Who has a better case; USF or Rutgers?

[mudcat]

If the AAC gets a third team, I really think that USF has made a better case on the floor, and that Rutger's is just in the conversation due to past reputation. That said, they're both pretty weak, but I pick USF.

 

[tomcat]

USF did itself a world of good today. Wish they had beaten Louisville, but USF looked really good for quite a while. It was exciting right to the end.

 

[DobbsRover2]

South Florida has now moved up to #33 in Sagarin, ahead of #37 RPI, and that would normally be good enough for a bid for at least USF. You know who will be chiming in soon but how the Bulls' RPI number isn't so great, but again it is a brain-dead system.

 

[UcMiami]

I bet there are a bunch of 6,7, and 8 seeds that hope they don't get in, and probably some 5 seeds as well - not a team you want to face - they play good defense and disciplined offense. And with Orackova (sp?) rounding into form they could surprise a lot of middle ranked teams just like they almost did to Louisville.
Rutgers ... they beat Uconn for 20 minutes ... of course it was the 20 minutes after they dug a 31 point first half deficit. I would say the same thing with them about them.
Neither team is likely to give Uconn or ND a problem, but all those middling schools from 'power' conferences should be afraid.

 

[Vowelguy]

USF is 0-8 against the RPI top 50. I don't see how they can make the tournament with that record.
Rutgers resume is not strong either.

 

[UcMiami]

All I have to say is RPI is brain dead. I don't have any idea how anyone can have any faith in a rating system that says Stanford has the second highest value in the country (based on March 3) Or that KY at 22-7, LSU at 18-11, and Texas A&M at 23-7 are better than WVU at 26-3 and Baylor at 25-4. I just have not a clue what you are measuring with that kind of system except how bad a schedule your opponents played. Of how about the reasoning behind Bowling Green and Central Michigan trading sitting next to each other at 30/31 - one with a record of 25-3 and the other with a record of 19-9, and both playing in the same conference.
As for that 0-8 five of them were against Uconn or Louisville and another against Maryland - not teams that anyone living at the back end of selection is likely to have beaten and a better slate of games than any of those other teams in bubble territory played. the two other RPI teams were also ranked teams that they played in Dec - MTU #22 and OKSt #18 - I suspect those teams are better than the most of the rest of the RPI 50 that they didn't play.
Just curious Vowelguy - do you have stock in an RPI service?

 

[Vowelguy]

The RPI is not a power ranking. It only measures wins/losses against the quality of competition. It is only a problem if it is over interpreted, ie, if someone claims that RPI 1 = best team, etc.
Record against RPI top 50 is a broad measure of how team has fared against tournament quality teams. If a school hasn't won any of those games, then it hasn't proven that it can beat an ncaa-type team.

 

[trisailin]

The RPI is not a power ranking. It only measures wins/losses against the quality of competition.

Although you may believe it says something about the quality of competition, I would (and many others here also) say it does no such thing. Maybe the RPI "advertising" materials say such but it is clearly false advertising.

In the example UCMiami put forth about Bowling Green vs. Central Michigan - which RPI says are essentially equal (apparently quality wise), they are clearly NOT equal. Pretending they are equal is just silly. Beating one of those teams is a much bigger accomplishment than the other.

I too ask UCMiami's question: Do you have stock in an RPI rating service?

 

[triaddukefan]

. I just have not a clue what you are measuring with that kind of system except how bad a schedule your opponents played. Of how about the reasoning behind Bowling Green and Central Michigan trading sitting next to each other at 30/31 - one with a record of 25-3 and the other with a record of 19-9, and both playing in the same conference.

Well to CMU's credit..... they did play some tough teams out of conference. Kentucky, Duke, ND, Purdue, Dayton (twice), South Dakota State.. Alas, they only won one of those games.. Dayton. If them and Bowling Green switched OOC schedules..... the records of each would probably be reversed.

 

[NickyNewark]

If the AAC gets a third team, I really think that USF has made a better case on the floor, and that Rutger's is just in the conversation due to past reputation. That said, they're both pretty weak, but I pick USF.

