Page 31 of 31 FirstFirst ... 21293031
Results 451 to 460 of 460
  1. #451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Face The Facts View Post
    What were the "serious flaws" of the RPI again?

    Something about valuing wins?
    I like RPI if you shifted the focus to your wins as number 1 priority
    Your SOS as number 2
    Your opponents SOS as number 3


    I don’t know what the order of those three priorities is right now


  2. #452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by upnorthkid View Post
    All of this will make it really interesting to see how much weight NET gets come selection sunday, both in regards to who is in as well as seeding
    I think they’ll use resume to pick who is in and then use net to seed.

  3. #453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Face The Facts View Post
    What were the "serious flaws" of the RPI again?

    Something about valuing wins?
    Actually about how poorly it measured who you beat and where. It measured winning%, Opponents winning % and opponents, opponents winning %. That could be gamed so easily. All you needed was a few games against great teams because even if you lost they won alot and so it did not hurt. Then games against teams that were just ok to boost your own % and so on and so forth. No sophistication to show for example that you just slipped by a mid major while someone else crushed a ranked team on the road. Since not everybody plays each other and no one can see every game of every team the coaches wanted something that measured how well you played and ppp does that to perfection. The best coaches and programs were using it for decades to get their teams focused on turnovers, shot selection and defense. I did not vote for it, i do not have a vote but what they came up with is so much better than RPI. Complain to the coaches committee and the metrics people and by the way, they have no bias to where their teams are ranked. Plus, what they do is not a hobby for them like it is for fans. Fans usually watch their team through a heavy bias and then rarely even watch other games to break down who is playing whom and where.

  4. #454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justthefacts View Post
    In 2018 mid-majors (including the American) got 5 at-large bids. NET didn't exist.
    In 2017 mid-majors (including the American) got 4 at-large bids. NET didn't exist.
    In 2016 mid-majors (including the American) got 6 at-large bids. NET didn't exist.

    In 2019 SelectionSunday has projected that mid-majors (including the American) will get 6 at-large bids. NET does exist.
    7 mid-majors in 2019. NET actually helped them.

  5. #455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justthefacts View Post
    7 mid-majors in 2019. NET actually helped them.
    Yup. Because somehow we have deemed beating Murray state on the road is an equal win to beating duke at home. Both quad 1

  6. #456

    Default

    So what i picked up on from yesterday was that the committee does not care about net or rpi. They pretty much admitted that sos does not matter.... "we looked at how those teams did with the opportunities given"

    They pretty much only looked at overall win% against quad 1 teams regardless if you had 2 of those games or 20....probably not the worst route to go, but its gonna make for a boring non conference

  7. #457
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Corn Field
    Posts
    23,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justthefacts View Post
    7 mid-majors in 2019. NET actually helped them.
    Maybe this happens every year but 2 of those at-larges were because Gonzaga and VCU didn't win their conference tournaments. They both win theirs and it may have been just 5.

  8. #458

    Default

    I know it is part of the intrigue of the tournament (bubble teams, seeding, etc.) but doesn't it seem like we all get too worked about whether or not the 9th place Big Ten team or the 6th place Big 12 team or the 8th place ACC team or whatever random (insert team here) gets in to the tournament? As we saw this year, when we get to the bubble teams, these are all really mediocre teams by any metric.

  9. #459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golfing18now View Post
    I know it is part of the intrigue of the tournament (bubble teams, seeding, etc.) but doesn't it seem like we all get too worked about whether or not the 9th place Big Ten team or the 6th place Big 12 team or the 8th place ACC team or whatever random (insert team here) gets in to the tournament? As we saw this year, when we get to the bubble teams, these are all really mediocre teams by any metric.
    Completely agree.

    I missed two in my bracket picks (had TCU/Alabama instead of Belmont/Temple), but it was basically a crapshoot between those teams in my eyes and I have zero problem with the teams selected by the committee. I actually think the committee did a pretty awesome job this year. Sure, there's a team or two where I don't really agree with their seed. But I don't feel bad for teams with losses well into the double digits not getting in.

  10. #460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GophersInIowa View Post
    Maybe this happens every year but 2 of those at-larges were because Gonzaga and VCU didn't win their conference tournaments. They both win theirs and it may have been just 5.
    Though it was partly cancelled out with Oregon winning the Pac12 instead of Ariz St or Washington, giving the power conferences an extra bid.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •