RPI all the way up to 38 now after the ODU win.

1 more okay RPI opponent next week at Western Kentucky (118), but things get uglier after that (at 226 Marshall; home vs 316 FIU and 288 FAU, at 176 North Texas, home vs 155 Louisiana Tech, and at 273 UTSA).

I am not an RPI expert, buy I would assume beating bad RPI teams lets you tread water (no gain, and no loss, in your standing in RPI), but that fact pattern does not drop your RPI. Is that not the case?

(02-03-2019 09:23 AM)owlsfan Wrote:  I am not an RPI expert, buy I would assume beating bad RPI teams lets you tread water (no gain, and no loss, in your standing in RPI), but that fact pattern does not drop your RPI. Is that not the case?

No. Of course it depends upon what teams ahead of us do, but if we beat really poor RPI teams, especially at home, our RPI will most likely slip a bit. Not a lot, but a bit.

(02-03-2019 09:23 AM)owlsfan Wrote:  I am not an RPI expert, buy I would assume beating bad RPI teams lets you tread water (no gain, and no loss, in your standing in RPI), but that fact pattern does not drop your RPI. Is that not the case?

So RPI is 25% your winning percentage, 50% your opponents winning percentage, and 25% your opponents’ opponents winning percentage.

So, even though their RPIs aren’t that far off, the Marshall game will be a lot better for our RPI than the FAU and FIU games. Marshall’s RPI is bad because of their opponents winning %, not because of their winning percentage.

In college baseball, there’s even more of a twist in that home wins are worth .7 wins and road wins are worth 1.3 (and the home losses worth more than road losses). As such, you’d much rather player a bad team on the road in college baseball.

(02-03-2019 09:23 AM)owlsfan Wrote:  I am not an RPI expert, buy I would assume beating bad RPI teams lets you tread water (no gain, and no loss, in your standing in RPI), but that fact pattern does not drop your RPI. Is that not the case?

ExcitedOwl18 stated the formula.

The big key to understanding RPI is that it’s not recursive. So your future opponents’ RPI does not determine their affect on your RPI.

Another important aspect is that opponents’ winning percentage (OWP) has less variance than WP and OOWP has even less. That’s why OWP is weighted more than WP. OOWP tends to be close to 50% for everybody, so it’s effectively much less important than WP even though it has the same weight.

F*U’s records are bad enough that they will drop Rice’s RPI even if Rice wins. But as ExcitedOwl18 noted, Marshall has a decent record. A win against them will help Rice’s WP and OWP.

Finally, everything is constantly in flux because your previous opponents are still playing games, the results from those plugging into your RPI, and the teams around you are also playing games. In the current situation, we want UCLA, SMU, and Rice’s other non-conference opponents to win, and Oregon State, New Mexico, and Villanova to lose.

North Carolina with another big win today, knocking off previously unbeaten NC State (the only unbeaten team in men's or women's basketball heading into the day) by 13 points.

Latest AP Poll:
Others receiving votes: South Dakota 17; North Carolina 13; UCF 10; Missouri 7; West Virginia 5; New Mexico 4; Drake 3; California 2; Minnesota 2; Rice 2; BYU 1; Central Michigan 1.

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball...ated-press

This week Scott Richey, The News-Gazette, joins Antonelli in having Rice at #25.
https://apnews.com/afs:Content:3219960380

(02-04-2019 01:43 PM)dragon2owl Wrote:  Latest AP Poll:
Others receiving votes: South Dakota 17; North Carolina 13; UCF 10; Missouri 7; West Virginia 5; New Mexico 4; Drake 3; California 2; Minnesota 2; Rice 2; BYU 1; Central Michigan 1.

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball...ated-press

This week Scott Richey, The News-Gazette, joins Antonelli in having Rice at #25.
https://apnews.com/afs:Content:3219960380

19 more points to surpass Miami for #25

ESPN projects us as an 11 seed in the tournament (up from 12 last week):

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-baske...acketology

(02-04-2019 04:47 PM)temchugh Wrote:  ESPN projects us as an 11 seed in the tournament (up from 12 last week):

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-baske...acketology

In Syracuse? More likely the Owls would get sent to Waco, College Station or maybe Starkville.

(02-04-2019 05:32 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 04:47 PM)temchugh Wrote:  ESPN projects us as an 11 seed in the tournament (up from 12 last week):

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-baske...acketology

In Syracuse? More likely the Owls would get sent to Waco, College Station or maybe Starkville.

I'll consider my life a happy one if I never have to go back to Waco. Or ever have to go to Starkville.

Will be rooting for Syracuse

(02-04-2019 05:38 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 05:32 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 04:47 PM)temchugh Wrote:  ESPN projects us as an 11 seed in the tournament (up from 12 last week):

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-baske...acketology

In Syracuse? More likely the Owls would get sent to Waco, College Station or maybe Starkville.

I'll consider my life a happy one if I never have to go back to Waco. Or ever have to go to Starkville.

Will be rooting for Syracuse

I'm hoping they move up to a 10-seed and come to Stanford. :-)

(02-04-2019 07:49 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 05:38 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 05:32 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 04:47 PM)temchugh Wrote:  ESPN projects us as an 11 seed in the tournament (up from 12 last week):

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-baske...acketology

In Syracuse? More likely the Owls would get sent to Waco, College Station or maybe Starkville.

