Ranking Update - MU RPI Now 50

[Tugg Speedman]

ESPN's Inside RPI has our RPI at 50.  SoS is 30.

KenPom has us as #27.  SoS is 31
KenPom has us a 4 point favorite against Cincy (#25) and 1 point favorite against SH.

Sagarin also has us a #27 and favored against Cincy and SH.
Sagarin also has us playing 13 top 25 teams, which ties with SJU to lead the nation.

Since he has Cincy as #17, we have yet another top 25 team this week.  Vandy is still at #26 (one place higher than us) so if they up one spot, they would qualify as yet another top 25 team per Sagarin's ratings.

Question, what is the lowest RPI to not make the tourney?  I'm thinking is was Syracuse two years ago with a  RPI of 49.  Is this correct?

[ChicosBailBonds]

ESPN's Inside RPI has our RPI at 50.  SoS is 30.

We're actually at 52

Since he has Cincy as #17, we have yet another top 25 team this week.  Vandy is still at #26 (one place higher than us) so if they up one spot, they would qualify as yet another top 25 team per Sagarin's ratings.

Question, what is the lowest RPI to not make the tourney?  I'm thinking is was Syracuse two years ago with a  RPI of 49.  Is this correct?

Very incorrect.  There have been RPI teams in the 20's that have not made it

Just in the last five years

Missouri State 21 in 2006
Miami OH at 43 in 2005
LSU at 38 in 2004
UNLV at 40 in 2003
Villanova at 43 in 2002
Missouri State at 36 in 2001
Missouri State at 34 in 2000
Oregon at 40 in 1999

Edited to add Missouri State article on how they have been in the top 36 three times and left out

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/14734915/oftjilted-missouri-state-looking-to-make-name-for-itself

[downtown85]

I think RPI is overrated as a predictor of getting in.  The whole S-curve thing is much better.  Using that, we are clearly in right now with still a chance to play ourselves out.  We just need to take care of business on the court and the rest will take care of itself. 

[Silkk the Shaka]

Very incorrect.  There have been RPI teams in the 20's that have not made it

Just in the last five years

2006 Wake Forest RPI #25
2008 Clemson RPI #26
2005 Georgia RPI #26
2007 Oklahoma RPI #27
2007 Georgia Tech RPI #29

Missouri State was 21 one year and didn't make it...in fact they have been in the 20's three times and not made it.

2006 Wake Forest was 3-13 in the ACC.

2008 Clemson made the tournament. If you mean 2007 Clemson, they were 7-9 in the ACC.

2007 Georgia Tech made the tournament.  If you mean 2006 Georgia Tech, they were 4-12 in the ACC.  If you mean 2008 Georgia Tech, they were 7-9 in the ACC.

2005 Georgia was 2-14 in conference.

2007 Oklahoma was 6-10 in the Big 12.


Either your RPI #'s are wrong or your years are wrong, because some of those teams you list did make the tournament those specified years.  If not, none of those teams deserved to make the tournament, as none of them finished .500 in their conference or really even close in some cases.  If MU finishes with a top 50 RPI, top 30 KenPom rank and a winning Big East record, I would bet anyone any amount of money MU gets selected to the field.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I corrected them about 5 minutes before your post, but you may have had them cached in your post while you were doing your research.  I copied and paste the wrong section and updated them accordingly with my edit.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think RPI is overrated as a predictor of getting in.  The whole S-curve thing is much better.  Using that, we are clearly in right now with still a chance to play ourselves out.  We just need to take care of business on the court and the rest will take care of itself. 

Except that the NCAA created the RPI and they like to use the thing they created. How much they use it is up for speculation and changes year to year based on the personalities in the room.

[willie warrior]

The RPI shows 52. SOS RPI is 29.

We are at 27 in Pomeroy and Sagarin. Does anybody know what website has a consensus of all listed?

Checking these RPI sites individually is like taking an opinion poll of who has the hottest cheerleaders: SI Swimsuit; Hooters waitresses, or Victoria's Secret models.

