No that's not the world we live in. Those "blue bloods" get the "benefit of the doubt" because they play lots of ranked teams and win lots of games. If we played a harder non con schedule and win out share we would get higher seeds.
AP Poll: Purdue up to 14
- Thread starter Purdue Grad in Texas
- Start date
This is similar to what was just said on the BTN. Purdue will need to win out and beat one of the ranked B1G teams along the way to move to a 3 seed.
Last year
RPI rank, school , see, AP/coach poll
1. Kansas (1 seed) 1/1
2. Oregon (1 seed) 5/4
3. Virginia (1 seed) 4/5
4. Villanova (2 seed) 6/6
5. NC (1 seed) 3/3
6. Oklahoma (2 seed)
7. Xavier (2 seed) 9/9
8. Utah (3 seed) 13/14
9. Miami (3 seed) 10/11
10. Kentucky ( 4 seed) 10/13
11. W. Va ( 3 seed) 8/8
12. Michigan (2 seed) 2/2
.
.
.
19. Purdue ( 5 seed) 12/10
In this list, only NC and MSU were overseeded relatative to RPI and both were very high on human polls and big name programs. Easier to make the argument to overseed them.
In general the seeds matched up with RPI better than AP/coaches poll. As for Purdue, our seed matched perfectly with our RPI and nothing with our rankings.
How do you think Biggie's NPOTY campaign will impact seeding and favorable early matchups. This is one of the best story lines in college hoops and would add a lot of casual bb fans that are drawn in by his story. Would mean higher ratings and more money for NCAA.
correct. want to be treated like one. schedule like one. Tbh, scheduling those are not so easy. A Kansas, UK, UNC, Duke has little reason to schedule a Purdue unless when forced to by B1G/ACC challenge. They win, it doesn't help. They lose, it hurts. Kansas lost to a dire IU this year, but nationally nobody mentions it. It's a loss that isn't hurting them much perception wise.
or just look at your RPI rank. If it matches up with your poll numbers. You will most likely be that seed or at worst +/- 1 of that.
Last edited:
not true
RPI ranks for 2 seeds as of selection Sunday
2016 (4,6,7,11) with 11 being MSU that was ranked 2/2 in both polls
2015 (2,6,7,8)
2014 (3,5,6,9)
2013 (1,6,10, 11) 11 being OSU ranked 7/6 in polls; 10 Georgetown (ranked 8/8) back in the Big East was always overhyped.
you can check it yourself. selection is sunday is usually Sunday of March 12-16
https://www.teamrankings.com/ncb/rpi/?date=2016-03-13
Last edited:
I'm afraid (or happy) that we are no longer under the radar. We are being described as an "elite team". An elite team with a NPOY candidate will have a target on its back from now on.
we likely end up a 3 seed. We are Purdue, we will be still be relatively under the radar. Relax
Enough of them to move us up seems unlikely. It's not like the polls. If they lose to another good team it doesn't really hurt their RPI much. Just consider that we did nothing but win since the initial seedings were released and yet our RPI went down. We don't play any great teams the rest of the way and the committee doesn't seem to change much based on the Sunday of conference tournaments.
I'm no expert on RPI but that's why I believe it would be hard for us to move up THAT far with our schedule in just a couple weeks.
atmafola, just curious where are you getting your RPI data. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. I was going to the NCAA RPI Archive, selecting basketball, men, selection, year : NCAA RPI Archive
For 2014, the nitty gritty (says games thru 3/16) has Michigan (2 seed) as RPI #11: 2014 Nitty Gritty Selection Sunday
For 2014, the nitty gritty (says games thru 3/16) has Michigan (2 seed) as RPI #11: 2014 Nitty Gritty Selection Sunday
i editted my post. Im sorry I had wrongly assumed you were using incorrect dates. It might just be different sources. I am using this site
https://www.teamrankings.com/ncb/rpi/?date=2016-03-13
we won this weekend and Maryland lost. Their RPI went up, ours went down. It sucks. I hate RPI. I hope it get buried. It puts too much weight on who you play and none on how you play. They now compound the RPI problem by using W/L vs RPI top 50, W/L vs RPI 100. This is essentially double couting strength of schedule. Unfortunately it's still the starting point of most seedings discussions.
Yeah, for some reason RPI doesn't always line up between sites which is strange to me since it is a known formula, isn't it? I always do the extra couple of clicks to get it from the NCAA site--I've always assumed that is the report the committee uses, but I guess I don't know for sure.
In any case, I agree with your general premise--best case scenario (it happens for maybe 1 or 2 of 4 teams on a seed line) seems to be getting bumped up 1 seed line compared to what RPI says.
******************
Whatever the fudge factor to give the impression of unbiased results through multiple regression (perhaps I'm wrong, but was thinking the RPI considered who you played and what they did and the various interactions throughout...growing a low predictor I'm guessing) how do we ever reconcile that the best team in teh Big and ACC would not be a 2 seed or a 3 seed always, based upon historical results. How does super conferences... traditionally strong in basketball not rank in the top 8 or 12 in the nation?
