Those that have failed to get at-large with RPI of #39 or better

Donate To GopherHole
S

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
24,702
Reaction score
4,848
Points
113
For those inclined to wonder about such things, since the 1999-2000 season only 16 teams have failed to receive at-large bids with a sub-40 RPI. Only two of those were Big 6 schools.

And only once has a team in the 20s (#21 Missouri State in 2005-06) been left out.

1999-00 -- #34 Southwest (now) Missouri State, #36 Kent State, #39 Vanderbilt
2000-01 -- none
2001-02 -- none
2002-03 -- none
2003-04 -- #38 LSU
2004-05 -- #39 Miami-Ohio
2005-06 -- #21 Missouri State, #30 Hofstra, #39 Creighton
2006-07 -- #30 Air Force, #36 Missouri State, #38 Bradley, #39 Drexel
2007-08 -- #32 Dayton, #33 Illinois State
2008-09 -- #34 San Diego State
2009-10 -- none
Since Field Expanded to 68
2010-11 -- #35 Harvard
2011-12 -- none

A breakdown by tier:

Big 6 (2)
LSU
Vanderbilt

Next Tier: frequently receive multiple bids (9) -- A-10, Missouri Valley, Mountain West
Missouri State (3)
Air Force
Bradley
Creighton
Dayton
Illinois State
San Diego State

Mid-/Small-Majors (5)
Drexel
Harvard
Hofstra
Kent State
Miami-Ohio

The bubble hasn't been kind to Missouri State.
 

I requested this info in another thread, so I appreciate you doing the research SS.
 

SelectionSunday said:
1999-00 -- #34 Southwest (now) Missouri State
2005-06 -- #21 Missouri State
2006-07 -- #36 Missouri State

Missouri State (3)

The bubble hasn't been kind to Missouri State.
Click to expand...

What the hell does the NCAA have against Missouri State? Wichita State grad on the committee???
 

tjgopher said:
What the hell does the NCAA have against Missouri State?
Click to expand...

Or even a step further, the Missouri Valley. Right now if I'm Wichita State (#38), Creighton (#50), or Indiana State (#59), I'm getting really nervous.

But as is always the case (or supposed to be), teams get at-large bids, not conferences. Each school is its own entity.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Or even a step further, the Missouri Valley. Right now if I'm Wichita State (#38), Creighton (#50), or Indiana State (#59), I'm getting really nervous.

But as is always the case (or supposed to be), teams get at-large bids, not conferences. Each school is its own entity.
Click to expand...

I think it's a good sign that the committee doesn't use the RPI very strictly. I've heard about conference commissioners (specifically Conference USA the last couple of years) instructing ADs to stay away from scheduling teams from certain conferences. If you don't schedule teams from the bottom 8 conferences or so you can really get a nice artificial bump in your RPI numbers. Trouncing horrible teams shouldn't hurt a teams ranking, but the RPI severely punishes teams for even playing such games, no matter what the score is. Likewise, a mediocre team will get a nice bump in their RPI for merely playing a very good team, regardless of the outcome. It's all quite ridiculous. Any undergrad stats/math major could come up with a far, far better system for ranking teams than the antiquated RPI. If they don't want scoring margin to matter, just use the old ELO-Chess ranking system. I think that is one of Sagarin's methods.
 


In terms of a team's individual RPI, I don't give it much credence, unless we're talking about RPIs that get into the 60s and 70s. Teams with that kind of number aren't going to get at-large bids very often, nor should they in most cases.

Where I like the RPI as an effective measuring tool is vs. the top 25, vs. the top 50, vs. the top 100, etc. There has to be at least some subjective measure of how teams perform vs. quality competition. I am not a big fan of the "eye test". ... that's a catch phrase for "They look great, but they haven't really beaten anybody."

If the Selection Committee switches their emphasis from the RPI to to KenPom, Sagarin, BPI, etc., would have no problem with that. Coaches and schedule-makers would adjust accordingly, too. But until we hear otherwise, I'll stick with the RPI as my guide (but not my be all & end all).
 


SelectionSunday said:
In terms of a team's individual RPI, I don't give it much credence, unless we're talking about RPIs that get into the 60s and 70s. Teams with that kind of number aren't going to get at-large bids very often, nor should they in most cases.

Where I like the RPI as an effective measuring tool is vs. the top 25, vs. the top 50, vs. the top 100, etc. There has to be at least some subjective measure of how teams perform vs. quality competition. I am not a big fan of the "eye test". ... that's a catch phrase for "They look great, but they haven't really beaten anybody."

If the Selection Committee switches their emphasis from the RPI to to KenPom, Sagarin, BPI, etc., would have no problem with that. Coaches and schedule-makers would adjust accordingly, too. But until we hear otherwise, I'll stick with the RPI as my guide (but not my be all & end all).
Click to expand...

If they don't use the actual rank, why does it make any sense to use vs. top 50 or top 100? Aren't the teams they beat there just as ridiculously ranked? That just compounds the idiocy to confuse people into acceptance.
 

ParaBadger --

You have a right to believe as you do, but I disagree. NO system ever has or ever will be perfect, but what I like about the RPI is that it keeps teams honest.

College sports coaches, a majority of them, are SHAMELESS, they'd play 90% of their games vs high schools if they could get away with it and impress people with their gazillion wins by doing it.


The RPI has flaws, and I shed a tear for the poor little guy, that school ranked 333rd in the nation, who is so unfairly avoided when the Big Boys are making up their scedules, but the thing is, THERE ARE OVER 333 teams now playing Div 1A bb. The tournament has grown in size from 16 to 24 or whatever the # was in 1940, to sixty friggin eight, and there is talk of it getting bigger!?!

It's friggin ridiculous.


There NEEDS to be some way of keeping teams honest. A way or rewarding teams for playing challenging scedules. A system that does not reward teams like Mississippi for playing a schedule full of creampuffs, and does not punish a team like Minnesota that has played 9 teams ranked among the Top 32 in the nation.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom