LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Dear NCAA committee ,

If you find it in your hearts to not screw my Beloved Big Red , like you did in 2019, and let us in the tournament, could you PLEASE, put us in the side of the Bracket that does NOT include that PRO TEAM from College Park MD.

In fact, could you change your rules and simply seed that team to the Finals so the rest of us at least can have some fun. MARYLAND is unfairly stacked this year and could beat most PRO teams.
Sincerely;
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

laf “says” …

Duke is out

They’re first out.

joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 7:23 am It appears that DUKE will get most of the attention from the committee, with those members who favor the "strictly going by RPI" method insisting that they get in, and those members that are going with BAD losses method to keep them out.
WOW, that is brutal and 1 or possibly 2 of the following teams are going to be very unhappy:
Duke
ND
Brown
Harvard
OSU
Cornell
UVA
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

UVA is in. There is an unwritten rule that, providing it has a winning record, the defending national champion gets invited. In 2017, North Carolina was a very unimpressive 8-7 with poor rpi, bad losses, etc. but got in. The selection committee will almost certainly invite the two-time defending naional champions UVA.

10stone5 wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:14 am laf “says” …

Duke is out

They’re first out.

Yes, I don’t quite understand the ordering of his list. But Duke indeed shows the least chance of getting an at-large of the contenders. He also has Brown and OSU getting in. And ND is a lock.

Where does one find laf’s breakdown?

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:31 am [quote=10stone5 post_id=366974 time=<a href="tel:1652012062">1652012062</a> user_id=272]
laf “says” …

Duke is out

They’re first out.

Yes, I don’t quite understand the ordering of his list. But Duke indeed shows the least chance of getting an at-large of the contenders. He also has Brown and OSU getting in. And ND is a lock.
[/quote]

RopeUnit wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:37 am Where does one find laf’s breakdown?

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:31 am [quote=10stone5 post_id=366974 time=<a href="tel:1652012062">1652012062</a> user_id=272]
laf “says” …

Duke is out

They’re first out.

Yes, I don’t quite understand the ordering of his list. But Duke indeed shows the least chance of getting an at-large of the contenders. He also has Brown and OSU getting in. And ND is a lock.

[/quote]

He has two lists. This one is the most straightforward. This one the ordering makes sense for tournament odds. http://college.laxpower2.com/menx/odds01.php

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:39 am

RopeUnit wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:37 am Where does one find laf’s breakdown?

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:31 am [quote=10stone5 post_id=366974 time=<a href="tel:1652012062">1652012062</a> user_id=272]
laf “says” …

Duke is out

They’re first out.

Yes, I don’t quite understand the ordering of his list. But Duke indeed shows the least chance of getting an at-large of the contenders. He also has Brown and OSU getting in. And ND is a lock.

He has two lists. This one is the most straightforward. This one the ordering makes sense for tournament odds. http://college.laxpower2.com/menx/odds01.php
[/quote]

Hmm....how trustworthy is his data when his ICONS are wrong? Has the BU icon for Brown and the Bryant icon for BU. Strange.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:46 am

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:39 am

RopeUnit wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:37 am Where does one find laf’s breakdown?

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:31 am [quote=10stone5 post_id=366974 time=<a href="tel:1652012062">1652012062</a> user_id=272]
laf “says” …

Duke is out

They’re first out.

Yes, I don’t quite understand the ordering of his list. But Duke indeed shows the least chance of getting an at-large of the contenders. He also has Brown and OSU getting in. And ND is a lock.

He has two lists. This one is the most straightforward. This one the ordering makes sense for tournament odds. http://college.laxpower2.com/menx/odds01.php

Hmm....how trustworthy is his data when his ICONS are wrong? Has the BU icon for Brown and the Bryant icon for BU. Strange.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78
[/quote]


He’s gotten 3 bids wrong out of 56 over the last 7 years. Not counting 2021.

Duke is going to get in

FlyEaglesFly wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:10 am Duke is going to get in

I agree--don't think a #8 RPI has ever been left out. But who knows, looking @ Duke, UVA, Brown, ND, OSU: things look relatively comparable excluding Duke's 3 bad losses which really jump out. Brown is the only other team with a bad +20 RPI loss, but only 1.

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:59 am

joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:46 am

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:39 am

RopeUnit wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:37 am Where does one find laf’s breakdown?

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:31 am [quote=10stone5 post_id=366974 time=<a href="tel:1652012062">1652012062</a> user_id=272]
laf “says” …

Duke is out

They’re first out.

Yes, I don’t quite understand the ordering of his list. But Duke indeed shows the least chance of getting an at-large of the contenders. He also has Brown and OSU getting in. And ND is a lock.

