With the win over Michigan, our RPI is now back at 14 with an SOS of 9.
http://realtimerpi.com/rpi_161_Women.html
http://realtimerpi.com/rpi_161_Women.html
RPI back to 14
- Thread starter RUClassof67
- Start date
Racking up those dollar signs. Only one loss to a team with a losing record, Washington State. WSU's RPI is 83.
This is huge. Even though we’re not in the dumb AP or coaches top 25, isn’t this what the NCAA committee uses? Would we not get a top-4 seed with this RPI? Or will we be shafted again
They would probably use a combination of both RPI and rankings. We could really use another top 15 win (either Ohio St or Maryland) plus wins over Iowa, Wisconsin and Northwestern. That said, the committee might still shaft us. The 4 game losing streak hurts. But I do believe, barring a disastrous finish that the win over Michigan gives us an NCAA bid. Seeding is still to be determined by how the rest of the season plays out.
I believe that version of Bracketology is from last week and doesn’t include Sunday’s game.
the win was huge because I believe it gives RU currently 6 top 50 wins and an opportunity for a 7th vs Iowa. Princeton barely in top 50 but Minnesota barely out so that number could shift. The overall SOS and rpi are things that can overcome a poor 6 game stretch and some losses to teams like PSU and WSU which will not be considered good losses when the dust settles.
I think if RU wins those last 3, even 2 losses in the next two will not matter....thats how huge this one was. It interesting to note that NC State is our best win and they have a better rpi than SC
I think if RU wins those last 3, even 2 losses in the next two will not matter....thats how huge this one was. It interesting to note that NC State is our best win and they have a better rpi than SC
I'm really pulling for a good seed for Rutgers. But RPI has been somewhat discredited for ranking teams. It's too easy to game the RPI, whether intentional or not.
The Rutgers schedule is good, but in large part that's because of the absence of super-low ranked teams, which would pull the SOS/RPI down. Some of those "$" wins are against lackluster competition (nobody is going to be boosting a team's seed based on wins over Houston, Princeton, MInnesota or Purdue, for example). The committee will appreciate the RPI as calculated, but will also realize that there aren't enough high-level opponents to justify top-4 seed.
Nobody in the B1G is going to get anything higher than a 4 (top 16), in my opinion. The league just isn't strong enough. Same as last year.
Sorry to be a jackass, and I hope I'm wrong...
That’s one way of looking at it. But another way to look at it is the 6 wins against RPI 50 or better teams and the defense which has held all but one team below their season average. For some the glass is half empty but for me it’s half full.
Creme’s latest (2/5) Bracketology does, in fact, have us as a 7 seed. But as usual it sends us to a ridiculous site in Eugene, OR. Got to win some more.
http://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/bracketology
Then that's even better. Fingers crossed. We need to beat Iowa and maybe OSU or Maryland to secure the NCAA tournament and to get a good seed. We can't hope to back our way in by just beating the sisters of the poor. Yesterday's win IMO was huge.
Pretty sure that the selection committee members are not watching every RU game. They look at numbers; a couple will have seen a few games, maybe. The long string of wins that includes early conference play followed by a moderate-length string of losses, nearly all road games, does not portray inconsistency. I imagine top impressions/assumptions will include slump, injury to top player, tougher opponents, poor road team. If the team wins two of the remaining road games, we end up with a (barely) winning road record, if I recall correctly. Of course, RU will need to win the majority of the remaining games to stay in the mix for a top-16 placement. With the outstanding home record, the committee may be influenced by subjective factors, e. g., an iconic coach reaching 1000 wins and a very good shot at RU getting back to the Sweet 16 after a decade.
Right now I just glad we are able to argue over what seed this team deserves.
After last season I would have accepted a double digit seed, this year, without complaint .
Great that this year is bringing out the complaints of RU being better than what some are predicting their seed will be
WTF “losses”? Can you tell me besides Washington State (who is still #83 in the RPI) which of our losses was a “WTF” loss?
@ #10 USC by 10
@ Purdue (16-8, 7-3 Big Ten)
@ Penn St (14-10, 5-6) by free throws with 1 sec.
Nebraska (17-7, 8-3 Big Ten, 8-0 on Road) by 10
@ Indiana by a basket/late bad call so then we had to foul (by 6)
@ #4 Maryland
.. if any of those keeps us out of the NCAA so be it but we also have wins over teams that have record of:
19-5, 18-6, 19-6, 17-6, 16-8, 15-9, 15-8, 14-4...
