MoStBearBtmFn Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Both have or will have similar RPI's Both conferences had similar RPI's Both lacked wins against top 50 RPI teams Both did or will finish near top of conference I know in years past there have been those who have said Mo St or the Valley had "figured" out the RPI system and how to schedule in order to get a good RPI. What have the Bills done this year that makes them an automatic tourney team while the Bears got screwed? And i ask not to dismiss the Bills. I'm a fan. Obviously as you can tell my main allegiance lies with the Bears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Both have or will have similar RPI's Both conferences had similar RPI's Both lacked wins against top 50 RPI teams Both did or will finish near top of conference I know in years past there have been those who have said Mo St or the Valley had "figured" out the RPI system and how to schedule in order to get a good RPI. What have the Bills done this year that makes them an automatic tourney team while the Bears got screwed? And i ask not to dismiss the Bills. I'm a fan. Obviously as you can tell my main allegiance lies with the Bears. You were the victim of being in a mid-major, second rate, conference that will hopefully never include the Billikens ever again. It wasn't the bears that were being disrespected it was the Valley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoStBearBtmFn Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 You were the victim of being in a mid-major, second rate, conference that will hopefully never include the Billikens ever again. It wasn't the bears that were being disrespected it was the Valley. I'll agree with the disrespect part. I think the MVC is more similar to the A10 than the A10 is to say the Big 10 or Big 12. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Well part of it is that this is one of the weakest years for the bubble in a long time. Another part is that SLU is just flat out better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoStBearBtmFn Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 Well part of it is that this is one of the weakest years for the bubble in a long time. Another part is that SLU is just flat out better. I'll accept both answers but how are you judging that SLU is better? The "eye test"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I'll agree with the disrespect part. I think the MVC is more similar to the A10 than the A10 is to say the Big 10 or Big 12. MSU was considered the 5th best team in a good non BCS conference the year you were screwed with the 21 RPI. They simply couldn't give the Valley 5 teams that year. SLU is considered the 2nd best team in the 7th best conference. p.s. I'm not one that normally believes conferences are slotted bids, but that year was the exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizziken Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Both have or will have similar RPI's Both conferences had similar RPI's Both lacked wins against top 50 RPI teams Both did or will finish near top of conference I know in years past there have been those who have said Mo St or the Valley had "figured" out the RPI system and how to schedule in order to get a good RPI. What have the Bills done this year that makes them an automatic tourney team while the Bears got screwed? And i ask not to dismiss the Bills. I'm a fan. Obviously as you can tell my main allegiance lies with the Bears. Well...the fact that there are 8 more NCAA Tournament spots doesn't hurt... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Well...the fact that there are 8 more NCAA Tournament spots doesn't hurt... Its only 3 more spots, but your general point is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizziken Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Its only 3 more spots, but your general point is right. I'll be completely honest, I have no idea how I came up with 8... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbizzle09 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I'll accept both answers but how are you judging that SLU is better? The "eye test"? One could look at the other computer rankings to do a comparison. MO State's rankings are their final ones while SLU's are thru today: KenPom 2011 MO State: 71 2012 SLU: 13 Sagarin 2011 MO State: 65 2012 SLU: 18 RPI MO State: 41 SLU: 30 SOS MO State: 124 SLU: 98 Besides the computer numbers, though, there are various other factors that work in SLU's favor this season and against MO State from last year. Some of these factors include: -SLU won the 76 Anaheim Classic this year. Sure, those teams turned out to not be all that strong, but they still beat 3 BCS programs in a row to win the tourney. The tourney win, along with the dominant win over Washington, got SLU some early national attention. -The Bears had a Bracket Buster game last year and lost to Valpo. No such worry for SLU this season, as the A-10 doesn't participate in it. -SLU's defense is one of the best in the nation. SLU has also had a lot more 'dominant' wins than MO State had last year. -The only way the MVC was going to be a 2 bid league last season was if Wichita St. and MO State faced off in the finals. Since Wichita St. lost prior to the finals, MO State had to win the tourney to get in. Fair or not, that was how the committee was looking at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoStBearBtmFn Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 Cool. All good answers. Just goes to show if you're not BCS you'd better not leave it in hands of the committee I guess. Hope they don't screw SLU on the seeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbizzle09 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 MSU was considered the 5th best team in a good non BCS conference the year you were screwed with the 21 RPI. They simply couldn't give the Valley 5 teams that year. SLU is considered the 2nd best team in the 7th best conference. p.s. I'm not one that normally believes conferences are slotted bids, but that year was the exception. Another thing that MSU did that season was to schedule fewer non-conf games than previously. They only scheduled 8 games, not counting the Bracket Buster game that season. Thus, they only had 9 non-conf games total on their schedule. This helped to artifically boost the RPI as they had less games on their schedule than most others in the country. Going into the conference tourney, they had only played 27 regular-season games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 i think billiken rich had it right. the valley has and does suck. no disrespect to southeast missouri state, the valley just doesnt make it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 This is a fair question, and I'm one of those who thinks MSU deserved to be the highest-ever RPI left out of the Tournament. Here's why: http://maroonbears.com/missouri-state-basketball/schedule/2005-2006 http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/weeklyrpi/rpi1.html The Valley made a push as a conference starting in 2005 (maybe 2004) to figure out the RPI as a conference. I don't blame