50 replies to this topic

[ORUTex]

Benjamin Hatch, whose predictions are included in the Bracket Project (http://bracketprojec....com/matrix.htm), has us as a 10 seed in his February 20 projections. http://www.hatchrank...ll/bracket.html

That's the highest I've seen. The consensus is still a 13 seed, although a few more 12's and an 11 are showing up across the line.

[ORUTex]

<sub>Also, Jay Bilas has some very nice things to say about us in his latest rankings (Insider - http://insider.espn....-index-top-four):
49. Oral Roberts Golden Eagles

It is almost too bad that ORU didn't play one of the higher-profile mid-majors in BracketBusters, because I am not sure that enough people understand just how good this team is and just how good the win against Akron is. Oral Roberts is an experienced team and good enough to win a game in the NCAA tournament. The BPI has ORU in the 70s, but my eyes tell me different.
61. Akron Zips

The loss to Oral Roberts was not a bad loss. This is a good team and could very well win the MAC tournament. Wins against Mississippi State, Marshall, Ohio and Kent State are probably not enough to put the Zips in the field.</sub>

[Old Titan]

ORUTex, on 21 February 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

"The BPI has ORU in the 70s, but my eyes tell me different."

That's because the BPI sucks.

[tmh8286]

Old Titan, on 21 February 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

That's because the BPI sucks.

To be honest, the more experience I have with RPI, the better I like it. I used to think it was too simple - but the more I think about it the less important I feel all the other factors that alternative systems try to add in really are.

It ALL comes down to winning and losing - nothing else really matters.

The person that invented the RPI calculation was absolutely brilliant. I know some complain that it's a system that favors the six power conferences - but in reality, what system wouldn't? Those teams win games, and they win games played against other teams that win games, and they all have high strenghth of schedule numbers. I really don't know what kind of a stat you could throw in the mix that wouldn't favor those teams.

[tmh8286]

ORUTex, on 21 February 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

<sub>Also, Jay Bilas has some very nice things to say about us in his latest rankings (Insider - http://insider.espn....-index-top-four):
49. Oral Roberts Golden Eagles

It is almost too bad that ORU didn't play one of the higher-profile mid-majors in BracketBusters, because I am not sure that enough people understand just how good this team is and just how good the win against Akron is. Oral Roberts is an experienced team and good enough to win a game in the NCAA tournament. The BPI has ORU in the 70s, but my eyes tell me different.
61. Akron Zips

The loss to Oral Roberts was not a bad loss. This is a good team and could very well win the MAC tournament. Wins against Mississippi State, Marshall, Ohio and Kent State are probably not enough to put the Zips in the field.</sub>

Another thing about this - would Jay Bilas be saying these things if we'd played a west coast, or western regional, team? The fact that we played a team familiar in the east may very well have caught the attention of the ESPN talking heads more than a western team would have.

[tmh8286]

tmh8286, on 21 February 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

To be honest, the more experience I have with RPI, the better I like it. I used to think it was too simple - but the more I think about it the less important I feel all the other factors that alternative systems try to add in really are.

It ALL comes down to winning and losing - nothing else really matters.

The person that invented the RPI calculation was absolutely brilliant. I know some complain that it's a system that favors the six power conferences - but in reality, what system wouldn't? Those teams win games, and they win games played against other teams that win games, and they all have high strenghth of schedule numbers. I really don't know what kind of a stat you could throw in the mix that wouldn't favor those teams.

BTW, something I discovered that I've been meaning to mention for several days - on rpiforecast.com, find ORU - #40 as of today (this is forecasted RPI, not current) and click on it. The ORU page comes up and gives all sort of stats, predictions and graphs. If you go all the way down past the graphs to the bottom of the page you will find a listing of all of the teams that have an influence on our RPI, or at least that enter into the calculation. When I discovered this the other day, I copied the data and plugged it into a spreadsheet. I haven't really figured out what all the numbers mean, but here is the interesting thing - at that point, a few days ago, 226 of the 344 D-I enter into ORU's RPI computation. I think that's pretty remarkable. Would you have guessed that there were that many teams that were part of our RPI?

And to give some idea of how much a particular team's record impacts our RPI, the first two columns of numbers give the relative weights of teams impacting our RPI. Obviously, our own W/L record has the greatest impact. After that, our conference-mates, then our OOC teams. After those the impact tails off sharply, with teams that have played teams that we've played.

I eventually hope to figure out a bit more of how that all works - hopefully at some point we might be able to look at a particular game and rather than say, "That win helps our RPI" or "That loss hurts our RPI", we'll be able to use that table to figure precisely how much of an effect a particular game had on us. But I'm not there yet . . .

