My Bridgewater St. team ended up 14th in RPI, 6th in SOS, 5 wins against top 50, I ended up with 8 losses and I realize 4 of them were by teams outside the top 50 RPI but the other 4 were to top 30 RPI teams. I play in a cupcake conference but I've got a good thing going and don't want to leave B state but I received a 9 seed in the tournament, is this something I should "get used to"?? It is what it is, I just would like to understand why and what I can change to not have to face a ranked team first round and if I get by them a #1 seed after having a rather successful season. Any advice or explanation would be appreciated.

http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=2182 I have a similar situation but my season is not over but im heading down the same path. Ill let you know what seed I get.

I would send a ticket about this.  I would expect you to have had a better seed, even with all of the painfully easy games you played in-conference.

The losses to the 100+ RPI teams are what killed you.

Yeah, 4-3 against RPI top-25, 1-1 vs 26-50, and 0-1 vs 51-100.

On top of that you have 3 losses to 100+ teams.

A 9 doesn't seem out of whack to me.  RPI is bolstered by the strong SOS, but you didn't play those teams particularly well.  

I definitely don't think it's ticket-worthy, and I actually think it's more accurate than if you had been seeded by RPI.

4-3 against top 25, but I "didn't play those teams particularly well" you're gonna have to explain that a little better please

I think if you had won any ONE of those four losses against RPI 91 or better you might have had a significantly better seed.

Posted by duece_duece on 6/10/2012 11:18:00 PM (view original):
4-3 against top 25, but I "didn't play those teams particularly well" you're gonna have to explain that a little better please

I was look at the top 100.  Yeah, you were perfectly fine against the top 25.  But then you were worse than fine (1-2) against 26-100.  To me, that averages to fine, but not any better.

You'd have a gripe if you didn't make the NT, but without actually comparing, I'm sure there are 30 or so teams with better paper resumes.

It really seems like every time someone is upset with their seed, it's always rooted in RPI, which I think is an extremely flawed basis for arguing seeds, making the NT, etc.

I think the new system is WAY better than the old one, which was solely based on RPI, and more easily manipulated by scheduling mediocre sims in bad conferences on the road.

isack - thanks for your posts in these threads - you're doing a good job of breaking down the issue

Appreciate it, although I imagine that's the minority opinion :)

isack, good eval. Helps us all.

Ok thanks for the explanation.

Yeah.  The top seeds generally have winning records vs. the RPI top 100.