Rank the resumes 2/11/14 version

Donate To GopherHole
Dano564

Dano564

Fleck Superfan
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
10,213
Reaction score
3,016
Points
113
If you desire, rank the following teams best to worst.


Team A
19-11
Vs Top 25: 1-5
Vs 26-51: 1-2
Vs 51-100: 4-5
Worst three losses: 110, 114, 138
RPI: 58

Team B
20-11
Vs Top 25: 2-4
Vs 26-51: 1-3
Vs 51-100: 5-5
Worst three losses: 76, 79, 86
RPI: 49

Team C
20-10
Vs Top 25: 2-4
Vs 26-51: 1-3
Vs 51-100: 5-5
Worst three losses: 61, 82, 178
RPI: 69

Team D
17-14
Vs Top 25: 3-11
Vs 26-51: 2-2
Vs 51-100: 4-3
Worst three losses: 81, 99, 107
RPI: 57

Team E
16-13
Vs Top 25: 2-7
Vs 26-51: 4-7
Vs 51-100: 2-2
Worst three losses: 36, 66,126
RPI: 62


EDIT E to make sense:
Team E
16-13
Vs Top 25: 3-7
Vs 26-51: 4-6
Vs 51-100: 2-2
Worst three losses: 36, 66,126
RPI: 62
 


B
C
A
D
E

I'd be curious to know why anyone would take C over B.

ETA: Did GopherGuy change his rankings or did I look at them wrong? I thought he had C before B so that is why I posed that question.
 

A little bit later I'll share on what these records / resumes are.
 

With this info, I'd go:

B
C
A
E
D

Am very curious who Team A is, and what year this was.
 


Interesting.

People seem to like B&C consistently, meanwhile they have the highest and lowest RPI's.
B has the best RPI with the "best" worst losses.
C has the lowest RPI, and the worst loss overall, but that must not be weighing heavily on our committee.
 

MadtownGopher said:
B
C
A
D
E

I'd be curious to know why anyone would take C over B.

ETA: Did GopherGuy change his rankings or did I look at them wrong? I thought he had C before B so that is why I posed that question.
Click to expand...

I changed it immediately after I posted, so it didn't show up as edited. I meant to put B first, but I put C first by mistake.
 

Face The Facts said:
Interesting.

People seem to like B&C consistently, meanwhile they have the highest and lowest RPI's.
B has the best RPI with the "best" worst losses.
C has the lowest RPI, and the worst loss overall, but that must not be weighing heavily on our committee.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for me it came down to D and E's really low win total. I've always thought a team had to be around the 20 win mark to make the tournament. I know that isn't always true, but that is just my own personal bench mark. I can't remember the last at-large bid to make the tournament with only 16 or 17 wins. You usually only see those types of win totals from mid-major teams that ran the table in their conference tournament.
 

Face The Facts said:
Interesting.

People seem to like B&C consistently, meanwhile they have the highest and lowest RPI's.
B has the best RPI with the "best" worst losses.
C has the lowest RPI, and the worst loss overall, but that must not be weighing heavily on our committee.
Click to expand...

I think you should play your own game. :)
 




B
C
A
E
D

Did you copy the stats down wrong, or am I interpreting them wrong? For example Team E is 16-13, but has 7 losses against the top 25, 7 more against 26-50, 2 against 51-100, and their worst loss is against a >100 RPI team, so going by that, it would seem they actually have 17 losses. Also Team A is listed as having 11 total losses, but then is shown to have 12 against the top 100 alone, with 3 more outside the top 100 for a total of 15. Again maybe I'm just reading it wrong, so feel free to correct me.

Team E is kind of interesting in that while they have a lot of losses, most of them seem to be against top 30-ish teams. Looks like probably a major conference team that occasionally beats better teams and rarely loses to worse ones, the problem being that most of their games are against teams that are better than they are. Seems like if they played in a weaker mid-major conference they might only have 4 or 5 losses and be better set up to earn a tournament bid.
 

I would probably go with:


B
D
A
E
C
(In order of RPI in this case).
 

Cayman said:
B
C
A
E
D

Did you copy the stats down wrong, or am I interpreting them wrong? For example Team E is 16-13, but has 7 losses against the top 25, 7 more against 26-50, 2 against 51-100, and their worst loss is against a >100 RPI team, so going by that, it would seem they actually have 17 losses. Also Team A is listed as having 11 total losses, but then is shown to have 12 against the top 100 alone, with 3 more outside the top 100 for a total of 15. Again maybe I'm just reading it wrong, so feel free to correct me.

Team E is kind of interesting in that while they have a lot of losses, most of them seem to be against top 30-ish teams. Looks like probably a major conference team that occasionally beats better teams and rarely loses to worse ones, the problem being that most of their games are against teams that are better than they are. Seems like if they played in a weaker mid-major conference they might only have 4 or 5 losses and be better set up to earn a tournament bid.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing this out.
I corrected it. Should make sense now. (Too much manual math for me).
 



Team E is Baylor if they finish 4-4 from here out.
 


Team A is LSU if they go 4-4 from here.
Team B is Richmond if they go 5-3 from here.
Team C is Saint joseph's if they go 4-3 the rest of the way.
Team D is Minnesota if they go 2-5 the rest of the way (7-11 Big Ten Record) with a first round BTT tourney loss.
Team E is Baylor if they finish 4-4.

In each case, I assumed the wins came against the lowest ranked RPI's and the losses came against the best RPI teams remaining on their schedules.
 


Right now, Lunardi has A (LSU) and D (Minnesota) in based of current records of course.
(B) Richmond isn't even in his group of first out.
They are not on his radar as of today.
 


I just wanted to post this example.
The far an away leader seems to be "B" who is Richmond who on Lunardi's bracket right now isn't even getting mentions.
Meanwhile, A is currently in, but unlikely to be in if you ask me.
 

Face The Facts said:
I just wanted to post this example.
The far an away leader seems to be "B" who is Richmond who on Lunardi's bracket right now isn't even getting mentions.
Meanwhile, A is currently in, but unlikely to be in if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Thanks for doing this. Always interesting, but anticipating future games somewhat skews the system I think. By the end of next week when we can see more real and less anticipated data, Lunardi and the Holers may be closer to the same page.
 

Holy Man said:
Thanks for doing this. Always interesting, but anticipating future games somewhat skews the system I think. By the end of next week when we can see more real and less anticipated data, Lunardi and the Holers may be closer to the same page.
Click to expand...

The projected RPI is a nice tool. It's cool to see where the Gophers might end up if they win the games they're supposed to and lose the games they're supposed to. But how often in sport does that happen? That's why we love sports. Quite often the unexpected happens. Just like the bubble changes daily, so does the projected RPI. Especially at this late juncture of the season, IMO it's better to deal in games that have already occurred than ones that haven't.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom