What it would take for each team to get (or stay) ranked.

[Bill Marsh]

Steve, the committee no longer restricts itself to RPI. Power ratings are a far better measure and wins/losses are not the primary issue with them as they are with RPI.

Where DePaul enters the BE season rated does matter. Power ratings are transactional. If I beat you by more than expected, I take away some of your rating for myself. I increase my rating while yours decreasing. Whatever DePaul brings to conference play will be redistributed among any other conference members who beat them unless DePaull wins some games and takes from others.

That's why every game matters OOC, not just the high profile wins. They all add to a teams resume and they all translate numerically in the various formulas that are used.

RPI is a very poor measure of performance. It was a politically motivated concoction in the sense that it was derived to provide a measure that would discourage teams from running up scores just to get ratings. While the goal was lofty and noble, it resulted in an inferior measure. It persists only because it's been around for a long time now but it's outlived its usefulness. The committee is very much focused these days on getting the 68 best teams. To do so, they use the best measures, which include power ratings as well as RPI, and analysis of individual teams' records.

All we have to know about RPI is that people who bet on games would never use RPI to devise their picks. Not in a million years.

The RPI though is a really good indicator though of who gets bids. Last year, only 1 team that was eligible in the top 50 didn't make the tourney. Southern Miss. You can't say the same about Ken Pom where I think it was like 4 teams didn't make it that were top 50. When you hear someone say team x has 8 top 50 wins, they mean they have 8 top 50 RPI wins. Seems like you are on a crusade to eliminate the RPI(which you aren't the first). But, you have to acknowledge that it's still a very real part of the selection process.

Absolutely true. I agree that they use RPI to define top 25,50,100 wins.

I'm not on a crusade to eliminate it since I have no say or influence in the matter. I just don't find it to be a very useful tool in doing analysis. Looking at schools at this point in the season, I would find Ken Pom or any of the other power ratings - preferably a couple in combination - a far better predictor of what will transpire as the season progresses than RPI.

You're right again about RPI correlating almost perfectly with last year's at-large selections. I'm not sure that we can generalize beyond that one season, however. I'm always amazed at how each tournament's selection committee seems to have a process unto itself without necessarily being connected to what's been done by previous committees.

[stever20]

Steve, the committee no longer restricts itself to RPI. Power ratings are a far better measure and wins/losses are not the primary issue with them as they are with RPI.

Where DePaul enters the BE season rated does matter. Power ratings are transactional. If I beat you by more than expected, I take away some of your rating for myself. I increase my rating while yours decreasing. Whatever DePaul brings to conference play will be redistributed among any other conference members who beat them unless DePaull wins some games and takes from others.

That's why every game matters OOC, not just the high profile wins. They all add to a teams resume and they all translate numerically in the various formulas that are used.

RPI is a very poor measure of performance. It was a politically motivated concoction in the sense that it was derived to provide a measure that would discourage teams from running up scores just to get ratings. While the goal was lofty and noble, it resulted in an inferior measure. It persists only because it's been around for a long time now but it's outlived its usefulness. The committee is very much focused these days on getting the 68 best teams. To do so, they use the best measures, which include power ratings as well as RPI, and analysis of individual teams' records.

All we have to know about RPI is that people who bet on games would never use RPI to devise their picks. Not in a million years.

The RPI though is a really good indicator though of who gets bids. Last year, only 1 team that was eligible in the top 50 didn't make the tourney. Southern Miss. You can't say the same about Ken Pom where I think it was like 4 teams didn't make it that were top 50. When you hear someone say team x has 8 top 50 wins, they mean they have 8 top 50 RPI wins. Seems like you are on a crusade to eliminate the RPI(which you aren't the first). But, you have to acknowledge that it's still a very real part of the selection process.

Absolutely true. I agree that they use RPI to define top 25,50,100 wins.

I'm not on a crusade to eliminate it since I have no say or influence in the matter. I just don't find it to be a very useful tool in doing analysis. Looking at schools at this point in the season, I would find Ken Pom or any of the other power ratings - preferably a couple in combination - a far better predictor of what will transpire as the season progresses than RPI.

You're right again about RPI correlating almost perfectly with last year's at-large selections. I'm not sure that we can generalize beyond that one season, however. I'm always amazed at how each tournament's selection committee seems to have a process unto itself without necessarily being connected to what's been done by previous committees.

Almost every years RPI is pretty accurate. You have to go back 3 years to where more than 2 missed the tourney in the top 50. And 3 years ago, where 5 missed it, one was #50. Even that year, it was as good as Ken Pom. The last 2 years, had 3 teams miss the tourney in the top 50 RPI. And 2 were ranked 44 and 48.

Also- the ones that are missing it:
Colorado St, St Mary's, Missouri St, Cleveland St, Harvard, Oral Roberts, Southern Miss. Pretty much, if you are a RPI top 50 from a major conference, you are in the tourney.

Also got to look at it the other way. Last 3 years, the worst team to make the tourney was Marquette 2011 at #54. In 2012, worst RPI that made it was Virginia at #53. In 2013, California at #54. So, pretty much if you are in the top 50, you are likely going to be in, but if you're not in the top 60, you aren't going.

[adoraz11]

Updated kenpom (one week update). Excellent week for the BE after a subpar week. 12-2. with I think 4 away games.

Butler- #54 -> #57 (lost 3)
DePaul- #118 -> #145 (lost 27)
Creighton- #25 -> #18 (gained 7)
Georgetown- #23 -> #25 (lost 2)
Marquette- #47 -> #45 (gained 2)
Providence- #60 -> #61 (lost 1)
Seton Hall- #137 -> #127 (gained 10)
St. John's- #70 -> #56 (gained 14)
Villanova- #15 -> #5 (gained 10)
Xavier- #64 -> #65 (lost 1)

DePaul was the only team who did poorly. Nobody else lost more than 3 spots which is basically nothing. Three teams with at least 10 point gains including Nova breaking the top 5.

Conference as a whole:
Lost 34 (27 from DePaul)
Gained 43

Overall a gain of 9 for the conference this week, which doesn't seem like much, but really is when you consider DePaul caused most of the lost spots and how they're the least likely BE team to compete for a tournament spot this year (no offense DePaul fans!).

That saod. it would be great if DePaul bounces back a bit.

[Bluejay]

Updated kenpom (one week update). Excellent week for the BE after a subpar week. 12-2. with I think 4 away games.

Butler- #54 -> #57 (lost 3)
DePaul- #118 -> #145 (lost 27)
Creighton- #25 -> #18 (gained 7)
Georgetown- #23 -> #25 (lost 2)
Marquette- #47 -> #45 (gained 2)
Providence- #60 -> #61 (lost 1)
Seton Hall- #137 -> #127 (gained 10)
St. John's- #70 -> #56 (gained 14)
Villanova- #15 -> #5 (gained 10)
Xavier- #64 -> #65 (lost 1)

DePaul was the only team who did poorly. Nobody else lost more than 3 spots which is basically nothing. Three teams with at least 10 point gains including Nova breaking the top 5.

Conference as a whole:
Lost 34 (27 from DePaul)
Gained 43

Overall a gain of 9 for the conference this week, which doesn't seem like much, but really is when you consider DePaul caused most of the lost spots and how they're the least likely BE team to compete for a tournament spot this year (no offense DePaul fans!).

That saod. it would be great if DePaul bounces back a bit.

Actually, if you look at DePaul's schedule, they really don't have a bad loss (every single loss was to a school in roughly the top 60 of the RPI). Sure, it would have been nice if they won one of those games, but it isn't like they are losing to the Farleigh Dickinsons of the world. DePaul, even with four losses so far, is actually exceeding my expectations; if they are our last placed team, we have a pretty salty conference.

[OutlawWales]

So the Jays pretty dominantly handle two opponents this week -- a salty Long Beach team on the road (who admittedly has a terrible record this year) and a Big Ten team. And the Jays go backward in the rankings, losing votes over last week. I'm guessing at this point what it would take for Creighton to get back into the rankings is a good deal of losses for teams that are currently ranked and getting votes. Going to be pretty hard to impress any voters with the remaining non conference schedule if the completely dominating performances of these last two games, one on the road and one against the revered Big Ten conference, didn't do it at all.

[Jet915]

So the Jays pretty dominantly handle two opponents this week -- a salty Long Beach team on the road (who admittedly has a terrible record this year) and a Big Ten team. And the Jays go backward in the rankings, losing votes over last week. I'm guessing at this point what it would take for Creighton to get back into the rankings is a good deal of losses for teams that are currently ranked and getting votes. Going to be pretty hard to impress any voters with the remaining non conference schedule if the completely dominating performances of these last two games, one on the road and one against the revered Big Ten conference, didn't do it at all.

Shows what playing Nebraska does for you, you lose votes!

[stever20]

So the Jays pretty dominantly handle two opponents this week -- a salty Long Beach team on the road (who admittedly has a terrible record this year) and a Big Ten team. And the Jays go backward in the rankings, losing votes over last week. I'm guessing at this point what it would take for Creighton to get back into the rankings is a good deal of losses for teams that are currently ranked and getting votes. Going to be pretty hard to impress any voters with the remaining non conference schedule if the completely dominating performances of these last two games, one on the road and one against the revered Big Ten conference, didn't do it at all.

I think part of it frankly is last week's loss wasn't fully captured- due to you playing late Sunday night last week.

[Bill Marsh]

When a team loses votes at this time of the year in spite a couple of wins, it has more to do with who else picked up big wins in the past week than anything Creighton did.

[Bluejay]

So the Jays pretty dominantly handle two opponents this week -- a salty Long Beach team on the road (who admittedly has a terrible record this year) and a Big Ten team. And the Jays go backward in the rankings, losing votes over last week. I'm guessing at this point what it would take for Creighton to get back into the rankings is a good deal of losses for teams that are currently ranked and getting votes. Going to be pretty hard to impress any voters with the remaining non conference schedule if the completely dominating performances of these last two games, one on the road and one against the revered Big Ten conference, didn't do it at all.

I think part of it frankly is last week's loss wasn't fully captured- due to you playing late Sunday night last week.

I agree. I also think that most votes were probably in before Creighton-Nebraska even tipped off last night. I'm convinced a lot of these national writers cast their votes by early afternoon on Sundays.

[Westbrook36]

Well good thing at least we have a current top 10 team in the conference.