Updated Bracketology 2.23.16

[CatsTopPac]

Okay, so take away AZ's RPI ranking and this is their resume:

Vs. Top 50 teams: 2-4
Vs. Projected tournament teams(in my bracket, some have Oregon State out): 2-4
Non Conf. SOS: 279

It's pretty common knowledge these teams sheets are what is heavily looked at for teams:

I understand that people look at RPI. However, there is far more to a resume than just RPI (W/L vs SOS). I also understand that AZ is only 2-4 against the top 50. But you are also not taking into consideration key injuries for those losses, and margin of victory (BPI), and also the efficiency numbers of Sagarin and Pomeroy.

My whole point is that you can't just look at RPI (SOS) and record against the RPI top 25/50. There are plenty of metrics and indicators that are also used (even by the committee) to determine seeding; especially when the committee has specifically come out and said that RPI is just one indicator, and certainly not the basis for determining seeding.

AZ had 5 losses with one coming in Nov, by 4, against Prov in a neutral location. Then we had 4 losses while starters were injured (3 on the road and one at home), with 3 of those against top 50 teams. Since getting healthy again, AZ have beaten two top 50 teams, and have 3 left (CU, Utah, and Cal).

All of that being said, AZ is still top ten in every other ranking/rating system except for RPI. So when RPI (which is mostly SOS, and clearly explained to not be the sole basis for seeding) puts them at 25, and the rest have them in the top ten, with everyone now being healthy again and playing their best basketball, saying that they are a #5 seed because of RPI is lacking of not only who AZ is right now, but what the committee considers.

If you are going to tell me that AZ is #9 in BPI, #10 in Sagarin, #13 in Pomeroy, #9 in the AP, #10 in the Coaches Poll, and yet because they are #25 in RPI that they are a #5 seed, then I'm going to tell you that your measures are lacking a complete examination of even what the committee considers. And I'm going to double down on that when the inverse is true concerning Oregon being ranked #13 in both polls, #23 in both BPI and Sagarin, and #17 in Pomeroy. But because they are #4 in RPI, they are a #2 seed.

I'm not saying that there is an end all be all for seeding. You are saying that RPI is, and I am saying that you need to add in the other metrics.

 

[CatsTopPac]

BPI sucks ass.

Use your favorite jersey color as an argument before you use that BS

It's one factor, like the others. It does count key injuries and margin of victory, in addition to other factors that RPI counts. It's actually done a pretty good job of rating teams high that have actually done well in March and during the year. Again, it's one among many.

 

[ericd7633]

I understand that people look at RPI. However, there is far more to a resume than just RPI (W/L vs SOS). I also understand that AZ is only 2-4 against the top 50. But you are also not taking into consideration key injuries for those losses, and margin of victory (BPI), and also the efficiency numbers of Sagarin and Pomeroy.

My whole point is that you can't just look at RPI (SOS) and record against the RPI top 25/50. There are plenty of metrics and indicators that are also used (even by the committee) to determine seeding; especially when the committee has specifically come out and said that RPI is just one indicator, and certainly not the basis for determining seeding.

AZ had 5 losses with one coming in Nov, by 4, against Prov in a neutral location. Then we had 4 losses while starters were injured (3 on the road and one at home), with 3 of those against top 50 teams. Since getting healthy again, AZ have beaten two top 50 teams, and have 3 left (CU, Utah, and Cal).

All of that being said, AZ is still top ten in every other ranking/rating system except for RPI. So when RPI (which is mostly SOS, and clearly explained to not be the sole basis for seeding) puts them at 25, and the rest have them in the top ten, with everyone now being healthy again and playing their best basketball, saying that they are a #5 seed because of RPI is lacking of not only who AZ is right now, but what the committee considers.

If you are going to tell me that AZ is #9 in BPI, #10 in Sagarin, #13 in Pomeroy, #9 in the AP, #10 in the Coaches Poll, and yet because they are #25 in RPI that they are a #5 seed, then I'm going to tell you that your measures are lacking a complete examination of even what the committee considers. And I'm going to double down on that when the inverse is true concerning Oregon being ranked #13 in both polls, #23 in both BPI and Sagarin, and #17 in Pomeroy. But because they are #4 in RPI, they are a #2 seed.