[ORUTex]

That's a great site for figuring out who to root for, and really shows the importance of conference teams winning some games out of conference. On Saturday, our "Live RPI" bounced around from 40-45 as the other Summit Bracketbuster finals came in.

In other news, the current "Bubble Watch" column on CNN/SI has us "in the mix" with some interesting comments on the Akron win, and the UTSA loss:

Oral Roberts (25-5, 16-1; RPI: 45, SOS: 171)
The Golden Eagles look primed to win the Summit with just one loss and added a nice win over Akron to their ledger. Their early-season collapse against UT-San Antonio looms so large right now. It cost them a winnable game at Oklahoma State and perhaps a game with Syracuse at MSG. Good team.
GW: at Xavier (when short-handed), Akron
BL: UT-San Antonio (N)
http://sportsillustr...le.Watch/1.html

[meatloaf]

Guys I dont know if you looked at this guys bracket... but he has Notre Dame as a 12 seed.... Im sorry cant take a team rated #18 in the nation as a 12 seed seriously...

[ManiacAlum]

It also raises the question why a team with eight losses is ranked in the Top 20 of both polls.

[ORUalum]

ManiacAlum, on 22 February 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

It also raises the question why a team with eight losses is ranked in the Top 20 of both polls.

two words: Big East

although they may be a joke in football, they are a beast league in basketball.

[meatloaf]

I watched Notre Dame beat WVU in Morgantown, they can shoot LIGHTS OUT. And if they dont make the shot, Cooley is there to clean up.

[Bad Blood]

tmh8286, on 21 February 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

To be honest, the more experience I have with RPI, the better I like it. I used to think it was too simple - but the more I think about it the less important I feel all the other factors that alternative systems try to add in really are.

It ALL comes down to winning and losing - nothing else really matters.

The person that invented the RPI calculation was absolutely brilliant. I know some complain that it's a system that favors the six power conferences - but in reality, what system wouldn't? Those teams win games, and they win games played against other teams that win games, and they all have high strenghth of schedule numbers. I really don't know what kind of a stat you could throw in the mix that wouldn't favor those teams.

agree completely

[ManiacAlum]

Yeah, I stand corrected about Notre Dame. Didn't realize they had won 8 straight, including beating Syracuse, Marquette, WVU, UConn and Louisville recently. They're probably one of the hottest teams right now.

While I think Notre Dame is more likely a 5 or 6-seed than a 12, it doesn't necessarily mean ORU shouldn't be considered for seeding as high as 10.

I think if some of these brackets are assuming ORU as the likely tournament champion, then that would also make us 29-5 with an RPI in the 30s or 40s. An 11-12 seed would make more sense, instead of the 14-15 that some people are still listing ORU.

[OKC Eagle]

Is anyone else worried that we will have played 1 game in the 2 weeks prior to the Summit Tournament? At least we will be well rested and maybe Mikey's hand will heal.

[tmh8286]

ManiacAlum, on 22 February 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Yeah, I stand corrected about Notre Dame. Didn't realize they had won 8 straight, including beating Syracuse, Marquette, WVU, UConn and Louisville recently. They're probably one of the hottest teams right now.

While I think Notre Dame is more likely a 5 or 6-seed than a 12, it doesn't necessarily mean ORU shouldn't be considered for seeding as high as 10.

I think if some of these brackets are assuming ORU as the likely tournament champion, then that would also make us 29-5 with an RPI in the 30s or 40s. An 11-12 seed would make more sense, instead of the 14-15 that some people are still listing ORU.

You're exactly right, ManiacAlum. The ONLY way we make it to the tournament is by winning the conference tournament. If we do that, and win out as expected (i.e. win at SUU this weekend), then RPIForecast.com has us listed as a 24 RPI (Believe it when I see it). Could ANYONE make a case for a team with an RPI of 24 getting a 15 seed? Or even a 14?

Now, I'm not too sure how much stock to put in RPIForecast - before our win over Akron he was listing us with a 21 RPI if we won out, so we've dropped several spots in his calculation over the past week even though we've won. Actually I'd be surprised if we dropped any lower than 35, even if we win out - but what do I know?

By comparison, here are the RPIs and seeds for Oakland the past couple of years, teams with some pretty sterling records:

2011
Final W/L record (bef. NCAA tournament): 25-9
RPI prior to Selection Sunday: (can't find it - can an Oakland fan help out?)
NCAA Tournament seed: 13

2010
Final W/L record (bef. NCAA tournament): 26-8
RPI prior to Selection Sunday: 55
NCAA Tournament seed: 14

As I've pointed out before, our conference has had only 5 teams (4@#12 and 1@#9) given a 12 seed or higher in it's existance.

IF we managed to win out and IF our our RPI is somewhere south of 35, it will be very interesting to see where we might be seeded. From a PURELY RPI standpoint, I think you could make an argument for an 8 or 9; but according to the article I'm about to post, RPI supposedly has very little to do with the process.

