Started By
Message
RPI not as as relevant as it used to be
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:01 pm
Colorado State is the first team in history with a top 30 RPI to get left out. They were #29.
Meanwhile UCLA gets in ranked 48 and Indiana gets in with an RPI of 61. Looks like KenPom, Sagarin, and BPI are starting to overtake RPI as the biggest contributing factors in making the tournament.
Here's a little article from the Coloradoan. CSU's coach is apparently pretty pissed. He benched their best player in the MWC tournament because he thought they were safe.
LINK
Meanwhile UCLA gets in ranked 48 and Indiana gets in with an RPI of 61. Looks like KenPom, Sagarin, and BPI are starting to overtake RPI as the biggest contributing factors in making the tournament.
Here's a little article from the Coloradoan. CSU's coach is apparently pretty pissed. He benched their best player in the MWC tournament because he thought they were safe.
LINK
This post was edited on 3/16/15 at 2:04 pm
11
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:03 pm to Stonehog
Definitely.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:04 pm to Stonehog
Colorado State should've made it imo, but I'm ok with Temple being left out
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:05 pm to Stonehog
UCLA got in on brand alone. Their team is the worst at-large team I've ever seen make the tournament.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:06 pm to GeauxToBed
UCLA should be playing in Dayton. Now Dayton gets a home game against Boise State.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:06 pm to Stonehog
I fully back the committee on this one. Just take a look at CSU's non-conference schedule. UCLA might have been down 40-7 at halftime against Kentucky, but at least they have the balls to schedule the best. As big of a douche Crean is, good for Indiana being rewarded for playing a difficult schedule
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:07 pm to GeauxToBed
Yep. This is the NCAA's primary source of income. The money makers will almost always get in ahead of a more deserving bubble teams.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:07 pm to Stonehog
Look at UCLA, bringing change and shite 
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:08 pm to WestCoastAg
The professional bracketologists are gonna have to catch up. Lunardi had Lsu in his last four in and they get a 9 seed.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:10 pm to Stonehog
I have LSU in my Elite 8 so far, and that's as far as I've filled it out.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:10 pm to tigerbait2010
quote:
I fully back the committee on this one. Just take a look at CSU's non-conference schedule. UCLA might have been down 40-7 at halftime against Kentucky, but at least they have the balls to schedule the best. As big of a douche Crean is, good for Indiana being rewarded for playing a difficult schedule
Why should they get credit for getting their arse kicked? I mean I wouldn't hold it too much against them, but not credit should be given. Just like no credit should be given for beating a bunch of teams outside the top 150ish.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:12 pm to Stonehog
He deserves a little bit of criticism. LSU was 12-4 against RPI top 100 teams, finished top 4 in a P5 conference, and almost all of its signature wins were on the road. LSU also showed we were a shot away from beating a 33-0 team.
I really never understood why he kept locking Ole Miss in, but continued to keep LSU on the bubble
I really never understood why he kept locking Ole Miss in, but continued to keep LSU on the bubble
This post was edited on 3/16/15 at 2:16 pm
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:14 pm to Farmer1906
I don't know what to tell you if you don't think CSU should be severely punished for scheduling such a pussy OOC schedule. Their AD and coach should understand the OOC schedule it takes to get the committee's attention
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:16 pm to tigerbait2010
I think they also got punished for trying to manipulate the RPI.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:20 pm to Stonehog
It seems to be giving way to other factors as you mentioned, in particular the BPI. The irony is that there is a great deal made over how a team does against top 25, 50 and 100 RPI; much more so than the actual RPI score of a team. For instance, NC2a committee members said after the fact that LSU was a no-brainer because they were 2-1 against top 25, 5-3 against top 50 and 11-5 against top 100. But their on score was only in the mid-50's because of 5 Bad losses.
Yet they were seeded 35th out of 68 teams. I think you're spot on. Specific wins or losses mean more than where the formula of the RPI lands, especially for power 5 conference teams.
Yet they were seeded 35th out of 68 teams. I think you're spot on. Specific wins or losses mean more than where the formula of the RPI lands, especially for power 5 conference teams.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:20 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Colorado State is the first team in history with a top 30 RPI to get left out. They were #29.
Should read first time since the tourney went to 68 teams.
Its happened 3 times before.
RPI #21 Missouri St(2006), #30 Hofstra (2006), #30 Air Force (2007).
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:25 pm to Stonehog
Any ranking index that makes you fall in the rankings for winning should be done away with. Ken Pom has the most accurate rankings IMO
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:26 pm to Stonehog
Lunardi has never been good at actually predicting which seed someone will have. His only claim to fame is actually predicting which teams will get in.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:39 pm to Eric Nies Grind Time
Temple UCLA
RPI 34 48
vs. Top 50 2-8 2-8
Non-con SOS 41 49
Road record 10-7 4-11
Temple got shafted imo, UCLA may have passed the all important steam test but they don't belong.
RPI 34 48
vs. Top 50 2-8 2-8
Non-con SOS 41 49
Road record 10-7 4-11
Temple got shafted imo, UCLA may have passed the all important steam test but they don't belong.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:43 pm to Stonehog
The committee has certainly been preferring resumes with "higher highs" and "lower lows" over ones with better RPI's based on not losing to any bad teams.
It's good in promoting strong scheduling even if it does give a huge advantage to P5 schools that have so many more chances at bigger wins built into their conference schedules.
About Lunardi, I believe he missed two teams this year but his strength has usually been simply getting the field right more than the seedings.
I think he missed on UCLA and Indiana instead of Colorado St and Temple right? I was among a lot of people saying UCLA would likely get in even if they didn't really deserve it but it's still a highly debatable choice.
However, I think it's odd that Lunardi didn't get Indiana. A high percentage of posters on here kept saying they weren't even going to be that low on the bubble.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News