I'm not saying that there is an end all be all for seeding. You are saying that RPI is, and I am saying that you need to add in the other metrics.

I'm not going solely based on RPI to determine where I place teams in seeding. It's just one metric that I use. If I was basing it solely on RPI rank, AZ's RPI of 26 would place them as a 7 seed. I'm more so looking at their awful OOC SoS and their lack of good wins. They've beaten ONE sure fire NCAA tournament lock right now. That's pretty bad. I get that they've had injury issues, but even when completely healthy they don't have a good resume.

Also, FWIW, I have AZ as the best 5 seed which would place them at #17 in my rankings. If you're going to make a big deal about me having them 4 places behind KenPom, I'm going to stop discussing this with you because there's little difference between #13 and #17.

As for Oregon, they have beaten NINE teams that project to make the field, which is tied for the most in the country. I really don't give a shit about the other metrics at that point. Plus they have a really good non conf SOS, which the committee has said is very important. All my seedings try to take into account some precedence based on what they've done in the past.

 

[CatsTopPac]

I'm not going solely based on RPI to determine where I place teams in seeding. It's just one metric that I use. If I was basing it solely on RPI rank, AZ's RPI of 26 would place them as a 7 seed. I'm more so looking at their awful OOC SoS and their lack of good wins. They've beaten ONE sure fire NCAA tournament lock right now. That's pretty bad. I get that they've had injury issues, but even when completely healthy they don't have a good resume.

Also, FWIW, I have AZ as the best 5 seed which would place them at #17 in my rankings. If you're going to make a big deal about me having them 4 places behind KenPom, I'm going to stop discussing this with you because there's little difference between #13 and #17.

As for Oregon, they have beaten NINE teams that project to make the field, which is tied for the most in the country. I really don't give a shit about the other metrics at that point. Plus they have a really good non conf SOS, which the committee has said is very important. All my seedings try to take into account some precedence based on what they've done in the past.

Again, RPI is your basis. You included SOS, but SOS is 75% of calculating RPI. Of course you choose the highest of the other ratings (KenPom) to say that you are only 4 away. So you start with the outlying rating, and then adjust to say that it's not far off from the next worse rating. Got it. Even when the committee specifically says that RPI is not the basis, it's still your basis. Instead of going off the fact that the other ratings have them all hovering around the top ten (putting them at about the 3 line), and then maybe making them the last 3 or first 4, you put them at a 5. How kind. And instead of seeing that Oregon is 17-23 in the other ratings, you start them from the #4 RPI, and bump them down from to a #2. Again, how kind.

All I am saying (again), is that if you take all of the ratings, and combine them, then AZ is a 4 seed at absolute worst, and Oregon is a 4 seed at absolute best. But you are starting with RPI (SOS), and then adjusting from there.

As far as their play when healthy, that is part of the eye test. AZ started the year healthy, but with 4 new starters. I knew that this year was going to be a process of getting a new team with new roles all on the same page. At the beginning they looked terrible, no doubt. They started to get better, and had some serious injuries. They kept improving little by little, but still definitely suffered through the injuries. Now they are healthy and improved. They have just beaten 2 top 50 teams, and also beat two teams they previously lost to. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just saying that on paper considering RPI as a basis to adjust from, they don't look good. But when you consider the other metrics, look at injuries and team development, then they are definitely better than a 5 seed.

Oregon lost to UNLV (by double digits), Boise State, Oregon State (by double digits), and just recently got swept on their bay trip (losing to Cal by 20). They have some good wins against the top 50, but some horrible losses. Again, I understand that they have a ton of top 50 wins, but there is a reason that no other rating has them in the top 16. AZ has lost all 5 of their games by less than Oregon lost to Cal, alone. Oregon was healthy, and AZ has three starters out since December, and no bad losses.

All I have been saying is that I think you are basing your seeding by RPI more than you should. I think AZ is a #3 seed (probably the last 3 seed), and if they win out (3 more top 50 games in the reg season, plus at least another 2 in the P12 tourney), then that would make 7 consecutive top 50 wins in one month, and all since being healthy again. I think that would be a good argument (based on all the ratings) to put them as a #2 seed.

