RPI what if...basically from an RPI perspective only lose 2 more max

[The Lens]

I fully expect us to go 9-9 and then win the BET.  This team is just that weird.

[forgetful]

I fully expect us to go 9-9 and then win the BET.  This team is just that weird.

Would not shock me at all if that happened.  The potential is there, but they just haven't gotten it all together.  Could see Jamil, Gardner and Mayo all gelling come BET time and go on a run.

[classof70]

Good stuff. But I honestly don't see how they leave out a 11-7 BE team.


Obviously going 6-2 is very, very unlikely. But we get in with it.

The "eye test".  Just watch them.  Not a NCAA team.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Complete nonsense. The RPI Wizard is broken.

Not broken.  Since you are in apology mode today, I'm sure you'll be issuing one.  Check

[THEultimateWARRIOR]

ASU just knocked off #2 Arizona. +1 for the RPI.

[Jay Bee]

Not broken.  Since you are in apology mode today, I'm sure you'll be issuing one.  Check

Broken.

[patso]

We will beat Depaul on the road but I do not think we will beat St.John's as we cannot handle their shot blockers. Villanova and Creighton are probably must win games.

[PGsHeroes32]

We will beat Depaul on the road but I do not think we will beat St.John's as we cannot handle their shot blockers. Villanova and Creighton are probably must win games.

I like our odds against St. Johns far better than Nova.

We play so much better at home we can beat St Johns on senior day.

Creighton is up first though. Need that one.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I got to spend about 10 to 15 minutes with Dan Guerrero yesterday, AD of UCLA and formerly chair on the NCAA selection committee.  It was good to touch base with him again, it had been a while.  Spoke about a few things, including MU's AD vacancy, the RPI, etc.   

On the RPI, it was a nice discussion.  As he said, you can't ignore it.  It is front and center on every document the members see.  It is an organizing tool as much as anything.  It organizes neatly what everyone has done in small, digestible package size bites because it is impossible to watch every game or to keep all that information about every team under consideration without some kind of tool like this.   It plays an important role among many other contributors, and to suggest it isn't used or has very little impact is wrong.  In fact, he said for some it is very, very important (I believe he actually said very very, not just very  ). 

Interestingly, he also said conference RPI is excluded from the team sheets.  They don't want it to bias the consideration of individual teams, so it was removed when he was the chair.  He was not sure if it remains removed in subsequent committees as each committee can determine their rules.

[Bob "Big Daddy" Wild]

Chicos,

You ever read the espn write-up when the selection committee invites sportswriter in to do a mock selection? Some great insight in those articles. Will try to dig then up next time at a pc of anyone is interested.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos,

You ever read the espn write-up when the selection committee invites sportswriter in to do a mock selection? Some great insight in those articles. Will try to dig then up next time at a pc of anyone is interested.

They just did the mockup this week, in fact.  Jerry Palm, Lunardi, Dobbertean, Wessler, etc all participated.

Just wanted to share a bit from someone that has actually been in the room, chaired the committee.  So many people here want to say it means very little to it means nothing.  Well, it is on a committee by committee situation, and obviously member by member.  In this particular person's view, it is very important tool (of many) and its importance as an organizing implement and objective criteria tool to help select teams and seeding. 

[Jay Bee]

I got to spend about 10 to 15 minutes with Dan Guerrero yesterday, AD of UCLA and formerly chair on the NCAA selection committee.  It was good to touch base with him again, it had been a while.  Spoke about a few things, including MU's AD vacancy, the RPI, etc.   

On the RPI, it was a nice discussion.  As he said, you can't ignore it.  It is front and center on every document the members see.  It is an organizing tool as much as anything.  It organizes neatly what everyone has done in small, digestible package size bites because it is impossible to watch every game or to keep all that information about every team under consideration without some kind of tool like this.   It plays an important role among many other contributors, and to suggest it isn't used or has very little impact is wrong.  In fact, he said for some it is very, very important (I believe he actually said very very, not just very  ). 

Interestingly, he also said conference RPI is excluded from the team sheets.  They don't want it to bias the consideration of individual teams, so it was removed when he was the chair.  He was not sure if it remains removed in subsequent committees as each committee can determine their rules.

Did you speak to him about the "silly" contract with Alford? I know he takes a lot of heat from people (including from you and the masses on what was actually a great contract structure with Alford), but certainly has done some good things in a challenging environment.

Anyway, his commentary (or your recollection) on the conference RPI appears a bit off. I believe the conference RPI was removed from the team sheets in 2009 (2008-09 season) when Mike Slive was chair. It has continued to stay that way since.

I would also point out that the information was redundant. In 2008 (when the conference RPI was still on the team sheets) and in 2009 (when removed) and ever since, the selection committee's RPI reports include conference RPI reports (vs. non-conference and in total). So, that information is still very much at their fingertips in the RPI reports provided to them.

PS - Kyle is incredibly fun to watch; would like to have him on my roster at the next level.

