6th in NCAA RPI

[DZ]

I know, I know - it will fall on Thursday and continue for quite awhile. And another caveat, the same RPI poll has Seaton Hall at 4.

The story was mentioned in Meehan's blog.

I can't remember a time we were higher in RPI and I think its a good sign going into league play b/c we have more of a cushion when we inevitably drop.

[Once and Future Zag]

I repeat this every year.

Our RPI doesn't matter.

RPI is a tool used by the committee to see how wins/losses look. Right now we're a "good win or loss" for our opponents, that's all.

Here's how it works:

Each committee member gets a sheet on every school.

Gonzaga's sheet doesn't show Gonzaga's RPI.

Gonzaga's sheet shows our w/l record against RPI top 50, RPI top 100, and RPI bottom 100 (and maybe a few other breakdowns)

The committee KNOWS it's an imprecise tool, and they use it appropriately. The media gets it wrong 99% of the time, and so the fans are given the wrong impression of what it "means."

Unfortunately the folks on the committee never correct the media when the media asks the question of how did a "worse" RPI team make it in over a "better" RPI team - when in reality, if their numbers are within 20 of each other, the RPI isn't precise enough to indicate that one is better than the other.

[229SintoZag]

I repeat this every year.

Our RPI doesn't matter.

RPI is a tool used by the committee to see how wins/losses look. Right now we're a "good win or loss" for our opponents, that's all.

Here's how it works:

Each committee member gets a sheet on every school.

Gonzaga's sheet doesn't show Gonzaga's RPI.

Gonzaga's sheet shows our w/l record against RPI top 50, RPI top 100, and RPI bottom 100 (and maybe a few other breakdowns)

The committee KNOWS it's an imprecise tool, and they use it appropriately. The media gets it wrong 99% of the time, and so the fans are given the wrong impression of what it "means."

Unfortunately the folks on the committee never correct the media when the media asks the question of how did a "worse" RPI team make it in over a "better" RPI team - when in reality, if their numbers are within 20 of each other, the RPI isn't precise enough to indicate that one is better than the other.

You are correct that a teams's own RPI is not considered for purposes of at large selection when looking at a team's "resume;" this is where the # of good wins and bad losses as measured by our opponents' RPI is more valuable.

Our own RPI is, however, used quite a bit when it comes to seeding. The S-curve every year is pretty predictable, usually within a line or two, based solely on where folks fall on the RPI continuum. This is why it is an important number for us to follow.

[rennis]

Our own RPI is, however, used quite a bit when it comes to seeding. The S-curve every year is pretty predictable, usually within a line or two, based solely on where folks fall on the RPI continuum. This is why it is an important number for us to follow.

This is my understanding too. Also my understanding that is how Joe Lunardi projects the brackets, or at least a major tool in the projections.

which is probably why Gonzaga is a #5 seed in his projection, and SMC is a #7 despite SMC getting the auto-bid.

[Once and Future Zag]

You are correct that a teams's own RPI is not considered for purposes of at large selection when looking at a team's "resume;" this is where the # of good wins and bad losses as measured by our opponents' RPI is more valuable.

Our own RPI is, however, used quite a bit when it comes to seeding. The S-curve every year is pretty predictable, usually within a line or two, based solely on where folks fall on the RPI continuum. This is why it is an important number for us to follow.

Any given School's RPI isn't visible to the committee so it's actually impossible for them to use it in this fashion.

This is my understanding too. Also my understanding that is how Joe Lunardi projects the brackets, or at least a major tool in the projections.

which is probably why Gonzaga is a #5 seed in his projection, and SMC is a #7 despite SMC getting the auto-bid.

Projections are irrelevant to actual seeding - fun, but irrelevant.

[FieldHouseFishHouse]

Any given School's RPI isn't visible to the committee so it's actually impossible for them to use it in this fashion.




Projections are irrelevant to actual seeding - fun, but irrelevant.

It's Wikipedia, for what it's worth

"The selection committee uses a number of factors to place teams on the S-curve, including record, strength of schedule, the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI), and a team's overall performance in recent games. The RPI rating is often considered a significant factor in selecting and seeding the final few teams in the tournament field, though the selection committee stresses that the RPI is used merely as a guideline and not as an infallible indicator of a team's worth."

[229SintoZag]

Any given School's RPI isn't visible to the committee so it's actually impossible for them to use it in this fashion.

Let me be clear and clarify what I am actually trying to say here. Whether human beings on the committee actually see our RPI when seeding us is not the point I am making, because that is something I don't care about. You may be right on that, you may be wrong--but for the point I am making, it does not matter.

My point is simply that where we are in the RPI has a very, very tight correlation with our placement on the s-curve. If the committee uses other means to get there than the actual RPI number so be it. But the RPI number is useful information for us to have, as fans, when projecting our seed come March, since there is such a statistically-valid correlation between our ultimate RPI and our ultimate seed when we are placed on the S curve.

And as such, our RPI is "relevant" for us--contrary to the assertion made otherwise in your initial post.

[maynard g krebs]

In their 2002(?) elite 8, Oregon had a final rpi of 31 and got a 2 seed. They had several bad nonconference losses, but won a 6 bid pac 10 by 2 full games at 14-4.

That's a school that doesn't get marquee name favoritism, so there are exceptions that show the committee looks beyond rpi. That's a diff of 6 seed lines from what rpi said, 2 v. 8