 

[Edonidd]

I think there is a 0.0% chance they put Duke and UNC in the same bracket, so which do you think would be more likely to move? And do you think it would be a straight swap keeping their seeds, or do you think one might bump up/down to a 3 or 5 to make things fit better?

 

[Edonidd]

And as an MSU fan I'm feeling pretty good about this year regardless, but if they got this draw I think I would be even more enthusiastic.

 

[ericd7633]

Again, RPI is your basis. You included SOS, but SOS is 75% of calculating RPI. Of course you choose the highest of the other ratings (KenPom) to say that you are only 4 away. So you start with the outlying rating, and then adjust to say that it's not far off from the next worse rating. Got it. Even when the committee specifically says that RPI is not the basis, it's still your basis. Instead of going off the fact that the other ratings have them all hovering around the top ten (putting them at about the 3 line), and then maybe making them the last 3 or first 4, you put them at a 5. How kind. And instead of seeing that Oregon is 17-23 in the other ratings, you start them from the #4 RPI, and bump them down from to a #2. Again, how kind.

All I am saying (again), is that if you take all of the ratings, and combine them, then AZ is a 4 seed at absolute worst, and Oregon is a 4 seed at absolute best. But you are starting with RPI (SOS), and then adjusting from there.

As far as their play when healthy, that is part of the eye test. AZ started the year healthy, but with 4 new starters. I knew that this year was going to be a process of getting a new team with new roles all on the same page. At the beginning they looked terrible, no doubt. They started to get better, and had some serious injuries. They kept improving little by little, but still definitely suffered through the injuries. Now they are healthy and improved. They have just beaten 2 top 50 teams, and also beat two teams they previously lost to. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just saying that on paper considering RPI as a basis to adjust from, they don't look good. But when you consider the other metrics, look at injuries and team development, then they are definitely better than a 5 seed.

Oregon lost to UNLV (by double digits), Boise State, Oregon State (by double digits), and just recently got swept on their bay trip (losing to Cal by 20). They have some good wins against the top 50, but some horrible losses. Again, I understand that they have a ton of top 50 wins, but there is a reason that no other rating has them in the top 16. AZ has lost all 5 of their games by less than Oregon lost to Cal, alone. Oregon was healthy, and AZ has three starters out since December, and no bad losses.

All I have been saying is that I think you are basing your seeding by RPI more than you should. I think AZ is a #3 seed (probably the last 3 seed), and if they win out (3 more top 50 games in the reg season, plus at least another 2 in the P12 tourney), then that would make 7 consecutive top 50 wins in one month, and all since being healthy again. I think that would be a good argument (based on all the ratings) to put them as a #2 seed.

RPI is my basis because it's the best thing out there to predict where the committee is going to place teams. Perfect example is Maryland last year, KenPom had them at 32, BPI at 28, RPI at 12. Maryland was a 4 seed by the committee. Using KemPom as a predictive measure for seeding is just dumb. It's better to use as a means to project how teams will perform in the tournament, not for placement.

Plus, I don't know why you're bitching so much, I already said they will probably be undervalued based on seed(meaning I think they are better than their seed)

 

[ericd7633]

Again, RPI is your basis. You included SOS, but SOS is 75% of calculating RPI. Of course you choose the highest of the other ratings (KenPom) to say that you are only 4 away. So you start with the outlying rating, and then adjust to say that it's not far off from the next worse rating. Got it. Even when the committee specifically says that RPI is not the basis, it's still your basis. Instead of going off the fact that the other ratings have them all hovering around the top ten (putting them at about the 3 line), and then maybe making them the last 3 or first 4, you put them at a 5. How kind. And instead of seeing that Oregon is 17-23 in the other ratings, you start them from the #4 RPI, and bump them down from to a #2. Again, how kind.

All I am saying (again), is that if you take all of the ratings, and combine them, then AZ is a 4 seed at absolute worst, and Oregon is a 4 seed at absolute best. But you are starting with RPI (SOS), and then adjusting from there.

