Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

boisewitha-s

Mw hoops

Recommended Posts

I don't get CSU's RPI.  They've beaten two teams with a winning record and they are undefeated.  Yes, they beat  Colorado and UTEP which are both quality wins. The rest of there wins have a combined 22-33. Wyoming destroyed Colorado and lost to two teams on the road (Cal & SMU) that are a combine 16-4.  Pokes have a 100 RPI.  When you start talking about playing 150+ rpi teams, there not much difference between 170 and 300 - they all are weak.

 

That being said, SDSU is still my pick to win the conference and I think we get 2-3 more teams in the the tourney.  CSU, Boise and Wyoming.  UNLV just doesn't look good.  Wyoming will beat CSU twice and SDSU once.

 

My takeaway from this thread is that there are a handful of Wyoming fans who don't understand how RPI works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My takeaway from this thread is that there are a handful of Wyoming fans who don't understand how RPI works.

 

I understand how it works, but I don't think it accurately reflects the quality of the team.  RPI has CSU as a top 16 team and other than a road game at Boulder, they haven't played anybody. That's great for our conference, but as soon as we start beating each other up, CSU's RPI will drop like a rock and ours won't go up when we CSU loses and our teams win.  You've got a three loss VCU at #6 because they've gotten beaten by very good teams and they've beaten some bad teams.  How is that #6?  They're not even in the Top 25!  

I spent the first 25 years of my life trying to leave Wyoming and I'll spend the rest of my life trying to get back...

oxbow_fall_2010-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand how it works, but I don't think it accurately reflects the quality of the team.  RPI has CSU as a top 16 team and other than a road game at Boulder, they haven't played anybody. That's great for our conference, but as soon as we start beating each other up, CSU's RPI will drop like a rock and ours won't go up when we CSU loses and our teams win.  You've got a three loss VCU at #6 because they've gotten beaten by very good teams and they've beaten some bad teams.  How is that #6?  They're not even in the Top 25!  

 

The problem with your analysis is that your going by whether the opponents have a sexy name and are among the elite in college basketball. The reality when you dig into the numbers is that CSU has already beaten as many as five teams that have a shot at making the NCAA tourney, and play two more on their non-conference schedule, so that number could rise to as many as seven NCAA tourney teams. Are they sexy, familiar names? No. But there are solid teams in there in that RPI 51-100 range that will win a lot of games. A team like Georgia State has two NBA caliber players on it, is projected to rack up 22+ wins, and make the tourney without difficulty. UCSB? Projected to go 13-3 in the Big West and also make the tourney.

 

Wyoming has teams like Florida A&M, Stetson, and Montana St (twice) on their schedule, with projected records of 4-25, 7-20, and 8-21. CSU doesn't have a single team like that on their schedule.

So saying CSU's and Wyoming's schedules are comparable just isn't accurate. With only two weeks left in the OOC season, here are the projected OOC SOSs:

CSU=41

Wyoming=253

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand how it works, but I don't think it accurately reflects the quality of the team.  RPI has CSU as a top 16 team and other than a road game at Boulder, they haven't played anybody. That's great for our conference, but as soon as we start beating each other up, CSU's RPI will drop like a rock and ours won't go up when we CSU loses and our teams win.  You've got a three loss VCU at #6 because they've gotten beaten by very good teams and they've beaten some bad teams.  How is that #6?  They're not even in the Top 25!  

 

I guess I just don't understand what you're confused about. This early in the season, going 3-3 against Top 100 teams and having the most difficult SOS in the country is going to rocket VCU up the rankings.That's just how math works.

 

CSU is 3-0 vs Top 100, 4-0 vs Top 101-200; and has only played two 200+ teams. Plug that into the RPI equation and of course they'll end up somewhere in the Top 20. What's not to get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I just don't understand what you're confused about. This early in the season, going 3-3 against Top 100 teams and having the most difficult SOS in the country is going to rocket VCU up the rankings.That's just how math works.

 

CSU is 3-0 vs Top 100, 4-0 vs Top 101-200; and has only played two 200+ teams. Plug that into the RPI equation and of course they'll end up somewhere in the Top 20. What's not to get?

Why it's used in the first place. It unfortunately works better to differentiate #s 75-225 than #s 1-75, which are the only ones anyone cares about. The system really needs to ignore sub-RPI 150 (or 200 or 100 or whatever, as long as there's a cutoff) wins as just never having been played for a tourney-team RPI. Playing 10 teams of RPI 120-129 shouldn't be seen as an easier schedule as playing 10 teams of RPI 2, 6, 230, 267, 10, 301, 74, 158, 176, 50 due to the difficulty of going undefeated in one vs the other, yet arithmetically it works out that way (I know they use record vs RPI top 50- but the problem is the RPI top 50 are still rated using the RPI in the first place). Either that or just judge all sub-150 or whatever the cutoff is as the same.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why it's used in the first place. It unfortunately works better to differentiate #s 75-225 than #s 1-75, which are the only ones anyone cares about. The system really needs to ignore sub-RPI 150 (or 200 or 100 or whatever, as long as there's a cutoff) wins as just never having been played for a tourney-team RPI. Playing 10 teams of RPI 120-129 shouldn't be seen as an easier schedule as playing 10 teams of RPI 2, 6, 230, 267, 10, 301, 74, 158, 176, 50 due to the difficulty of going undefeated in one vs the other, yet arithmetically it works out that way (I know they use record vs RPI top 50- but the problem is the RPI top 50 are still rated using the RPI in the first place). Either that or just judge all sub-150 or whatever the cutoff is as the same.

So you want P5 dominance in college basketball then too???? Ok got it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's some good and bad when it comes to rpi. That is why it is only one tool that the committee uses when selecting at-large teams to the NCAA Tournament.

That being said, as a CSU fan I'm excited that theyre still undefeated at this point. I certainly expected at least one loss by now and it wouldnt have surprised me if they had lost another they shouldnt have. I'm not sure other MWC fans understand how difficult it is to win in Boulder these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your USU prediction was not a very long putt, Nostradamus, From the 9th place MWC team we lost every player with meaningful minutes but one. But as bad as we were last year we still beat CSU three times.

Are you forgetting that we were really bad last year? This team is last years two best players plus a lot better players filling the other slots who sat out when you beat us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RPI isn't all that important to the selection commitee.(at least how I understand it) It is essentially"is your RPI good enough if your RPI is in the range to be considered they then look at other things. It is just one tool they use, not the be all end all of how good a team is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you want P5 dominance in college basketball then too???? Ok got it

What are you talking about? The MWC is a top 8-10 conference with a third to a half of our teams over the 100 level mark. College basketball is already dominated by the power conferences and the tweeners, this just uses a rating system that ignores the difference between mid and low major squads due to the massive difference in quality between the top 75 who have a chance at the tourney and anyone under 150. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you forgetting that we were really bad last year? This team is last years two best players plus a lot better players filling the other slots who sat out when you beat us.

We'll be sure that the record books are marked with an asterisk that footnote your caveats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say we are playing at expectations. Everybody expected us to suck.

This is true. UNR fans were the only ones who thought they'd be good. They lost their three best players off last years team and they're only real scorers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true. UNR fans were the only ones who thought they'd be good. They lost their three best players off last years team and they're only real scorers.

Not all of us. I thought we would be terrible. But....I didn't expect us to lose 9 in a row (so far).

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True...but there were a bunch that were blindly optimistic.

Now I will admit I was expecting our football team to be significantly better, I pegged us as going 10-2 with losses to Arizona & BYU.....boy did I whif on that.

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RPI isn't all that important to the selection commitee.(at least how I understand it) It is essentially"is your RPI good enough if your RPI is in the range to be considered they then look at other things. It is just one tool they use, not the be all end all of how good a team is.

 

That's my understanding as well, but I've never sat on a selection committee; so who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dr. Dre

UC Davis 81 AFA 75

SDSU 68 USU 65 (that'd be South Dakota State btw)

Pacific 71 Fresuck 68

Utah 59 Unlv 46

 

Hell of a conference, Hell of a conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UC Davis 81 AFA 75

SDSU 68 USU 65 (that'd be South Dakota State btw)

Pacific 71 Fresuck 68

Utah 59 Unlv 46

 

Hell of a conference, Hell of a conference.

Injuries or not, we do suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...