I'll consider my life a happy one if I never have to go back to Waco. Or ever have to go to Starkville.

Will be rooting for Syracuse

I'm hoping they move up to a 10-seed and come to Stanford. :-)

They will be in a sweet spot if they are seeded in that range, hopefully avoiding playing a top 10-15 team the first game

We doubled our vote total from last week. If we keep that pace up, we will be #1 by the time the ncaa tournament finishes.

(02-04-2019 07:49 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 05:38 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 05:32 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 04:47 PM)temchugh Wrote:  ESPN projects us as an 11 seed in the tournament (up from 12 last week):

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-baske...acketology

In Syracuse? More likely the Owls would get sent to Waco, College Station or maybe Starkville.

I'll consider my life a happy one if I never have to go back to Waco. Or ever have to go to Starkville.

Will be rooting for Syracuse

I'm hoping they move up to a 10-seed and come to Stanford. :-)

Even better.

If so, I'll see you there.

Even if we run the table the remainder of the regular season, I still think we'll need to win the CUSA tourney to get into the NCAAs. Yes, even if our RPI remains in the mid-to-upper 30s, and it would probably fall into the high 30s/low-to-mid 40s given who we play the remainder of the way. Keep in mind that while RPI is taken into account, even more important for at large births is the presence of signature wins, of which we have none...and our best wins are against teams (UAB, MTSU) with RPIs outside the Top 75. We have only played 3 teams ranked in the Top 50 (#16 A&M, #27 UNC and UCLA) and lost to all by 10+ points.

Conversely, look at the ACC (6 teams currently ranked in the Top 25 + #27 UNC + a quality Clemson team) and Pac-12 (5 teams ranked in the Top 25)-- both of whom are likely to get 7 - 8 teams selected to the post-season.

I want to be optimistic, and I do think we deserve better, especially since Maulkey missed those 3 OOC road losses, but past precedent says we need to win the conference tournament to make the dance.

(02-05-2019 06:39 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  We have only played 3 teams ranked in the Top 50 (#16 A&M, #27 UNC and UCLA) and lost to all by 10+ points. ...

I want to be optimistic, and I do think we deserve better, especially since Maulkey missed those 3 OOC losses, ...

Agree. But given the dramatic improvement in Rice's results post-Mulkey, and her distinctive height and blocking/shooting skills, I'd think the committee might give some consideration to that in choosing at-large teams, if it comes to that.

(02-05-2019 08:17 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(02-05-2019 06:39 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  We have only played 3 teams ranked in the Top 50 (#16 A&M, #27 UNC and UCLA) and lost to all by 10+ points. ...

I want to be optimistic, and I do think we deserve better, especially since Maulkey missed those 3 OOC losses, ...

Agree. But given the dramatic improvement in Rice's results post-Mulkey, and her distinctive height and blocking/shooting skills, I'd think the committee might give some consideration to that in choosing at-large teams, if it comes to that.

Unfotunately, you're assuming the selection committee does a level of intensive research. I think they only research what is provided to them....and I very much doubt any of them are aware-- or care-- that Mulkey is a 6'9" difference maker or that she missed our first 10 games.

(02-05-2019 08:26 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-05-2019 08:17 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(02-05-2019 06:39 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  We have only played 3 teams ranked in the Top 50 (#16 A&M, #27 UNC and UCLA) and lost to all by 10+ points. ...

I want to be optimistic, and I do think we deserve better, especially since Maulkey missed those 3 OOC losses, ...

Agree. But given the dramatic improvement in Rice's results post-Mulkey, and her distinctive height and blocking/shooting skills, I'd think the committee might give some consideration to that in choosing at-large teams, if it comes to that.

Unfotunately, you're assuming the selection committee does a level of intensive research. I think they only research what is provided to them....and I very much doubt any of them are aware-- or care-- that Mulkey is a 6'9" difference maker or that she missed our first 10 games.

Well ... one can only hope.

Among the Women's Basketball Committee members are representatives of Houston (DeJuena Chizer) and Middle Tennessee (Diane C. Turnham).

The other committee members are Leslie Claybrook (SEC), Ceal Barry (Colorado), Rhonda Lundin Bennett (Nevada-Reno), Nina King (Duke), Teresa L. Phillips (Tennessee State), Ken R. Bothof (Northern Kentucky), Tamica Smith Jones (California-Riverside) and Deborah A. Richardson (Atlantic 10 Conference)

Here'a a Q&A with an earlier member, Mary Ellen Gillespie (University of Wisconsin-Green Bay), that gives an idea of how they work.

Yeah I would tend to agree in that CUSA probably only gets 1 bid, and Mulkey's presence doesn't really help change that fact. The only way I would say we possibly get 2 bids is if Rice and Middle Tennessee State (current RPI of 58, 2nd best in the league behind Rice's 37) pretty much run the table for the rest of the regular season, and then meet in the finals of the conference tournament. Then you'd be talking about a 27-3 Rice team (I think if my math is right) facing a 26-5 MTSU team, and both teams' RPIs would likely be in the upper 30's to low 40's. There's a lot of hoops to be played before then, but if that unlikely scenario plays out, then both teams deserve a bid despite what happens in the finale.

As far as Mulkey goes, her presence should definitely help us upgrade our NC schedule next year. I also hope both Erika O. and Mulkey get invitations to try out for the Pan American Games this summer (in Lima, Peru).