As far as their play when healthy, that is part of the eye test. AZ started the year healthy, but with 4 new starters. I knew that this year was going to be a process of getting a new team with new roles all on the same page. At the beginning they looked terrible, no doubt. They started to get better, and had some serious injuries. They kept improving little by little, but still definitely suffered through the injuries. Now they are healthy and improved. They have just beaten 2 top 50 teams, and also beat two teams they previously lost to. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just saying that on paper considering RPI as a basis to adjust from, they don't look good. But when you consider the other metrics, look at injuries and team development, then they are definitely better than a 5 seed.

Oregon lost to UNLV (by double digits), Boise State, Oregon State (by double digits), and just recently got swept on their bay trip (losing to Cal by 20). They have some good wins against the top 50, but some horrible losses. Again, I understand that they have a ton of top 50 wins, but there is a reason that no other rating has them in the top 16. AZ has lost all 5 of their games by less than Oregon lost to Cal, alone. Oregon was healthy, and AZ has three starters out since December, and no bad losses.

All I have been saying is that I think you are basing your seeding by RPI more than you should. I think AZ is a #3 seed (probably the last 3 seed), and if they win out (3 more top 50 games in the reg season, plus at least another 2 in the P12 tourney), then that would make 7 consecutive top 50 wins in one month, and all since being healthy again. I think that would be a good argument (based on all the ratings) to put them as a #2 seed.

Also, Arizona is playing better when they don't have their all their players FYI. So using the excuse of them missing players is practically moot.

 

[ericd7633]

I think there is a 0.0% chance they put Duke and UNC in the same bracket, so which do you think would be more likely to move? And do you think it would be a straight swap keeping their seeds, or do you think one might bump up/down to a 3 or 5 to make things fit better?

There really wasn't anywhere else to put Duke. With the Big 12 occupying two 1 seeds and two 4 seeds it cut down on half the spots to place the four seeds(to not have an all Big 12 rematch in the S16). I doubt it'll play out like this however, and the committee won't place them in the same bracket, because they never have. lol.

 

[Edonidd]

There really wasn't anywhere else to put Duke. With the Big 12 occupying two 1 seeds and two 4 seeds it cut down on half the spots to place the four seeds(to not have an all Big 12 rematch in the S16). I doubt it'll play out like this however, and the committee won't place them in the same bracket, because they never have. lol.

They do always do an excellent job with so many things to juggle. But it's all voodoo and black magic to me. I have no idea how they do it, so I like to ask questions of people who do mm understand it all.

 

[CatsTopPac]

RPI is my basis because it's the best thing out there to predict where the committee is going to place teams. Perfect example is Maryland last year, KenPom had them at 32, BPI at 28, RPI at 12. Maryland was a 4 seed by the committee. Using KemPom as a predictive measure for seeding is just dumb. It's better to use as a means to project how teams will perform in the tournament, not for placement.

Plus, I don't know why you're bitching so much, I already said they will probably be undervalued based on seed(meaning I think they are better than their seed)

It's not the best thing out there. Take Colorado State last year. They had an RPI of 29, with a non-con SOS of 9 (and they were undefeated in their non-con). They went 26-6 overall and according to RPI they were a shoe-in. And they watched it on TV. They didn't realize that RPI is not the basis of the committee. And I'm not saying that KenPom is the predictive measure. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: there are a half-dozen different considerations: RPI, BPI, rankings, Sagarin, KenPom, and eye-test. I'm not saying one or another should be the basis, you are. I'm saying that the combination of them all is a better measure of a team than using any one; especially if the committee specifically stated that they don't use it as a basis.

I came on here cordially. I really don't give two fucks what your brackets are, never have. Nothing against you, I just really don't give a shit about any of them before Selection Sunday. But, I noticed that Lunardi had AZ as a 5 seed, and CBS had them as a 6, and with them having Oregon so high, I figured they must be basing it on RPI. I ran across yours and since you had them as a 5, I wanted to know your criteria. You mentioned that you use RPI, and that confirmed my suspicion. You mentioned that they are probably underseeded, and I agreed. And then you and rmilla leaned in on me about how preposterous it was for AZ to be any higher than a 5 and Oregon to be any lower than a 2, and so I explained myself. I think there are more ratings and metrics to have as much weight as RPI, especially when it's the outlier for both teams ratings across the spectrum. rmilla said he hadn't heard of the other metrics as receiving consideration, and you kept only focusing on RPI (SOS). So I expanded. Sorry if me providing information on how the committee seeds is bitching.