He has two lists. This one is the most straightforward. This one the ordering makes sense for tournament odds. http://college.laxpower2.com/menx/odds01.php

Hmm....how trustworthy is his data when his ICONS are wrong? Has the BU icon for Brown and the Bryant icon for BU. Strange.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

He’s gotten 3 bids wrong out of 56 over the last 7 years. Not counting 2021.
[/quote]

Must mean he picked Cornell 3 times too many.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:59 am

joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:46 am

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:39 am

RopeUnit wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:37 am Where does one find laf’s breakdown?

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:31 am [quote=10stone5 post_id=366974 time=<a href="tel:1652012062">1652012062</a> user_id=272]
laf “says” …

Duke is out

They’re first out.

Yes, I don’t quite understand the ordering of his list. But Duke indeed shows the least chance of getting an at-large of the contenders. He also has Brown and OSU getting in. And ND is a lock.

He has two lists. This one is the most straightforward. This one the ordering makes sense for tournament odds. http://college.laxpower2.com/menx/odds01.php

Hmm....how trustworthy is his data when his ICONS are wrong? Has the BU icon for Brown and the Bryant icon for BU. Strange.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

He’s gotten 3 bids wrong out of 56 over the last 7 years. Not counting 2021.
[/quote]

LAF does nice work but is that the right way to think about it when 50-80% of those at larges were slam dunks over that period? Isn’t it really measuring like the last two ( or maybe 3) in? That would be more like 3/14 to 3/21 wouldn’t it?

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 10:10 am

He’s gotten 3 bids wrong out of 56 over the last 7 years. Not counting 2021.
[/quote]

LAF does nice work but is that the right way to think about it when 50-80% of those at larges were slam dunks over that period? Isn’t it really measuring like the last two ( or maybe 3) in? That would be more like 3/14 to 3/21 wouldn’t it?
[/quote]

Yeah, exactly this. I really admire all the contributions Laf has made and continues to make to this community, but touting that stat is sort of ridiculous. Most years at least 6 at-larges are completely noncontroversial, and often it's 7. Usually there's at most one spot that's in the "toss-up" range, and I bet if you looked at posters' opinions on here in the run-up to selection, probably it'd be about 70-30 in terms of guessing right on who gets that last spot. If we say maybe 10 actually challenging picks over a 7 year period, and Laf's missed on 3, that's the same 70% rate.

I also have no idea what the numbers listed as (apparently) selection probabilities on his site are actually supposed to mean. Even aside from the problem of not updating to reflect known facts -- e.g., Richmond's probability of selection is 100%, not 34%, and Hopkins's probability is 0%, not 5% -- am I really supposed to read this to mean Ohio State has a 98% chance of being selected?? That seems like it's wrong by, I don't know, a factor of about two? What exactly does it mean that Hofstra's chances of making the tournament are 4% and UNC's are 0%? That a team with Hofstra's resume gets selected about once every 25 years?

joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 7:41 am Dear NCAA committee ,

If you find it in your hearts to not screw my Beloved Big Red , like you did in 2019, and let us in the tournament, could you PLEASE, put us in the side of the Bracket that does NOT include that PRO TEAM from College Park MD.

In fact, could you change your rules and simply seed that team to the Finals so the rest of us at least can have some fun. MARYLAND is unfairly stacked this year and could beat most PRO teams.
Sincerely;
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

Heard similar things said about the Whipsnakes

RopeUnit wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:30 am

FlyEaglesFly wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:10 am Duke is going to get in

I agree--don't think a #8 RPI has ever been left out. But who knows, looking @ Duke, UVA, Brown, ND, OSU: things look relatively comparable excluding Duke's 3 bad losses which really jump out. Brown is the only other team with a bad +20 RPI loss, but only 1.

Agreed, too. OSU's combined wins and losses are better than either of Duke's or ND's, but the RPI will win out.

OSU dropping that game to Denver in March is what will keep the Buckeyes out. Crazy.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 10:07 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 9:40 pm

Homer wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 8:40 pm My best guess as of this moment

Virginia does not have a top-10 RPI win. Duke beat them and has a better RPI.

tosu doesn't either and their profile is worse than uva's. it will be 4 ivy/1 b1g and / 3 acc.

or i'll be wrong and it'll be the most progressive committee of all time.

Agree. The entire system is based, at least indirectly, on RPI. Yet they're going to let in teams over the #8 Rpi? And depending on how today's games end, that would mean letting in the #14 RPI over the #8 RPI? That would be quite the change in committee behavior.

a fan wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 10:53 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 10:07 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 9:40 pm

Homer wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 8:40 pm My best guess as of this moment

Virginia does not have a top-10 RPI win. Duke beat them and has a better RPI.

tosu doesn't either and their profile is worse than uva's. it will be 4 ivy/1 b1g and / 3 acc.

or i'll be wrong and it'll be the most progressive committee of all time.

