PonyFans.com

I think I agree with this article. Our RPI is way better this year but are we really that much better of a team this year?


http://network.yardbarker.com/college_b ... rt_college basketball_module_head_18340337

That's the one, thanks. My copy and paste didn't quite work obviously.

No bad losses. If Cincy hadn't lost to ECU and Tulane, their RPI would be around 28 instead of 51.

I totally agree, but hate that we are frequently used as a case study in a negative way. RPI or no RPI, SMU deserved to be in the NCAA tournament in 2014 and deserves to be in this season as well.

RPI Wizard lets you play around with changing the results of games to see what RPI would be. It's maddening.

Have fun

http://www.rpiforecast.com/wizard/index.html

Interesting article. I agree we should have been in last year and I think he hits the nail on the head by saying that we did not expect to be that good and did not schedule to maximize RPI. However, while he alludes to the bad teams we played last year, I think he misses the mark by focusing on the good teams we played this year as the driver for the change. Playing those good teams has certainly helped, but it is the improvement at the bottom of our schedule that has helped more. Less interesting to talk about swapping UT pan American for ucsb than to talk about adding gonzaga and some big ten teams.

I still have the fear that the committee, if we give them the opportunity, will change their logic from last year and say it is all about top 50 wins this year. Hopefully we keep winning and win the conference tourney so the worst they can do is screw us on seeding.

Great name, lollaperuna.

My heart barely survived last year's selection sunday catastrophe. I'm not prepared for Selection Disaster, Part 2. Let's just hope it doesn't happen. Although I do think enough people in the media and elsewhere see that we clearly pass the "eye test", so I think it would be mostly negative on the selection committee this year vs exposing our weaknesses like last year.

Looking forward to being the girl who gets selected for the Dance this year, not the one who turned out to be too ugly to be wanted.

Grant Carter wrote:Interesting article. I agree we should have been in last year and I think he hits the nail on the head by saying that we did not expect to be that good and did not schedule to maximize RPI. However, while he alludes to the bad teams we played last year, I think he misses the mark by focusing on the good teams we played this year as the driver for the change. Playing those good teams has certainly helped, but it is the improvement at the bottom of our schedule that has helped more. Less interesting to talk about swapping UT pan American for ucsb than to talk about adding gonzaga and some big ten teams.

I still have the fear that the committee, if we give them the opportunity, will change their logic from last year and say it is all about top 50 wins this year. Hopefully we keep winning and win the conference tourney so the worst they can do is screw us on seeding.

Yes - I think the committee was looking for a reason to shaft us and the American last year and the RPI was the excuse. If they can shaft the American again this year they will do it and find a reason to make it look plausible. Not having a rep on the committee is a killer.

Still don't get how people consider Cinci pretty much a lock and we still haven't gotten to lock status yet.

Temple is what we were last year, IMO. I hope they are ready to get hosed if they perform poorly in the American tourney.

If you look at Cincy's resume it is very interesting. They have two terrible losses - #174 Tulane & #243 ECU but they have five wins over top 35 teams - #35 NC St, #33 Temple, #24 SDSU, #20 SMU (twice). I think if they win their last three in conference - @ Tulane, @ Tulsa, Memphis - they are in.

LA_Mustang wrote:If you look at Cincy's resume it is very interesting. They have two terrible losses - #174 Tulane & #243 ECU but they have five wins over top 35 teams - #35 NC St, #33 Temple, #24 SDSU, #20 SMU (twice). I think if they win their last three in conference - @ Tulane, @ Tulsa, Memphis - they are in.

Cincy is, more or less, us from last year. Their RPI is sitting at 51 right now. They need to win out and not choke in the first round of the AAC tourney. If they do, I think they're one of the first ones out. They're close though. I hope they can keep it together and we can get a 4 bid league. We might only get 3, and no one (even us) is going to get a good seed, but a consistent 4-5 bid league over time will garner much more respect.

I agree but they have a couple of really good OOC wins that we didn't last year.

LA_Mustang wrote:I agree but they have a couple of really good OOC wins that we didn't last year.

Very, very true, but our conference isn't as strong this year unfortunately. At least both of our bad losses were on the road; they lost to Tulane at home though. They would have had a lot more breathing room if they could have taken care of Xavier at home last week.

The New Big East is really good example of RPI inflating your worth. They are having a good year and Villanova is legit, but the rest are tossups with the top 6 in the American and it is a complete joke that Providence is ranked in the top 25.