NCAA Tourney Question

[ZuluWarrior]

BG wins every game from now until MACC, but lose MACC - does their RPI and record get them a spot? I don't think so.

[Redwingtom]

Not a chance. The MAC is a one-bid league in most seasons and most definitely this is one of those.

[Globetrotter]

We dont have a quality OOC win and we have a terrible loss.

[Globetrotter]

Not a chance. The MAC is a one-bid league in most seasons and most definitely this is one of those.

Why?

[Schadenfreude]

Bowling Green has a RPI of 56. We would need to run it up into the 30s, if not higher, to have a legitimate shot at an at-large bid.

Even then, that's not even a guarantee. (If memory serves, we had an RPI that strong in 2002 and got ignored)

I don't see how we run it up that high given our remaining schedule.

[Redwingtom]

Not a chance. The MAC is a one-bid league in most seasons and most definitely this is one of those.

Why?

Easy. no real signature wins to speak of and low RPI's.

But the main issue is the perceived stigma the MAC has among the selection committee.

[Schadenfreude]

But the main issue is the perceived stigma the MAC has among the selection committee.

Supposedly, they don't get into specifics like that. If they talk about conference strength, it's going to be in the abstract -- 10th best, 5th best, etc.

The MAC is 10th-strongest according to the RPI, which actually is better than we have done in many years.

I think we are a one bid league, but I don't think conference strength is that much of a drag.

[TG1996]

We won this weekend and our RPI (according to ESPN) dropped from 50 to 56. We do have two games left with Buffalo, who is right behind us in RPI, but that's more than offset by two with Miami(OH), who is in the 200s. Even the great, indominable Akron is in the 90s.

Win enough down the stretch to get the double-bye, then win a two-game tournament. The goal still remains the same.

That said, what good is RPI if it comes with caveats like "no signature win"? I'm seeing our RPI around 50, but watching arguments for teams that "are in" with RPI's in the high 60s. If all the RPI math breaks down to show we're the 50th best team in the country, why would teams behind us merit discussion? And if it doesn't matter because of "signature wins" or "being the 7th best team in a conference with two good teams, but a traditionally big name," why is RPI the first thing shown on EVERY graphic when discussing at-large teams?

I'm not making a case for us to be an at-large team, because I know better. But looking at RPI, which seems to be gospel in most circles, why aren't we?

College hockey is so much better in this regard.

[jpfalcon09]

We won this weekend and our RPI (according to ESPN) dropped from 50 to 56. We do have two games left with Buffalo, who is right behind us in RPI, but that's more than offset by two with Miami(OH), who is in the 200s. Even the great, indominable Akron is in the 90s.

Win enough down the stretch to get the double-bye, then win a two-game tournament. The goal still remains the same.

That said, what good is RPI if it comes with caveats like "no signature win"? I'm seeing our RPI around 50, but watching arguments for teams that "are in" with RPI's in the high 60s. If all the RPI math breaks down to show we're the 50th best team in the country, why would teams behind us merit discussion? And if it doesn't matter because of "signature wins" or "being the 7th best team in a conference with two good teams, but a traditionally big name," why is RPI the first thing shown on EVERY graphic when discussing at-large teams?

I'm not making a case for us to be an at-large team, because I know better. But looking at RPI, which seems to be gospel in most circles, why aren't we?

College hockey is so much better in this regard.

If March Madness wasn't all about money and getting as many big name schools in as possible, the MAC could have an argument in certain years. However, the fact is that unless a school has an absolute monster season and doesn't win the conference, the MAC will never get more than one bid. Its regarded as a conference that beats on itself and therefore can't be viewed as anything more than what it is.

I agree that college hockey does it better, but they have a much smaller field to pull from and aren't ruined (yet) by the almighty dollar.

[TG1996]

I agree that college hockey does it better, but they have a much smaller field to pull from and aren't ruined (yet) by the almighty dollar.

Though not for a lack of trying.... but it is fun to see the Big 1(6)0 struggle to get more than one team in the conversation.

[hammb]

Bowling Green has a RPI of 56. We would need to run it up into the 30s, if not higher, to have a legitimate shot at an at-large bid.

Even then, that's not even a guarantee. (If memory serves, we had an RPI that strong in 2002 and got ignored)

I don't see how we run it up that high given our remaining schedule.

I'm inclined to say that this team would struggle mightily against that '02 team. Of course that could be largely me being nostalgic for the team of my senior year that was soo much fun to watch.

The way I see the matchup starts with the fact that Holmes has struggled with big bodies inside (see Akron). The combo of Klassen & Matela would likely give him fits. Neither had his athleticism, but size & strength might give him a hard time.

Beyond that I think the matchup would be pretty good, but individually I like Pardon better than our current PGs and I like McLeod better than our current SGs. Denny looks to be a better player than Ryan though, so that's a matchup the current squad would have to exploit. I also think that Dakich motion offense might have struggled against the tenacity of our current defense. They'd be relying on Pardon/McLeod to create...they wouldn't be getting many easy looks off of scheme, I don't think.

It would be a fun matchup, but I just think the individual talent of the roster back then was better. I think our coaching right now looks a lot better, but that could largely be the Dakich 2.0 years clouding how good he was during Dakich 1.0 There is more depth to the league nowadays, but I think the upper tier of KSU, BSU, and BG back then were just better teams with more talent than what the league has right now. I'm not sure I've seen a player yet this season that will play a minute of regular season NBA ball.

[Schadenfreude]

If all the RPI math breaks down to show we're the 50th best team in the country, why would teams behind us merit discussion?

...

I'm not making a case for us to be an at-large team, because I know better. But looking at RPI, which seems to be gospel in most circles, why aren't we?

Even if this thing was fair, 50 isn't good enough. There are only 68 invitations to pass around. Once all the automatic bids are distributed, if you were to just pass out invitations to the schools with the lowest remaining RPIs, there is no way they would reach School No. 50. (I'm not even sure they would reach School No. 40)

This is what made 2002 tragic to me. Weren't we in the 30s? They passed a lot of schools with higher RPIs.

I tend to agree with you. Stop the nonsense, find a good formula, and stick to it. All the side issues about signature wins and bad losses seem like needless bias. If those things matter, put it in the formula.

Hockey does seem better this way.

[Flipper]

RPI counts when it's used by the section committee to exclude the MAC teams...when it should be a basis to include a MAC team, they fall back onto the "signature win" meme. The selection process is nonsense for both genders. Last year, the women's team had an RPI in the 30's, wins over OSU and Michigan and we were excluded from the field because we lost to BSU in the tournament.

[hammb]

The selection process is garbage, and always will be.

But there's a beauty to it all....win your freaking conference and they can't leave you out. Find a way to win 6 games and they cannot give the crown to anybody else.

Unlike football where it's ALL based on bias and conjecture, in hoops we always control our own destiny from day 1. Right now we've been taking care of business and if we can maintain that top 2 seed status we're in great shape. I LOVE how the MAC gives a double bye to the best teams...win 2 games and we could be dancing for the first time in almost 50 years. Gotta keep taking care of business in this regular season though.

[OSUFALCON]

Had we not let Dayton and Akron come back from the dead to beat us we would now have a RPI in the low 40's or high 30's. That still wouldn't be enough unless we won out and lost a close championship game. 26-5 record may not of got us in either. The conference is much better than recent years and appears to be on the upswing. If some teams can few signature wins out conference next year maybe we can begin to hope for two bids. Top wins this year? Michigan, South Carolina and Northwestern?