Agree. The entire system is based, at least indirectly, on RPI. Yet they're going to let in teams over the #8 Rpi? And depending on how today's games end, that would mean letting in the #14 RPI over the #8 RPI? That would be quite the change in committee behavior.

Right or wrong, Laf’s methodology is clearly explained. He uses RPI, SoS, and QWF (quality win factor). He links to a page that explains how he calculates QWF.

Duke has had negative or zero QWF the last several weeks. The loss to ND dropped them back into the red. This is the factor that Laf is using to drop Duke out of the at-larges. All other at larges have signifcantly higher QWFs.

My question would be, assuming that the committee is not using straight RPI, what weighting do they use to calculate their version of QWF? This could significantly affect who gets an AL.

One thing that I think could be a huge clue is that in their initial top ten , which was released after Duke beat Virginia, Duke was not ranked. Fairly sure they were in the RPI top ten at that point.

The other point to consider is that in that inital top ten, Jacksonville was included due to the recommendation of the Regional Advisory Committee. Obviously Richmond beat Jax for the SoCon AQ… so does the RAC still recommend Jax be in the field as an AL?

MoralTerpitude wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 11:19 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 10:53 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 10:07 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 9:40 pm

Homer wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 8:40 pm My best guess as of this moment

Virginia does not have a top-10 RPI win. Duke beat them and has a better RPI.

tosu doesn't either and their profile is worse than uva's. it will be 4 ivy/1 b1g and / 3 acc.

or i'll be wrong and it'll be the most progressive committee of all time.

Agree. The entire system is based, at least indirectly, on RPI. Yet they're going to let in teams over the #8 Rpi? And depending on how today's games end, that would mean letting in the #14 RPI over the #8 RPI? That would be quite the change in committee behavior.

Right or wrong, Laf’s methodology is clearly explained. He uses RPI, SoS, and QWF (quality win factor). He links to a page that explains how he calculates QWF.

Duke has had negative or zero QWF the last several weeks. The loss to ND dropped them back into the red. This is the factor that Laf is using to drop Duke out of the at-larges. All other at larges have signifcantly higher QWFs.

My question would be, assuming that the committee is not using straight RPI, what weighting do they use to calculate their version of QWF? This could significantly affect who gets an AL.

We're all familiar with LAF's fine work over the years, and his founding of Laxpower in the first place.

To answer your question: RPI. That's the number they use to judge QW's. So they'd be on pretty loose logical footing if they use RPI to judge those QW's....while at the same time, ignore that Duke is several notches higher in RPI than a team they're thinking about letting in over Duke.

I can't think of a year where they left out a top ten RPI team. Can anyone else?

a fan wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 11:28 am

MoralTerpitude wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 11:19 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 10:53 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 10:07 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 9:40 pm

Homer wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 8:40 pm My best guess as of this moment

Virginia does not have a top-10 RPI win. Duke beat them and has a better RPI.

tosu doesn't either and their profile is worse than uva's. it will be 4 ivy/1 b1g and / 3 acc.

or i'll be wrong and it'll be the most progressive committee of all time.

Agree. The entire system is based, at least indirectly, on RPI. Yet they're going to let in teams over the #8 Rpi? And depending on how today's games end, that would mean letting in the #14 RPI over the #8 RPI? That would be quite the change in committee behavior.

Right or wrong, Laf’s methodology is clearly explained. He uses RPI, SoS, and QWF (quality win factor). He links to a page that explains how he calculates QWF.

Duke has had negative or zero QWF the last several weeks. The loss to ND dropped them back into the red. This is the factor that Laf is using to drop Duke out of the at-larges. All other at larges have signifcantly higher QWFs.

My question would be, assuming that the committee is not using straight RPI, what weighting do they use to calculate their version of QWF? This could significantly affect who gets an AL.

We're all familiar with LAF's fine work over the years, and his founding of Laxpower in the first place.

To answer your question: RPI. That's the number they use to judge QW's. So they'd be on pretty loose logical footing if they use RPI to judge those QW's....while at the same time, ignore that Duke is several notches higher in RPI than a team they're thinking about letting in over Duke.

I can't think of a year where they left out a top ten RPI team. Can anyone else?

not before 2015. in '16 #16 was in over #15, in '15 #15 was in over #12.

before that, i dunno, but i remember maybe around 2009-11 there were squirrelly things going around with rpi inclusion and then the opposite (wins). related to g'town and nd.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/files/rpiarchive/list.html

RPI, as everyone knows, is a failed methodology given the small sample sizes. On top of that, the RPI differences between the four or five bubble teams is statistically insignificant. If the committee leans more toward quality wins (vs 1-5, 6-10) vs poor loses, the final selection or two could be different than I think most people are anticipating.