SMU Snubbed by 4 Ten-Thousandths of a fictional Point?
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:03 pm"Must-Stung: SMU Snubbed by 4 Ten-Thousandths of a Probably Fictional Point
Here’s the difference between NC State (dance bound) and SMU (stunned, shocked and saddened) in the RPI ratings…which is weighed heavily by the NCAA Tournament selection committee when determining who gets invited.
#53 NC St.: .5714
#54 SMU : .5718
That’s the breaks. Except…it looks indefensible when you realize how ratings methods that have been documented as superior to RPI had the teams rated.
Kenpom: SMU #32, NC State #66
Sagarin: SMU #33, NC State #70
ESPN’s BPI: SMU #33, NC State #66
If the committee really had done comprehensive analysis over a variety of categories, you’d think that the overwhelming advantages seen by other methodologies would have trumped the four ten-thousandths of a point shown by RPI. Or, this might have come up in the discussion…
Against RPI Top 50: SMU 4-6, NC State 3-9
Against Sagarin Top 50: SMU 4-6, NC State 4-8
The stories I’m seeing so far in the media about this example are talking mostly about how disappointed the SMU coach, players, and fans have been in the aftermath. Wanted to get the apparent size of the error made in this case down on paper so it can be included in the discussion.
Aiming to have estimated Market Power Ratings put together for you by Monday night. Want to give sharps some time during the day Monday to shape the lines. We don’t want “oddsmaker†Power Ratings. We want what’s left after sharps improve the openers. "
Posted 15 hours ago by Jeff Fogle
Here’s the difference between NC State (dance bound) and SMU (stunned, shocked and saddened) in the RPI ratings…which is weighed heavily by the NCAA Tournament selection committee when determining who gets invited.
#53 NC St.: .5714
#54 SMU : .5718
That’s the breaks. Except…it looks indefensible when you realize how ratings methods that have been documented as superior to RPI had the teams rated.
Kenpom: SMU #32, NC State #66
Sagarin: SMU #33, NC State #70
ESPN’s BPI: SMU #33, NC State #66
If the committee really had done comprehensive analysis over a variety of categories, you’d think that the overwhelming advantages seen by other methodologies would have trumped the four ten-thousandths of a point shown by RPI. Or, this might have come up in the discussion…
Against RPI Top 50: SMU 4-6, NC State 3-9
Against Sagarin Top 50: SMU 4-6, NC State 4-8
The stories I’m seeing so far in the media about this example are talking mostly about how disappointed the SMU coach, players, and fans have been in the aftermath. Wanted to get the apparent size of the error made in this case down on paper so it can be included in the discussion.
Aiming to have estimated Market Power Ratings put together for you by Monday night. Want to give sharps some time during the day Monday to shape the lines. We don’t want “oddsmaker†Power Ratings. We want what’s left after sharps improve the openers. "
Posted 15 hours ago by Jeff Fogle
