Consistent close losses should be a factor when you're talking about quality opponents. Losing by 2 to Gonzaga, 2 at Baylor and by 1 to Cincinnati in OT should be viewed more positively than if we had lost by 15, 10 and 8 or something like that.
Bubble Watch
- Thread starter vcl3
- Start date
Consistent close losses should be a factor when you're talking about quality opponents. Losing by 2 to Gonzaga, 2 at Baylor and by 1 to Cincinnati in OT should be viewed more positively than if we had lost by 15, 10 and 8 or something like that.
Based on my general interpretation of the systems, BPI does factor margin of victory (in a "diminishing returns" way, for lack of better description — it doesn't reward piling up blowouts), RPI apparently does not. So as much as I think ESPN overhyped BPI in the early stages, the committee applying more extensive metrics will help with accuracy.
Also we have to remember, valuing close losses better than losses by wider margins, it works the same way with close wins (e.g., the win over Indiana State almost counts as a "tie.")
Miami with another big win at home over Clemson. 1 more win and then should be in, which is huge for ISU
There are a few reasons why RPI will never go completely away. It is being diminished for ranking purposes, and will continue to follow that trend, but to get INTO the tournament in the first place. I believe it will continue to be the baseline. Then they will use the other metrics to re-rank/seed teams with something more comprehensive.
First and foremost the 2 main reasons that RPI is sticking around is
1) It greases the wheels as far a scheduling goes. If you use its guidelines to schedule, it brings order to the cupcakes and makes teams schedule "appropriately." This makes the non-con games more desirable and most importantly more marketable. It flat out makes the NCAA money to have teams schedule appropriately. If you can eliminate the risk of playing someone you're going to blow out by 35/50 by taking the MOV into account then teams don't schedule interesting games in the Non-con.
2) The NCAA for a lot of reasons will never be okay with rewarding blowouts. One thing that the wins are wins theory measures better than Ken P and BPI is the intangible of making the pressure shot. If a win by one is only marginally better that a loss by 1 then you get McDermott weird results too. The reality is those last 2 points are the most important. You can always say what you want about if Stu makes a bucket its still worth 2. They are very different from the clutchness that was Georges in the last possession of a game. It matters and The advanced metrics diminish the importance of that winning bucket and the "winner" buck in close games refines and distills the "advanced metrics"
ps for the clueless folks that say winning hurts your RPI, please you don't know anything about the topic, please quit talking and do some research.
Why stop at 2?
I realize Pitt beat Florida State today, but how can they currently be a bubble team with a 4-10 conference record? And Illinois at 5-9 in the Big Ten?
Iowa State is in and only playing for seed now.
Seems like bubble teams had a bad day today. Michigan State, Georgia, and Seton Hall all lost today. I think we're probably safely in at this point, but I'm still rooting against the bubble teams.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Get 7 more, then get the last 6 for good measure.
Stating they are " "only" playing for a seed now" is inaccurate. Losing 5 straight and falling to 17-14 certainly would not make this a tourney team.
We aren't losing 5 straight, that's just silly.
We are 98% in, and playing for seeding.
Well they did beat Iowa today, that probably makes them a lock right?
Also, we are not a bubble team. We could still play our way into being one if we loose out, but are not currently on the bubble watch.
Yep that is about as likely to happen as it is Iowa winning the B10 tournament you turd. ISU is in.
Relax and enjoy the last 5 games. Plan to take either Thursday or Friday off of work to watch the Clones in the 1st round of the tournament.
Funny to see that Rhode Island is on the wrong side of the bubble. Most of us were perplexed about how high they were ranked early in the season. I think they were as high as #18.
