Valley RPI

[braveatheart]

Back to RPI though. It is a mediocre way to judge how good a team is. Other computer models such as Sagarin ratings or Pomeroy ratings would be pretty hard for the BCS schools to argue with. The NCAA selection committee has in the past said they are aware of such ratings. But they sure don't want to use them. Much better in their opinion to go with the "eye test".

[tornado]

this gave me a snicker, too..........
the worst team in the Valley - Missouri State - who haven't beaten any D-I team yet! Also - half the Valley has RPI's of 180 or worse....
....their home media just posted this article...
"Valley looking strong again"

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20121213/SPORTS0401/312130032/missouri-valley-conference-wichita-state-creighton-basketball?odyssey=nav%7Chead

[Bravesfan]

Bravesfan, I have no problem with you having your opinions and thoughts on things. More power to you, if you think SoS is more imporant than RPI.

It's hard to debate with you or anyone though, when you make claims as fact, when they aren't true at all.

You couldn't believe that UNI's SoS was so bad, compared to ISU's to date. You based this on the fact that UNI had played all those BCS schools.

Truth of the matter is: both have played the same amount of BCS schools to date.

You also made the proclamation that ISU doesn't have anymore opportunities for quality non-conference wins.

Turth of the matter is: ISU plays @ Dayton in less than a week. Dayton over the years has been a pretty decent program. They are off to a pretty good start @ 7-2 this season.

And I agree Mo State should have got in that year and UNI probably will end up with a better SoS than ISU this year.

But that certainly shouldn't excuse you from being called out to be factual in your postings. Unless you prefer to just be wrong about things that are easily proven like above.

Where in anyone of my posts in this thread did I ever call any of this fact? I happen to be a very close follower of NCAA basketball each year, and I am going by my observations of what I have seen in the selection process over the past decade or two. I never said that UNI factually has the better SOS than ISU. BUT I did happen to notice a much more stacked non-conference schedule in favor of UNI over ISU when I scanned through the Valley non-con schedules when they came out last year. And I believe that what is skewing UNI's RPI right now is the three scrubs they have played, along with one or two solid teams have played a lot worse than people expected. But I still stand by my assessment that UNI's non-conference SOS looks a lot more challanging on paper than ISU's does (as you just verified will be by the end of the season). So I'm not too sure where we are even disagreeing on this.

Regarding the importance of the RPI vs. SOS, we all know perfectly well (with plenty of articles that can be found) that the NCAA has attempted to deemphasize the importance of the RPI ever since the Valley and George Mason "cracked the RPI code" back in 2006. Of course that was the year when the likes of Digger Phelps and Billy Packer had fits when they saw how many mid-majors took up valuable spaces from their "big boy" teams. Since then the RPI factor in regards to the tournament selection process has become a joke. But despite this, even I feel that there are flaws in the RPI, and you don't automatically take a team with a solid RPI and high SOS over a mediocre BCS team that has a lot of top 50 wins (see Northwestern last year). So I think we both agree that the RPI is a subjective factor in the selection process.

[Bravesfan]

I have always gotten a snicker out of how those pundits and NCAA spokespeople who are owned by the BCS change their tunes every year...

-20 years ago they always said just the top teams in each conference should get bids...

-then when enough bids became available due to the expansion of the field - then they only wanted the top teams in the BCS conferences...they DID not want even a 2nd place team from a mid-major conference, arguing that even the 7th best team in the Big Ten was better than the 2nd best in the MVC

-thus they devised the RPI -- it was THEIR device, made up by those who are in bed with the major conferences and BCS just to justify 6, 7, and 8 bids from BCS conferences while excluding even the 2nd best team in the Valley.

-then when we saw years like 2006 when five Valley teams had TOP 50 RPI's - SUDDENLY we saw those same pundits saying the RPI was useless - somehow the MVC "broke the code" - so some of the top RPI teams like MSU had to be excluded....they talked of "conference RPI" so a conference could be determined to be a "one bid league"...

-then they started talking up the SOS while at the same time refusing to ever play mid-majors creating the hope that even the last place team in a conference like the ACC could go ahead of the runnerup in the MVC.

-then we heard them talk "quality wins"....then road wins, ...then overall resume.....then even something so easy to just fabricate -- "the eye test" - meaning they can see who belongs but they can't prove it or show why they include the teams they do...

-It is so obviously fixed and phony and it's all about the $$ and the greed among the BCS schools.......

Excellent post! And the "eye test" remains the most bogus term ever coined by these people!