Past reputation(Isn't RU still considered a nice win by any measure?)? Maybe but if most of RU's losses were to UConn and L'ville after some early season struggles with youth and chemistry and with RU's traditional play anybody anywhere type schedule why would you give USF (who Cares?) the bid over a national WBB brand like RU/CVS? As hot as USF is RU beat them on their HC by 12 earlier and lost to a redhot USF at H by 6 in a barnburner! I think both get in or should but RU has to get a bid. Its not supposed to matter what conference your in but don't the AAC deserve 4? Next year maybe a different story but I'm glad we're still playing you guys as an anyone anywhere game B1G or not. Its not our fault Ga or LSU underachieved.

 

[NickyNewark]

USF is 0-8 against the RPI top 50. I don't see how they can make the tournament with that record.
Rutgers resume is not strong either.

Neither is mine but I did alright.

 

[DobbsRover2]

USF is 0-8 against the RPI top 50. I don't see how they can make the tournament with that record.
Rutgers resume is not strong either.

Thataway, VG. Knew you'd be chiming in with your brain-dead RPI stuff. Push it to the max guy, as there may be some brain-dead selectors out there too. Just classic.

Rutgers is at #52 in the RPI for you, though I know that's a little outside of your highly refined credentials for your RPI love. However, as you know, where you set the limits can make a big difference, and USF at least gets up to 7-10 and Rutgers to 8-7 for the RPI top 100, and many teams over the years have made the tourney with much worse records than those.

As noted, I do believe the RPI ratings are brain-dead, but if you love them so much, maybe you can expand your RPI horizon a bit though I know it doesn't fit with your belief that the AAC should only get two teams in the tourney.

 

[jdubct]

Not much to choose between them. I say both in or both out.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Another little tutorial in RPI for those who don't understand it. Here's just a few tasty morsels of how the system would NOW rate a match-up on a neutral court.

• Purdue (quarterfinal drop out) is rated way better than B10 champ Nebraska and all other conference mates with a stunning #7 placement.
• LSU (quarterfinal drop out) is rated way better than Texas A&M plus a host of other schools such as as Nebraska, MD, UNC with a spiffy #13 rating despite its 2-8 late collapse.
• St. Joseph's (quarterfinal dropout and #5 seed in A-10) is rated way better than all but one of the teams in its conference with a #22 rating.
• And yes, that Vanderbilt team that couldn't even get to the SEC quarterfinals and is 2-9 in its last 11 is rated light years ahead of USF, making certain posters happy.

But yeah, there are some who worship these numbers because they hold the ultimate truth to which teams are tourney bound. And yeah,I guess it's just for very broad evaluations----that are worth squat.

 

[NickyNewark]

Not much to choose between them. I say both in or both out.

You may be right(but both are top-30 type teams IMO) ...at least this year but replacing them with even weaker teams is the the other option! Are USF and RU worse than 5th or 6th in ANY P5 conference? I'd doubt it. The American ain't getting enough credit...at least while L'ville and RU are in it.I wonder how the AAC will be perceived next year if most think we deserve only 2/3 this year? How many teams could stay within 50 pts of UConn outside the 12-25 top teams on there HC? Heck even highly ranked L'ville losses were by an average of 19 pts.Outside of ND(who might only lose by 12) lets stop the whole 64 team charade and have a seperate tourney for the rest in WBB. UConn-ND.......then everyone else in a sub tourney !?! JKidding, but that's what it's looking like to Joe Fan...

 

[huskybill]

Thataway, VG. Knew you'd be chiming in with your brain-dead RPI stuff. Push it to the max guy, as there may be some brain-dead selectors out there too. Just classic.

Rutgers is at #52 in the RPI for you, though I know that's a little outside of your highly refined credentials for your RPI love. However, as you know, where you set the limits can make a big difference, and USF at least gets up to 7-10 and Rutgers to 8-7 for the RPI top 100, and many teams over the years have made the tourney with much worse records than those.

As noted, I do believe the RPI ratings are brain-dead, but if you love them so much, maybe you can expand your RPI horizon a bit though I know it doesn't fit with your belief that the AAC should only get two teams in the tourney.

I too am hoping that the AAC should get only 2 teams in the tourney. I'm hoping those two are RU and USF. I'll save a lot of money; most of which I lost in the casino.

Can't understand your attack on VG. He says the RPI is not a power ranking. You keep claiming that he says it is a power ranking. It's as if someone claimed you were the best 'Yarder because you use the most words. (In fact, I claim that.) That doesn't mean you're the nicest, or the most interesting, or the wittiest or the friendliest or ...you fill it in.

I'm not sure exactly what the RPI measures, but for that measurement, it is the best.

