ADVERTISEMENT

Tournament Resume (as of 1/23/17)

ColumbusCatFan1

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2005
4,040
1,244
113
Upon reading an article this morning that stated the committee isn't going to update their metrics (which are being reviewed today) until 2017-18 at the earliest, I'll continue to make these posts every Monday and provide an update to the thread midweek.

CHANGES SINCE 1/16
RPI has improved slightly, SOS has dropped 14 spots (Nebraska's losing streak hurts), while the non conference numbers have pretty much stagnated. NU's ACC/BIG challenge victory over Wake Forest now counts as a top 25 victory (!) and yesterday's win in C-bus give the 'Cats a winning record against the top 100.

W/L: 16-4 (5-2)
RPI: 34 (Non Con: 44)
SOS: 81 (Non Con: 142)
Vs Top 25: 1-3
Vs Top 50: 2-4
Vs Top 100: 5-4
Last 10 gms: 8-2

Best win: #23 Wake Forest
Bad losses (100+): None
 
Last edited:
Upon reading an article this morning that stated the committee isn't going to update their metrics (which are being reviewed today) until 2017-18 at the earliest, I'll continue to make these posts every Monday and provide an update to the thread midweek.

CHANGES SINCE 1/16
RPI has improved slightly, SOS has dropped 14 spots (Nebraska's losing streak hurts), while the non conference numbers have pretty much stagnated. NU's ACC/BIG challenge victory over Wake Forest now counts as a top 25 victory (!) and yesterday's win in C-bus give the 'Cats a winning record against the top 100.

W/L: 16-4 (5-2)
RPI: 34 (Non Con: 44)
SOS: 81 (Non Con: 142)
Vs Top 25: 1-3
Vs Top 50: 2-4
Vs Top 100: 5-4

Best win: #23 Wake Forest
Bad losses (100+): None
Where is the Charlie Hall factor?
 

When I started doing these threads three weeks ago, I thought it would be beneficial to see what NU's resume would exactly look like to the committee and how it would change from week to week.

I labeled them "Tournament Resume (as of...)" because I invisioned them as companions to Styre's weekly schedule threads that come out on Mondays. Also, when I started creating them I was under the impression the committee only used RPI, SOS, quality wins/bad losses, and the "eye test". While that will probably change, any alteration won't take effect until 2018 at the earliest. I find KenPom (he's fantastic) and Sagarin more useful than the antiquated metrics the committee currently uses, but I really don't see the point including them if one is concerned how they relate to tournament selection.

I can stop creating these if you wish, Hungry. Just wanted to let you know the thought process behind these posts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hungry Jack
When I started doing these threads three weeks ago, I thought it would be beneficial to see what NU's resume would exactly look like to the committee and how it would change from week to week.

I labeled them "Tournament Resume (as of...)" because I invisioned them as companions to Styre's weekly schedule threads that come out on Mondays. Also, when I started creating them I was under the impression the committee only used RPI, SOS, quality wins/bad losses, and the "eye test". While that will probably change, any alteration won't take effect until 2018 at the earliest. I find KenPom (he's fantastic) and Sagarin more useful than the antiquated metrics the committee currently uses, but I really don't see the point including them if one is concerned how they relate to tournament selection.

I can stop creating these if you wish, Hungry. Just wanted to let you know the thought process behind these posts.
Now boys, you both are special and we'll continue to love you both exactly the same.
 
Best win: #23 Wake Forest
If the NCAA Tourney selection were today, would Wake Forest make the cut? (Lunardi says yes, but I just can't believe it. Too many losses and not enough quality wins!)

Are there any other teams that we have beaten that WOULD make the cut? Would those be better wins?
 
Last edited:
If the NCAA Tourney selection were today, would Wake Forest make the cut?

Are there any other teams that we have beaten that WOULD make the cut? Would those be better wins?

Wake Forest would be a 100% lock at RPI 23. Under the current RPI formulation, every single major conference team at RPI 40 or better has made the tournament.

Among our victories, Dayton would also make the cut. Unfortunately, none of our current Big Ten victories would be in the tournament.
 
Wake Forest would be a 100% lock at RPI 23. Under the current RPI formulation, every single major conference team at RPI 40 or better has made the tournament.

Among our victories, Dayton would also make the cut. Unfortunately, none of our current Big Ten victories would be in the tournament.
But the committee doesn't make the selection based on your RPI; it uses the RPI to look at your opponents, to identify quality wins. Wake Forest has no victories against the RPI top 50; their best win is against College of Charleston. They have too many losses and a losing record in conference. No, I don't think Wake Forest would make the cut, and justifying it by their RPI in a vacuum is lazy.

