How to quote?
RPI shocker
Hello Guest		   
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog		   • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels		   • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests		   • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search		   • Search
• Games
• Tests
• GYXU		   • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online		  
Register!
GYXU > Basketball > RPI shocker 14 March 2005 18:33:09
  Recent blog posts: 
Hi!
Hi! I am Kate from Ukraine! I don't now, everything about this website. Also I dodn't know english very…

...
http://gyxu.com/p/lo­­gin.cgi?r=http­://www­.winxclu­b.com/

ONOTOLE NEGODUE
Blin, nu zaipali trabli s ssilkami.Zaxozu kuda to - BAZ! i ja snova gostj.Vxozu i vse norma,no…

Sri Lanka Vs West Indies
Sri Lanka won the first match by more than 100 runs…this is first in West Indies. .unfortunately after…

Blog Feed
http://feeds.feedbur­­ner.com/Tumble­weedRe­altyMaui

:-)
:-)­

...


...


…


  Forums:   
    topic feeds

• GYXU  all topics, blogs and comments

• General

• F1, Indy, Nascar, Rally

• Baseball

• Basketball

• Boxing

• Football

• Soccer

• Hockey

• Rugby

• Tennis

• Pro Wrestling

• Billiard

• Cycling

• Boats

• Kites, widsurfing, waterski

• Diving

• Skiing

• Cricket

• Golf

• Skating

• Buy / Sell

• Anonymous
  Discuss: 
Save on basketball…
Hello basketball fans, NothingButMagazines­.com offers 3 top basketball titles at the lowest…
  Recent forum topics: 
Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
Does any of our Scandinavian friends know about Christian Hoffman being recently banned from racing for…

Jay Turberville defends Berndt…
Rational poster >> That is clearly the intended NEGATIVE interpretation of of Jihad…

Steel bolts and nuts for Ultima…
The now discontinued Jackson Ultima Matrix mounts (for removable figure skating blade runners) held the…
  Recent forum comments:
RE: The Ferbster
And we know what that did to Werenich's game! Carole. "Rod's work news"…

RE: The Ferbster
For those in here who may have watched some of Canada Cup from Yorkton, ...................­…

RE: Worn Rotefella Boots
Thanks for the suggestion. Looking at the boot tip in the cold light of day, the rubber is worn and the…

RE: Re: Drugs -Cycling and Market…
Carl Douglas wrote: I think you might be jumping to illogical conclusions. I'm not opposed to…

RE: Season opener?
On Mar 19, 7:07pm, garystanislaw...@gm­ail.com wrote: Hey thats great! hope to see you out…

RE: Season opener?
On Mar 20, 8:24am, Zephyr <davedejo...@hotmai­l.com> wrote:

RE: Season opener?
I sail Cass sometimes before jet ski season, but not sure if it's open yet. Maybe I'll see you there…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:49:37 -0700 (PDT), ADK Skier <lgsumr@yahoo.com> wrote: Kikkan Randall…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
I'll stay out of that one. Some February lab test results - in the midst of races - showed my…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
ADK Skier wrote: The real problem wasn't a high hemo value, but the wrong ratio between what I…
  Ìîäåðàòîð:
 Administrator

RPI shocker

Perusion Hostmaster 11 March 2005 05:03:05
 It now appears that collegerpi.com, Pomeroy, myself, and others
have been using the wrong RPI all year. The word I get is that
the 1.4 factor only applies to the 25% of your own record, and
does not flow through to the opponents and opponents-opponents­
components that make up 75% of the number.

This takes away a lot of the apparent wackiness of the RPI as
it applies to the "mid-major" teams.

This may end all the talk of a Buffalo getting in over an Indiana or
even a Notre Dame, as all of a sudden their RPI rank drops to 44 from
32, and Iowa and Indiana's rises to 41 and 49.

It seemed kind of screwy to me that Buffalo, with an 11-7
mark in the MAC and no RPI top-25 wins, would be preferred
by so many over an Iowa with multiple RPI top-25 non-conference
wins. Or an Indiana with 10-6 in the much-stronger-than-­the-MAC
Big 10.

