• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bracketology 2017

Wakeforest22890 said:
In your edited scenario you think Wake has to be 19-14 to make the tournament. If that's the case, wake would be top 30 RPI, top 30 KP, and have 10 total wins in the ACC. Has any major conference team ever been left out in the 64+ team era with a top 30 RPI? I'm guessing no.
Click to expand...

To have a shot at the tourney is what I said. The 19 wins will look good. The 14 losses won't. And would we be top 30 still with 5 more losses than what we have now? My guess is no.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
To have a shot at the tourney is what I said. The 19 wins will look good. The 14 losses won't. And would we be top 30 still with 5 more losses than what we have now? My guess is no.
Click to expand...

We will probably wind up around 35-40.
 
Not sure about RPI, but in 2013, Iowa had a KP of 29 after the Big 10 conference tournament, the Hawkeyes were 21-12 (9-9), they won a game in the Big 10 conference tournament, they had wins over 3 top 30 teams and Iowa still didn't get an NCAA bid (they lost in the NIT final to Baylor,who also didn't make the NCAAs with a 41 KP).

Very happy WF is in the NCAA conversation in February, but making the NCAA field is going to be major sweat if WF best win is home against Miami or even a road game against VT. Currently, WF is 0-7 against teams in the top 30, and 0-8 against teams in the top 38. When comparing teams on the bubble, teams with a couple of highly regarded wins (like Indiana with wins over KS and UNC) may have a more persuasive argument even with a worse RPI and KP.
 
Pilchard said:
Not sure about RPI, but in 2013, Iowa had a KP of 29 after the Big 10 conference tournament, the Hawkeyes were 21-12 (9-9), they won a game in the Big 10 conference tournament, they had wins over 3 top 30 teams and Iowa still didn't get an NCAA bid (they lost in the NIT final to Baylor,who also didn't make the NCAAs with a 41 KP).

Very happy WF is in the NCAA conversation in February, but making the NCAA field is going to be major sweat if WF best win is home against Miami or even a road game against VT. Currently, WF is 0-7 against teams in the top 30, and 0-8 against teams in the top 38. When comparing teams on the bubble, teams with a couple of highly regarded wins (like Indiana with wins over KS and UNC) may have a more persuasive argument even with a worse RPI and KP.
Click to expand...

Iowa ended the season at 61 in RPI and Baylor was 55. I don't know if this is after the season was over (I believe so) but either way neither of these teams was in the top 50 on Selection Sunday. Also I doubt there was much (any?) usage of KP back then which only helps Wake this year. Hopefully sources like KP and Sagarin can be used to corroborate a heavier reliance on RPI. Wake is 33 in KP, 27 in live RPI, and 42 in Sagarin.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
To have a shot at the tourney is what I said. The 19 wins will look good. The 14 losses won't. And would we be top 30 still with 5 more losses than what we have now? My guess is no.
Click to expand...

It'd be close. Before the Tech win Wake's projected RPI with a 17-13 regular season record was 38 (from RPIForecast) so throw in two more wins and a loss to a top 10 team in the country and it certainly wouldn't be any worse than 38.

I've gone back a decade and unless I missed a team, nobody with an RPI of under 30 in a major conference has been left out of the NCAA Tournament. I haven't expanded that to top 40 or even 50 but keeping an eye on it as I go through, I haven't even seen a top 50 RPI team miss the tournament from a major conference.
 
Here's an interesting question, let's say ELC's situation comes to fruition: Wake ends at 19-14. The emphasis here from ELC seems to be on the 14 losses, so let's replace the Xavier and Northwestern games with Gardner Webb and Sam Houston State (200th and 201st ranked teams in the country). Wake then would be 21-12 with an SOS about 15-30 spots worse. By your logic, ELC, would Wake be in the tournament? If it is, then why should anyone play a very challenging schedule?
 
Cincinnati missed the tournament with an RPI of 40 in 2006. That is the highest RPI ever to miss the tournament from a power conference team.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
We will probably wind up around 35-40.
Click to expand...

Wins against Pitt, State, and @VT would put us at 35 heading into the tournament.

From there we would actually be slightly better off losing to Miami or VT in the 8/9 game than beating BC as the 10 seed and then losing to Cuse in the 7/10 game (#39 vs #40).

If we win the 8/9 game and then lose to UNC we would finish around #35.
 
Didn't we get screwed out of the NCAA one year with a pretty good RPI by being passed over for another ACC team with a worse ACC record?
 
scooter84 said:
Didn't we get screwed out of the NCAA one year with a pretty good RPI by being passed over for another ACC team with a worse ACC record?
Click to expand...

I thought I remembered the same thing. Seems like we had a high thirties RPI and got passed over for FSU, I think?
 
You guys are remembering 1998. Wake was RPI #41 and FSU was RPI #39. Wake was 7-9 in conference and FSU was 6-10. Wake went to the NIT and FSU was a 12 seed.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
Cincinnati missed the tournament with an RPI of 40 in 2006. That is the highest RPI ever to miss the tournament from a power conference team.
Click to expand...

This is since 2005, when the RPI formula changed. May have misstated that myself previously
 
What matters more: having good wins or avoiding bad losses?
 
Do we have evidence that says the new committee guidelines will include guidance from KenPom/Sagarin explicitly? Or just speculation that new approaches will include them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top