them for that, but they didn't do it from both ends. They got rid of the 250+ kind of teams that destroy the RPI, and crammed it with 100-200 level teams, just about all of which Missouri State beat that season. Look at the non-conference schedule: Northern Illinois (126), Arkansas State (231), Georgia-Southern (160), Texas A&M-Corpus Christi (200), Oral Roberts (127), Detroit (171), Arkansas (45), Arkansas State (again, 231), and UWM (47) - Missouri State took care of business, beating all but Arkansas. But that still doesn't seem like a great non-conference schedule. Then look at the conference RPIs: Wichita State (19), Missouri State (22), Bradley (25), UNI (35), SIUC (37), Creighton (46), and then a big drop-off. How on earth could anyone explain 6 Valley teams in the top 50? They quite simply made a concerted conference-wide effort to avoid the dregs of Division-I, and it paid off. The Valley was good that year, but come on. MSU split with Creighton, split with UNI, lost both to WSU, split with SIUC, and split with Bradley. They all beat each other roughly the same amount. The Valley put the committee in the unconfortable position of not being able to tell how strong it actually was. So when MSU lost in the first round of the conference tournament, it became a very hard team to advocate for inclusion when the Conference was getting multiple other bids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someoneelse Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 This is a fair question, and I'm one of those who thinks MSU deserved to be the highest-ever RPI left out of the Tournament. Here's why: http://maroonbears.c...edule/2005-2006 http://web1.ncaa.org...lyrpi/rpi1.html The Valley made a push as a conference starting in 2005 (maybe 2004) to figure out the RPI as a conference. I don't blame them for that, but they didn't do it from both ends. They got rid of the 250+ kind of teams that destroy the RPI, and crammed it with 100-200 level teams, just about all of which Missouri State beat that season. Look at the non-conference schedule: Northern Illinois (126), Arkansas State (231), Georgia-Southern (160), Texas A&M-Corpus Christi (200), Oral Roberts (127), Detroit (171), Arkansas (45), Arkansas State (again, 231), and UWM (47) - Missouri State took care of business, beating all but Arkansas. But that still doesn't seem like a great non-conference schedule. Then look at the conference RPIs: Wichita State (19), Missouri State (22), Bradley (25), UNI (35), SIUC (37), Creighton (46), and then a big drop-off. How on earth could anyone explain 6 Valley teams in the top 50? They quite simply made a concerted conference-wide effort to avoid the dregs of Division-I, and it paid off. The Valley was good that year, but come on. MSU split with Creighton, split with UNI, lost both to WSU, split with SIUC, and split with Bradley. They all beat each other roughly the same amount. The Valley put the committee in the unconfortable position of not being able to tell how strong it actually was. So when MSU lost in the first round of the conference tournament, it became a very hard team to advocate for inclusion when the Conference was getting multiple other bids. Pistol, very cogent analysis, but it tells me that the BCS schools of the world who schedule cupcakes in November and hope to go .500 in the conference should get a similar fate. They don't. All schools/conferences are equal, but some are more equal than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I'm not saying the system is fair, but that year saw 6 top-50 Valley teams, and there was no way in hell they were all going to make it. Looking at their schedules, it was just puzzling how they all got there. Out of nowhere, the Valley went from one of the better non-BCS conferences to one of the best overall in RPI. It was bizarre, and when they didn't beat many impressive non-conference teams and then cannibalized each other in conference, it made it very, very difficult on the committee. Fast forward to SLU this year. We were up to 22, appropriately enough, in the RPI before the debacle in Rhode Island. We now stand at 30 with one regular-season game and a conference tournament to go. Take a look at the non-conference schedule: Tennessee State (131), SIUC (247- ouch), Washington (54), BC (232- ouch), Villanova (106), Oklahoma (122), LMU (120), Portland (218), Vermont (161), Alabama State (310), Arkansas State (248), Texas Southern (231), New Mexico (33). Only losses were at LMU and UNM. Unfortunately for us, a few of the buy games are in the mid-200s and Bama State at 310. Those are no help. And a lot of the ones we counted on being top 100 have been disappointments, like everyone from the 76 Classic and Washington. But we challenged ourselves more than Missouri State did in its 2006 disappointment, there's no denying that. The other reason we're lower in RPI is that the conference hasn't collaborated to defeat the RPI. We've got Temple (11), but we also have Rhody (250) and Fordham (237). We'll end up with less losses than Missouri State had, and we have the advantage of a weaker bubble this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Both have or will have similar RPI's Both conferences had similar RPI's Both lacked wins against top 50 RPI teams Both did or will finish near top of conference I know in years past there have been those who have said Mo St or the Valley had "figured" out the RPI system and how to schedule in order to get a good RPI. What have the Bills done this year that makes them an automatic tourney team while the Bears got screwed? And i ask not to dismiss the Bills. I'm a fan. Obviously as you can tell my main allegiance lies with the Bears. Mo State never passed the Skip testt, this years Bills have. Nothing more needs to be said on this subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawyerbilliken07 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I think we're in a much better position than Mo State was, but the whole thing still worries me. If we lose to DU, I think it would be very tempting for the committee to put a mid-level BCS team in over us. DU is not a bad team, but it will be seen as a bad loss, particularly if we lose in our first A-10 game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SShoe Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Both have or will have similar RPI's Both conferences had similar RPI's Both lacked wins against top 50 RPI teams Both did or will finish near top of conference I know in years past there have been those who have said Mo St or the Valley had "figured" out the RPI system and how to schedule in order to get a good RPI. What have the Bills done this year that makes them an automatic tourney team while the Bears got screwed? And i ask not to dismiss the Bills. I'm a fan. Obviously as you can tell my main allegiance lies with the Bears. In addition to what many have said, I'll add that the 2006 Mo State team has a losing record against teams with RPIs between 51-100 (according to Warren Nolan's site), while SLU is 6-2 vs. teams in that range. That being said, Mo State got screwed that year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.