--

Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk. -- unknown
Add comment
James Gibson 11 March 2005 22:26:14 [ permanent link ]
 Perusion Hostmaster <nanae@nanae.perusi­on.com> wrote in
news:slrnd31ri9.2ra­.nanae@bill.heins.ne­t:
It now appears that collegerpi.com, Pomeroy, myself, and others> have been using the wrong RPI all year. The word I get is that> the 1.4 factor only applies to the 25% of your own record, and> does not flow through to the opponents and opponents-opponents­> components that make up 75% of the number.

Pomeroy has the same thing on his blog and his two pieces of
evidence - the Pac-10's conference ranking and the opponents on
Illinois's publicly released information sheet - are very solid
in backing this up.
Add comment
Perusion Hostmaster 11 March 2005 22:41:13 [ permanent link ]
 On 2005-03-11, James Gibson <jgibson_hmc95@yaho­o.com> wrote:> Perusion Hostmaster <nanae@nanae.perusi­on.com> wrote in > news:slrnd31ri9.2ra­.nanae@bill.heins.ne­t:>
It now appears that collegerpi.com, Pomeroy, myself, and others>> have been using the wrong RPI all year. The word I get is that>> the 1.4 factor only applies to the 25% of your own record, and>> does not flow through to the opponents and opponents-opponents­>> components that make up 75% of the number.>
Pomeroy has the same thing on his blog and his two pieces of> evidence - the Pac-10's conference ranking and the opponents on> Illinois's publicly released information sheet - are very solid> in backing this up.

Yes, once you recompute that way the RPI ranks match up with
the information sheet exactly.

--

Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk. -- unknown
Add comment
Milt Epstein 12 March 2005 04:40:22 [ permanent link ]
 Perusion Hostmaster <nanae@nanae.perusi­on.com> writes:
It now appears that collegerpi.com, Pomeroy, myself, and others have>been using the wrong RPI all year. The word I get is that the 1.4>factor only applies to the 25% of your own record, and does not flow>through to the opponents and opponents-opponents­ components that make>up 75% of the number.>
This takes away a lot of the apparent wackiness of the RPI as it>applies to the "mid-major" teams.>
This may end all the talk of a Buffalo getting in over an Indiana or>even a Notre Dame, as all of a sudden their RPI rank drops to 44 from>32, and Iowa and Indiana's rises to 41 and 49.>
It seemed kind of screwy to me that Buffalo, with an 11-7 mark in the>MAC and no RPI top-25 wins, would be preferred by so many over an>Iowa with multiple RPI top-25 non-conference wins. Or an Indiana with>10-6 in the much-stronger-than-­the-MAC Big 10.

Looking at Pomeroy's site, where he lists the differences (in ranking)
between the old and new RPI, the differences are now much smaller than
they were before. Before there were lots of teams with double digit
differences, even over 20 or 30. Now almost all the teams out to 55
or so have single digit differences, and teams out to 90 have
differences less than 20.

There are still oddities like Miami OH -- 32 in the new RPI, which
would likely be in, and 53 in the old, which would likely be out --
but fewer of them. But, depending on how they use it, it could still
make a difference for some teams. For example, looking at the Big Ten
Bubble teams -- Minnesota, Iowa, and Indiana -- they're 42, 45, and 49
in the new RPI, all on the bubble, vs. 31, 36, and 41 in the old, much
safer positions.

--
Milt Epstein
mepstein@uiuc.edu
Add comment
Perusion Hostmaster 12 March 2005 05:35:43 [ permanent link ]
 On 2005-03-12, Milt Epstein <mepstein@uiuc.edu>­ wrote:> Perusion Hostmaster <nanae@nanae.perusi­on.com> writes:>>It seemed kind of screwy to me that Buffalo, with an 11-7 mark in the>>MAC and no RPI top-25 wins, would be preferred by so many over an>>Iowa with multiple RPI top-25 non-conference wins. Or an Indiana with>>10-6 in the much-stronger-than-­the-MAC Big 10.>
Looking at Pomeroy's site, where he lists the differences (in ranking)> between the old and new RPI, the differences are now much smaller than> they were before. Before there were lots of teams with double digit> differences, even over 20 or 30. Now almost all the teams out to 55> or so have single digit differences, and teams out to 90 have> differences less than 20.>
There are still oddities like Miami OH -- 32 in the new RPI, which> would likely be in, and 53 in the old, which would likely be out --> but fewer of them. But, depending on how they use it, it could still> make a difference for some teams. For example, looking at the Big Ten> Bubble teams -- Minnesota, Iowa, and Indiana -- they're 42, 45, and 49> in the new RPI, all on the bubble, vs. 31, 36, and 41 in the old, much> safer positions.>