[Benny B]

Except that the NCAA created the RPI and they like to use the thing they created. How much they use it is up for speculation and changes year to year based on the personalities in the room.

I don't agree with this whole "personality" thing having a meaningful effect on anything... while the roster of AD's on the committee  may change from time to time, isn't the whole process being facilitated by an NCAA official?  I'm not saying the committee is a sham -- far from it.  What I'm saying is that I thought there is an NCAA-appointed "referee" or "judge" - someone who isn't there to make decisions, arguments or vote, but simply makes sure the committee stays on track with the rules, guidelines, etc.  I would bet more important to the NCAA than using their proprietary RPI figure is the desire to maintain some consistency from year to year.  The last thing they want is a media firestorm on why they indefensibly deviated from the procedure of years past in excluding a deserving team for a mediocre one.

Regardless, the significance of RPI is not for determining where YOU rank, it's to determine where your OPPONENTS rank for when the committee reviews of vs. 1-50, vs. 1-100, vs. 1-200, etc.  In other words, there's going to be much more discussion on MU's record of 4-10 against the Top 50 and/or 7-11 against the Top 100 than their own RPI of ~51.

[Silkk the Shaka]

I corrected them about 5 minutes before your post, but you may have had them cached in your post while you were doing your research.  I copied and paste the wrong section and updated them accordingly with my edit.

Well now your new post shows one team with a top 20 RPI that has not made it, and none of the others are in the last five years

Very incorrect.  There have been RPI teams in the 20's that have not made it

Just in the last five years

Missouri State 21 in 2006
Miami OH at 43 in 2005
LSU at 38 in 2004
UNLV at 40 in 2003
Villanova at 43 in 2002
Missouri State at 36 in 2001
Missouri State at 34 in 2000
Oregon at 40 in 1999

Edited to add Missouri State article on how they have been in the top 36 three times and left out

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/14734915/oftjilted-missouri-state-looking-to-make-name-for-itself

That 2006 Missouri State team went 12-6 in the Missouri Valley conference and lost in the first round of the conference tournament.  Their RPI was a function of beating a bunch of teams in the 100-200 range and not playing anyone with RPI's above 250.  Almost all of the teams they beat were 100+.

Miami OH in 2005, same story, except they lost in the 2nd round of the MAC tourney and went 12-6 in conference.

LSU in 2004 was .500 in conference, lost in the first round of the SEC tourney, and ranked #68 KenPom.

UNLV in 2003 was 8-6 in the Mountain West, lost to Colorado St. in the conference tourney, and #73 KenPom.

Villanova in 2002 was 7-9 in the Big East, lost in the 2nd round of the BEast tourney, and #60 Sagarin.

I couldn't find data on those other Missouri State teams (Sagarin had a Southwest Missour St. and a Southeast Missouri St. listed in those years, both with abysmal records and efficiency ratings).

Do you see a trend?  All of those teams were either mid-majors that crapped out of their conference tourney early with a less than impressive resume otherwise, or they failed to finish over .500 in a power conference and had a shaky efficiency rating.  Plus, these are going back quite some time, not the past five years like you claim.

I repeat, a team that finishes over .500 in the best conference in the country with a top 50 RPI and a KenPom/Sagarin rating in the 20's is a lock, especially with extra bids this year.  Our next win seals the deal, no sweating on selection Sunday.  Two to three more W's and we're a top 7 seed at minimum.  What a drastic turn of events from two weeks ago when people were guaranteeing NIT and calling us chokers with no BBall IQ.  Thank God the team didn't give up as easily as some short-sighted fans.

[Silkk the Shaka]

The RPI shows 52. SOS RPI is 29.

We are at 27 in Pomeroy and Sagarin. Does anybody know what website has a consensus of all listed?

Checking these RPI sites individually is like taking an opinion poll of who has the hottest cheerleaders: SI Swimsuit; Hooters waitresses, or Victoria's Secret models.