Also, Arizona is playing better when they don't have their all their players FYI. So using the excuse of them missing players is practically moot.

Again, if you are just looking on paper, then you are barely correct. But if you have watched them play, you understand that is incorrect. They started the season healthy, but replacing 4 starters. Lost against Prov and beat some weak opponents. They lost Zeus and the game they got him back (technically healthy), they lost on the road to UCLA on a last second 3. We had to play him for his defense because whether or not he was 100%, his defense was better than Ristic's. The next game they lost Trier and lost to USC in 4OT. Trier played for 15 minutes with a broken hand. We lost @Cal and at home against Oregon without Trier. So you are counting the garbage opponents that we won as having a better record while hurt, then yes, but we played better competition and had better wins after getting healthy again. I explained this above. That's where the eye-test comes in.

So, it's not moot. You miss your only starter from the year prior, a 4 year starter, your 7 footer and post anchor and expect that it should have no baring in a road loss on a last second shot? You know better than that, if you weren't just looking at the stats. It also doesn't count Allen getting sick and looking horrible in the games he played in (5-19 fg and 12 turnovers in 3 games). He lost 17 pounds.

This brings us back to the fact that AZ is now healthy, and have developed the cohesion that they were obviously missing in Nov. We lost all four games against top 50 opponents prior to getting healthy and having the chemistry missing from Nov. Since then, we are 2-0 against top 50. If you watched the games, it's night and day. We had 21 turnovers against Prov, 20 against Oregon, 17 in a win against Santa Clara (in Nov), 19 against USC, and 20 against UW. Lack of chemistry overall, and with key players out. Our last three games (UCLA, USC who is top 50, and ASU) we have had 13, 11, and 8 turnovers, respectively. We are playing much better together, and guys are settling back into their roles, and having everyone around them. Trier is finally back to where he was before being injured. Zeus had two consecutive career rebounding nights the last two games. We are looking solid.

Now, I don't want to put the cart before the horse, we have to play at CU and Utah this weekend. Both are ridiculously difficult venues, and the road is gauntlet this year for the Pac. If we can sweep, we have definitely turned a corner. Even if we split we are still in good shape if we play well. But we just climbed to the top of a tough conference, and have the best road record in the conference. The other metrics bear that out more.

 

[ericd7633]

They do always do an excellent job with so many things to juggle. But it's all voodoo and black magic to me. I have no idea how they do it, so I like to ask questions of people who do mm understand it all.

I've been doing this for about 5 years now, and every year there's a surprise or two. I certainly don't pretend to know it all, just try to base things on the precedents they've set in the past. And to follow the bracketing principles.

 

[ericd7633]

It's not the best thing out there. Take Colorado State last year. They had an RPI of 29, with a non-con SOS of 9 (and they were undefeated in their non-con). They went 26-6 overall and according to RPI they were a shoe-in. And they watched it on TV. They didn't realize that RPI is not the basis of the committee. And I'm not saying that KenPom is the predictive measure. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: there are a half-dozen different considerations: RPI, BPI, rankings, Sagarin, KenPom, and eye-test. I'm not saying one or another should be the basis, you are. I'm saying that the combination of them all is a better measure of a team than using any one; especially if the committee specifically stated that they don't use it as a basis.

I came on here cordially. I really don't give two fucks what your brackets are, never have. Nothing against you, I just really don't give a shit about any of them before Selection Sunday. But, I noticed that Lunardi had AZ as a 5 seed, and CBS had them as a 6, and with them having Oregon so high, I figured they must be basing it on RPI. I ran across yours and since you had them as a 5, I wanted to know your criteria. You mentioned that you use RPI, and that confirmed my suspicion. You mentioned that they are probably underseeded, and I agreed. And then you and rmilla leaned in on me about how preposterous it was for AZ to be any higher than a 5 and Oregon to be any lower than a 2, and so I explained myself. I think there are more ratings and metrics to have as much weight as RPI, especially when it's the outlier for both teams ratings across the spectrum. rmilla said he hadn't heard of the other metrics as receiving consideration, and you kept only focusing on RPI (SOS). So I expanded. Sorry if me providing information on how the committee seeds is bitching.