Minny is at #37, a good position, after today's win. Indiana, whom
we know is out anyway, is at #59.

Iowa will be at #45 if they lose, #35 if they win (subject to the changing
results of other games). Obviously a win is big for Iowa (behind 55-54
last I saw).


--

Getting old is tough. It's frustrating when you know all the
answers and nobody bothers to ask the questions. -- unknown
Add comment
Milt Epstein 12 March 2005 09:42:40 [ permanent link ]
 Perusion Hostmaster <nanae@nanae.perusi­on.com> writes:
On 2005-03-12, Milt Epstein <mepstein@uiuc.edu>­ wrote:
[ ... ]>>>It seemed kind of screwy to me that Buffalo, with an 11-7 mark in>>>the MAC and no RPI top-25 wins, would be preferred by so many over>>>an Iowa with multiple RPI top-25 non-conference wins. Or an Indiana>>>with 10-6 in the much-stronger-than-­the-MAC Big 10.>>
[ ... ]>> There are still oddities like Miami OH -- 32 in the new RPI, which>> would likely be in, and 53 in the old, which would likely be out -->> but fewer of them. But, depending on how they use it, it could>> still make a difference for some teams. For example, looking at>> the Big Ten Bubble teams -- Minnesota, Iowa, and Indiana -- they're>> 42, 45, and 49 in the new RPI, all on the bubble, vs. 31, 36, and>> 41 in the old, much safer positions.>
Minny is at #37, a good position, after today's win. Indiana, whom we>know is out anyway, is at #59.

Do we (know they're out, that is)? Are you basing that on 15-13? I
mean, I'd say they're probably out now, but I wouldn't say absolutely.
The fact that today's game wasn't even close may be the killer.

Iowa will be at #45 if they lose, #35 if they win (subject to the>changing results of other games). Obviously a win is big for Iowa>(behind 55-54 last I saw).

Well, they pulled it out. I wonder if that puts them in. Or if they
still at least have to do something against Wisconsin tomorrow. It
would be weird if a 7-9 team makes it and a 10-6 team doesn't.

--
Milt Epstein
mepstein@uiuc.edu
Add comment
Milt Epstein 12 March 2005 10:24:43 [ permanent link ]
 Perusion Hostmaster <nanae@nanae.perusi­on.com> writes:
On 2005-03-12, Milt Epstein <mepstein@uiuc.edu>­ wrote:
[ ... ]>>>Minny is at #37, a good position, after today's win. Indiana, whom>>>we know is out anyway, is at #59.>>
Do we (know they're out, that is)? Are you basing that on 15-13? I>> mean, I'd say they're probably out now, but I wouldn't say absolutely.>> The fact that today's game wasn't even close may be the killer.>
Oh, I don't know anything except what is logical. I don't see them>getting in with today's game like it was and an RPI #59.>
Iowa has a far better shot with the MSU win showing they can play>without Pierce. They have a killer non-conference resume, and they>beat three of their possible bubble opponents (UNI, Iowa St., Texas).>
In fact, I don't at this point how they could leave Iowa out. Iowa>has 7 RPI top-50 wins. That, folks, is more than anyone except>Illinois and Kansas. More than any ACC team. That is pretty hard to>deny.

It makes sense. But really pretty much everything you mention was
true a week or two ago, today's win is the only thing that changes it
much, and no one was talking about them as having a chance before
today (of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything :-)­. I made
a case for them a week or so ago, mentioning their good non-conference
wins, but it didn't get much traction.


