Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

per rpiratings.com, Bowling Green ranks 63rd overall. We're still too high up for a potential at-large bid. Looks like we need a tournament title to move on to NC's unless we move up at least into the upper 40's/lower 50s by selection monday. Looking at the numbers, it appears our home loss to Western Michigan is particularly damaging to our profile.

What's really infuriating to me is teams like 15-14 Purdue and 14-14 Kentucky being ranked in front of us. Doesn't record count for ANYTHING?

http://rpiratings.com/womensrpi.html

The total MAC RPI:

Bowling Green - 63
Miami - 69
Ohio - 136
Ball State - 140
Eastern Michigan - 141
Northern Illinois - 190
Buffalo - 191
Western Michigan - 207
Kent State - 239
Toledo - 250
Akron - 258
Central Michigan - 294

The Conference is ranked 16th in total RPI.

Yeah - it's not going to rise above 60 with a win at Akron, so we're almost certainly on our own. Even outside of RPI ratings, which are just a piece of the selection puzzle, our resume does not warrant an at-large bid.

To answer your question about record, RPI is basically a number that reflects how your team performed against schedule strength, adjusted for home/road performance. So yes, record does have a lot to do with it, but only viewed through the prism of schedule strength. Purdue's SOS is 9 and Kentucky's is 18. We played a soft overall schedule this year by design, to break in the youth. The consequence of that, at our level, is we need to be absolutely dominant against that schedule if we want to be an at-large contender. We didn't win any of our "name" games against IU, ND, and ISU. If we had pulled out 2 of those, we'd probably be a solid at-large team right now, and looking at a 10 seed instead of a 13 if we do win the MACC.

I agree with J4H. It sux but it is what it is this year. I'm still surprised we haven't gotten one stinking vote for the Top 25! At 23-6?

Oh well....just go out and win the Tourney title again.

Falconfreak90 wrote:I agree with J4H. It sux but it is what it is this year. I'm still surprised we haven't gotten one stinking vote for the Top 25! At 23-6?

Oh well....just go out and win the Tourney title again.

Oh for the chance to replay the end of the ND and Indiana games. Had we taken them both we would be ranked.

All in due time...all in due time...

bgsufalcon24 wrote: What's really infuriating to me is teams like 15-14 Purdue and 14-14 Kentucky being ranked in front of us. Doesn't record count for ANYTHING?

Yeah, thats pitiful.

PERSONALLY, I think the RPI business is a bunch of crap... I realize that they want SOME kind of statistical comparison on teams since they can't see them all play. But putting a "magic number" on a team and saying that "your RPI isn't high enough" to go to the tournament...but a .500 team from a BCS conference WILL...is to me at least, just another way to not share the bucks...and I don't mean the group in Columbus!

Class of 61 wrote:pERSONALLY, I think the RPI business is a bunch of crap... I realize that they want SOME kind of statistical comparison on teams since they can't see them all play. But putting a "magic number" on a team and saying that "your RPI isn't high enough" to go to the tournament...but a .500 team from a BCS conference WILL...is to me at least, just another way to not share the bucks...and I don't mean the group in Columbus!

Purdue and Kentucky are also not currently projected as in the tournament. The RPI is just a piece of the puzzle. It's actually really helped the "mid-major" cause on the men's side. Look at Kent this year. Even with the loss to us on Saturday, their RPI is still strong. Largely on the strength of that RPI, they still have a shot to get in the tourney if they lose in the MACC.

It's not a perfect number, but it helps a great deal when you're trying to compare teams from different conferences.

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:

Class of 61 wrote:pERSONALLY, I think the RPI business is a bunch of crap... I realize that they want SOME kind of statistical comparison on teams since they can't see them all play. But putting a "magic number" on a team and saying that "your RPI isn't high enough" to go to the tournament...but a .500 team from a BCS conference WILL...is to me at least, just another way to not share the bucks...and I don't mean the group in Columbus!

Purdue and Kentucky are also not currently projected as in the tournament. The RPI is just a piece of the puzzle. It's actually really helped the "mid-major" cause on the men's side. Look at Kent this year. Even with the loss to us on Saturday, their RPI is still strong. Largely on the strength of that RPI, they still have a shot to get in the tourney if they lose in the MACC.

It's not a perfect number, but it helps a great deal when you're trying to compare teams from different conferences.

Your kidding about Kent still having a shot at an at-large NCAA bid right? I thought they were done after losing to us for sure. It sure would be nice if they still did have a shot. I'm not expecting it though. We have a long way to go as a conference to get the respect that the Horizon and MVC earned over the years.

Falconboy wrote:

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:

Class of 61 wrote:pERSONALLY, I think the RPI business is a bunch of crap... I realize that they want SOME kind of statistical comparison on teams since they can't see them all play. But putting a "magic number" on a team and saying that "your RPI isn't high enough" to go to the tournament...but a .500 team from a BCS conference WILL...is to me at least, just another way to not share the bucks...and I don't mean the group in Columbus!

Purdue and Kentucky are also not currently projected as in the tournament. The RPI is just a piece of the puzzle. It's actually really helped the "mid-major" cause on the men's side. Look at Kent this year. Even with the loss to us on Saturday, their RPI is still strong. Largely on the strength of that RPI, they still have a shot to get in the tourney if they lose in the MACC.

It's not a perfect number, but it helps a great deal when you're trying to compare teams from different conferences.

Your kidding about Kent still having a shot at an at-large NCAA bid right? I thought they were done after losing to us for sure. It sure would be nice if they still did have a shot. I'm not expecting it though. We have a long way to go as a conference to get the respect that the Horizon and MVC earned over the years.

Falconboy, I figured that Kent's loss to us was doom for them, but evidently that isn't the case. Their RPI was 29 prior to the game, and it is 34 right now. I thought it would drop at least into the 40s. That number of 34 pretty much means if they win their final two games vs Miami and at Akron they are going to be in there since Miami and Akron are also both in the RPI top 100. They could probably even afford to lose at Akron as long as they don't go out of the MAC tournament early.

The only way Kent gets an at-large on the men's side is if they lose the MACC game...any exit prior to the championship game, unfortunately, I don't think it will get them in.

Falconfreak90 wrote: Oh well....just go out and win the Tourney title again.

We just need to take care of business. Everything else will fall into place. I think Coach Miller and crew are happy with where we are at and want to earn it the same way we earned the last three trips.

And just for Niz -

YOUR FOUR TIME DEFENDING MAC CHAMPION!
YOUR FOUR TIME DEFENDING MAC CHAMPION!
YOUR FOUR TIME DEFENDING MAC CHAMPION!
YOUR FOUR TIME DEFENDING MAC CHAMPION!

transfer2BGSU wrote:

Falconfreak90 wrote: Oh well....just go out and win the Tourney title again.

We just need to take care of business. Everything else will fall into place. I think Coach Miller and crew are happy with where we are at and want to earn it the same way we earned the last three trips.

And just for Niz -

YOUR FOUR TIME DEFENDING MAC CHAMPION!
YOUR FOUR TIME DEFENDING MAC CHAMPION!
YOUR FOUR TIME DEFENDING MAC CHAMPION!
YOUR FOUR TIME DEFENDING MAC CHAMPION!

4-peat really looks awesome above. 8) It' just so _______________
fill in any POSITIVE WORD which fits. These women r astounding.

hockeysue wrote:4-peat really looks awesome above. 8) It' just so _______________

UNFALCONBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!