Can someone explain to me how Saint Mary's RPI is 19 and they're a lock for the tourney? They haven't played ****, have one of the worst non-conference schedules I have ever seen, and the one team they've played with a pulse this year they get pounded every time. I don't get it? I also don't get how Nevada's RPI is 34 and UT Arlington's is 40? WTF? RPI may be the worst rating ever and it is heavily used by the committee....
Bubble Watch
- Thread starter vcl3
- Start date
I was just going to post about this. The only P6 team they played was Stanford. They've been beaten easily by Gonzaga twice, now about to be thrice. How are they ranked ahead of ISU?
LOL, keep defending Iowa at all costs.
1- Iowa would be a 'bid stealer' in the sense that they aren't considered even an at-large team by most right now. They're only 'on the bubble' according to a few analysts.
2- Yeah, they won't look at conference affiliation directly, but when you play crap teams night in & night out, that affects all the other metrics.
3- BPI and other metrics take all of that into account. Don't think you're re-inventing the wheel by bringing up top 50 wins..
True, but that's still no excuse for the remaining talent on that team to be this bad. There's never a reason for a team to just lay down like they have. That team is the ultimate in hero ball and terrible defensive lapses.
I think you'll be surprised with the seed the committee gives them. I'm calling an 8, but won't be shocked if it's a 9 or 10. Same with SMU - they have a great chance of dropping a seed line or two. VERY thin resumes, and that's being nice. St. Mary's has 2 Top-50 wins, with their best a decent one, @ Dayton. That's better than anything Wichita State can say, but the Shockers were looking at trying to beg to be let in with one of the worst at-large resumes ever. People had them in on name recognition and KenPom, but they only had 2 Top-100 wins until winning Arch Madness.
SMU had 1 Top 50 win entering today (yikes), and it was at home. Houston jumped to #50 overnight, so they just added 2 more wins there - but really, it's Houston, who isn't getting an at-large. I'm totally fine with seeding St. Mary's higher than SMU, although everyone has them flipped in bracket projections. This has nothing to do with who's actually the "better team," which I think is SMU. The resume will matter to the committee.
Can't recall what show I was listening to, but the analyst said he felt sorry for Crean because he thought this was the worst collective group with poor basketball IQ he's ever seen. So there's that ..... possibly
Okay smarty pants..... my 'bid stealer is taken right from Jon Rothstein's article as he titles it bid stealers. And he lists Iowa as one. But whatever. And Lunardi said tonight that with the lack of traditional strong higher seeded teams in the Big10, he can't see them getting in 8 teams in. So, if Iowa wins two and Mich State stumbles 1st game, it's not that ridiculous to say they could take their place.
Last edited:
Nobody uses a single rating from any system and runs with it. Again that goes for ANY rating system. A single high RPI rating only indicates that a team had a combination of high winning % and/or strong schedule with good winning %.
With any system, usually things are mined down from just the raw number.
1) What was the SOS, does it provide context to the rating
2) After SOS, bracket the schedule using the system. You can see home/road/neutral vs top 50/100/150 - a far clearer picture is established
3) with a clearer picture does any data stand out? "bad" losses, close wins/losses, success against tourney level teams, etc. and does it support the rating or contrast it. Other factors can be included like player injuries, eligibility, etc. to add more detail.
Without mining down, all systems become frail and teams like Saint Mary's escape scrutiny, while others get overlooked.
Last edited:
Iowa is not a bid-stealer. I already explained what that term means, teams that need to win a game or 2 in their conference tourney are not "bid stealers", they are simply bubble teams with some work to do. Teams that have no shot unless they win their conference tourney are "bid stealers".
If you dont like me stating facts that Iowa has more wins than Xavier and Rhode Island combined then dont read it. They actually have 1 less Top-50 win than Providence who is in by most accounts right now.
For the record, I dont think they should be in right now, they need to win a couple games, but that doesnt change the fact they arent bid stealers or have 5 Top 50 wins.
What Iowa fans and some others dont realize is there is a big difference between beating a team ranked 24th who isnt ranked anymore btw...and say beating a team ranked 6th. I'm talking about Syracuse. I see a lot of Iowa fans saying why is Syracuse considered in on the bubble but not Iowa. Well just to start they beat Florida st #6....Virginia #9.....Duke #10....Syracuse played (7) Top 10 teams this year....Iowa played what? (1) and lost by 40.
There is a big difference in playing a top 10 team and a team around 24th this season.
The committee is using other metrics now more than ever..it isnt strictly lets look at everyone's RPI...St. Mary's is perfect example of why. Because too much of the RPI is determined by Opponents Opponets record. So what happens is teams have leaned to schedule against other teams that they know will have a good record vs other teams.
Iowa BPI is 77th....ISU 25th for perspective i guess.
RPI
BPI
Ken Pom
Road wins
Record last 12 games
Avg RPI win
Avg RPI loss
Conf SOS
Top 50 wins
Bad losses
Etc
Etc.
Point is the committee uses all kinds of metrics.
There is a big difference in playing a top 10 team and a team around 24th this season.
The committee is using other metrics now more than ever..it isnt strictly lets look at everyone's RPI...St. Mary's is perfect example of why. Because too much of the RPI is determined by Opponents Opponets record. So what happens is teams have leaned to schedule against other teams that they know will have a good record vs other teams.
Iowa BPI is 77th....ISU 25th for perspective i guess.
RPI
BPI
Ken Pom
Road wins
Record last 12 games
Avg RPI win
Avg RPI loss
Conf SOS
Top 50 wins
Bad losses
Etc
Etc.
Point is the committee uses all kinds of metrics.
Last edited:
Wasn't Crean the one that collected that group and presumably has been training them up?
True that you need to look at other metrics and data within the RPI, but after 32 plus games RPI is a pretty good starting point if you think teams should be rewarded for good wins AND punished for bad losses. Teams like Iowa like to throw out the top 50 wins, but all the ranking systems have them out for a reason - they had some bad losses. Top 50 wins is an important part of the picture, but that is factored in to RPI and other rankings, and while there are outliers, these rankings seem to do a pretty good job. I think the extra weighting on top 50 wins operates under the assumption that a 17-18 win P5 conference team is almost always better than a 25 win mid major. It may be the case, but considering some of the losses some of the P5 bubble teams have, I don't think that is a safe assumption.
I think a mix of metrics should be used, but I'd prefer to see it consistent and open with certain weighting for each metric. I just want to avoid college football playoff "eyeball test" nonsense.
I think a mix of metrics should be used, but I'd prefer to see it consistent and open with certain weighting for each metric. I just want to avoid college football playoff "eyeball test" nonsense.
And thankfully this is the last time its going to be used in its current incarnation.
New metrics are going to be used next year.
Yep. Their offensive philosophy seems to be to take it down the court as fast as they can, and then run around really, really fast in the half court. No plan to get good shots. Just run.
I think they are good enough to be in the tournament. Not good enough to be a 6 seed. Maybe 8/9 is where I'd put them.