[ ... ]>Seriously, though, I think that the Pierce disruption pretty easily>explains the 7-9 finish on the face.
[ ... ]

Not really. Don't forget that they were having trouble even before
Pierce got the boot. They started out 1-3, and, if I have my dates
right, they were 3-4 with Pierce. That includes losses to Michigan
(at home) and Northwestern. They did lose five of their next six,
before winning their last three. Plus two more in the tournament. So
there is a case for their having recoved from Pierce's loss, but I
don't think his situation can be used to cover the entire season. And
it's unclear how the committee will evaluate a situation like Pierce's
as opposed to an injury (such as Bracey Wright's) -- they might not be
as forgiving.

Anyway, I can certainly see the case for Iowa going and Indiana not
going. But I'd still be surprised if a 10-6 team is passed over and a
7-9 team gets in.

--
Milt Epstein
mepstein@uiuc.edu
Add comment
Perusion Hostmaster 12 March 2005 10:34:52 [ permanent link ]
 On 2005-03-12, Milt Epstein <mepstein@uiuc.edu>­ wrote:> Perusion Hostmaster <nanae@nanae.perusi­on.com> writes:>
[ ... ]>>Seriously, though, I think that the Pierce disruption pretty easily>>explains the 7-9 finish on the face.> [ ... ]>
Not really. Don't forget that they were having trouble even before> Pierce got the boot.

Could it be a case of addition by subtraction? I am guessing he was
a disruption even before he left. You don't get to felony assault
without some death struggles...
They started out 1-3, and, if I have my dates right, they were 3-4> with Pierce. That includes losses to Michigan (at home) and> Northwestern.

And Pierce pretty much lost those games singlehandedly, with 8 and
10 turnovers respectively. He was a two-edged sword.
They did lose five of their next six,> before winning their last three. Plus two more in the tournament.

Therein lies the argument -- a period of adjustment, then coming back
to being a pretty good team.
So there is a case for their having recoved from Pierce's loss, but I> don't think his situation can be used to cover the entire season. And> it's unclear how the committee will evaluate a situation like Pierce's> as opposed to an injury (such as Bracey Wright's) -- they might not be> as forgiving.>
Anyway, I can certainly see the case for Iowa going and Indiana not> going. But I'd still be surprised if a 10-6 team is passed over and a> 7-9 team gets in.>

How many times have you heard the committee chairman say "entire body
of work" and "play in their last 10 games"? I don't think they look
at the conference races in quite the way people think, particularly
with an unbalanced schedule.

I just don't see them tossing out 7 RPI top-50 wins for someone
like New Mexico or GW, who have one.

--

I don't want to get to the end of my life and find I have just
lived the length of it. I want to have lived the width of it as
well. -- Diane Ackerman
Add comment
George W . Harris 12 March 2005 12:12:08 [ permanent link ]
 Milt Epstein <mepstein@uiuc.edu>­ wrote:

:>Minny is at #37, a good position, after today's win. Indiana, whom we
:>know is out anyway, is at #59.
:
:D­o we (know they're out, that is)? Are you basing that on 15-13? I
:mean, I'd say they're probably out now, but I wouldn't say absolutely.

The last time a team with only 15 wins got an
at-large berth in the NCAA tournament was the same
year that Clemson beat UNC in Chapel Hill.

Georgia got in that time with 16 wins, but they'd
played a *much* tougher schedule than Indiana has this
year.

--
"The truths of mathematics describe a bright and clear universe,
exquisite and beautiful in its structure, in comparison with
which the physical world is turbid and confused."

-Eulogy for G.H.Hardy

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Add comment
Geoffrey F. Green 12 March 2005 16:03:21 [ permanent link ]
 In article <nv85311lbenlcs8m32­1h0ccfl90d9b4bq8@4ax­.com>,
George W. Harris <gharrus@mundsprung­.com> wrote:
Milt Epstein <mepstein@uiuc.edu>­ wrote:>
:>Minny is at #37, a good position, after today's win. Indiana, whom we> :>know is out anyway, is at #59.> :> :D­o we (know they're out, that is)? Are you basing that on 15-13? I> :mean, I'd say they're probably out now, but I wouldn't say absolutely.>
The last time a team with only 15 wins got an > at-large berth in the NCAA tournament was the same > year that Clemson beat UNC in Chapel Hill.

