2022 D1 Selection Committee

[1766]

Question: Do conference tournament games affect RPI? Part of the RPI formula is win / loss record, so I’m wondering if a team entering their conference tournament at 11 and 4 and gets a win, does their RPI go up? Same thing vice-versa: does a loss decrease their RPI?

Yes, as an example, both Rutgers and Osu will see their RPI's go up after playing each other Thursday.

[wgdsr]

Question: Do conference tournament games affect RPI? Part of the RPI formula is win / loss record, so I’m wondering if a team entering their conference tournament at 11 and 4 and gets a win, does their RPI go up? Same thing vice-versa: does a loss decrease their RPI?

Yes, as an example, both Rutgers and Osu will see their RPI's go up after playing each other Thursday.

bet?

[Farfromgeneva]

If anything, the fact that Princeton isn't in the ILT and yet remains 2nd in RPI argues to the strength of the IL this year.

And of course you can just as easily say "If anything, the fact that Princeton isn't in the ILT and yet remains 2nd in RPI argues to the invalidity of the RPI this year."

Whatever happens Sunday, I hope next year (A) ACC adds another team to get an AQ, (B) RPI is adjusted and (C) if RPI is not adjusted then a minimum number of OOC games are mandated. I also anticipate i will get none of the three.

The ACC having AQ qualifying membership numbers is kind of a complete red herring. In what year would the ACC not have their conference champ included in the tournament? And given that this is as improbable as any other scenarios in D1 men’s lacrosse AND given the fact that it is going to remain the same number of participating programs in the tournament, flipping an ACC from At Large to AQ is really just semantics. It’s moving from left pocket to right pocket but doesn’t actually affect any of the complaining program fans.

[CU77]

as an example, both Rutgers and Osu will see their RPI's go up after playing each other Thursday.

This is wrong. Winner's RPI number goes up, loser's goes down.

Current RPI for those two:

6. Rutgers 0.6238
11. OSU 0.5965

After a Rutgers win (and no other new games played):

5. Rutgers 0.6344 (up)
11. OSU 0.5937 (down in number but not enough to change rank)

After an OSU win (and no other new games played):

8. Rutgers 0.6170 (down)
10. OSU 0.6113 (up)

[CU77]

flipping an ACC from At Large to AQ is really just semantics. It’s moving from left pocket to right pocket but doesn’t actually affect any of the complaining program fans.

No. if the ACC had an AQ, there would be three play-in games (instead of two), to reduce the number of AQs from 11 to 8. That would open up another at-large.

[wgdsr]

as an example, both Rutgers and Osu will see their RPI's go up after playing each other Thursday.

This is wrong. Winner's RPI number goes up, loser's goes down.

Current RPI for those two:

6. Rutgers 0.6238
11. OSU 0.5965

After a Rutgers win (and no other new games played):

5. Rutgers 0.6344 (up)
11. OSU 0.5937 (down in number but not enough to change rank)

After an OSU win (and no other new games played):

8. Rutgers 0.6170 (down)
10. OSU 0.6113 (up)

don't stop him, he's on a roll. could you do the same for nd over duke?
i'm guessing both check in between .605 and .610+.

[suitcase10]

CU77 , care to do the math on RPI of Duke / ND winner loser ? At your leisure of course

[CU77]

Happy to oblige!

Duke v ND

Current RPI:

8. Duke 0.6171
13. Notre Dame 0.5896

Duke wins:

8. Duke 0.6222
15. Notre Dame 0.5830

ND wins:

10. Duke 0.6068
11. Notre Dame 0.6050

[nms]

Happy to oblige!

Duke v ND

Current RPI:

8. Duke 0.6171
13. Notre Dame 0.5896

Duke wins:

8. Duke 0.6222
15. Notre Dame 0.5830

ND wins:

10. Duke 0.6068
11. Notre Dame 0.6050

So a Rutgers win over OSU opens the door for the ACC to finish with 3 of the top 8 at large RPIs (assuming Gtown and Md/Rutgers win respective conferences). It looks like there is no way for Harvard to move into that top 8.
I guess the only remaining question would be what happens to OSU's RPI if they lose to MD after beating Rutgers - does it fall below ND's 0.6050?

