RPI Notes

[vbird53]

As of 2/8:

4 Valley teams in the top 100: UNI 12, WSU 37, InSU 81, MSU 86
Next 4: BU 111, IlSU 124, CU 127, SIU 133
Bottom 2: DU 182, EU 292 (ouch)

WSU's SOS has risen pretty nicely to 114, but might take a hit over the next 10 days by playing EU twice.

WSU's wins vs teams ranked 101-200 could improve greatly if CU and IlSU could improve to top 100; it looks much better to have our two losses vs. those two in the top 100. CU plays 3 of next 4 at home. IlSU has 3 of 5 at home.

Interesting stat: 18 of the current top 50 come from a non-BCS league.

USU is #51. It's going to be a great opportunity for the Shocks to make an at-large case. It'll also provide a potential rpi boost. They only play 1 of 3 at home leading up to the BB match-up.

[SB Shock]

Re: RPI Notes

USU is #51. It's going to be a great opportunity for the Shocks to make an at-large case. It'll also provide a potential rpi boost. They only play 1 of 3 at home leading up to the BB match-up.

from http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Wichita%20St..html

6-0 RPI 30
5-1 RpI 38
4-2 RPI 48
3-3 RPI 59
2-4 RPI 69
1-5 RPI 80

It is clear, WSU can stay in the NCAA at-large picture if they take care of business and finish strong.

[shockball]

Warrennolan.com forecasts a rise in our SOS and winning 5 out of our 6 remianing games. RPI is forecasted going from 37 to 36.

[vbird53]

There are so many factors at work in the process of earning a bid. Finishing strong is clearly important, a strong SOS and RPI are important. Putting forth the best possible resume will seal the deal.

But it can't be stated enough that the committee is also looking at 100 other schools that have blemishes also. There is not a single undefeated team left. Some schools lose at home, some lose only top 50 games, some play a weak non-con. It will all come down to the selection committee's view.

In other words, saying that we will miss a bid due to losing at Drake doesn't make any sense, there are too many other factors at work.

Right now, our resume is in a hopper with 40-60 other teams that can claim a shot at an at-large bid.

[Snapshot9]

Wouldn't it be nice if they just took the top 65 RPI teams and put them into the dance??

The rpiforcast website has us with an expected record of 25-8 (5 games left plus the bracketbuster game plus they have us playing 3 games [2-1] in the tournament) and finishing with an rpi of about 47 (we are at 37 right now). 1 of the games is the bracketbuster, which we are expected to be an 8.4 point underdog. They expect USU to have a 31.5 rpi at the time of the game. It gives us a 22% chance of winning the bracketbuster game.

I think after the tourney that a record of 27-7 sounds more like it. What do you think?

[Shocker85]

Wouldn't it be nice if they just took the top 65 RPI teams and put them into the dance??

No.

RPI is skewed by Big 6 scheduling (i.e. lack of non-con road games and playing each other in conference home-and-home, buy-in games, etc.).

Taking the top 65 RPI teams would eliminate the chance for lesser conferences to ever get a sniff at the big dance, which is wrong. If you win your conference automatic bid you should go the tournament regardless of RPI. A certain portion of your RPI you can't control, like down years for normally good (or at least decent) teams, conference mates from the land of suck, etc. If the lower tier programs are going to continue to be the whipping boys for the high majors, there should be at least a sliver of a chance they get to the dance.

--'85.

[ShoxFan963]

Wouldn't it be nice if they just took the top 65 RPI teams and put them into the dance??

No, only teams from the top 10-12 conferences would get in. There would be less Cinderellas, less big-time upsets, and add even more controversy.

[SB Shock]

Wouldn't it be nice if they just took the top 65 RPI teams and put them into the dance??

No, only teams from the top 10-12 conferences would get in. There would be less Cinderellas, less big-time upsets, and add even more controversy.

NCAA is going to fix this next year (Cinderellas and big-time upsets) when they go to 96.

