Lunardi's Last 4 In verse Iowa

Iowa has to win three in a row minimum to sniff the bubble, four in a row to probly be in last four out contention
 
bcl20 said:
I still think we're in if we win 4 straight (starting tonight). I'm buying the theory that the committee doesn't use RPI as much as we think (maybe wishful thinking but I have read things that indicate this is so). Buy other, better, ranking systems we deserve to be in so winning 4 in a row should put us in, that is if they have any idea what they are doing.
Click to expand...

I say this assuming they take out Indiana, Michigan State or Michigan in game 2. If it's Wisconsin, or someone else (not sure if that's possible) than I think they'd need to win one more.
 
Two of these 4 wins will be against teams which are tournament bound. I don't think it matters which team we beat in the 2nd round. Four in a row either is enough or it isn't enough.

If we get to this point it would serve us well not to lose by 20 on Saturday in the BTT. Keep Michigan and Indiana on the other side of the bracket. We could catch a break and play Minnesota on Saturday. How about NW, WI and MN in the BTT? It doesn't get much better than that.

bcl20 said:
I say this assuming they take out Indiana, Michigan State or Michigan in game 2. If it's Wisconsin, or someone else (not sure if that's possible) than I think they'd need to win one more.
Click to expand...
 
A win vs Wisconsin could be enough, it probably should be. But a win vs a top team will put Iowa right in the middle of discussions and draw eyes away from the poor RPI I would think.
 
The conference is so good I don't think there's a bad RPI draw in the 2nd round. I know what you're saying and certainly want to beat as good of a team as possible but getting the win is the most critical piece and I prefer Wisconsin in this regard.

bcl20 said:
A win vs Wisconsin could be enough, it probably should be. But a win vs a top team will put Iowa right in the middle of discussions and draw eyes away from the poor RPI I would think.
Click to expand...
 
nationalchamps said:
This is why I laugh at people who think Iowa isn't in solely because of their RPI....many factors come into play beside the RPI. The RPI sucks and needs to go away because it rewards "good" losses and penalizes "bad" wins. I thought the point is to win games??
Click to expand...

Your error is that you think people are using the RPI in that manner. The only thing fans are using the RPI is as a historical data set, which if you can understand something simple, stick with me here, is actually pretty USEFUL. While it might not paint a great picture of how good a team is in any one year, over the course of many years, patterns develop within the RPI not based on TEAMS, but on position within the RPI.

For example, I believe the highest (lowest) RPI to get in was #67. So using that as a marker, and a legitimate piece of data in no way skewed for or against Iowa, how would you like our chances at #68, #69, #70 and so on? And remember, that is the highest to get in ever, so there is even more data showing teams well above that being left out.

So, as you can see, it's all about the way that you use the RPI, not whether or not you don't like it because Iowa isn't rated well by the RPI metrics.
 
RPI is not the end all be all anymore. Why is everyone so fixated on that? If we win both games this week, we will be last 4 in, or out level. Teams like Baylor tripped up way worse than us. Many teams in front of us have nearly impossible must-win games to finish out the year that will cost them. Villanova against Gtown, Boise St @UNLV, Kentucky vs Florida, Umass vs Butler, Tenn vs Missouri, Lasalle against St Louis, Colorado vs Oregon, Bama and Ole Miss play each other where loser is out, and Va vs Maryland where loser is out. This not including conference tourneys of course, but us winning our next two games could make us jump any number of these teams, that will probably lose.
 
clicheusername3 said:
Your error is that you think people are using the RPI in that manner. The only thing fans are using the RPI is as a historical data set, which if you can understand something simple, stick with me here, is actually pretty USEFUL. While it might not paint a great picture of how good a team is in any one year, over the course of many years, patterns develop within the RPI not based on TEAMS, but on position within the RPI.

For example, I believe the highest (lowest) RPI to get in was #67. So using that as a marker, and a legitimate piece of data in no way skewed for or against Iowa, how would you like our chances at #68, #69, #70 and so on? And remember, that is the highest to get in ever, so there is even more data showing teams well above that being left out.

So, as you can see, it's all about the way that you use the RPI, not whether or not you don't like it because Iowa isn't rated well by the RPI metrics.
Click to expand...