Wake Forest has a high RPI because they have played a ridiculous schedule (RPI rewards strength of schedule), but they haven't won any games against those teams. Again I emphasize, the selection committee places a premium on quality wins and Wake Forest is lacking right now.
 
But the committee doesn't make the selection based on your RPI; it uses the RPI to look at your opponents, to identify quality wins. Wake Forest has no victories against the RPI top 50; their best win is against College of Charleston. They have too many losses and a losing record in conference. No, I don't think Wake Forest would make the cut, and justifying it by their RPI in a vacuum is lazy.

This is why RPI is a poor metric - it doesn't even become relevant until the season is over. I do agree that by season's end, Wake will likely be out. But they won't be sitting on RPI 23 by season's end if they keep losing in conference, so it'll balance out.

But I think you're giving the committee too much credit. They wouldn't leave #23 out of the tournament. Unless they were from a mid-major conference, of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ColumbusCatFan1
Wake Forest would be a 100% lock at RPI 23. Under the current RPI formulation, every single major conference team at RPI 40 or better has made the tournament.

Among our victories, Dayton would also make the cut. Unfortunately, none of our current Big Ten victories would be in the tournament.

Lunardi has NU as an 8th seed playing Iowa State in Buffalo (ugh). He has Wake as a last 4 bye 10 seed, playing Michigan State. Dayton is also an 8 seed.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
 
But the committee doesn't make the selection based on your RPI; it uses the RPI to look at your opponents, to identify quality wins. Wake Forest has no victories against the RPI top 50; their best win is against College of Charleston. They have too many losses and a losing record in conference. No, I don't think Wake Forest would make the cut, and justifying it by their RPI in a vacuum is lazy.

With four top 100 victories, the only way the committee could currently justify leaving out Wake (based on the metrics in play) would the infamous "eye test" and they would never do that to a high major with an RPI in the low 20s and a SOS in the single digits.

As Styre mentioned, things will sort themselves out as the season progresses...and hopefully in a manner that benefits NU.
 
I don't have a problem with this. It will save me the work of updating the other thread!

Heh, I'd imagine that's a bit of work to keep up. Just noticed it yesterday (was away for a few days). It's pretty cool seeing all those numbers in one place.
 
With four top 100 victories, the only way the committee could currently justify leaving out Wake (based on the metrics in play) would the infamous "eye test" and they would never do that to a high major with an RPI in the low 20s and a SOS in the single digits.
And now Syracuse can add a loss to a team outside the top 100 (Syracuse). But they're still hanging around persistently just outside the RPI Top 25. If I were on the committee I would exclude them for sure, until they prove they belong by winning a game against a top-50 RPI team.

This just demonstrates how broken the RPI is, rewarding teams not based on merit (i.e. whom they beat) but simply for playing a bunch of really good teams. This is why the RPI has so benefited the power conferences over the years, to the exclusion of some worthy mid-majors. Wake Forest is not the 26th-best team in the country.
 
And now Syracuse can add a loss to a team outside the top 100 (Syracuse). But they're still hanging around persistently just outside the RPI Top 25. If I were on the committee I would exclude them for sure, until they prove they belong by winning a game against a top-50 RPI team.

This just demonstrates how broken the RPI is, rewarding teams not based on merit (i.e. whom they beat) but simply for playing a bunch of really good teams. This is why the RPI has so benefited the power conferences over the years, to the exclusion of some worthy mid-majors. Wake Forest is not the 26th-best team in the country.

I don't see Wake Forest as the 26th best team in the country either, but they would still be in if the selection show was tomorrow.

I've openly stated multiple times that RPI is an antiquated metric and protects high majors (which is what the committee wants). It is what it is.
 
Last edited:
1/27 UPDATE

W/L: 17-4 (6-2)
RPI: 33 (Non Con: 37)
SOS: 80 (Non Con: 128)
Vs Top 25: 0-3
Vs Top 50: 2-4
Vs Top 100: 6-4
Last 10: 8-2

Best Win: Wake Forest (#26)
Bad Losses (100+): None

CHANGES SINCE 1/23

Minimal movement in RPI (+1) and SOS (+1), however, the non conference numbers have seen noticeable improvement (RPI +7; SOS +16). Although the Wake Forest win now falls just outside of the top 25 category, the 'Cats have now improved to two games over .500 against the top 100.

I'd like to see an additional top 25/50 win and some improvement in SOS going forward, but all in all, a very good looking resume at this point in the season.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT