Started By
Message
re: RPI not as as relevant as it used to be
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:45 pm to Eric Nies Grind Time
Posted on 3/16/15 at 2:45 pm to Eric Nies Grind Time
quote:Which honestly any of us could easily do if that was our sole job.
His only claim to fame is actually predicting which teams will get in.
0
Posted on 3/16/15 at 3:16 pm to Stonehog
quote:
The professional bracketologists are gonna have to catch up. Lunardi had Lsu in his last four in and they get a 9 seed.
Yeah Lunardi put way too much stock in a SECT loss instead of looking at whole resume, LSU was 12-5 against the RPI Top 100 teams.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 3:20 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
Yeah Lunardi put way too much stock in a SECT loss
Those losses to Auburn weren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be either. Auburn finished RPI top 150. Wasn't like they were outside the top 200. We beat quite a few RPI top 50 teams despite our record
We suck, just not as much as guys like Lunardi believe
Posted on 3/16/15 at 3:30 pm to Stonehog
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/17/21 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 3/16/15 at 8:06 pm to Stonehog
Missouri state got left out with rpi 27
Posted on 3/16/15 at 9:02 pm to pioneerbasketball
RPI is archaic and black/white. Formulas like BPI take variables into account like injuries, play style, margin of victory, etc. IMO, does a more complete job of evaluating a team.
This post was edited on 3/16/15 at 9:37 pm
Posted on 3/16/15 at 9:04 pm to GeauxToBed
quote:
UCLA got in on brand alone. Their team is the worst at-large team I've ever seen make the tournament.
The 18 win 2008 Kentucky team was pretty awful as well.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 9:33 pm to Stonehog
Was Kitty Kat Killer the best name you could come up with?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News