GAMES OF INTEREST (12.06.19)

[loca2874]

There was only one game going on yesterday and that was Wichita State dismantling Central Arkansas. There are only 2 games today and they are not of any real significance. The reason I am posting is looking at the RPI numbers.

Wichita State beat them by almost 30 and still dropped 21 spots. Just like Tulsa dropped 11 after beating SE Louisiana by almost 40. I mean cmon Tulame almost has a better RPI than we do. lol. I know it comes down to the NCAA Evaluation Tool but lord almighty man. I have posted as well what the RPI's look like for our upcoming OOC games and K State is the worst one. lol.

Arkansas State (143)
Boise State (86)
Arkansas (11)
Colorado State (100)
Kansas State (177)

Todays Games​

Southern (New Orleans) (NAIA) at Southeastern Louisiana (342)
Dartmouth (140) at South Florida (286)

I posted the current RPI and the change yesterday (no post) and the change today so that you can see the fluctuation between the days.

RPI Rankings
Temple (15) Up 4 yesterday / No Change today
Cincinnati (42) Up 5 yesterday / No Change today
Memphis (60) Down 2 yesterday / Up 3 today
UConn (64) Up 1 yesterday / Up 2 today
Wichita St (70) Down 1 yesterday / Down 21 today
UCF (96) Down 9 yesterday / Down 3 today
Houston (119) Up 26 yesterday / Up 1 today
SMU (164) Up 17 yesterday / Up 7 today
Tulsa (210) Down 11 yesterday / Down 2 today
Tulane (212) Down 1 yesterday / Down 11 today
South FL. (286) Down 1 yesterday / Down 6 today
ECU (310) Down 12 yesterday / Up 2 today

 

[mcane]

As we know, the selection committee abandoned RPI for the reason we can see above. It looks solely at W-L ratio vs. strength of schedule and doesn't reflect margin of victory or award extra points for road wins. Sagarin is a better predictor of NET at this point- last time I checked TU was around 115.

 

[Barlass]

NET rankings will be out 12/16 this year.

 

[loca2874]

NET rankings will be out 12/16 this year.

Where did you find that information?

 

[Barlass]

David Worlock (NCAA director of Media Coordination). He's a good follow on Twitter, if you're into that sort of thing.

 

[URedskin54]

The positive of the RPI is that it was completely open and transparent. Everyone knew how it was calculated and everyone knew what they needed to do to improve. The NCAA tourney also isn't something based purely on team strength anyway. So while other metrics may do a better job of accurately predicting outcomes, RPI had the advantage (at least in my mind) of rewarding accomplishment. I don't really care if someone played 5 top 20 teams and lost to all of them by 1 point. Another team might beat 2 of those teams by 1 point and lose by 20 to the other 3. I'm not going to pick the team that lost all 5 of their games just because they look better in efficiency metrics. They didn't accomplish anything.

 

[loca2874]

David Worlock (NCAA director of Media Coordination). He's a good follow on Twitter, if you're into that sort of thing.

do tend to dabble in the tweeting every now and then

 

[loca2874]

David Worlock (NCAA director of Media Coordination). He's a good follow on Twitter, if you're into that sort of thing.

I have added him to my twitter feed. Thanks for the information

 

[nevadanatural]

The positive of the RPI is that it was completely open and transparent. Everyone knew how it was calculated and everyone knew what they needed to do to improve. The NCAA tourney also isn't something based purely on team strength anyway. So while other metrics may do a better job of accurately predicting outcomes, RPI had the advantage (at least in my mind) of rewarding accomplishment. I don't really care if someone played 5 top 20 teams and lost to all of them by 1 point. Another team might beat 2 of those teams by 1 point and lose by 20 to the other 3. I'm not going to pick the team that lost all 5 of their games just because they look better in efficiency metrics. They didn't accomplish anything.

The problem is the team that lost by 50 to 5 top 10 teams would have a better RPI than a team that lost to a top 10 by 1, split two 1 point each games with a two top 100 and destroyed two 200+ teams by 50 each. The second team is probably a more deserving team but team 1 would be rated higher.

That’s why I liked the replacement NET. It still takes into account who you play but also factors in how you play.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The problem is the team that lost by 50 to 5 top 10 teams would have a better RPI than a team that lost to a top 10 by 1, split two 1 point each games with a two top 100 and destroyed two 200+ teams by 50 each. The second team is probably a more deserving team but team 1 would be rated higher.

That’s why I liked the replacement NET. It still takes into account who you play but also factors in how you play.

And they still didn't use it to differentiate the last four in from the last four out. The last four out averaged a significantly higher net than the last four in. The ncaa committee not doing what they said they were going to do. Surprise, surprise!

 

[loca2874]

And they still didn't use it to differentiate the last four in from the last four out. The last four out averaged a significantly higher net than the last four in. The ncaa committee not doing what they said they were going to do. Surprise, surprise!

That’s why it’s a tool and not a rite of passage. But you are right it takes a bunch of tools to not use the tool