The list goes on.
Whether or not losses are "WTF" will be determined by where those teams rank in RPI, etc.
While a previous poster is correct that RPI is far from perfect and far from the only factor that the committee uses, it or something similar is used to determine where your losses and wins fall. Wins against the top 50 / top 100 RPI are "good wins"; losses to teams over 100 meh and worse when you get over 150.
Actual "rankings" of course are not used at all, and regarding no one seeing the games, that just isn't true. Members of the committee are assigned to watch various team's games.
Please point out where someone posted that no one sees the games. If you were referring to my post, please read what I wrote and please do not misrepresent what I write. Thank you.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/womens-basketball-selections-101-committee
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/womens-basketball-selections-101-committee
If one postulates that two members are assigned to each P5 conference, that means two people are mainly responsible for the eye test of 14 teams (for the B1G) with, ~30-game seasons (420 games). Let us drop the bottom four teams of the conference and only consider pre-tournament conference games (160 games). Two teams can be evaluated per game (80 games). Let us drop three more teams, and add two non-conference games for each team in the top half of the league and divide those between the two reviewers (35 games or 47-53 hours (roughly 10 hours per week--very manageable) of viewing, assuming they can fast forward through the videos). If RU games total one-seventh of the 35 games, that is five games, the outside limit of "few" (three to five in my mind). The B1G is tough because of how teams have risen and fallen during the season. The reviewers may try to fine-tune whether Maryland should be a two-seed or a three-seed. They may try to decide if Purdue and Nebraska should get a bid. If the reviewers get 20 hours per week during the time period of review--they all have other jobs and responsbilities--then two members may see more than a few, i. e., several, RU games. If someone has the template or guideline the reviewers use, that would be interesting information to share and could save hours of speculation.
If anyone is still reading, which theoretical five games do you hope the reviewers watch? My picks: South Carolina (SEC, neutral, scored 68 pts), NC State (ACC, home), Penn State (B1G, away, scored 67 pts), Michigan (B1G, home), Ohio State (B1G, away). I want a win at Ohio State.
I predict before the season is over that UConn will be the overall number one seed in the NCAA Tournament.Hopefully,there is at least one opponent that gives UConn a mini scare.
One note on this - the committee started including rankings in their evaluation a few years ago. They say they're a minor factor, but personally I think that they just were recognizing that members actually did look at the rankings in making their evaluations.
I would say replace Penn State with FDU. 101 points and lots of highlights ;)
Was that the game Scaife reached 1900 and had the behind-the-back move? Surely such a player should have a proper showcase.
I’d sign up for CMU and Oregon with UCONN on the other side of the bracket ... but we will get an 8 or 9 in UCONNs bracket.
a few scenerios......RU struggles the rest of the year and misses the NCAA or the most likely scenerio where RU treads water which is good enough to make the NCAA...they almost assuredly will go to Storrs and play in the 8/9 game matched up with UConn...only way to avoid this is winning alot down the stretch which means one of the next 2 is mandatory
I hope we finish strong and get a higher seed. I would also love it if we get in we're not in UCONN's bracket. I'm sick of seeing them and I would love it if we could surprise several teams in the tourney where we don't win one game and then we have to play a one seed especially the overall one seed.
No UConn in bracket would make me happy.
Hopefully the Michigan game got the $#1tty play overcome and out of their system and this team will make a strong finish. Helping earn a high seed and in a bracket that UConn is invisible, when you look at the teams in it :p
Hopefully the Michigan game got the $#1tty play overcome and out of their system and this team will make a strong finish. Helping earn a high seed and in a bracket that UConn is invisible, when you look at the teams in it :p
I do not involve myself in the politics on this board. I had no idea who said exactly what.
As I was writing, I simply recalled someone suggesting something about the committee not necessarily watching the games and I commented that they do. You are doubtless correct in the details, What I recollected was that, in an interview during a conference tourney on TV a few years ago - one of the members at the time, I think he was commissioner of the MAAC - saying that he was assigned to watch the games of a selection of teams that were under consideration. He didn't specify how many he watched, etc.
I actually find the pissing on each other that happens on this board annoying. I will not be taking part.
