|
|
Post by beavsab on Apr 21, 2023 10:39:48 GMT -8
Recently I was trying to figure out if I had to care about the Beavs RPI or not, and I heard a comment on a podcast that 16 Pac-12 wins is usually enough to get in, which made me curious about whether Pac-12 wins or RPI matters more for making the tournament.
I was pretty shocked by what I found to be honest. 15 or less Pac-12 wins never makes the tournament, 17 or more Pac-12 wins always makes the tournament, and 16 Pac-12 wins means your RPI matters and needs to be better than 45. I was surprised by how predictive Pac-12 wins is, especially since I don't hear it discussed a ton.
As I recently pointed out in another thread, this also makes all the griping over RPI (an admittedly flawed formula) pretty much a moot point. Take care of business, get to 17 conference wins, and don't worry about what some stupid formula says.
|
|
|
|
Post by tamatrix on Apr 21, 2023 12:33:39 GMT -8
How many of those 17 win Pac-12 teams had a RPI worse than 45? I can remember 1 at least, but guessing not many...it's a bit of a circular question because 17 wins gets you a good RPI generally....and hard to get a good RPI without.
Love the research though!
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Apr 21, 2023 13:01:07 GMT -8
Recently I was trying to figure out if I had to care about the Beavs RPI or not, and I heard a comment on a podcast that 16 Pac-12 wins is usually enough to get in, which made me curious about whether Pac-12 wins or RPI matters more for making the tournament. I was pretty shocked by what I found to be honest. 15 or less Pac-12 wins never makes the tournament, 17 or more Pac-12 wins always makes the tournament, and 16 Pac-12 wins means your RPI matters and needs to be better than 45. I was surprised by how predictive Pac-12 wins is, especially since I don't hear it discussed a ton. As I recently pointed out in another thread, this also makes all the griping over RPI (an admittedly flawed formula) pretty much a moot point. Take care of business, get to 17 conference wins, and don't worry about what some stupid formula says. points out that there is a lot of chicken and egg stuff related to conference wins and RPI, which is a great analysis. RPI matters a lot for Regional Host spots, where you are sent, etc. Looking at it, Oregon State needs to get to at least 40 wins and 41 or 42 might actually be that minimum to see a Corvallis Regional. It is most assuredly above 38. |
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Apr 21, 2023 13:13:29 GMT -8
Reinforces how important every conf game is.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavsab on Apr 21, 2023 17:00:51 GMT -8
How many of those 17 win Pac-12 teams had a RPI worse than 45? I can remember 1 at least, but guessing not many...it's a bit of a circular question because 17 wins gets you a good RPI generally....and hard to get a good RPI without. Love the research though! Since 2016 I count 4 teams with 17+ wins who had an RPI lower than 45 who got an at-large bid: 2022 UCLA, 19 conference wins and an RPI of 52 2018 Washington, 20 wins and RPI of 63 2017 UCLA, 19 wins and an RPI of 65 2016 Washington, 17 wins and an RPI of 52 (OSU missed with 16 wins and an RPI of 46) You're right to point out that these two numbers are related to one another--they for sure are. I think I would push back on characterizing that relationship as circular, especially when the cut line between making and missing the tournament is so stark with regards to conference wins, and quite a bit messier with regards to RPI. I think for me it's nice to not be worrying too much about where we are in a (pretty flawed) formula--so long as we win enough Pac-12 games we're in the tourney. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Apr 21, 2023 17:15:47 GMT -8
How many of those 17 win Pac-12 teams had a RPI worse than 45? I can remember 1 at least, but guessing not many...it's a bit of a circular question because 17 wins gets you a good RPI generally....and hard to get a good RPI without. Love the research though! Since 2016 I count 4 teams with 17+ wins who had an RPI lower than 45 who got an at-large bid: 2022 UCLA, 19 conference wins and an RPI of 52 2018 Washington, 20 wins and RPI of 63 2017 UCLA, 19 wins and an RPI of 65 2016 Washington, 17 wins and an RPI of 52 (OSU missed with 16 wins and an RPI of 46) You're right to point out that these two numbers are related to one another--they for sure are. I think I would push back on characterizing that relationship as circular, especially when the cut line between making and missing the tournament is so stark with regards to conference wins, and quite a bit messier with regards to RPI. I think for me it's nice to not be worrying too much about where we are in a (pretty flawed) formula--so long as we win enough Pac-12 games we're in the tourney. 2016 Washington got in with an RPI of 55. Oregon State was left out for no good reason with an RPI of 44. 2017 UCLA got in with an RPI of 51. The Bruins went 0-2 and each of their opponents lost to Long Beach State, which lost to Cal State Fullerton, which went 0-2, and both opponents lost to LSU, which lost to Florida. It is remarkable how much UCLA's RPI fell over the Tourney. 2018 Washington had an RPI of 62. The Huskies then won the Conway Regional and Fullerton Super Regional before going 2&Q in Omaha. 2022 UCLA's RPI was 47. The Bruins finished third in the Pac-12. UCLA lost the 3-6 game at the Pac-12 Tournament to California and then proceeded to win three straight games, the final two in 10 innings, before bowing out in the 8-7 loss to Oregon State in the semifinal. |
|
