MVC conference games

[KC Shox]

Creighton's RPI breakdown per CBSSports. Their non con sos is 45

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/teams/rpi/CREIGH/creighton-bluejays

Strength of Schedule and RPI
HOME AWAY NEUTRAL SOS SOS RANK RPI RPI RANK
All Division I games (22-7) 14-2 6-5 2-0 0.5391 93 0.5954 41
Conference games (11-5) 7-1 4-4 0-0 0.5085 145 0.5615 76
Non-conference D-I games (11-2) 7-1 2-1 2-0 0.552 45 0.6189 19

[Kung Wu]

It's probably simple. I'm guessing Longwood arose in order to give their season a happy ending. In other words Creighton is getting a taste of Longwood's SOS all over again (now you know the correct pronunciation of SOS).

[ripemupshocks]

There have been discrepancies between Warren Nolan and The RPI Report.

Exactly:

My first question was, “When so many options exist, why does the Valley use The RPI Report?”

Mike’s response:

The Jim Sukup (Collegiate Basketball News) RPI Report is used by the league since it is the ONLY one of the formulas that exactly match the NCAA RPI formula. Every other source (ESPN RPI, ESPN BPI, Warren Nolan, KenPom, Sagarin, etc.) has a variance that doesn’t match the NCAA. We’ve been using the CBN since 1992. And why NCSS as the second tiebreaker? It’s to put some emphasis on the non-conference schedule — it’s important. Very.

As of the 20th:

http://www.mvcfans.com/wp/2013/02/20...h-of-schedule/

[shocks771]

It's BS to me that a game that is completely out of our control swings things so much SOS wise. It's not our fault that all of the road teams sucked this year in BB but because of that we get screwed. Oh well, at least BB is over. Time to win out!

[proshox]

Unbeleivable... CU gets an advantage by getting embarrassed and further eroding the conference's image.

Meanwhile, WSU hammers a good team and shows the ability to dominate a track meet. I always liked BB, but this weekend should not be included in the calculation.

[ABC]

Okay, so the RPI report is available only for subscribers? Can somone do the posters here a solid and track that down?

[mvc hoops show]

Okay, so the RPI report is available only for subscribers? Can somone do the posters here a solid and track that down?

Just received this from Mike Kern today:

RPI NCSS
30 Wichita St. 72
41 Creighton 48
61 Indiana St. 31
72 Northern Iowa 13
116 Illinois St. 218
118 Evansville 118
152 Drake 99
167 Bradley 337
195 Southern Ill. 311
209 Missouri St. 112

[WuDrWu]

I refuse to believe there was that kind of movement in 1 week. If those numbers are indeed accurate, then the previous numbers were bogus unless someone can show me the math. Kind of BS if you ask me, but oh well. I guess the guys will just have to go win 2 more and make that number irrelevant.

[ShockerPrez]

So, what we are left with. Is that even in victory, we get dicked by the BB?

[1972Shocker]

The important tiebreaker, which really has nothing to do with the Shocks is one that would involve teams tied for the #6 seed. Huge difference between being a #6 seed and a #7 seed. Other than that does it really make that much difference.

Just win baby and all this other stuff become irrelevant.

:poster_shocks:

[Ta town]

I guess I don't care about Saint Louis. WSU about to go to back to back ncaa's since 87/88. Just don't lose 3 in a row, that's all I care about.

[ShockerFever]

Some kinda "magic" happened between yesterday and today.

Not shocked that sCUm is the benefactor.

Here's to hoping for a Bradley crushing and a WSU wipeout of EU.

[ShockTalk]

Perhaps the Valley will re-think using non-con SOS after this. WSU and CU's opponents were only about 20 RPI spots apart with WSU beating the lower one at home and CU losing to the higher on the road. Result: What looked like an insurmountable SOS lead for WSU turned into a huge gain for CU (in spite of losing) in the SOS rankings to lead WSU (in spite of winning). Just what did the teams do with those SOS rankings? WSU turned it into a 30 non-con RPI ranking while CU ended up at 41. So which one actually helped the Valley more?

[shoxlax]

Perhaps the Valley will re-think using non-con SOS after this. WSU and CU's opponents were only about 20 RPI spots apart with WSU beating the lower one at home and CU losing to the higher on the road. Result: What looked like an insurmountable SOS lead for WSU turned into a huge gain for CU (in spite of losing) in the SOS rankings to lead WSU (in spite of winning). Just what did the teams do with those SOS rankings? WSU turned it into a 30 non-con RPI ranking while CU ended up at 41. So which one actually helped the Valley more?

Some of our opponents must have tanked this week too. But yet our RPI is up. Makes no sense.

[MadaboutWu]

I refuse to believe there was that kind of movement in 1 week. If those numbers are indeed accurate, then the previous numbers were bogus unless someone can show me the math. Kind of BS if you ask me, but oh well. I guess the guys will just have to go win 2 more and make that number irrelevant.

I didn't see this coming either and felt pretty shocked too. It must be a couple of factors. First, a real logjam between 60-110. Second, with such a small sample size of 13 ooc games each games matters a great deal. Add to that road multiplier and that each team has only between 2-4 road games and it starts to make more sense.

I don't really care about the 1 vs. 2 seed for its own sake unless ISUr ends up as a #7. Getting them as a protected seed on Friday would be pretty brutal. Any other lineup of Friday and Saturday is fine with me (playing ISUr in the semis vs UNI or ISUb seems a wash, but they are much more dangerous than MSU/Drake/Bradley imo). I guess there is also maybe some media perception downside to being the two seed. At a glance reporters might think of the one as winning the regular season.

Here's to hoping not having the one seed locked up will motivate the Shockers and they can win out and claim the championship outright.