Announcement

**RoyalShock** · February 10, 2012, 12:22 PM

I get the spirit of this "game", but unless the selection committee has totally changed how they make at-large selections there is nowhere near enough information provided to make much of an educated guess. The only data you provided that's really of any use is the SOS.

A team's RPI does not matter, the RPIs of their opponents do. This has been common knowledge for a decade yet people still try to base a team's tournament worthiness on their RPI.

This marks my first of what will probably be several rants this time of year on the myth of how RPI is used by the selection committee. Nothing personal, kochHead. I've just been able to keep quiet until now.

**Aargh** · February 10, 2012, 12:45 PM

Both leagues get one at large. The first conference has more parity at the top end, so it's unlikely the league champion will win the auto. With the number of top-100 teams in that league, the regular season champ gets an at large.

In the second league, it would seem more likel;y that one of the top 2 wins the auto. The other gets an at large.

The 5 top-100 teams in the first league are a combined 1-18 against the top 100. In the example provided, there are 6 top-100 teams. Adding in the 6th (which is above 100 from my source), those 6 teams are 3 - 20 against the top 100. With half the league in the top 100, the regular season chap gets in without winning the auto.

The Valley has 4 top-100 teams. We're expecting the regular season champ to get in without winning the conference tournament. We're expecting the regular-season 2nd place team to get in without winning the auto.

**kochHead** · February 10, 2012, 01:18 PM

Wait a minute folks! It appears the crowd wants Doug and Andy to have a life line! No problem.

Conf A

Team 1

RPI 1-50 0-3 0.0
RPI 51-100 6-1 0.857
RPI 101-150 3-1 0.75
RPI 151-200 1-1 0.5
RPI 200+ 9-0 1.0

Team 2

RPI 1-50 1-4 0.2
RPI 51-100 5-3 0.625
RPI 101-150 3-1 0.75
RPI 151-200 2-0 1.0
RPI 200+ 6-0 1.0

Team 3

RPI 1-50 0-3 0.0
RPI 51-100 3-4 0.429
RPI 101-150 2-1 0.667
RPI 151-200 4-0 1.0
RPI 200+ 5-0 1.0

Team 4

RPI 1-50 0-4 0.0
RPI 51-100 3-4 0.429
RPI 101-150 4-0 1.0
RPI 151-200 2-0 1.0
RPI 200+ 7-0 1.0

Conf B
Team 1

RPI 1-50 3-3 0.5
RPI 51-100 2-0 1.0
RPI 101-150 9-1 0.9
RPI 151-200 1-0 1.0
RPI 200+ 5-0 1.0

Team 2

RPI 1-50 4-2 0.667
RPI 51-100 1-1 0.5
RPI 101-150 9-1 0.9
RPI 151-200 1-0 1.0
RPI 200+ 6-0 1.0

Team 3

RPI 1-50 3-4 0.429
RPI 51-100 1-2 0.333
RPI 101-150 7-3 0.7
RPI 151-200 1-0 1.0
RPI 200+ 3-1 0.75

Team 4

RPI 1-50 2-7 0.222
RPI 51-100 1-0 1.0
RPI 101-150 4-4 0.5
RPI 151-200 1-0 1.0
RPI 200+ 6-0 1.0

**RoyalShock** · February 10, 2012, 02:11 PM

With kochHead's addendum I'll play along, though the exercise is still being done in a vacuum since we can't compare those teams to all other D1 teams.

Conf A
Team 1 - IN - Barely on the right side of the bubble but without more quality wins one more loss puts them square on the bubble. Probably 11-12 seed right now.
Team 2 - BUBBLE - Some good wins but too many losses.
Team 3/4 - OUT - Basically just like team 2 but without a top-50 win.

Conf B
Team 1 - IN - Seed in the 5-6 range
Team 2 - IN - Seed in the 6-7 range
Team 3 - OUT - Just off the bubble. Too many losses, including the 200+ loss.
Team 4 - OUT - Far below .500 record against top 150.

**shockmonster** · February 10, 2012, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by RoyalShock View Post

I get the spirit of this "game", but unless the selection committee has totally changed how they make at-large selections there is nowhere near enough information provided to make much of an educated guess. The only data you provided that's really of any use is the SOS.

A team's RPI does not matter, the RPIs of their opponents do. This has been common knowledge for a decade yet people still try to base a team's tournament worthiness on their RPI.

Are you sure that RPI doesn't matter? I would agree that RPI is just one piece of the puzzle that a good committee would use to compare teams but I would think that it is a quick snapshot way to view a team. Then you have to look at the other pieces to the puzzle such as SOS would be a very important one, very good wins 1-50, good wins 51-100, and bad losses 150+. While a committee may have a bias toward one piece of information, they shouldn't exclude others or they aren't going to make a good decision.

**KC Shox** · February 10, 2012, 07:50 PM

What are you so worried about? We got one top 50 win. In the eyes of many folks here on SN, that's all it's gonna take for WSU to qualify as an at-large, even if we lose to CU and Davidson. We have nothing else to prove.

