If we beat Temple, and let’s say we go to something like 60 or 59 in the RPI and then lose to Xavier in the finals… what do you think? I know that’s cutting it as close as you can get for a bubble team, but it could happen right? Of course, all of the top seeded teams in all of the conference tournaments would have to win their championships so those at large bids don’t get eaten up.
I know, I know… we should just win the damn A-10 tourney. 
If the NCAA’s were based on the truly best 65 (not auto-bids from bad conferences), then yes. But as it stands…no.
Not getting in, need to be low 50’s for an at-large.
Would be in if it weren’t for the one point double-overtime loss against Monmouth.
[QUOTE=marcushe;305359]Not getting in, need to be low 50’s for an at-large.
Would be in if it weren’t for the one point double-overtime loss against Monmouth.[/QUOTE]
Can some math major on this board compute what our RPI would be if we would have won vs. Monmouth?
According to the NCAA Dance Card, we are all but in and the A10 will have 3 bids if the season ended today. We are one of the “next 4 out”. He uses the actual criteria from the selection committee rules to determine his bids.
If St. Joe’s beats Xavier, they should be in according to the formula.
Nice way to see the bids without introducing the BCS bias exemplified by NITology and Bracketology.
http://www.unf.edu/~jcoleman/dance.htm
He is very accurate too,
[FONT=Arial]
The Dance Card [COLOR=black]has missed on more than three spots in only one season (2007). Over the last 14 years, the Dance Card has correctly predicted [B]446 of the 478[/B] available at-large Tournament slots (or [B]93.3%[/B]).[/COLOR] Over the 8-year period (2000 through 2007) for which the Dance Card has been used since its initial development in 1999 (based on 1994 through 1999 data), it has correctly predicted [B]254 out of the 273[/B] available at-large Tournament slots ([B]93%[/B]).[/FONT] [COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]The formula’s best years were in 2001 and in 2005, when it correctly predicting [/FONT][/COLOR][B][FONT=Arial]33 of the 34[/FONT][/B][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial] available at-large Tournament slots ([/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Arial]or[B] 97% accuracy[/B][COLOR=black]). [/COLOR][/FONT]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]The Dance Card can only be as [I]accurate[/I] as the Selection Committees are [I]consistent[/I]; it is an estimate of the Selection Committees’ ([I]not[/I] the authors’) decision criteria. The high level of accuracy and consistency of the model is strong evidence that the Selection Committees (which differ in composition each year) are actually quite consistent from year to year.[/FONT][/COLOR]
Bottom line: we MUST win the next two to get in. Fantasy is fine, but that’s all it is without these 2 wins.
Win the next two and we’re not having this discussion. It’s there for the taking if our guys can do it.
What was our final RPI? Never mind. Here 'tis. 61 Not a bad comeback from December.
here it is straight from the horse’s mouth:
[B][URL=http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/weeklyrpi/2008MBBrpi1.html]NCAA.ORG’s Final RPI values[/URL][/B]
We’re 68! That means we’re in the next 4 out! Damn lying ESPN!
I thought I read somewhere that no at-large team has put on their dancing shoes with an over-50 RPI. Or am I confuzzled as usual?
[QUOTE=SrA Husker;306301]I thought I read somewhere that no at-large team has put on their dancing shoes with an over-50 RPI. Or am I confuzzled as usual?[/QUOTE]
New Mexico got an at large with a 76 RPI, normally though you ain’t gettin in with a 66 or 56 for that matter.
[QUOTE=SrA Husker;306301]I thought I read somewhere that no at-large team has put on their dancing shoes with an over-50 RPI. Or am I confuzzled as usual?[/QUOTE]
People were complaining that Arizona State should have made the tournament this year … even with their #83 rpi. Kentucky was the highest this year with #57. Rare, but it happens.
I just have one thing to say to the ASU lovers right now: “Scoreboard” 