Willie, Pomeroy and Sagarin are not RPI sites.  They are efficiency ratings.  They take margin of victory into account, whereas RPI does not.  There are not multiple RPI ratings, there is only one.

[Tugg Speedman]

The RPI shows 52. SOS RPI is 29.

ESPN Insider RPI says 50

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/rpi

RK   TEAM   RPI   D1 W-L   SOS   NCRP   NCSS   CFRP   CFSS   1-25   26-50   51-100   L12   LRPI   OFFQ   DEFQ   ASM

50   Marquette   .5764   18-11   30   61   161   25   12   4-9   0-1   2-1   6-6   15   9.7   1.9   11.6

[JWags85]

Miami OH in 2005, same story, except they lost in the 2nd round of the MAC tourney and went 12-6 in conference.

Miami (OH) also lost their season finale to an abysmal, sub 200 RPI Marshall team.  They were in the top 35 or so RPI much of the year and that loss knocked down their RPI as well as hurt their perception especially as the spotlight was on them as a mid-major at large front runner.

[MUfan12]

The weekly official NCAA RPI is out and has MU at 51.

I'm guessing two wins puts them somewhere around 42-46?

[Hards Alumni]

Willie, Pomeroy and Sagarin are not RPI sites.  They are efficiency ratings.  They take margin of victory into account, whereas RPI does not.  There are not multiple RPI ratings, there is only one.

I like you.

A lot.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I don't agree with this whole "personality" thing having a meaningful effect on anything... while the roster of AD's on the committee  may change from time to time, isn't the whole process being facilitated by an NCAA official?  I'm not saying the committee is a sham -- far from it.  What I'm saying is that I thought there is an NCAA-appointed "referee" or "judge" - someone who isn't there to make decisions, arguments or vote, but simply makes sure the committee stays on track with the rules, guidelines, etc.  I would bet more important to the NCAA than using their proprietary RPI figure is the desire to maintain some consistency from year to year.  The last thing they want is a media firestorm on why they indefensibly deviated from the procedure of years past in excluding a deserving team for a mediocre one.

Regardless, the significance of RPI is not for determining where YOU rank, it's to determine where your OPPONENTS rank for when the committee reviews of vs. 1-50, vs. 1-100, vs. 1-200, etc.  In other words, there's going to be much more discussion on MU's record of 4-10 against the Top 50 and/or 7-11 against the Top 100 than their own RPI of ~51.

Actually personality is a big part of it.  Some committee members rely on different things to get to the decision they want.  There is a chairman of the committee, but with all the data at the members disposal, some rely on one thing while others rely on something else.  There is no cut and dried template that says you can only view X, Y and Z.  Otherwise they wouldn't have a committee.  There was an article on ESPN or another site that stated this very item about 3 weeks ago with the mock selection committees.  If I find it, I'll post it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

ESPN Insider RPI says 50

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/rpi

RK   TEAM   RPI   D1 W-L   SOS   NCRP   NCSS   CFRP   CFSS   1-25   26-50   51-100   L12   LRPI   OFFQ   DEFQ   ASM

50   Marquette   .5764   18-11   30   61   161   25   12   4-9   0-1   2-1   6-6   15   9.7   1.9   11.6

RPI Forecast
CBS RPI
Jerry Palm RPI
Warren Nolan RPI
RPI Ratings
etc etc

all say 52

[ChicosBailBonds]

The weekly official NCAA RPI is out and has MU at 51.

I'm guessing two wins puts them somewhere around 42-46?