[hamshock]

Expanding the tournament isn't the answer. Requiring a team to be over .500 in their league to get an at-large spot is a reasonable request (read Big East, ACC, etc.). Requiring a team to play at least two true non-conference road games is a reasonable request.

For the Valley to get multiple bids we need to reinstitute the RPI 150 and higher scheduling. If it's "too hard" for schools, they don't need to be in the Valley. WSU included (just to be fair). The Valley had it figured out then did away with the one rule that got four teams in the tourney. If you say you have to certain scheduling requirements, even if it means 2 for 1's and buyouts, so what? Wouldn't you rather have multiple teams EARN their way in rather than water down a great product?

[Aargh]

Wouldn't it be nice if they just took the top 65 RPI teams and put them into the dance??

No, only teams from the top 10-12 conferences would get in. There would be less Cinderellas, less big-time upsets, and add even more controversy.

NCAA is going to fix this next year (Cinderellas and big-time upsets) when they go to 96.

The NCAA has floated the idea of expanding the tournament to 96 teams to the NCAA membership. Rumor is the membership was not impressed at all. I just caught a bit of a report about that while driving. I recall that it sounded like the membership was solidly opposed.

[SB Shock]

Wouldn't it be nice if they just took the top 65 RPI teams and put them into the dance??

No, only teams from the top 10-12 conferences would get in. There would be less Cinderellas, less big-time upsets, and add even more controversy.

NCAA is going to fix this next year (Cinderellas and big-time upsets) when they go to 96.

The NCAA has floated the idea of expanding the tournament to 96 teams to the NCAA membership. Rumor is the membership was not impressed at all. I just caught a bit of a report about that while driving. I recall that it sounded like the membership was solidly opposed.

That would be good news if true. Last week the rumor was the NCAA had arrived at a television deal and it was pretty much a done deal.

[GarH]

Shocker85's take is dead on. Hit the nail on the head.

[ShockTalk]

Expanding the tournament isn't the answer. Requiring a team to be over .500 in their league to get an at-large spot is a reasonable request (read Big East, ACC, etc.). Requiring a team to play at least two true non-conference road games is a reasonable request.

For the Valley to get multiple bids we need to reinstitute the RPI 150 and higher scheduling. If it's "too hard" for schools, they don't need to be in the Valley. WSU included (just to be fair). The Valley had it figured out then did away with the one rule that got four teams in the tourney. If you say you have to certain scheduling requirements, even if it means 2 for 1's and buyouts, so what? Wouldn't you rather have multiple teams EARN their way in rather than water down a great product?

I agree. Not that I would take the scheduling to the extreme that the Atlantic-10 (12, 13, er,14) did, but it certainly has helped their conference's dance ticket. They have 6 teams getting a serious look and have a good shot of at least 4 getting in. These 6 schools have an average of 3.3 non-con losses a piece and can get away with it because of strong scheduling.

I've always liked the +.500 in league record as well. If you're 8-8 in league and didn't win your league tourney, sorry, you've had your chances. I'm not saying they're not possibly a worthy team, it's just that they are no more likely to go further in the Dance than a second or third place team from a good mid-major conference who maybe didn't get a fair shake in building their non-con schedule. However, in our case, we could have played better teams and this might not apply anyway. I'm not talking BCS teams here, I'm saying more 75-175 RPI teams and fewer 250 and below teams.

[Wheatshocker]

Keep it 64 teams? Check.

Require a plus-.500 league mark? Check.

Kick the scrub conferences outta D-I (sorry Stony Brook)? Check.

Now you have the perfect tournament.

[ShockTalk]

Keep it 64 teams? Check.

Require a plus-.500 league mark? Check.

Kick the scrub conferences outta D-I (sorry Stony Brook)? Check.

Now you have the perfect tournament.

YES!! Actually, I've thought more of a D1A and a D1B. Have about 14 conferences in the A division with a limit of 6 teams from any one conference to go to the tourney. A division teams would be allowed to play "x" number of games in the B division. B division would have it's own tournament.