UNI - Gary Rima
- Thread starter Cyclonesince78
- Start date
Yes they do. How? I don't know.
They have zero impressive wins. Their best win is against #45 Tulsa... not impressive. 17 of their wins are against teams ranked 97th or worse in the RPI. They only have 1 remaining game against a team ranked higher then 97th in the RPI.
I don't care how many games they win... their ranking is a joke.
Not sure, as of Sunday's official RPI they are 16, we are 18. They did a good job not scheduling the terrible teams in their non conference I know
Reason WSU is comparable to us in RPI is they have a better record against the middle and low RPI teams than we do, some of that is on us for 2 losses to mid level teams. Their 0-3 record against good RPI teams is horrible compared to ISU batting over .500 in that department while facing better teams than the 3 they did lose to.
It seems the committee really lays out the quality wins/losses in resumes, WSU has been the worst ranked team in terms of quality wins the entire season.
Wichita just shows how difficult Mid-Major scheduling is. They went out and put together what looked like a really good schedule on paper heading into the year (Memphis, Alabama, Seton Hall, St. Louis, Utah) and too many of those teams underperformed. They also played at Diamond Head and going in should have gotten to play both Colorado and Nebraska, but both of those teams got beat before they got to play them.
So you get to this point of the year and you don't have anything to show for it, even though you put together the best non-conference schedule you could reasonably expect to get.
So you get to this point of the year and you don't have anything to show for it, even though you put together the best non-conference schedule you could reasonably expect to get.
Buffalo also has a top 50 RPI, which they somehow have with zero top 100 wins and 1 loss outside the top 150.
That's life. You still don't get credit for a tough schedule just because you tried to get one.
I know they played at Kentucky in the non-con and played them tough. I think they may have led at halftime, actually. That could go a long way towards explaining that number.
Here is my problem with the way this plays out...
In the last 2 NCAA Tournaments you have Gonzaga and Wichita State.
2012-2013 Gonzaga.... they finished 30-2, #96 SOS, played 2 RPI top 25 teams all year, and they get a #1 seed. They go to the tournament and nearly get upset by Southern in the 1st Round and then they lose to #9 seed Wichita State in the 2nd Round.
2013-2014 Wichita State.... they finished 34-0, #111 SOS, played 0 RPI top 25 teams all year, and they get a #1 seed. They go to the tournament and lose to #8 seed Kentucky in the 2nd round.
Hmmm... look at a couple mid-majors looking at snagging some pretty lofty seeds with similar numbers... 22-2 UNI with a #146 SOS, played 2 RPI top 25 teams all year.... early tourney exit? History says yes. 20-3 Wichita State with a #107 SOS, played 2 RPI top 25 teams all year... early tourney exit? History says yes.
Then look at Power 5 teams...
An 8 loss UCONN team barely in the RPI top 25, #34 SOS, played 7 games against RPI top 25 teams, gets into the tournament with a #7 seed... they win the national championship.
A 10 loss Kentucky team in the lower half of the RPI top 25, #2 SOS, played 6 games against RPI top 25 teams, gets into the tournament with an #8 seed... they play in the national championship game.
A 7 loss Michigan team in the lower half of the RPI top 25, #68 SOS, played 7 RPI top 25 teams, gets into the tournament as a #4 seed... they play in the national championship game.
A 9 loss Syracuse team in the middle of the RPI top 25, #5 SOS, played 7 RPI top 25 teams, gets into the tournament as a #4 seed... they make the Final Four.
History shows that teams from the Power 5 conferences that play tougher schedules (and have some losses), that play more RPI top 25 games, that don't necessarily have the best records, thrive in March because they are tourney tested. These wannabe mid-majors with inflated records because they played pathetic schedules get sent packing early.
I see your point.
But you also have Butler who played in the national title game in back to back years out of the Horizon League.
The tournament is such a matchup based crapshoot that anything can happen. Also, to be fair to Wichita last year, that Kentucky team was the greatest 8 seed of all time and its not like they got blown out by any stretch. It was the game of the tournament last year.
Butler... those Butler teams earned their way there by winning games in the tournament. They weren't gifted high seeds they didn't deserve based on a poor resume. Butler was an 8 seed in the 2011 Tournament and a 5 seed in the 2010 Tournament.
That Kentucky team had 10 losses and hadn't put together a decent stretch of basketball all season until they got to the NCAA Tournament.
A few more examples...
2010-2011... San Diego State they finished 32-2, #45 SOS, they played 1 RPI top 25 team all year, and they get a #2 seed. They play 2 mid-majors before facing UCONN who knocked them out.
2010-2011... BYU they finished 30-4, #20 SOS, they played 3 RPI top 25 teams all year, and they get a #3 seed. They play 2 mid-majors before facing Florida who knocked them out.
2009-2010... New Mexico finished 29-4, #70 SOS, they played 4 RPI top 25 teams all year, and they got a #3 seed. They beat a mid major before facing #11 seed Washington who knocked them out.
2008-2009 Memphis finished 31-3, #62 SOS, they played 4 RPI top 25 teams all year, they got a #2 seed. They beat a mid-major then #10 seed Maryland before facing Mizzou who knocked them out.
You know, you can hand pick aspects of schedules - one team has a better win%, another a more difficult schedule, another a pretty difficult schedule, but with some easy and some really tough teams. And of course, everyone hand picks the data that make his team look best.
What these rating systems try to do is consider and compare all the data at once. Some consider more data than others...
RPI (current...expected):
15 15.0 Wichita St.
16 17.1 Northern Iowa
18 21.1 Iowa St.
BPI:
14 Northern Iowa
15 Wichita State...
19 Iowa State
Sagarin:
16 Iowa State
18 Wichita State
26 Northern Iowa
28 Iowa
Ken Pom:
15 Wichita St.
16 Northern Iowa
20 Iowa St.
28 Iowa
Here's a cool one: http://www.unf.edu/~jcoleman/dance.htm
Rank - Team - Chance of Bid
11 - Iowa State - 100.00%
21 - Nrthn Iowa - 100.00%
(they moved Iowa from 48% to 100% last week)
What these rating systems try to do is consider and compare all the data at once. Some consider more data than others...
RPI (current...expected):
15 15.0 Wichita St.
16 17.1 Northern Iowa
18 21.1 Iowa St.
BPI:
14 Northern Iowa
15 Wichita State...
19 Iowa State
Sagarin:
16 Iowa State
18 Wichita State
26 Northern Iowa
28 Iowa
Ken Pom:
15 Wichita St.
16 Northern Iowa
20 Iowa St.
28 Iowa
Here's a cool one: http://www.unf.edu/~jcoleman/dance.htm
Rank - Team - Chance of Bid
11 - Iowa State - 100.00%
21 - Nrthn Iowa - 100.00%
(they moved Iowa from 48% to 100% last week)
you forgot about the final four season for Wichita state in 2013-14. lets call that an anomaly.
Considering what ISU has left on their schedule I'm confused why ISU's RPI is projected to go down.
Look here:
http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Iowa St..html
What this site does is use Sagarin's numbers to predict future wins and losses. They predict 4 wins and 3 losses in ISU's remaining games.
Then they use that to give an "expected" RPI.
But if you win more than that, your RPI will be better than expected, which you could do.
Last edited:
#94 RPI Illinois State hanging with invincible Panthers early. Might be an entertaining game tonight.