PPS - The committee folks can claim RPI is "just one of many tools", but so long as it keeps being spoonfed to them (i.e., the various RPI reports provided to them, including the team sheets, conference RPI reports, Nitty Gritty, etc), many will place great reliance on them. In some cases just because it's "easy" for them to do so.

[Aughnanure]

You guys are so cute when you fight.

[wardle2wade]

For the Big East's sake... While conference rating may not be handed out, I'd be surprised if it wasn't common knowledge with each committee member by the end of their process.  Someone will have it and bring it up... many others will probably see it when preparing as to not appear ignorant.  Lastly, they'll notice that 7 Of 10 Big East teams are in contention for a bid.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Did you speak to him about the "silly" contract with Alford? I know he takes a lot of heat from people (including from you and the masses on what was actually a great contract structure with Alford), but certainly has done some good things in a challenging environment.

Anyway, his commentary (or your recollection) on the conference RPI appears a bit off. I believe the conference RPI was removed from the team sheets in 2009 (2008-09 season) when Mike Slive was chair. It has continued to stay that way since.

I would also point out that the information was redundant. In 2008 (when the conference RPI was still on the team sheets) and in 2009 (when removed) and ever since, the selection committee's RPI reports include conference RPI reports (vs. non-conference and in total). So, that information is still very much at their fingertips in the RPI reports provided to them.

PS - Kyle is incredibly fun to watch; would like to have him on my roster at the next level.

PPS - The committee folks can claim RPI is "just one of many tools", but so long as it keeps being spoonfed to them (i.e., the various RPI reports provided to them, including the team sheets, conference RPI reports, Nitty Gritty, etc), many will place great reliance on them. In some cases just because it's "easy" for them to do so.

Dan Guerrero was on the selection committee in 2009 (actually 2005 to 2010)...I assumed when he said it was removed it was with him as chair (2010).  He could have easily meant it was removed in 2009 when he was a committee member and not the chair.

We did not talk about Steve's contract, nor would we.  We chatted a bit about MU.  Dan's nickname when he played baseball at UCLA was "Warrior".  He asked who the current AD was and I told him Bill Cords, the former AD.  He merely said that Larry is a really smart guy.  We briefly discussed the USF opening and a few others.  Talked more about Jim Mora and football as my family have been friends with the Mora family for about 30 years.

Point is, for those that claim the RPI is meaningless, or has very little impact, they are wrong.  You and others may not like it, you may think it is "spoonfed" to them, you may think they put way too much reliance on it, all of this is fair criticism.  However, it doesn't change the fact that it is used, and by some members used a lot.  Each member uses their view of the data, the eyeball test, their experiences, etc, to make the best judgment they can on the qualities of a team and their worthiness.  I think it is fair to say, and you may agree, that there is a "comfort level" with the RPI by some members because they are familiar with it more than other tools.  Doesn't mean it is better, but it is what is known.  As such, those that deny its usage or importance are just denying reality of its current impact.

[Jay Bee]

Dan Guerrero was on the selection committee in 2009 (actually 2005 to 2010)...I assumed when he said it was removed it was with him as chair (2010).  He could have easily meant it was removed in 2009 when he was a committee member and not the chair.

Point is, for those that claim the RPI is meaningless, or has very little impact, they are wrong.  You and others may not like it, you may think it is "spoonfed" to them, you may think they put way too much reliance on it, all of this is fair criticism.  However, it doesn't change the fact that it is used, and by some members used a lot.  Each member uses their view of the data, the eyeball test, their experiences, etc, to make the best judgment they can on the qualities of a team and their worthiness.  I think it is fair to say, and you may agree, that there is a "comfort level" with the RPI by some members because they are familiar with it more than other tools.  Doesn't mean it is better, but it is what is known.  As such, those that deny its usage or importance are just denying reality of its current impact.

Gotcha. Yeah, you're right - you probably assumed and got it wrong.

I'm not sure who is making that counterpoint, but that is something I've never disputed. Indeed, the RPI is in front of faces and that alone TAINTS the process for some people.

Some people more, some people less. I would hope the more intelligent folks would understand the RPI's limitations, but the exact level of usage/consideration given to it cannot be reasonably measured. We just know there is *some*.

In that regard, scheduling a team like Grambling in this particular year - that is, a school that you have a high confidence in expecting they will have a miserable win-loss record - is not wise. (But again - their win-loss record and that of their opponents is what's important, not directly their RPI.)

[Aughnanure]

Gotcha. Yeah, you're right - you probably assumed and got it wrong.

I'm not sure who is making that counterpoint, but that is something I've never disputed. Indeed, the RPI is in front of faces and that alone TAINTS the process for some people.

Some people more, some people less. I would hope the more intelligent folks would understand the RPI's limitations, but the exact level of usage/consideration given to it cannot be reasonably measured. We just know there is *some*.

