Bracketologists giving mixed signals

[dawgs]

What’s frustrating is that if we’d simply schedule a bunch of 100-200 RPI teams instead of 200+ RPI teams, our SOS probably wouldn’t be that bad. At least not glaringly so to the point it’s cited as a reason to keep us out of the tourney. We knew we were scheduling a bunch of really bad programs that had little chance of ranking higher than 200 in RPI. We still wouldn’t have any great OOC Ws, but we’d wouldn’t stand out as having an exceptionally weak OOC SOS either, which may be the difference with 90% of the conference tied in the standings.

[smootness]

ha, I'm not saying Auburn shouldn't be in the tourney. Goodness. But, they are a #2 with that 24-4 record and no OOC games against ranked opponents. If we had of beaten Ole Miss, Missouri, and Vandy, we would be 23-5....and I guaran_damn_tee you that we would not be sniffing a #2 seed. Heck, we would be about a #10 seed.

And there are reasons for that. And those reasons aren't 'They're biased against Mississippi State.'

Our RPI in that case would probably be something like 30 or so. Which is really good. Auburn's is 7. So why is that?

Well, our good wins would be as follows:
@#26
#30
#35
#40
@#40

Our bad losses are:
#107
@#111

Auburn's good wins are:
@#11
#16
#22
#30
#35
@#40

Their bad losses are:
#73

Their SOS is also #40, compared to our #95. Why? Because, while they didn't play a bunch of great teams in the OOC, they also didn't play the ton of terrible teams we did.

We played the following in the OOC:
#196
#214
#218
#220
#311
#313
#331
#334
#341
We played three teams in the top 195 in the country in the OOC.

Auburn, meanwhile, played #181, #189, #199, #237, #262, and #274. Those are their worst 6 in the OOC. Which, by the way, is not good. They are being penalized some for their lack of quality OOC opponents. And yet their OOC schedule was infinitely better than ours. There are only 351 teams in D1, so we played 3 of the worst 21 and 5 of the worst 41. That is awful.

[smootness]

What’s frustrating is that if we’d simply schedule a bunch of 100-200 RPI teams instead of 200+ RPI teams, our SOS probably wouldn’t be that bad. At least not glaringly so to the point it’s cited as a reason to keep us out of the tourney. We knew we were scheduling a bunch of really bad programs that had little chance of ranking higher than 200 in RPI. We still wouldn’t have any great OOC Ws, but we’d wouldn’t stand out as having an exceptionally weak OOC SOS either, which may be the difference with 90% of the conference tied in the standings.

Correct. Change our 5 sub-300 RPI games to 5 around 200, and we are likely firmly in the Tourney right now.

[Bulldog1]

not according to the one of ESPN this morning-updated 2/22

The next four out/ last four out haven’t been updated on the site yet. That’s the same one that was there Monday.

[confucius say]

Bracketmatrix is the best site for this bc it shows all the brackets and when they were last updated, and gives you an average based on all the brackets. Has us in first four out.

Stop being sheep who think the committee is going to go by, and only by, the sheet they released. We go 11-7 and finish second we good.

SOS is a big part of RPI. Citing both as reasons to support an argument is duplicative. Our RPI is low bc of our SOS. You don?t get dinged for bad SOS twice.

We also picked up two quadrant 1 wins yesterday without playing, as USCe moved into top 75 and Bama into top 30.

[Ari Gold]

Bracketmatrix is the best site for this bc it shows all the brackets and when they were last updated, and gives you an average based on all the brackets. Has us in first four out.

Stop being sheep who think the committee is going to go by, and only by, the sheet they released. We go 11-7 and finish second we good.

SOS is a big part of RPI. Citing both as reasons to support an argument is duplicative. Our RPI is low bc of our SOS. You don?t get dinged for bad SOS twice.

We also picked up two quadrant 1 wins yesterday without playing, as USCe moved into top 75 and Bama into top 30.

Exacatly... and BPI > RPI