Again, if you are just looking on paper, then you are barely correct. But if you have watched them play, you understand that is incorrect. They started the season healthy, but replacing 4 starters. Lost against Prov and beat some weak opponents. They lost Zeus and the game they got him back (technically healthy), they lost on the road to UCLA on a last second 3. We had to play him for his defense because whether or not he was 100%, his defense was better than Ristic's. The next game they lost Trier and lost to USC in 4OT. Trier played for 15 minutes with a broken hand. We lost @Cal and at home against Oregon without Trier. So you are counting the garbage opponents that we won as having a better record while hurt, then yes, but we played better competition and had better wins after getting healthy again. I explained this above. That's where the eye-test comes in.

So, it's not moot. You miss your only starter from the year prior, a 4 year starter, your 7 footer and post anchor and expect that it should have no baring in a road loss on a last second shot? You know better than that, if you weren't just looking at the stats. It also doesn't count Allen getting sick and looking horrible in the games he played in (5-19 fg and 12 turnovers in 3 games). He lost 17 pounds.

This brings us back to the fact that AZ is now healthy, and have developed the cohesion that they were obviously missing in Nov. We lost all four games against top 50 opponents prior to getting healthy and having the chemistry missing from Nov. Since then, we are 2-0 against top 50. If you watched the games, it's night and day. We had 21 turnovers against Prov, 20 against Oregon, 17 in a win against Santa Clara (in Nov), 19 against USC, and 20 against UW. Lack of chemistry overall, and with key players out. Our last three games (UCLA, USC who is top 50, and ASU) we have had 13, 11, and 8 turnovers, respectively. We are playing much better together, and guys are settling back into their roles, and having everyone around them. Trier is finally back to where he was before being injured. Zeus had two consecutive career rebounding nights the last two games. We are looking solid.

Now, I don't want to put the cart before the horse, we have to play at CU and Utah this weekend. Both are ridiculously difficult venues, and the road is gauntlet this year for the Pac. If we can sweep, we have definitely turned a corner. Even if we split we are still in good shape if we play well. But we just climbed to the top of a tough conference, and have the best road record in the conference. The other metrics bear that out more.

Having them as a 4 wouldn't be preposterous. It was close between them and WVU/ISU/Duke. Taking the RPI out of the equation, I gave those schools the nod because of quality wins and SOS.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Having them as a 4 wouldn't be preposterous. It was close between them and WVU/ISU/Duke. Taking the RPI out of the equation, I gave those schools the nod because of quality wins and SOS.

Again, you can't take SOS out of it when RPI is 75% SOS.

 

[ericd7633]

Again, you can't take SOS out of it when RPI is 75% SOS.

WTF are you talking you about? You do realize all those other metrics have SOS numbers right?

AZ now 2-5 against tournament teams.

 

[Blitzville]

Xavier's big win is against Villanova. They have been beat by Providence, Georgetown, and Creighton. Furthermore Xavier doesn't lose at home hardly ever... $$ last night 20-33 free throws for Xavier 10- 13 for Nova. Nova had three foul out and the center with 4 most of the game. Xavier had ONE player with 3 fouls.. I go to games there at Cintas and it is always this way .. When they go on the road its a different story.. By the way I'm not a big east fan either.

 

[CatsTopPac]

WTF are you talking you about? You do realize all those other metrics have SOS numbers right?

AZ now 2-5 against tournament teams.

I do, but RPI is 75% SOS. It's about how much SOS is weighed, not if it's included. Obviously SOS is a measurement, but when you give all the SOS and RPI numbers, they are basically part and parcel.

 

[ericd7633]

I do, but RPI is 75% SOS. It's about how much SOS is weighed, not if it's included. Obviously SOS is a measurement, but when you give all the SOS and RPI numbers, they are basically part and parcel.