In that regard, scheduling a team like Grambling in this particular year - that is, a school that you have a high confidence in expecting they will have a miserable win-loss record - is not wise. (But again - their win-loss record and that of their opponents is what's important, not directly their RPI.)

Just a question. I know RPI is limited and prefer something more like Sagarin and KenPom, but what are the specific limitations/criticisms of RPI?

Also, how many years in advance do programs schedule their cupcake buy games? If it's like 2-3 years for some, I can see how it'd be hard to plan. Actually, haven't the last 2 years been pretty solid in this regard. Didn't we almost play Norfolk St again in the tourney when they upset 2 seed Mizzou?

[PGsHeroes32]

Did our RPI really stay the same after the win?

[MarquetteDano]

Just a question. I know RPI is limited and prefer something more like Sagarin and KenPom, but what are the specific limitations/criticisms of RPI?

Also, how many years in advance do programs schedule their cupcake buy games? If it's like 2-3 years for some, I can see how it'd be hard to plan. Actually, haven't the last 2 years been pretty solid in this regard. Didn't we almost play Norfolk St again in the tourney when they upset 2 seed Mizzou?

The home and homes are scheduled in advance, but many of the buy games are only one year in the advance, I believe.

[ChicosBailBonds]

For the Big East's sake... While conference rating may not be handed out, I'd be surprised if it wasn't common knowledge with each committee member by the end of their process.  Someone will have it and bring it up... many others will probably see it when preparing as to not appear ignorant.  Lastly, they'll notice that 7 Of 10 Big East teams are in contention for a bid.

All could be true, question then is whether the same can be said about other conferences.  If one believes that they will look at the Big East in that fashion, one has to believe they would do the same for other conferences.  For example, 8 Big 12 teams would be in contention using the same criteria.

Personally, based on the conversations I've had with Dan and Doug over the years (both chairmen, both served many years on the committee), as well as those who have been in the mock participations, I just don't see it.  They're looking mostly on each team individually.  That's my takeaway. 

[forgetful]

Just a question. I know RPI is limited and prefer something more like Sagarin and KenPom, but what are the specific limitations/criticisms of RPI?

Also, how many years in advance do programs schedule their cupcake buy games? If it's like 2-3 years for some, I can see how it'd be hard to plan. Actually, haven't the last 2 years been pretty solid in this regard. Didn't we almost play Norfolk St again in the tourney when they upset 2 seed Mizzou?

My problem with the RPI is that it is used in sorting bubble teams.  Good examples, look at Richmond's profile:

They are 17-8   with an RPI of 40.

Against top 25:       1-3
Against top 50:       2-5
Against top 100:     6-8

Technically no bad losses (above 100).  But this is based on the RPI also.  If you look at a breakdown of their wins and losses on a case by case basis it doesn't look as favorable.  Their 2 top 50 wins.

UMASS (Good win).
St. Josephs (Not a top 50 win, but ranked 41 in the RPI)

Their other top 100 wins:Delaware, Belmont Dayton, St. Bonaventure...not exactly murderers row.
Losses to: Wake Forest and St. Bonaventure...both overrated (should be bad losses) by the RPI.

Now MU:  RPI 73 (33 spots lower than Richmond):  15-10
Top 25:    0-5     (0-5)
Top 50:    2-8     (4-8)
Top 100:   4-9    (8-9)

Again on the surface looks legit.  But on the game by game basis not so much.  First Providence and Georgetown (both wins for us) would likely beat St. Joes by 10.  Yet, St. Joes is a top 50 win for them (because of RPI) and Providence and Georgetown are not good wins for us.

Seton Hall, Depaul and Butler are all outside the top 100, all of whom are better than St. Bonaventure and Delaware (both good wins for Richmond).

So above I've put in parentheses what our record would look like if you used actual knowledge of teams played this year vs. RPI statistics.  When done that way MU's record is vastly superior to a team 33 spots higher in the RPI.  (Note I am not saying that Seton Hall, Depaul or Bulter are actually top 100 teams, just if St. Bonaventure and Delaware are considered as such, teams better than them should be also).

For arguments sake lets quickly look at Delaware:  RPI 62.  Record 19-7.  Breakdown.
Top 25  (0-2)
Top 50  (0-4)
Top 100 (0-5)
Top 150 (6-6)
Rest      (13-1)  

So all of their wins come outside the top 100, and 68% of their wins outside the top 150.  They also have a loss to Charleston Southern, but are ahead of MU on the RPI and are considered good wins for the like of Richmond.
They haven't beat a team in the top 100 all year but are ranked 62!!!

[MarquetteDano]

So above I've put in parentheses what our record would look like if you used actual knowledge of teams played this year vs. RPI statistics.  When done that way MU's record is vastly superior to a team 33 spots higher in the RPI.  (Note I am not saying that Seton Hall, Depaul or Bulter are actually top 100 teams, just if St. Bonaventure and Delaware are considered as such, teams better than them should be also).

Great critique of the weaknesses of the RPI.