MU only team to face SIX top 10 RPI teams so far this year

[bamamarquettefan]

The new RPI breakdowns showing that MU is only 2-6 against the Top 50 in the RPI is cited as a negative.  However, it should not be.  MU is the only team in the country to have played 6 teams currently in the Top 10 of hte RPI.  In fact, no one else has even played 5 games against the Top 10 yet, and only 20 other teams have even played THREE games against the Top 10 in the RPI.  Therefore, MU is 1-1 against No. 11 to 50, and hopefully a couple of our opponents will move up just a couple of spots to get into the Top 50 soon.

Here is the breakdown:

Teams to face 6 Top 10 RPI teams (1): Marquette (win over Gtown)

Teams to face 5 Top 10 RPI teams (0)

Teams to face 4 Top 10 RPI teams (4): Mississippi (win over KState), Seton Hall (no wins), DePaul (no wins), Rutgers (no wins).

Teams to face 3 Top 10 RPI teams (16): Purdue (beat WVU and Wisconsin to be only team to beat two top 10 RPI teams this year), Ohio State (beat Wisconsin), USF (beat Gtown), Gtown (beat Duke), Temple (beat Nova) and Pitt (beat Syracuse), and ND (beat WVU), but the other nine teams are 0-3.

[Coleman]

Love how 3 of the 4 to face 4 top 10s are also from the Big East, and several members of the conference are among those who have faced 3 top 10s. Just shows you what a brutal schedule the conference brings. Hopefully that will be rewarded.

[TallTitan34]

Nice stat bama!  Hopefully the selection committee is aware of this!

[Marquette84]

I don't know that I'd put too much stock in this type of analysis.

First, any Big East team that mirrors VU, SU, WVU or GU will winds up with at least 4 (possibly 5) top 10 opponents (assuming all 4 stay in the top 10). 

The other observation is that its easier for the lower-rated teams to have more games against the higher rated teams.  We had two top 10 games against Villanova.  They got two 50+ games against MU.  Do we deserve any additional consideration for that--especially considering we lost those two games?  The committee--rightfully--won't put too much stock in the fact that we played more top 10 opponents than Villanova.

Its time to stop worrying about what other teams do, and just win the games like we're capable of.  The fact is that we've already lost all our games against the top 3 teams in conference.  Right now, our tournament chances depend on how many wins we have against the teams in 4th through 10th place and finishing ahead of as many of them as possible.  
Hoping the committee gives us brownie points because we played the tough teams in our conference isn't going to help us much, in my opinion.  

[dsfire]

I don't know that I'd put too much stock in this type of analysis.

First, any Big East team that mirrors VU, SU, WVU or GU will winds up with at least 4 (possibly 5) top 10 opponents (assuming all 4 stay in the top 10). 

The other observation is that its easier for the lower-rated teams to have more games against the higher rated teams.  We had two top 10 games against Villanova.  They got two 50+ games against MU.  Do we deserve any additional consideration for that--especially considering we lost those two games?  The committee--rightfully--won't put too much stock in the fact that we played more top 10 opponents than Villanova.

Its time to stop worrying about what other teams do, and just win the games like we're capable of.  The fact is that we've already lost all our games against the top 3 teams in conference.  Right now, our tournament chances depend on how many wins we have against the teams in 4th through 10th place and finishing ahead of as many of them as possible.  
Hoping the committee gives us brownie points because we played the tough teams in our conference isn't going to help us much, in my opinion.  

I think you're missing the point.  It's not that we're expecting extra credit for facing more top 10 teams, it's that our 2-6 against the RPI top 50 record is somewhat tempered because it's a very toploaded portion of the top 50 and therefore shouldn't be counted as a strike against us compared to other teams that may have a better winning % but have only faced a couple of top 10 teams.

[MR.HAYWARD]

I don't know that I'd put too much stock in this type of analysis.

First, any Big East team that mirrors VU, SU, WVU or GU will winds up with at least 4 (possibly 5) top 10 opponents (assuming all 4 stay in the top 10). 

The other observation is that its easier for the lower-rated teams to have more games against the higher rated teams.  We had two top 10 games against Villanova.  They got two 50+ games against MU.  Do we deserve any additional consideration for that--especially considering we lost those two games?  The committee--rightfully--won't put too much stock in the fact that we played more top 10 opponents than Villanova.

Its time to stop worrying about what other teams do, and just win the games like we're capable of.  The fact is that we've already lost all our games against the top 3 teams in conference.  Right now, our tournament chances depend on how many wins we have against the teams in 4th through 10th place and finishing ahead of as many of them as possible.  
Hoping the committee gives us brownie points because we played the tough teams in our conference isn't going to help us much, in my opinion.  

i agree we need to take care of our own end.  go 5-2 the rest of the way and none of this analysis matters.   additionally Mu has played the most "difficult" games up front so as the season goes one we will not play another top 10 team and it is my guess that the teams on the offered list will play another 1-2-3 of them evening out the totals.

Throw out all of the analysis our season rides on the 3 game road trip at the end of the month

[Jacks DC]

Actually all of this does matter very much, both in terms of whether we get in the tournament and if we do, where we would be seeded.  I don't really understand comparing our situation with Villanova's, since they are competing for a #1 seed and we are trying to get on the right side of the bubble.

Saying that we do not get any credit for playing tougher opponents and it doesn't matter what other teams do simply shows a misundertanding of the RPI as well as the selection process.  If we are on the bubble, close losses to RPI top 10 teams will definitely mean something.

[romey]

This may be a stupid question, but i just don't follow RPI all that closely to be honest.  When RPI is determined, do they take into consideration a team's ranking (i.e. top ten, 11-50, etc.) at the time the game is played, or at the time the rankings are updated?  I ask this because we are talking about us being 2-6 vs. top ten teams, but certainly that could change as the season progresses and rankings change.

[Benny B]

This may be a stupid question, but i just don't follow RPI all that closely to be honest.  When RPI is determined, do they take into consideration a team's ranking (i.e. top ten, 11-50, etc.) at the time the game is played, or at the time the rankings are updated?  I ask this because we are talking about us being 2-6 vs. top ten teams, but certainly that could change as the season progresses and rankings change.

Yes... records are updated when rankings are updated, i.e. those records vs 1-50, 1-100, etc. are in constant flux and will change daily.

[bamamarquettefan]

yes, DS Fire and Mr. Hayward got it right.  The RPI analysis Chicos forwarded was very helpful, showing that the selection committee looks at record against Top 50 because basically the Top 50 are generally the teams to make the tournament.  So the NCAA is looking at that record to see whether or not each team is good enough to be competitive against other NCAA tourney teams.  Right now, if they were just to look down the list they could conclude, "wow, looks like MU doesn't do to well against the teams that would be in the tournament (the top 50 RPI), because they've only won 2 of 8 against them.  And my point is, that's fine if the team has played the 10th, 15th, 20th, 25th, 30th, 35th, 40th and 45th best team and gone 2-6.  Then that team doesn't look like they are good enough.  But when you've played six of your games against the top 10, then the 2-6 mark is not indicative of how you would far against the entire top 50.

It's clear from how close we've played the top 10, that we would have very likely had a few more wins if our 8 games were spread out over the top 50, and that should merit our inclusion if we do well the rest of the way.