MVC games Wednesday, Jan. 16

[TheAsianSensation]

Think of the RPI as a parallel to the statistical revolution in baseball. People used RPI until they realized better metrics are available. RPI wasn't meant to be a predictive tool, or a precision tool. It was supposed to be a blunt instrument, but got used in other means because they didn't have anything better at the time.

Now we do. They were starting to come around by the mid-00s; the 2006 MVC accelerated that. Also it's fair to mention other mid majors doing well in the RPI, besides the RPI, also helped accelerate it.

[Bravesfan]

I do not see Indiana State being an at-large team. Their RPI is now around 50, and they would need to sweep the rest of their MVC schedule (including beating Wichita twice, and Creighton once), which they are not going to come close to doing, to get in into the 20's where IMO it would need to be to merit an at-large bid from the NCAA selection people who have twisted their criteria many times to justify leaving mid-major schools out of the tournament.
Recall that Missouri State did not receive an at-large bid in 2006 with an RPI of 21, and numerous times MVC teams have been left out with RPI's in the 30's. Bradley's RPI in 2007 was 38, and they didn't get any consideration by the selection committee. There have been several other MVC teams that have ended the year with RPI's from 30-39 and been left out.

True about the RPI. But if that's the case, the selection committee can't possibly ignore their wins over Mississippi and Miami FL, which seem to be looking better everyday. I agree though that the key is a split between WSU and CU, otherwise those two non-conference wins won't be enough. Plus no more than one or two other losses. I think 12-6 might be enough for at least some consideration.

[Bravesfan]

WHY THE HEY NOT???
..... isn't that PRECISELY what the "RPI" was created to do and it's creators were the spokespeople for the BCS schools who thought their 4th, 5th, and 6th best teams deserved to get in over the 2nd best in smaller conferences (like MVC)..

so they rammed the RPI down everyone's throat - then the NCAA fully accepted it and used it...
and ONLY when there's a year or two that a few of the Valley schools get great RPI's using THEIR formula - and appear to deserve to get in...
ONLY THEN do all the BCS folks and gurus suddenly change course 180 degrees and claim the RPI isn't a valid tool!!

They suddenly want a whole new set of rules once their last "set of rules" starts to fail their selfish ends - now they are asking for the "eye test"

Very true. But I don't think they can ignore their top 50 wins, IF and only IF they beat CU and WSU once or twice. If they get swept by them, then there's no discussion.

That all said though, I wouldn't put it past the committee to find another "excuse" to keep InSt. out if they have a good resume. Let's suppose they go 2-2 against CU and WSU, for a potential 4 top 50 wins. The committee could use their loss against SIU as an excuse to keep them out, while at the same time the committee invites Maryland despite their loss to Florida Gulf Coast! So I agree the selection committee can pull all sorts of nonsense in keeping mid-majors out of the tournament. But I think we all agree that the RPI has kind of fallen out of favor in the selection process. That's why a Valley team with a 20 RPI is no shoo-in for the tournament, but a Valley team with a 50 RPI is not out of the running either.

[Bravesfan]

Think of the RPI as a parallel to the statistical revolution in baseball. People used RPI until they realized better metrics are available. RPI wasn't meant to be a predictive tool, or a precision tool. It was supposed to be a blunt instrument, but got used in other means because they didn't have anything better at the time.

Now we do. They were starting to come around by the mid-00s; the 2006 MVC accelerated that. Also it's fair to mention other mid majors doing well in the RPI, besides the RPI, also helped accelerate it.

But MSU's RPI in 2006 was not the major issue with me. The bigger problem was they kept a second place team from the #6 conference out of the tournament, and one that beat a very good Wisconsin team that year! If the RPI was downplayed, fine. But a 12-6 team that had some quality wins in and out of conference being passed over for a third place and two fifth teams???? Something didn't make sense with MSU being left out to say the least!

[TheAsianSensation]

But MSU's RPI in 2006 was not the major issue with me. The bigger problem was they kept a second place team from the #6 conference out of the tournament, and one that beat a very good Wisconsin team that year! If the RPI was downplayed, fine. But a 12-6 team that had some quality wins in and out of conference being passed over for a third place and two fifth teams???? Something didn't make sense with MSU being left out to say the least!

Remember, about this time, the NCAA started the narrative about conference record being meaningless. With virtually every conference going to unbalanced conference schedules, the NCAA basically said your standing in conference compared to other teams was irrelevant. Every game was to be treated individually and conference record represented nothing more than a large sampling of unrelated games.

Of course, the MVC had a round robin.

To be fair, the records were: Wichita at 14-4, Missouri St, Creighton, and SIU at 12-6 and UNI and us at 11-7. MSU and Creighton were the missers. So we're talking one game, and Bradley made up that game by going farther in the conference tourney.

[Bravesfan]

Remember, about this time, the NCAA started the narrative about conference record being meaningless. With virtually every conference going to unbalanced conference schedules, the NCAA basically said your standing in conference compared to other teams was irrelevant. Every game was to be treated individually and conference record represented nothing more than a large sampling of unrelated games.

Of course, the MVC had a round robin.

To be fair, the records were: Wichita at 14-4, Missouri St, Creighton, and SIU at 12-6 and UNI and us at 11-7. MSU and Creighton were the missers. So we're talking one game, and Bradley made up that game by going farther in the conference tourney.

I guess conference tourney's are a big part of the equation as I have seen some BCS teams get very high seeds based on how far they went in their conference tournaments. And yes, there was a 3 way tie for second, so technically the selection committee could say they took the second place team.

Creighton I didn't have as much a problem of them missing the tourney as they had far and away the worst of the top 50 records amongst the contenders. I guess it was a matter of the selection committee not wanting to take more than four Valley teams (which was still three too many for Digger and Billy!), which leads me to wonder if the Mountain West will get more than four into the tourney this year.

[TheAsianSensation]

I guess conference tourney's are a big part of the equation as I have seen some BCS teams get very high seeds based on how far they went in their conference tournaments. And yes, there was a 3 way tie for second, so technically the selection committee could say they took the second place team.

Creighton I didn't have as much a problem of them missing the tourney as they had far and away the worst of the top 50 records amongst the contenders. I guess it was a matter of the selection committee not wanting to take more than four Valley teams (which was still three too many for Digger and Billy!), which leads me to wonder if the Mountain West will get more than four into the tourney this year.

This year's MWC is better than the 2006 MVC, or is at least in a better situation comparatively.

That year was wacky. Hofstra missed with an RPI in the 20s, Mason got in, and both Air Force and Utah St got ridiculous at large bids too. Mid majors actually got a big bonus that year, it just went in the wrong places. I'm almost tempted to say that entire season should get thrown out from analysis because it's such an outlier of a season.

[Bravesfan]

This year's MWC is better than the 2006 MVC, or is at least in a better situation comparatively.

That year was wacky. Hofstra missed with an RPI in the 20s, Mason got in, and both Air Force and Utah St got ridiculous at large bids too. Mid majors actually got a big bonus that year, it just went in the wrong places. I'm almost tempted to say that entire season should get thrown out from analysis because it's such an outlier of a season.

I remember that. The selection committee chairman admitted that Air Force and the CUSA winner got in because the won their conference. Well, I thought teams get bids, not conferences. But that seemed to be the year that at least a few mid-major conference winners got rewarded for winning the regular season. Not a bad criteria in that it rewards teams for coming out on top after the long season. But every year some other factor seems to take precedence so you never know what the selection committee is looking for from year to year.