Given that an OSU loss to Rutgers only would drop OSU by .003, I assume a loss to Md would drop OSU even less, so it looks like it would take wins by ND and Rutgers to move ND above OSU in RPI.

[wgdsr]

Happy to oblige!

Duke v ND

Current RPI:

8. Duke 0.6171
13. Notre Dame 0.5896

Duke wins:

8. Duke 0.6222
15. Notre Dame 0.5830

ND wins:

10. Duke 0.6068
11. Notre Dame 0.6050

So a Rutgers win over OSU opens the door for the ACC to finish with 3 of the top 8 at large RPIs (assuming Gtown and Md/Rutgers win respective conferences). It looks like there is no way for Harvard to move into that top 8.
I guess the only remaining question would be what happens to OSU's RPI if they lose to MD after beating Rutgers - does it fall below ND's 0.6050?

these games don't happen in a vacuum. there are conference tourneys going on everywhere.

harvard's only shot via rpi anyway is duke win, rutty win. other games will nick rpi's enough to put the smallish differential with tosu in question. then there's "we have no idea what the committee will do".

no, a tosu loss to umd in the final wouldn't by itself drop tosu's # above below duke/nd's ~ .605.

[socalax]

If anything, the fact that Princeton isn't in the ILT and yet remains 2nd in RPI argues to the strength of the IL this year.

And of course you can just as easily say "If anything, the fact that Princeton isn't in the ILT and yet remains 2nd in RPI argues to the invalidity of the RPI this year."

Whatever happens Sunday, I hope next year (A) ACC adds another team to get an AQ, (B) RPI is adjusted and (C) if RPI is not adjusted then a minimum number of OOC games are mandated. I also anticipate i will get none of the three.

well, no, RPI has nothing to do with seeding in the ILT ... but it does in the NCAA tournament. I also have no issue with your three suggestions. My comment was a little tongue in cheek in that RPI only 'works' with OOC games. In a truly closed conference, with no OOC games, RPI won't improve by continually playing in conference. With no outside games every win (25%) would be a loss for an opponent (50%), and a win for an opponent's opponent (25%). The three components of the RPI would essentially cancel each other out. Extreme RPI inbreeding (no OOC games) doesn't help a team/conference. The only way playing in conference would help a team is if those conference opponents have several good OOC wins and few bad OOC losses.

[Dip&Dunk]

If anything, the fact that Princeton isn't in the ILT and yet remains 2nd in RPI argues to the strength of the IL this year.

And of course you can just as easily say "If anything, the fact that Princeton isn't in the ILT and yet remains 2nd in RPI argues to the invalidity of the RPI this year."

Whatever happens Sunday, I hope next year (A) ACC adds another team to get an AQ, (B) RPI is adjusted and (C) if RPI is not adjusted then a minimum number of OOC games are mandated. I also anticipate i will get none of the three.

The ACC having AQ qualifying membership numbers is kind of a complete red herring. In what year would the ACC not have their conference champ included in the tournament? And given that this is as improbable as any other scenarios in D1 men’s lacrosse AND given the fact that it is going to remain the same number of participating programs in the tournament, flipping an ACC from At Large to AQ is really just semantics. It’s moving from left pocket to right pocket but doesn’t actually affect any of the complaining program fans.

So I guess I could of worded it better so you would of not been blinded by the aq mention. To get an aq in the ACC you need six teams and then you get to have an ACC tournament. That is ultimately what I would like to see.

[Farfromgeneva]

flipping an ACC from At Large to AQ is really just semantics. It’s moving from left pocket to right pocket but doesn’t actually affect any of the complaining program fans.

No. if the ACC had an AQ, there would be three play-in games (instead of two), to reduce the number of AQs from 11 to 8. That would open up another at-large.

I guess we’re not counting play in games as tourney appearances. That sort of makes the AQ conceptually pointless if it’s just to increase non. NCAA playoff play in games.

