Can we talk bubble about Purdue - Strangest resume of them all

OK, this is just three years of archival data from probably the most likely of sources (NCAA.org) used in the selection decision. Whether theirs has the best computation is not really relevant for this purpose.

There is only one RPI calculation. It's either correct or not. The NCAA's is used by the selection committee. All anyone else can do is try to duplicate it (which can be done and is done by many - although some sites continue to make mistake after mistake in their calcs).
 

There is only one RPI calculation. It's either correct or not. The NCAA's is used by the selection committee. All anyone else can do is try to duplicate it (which can be done and is done by many - although some sites continue to make mistake after mistake in their calcs).

I don't disagree that RPI is a deterministic formula but if decision makers consulted data produced from incorrect calculations in making a decision, the decision was still based on that data.
 

I will again disagree with you here.
In terms of major conferences, you can draw a line below RPI 49 and if you are above that line you have always been in.

Even if that is true, that isn't the issue here. If Purdue's RPI ranking were in the top 49, people wouldn't be doubting that they would make the tournament. The real question is whether a ranking below the top 49 makes it very unlikely that Purdue will be selected for the tournament. I believe I have furnished sufficient evidence on this page to indicate that Purdue's selection for the tournament is not unlikely at all.
 

Here's a follow up to my post above ---- One more year

Year 2011

Follow up – Year 2011

Getting in
Michigan 52
Florida State 55
Clemson 57
Marquette 64
USC 67

Not Getting in
Harvard 35
Cleveland State 42
Missouri State 43
St. Mary’s 46

OK, this is just three years of archival data from probably the most likely of sources (NCAA.org) used in the selection decision. Whether theirs has the best computation is not really relevant for this purpose.

It's the same story as above. Toss out a few mid majors with better rankings to make room for additional power conference teams.

Is there anyone who still believes with certainty that Rank #49 is a firm number?

Is there anyone who still believes firmly that Purdue, if they have an RPI in the fifties, will not be selected given their placement in the Big Ten?


Many of those that miss in the Top 50 are small conference teams. Most of those that missed achieve a high RPI via a strong winning record and weaker SOS. Paper tigers if you will with minimal top 50 or top 100 wins.
 

2013 - Southern Miss
RPI - 31

Top 50 teams = 0-5
51-100 = 6-3

Best wins

#63 Denver - At home
#67 @ East Carolina
67 East Carolina - At home
#97 UTEP
 


Harvard in 2011
1-4 vs top 50 RPI. (Princeton)
2-2 vs 51-100


The big schools get the nod because if their RPI is in the 35-100 range it's because they are 3-4 against top 50 and likely above .500 in a higher quantity of games in the 50-100 area.
 

Many of those that miss in the Top 50 are small conference teams. Most of those that missed achieve a high RPI via a strong winning record and weaker SOS. Paper tigers if you will with minimal top 50 or top 100 wins.

Yes. And it's important to note that the team sheets the committee receives shows things like 'average RPI win' and 'average RPI loss'... so along with the RPI ranking of a team, the committee gets information as to what makes up the ranking (not great information - still requires math to understand AWP, etc., but better than nothing).

To Face the Facts point, at the end of the day the committee should be - and there is evidence they do - consider the details behind the RPI..

..but this means there is no cutline. Must get deep into the details to understand what Purdue looks like from a historical basis...
 

Yes. And it's important to note that the team sheets the committee receives shows things like 'average RPI win' and 'average RPI loss'... so along with the RPI ranking of a team, the committee gets information as to what makes up the ranking (not great information - still requires math to understand AWP, etc., but better than nothing).

To Face the Facts point, at the end of the day the committee should be - and there is evidence they do - consider the details behind the RPI..

..but this means there is no cutline. Must get deep into the details to understand what Purdue looks like from a historical basis...


Loss last night against OSU.
MSU and Illinois remaining. Could be looking to drop a few spots if they'd lose both.

RPI around 57 right now.
 

Loss last night against OSU.
MSU and Illinois remaining. Could be looking to drop a few spots if they'd lose both.

RPI around 57 right now.

They' likely drop a lot (10+) with two losses... that Illinois game would cost them 1.4x in the loss column.

If things go as "planned", they'd lose at MSU.. win at home vs. Illinois. Problem is that hurts their AWP (.6 wins & .6 losses will lower their season AWP)... playing MSU and Illinois do any favors for their (50% of RPI) opp W-L SOS.. their RPI would projects to approximate where they are today if they finish off the regular season 1-1.

Lose the first in the BTT and it's not a pretty view. Go 1-1 in the BTT.. and depending on who they play.. could still be sitting around or just inside 60..

Purdue should be sweatin
 



Many of those that miss in the Top 50 are small conference teams. Most of those that missed achieve a high RPI via a strong winning record and weaker SOS. Paper tigers if you will with minimal top 50 or top 100 wins.

Except a weak schedule with a high winning percentage won't give you a particularly high RPI. Look at the RPI formula and you will see that it contains three terms. Two of those terms address strength of schedule and they are weighted at 75%. Your own winning percentage is only weighted at 25%.

By the way, those "paper tigers" manage to beat some conference teams year in and year out in the tournament and a lot of them accomplish that without high RPI scores.
 

Except a weak schedule with a high winning percentage won't give you a particularly high RPI. Look at the RPI formula and you will see that it contains three terms. Two of those terms address strength of schedule and they are weighted at 75%. Your own winning percentage is only weighted at 25%.

By the way, those "paper tigers" manage to beat some conference teams year in and year out in the tournament and a lot of them accomplish that without high RPI scores.


Purdue with the loss tonight.

RPI for them that I see is:63
Illinois playing now, but at 61:

At 61. Illinois has been a consensus "OUT" of the tournament.
 

Purdue might be the first ever 11-7 Big Ten team to miss the tournament.

I have never thought much of Painter's Purdue teams, but I actually think he's done a great job with this year's team and deserves to be in the tournament. Their RPI of course is pulled down by some ridiculous losses early in the season that they'd never lose now.
 

Purdue might be the first ever 11-7 Big Ten team to miss the tournament.

I have never thought much of Painter's Purdue teams, but I actually think he's done a great job with this year's team and deserves to be in the tournament. Their RPI of course is pulled down by some ridiculous losses early in the season that they'd never lose now.

Had the Gophers won one more game and finished 7-9, I think it would be interesting to see how two vastly different records in Big Ten play would stack up against each other. Not sure if Purdue has an easier conference schedule or not, but with the unbalanced nature of it, there has to be better chances for lower teams to leapfrog it appears and conference standings meaning less than ever (if they ever meant anything at all).
 






Top Bottom