Blind Resume 6-8 Seeding

D

DDThompson

Guest
Most of us would say that the RPI is a flawed standard, some would go so far to say that the RIP should RIP it's that bad. It's obvious there are flaws when Wofford is a 47, LA Tech a 58, and Yale and Harvard are at 61-62. As much as I enjoy watching UNI and Wichita State, they are overvalued at 13 and 15. To be fair, SMU is at 14, too. And if one looks at the RPI 30 lines you would see it cluttered with mid-major, even mid-minor teams.

But the RPI is a standard "equally applied" (cough-hack as re-reading the first paragraph) to all 349 teams so it's what the committee uses to evaluate seeding. Using the malfunctioning RPI I've listed the W-L records in four columns for you to gaze at, contemplate, navel-noodle, and seed. SOS and bad loss RPIs are listed, too.

They are:
Record vs. top 50,
50-100 RPIs,
then away/neutral record for top 100 RPIs, and
record against 100+ RPIs: those, it is said determine "bad losses" plus gives an indication of how many "cupcakes" are on the schedule. (on review: record vs 200+ teams)
Lastly, the column lists the RPI numbers for bad losses.

Oh, the 12 teams on lines 6-8 are from Palm's bracket rather than Lundardi. Why? I don't know. Palm has some funny tweets. And has better hair. Ok. It may not be better hair but at least it's his real hair.

Here you go. Don't reveal Iowa or the teams you know. Just look at the numbers and group your six, seven, and eight seeds. Don't just complain about Palm or Lundardi. Do it yourself.


TEAM.. >50... 51-100 ..>100 A/N ...100-349 ... ALL/nonSOS .. bad L

A .... 3-4 ...... 6-2 ...... 4-4 ........ 15-2 (6-0) .... 65/123 .. 122, 167

B .... 5-8 ...... 4-1 ...... 3-7 ........ 11-2 (5-0) .... 21/68 .... 152, 198

C .... 4-5 ...... 8-3 ...... 7-4 ........ 12-1 (7-0) .... 17/01 .... 117

D .... 8-6 ...... 3-2 ...... 4-6 ........ 10-4 (2-0).... 15/36 .... 129, 152, 198

E .... 2-2 ....... 5-2 ...... 2-4 ........ 20-0 (12-0) .... 99/45 .... (83 is worst RPI loss)

F .... 6-8 ....... 6-0 ...... 6-5 ........ 10-3 (2-1) ..... 7/18 ..... 148, 167, 247

G .... 4-6 ....... 5-3 ...... 5-5 ........ 12-2 (4-0).... 29/97 .... 106, 123

H .... 4-4 ....... 7-2 ...... 4-4 ........ 13-0 (11-0).... 39/12 .... (77 is worst RPI loss)

I ..... 3-7 ....... 4-0 ...... 2-6 ........ 16-1 (7-0).... 37/50 .... 122

J ..... 0-4 ....... 9-4 ...... 5-5 ........ 14-3 (9-2) .... 38/87 .... 154, 214, 219

K .... 3-6 ....... 6-2 ...... 5-5 ......... 13-2 (4-0).... 18/48 .... 126, 154

L ..... 4-5 ....... 3-0 ...... 4-4 ........ 18-2 (9-0)..... 87/63 .... 122, 184

I'll reveal the teams tomorrow during big ten championship.


PS: I was going to put non-conference record as a column but 11 of these teams have records of 9-3, 9-4 or 10-3. The exception is that team B had an 8-1 non-con record. I also noticed that quite a number of the 50-100 opponents for all of these teams were in-conference. Whatever that means.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry for ignoring your post, but I'm going to take this as another opportunity to complain about binning teams into groups of 50. As a math guy, it just infuriates me every time I see it. This is not a complaint against you, as you are just following convention used by the NCAA knuckleheads.

Anywho, carry on with the blind resume game.
 
Sorry dude... you lost me at most of us would say, wow
DDThompson said:
Most of us would say that the RPI is a flawed standard, some would go so far to say that the RIP should RIP it's that bad. It's obvious there are flaws when Wofford is a 47, LA Tech a 58, and Yale and Harvard are at 61-62. As much as I enjoy watching UNI and Wichita State, they are overvalued at 13 and 15. To be fair, SMU is at 14, too. And if one looks at the RPI 30 lines you would see it cluttered with mid-major, even mid-minor teams.

But the RPI is a standard "equally applied" (cough-hack as re-reading the first paragraph) to all 349 teams so it's what the committee uses to evaluate seeding. Using the malfunctioning RPI I've listed the W-L records in four columns for you to gaze at, contemplate, navel-noodle, and seed. SOS and bad loss RPIs are listed, too.

They are:
Record vs. top 50,
50-100 RPIs,
then away/neutral record for top 100 RPIs, and
record against 100+ RPIs: those, it is said determine "bad losses" plus gives an indication of how many "cupcakes" are on the schedule. (on review: record vs 200+ teams)
Lastly, the column lists the RPI numbers for bad losses.