[drunkmonkey30]

flipping an ACC from At Large to AQ is really just semantics. It’s moving from left pocket to right pocket but doesn’t actually affect any of the complaining program fans.

No. if the ACC had an AQ, there would be three play-in games (instead of two), to reduce the number of AQs from 11 to 8. That would open up another at-large.

I guess we’re not counting play in games as tourney appearances. That sort of makes the AQ conceptually pointless if it’s just to increase non. NCAA playoff play in games.

NCAA calls them "opening rounds"...so tourney appearance?

https://www.ncaa.com/_flysystem/public- ... %20(1).pdf

[10stone5]

flipping an ACC from At Large to AQ is really just semantics. It’s moving from left pocket to right pocket but doesn’t actually affect any of the complaining program fans.

No. if the ACC had an AQ, there would be three play-in games (instead of two), to reduce the number of AQs from 11 to 8. That would open up another at-large.

I guess we’re not counting play in games as tourney appearances. That sort of makes the AQ conceptually pointless if it’s just to increase non. NCAA playoff play in games.

I do.

Those games count.

[MoralTerpitude]

Quality wins are a thing, as far as I know. And Duke in particular (but ND to a lesser degree) lag pretty much all other at-large competitors in that category.

I think a couple of pretty good clues have already been dropped as to how Sunday will go:
-The selection committee’s own released top tens. Believe both of them had UVa as the only ACC team, but now can’t find the most recent list.
-Quint (rightly) harping on how the Duke-UNC game was an elimination game. He obviously got the memo that Carc didn’t about how the ACC is actually stacking up this year. He mentioned it a half dozen times during the game, and also was complimentary towards the Ivies.

If Duke wins, the committee will have to pick two from UVa, Duke, and Harvard. I don’t see the committee not picking UVa… but as predicted they’ve slowly slid down the RPI, and their SOS is weak. As someone mentioned, they have zero top ten RPI wins.

[MoralTerpitude]

Happy to oblige!

Duke v ND

Current RPI:

8. Duke 0.6171
13. Notre Dame 0.5896

Duke wins:

8. Duke 0.6222
15. Notre Dame 0.5830

ND wins:

10. Duke 0.6068
11. Notre Dame 0.6050

While you’re at it… what would UVa’s numbers be for those two scenarios?

[rolldodge]

Happy to oblige!

Duke v ND

Current RPI:

8. Duke 0.6171
13. Notre Dame 0.5896

Duke wins:

8. Duke 0.6222
15. Notre Dame 0.5830

ND wins:

10. Duke 0.6068
11. Notre Dame 0.6050

Which makes Terry Foy's #4 ranking for Notre Dame border on journalistic malfeasance.

[wgdsr]

my prediction for the 8 at large and i don't think i'm going too far out on a limb...
nd and osu win:
4 ivy, 2 b1g and 2 acc.

nd wins and osu loses:
4 ivy, 1 b1g and 3 acc.

nd loses and osu wins:
4 ivy, 2 b1g and 2 acc.

nd loses and osu loses:
4 ivy, 1 b1g, 2 acc and then a mashup of tosu, harvard and maybe even a boston. or even possibly denver. harvard might want denver or boston to be considered to avoid head to head. this assumes each denver and boston make the finals and have a competitive rpi.

[CU88]

my prediction for the 8 at and i don't think i'm going too far out on a limb for the 8 at large selections...
nd and osu win:
4 ivy, 2 b1g and 2 acc.

nd wins and osu loses:
4 ivy, 1 b1g and 3 acc.

nd loses and osu wins:
4 ivy, 2 b1g and 2 acc.

nd loses and osu loses:
4 ivy, 1 b1g, 2 acc and then a mashup of tosu, harvard and maybe even a boston. or even possibly denver. harvard might want denver or boston to be considered to avoid head to head. this assumes each denver and boston make the finals and have a competitive rpi.

+1

What schools match up for the infamous "distance/travel" consideration?

If ND wins do they find a reason for OSU, or DU, to get a bid; and vice versa?