Quote: Originally posted by Rails on 3/15/2010I've made a point that states that RPIs 60-75 are virtually equal.  So it comes down to more.  MN was 5-7 versus RPI 1-50 and they had beat OSU earlier in the season.  Miss St was 2-5 versus RPI 1-50.  Illinois was 5-9 versus RPI 1-50.  MN also beat ILL.If you want to make a case that the final game is more important than one 3 weeks ago, fine.  But RPIs don't matter as much irl when they are very similar. 

Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 3/15/2010I know, I know...don't tell us about your rankings...but I have Mississippi State 53rd and Minnesota 64th....neither would have likely made it if my rankings were in place, but you also conveniently out the fact that MSU had/has a better RPI than Minnesota as well.Given Minnesota's final performance, a 29 point loss to Ohio State, I'm shocked as hell that they got in...it seems that the committee had its mind made up before the game ended, and that's a problem within the committee IMO.  Mississippi State the better lasting impression, and that should have counted for something.

Quote: Originally Posted By schroedess26 on 3/15/2010

Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 3/15/2010
I know, I know...don't tell us about your rankings...but I have Mississippi State 53rd and Minnesota 64th....neither would have likely made it if my rankings were in place, but you also conveniently out the fact that MSU had/has a better RPI than Minnesota as well.

Given Minnesota's final performance, a 29 point loss to Ohio State, I'm shocked as hell that they got in...it seems that the committee had its mind made up before the game ended, and that's a problem within the committee IMO. Mississippi State the better lasting impression, and that should have counted for something.

I thought you hated RPI by the way? I think its a useful tool, but by itself its kind of incomplete. With that said, its the main ranking that the committee looks at/takes into account So why does it matter if one is 53 and Minn is 64? The point I am trying to make is that Minnesota had more Big Game wins where as MSU had more bad game losses. Those 53s and 64s are my rankings which consider each game individually. In my field of 64, neither make it...but if one were going to make it over the other, it would have been Mississippi State rather clearly. What happened yesterday considerably backs my point/conclusion.

Also in the past you have said 1 game shouldn't matter its all about body of work over the course of the season. Right, it is and that's what my rankings reflect, however I was talking more from a committee standpoint where they take into account things like recent performance, CT performance, current team quality, and based on those credentials, I don't see how you take Minnesota over MSU, and to have it set in stone before the CT games were even played is simply ridiculous. When teams have comparable W/L records it usually comes down to the Great Wins and Bad losses in which case both times it goes to Minn. The entire body of work via my rankings says the opposite. I'll have to check the Massey correlation and see what that says.

In the end you are now thinking that a 1 point loss is different than a 20 point loss? You said that a loss is a loss the last time I remembered right? Point margin matters in my rankings, always has, thus certainly there's a big difference between a 1 point loss to a better team and a 29 point loss to a worse team. I never said or suggested that point margin didn't matter. So in other words it doesn't matter that MSU loss in OT cause they have a loss just like Minn has a loss. I really don't think you can make a case that MSU has a better body of work.

No onto UTEP let me look them over

Quote: Originally posted by coach_billyg on 3/15/2010i can see how miss state should probably have been out, but "i see absolutely no argument for miss state getting into the field" is at least as ridiculous, and probably ten times more so, than what colonels is claiming.

they beat top 25 vandy and lost by 1 to kentucky in overtime, in a game they should have won, to close the season. no doubt they are more dangerous than a some of the teams that made it in ahead of them.

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 3/15/2010also colonels... i really dont think the committee gives a crap about rpi.

to me, the biggest outrages of the seeding process were cal and duke