Seriously folks, this team has plenty to prove and there is plenty room for screw-ups for the Shox. I'm sorry, but when it comes to NCAA at-larges, time-and-time again I've seen mids get the shaft. Mids pretty much have to go over and beyond on their resume' to get at-large consideration - not bids, consideration mind you.

The Shox need to win against ISU red, SMS and Drake and get a split between CU or Davidson in order to feel a little comfortable. That's a tall order.

**kochHead** · February 10, 2012, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by KC Shox View Post

What are you so worried about? We got one top 50 win. In the eyes of many folks here on SN, that's all it's gonna take for WSU to qualify as an at-large, even if we lose to CU and Davidson. We have nothing else to prove.

Seriously folks, this team has plenty to prove and there is plenty room for screw-ups for the Shox. I'm sorry, but when it comes to NCAA at-larges, time-and-time again I've seen mids get the shaft. Mids pretty much have to go over and beyond on their resume' to get at-large consideration - not bids, consideration mind you.

The Shox need to win against ISU red, SMS and Drake and get a split between CU or Davidson in order to feel a little comfortable. That's a tall order.

Unfortunately, KC Shox is right about that fact that we have a lot of work left to do. The spirit of this thread was to point out that the PAC-10/12/whatever, is weak as hell but Doug Gottlieb and Andy Katz still think they should/will get 2-3 teams in, in spite of the fact that they have all of 1 top 50 rpi win as a conference, a weak SOS, and nothing, and i mean NOTHING to hang their hat on. If you remove the names of the conferences, take the names off the arenas, and jerseys, and just look at the facts you could never come to the conclusion that the MVC has 1 lock and one bubble team and the PAC-12 has 2 -3 at large teams. I know Andy Katz and Doug Gottlieb are not on the selection committee, but the bias in the media and committee is very real. It has been proven, not by jilted "Mid-Major" fans, but by solid academic studies.

Just a moment...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mde.1499/abstract;jsessionid=293271AA6903B4A51DAA5AEEFC5F9DB6.d02t02

If you are still a student you can use your ID and PW to read this study. The fact is we will not get the benefit of the doubt, we cannot stumble.

**kochHead** · February 10, 2012, 10:05 PM

BTW, don't get me wrong, i am not saying that if we don't beat CU we will not get in.

**shockmonster** · February 10, 2012, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by kochHead View Post

BTW, don't get me wrong, i am not saying that if we don't beat CU we will not get in.

And no one else is saying that if the Shockers lose every game from here on out that they'll get in. Of course, there is season left.

**RoyalShock** · February 10, 2012, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by shockmonster View Post

Are you sure that RPI doesn't matter? I would agree that RPI is just one piece of the puzzle that a good committee would use to compare teams but I would think that it is a quick snapshot way to view a team. Then you have to look at the other pieces to the puzzle such as SOS would be a very important one, very good wins 1-50, good wins 51-100, and bad losses 150+. While a committee may have a bias toward one piece of information, they shouldn't exclude others or they aren't going to make a good decision.

I'm pretty sure. A few years back there was a mock selection where members of the media were invited to play a selection committee member. A writer from either BasketballState or MidMajority wrote a LENGTHY piece on the process, explaining how they used the RPI. I've tried to find it recently and didn't. That, plus years of actual committee members explaining how it was used convinced me that a team's RPI does not affect their own resume. If it did, there's no way Missouri State doesn't get a bid in 2006. Will a team's RPI give us a decent idea of who is good and who is bad? Yes, of course. That's why the committee will use it to determine if our UNLV win was good or if our loss to Drake was bad.

**shox1989** · February 10, 2012, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by RoyalShock View Post

I'm pretty sure. A few years back there was a mock selection where members of the media were invited to play a selection committee member. A writer from either BasketballState or MidMajority wrote a LENGTHY piece on the process, explaining how they used the RPI. I've tried to find it recently and didn't. That, plus years of actual committee members explaining how it was used convinced me that a team's RPI does not affect their own resume. If it did, there's no way Missouri State doesn't get a bid in 2006. Will a team's RPI give us a decent idea of who is good and who is bad? Yes, of course. That's why the committee will use it to determine if our UNLV win was good or if our loss to Drake was bad.

Several publication wrote articles about the process (several were included in the mock brackets) and while a teams overall rpi was definitely downplayed it is still one of the many factors considered. This SI.com article both states it is one of the factors and then in the article pretty much explains that it isn't that important (it is the basis for which the whole rating system is based on but your opponents rpis and how you do against them is far more important).

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/luke_winn/03/09/inside.bkc/index.html

Example team sheet showing the opponents rpi breakdown, rpi 150+ is the bad loss column:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/basketball/ncaa/03/09/team.sheet/index.html

Announcement

Let's play a game called...

Let's play a game called...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment