|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 23:56:41 GMT -5
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Nov 20, 2006 23:56:41 GMT -5
Ouch, UCSB drops from 61-67 by sweeping UC Davis. That is the bad thing about the RPI, you get punished for beating weak teams you are forced to play.
|
|
|
RKPI
Nov 21, 2006 1:00:46 GMT -5
Post by calivb on Nov 21, 2006 1:00:46 GMT -5
So when does the new Pablo come out?
|
|
|
RKPI
Nov 21, 2006 6:05:30 GMT -5
Post by SaltNPepper on Nov 21, 2006 6:05:30 GMT -5
Minnesota at 3 is way too high. Minnesota could surprise some teams in the Tournament this year. 21-7 overall. They will probably end up a #3 or #4 regional seed. Let's look at their record. 2 losses the first weekend to LSU & TAMU when they had to run a make shift line-up without 2 players. Next weekend with 1 still missing, they loss to Louisville and Nebraska. With 16 home matches so far this season, Nebraska has swept 15 of them with Minnesota the only team taking a game off of them all year at home. Without those suspensions they could have won 3 (or even all 4) of those matches. Now you're really talking about a team when they have everyone would be more like 24-4 or even 25-3. Two of those losses are to PSU, one a 5 game thriller that's 15-13 in the 5th. They're probably not a #1 seed, but a pretty solid #2 if they're playing with everyone. Minnesota would be a great team to have placed in someone else's bracket.
|
|
|
RKPI
Nov 21, 2006 7:22:34 GMT -5
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 21, 2006 7:22:34 GMT -5
I really do not believe the Committee cares much for the RPI, except as an excuse to justify some of its choices that it otherwise would be hard-pressed to defend. Please provide a single example where the committee has ever used RPI as an excuse for any choice it has made. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. The committee more often uses the other criteria to account for why it did not use RPI.
|
|
|
RKPI
Nov 21, 2006 8:56:38 GMT -5
Post by macktruck on Nov 21, 2006 8:56:38 GMT -5
I don't think you can find examples of what the exact criteria is for the selection committee, but from conversations that I have had with members, the RPI is a primary factor. I know the Rich Kern Nitty Gritty is used by the committee - and it should be.
|
|
|
RKPI
Nov 21, 2006 9:18:43 GMT -5
Post by JHAM on Nov 21, 2006 9:18:43 GMT -5
I agree that I wouldn't want MN in my bracket either but I'm a homer. I feel the same about Wisconsin based on their abilities the last 2 years to make it to the Elite 8. Could this be the year the Badgers break through to the Final Four? PSU on the other hand may not be a bad draw based on the past....they really need to step it up during the tourney.
|
|
|
RKPI
Nov 21, 2006 10:41:40 GMT -5
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 21, 2006 10:41:40 GMT -5
I don't think you can find examples of what the exact criteria is for the selection committee, but from conversations that I have had with members, the RPI is a primary factor. I know the Rich Kern Nitty Gritty is used by the committee - and it should be. I know what the manual says, but I've not heard what the members say. However, I do know what they do, and, in the end, there is no indication that they ever have considered RPI as the deciding factor when making selections. There are plenty of examples of where they consider "good wins" and "strength of schedule" when RPI isn't good, but no examples of where they went with a team with good RPI despite not having good wins or a strong strength of schedule. I don't know if it is intentional or not, but in the end, regardless of what they say, there is no indication that it affects what they do, at least in terms of selection. Now, I think there is at least one instance where a team was seeded solely on the basis of RPI, and that was Notre Dame a couple of years ago. Of course, there was also a location convenience that they had there, too, so it's not necessarily an RPI thing, but I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. That is the only instance that is probably best explained with RPI.
|
|
|
RKPI
Nov 21, 2006 13:57:14 GMT -5
Post by GatorVball on Nov 21, 2006 13:57:14 GMT -5
Minnesota at 3 is way too high. Minnesota could surprise some teams in the Tournament this year. 21-7 overall. They will probably end up a #3 or #4 regional seed. Let's look at their record. 2 losses the first weekend to LSU & TAMU when they had to run a make shift line-up without 2 players. Next weekend with 1 still missing, they loss to Louisville and Nebraska. With 16 home matches so far this season, Nebraska has swept 15 of them with Minnesota the only team taking a game off of them all year at home. Without those suspensions they could have won 3 (or even all 4) of those matches. Now you're really talking about a team when they have everyone would be more like 24-4 or even 25-3. Two of those losses are to PSU, one a 5 game thriller that's 15-13 in the 5th. They're probably not a #1 seed, but a pretty solid #2 if they're playing with everyone. Minnesota would be a great team to have placed in someone else's bracket. With their full lineup, Minnesota is no doubt very good. But that's not what the RPI is designed to tell us. I mean, if Florida had their players healthy all year, they'd be in line for a #1 seed. I def. don't want to see the Gophers in Florida's bracket, that's for sure.
|
|