I remember that. That was the year I won $15 million in the lottery,
dated three or four supermodels (I can't remember exactly) and grew to
be 6'3.

- geoff
Add comment
Michael Sullivan 12 March 2005 18:56:36 [ permanent link ]
 George W. Harris <gharrus@mundsprung­.com> wrote:
Georgia got in that time with 16 wins, but they'd > played a *much* tougher schedule than Indiana has this > year.

Getting in at large with 16 even seems to be a real rarity, and is
usually reserved for teams with a top 20 schedule strength and more than
one win over probable 1-4 seeds (does indiana have any?).

I only recall one case of a 16 win team getting serious consideration
(UCLA back in mumble, mumble) that didn't clearly belong by power
standards (outside top 40 sag/rpi/etc.), and now that I think about it,
I don't think they actually *got* in.

So I'm 100% certain that Indiana is done. Even if 15 wins is not
actually a hard denial threshold -- what do they have on their resume to
impress that balances having only 15 wins? 2 wins against 11-30 in
sagarin. They played what Sagarin considers the 5th toughest schedule
in the country, but lots of teams have won 16 against similar
competition and not made it when they didn't have a passel of strong
wins.

Maryland has 16 wins and 1 fewer loss, with 2 wins against S*10*, sits
10 places higher than IU in Sagarin, and a lot of people are saying the
Clemson loss took them out.

If Maryland doesn't deserve to go, then IU shouldn't have a prayer.



Michael

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -- Dwight Eisenhower
"In Christ there is no killing" -- St. Patrick
Add comment
Navin 12 March 2005 21:56:22 [ permanent link ]
 Milt Epstein wrote:
Anyway, I can certainly see the case for Iowa going and Indiana not> going. But I'd still be surprised if a 10-6 team is passed over and a> 7-9 team gets in.

What are their relative SOS in the Big 10? Could that account for some
of the 3 game difference? Also I was reading some of the insightful
articles written lately about the selection process (Luke Winn wrote an
excellent on at SI.com), and it seems like they don't put any emphasis
on how a team did in their conference. They just seem to look at the
entire season as a large body of work, instead of treating in-conference
and out of conference play differently.

--
reverse email to reply
Add comment
Ar Q 13 March 2005 07:42:35 [ permanent link ]
 
Looking at Pomeroy's site, where he lists the differences (in ranking)> between the old and new RPI, the differences are now much smaller than> they were before.

What is the link to Pomeroy's site?

Thanks.


Add comment
Milt Epstein 13 March 2005 10:51:20 [ permanent link ]
 navin <snivan@earthlink.n­et> writes:
Milt Epstein wrote:>
Anyway, I can certainly see the case for Iowa going and Indiana not>> going. But I'd still be surprised if a 10-6 team is passed over and a>> 7-9 team gets in.>
What are their relative SOS in the Big 10? Could that account for>some of the 3 game difference? Also I was reading some of the

Their schedules were actually very similar -- they each missed one
game against Michigan State and Penn State, and they missed one game
against each other. Otherwise Indiana missed one game against
Illinois and Iowa missed one game against Wisconsin. So maybe one
game could be attributed to the schedule difference, since Indiana
only played Illinois once. Otherwise it was a matter of Indiana being
able to beat Michigan State, and avoid bad losses (e.g., Iowa lost to
Michigan at home and Purdue).
insightful articles written lately about the selection process (Luke>Winn wrote an excellent on at SI.com), and it seems like they don't>put any emphasis on how a team did in their conference. They just>seem to look at the entire season as a large body of work, instead of>treating in-conference and out of conference play differently.

Yeah, they say this. And it's probably at least mostly true. I just
have this impression that it's rare for them to pass over a team that
finishes higher in the same conference than another team they do take.
It's not based on any kind of systematic analysis, just recollections
that there were times where a team didn't have very good
qualifications other than having finished higher in the conference
than another team that got a bid. And probably in the Big Ten, since
that's the conference I follow most closely. And as others have
pointed out, there are counterexamples (i.e., higher ranked conference
teams that were passed over). Maybe in my copious spare time I'll do
that more systematic analysis :-)­.

--
Milt Epstein
mepstein@uiuc.edu
Add comment
Milt Epstein 13 March 2005 11:34:44 [ permanent link ]
 Perusion Hostmaster <nanae@nanae.perusi­on.com> writes:
On 2005-03-12, Milt Epstein <mepstein@uiuc.edu>­ wrote:
[ ... ]>>>Seriously, though, I think that the Pierce disruption pretty easily>>>explains the 7-9 finish on the face.>> [ ... ]>>
Not really. Don't forget that they were having trouble even before>> Pierce got the boot.>
Could it be a case of addition by subtraction? I am guessing he was>a disruption even before he left. You don't get to felony assault>without some death struggles...>
They started out 1-3, and, if I have my dates right, they were 3-4>> with Pierce. That includes losses to Michigan (at home) and>> Northwestern.>
And Pierce pretty much lost those games singlehandedly, with 8 and>10 turnovers respectively. He was a two-edged sword.

Maybe. But he was still averaging 17.8 points, 5.2 rebounds, and 4.2
assists (and a like number of turnovers, for a 1.0 ATO :-)­. They
wouldn't have even been close in the game at Illinois if not for him.
He was probably a key factor in several of their wins. And I hadn't
heard of any problems/disruption­s related to him before word of the
investigation came out. It's hard to argue that he wasn't a net
positive for the team.

Plus it's kind of inconsistent to on the one hand try to argue that
they're better off without Pierce, and on the other that they're just
now getting back to where they were with him. You've got to pick one
argument and stick with it.

They did lose five of their next six,>> before winning their last three. Plus two more in the tournament.>
Therein lies the argument -- a period of adjustment, then coming back>to being a pretty good team.

The counterargument is that they wouldn't get back to being as good as
the team that beat Texas, Louisville, and Texas Tech.

[I'm just kind of playing the devil's advocate here, because I believe
they're in.]


[ ... ]>I just don't see them tossing out 7 RPI top-50 wins for someone like>New Mexico or GW, who have one.

So what do you think of SW Missouri State? They're 6-7 against the
RPI top 50 (according to Pomeroy). That's better than a lot of teams.
Think they're in?

[Also kind of a trick question.]

--
Milt Epstein
mepstein@uiuc.edu
Add comment
Michael Sullivan 13 March 2005 23:57:46 [ permanent link ]
 Milt Epstein <mepstein@uiuc.edu>­ wrote:
Yeah, they say this. And it's probably at least mostly true. I just> have this impression that it's rare for them to pass over a team that> finishes higher in the same conference than another team they do take.> It's not based on any kind of systematic analysis, just recollections> that there were times where a team didn't have very good> qualifications other than having finished higher in the conference> than another team that got a bid.

It has happened once or twice in the BE and ACC, IIRC that a team has
been passed over while a team finishing below them in the conference got
a bid. Generally the team getting the bid had a monstrous OOC schedule
against which they did fairly well.

I would tend to think that a smart committee would not use this metric
as much as they used to, also. So many big conference schedules are
unbalanced now. In the days of yore when you played everyone home and
home, conference finish was a pretty good indicator of relative
strength, generally better than what you can cobble together out of
totally disparate non-conf schedules.

If team A finishes higher than team B in conference with a balanced
schedule, that's incontrovertible evidence that team A was better over
at least that portion of the season, so it doesn't make much sense to
pass over team A and take team B, unless the rest of the schedule paints
a crystal clear opposite picture.

But with unbalanced schedules, finishing higher in the conference
doesn't necessarily imply better conference performance. Did BC at 13-3
do better than Villanova or Syracuse at 11-5? Probably, but they had an
easier conference schedule. Was it 2-games worth easier? I doubt it,
but it's pretty hard to say for sure.