[tmh8286]

Made in the NCAA: The RPI's Birth, Triumph and Encirclement

This is a pretty interesting historical perspective on RPI, how it's used now, and where it's headed.

Last week I spent two days in a hotel meeting room in Indianapolis, as staffers from the NCAA walked approximately two dozen media members through a mock selection exercise for the Division I men's basketball tournament.

Over the course of what proved to be an incredibly illuminating yet fatiguing session, the NCAA was forthrightly eager to illustrate just how small a role the Ratings Percentage Index plays in actual deliberations when teams are being evaluated. Men's basketball committee chair Jeff Hathaway, an unfailingly affable and engaging sort who gives little indication that he holds arguably the most powerful position in college basketball, circulated around the room and struck up conversations that called attention to the RPI by noting that no one was paying attention to the RPI. "How we doin'?" he'd ask enthusiastically. "See how the RPI never comes up?"

[tmh8286]

Scott Van Pelt's diatribe on RPI.

He thinks because he calls it a "metric" instead of a "stat" he sounds smarter. He doesn't. His initial explanation of the RPI calculation show how little he really understands the system. Ignorant, really. I don't know that any of the people he indicated "hate" RPI know any more about it than he does! The guy that did the color for the ORU game last Saturday commented that he doesn't like RPI, and thinks ESPN's BPI is better - like he has any CLUE! PLEASE! We've got computers now that can run 10,000 simulations of every game to predict outcomes. Use one of these to show which system is ACTUALLY the best! If you don't like RPI, PROVE TO ME that Pomeroy, Sagarin, Massey or someone else's system is better! Otherwise, don't go on a rant that only makes you look silly. I contend that it's virtually impossible to prove one system's superiority over another.

Here's my take:

RPI is brilliant. Scott Van Pelt isn't. Now what do you think of THAT metric, buddy?

[tmh8286]

Introducing the BPI: College Basketball Power Index takes advanced power rankings another step forward

Between the 2007 and 2011 NCAA tournaments, it picked 74.4 percent of the matchups correctly, whereas Sagarin picked 73.2 percent and RPI picked 71.9 percent. (Kenpom is more difficult to evaluate because its pre-tournament rankings are not available.) The average ranking of the NIT finalists was better in BPI than in Sagarin or RPI. Notice, of course, that many of these differences are small. The BPI is not a guaranteed way to pick a perfect bracket, but we do think it is the best power ranking available.

This is written by Dean Oliver, who truly is the guru of basketball statistics. But come on - they're making such a HUGE deal about a 2.5% increase in accuracy over RPI? And in such a small sample? I question whether that outcome is even statistically significant.

I have to think that the BPI is more marketing gimmick for ESPN than "another step forward".

[ManiacAlum]

Totally agree with everything you've said, TMH. What's even more frustrating is looking back through recent NCAA Tournaments and looking at the seeding at some lower-major automatic bid teams who also happened to have excellent W-L records. It doesn't seem like ANY of them were seeded higher than 13th.

Two that stick out are Siena in 2010 (27-6 record; RPI: 31) and Belmont in 2011 (30-4; RPI: 51). Both were 13-seeds.

For Siena, this was the year right after knocking off Ohio State as a #9 seed. They get demoted to a #13 the very next year, even with a higher record and RPI.

I'm not sure how Belmont wins 30 games and is given a #13 seed. I would guess they were punished for a low SOS.

So, who knows? The NCAA selection never seems to make sense going year-to-year. I guess it depends on the strength of the field on any given year. And I wonder if they're even all that concerned about seeding when it comes to the low automatic qualifiers.

As for RPI, this blind allegiance to some of these computer rating systems for college basketball is strange to me. Not that I think any of them are totally garbage or that RPI isn't flawed, but it seems like there are more 'analysts' who are pushing the "KenPom/Sagarin/etc.= good, and RPI= the worst thing ever" talking points more these days.

There is no other sport at any level that works this way. At least none that I can think of.

In college football, people want the computers to have less influence, if any at all. And those computer rankings don't even include factors such as margin of victory...Which would make more sense for football than basketball. But it does help them crown a champion that didn't even win it's own division in it's conference.

Hypocrisy at it's best.

[tmh8286]

ManiacAlum, on 23 February 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Hypocrisy at it's best.

Great points, ManiacAlum. By the way the calculation works, you don't end up with a high RPI unless you're deserving - the RPI is no respector of persons - or teams. (unlike the Selection Committee, RPI is completely objective). While the selection committee seems to be making every effort to separate itself from RPI, they probably should be using it more, not less. A 13 seed to an RPI 31 team is a travesty.

You have to think that some of these folks touting alternative ratings systems make their livings selling them.