Yes, potentially


Final Record   Expected RPI   Probability
20-11                  44.1                   35.12%
19-12             55.1                   49.12%
18-13                  67.1                   15.75%

[rocky_warrior]

etc etc

all say 52

Except for the "official" RPI which says 51.  lol

[ChicosBailBonds]

Except for the "official" RPI which says 51.  lol

Which is worse than 50.  LOL

Then again, with so many sites having it at 52...well, let's put it this way.  Two years ago Jerry Palm actually found an error with the NCAAs data and they had to repost theirs.  They had two games inverted which gave wins to teams that should have had losses and vice versa.  Usually the "official" number is the same as the others.  I'll send Jerry a note, I wonder if the "official" got it wrong.  lol

[rocky_warrior]

If ya want, statsheet also has it at 50.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/rankings/RPI

Your "etc, etc" isn't the end all, be all, and even the NCAA's numbers differ.  Now, obviously someone's wrong or possibly there's just rounding errors.  But it's not a big deal - MU is somewhere between #50 and #52, the NCAA chose the average of the range (not really, but that's where my LOL came from). 

Good luck with your fact finding.  Of course, by the time you get the answers, the question will be different

[77ncaachamps]

Man. Just win out and we don't have to talk about not getting in!!!

[ChicosBailBonds]

If ya want, statsheet also has it at 50.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/rankings/RPI

Your "etc, etc" isn't the end all, be all, and even the NCAA's numbers differ.  Now, obviously someone's wrong or possibly there's just rounding errors.  But it's not a big deal - MU is somewhere between #50 and #52, the NCAA chose the average of the range (not really, but that's where my LOL came from). 

Good luck with your fact finding.  Of course, by the time you get the answers, the question will be different

It's important if their data is wrong.  Palm also found an error with the BCS that caused a lot of public embarrassment.  You want these things to be right, especially since it's used by some members to help them decide who is worthy and who is not.

Jerry Palm finds error in BCS Rankings
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/12/07/bcs-math-error/index.html

[Marquette84]

I don't agree with this whole "personality" thing having a meaningful effect on anything... while the roster of AD's on the committee  may change from time to time, isn't the whole process being facilitated by an NCAA official?  I'm not saying the committee is a sham -- far from it.  What I'm saying is that I thought there is an NCAA-appointed "referee" or "judge" - someone who isn't there to make decisions, arguments or vote, but simply makes sure the committee stays on track with the rules, guidelines, etc.  I would bet more important to the NCAA than using their proprietary RPI figure is the desire to maintain some consistency from year to year.  The last thing they want is a media firestorm on why they indefensibly deviated from the procedure of years past in excluding a deserving team for a mediocre one.

Regardless, the significance of RPI is not for determining where YOU rank, it's to determine where your OPPONENTS rank for when the committee reviews of vs. 1-50, vs. 1-100, vs. 1-200, etc.  In other words, there's going to be much more discussion on MU's record of 4-10 against the Top 50 and/or 7-11 against the Top 100 than their own RPI of ~51.

I don't think its a coincidence that in 2007, when only six Big East teams were selected, it just happened to be the year that no Big East school was represented on the committee. 

I think it does have a lot to do with the personalities in the room.  Its only human nature. 

And with a half-million of revenue on the line for an extra bid for your conference, you can bet that those personalities are going to come armed to the teeth with the data they need to argue for every one of their league's teams, and against every other conference's bubble teams. 

Here's the committee:
Gene Smith - AD Ohio State
Jeff Hathaway - AD UConn
Stan Morrison - AD UC Riverside
Lynn Hickey - AD Texas-San Antonio
Mike Bobinski - AD Xavier
Dan Beebe - Commissioner of the Big 12 Conference
Doug Fullerton - Commissioner of the Big Sky Conference
Ron Wellman - AD Wake Forest
Scott Barnes - AD Utah State
Steve Orsini - AD SMU

What do you want to bet that the SEC and ACC get only 3 or 4 bids?  And that every bubble team in the BE, B10 and B12 get invited?

When the committee meets, I would fully expect that Gene Smith is going to be able cite MU's 51 RPI and 4 non-conference losses and argue against them, and I would expect Jeff Hathaway to be able to cite Michigan State's poor overall record and equally weak non-conference performance. 

In the end, they compromise, and someone like Georgia (without someone speaking up for the SEC) gets screwed.

The bad news here is that UConn's Hathaway will have to stay out of the discussions involving UConn, and if they wind up at .500, they may need an advocate in the room.