33 RPI misses NT? Topic

dahsdebater
Posts: 10043 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 293 18
Pro
My Rochester team just missed the NT a few seasons ago with an RPI in the mid-30s.  Didn't even get a particularly high PIT seed - 3 or 4 I think.  It definitely happens in D3.
6/11/2012 2:41 AM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Posted by gomiami1972 on 6/11/2012 1:05:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tianyi7886 on 6/11/2012 12:42:00 AM (view original):
It happens quite a bit in D2/D3. 
It never did before the formula change.  I looked in the archive for Tark between seasons 32-62 and only a combined 6 DII/DIII teams with an RPI better than 50 were relegated to the PIT (two of them were ineligible for the NT because they had losing records.)  The lowest RPI for a team with a winning record in the PIT was 45.

I can't verify more recent seasons because the archive is blank for seasons 63 to present.  If it happens quite a bit, it's been in 2012 only.
That's what I meant, it happens quite a bit since projection report is introduced. 
6/11/2012 2:42 AM
gomiami1972
Posts: 4545 (1)
Hall of Famer
18 1 1 555 49 141
Pro
Posted by tianyi7886 on 6/11/2012 2:42:00 AM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 6/11/2012 1:05:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tianyi7886 on 6/11/2012 12:42:00 AM (view original):
It happens quite a bit in D2/D3. 
It never did before the formula change.  I looked in the archive for Tark between seasons 32-62 and only a combined 6 DII/DIII teams with an RPI better than 50 were relegated to the PIT (two of them were ineligible for the NT because they had losing records.)  The lowest RPI for a team with a winning record in the PIT was 45.

I can't verify more recent seasons because the archive is blank for seasons 63 to present.  If it happens quite a bit, it's been in 2012 only.
That's what I meant, it happens quite a bit since projection report is introduced. 
OK, gotcha.
6/11/2012 3:13 AM
grantduck
Posts: 290 (0)
Hall of Famer
73
Prospect
Posted by majresorter on 6/10/2012 8:49:00 PM (view original):
My Creighton team just missed the national tournament with a 33 RPI. Has this ever happened before? Why is it happening? 
The formula change, from everything I've seen, has been significantly worse as far as selecting teams.
6/11/2012 4:10 AM
udm_mike
Posts: 603 (0)
Hall of Famer
109
Rookie
Posted by isack24 on 6/10/2012 11:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 6/10/2012 11:25:00 PM (view original):
I wonder if anybody can show an example of a DII or DIII team with a 33 RPI (who is qualified) being left out of the NT?  My guess would be no although I'm not for certain.

WIS is creating a mirror image of real life...complete with all of the unnecessary bias that takes into account the name on the front of the jersey.
I think it's pretty obvious that maj's team isn't an NT team.  What's your argument for them getting in?  And no, I don't think RPI/SOS is a good justification, if that was going to be the answer.

Agreed.  I can't stand the gaming that goes on with getting artificially inflated RPI's.

6/11/2012 6:19 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 667 3
Pro
Majorly BETTER - and I say that having had it cost me seeding and an NT appearance.

6/11/2012 8:04 AM
10downing
Posts: 15 (0)
Pro
10
Prospect
Woe to the HD coach who still uses RPI as anything like a litmus test for NT inclusion or seeding. Actual wins count much more now (in the calc that orders the postseason report), road games are much less valuable, and home wins are much more valuable, especially against quality opponents. Artificially inflated RPIs used to work. Now they don't.
6/11/2012 8:04 AM
10downing
Posts: 15 (0)
Pro
10
Prospect
And yes, the new calcs are way better. No more stud 8 seeds and poor 4 seeds. Now teams are much more equitibly seeded. Not perfect, of course, but way, way better.
6/11/2012 8:06 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 667 3
Pro
Posted by gomiami1972 on 6/11/2012 1:05:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tianyi7886 on 6/11/2012 12:42:00 AM (view original):
It happens quite a bit in D2/D3. 
It never did before the formula change.  I looked in the archive for Tark between seasons 32-62 and only a combined 6 DII/DIII teams with an RPI better than 50 were relegated to the PIT (two of them were ineligible for the NT because they had losing records.)  The lowest RPI for a team with a winning record in the PIT was 45.

I can't verify more recent seasons because the archive is blank for seasons 63 to present.  If it happens quite a bit, it's been in 2012 only.
Keep in mind, that search isn't quite accurate:  Any of the lower rated teams that make it into the NT and make any sort of a run are going to have their RPI improve - and possibly knock someone else's down, say, under fifty.  Just saying that the final RPI's don't match the RPI's at 'Time of selection'
6/11/2012 8:08 AM
abitaamber
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1 102 5
Prospect
The formula change, from everything I've seen, has been significantly worse as far as selecting teams.

You are clearly in the minority on that thinking.  It's MUCH better...to the extent that it's comical to suggest otherwise.
6/11/2012 9:07 AM
jsajsa
Posts: 631 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 28 1 133 3
Rookie
How is it comical? I do think this way is better, but really it's not like we've stumbled on anything perfect. The formula still needs work. The old way could be gamed through good road scheduling and this way is gamed simply by playing in a good conference.
6/11/2012 9:30 AM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
For what it's worth, I do think despite its falws, RPI is a useful tool for evaluating teams.  For the majority of teams - those that don't have a bunch of good sims - RPI is often moderately indicative of team strength.  The problem is the ease in which RPI is "gamed."  I don't think there is anything wrong with posting RPI - just as in real life - but there has to be a better way to evaluate NT seeding.  Kudos to seble for a new solution.  Even if imperfect, it is still much better, in my opinion.
6/11/2012 10:37 AM
gomiami1972
Posts: 4545 (1)
Hall of Famer
18 1 1 555 49 141
Pro
Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/11/2012 8:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 6/11/2012 1:05:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tianyi7886 on 6/11/2012 12:42:00 AM (view original):
It happens quite a bit in D2/D3. 
It never did before the formula change.  I looked in the archive for Tark between seasons 32-62 and only a combined 6 DII/DIII teams with an RPI better than 50 were relegated to the PIT (two of them were ineligible for the NT because they had losing records.)  The lowest RPI for a team with a winning record in the PIT was 45.

I can't verify more recent seasons because the archive is blank for seasons 63 to present.  If it happens quite a bit, it's been in 2012 only.
Keep in mind, that search isn't quite accurate:  Any of the lower rated teams that make it into the NT and make any sort of a run are going to have their RPI improve - and possibly knock someone else's down, say, under fifty.  Just saying that the final RPI's don't match the RPI's at 'Time of selection'
If I'm looking at the archive correctly, it should be a snapshot of the team RPI at the time of NT/PIT selection and not after the end of the season.  Any RPI improvement due to a team making a run would not be reflected.
6/11/2012 11:01 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 667 3
Pro
Ah,  ENtirely possible.  I haven't looked at it much.  I just presumed that it was like the other bits and it kept changing to seasons end.

6/11/2012 11:09 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
This seems a bit ridiculous, you would think that a 33 RPI is a lock.
6/11/2012 11:39 AM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
33 RPI misses NT? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.