Although I'd like to see both Rutgers and South Florida make the tourney, what I'd like even more is to see a merger of the two teams. If Rutger had a couple of 3 pt shooters (I don't mean someone who could make them; I mean just someone who could shoot them) it would probably raise their RPI to where even you Dobbsie would consider them a NCAA team. And any team could use a coach with C Vivian's hairs.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I too am hoping that the AAC should get only 2 teams in the tourney. I'm hoping those two are RU and USF. I'll save a lot of money; most of which I lost in the casino.

Can't understand your attack on VG. He says the RPI is not a power ranking. You keep claiming that he says it is a power ranking. It's as if someone claimed you were the best 'Yarder because you use the most words. (In fact, I claim that.) That doesn't mean you're the nicest, or the most interesting, or the wittiest or the friendliest or ...you fill it in.

I'm not sure exactly what the RPI measures, but for that measurement, it is the best.

Although I'd like to see both Rutgers and South Florida make the tourney, what I'd like even more is to see a merger of the two teams. If Rutger had a couple of 3 pt shooters (I don't mean someone who could make them; I mean just someone who could shoot them) it would probably raise their RPI to where even you Dobbsie would consider them a NCAA team. And any team could use a coach with C Vivian's hairs.

Actually, I think that teams should be selected on the length of their names, and South Florida has a nice healthy 12 letters in its name, so it should make it into the tourney. UConn has only 5 letters, so I'm afraid that it is out. One of teams that get to make it into the tourney in my system is Arkansas-Pine Bluff (17 juicy letters plus an invaluable dash), which is only 2-24 but is still a well-lettered school.

You may say my DRPI system is illogical, means nothing, and is broadly stupid, and I will certainly agree with you. But I will still cite it as the best one to use for evaluating teams because for me it is simply the best even if it is a pack of nonsense. And maybe the Husky fans can push for their school to move down south and become UConn-Uncasville, where the team may be able to squeeze into the tourney.

And hey at least my system has Louisville and West Virginia rated ahead of Purdue, and Baylor is at least tied. I see that the other brain-dead system that competes with mine has the Boilermakers ahead of the Cardinals and the 'Eers and the Bears. Gotta go with DRPI over RPI.

 

[huskybill]

Actually, I think that teams should be selected on the length of their names, and South Florida has a nice healthy 12 letters in its name, so it should make it into the tourney. UConn has only 5 letters, so I'm afraid that it is out. One of teams that get to make it into the tourney in my system is Arkansas-Pine Bluff (17 juicy letters plus an invaluable dash), which is only 2-24 but is still a well-lettered school.

You may say my DRPI system is illogical, means nothing, and is broadly stupid, and I will certainly agree with you. But I will still cite it as the best one to use for evaluating teams because for me it is simply the best even if it is a pack of nonsense. And maybe the Husky fans can push for their school to move down south and become UConn-Uncasville, where the team may be able to squeeze into the tourney.

And hey at least my system has Louisville and West Virginia rated ahead of Purdue, and Baylor is at least tied. I see that the other brain-dead system that competes with mine has the Boilermakers ahead of the Cardinals and the 'Eers and the Bears. Gotta go with DRPI over RPI.

First let me congratulate you on your DRPI system which would be perfect if, like the HBPI system, it selected teams by how short their names were.
Second, however I don't see how your DRPI competes with the RPI as DPRI's objective is to select NCAA tourney teams and the RPI's objective is to measure the SOS. Of course you may have thought it measured the length of schedule, a natural mistake.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Ah, I did not know that. No wonder I'm confused. All the definitions I've ever seen of RPI called it an index to rate the strength of teams, and it uses wins and SOS. But you're telling me it's only a system for rating SOS. Now I understand. And therefore the #1 seeds are Duke, LSU, Ohio St, and Notre Dame, and the #2 seeds are Purdue, UTenn, KY, and PSU. Glad we got that all settled, and I'm hoping that LSU and UTenn or KY don't have to be put in the same region and that OSU can avoid getting Purdue or PSU. UConn will get one of those nice #6 seeds even though it played a creampuff schedule again.

But I hope you didn't think my DPRI was always going to reward the teams with the longer names. Next year after UConn moves to Uncasville I'll switch it to benefit the teams with the shortest names, because that makes a lot more sense. Certainly more than using SOS from brain-dead systems to determine your bracket seedings.