Oh, the 12 teams on lines 6-8 are from Palm's bracket rather than Lundardi. Why? I don't know. Palm has some funny tweets. And has better hair. Ok. It may not be better hair but at least it's his real hair.

Here you go. Don't reveal Iowa or the teams you know. Just look at the numbers and group your six, seven, and eight seeds. Don't just complain about Palm or Lundardi. Do it yourself.


TEAM.. >50... 51-100 ..>100 A/N ...100-349 ... ALL/nonSOS .. bad L

A .... 3-4 ...... 6-2 ...... 4-4 ........ 15-2 (6-0) .... 65/123 .. 122, 167

B .... 5-8 ...... 4-1 ...... 3-7 ........ 11-2 (5-0) .... 21/68 .... 152, 198

C .... 4-5 ...... 8-3 ...... 7-4 ........ 12-1 (7-0) .... 17/01 .... 117

D .... 8-6 ...... 3-2 ...... 4-6 ........ 10-4 (2-0).... 15/36 .... 129, 152, 198

E .... 2-2 ....... 5-2 ...... 2-4 ........ 20-0 (12-0) .... 99/45 .... (83 is worst RPI loss)

F .... 6-8 ....... 6-0 ...... 6-5 ........ 10-3 (2-1) ..... 7/18 ..... 148, 167, 247

G .... 4-6 ....... 5-3 ...... 5-5 ........ 12-2 (4-0).... 29/97 .... 106, 123

H .... 4-4 ....... 7-2 ...... 4-4 ........ 13-0 (11-0).... 39/12 .... (77 is worst RPI loss)

I ..... 3-7 ....... 4-0 ...... 2-6 ........ 16-1 (7-0).... 37/50 .... 122

J ..... 0-4 ....... 9-4 ...... 5-5 ........ 14-3 (9-2) .... 38/87 .... 154, 214, 219

K .... 3-6 ....... 6-2 ...... 5-5 ......... 13-2 (4-0).... 18/48 .... 126, 154

L ..... 4-5 ....... 3-0 ...... 4-4 ........ 18-2 (9-0)..... 87/63 .... 122, 184

I'll reveal the teams tomorrow during big ten championship.


PS: I was going to put non-conference record as a column but 11 of these teams have records of 9-3, 9-4 or 10-3. The exception is that team B had an 8-1 non-con record. I also noticed that quite a number of the 50-100 opponents for all of these teams were in-conference. Whatever that means.
Click to expand...
 
hawkfan340 said:
Sorry for ignoring your post, but I'm going to take this as another opportunity to complain about binning teams into groups of 50. As a math guy, it just infuriates me every time I see it. This is not a complaint against you, as you are just following convention used by the NCAA knuckleheads.

Anywho, carry on with the blind resume game.
Click to expand...

So true. Teams 51 and 100 are the exact same but team 101 is way worse. Makes sense.
 
hawkfan340 said:
Sorry for ignoring your post, but I'm going to take this as another opportunity to complain about binning teams into groups of 50. As a math guy, it just infuriates me every time I see it. This is not a complaint against you, as you are just following convention used by the NCAA knuckleheads.

Anywho, carry on with the blind resume game.
Click to expand...
No, you're right. I agree.

However, conventional wisdom is that NCAA tourney teams, especially at-larges, needs to have a top 50 RPI so that's why they group them (and as a math guy you know the benefit of rounding numbers, too, even though there could be a bigger gap between 1-10 than there is between 11-42) Top 51-100 usually contains the average power 5 (+East Catholic) and the better mid-majors. It's just a guesstimate, of course. I didn't want to break it down further for such a quick turnaround until Sunday or take time to do it. Just typing numbers that are already there during the ball games today.

Quite a few people think Iowa is an 8. Based on these stats, even if they are binned in large groups, Iowa should not be an 8.

Teams that lose to 150+ RPI teams any time during the season and multiple times should have a big mark against them compared to other teams on the 6-8 lines. In other words, to me, when weighing these teams bad losses carry a little more weight than good wins because they should never lose to bad teams.

There are 4 teams the have multiple 150+ losses. Iowa isn't one of them. None of those four teams have the value of wins of @North Carolina, Maryland, and sweeping Ohio State.

There are also five teams that played 1/4 or more of their games against 200+ RPI teams. We know they're poor competition. Iowa isn't one of those five teams either.



Therefore, Iowa should not be on the 8 line or lower.

And therefore, since there is such a gap between 8s and 7s, Iowa should be a 7 and, if geographically necessary to move a line to make it work, then Iowa (or one of the other 7s should move to a 6, not an 8.)
 
6 line
H C K D

7 line
F G A L

8 line
B I E J


*****

6 line
SMU VCU Michigan State Xavier

7 line
Iowa Providence SD State Oregon

8 line
St. Johns Utah Wichita State Cincy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top