I am just trying to figure it out also. Now that you pointed the quality wins I can see the logic in my missing the post season. My conference is all SIMs and weak. I think there is something for sure with schedule alone being not being enough.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 12/25/2011 11:04:00 PM (view original):
Well, unfortunately, really can't comment on your tark season because I don't have a game log to look at for it any more.  Still, I am definitely in favor of not letting RPI be the end all.

I don't think RPI should be the end all either.  IMO though the old system while flawed was better then this one which is also flawed.   I understand what they are trying to do I just don't know if it's possable to do with a program and didn't really see the need to change it.

Ad I tend to lean the other way>  I can live with the flaws of this way better than the flaws of the other way.

c'est la vie.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 12/25/2011 10:04:00 PM (view original):
I mean, losses to #186 twice, 102 and 107, on the other hand, the two top fifty, four top 100, and almost another top 50 . . .

that's no ordinary 102...

Granted, Dacj.  I'm only talking pure math.  Takes nothing else into consideration.

does anyone else appreciate the irony of the thread starter's username?

I don't know, based on his RPI, I personally think he should've gotten in. Poor record or not against the Top 50 and Top 100, 70 should've been good enough IMO. 

Posted by thewizard10 on 12/26/2011 8:42:00 PM (view original):
I don't know, based on his RPI, I personally think he should've gotten in. Poor record or not against the Top 50 and Top 100, 70 should've been good enough IMO. 

if seedings were solely based on RPI I'd agree. But I agree with the camp that thinks RPI alone is not the best indicator of team strength, and that the strongest teams should get the bids...

Posted by dacj501 on 12/26/2011 8:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard10 on 12/26/2011 8:42:00 PM (view original):
I don't know, based on his RPI, I personally think he should've gotten in. Poor record or not against the Top 50 and Top 100, 70 should've been good enough IMO. 

if seedings were solely based on RPI I'd agree. But I agree with the camp that thinks RPI alone is not the best indicator of team strength, and that the strongest teams should get the bids...

I agree the RPI shouldn't be the only indicator, however I think if somebody has an RPI of 70 and it's the top 96 teams that get into both tournaments, then there is a major issue with the 1) the RPI system 2) the way WIS has factored in who gets into the NIT or 3) a combination of both.

I could see the point if he was 18-11(or whatever the record was) and had an RPI of 90, and then we could make an argument maybe he shouldn't get in going 1-9 vs the Top 100 RPI. 

I'm retracting my statement when he said "he should've gotten in". The logical answer is " I don't know". However, we can conclude that something needs to be fixed if he had an RPI of 70 and didn't make it into the PIT.

The issue of the HCA at D-3, while scheduling winnable away games and getting full credit for a road win, despite the lack of range of HCA might need to be looked into.

Posted by thewizard10 on 12/26/2011 9:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 12/26/2011 8:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard10 on 12/26/2011 8:42:00 PM (view original):
I don't know, based on his RPI, I personally think he should've gotten in. Poor record or not against the Top 50 and Top 100, 70 should've been good enough IMO. 

if seedings were solely based on RPI I'd agree. But I agree with the camp that thinks RPI alone is not the best indicator of team strength, and that the strongest teams should get the bids...

I agree the RPI shouldn't be the only indicator, however I think if somebody has an RPI of 70 and it's the top 96 teams that get into both tournaments, then there is a major issue with the 1) the RPI system 2) the way WIS has factored in who gets into the NIT or 3) a combination of both.

I could see the point if he was 18-11(or whatever the record was) and had an RPI of 90, and then we could make an argument maybe he shouldn't get in going 1-9 vs the Top 100 RPI. 

There ARE major problems with the RPI system.
RPI, really, is only about 25% your own actions. . and 75% what other people do.  Is it really the best to select the best teams by how well their opponents perform in a given year?

What is the general consensus on lowest RPI making the PIT

Posted by caesari on 12/26/2011 11:16:00 PM (view original):
What is the general consensus on lowest RPI making the PIT

irrelevant. RPI is an easily manipulated metric that bears little resembelance to how good a team is. Look at my team in Rupp this season. I gamed the RPI like a boss and got a 5 seed out of it. We got our ***** beat by the 12, and rightly so...RPI should have little to do with seedings.

Maybe a team's non-conference record has some type of specific influence on seeding, because the team in question was 1 & 9? 

Posted by dacj501 on 12/26/2011 11:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by caesari on 12/26/2011 11:16:00 PM (view original):
What is the general consensus on lowest RPI making the PIT

irrelevant. RPI is an easily manipulated metric that bears little resembelance to how good a team is. Look at my team in Rupp this season. I gamed the RPI like a boss and got a 5 seed out of it. We got our ***** beat by the 12, and rightly so...RPI should have little to do with seedings.

At the minimum., your own record shoudl be 50% of any such calculation;  what you actually did with your schedule shouldn't be less important than what OTHERS did in your schedule.