This seeding has got to be fixed. We have a 60 RPI team with an at-large bid, and is a 13 seed at that?

It's my team and while I'm happy to go, I think it is a travesty to be picked and seeded that high. Sure we have a good team, but there were 7 other teams with lower RPI's that are in the PIT.

On another note, is that the highest RPI for an at-large you've ever seen?

your record, combined with the fact that you are 3-3 against the top 50 rpi teams, makes you a solid at-large bid to me.

I had a 63 rpi and got an at-large bid. I was pretty suprised when that happened but I only had one loss in my last 10 games, conf tourney final.

Yeah, but my record is loaded with pasty wins, billyg. Like I said, I'm happy we are in and I think the team is good enough, but I really don't think we are necessarily more worthy than 1 of the 7 that didn't get in.

Same scenario, bigbucks.

Quote: Originally posted by doomey on 1/07/2010Yeah, but my record is loaded with pasty wins, billyg. Like I said, I'm happy we are in and I think the team is good enough, but I really don't think we are necessarily more worthy than 1 of the 7 that didn't get in.Same scenario, bigbucks.

yeah, i definitely see where you are coming from. still, you went 3-3 against the top 50 teams, aka the solid NT crowd, which is definitely worthy of making the NT. and you went 19-1 against everyone else. even if those other 20 teams sucked, i can't knock the seeding system for putting you in.

Think I saw one with a 67 or 68, I'll have to check. I'm not certain, but it appears something was changed.

21 shawnnj 19-11 7-6 10-3 2-2 11-5 70 B+ NT At-large Bid
NT (1st Round)

Hawaii Pacific (19-10, 67)

I got in with a 64 or 65 RPI once at Belmont Abbey, but that was many seasons ago.

I actually was thinking this morning that things had gotten better as I saw I was a #13 seed after winning my conference tourney to get in the NT with Marist in Wooden. I had a smoke and mirrors ranking (#20) based upon a ghost conference and no premium quality wins. Past experience would've led me to believe I would have received an unjustified higher seeding but it seemed to work out better this time. Probably should've been a 14 or 15 seed but was surprised (in a good way) they seemed to have pegged it this time.

On a side note, RPI is not the end all that people believe it to be. Its not meant to rank teams in a perfect manner from 1-300. Just not built that way. If people look at RPI as more of a general grouping then there will be less shock as to a 60 getting in and a 50 being out. The perception of the RPI by the users creates a big part of the problem.

I'm not in your world, so I can't see all of the seedings, but what was the highest RPI that didn't get an at-large? In Tark D2, the last two or three seasons all but two of the top 64 RPI's got in thanks to a lack of upsets in the conference tournaments.

54 I believe.

namshub, oh, I know that, but taking it all in (RPI, SOS, quality wins) I still don't think we put enough on the floor to justify it. It's not the worst I've seen, but it ranks up there.

Yeah, I've gotten in as a 60+. I was surprised at first, but when I looked at record vs. top 25/50/100, wins, last 10, etc., I actually was pretty even.

Quote: Originally Posted By thewizard2 on 1/07/201021 shawnnj 19-11 7-6 10-3 2-2 11-5 70 B+ NT At-large Bid
NT (1st Round)

Hawaii Pacific (19-10, 67

Past team histories are not very accurate... Since it shows season end RPI which is usually not the same as NT selection RPI.

i think that 19-10, 67 rpi is from the NT seeding page.

This year in Phelan D2 Seattle go an at large bid with a 70 RPI