I could care less what Iowa's RPI ranking is. There have been teams with RPI's in the 20s who haven't gotten at-large berths either and that is another reason why RPI sucks.
 
clicheusername3 said:
For example, I believe the highest (lowest) RPI to get in was #67. So using that as a marker, and a legitimate piece of data in no way skewed for or against Iowa, how would you like our chances at #68, #69, #70 and so on? And remember, that is the highest to get in ever, so there is even more data showing teams well above that being left out.
Click to expand...

There is no way that can be right. Otherwise, that would mean that pretty much every year the teams that are #1-64 are the ones that get in.
 
nationalchamps said:
I could care less what Iowa's RPI ranking is. There have been teams with RPI's in the 20s who haven't gotten at-large berths either and that is another reason why RPI sucks.
Click to expand...

So you care at least a little bit about it.

Jeebus, I don't understand how people get this one wrong so consistently. It's COULDN'T CARE LESS.
 
People have to remember, there are more teams in the tourney now than in the past too. At large bids to RPI's should get a little higher as well.
 
Here is a scenario for you:

Iowa beats Illinois and Nebraska to end the regular season and 2 in the BTT. That puts us at 22-10.

Iowa St. Loses at home to Oklahoma St. and at West Virginia. Then loses in the B12 tourney. That would put them at 19-13.

Iowa would be in and Iowa St. would be out. The meltdown that would ensue would be epic.
 
smbhawk1 said:
Here is a scenario for you:

Iowa beats Illinois and Nebraska to end the regular season and 2 in the BTT. That puts us at 22-10.

Iowa St. Loses at home to Oklahoma St. and at West Virginia. Then loses in the B12 tourney. That would put them at 19-13.

Iowa would be in and Iowa St. would be out. The meltdown that would ensue would be epic.
Click to expand...

If that happens (and I think Iowa would most likely be in, and ISU definitely out), queue up all the Clown fans coming over to this board telling us how we didn't deserve a bit, and prepare to get blown out in the first round, etc. etc. It would be a banner day on HN.
 
Can't believe the run this NCAA tourney talk gets. The door slammed shut with the Nebraska loss. The only way we open it is with B1G tournament championship.
That's not happenin without Gesell.
 
clicheusername3 said:
Your error is that you think people are using the RPI in that manner. The only thing fans are using the RPI is as a historical data set, which if you can understand something simple, stick with me here, is actually pretty USEFUL. While it might not paint a great picture of how good a team is in any one year, over the course of many years, patterns develop within the RPI not based on TEAMS, but on position within the RPI.

For example, I believe the highest (lowest) RPI to get in was #67. So using that as a marker, and a legitimate piece of data in no way skewed for or against Iowa, how would you like our chances at #68, #69, #70 and so on? And remember, that is the highest to get in ever, so there is even more data showing teams well above that being left out.

So, as you can see, it's all about the way that you use the RPI, not whether or not you don't like it because Iowa isn't rated well by the RPI metrics.
Click to expand...

You able to respond without sarcasm? I have noticed you can be down right rude to people.

But to respond to a couple of your points, the RPI formula was changed in 2004 but before then New Mexico got an at large bid with a RPI ranking in the 70s (74 I think). That was back when only 64 teams made the field, now we are up to 68 so chances are good a team in the 70s will get in at some point. Another thing to keep in mind is most bracketologists already have Iowa on their bubble (either last 4 out or next 4 out), this means even though Iowa has an RPI in the mid 80s they must be taking other factors into consideration. The NCAA encourages the selection committee to use as many different rankings they want.

Having said this I still think Iowa is a long shot but still fun to talk about and debate. It is funny though I remember having the same debates last year on whether or not Iowa would get into the NIT. Most felt since Iowa had an RPI of 130 that there was no way they would get a bid, it was a nice surprise when they go in. Point is, you never know and anything can happen after all it is March Madness.
 
1hawkeye1 said:
Can't believe the run this NCAA tourney talk gets. The door slammed shut with the Nebraska loss. The only way we open it is with B1G tournament championship.
That's not happenin without Gesell.
Click to expand...

You are right, we need to go back to slamming Oglesby or Woodbury instead of discussing this silly NCAA debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top