Agreed, but even if you can't get Kansas or Kentucky there are plenty of good teams. Replace a couple of our cupcakes with Cal, Colorado, Utah, Florida, Xavier, Cincy, Marquette, Baylor, Iowa St, etc.. and RPI goes up. Like us, those teams fluctuate year to year, but at worst you're replacing some RPI 250 games with RPI 100 games. At best you're adding a couple top 25 opponents to your resume.
absolutely agree! replace 2 or 3 of our cupcakes with decent-ish power 5 teams. Even if those guys end up having bad year, their RPIs will usually still be better than 150. A bye and more practice time is even better than scheduling some Prarie View A&M rpi 300
It's still easier said than done these days. The bulk of quality games comes from non-conference tournaments and events like the ACC/Big Ten Challenge, as well as the Gavitt games that the Big Ten plays with the Big East. Purdue has scheduled quality home/home games with teams (i.e. West Virginia, Vandy, etc.), but it's hard to keep them consistent. Additionally, as the Big Ten schedule has lengthened, it's also limited the number of non-conference games you have to schedule.
For non-conference tournaments, this year was no doubt a 'down' year. Next year, we play in Battle 4 Atlantis - which has teams like Villanova and Arizona.
Looking at Purdue's schedule this year - the problem wasn't that we didn't play good teams. We played three ranked teams in Villanova, Louisville and Notre Dame (one home, away, neutral). The problem is the cupcakes we played were really bad instead of just bad. That doesn't mean we need to go schedule Xavier and Florida.
Even if you dropped a Norfolk State, Western Illinois, and an NJIT whose RPIs are in the 275 to 350+ range with teams in the low 100s range like a Buffalo, Green Bay, William & Mary, or Oakland (MI) that would help a lot.
One problem is the Athletic department counts on the revenue from all these home games. They don't want to give any up. The better the opponent the more they will push for a home and home or a neutral site. Probably means less revenue.
One problem is the Athletic department counts on the revenue from all these home games. They don't want to give any up. The better the opponent the more they will push for a home and home or a neutral site. Probably means less revenue.
to be honest you can't always predict ahead of time which small conference team is going to be decent RPI <150 vs which is going to be horrible RPI >300. Just reduce the amount of such teams you play and use it for practice instead. Our non-conference this year was actually pretty good for a non-blue blood. Replace 1 or 2 cupcakes with 1 or 2 mid level power 5 and we will be fine.
my guess, a properly priced home and away with a good P5 conference team can bring in about the same income as 2 home games with NJIT's
I also think some of those really bad teams are sometimes scheduled as part of the non-conference tournament we play in. Like this year, NJIT was part of the Cancun thing even though we played them at home. Those are out of our control but there's still a number we choose to schedule like McNeese, Western Illinois, and Norfolk State. Probably would be wise to trade one or two of those out for MAC level schools or traditionally bad programs in other power conferences.
good non-conf: B1G/ACC (1 decent opponent), Gavitt (1 decent opponent), pre-season tourney (1 or 2 decent opponent), Crossroad classics (1 decent opponent), Always have one home and away with decent P5 team (e.g. what we did with Vandy, Wva), one decent low level B12/Pac team, and 3 to 4 home cupcakes for practise. Done.
"And the RPI won't move because none of the B1G have high RPIs."
This is the fundamental flaw of the RPI. The initial rankings matter too much in that it's very hard to move up if you're not beating a highly ranked team -- and once intra-conference play begins, the relative strengths of the conferences are very sticky. This hurts the whole B1G but especially the mid-pack teams, whereas a mid-pack ACC team can get hot and move up quickly in the RPI.
RPI uses a system of relationships that are under-identIfied for producing national rankings. I.e., there aren't enough inter-conference games played to make it reliable, especially late in the season, considering that most inter-conferences games are played early in the season, before a lot of teams round into the team they'll be come March.
And RPI is "dangerous" in the hands of ignorant selection committee members who think of it as a "computer ranking" so it, therefore, must be unbiased and objective!
Annnnnd .... keep in mind how under-seeded we have tended to be recently. It is what it is ... survive and move on ... I'm looking forward some Vegas wisdom in a couple of weeks.
Actually, the committee has NEVER come out and provided the algorithm, or the percentage they place on each variable. Therefore for anyone to say the KNOW where Purdue would or would not fall if they were to win out is simply using a lot of words to say "I JUST KNOW". You don't know...but we'll know more....tomorrow
there are leaks on the internet about what information is made available to committee members. And its all RPI based. Perhaps those leaks are unreliable, but patterns of seeding over the years suggests otherwise. Listen to conversations in March, its always about "yes we use RPI but it's not the only thing, its a holistic process". Indeed it is. There is no magic algorithm. It's a committee of people reaching a consensus using whatever information they choose to use but the one uniform information it seems they are all provided with are RPI based. Your best predictor of what will happen is still the RPI. The rest of the adjustment depends on how forcefully somebody argues for what and is able to convince others. That's really not predictable or consistent year to year.
So your source was....the internet. And then you're remaining source was... you. You might consider throwing in a "hey, just my opinion..." until then, I'm still saying Purdue has a chance of a 2 seed if we win out...according to a reliable source...
