OK, here's this year's RPI lowdown

[Indy Coug]

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2545050

[Detroitdad]

Thanks. It is just as we all suspected. Although it looks like the correlation with RPI has taken such a significant dip. I wonder why? I am not at all surprised that the mid-majors are the teams that took it in the shorts again. The empirical evidence shows such an obvious bias that it is amazing to me that the commitee sells itself as objective. Virginia as a 4 seed my butt.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I'm no expert on this, not by a long shot, but the brackets seem a little "cute" this year.

[jay santos]

Interesting, thanks. I was just going to do something like this because it looked like RPI wasn't as correlated this year. I was going to test rankings at
http://www.mratings.com/cb/compare.htm to see it RPI or computer rankings were more highly correlated. Did the committee have access to Sagarin or other rankings? This is pretty bogus. Set up a BCS-like standings with computer averages, feed the computer rules like no home games for underdogs (AHEM), the BYU Sunday rule, the no conference match up rule, and let the computer seed the teams. Give the Doctuh the time to find coaches he's fired and not pretend he's representing conference peers.

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

Thanks. It is just as we all suspected. Although it looks like the correlation with RPI has taken such a significant dip. I wonder why? I am not at all surprised that the mid-majors are the teams that took it in the shorts again. The empirical evidence shows such an obvious bias that it is amazing to me that the commitee sells itself as objective. Virginia as a 4 seed my butt.

Seems like it is used as a justification to get big conference teams in, but when that doesn't work out well then the "experts" talk about mid majors having inflated RPIs, when in fact, playing in a big conference would give a team more of an inflated RPI than anything.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Interesting, thanks. I was just going to do something like this because it looked like RPI wasn't as correlated this year. I was going to test rankings at
http://www.mratings.com/cb/compare.htm to see it RPI or computer rankings were more highly correlated. Did the committee have access to Sagarin or other rankings? This is pretty bogus. Set up a BCS-like standings with computer averages, feed the computer rules like no home games for underdogs (AHEM), the BYU Sunday rule, the no conference match up rule, and let the computer seed the teams. Give the Doctuh the time to find coaches he's fired and not pretend he's representing conference peers.

You do know that Dr. Hill is not allowed to talk about teams in his conference, no?

BYU may have been seeded lower than you thought it would, but that isn't the fault of Dr. Hill.

It seems your dislike of all things Utah is showing through. Again.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

Seems like it is used as a justification to get big conference teams in, but when that doesn't work out well then the "experts" talk about mid majors having inflated RPIs, when in fact, playing in a big conference would give a team more of an inflated RPI than anything.

Exactly. And of course the big conference schools also play almost all of their tough non-conference opponents at home. And if the commitee does not use objectivity then there is no incentive to change, but that what it is all about.

[UteStar]

You all realize this but the biggest problem that BYU had was that they had ZERO quality out of conference wins and they did nothing on the road out of conference. Add to that a couple of real bad losses and you have a selection committee that will lower their seed.

Yes, the MoWest conference often gets screwed when looking at their RPI and then comparing it with their actual seeds. The problem for BYU was they did nothing to warrant the selection committee changing their ways.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by UteStar

You all realize this but the biggest problem that BYU had was that they had ZERO quality out of conference wins and they did nothing on the road out of conference. Add to that a couple of real bad losses and you have a selection committee that will lower their seed.

Yes, the MoWest conference often gets screwed when looking at their RPI and then comparing it with their actual seeds. The problem for BYU was they did nothing to warrant the selection committee changing their ways.

I have to agree with you UteStar. We did absolutely nothing out of conference and our biggest win was against an AF team that went to hell to end the season. I think the 8 seed is deserved. There were certainly some teams seeded higher that probably don't deserve it, but I'd wager that most of those teams have at least one signature win that beats anything we did this year.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by UteStar

You all realize this but the biggest problem that BYU had was that they had ZERO quality out of conference wins and they did nothing on the road out of conference. Add to that a couple of real bad losses and you have a selection committee that will lower their seed.

Yes, the MoWest conference often gets screwed when looking at their RPI and then comparing it with their actual seeds. The problem for BYU was they did nothing to warrant the selection committee changing their ways.

Utah State is a quality win with an rpi of 45. And if you look at the resumes of several other teams in the tournament such as Virginia you will notice few out of conference victories and several horrible losses. They get a 4 seed with a 55 rpi? Vanderbilt as a 6? USC a 5? Maryland as a 4?

However, I am upset about BYU's seeding but we did not get screwed the worst. I think a 6 or even a 7 would have been understandable. UNLV and Creighton got the worst treatment. They are both hugely underseeded. The top teams have got to frustrated with having to play better teams than their seed ought to have them playing.