Michael

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -- Dwight Eisenhower
"In Christ there is no killing" -- St. Patrick
Add comment
James Gibson 14 March 2005 07:00:26 [ permanent link ]
 Perusion Hostmaster <nanae@nanae.perusi­on.com> wrote in
news:slrnd3518h.knc­.nanae@bill.heins.ne­t:
On 2005-03-12, Milt Epstein <mepstein@uiuc.edu>­ wrote:>>
Well, they pulled it out. I wonder if that puts them in. Or if they>> still at least have to do something against Wisconsin tomorrow. It>> would be weird if a 7-9 team makes it and a 10-6 team doesn't.>>
Yes, but they have the committee chairman. Worked great for New Mexico> in 1997, and they didn't have anywhere near the resume Iowa has. 8-)

1999. In 1997, I don't know if Davalos was on the committee, but New
Mexico had a 14 RPI and ended up with a #3 seed. '99 was the year they
were 74the RPI and had only 2 RPI top 50 wins, both at home on buzzer
beaters.

As for Indiana vs. Iowa, it's rare that I think conference standings
shouldn't be used, but this is one of those cases. Iowa beat
Louisville, Texas, Texas Tech, and Michigan State all on neutral courts.
Indiana did nothing of the sort and Indiana and Iowa split their season
series.


This year had a bunch of cases where conference standing wasn't
followed, and I think I agreed with almost all of them.
Add comment
Marek W. Lugowski 14 March 2005 07:05:57 [ permanent link ]
 In article <Xns9618C1D096241jg­ibsonhmc95yahoocom@1­40.142.12.140>,
James Gibson <jgibson_hmc95@yaho­o.com> wrote:
As for Indiana vs. Iowa, it's rare that I think conference standings>shouldn't­ be used, but this is one of those cases. Iowa beat>Louisville, Texas, Texas Tech, and Michigan State all on neutral courts.>Indiana did nothing of the sort and Indiana and Iowa split their season>series.

Actually, Indiana lost at Iowa the only time they played. Had Indiana won
the Charlotte game which they really won :)­ ...they would have had 16 wins.

-- Marek
--
http://users.rcn.co­m/marek/

Add comment
Perusion Hostmaster 14 March 2005 07:13:13 [ permanent link ]
 On 2005-03-14, James Gibson <jgibson_hmc95@yaho­o.com> wrote:> Perusion Hostmaster <nanae@nanae.perusi­on.com> wrote in > news:slrnd3518h.knc­.nanae@bill.heins.ne­t:>
On 2005-03-12, Milt Epstein <mepstein@uiuc.edu>­ wrote:>>>
Well, they pulled it out. I wonder if that puts them in. Or if they>>> still at least have to do something against Wisconsin tomorrow. It>>> would be weird if a 7-9 team makes it and a 10-6 team doesn't.>>>
Yes, but they have the committee chairman. Worked great for New Mexico>> in 1997, and they didn't have anywhere near the resume Iowa has. 8-)>
1999. In 1997, I don't know if Davalos was on the committee, but New> Mexico had a 14 RPI and ended up with a #3 seed. '99 was the year they> were 74the RPI and had only 2 RPI top 50 wins, both at home on buzzer> beaters.

That's right. But in that case it was a terrible pick, and this year
it is not.
As for Indiana vs. Iowa, it's rare that I think conference standings> shouldn't be used, but this is one of those cases. Iowa beat> Louisville, Texas, Texas Tech, and Michigan State all on neutral courts.> Indiana did nothing of the sort and Indiana and Iowa split their season> series.

Iowa had 7 top 50 RPI wins and two against the top 25 -- two of those
coming after Pierce. The only teams with more were Illinois, Washington,
and Kansas. It would have been unthinkable to leave them out in
favor of someone like Depaul or UAB.

Indiana had their chance to play themselves into the field and failed.
They have no one to blame but themselves, even if they got an anti-
assist from a random timekeeper.
This year had a bunch of cases where conference standing wasn't> followed, and I think I agreed with almost all of them.

Personally, this is the best bracket the committee has come up with. I
really think UConn was too high and Louisville too low, and I think UAB
got a gift at the expense of the MAC, but otherwise I cannot quibble
much at all. It beats last year's by a mile.

The big ESPN complaints about Notre Dame I can't understand at all. They
had three shots to play themselves into the bracket, 2 at home, in the
last two weeks. They blew them all.

They played a pitiful non-conference schedule and lost to DePaul at
home. Notre Dame has no one to blame but themselves.

--

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon
Add comment
Marek W. Lugowski 14 March 2005 07:20:29 [ permanent link ]
 
In article <slrnd3a0a8.3o7.nan­ae@bill.heins.net>,
Perusion Hostmaster <nanae@perusion.com­> wrote:
Indiana had their chance to play themselves into the field and failed.>They have no one to blame but themselves, even if they got an anti->assist from a random timekeeper.

It's dicier than that: The timekeeper did okay after all: It's the clock
that was featured on the ESPN+ TV feed that was unsynchronized with the
actual clock. There exists a video record showing the shot in question
against the main clock clearly at 0.0 -- but that is not the footage the
referees got to use to make their call -- they used the footage with the
false ticker painted on top of the TV image.

-- Marek
--
http://users.rcn.co­m/marek/

Add comment
Perusion Hostmaster 14 March 2005 07:33:02 [ permanent link ]
 On 2005-03-14, Marek W. Lugowski <mareklug@sdf.lNoOn­SePsAtMar.org> wrote:>
In article <slrnd3a0a8.3o7.nan­ae@bill.heins.net>,>­ Perusion Hostmaster <nanae@perusion.com­> wrote:>
Indiana had their chance to play themselves into the field and failed.>>They have no one to blame but themselves, even if they got an anti->>assist from a random timekeeper.>
It's dicier than that: The timekeeper did okay after all: It's the clock> that was featured on the ESPN+ TV feed that was unsynchronized with the> actual clock. There exists a video record showing the shot in question> against the main clock clearly at 0.0 -- but that is not the footage the> referees got to use to make their call -- they used the footage with the> false ticker painted on top of the TV image.>

Be that as it may, they didn't beat Minnesota. If they had been worthy,
they would have done that. I have no complaints as a Big 10 fan -- those
are the breaks of the game.

I understand that they went to UConn and lost by 5, and they
lost to UNC by 7 at home. But if that meant anything, they should
win that BTT game.

I am just glad the committee got things mostly right -- they did a
pretty darned good job.

--

Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.
-- Wernher Von Braun
Add comment


Milt Epstein 14 March 2005 18:33:09 [ permanent link ]
 mes@panix.com (Michael Sullivan) writes:
Milt Epstein <mepstein@uiuc.edu>­ wrote:>
Yeah, they say this. And it's probably at least mostly true. I>> just have this impression that it's rare for them to pass over a>> team that finishes higher in the same conference than another team>> they do take. It's not based on any kind of systematic analysis,>> just recollections that there were times where a team didn't have>> very good qualifications other than having finished higher in the>> conference than another team that got a bid.>
[ ... ]>But with unbalanced schedules, finishing higher in the conference>doesn't necessarily imply better conference performance. Did BC at>13-3 do better than Villanova or Syracuse at 11-5? Probably, but>they had an easier conference schedule. Was it 2-games worth easier?>I doubt it, but it's pretty hard to say for sure.

This is a good point, and one which perhaps I hadn't fully
appreciated. In light of it, it does make sense that there would more
occasions for taking teams that finished lower in a conference.

I'll stop harping on this point now :-)­.

--
Milt Epstein
mepstein@uiuc.edu
Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

GYXU > Basketball > RPI shocker 14 March 2005 18:33:09
see also:
US Open >> Cheniere Velocity…
Re: Sailworks Retro 9.5 with 490cm/IMCS…
Re: OK, I'm a f**king moron
pass tests:
see also:
Blog Feed
  Copyright © 2001—2009 GYXU
Idea: Miñhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.gyxu.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.gyxu.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.gyxu.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .