MU above 100 RPI now

[ChicosBailBonds]

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).

[M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS]

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...

[jmayer1]

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.

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS]

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.

[Coleman]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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

[Lennys Tap]

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

[Lennys Tap]

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?

[mu_hilltopper]

This is so productive. 

[82fanatic]

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!

:-)

[National Champs]

Regardless, Chichos is always right.

[82fanatic]

Regardless, Chichos is always right.

Yes so is your wife, you live with it!

LOL

[Eye]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Marquette84]

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?

 

[Lennys Tap]

 

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[mu_hilltopper]

Thanks guys.  When I said this was productive, I was being sarcastic.