Ok, then take out RPI. Arizona's SOS is still bad according to those other metrics, and they have TWO good wins with 3 games left to play. And again, if I was strictly going by RPI, Arizona would have been a 7 seed.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Ok, then take out RPI. Arizona's SOS is still bad according to those other metrics, and they have TWO good wins with 3 games left to play. And again, if I was strictly going by RPI, Arizona would have been a 7 seed.

You don't get it. I understand that AZ has a bad SOS. But SOS is 75% of RPI. If you say, let's take RPI out of it, AZ has a bad SOS, then you are still talking about 75% of RPI. You are still basing it on 75% of what makes up the RPI. The other ratings also contain SOS, but it's added to so many more other stats so that SOS is not the majority, or even close. The other ratings take so much more into consideration. You are still focused on the primary measure of RPI (SOS) even if you don't want to call it RPI. You want to focus on SOS or record vs the field, and that's fine, but all of these games we are losing by a possession on the road are also certainly arguable as wins in a neutral location. You don't pay very much attention to margin of victory and location, injuries, etc. Oregon lost by 20 @ Cal, and by double digits @ Oregon State, and @ UNLV. On neutral courts, those are most likely still losses. AZ lost @ Cal by 1, @ USC by 2, @ UCLA and Colorado by 3. Those are likely wins on a neutral court. Three of those losses saw key injuries affect AZ, and that also matters. Oregon only barely beat Bama and Fresno state at home, those are seen as potential losses on neutral courts. AZ doesn't have any bad losses on the road or questionable wins at home.These are things that the committee looks at that you, RPI (with any significant weight), and SOS don't consider. So you can isolate whatever stats you want, and that's fine. But you are not looking at a more complete picture of what happened, and how that would translate in the tourney in the eyes of the committee.

Look man, do whatever you want. Like I said, I was only interested in this thread because I saw AZ was a 5 seed and I wondered if you based it on RPI (SOS). You did. Great. You answered my question. You also said that they might be undervalued. I agree. You think RPI (SOS) is a basis for seeding, and I think that there is much more to consider. I'm pretty sure that neither is going to convince the other.

 

[ericd7633]

You don't get it. I understand that AZ has a bad SOS. But SOS is 75% of RPI. If you say, let's take RPI out of it, AZ has a bad SOS, then you are still talking about 75% of RPI. You are still basing it on 75% of what makes up the RPI. The other ratings also contain SOS, but it's added to so many more other stats so that SOS is not the majority, or even close. The other ratings take so much more into consideration. You are still focused on the primary measure of RPI (SOS) even if you don't want to call it RPI. You want to focus on SOS or record vs the field, and that's fine, but all of these games we are losing by a possession on the road are also certainly arguable as wins in a neutral location. You don't pay very much attention to margin of victory and location, injuries, etc. Oregon lost by 20 @ Cal, and by double digits @ Oregon State, and @ UNLV. On neutral courts, those are most likely still losses. AZ lost @ Cal by 1, @ USC by 2, @ UCLA and Colorado by 3. Those are likely wins on a neutral court. Three of those losses saw key injuries affect AZ, and that also matters. These are things that the committee looks at that you, RPI, and SOS don't consider. So you can isolate whatever stats you want, and that's fine. But you are not looking at a more complete picture of what happened, and how that would translate in the tourney in the eyes of the committee.

Look man, do whatever you want. Like I said, I was only interested in this thread because I saw AZ was a 5 seed and I wondered if you based it on RPI (SOS). You did. Great. You answered my question. You also said that they might be undervalued. I agree. You think RPI (SOS) is a basis for seeding, and I think that there is much more to consider. I'm pretty sure that neither is going to convince the other.

Arizona has TWO wins vs. the field, and one of them is extremely on the bubble(Oregon State). Arizona is the ONLY team in the top 25 to not have beaten a single team in the RPI top 25, KenPom top 25, BPI top 25 and Sagarin top 25. Arizona is 9-3 with their full roster. Also I've never heard the committee reference MOV, so it doesn't even matter how ugly the losses are, or how good the wins look.

The reason why Arizona has 3/4 seed efficiency numbers is because they are really, really good against NIT teams. Which doesn't mean anything to me.