfers until they play for their new team but does count high school recruits.
Correct
I am hopeful that we will be quite good.
But let's be real, I start each year like that and I don't give up hope until all hope is gone. Such is fandom.
The talent is there this year.
Quote from: source? on July 28, 2017, 07:04:26 PM
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe BPI ignores transfers until they play for their new team but does count high school recruits.
1) appears to be true
2) makes absolutely no sense
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 28, 2017, 10:09:25 PM
1) appears to be true
2) makes absolutely no sense
I agree with this analysis
Sweet! #32?
I'll take an 8 seed this year.
Interesting to consider the offense and defense splits. Yes, we can all agree BPI isn't perfect, but by this calculation, with the exception of Wake Forest's defense, MU's defense is the lowest ranking of any single side of the ball among the top 30 teams.
Who would've guessed THAT when we hired floor-slappin' Wojo?!?!
Quote from: MUFlutieEffect on July 29, 2017, 11:49:01 AM
Interesting to consider the offense and defense splits. Yes, we can all agree BPI isn't perfect, but by this calculation, with the exception of Wake Forest's defense, MU's defense is the lowest ranking of any single side of the ball among the top 30 teams.
Who would've guessed THAT when we hired floor-slappin' Wojo?!?!
Keep Guessing.
Quote from: MUFlutieEffect on July 29, 2017, 11:49:01 AM
Interesting to consider the offense and defense splits. Yes, we can all agree BPI isn't perfect, but by this calculation, with the exception of Wake Forest's defense, MU's defense is the lowest ranking of any single side of the ball among the top 30 teams.
Who would've guessed THAT when we hired floor-slappin' Wojo?!?!
Just a guess, but maybe that's why MU isn't in the top 30.