Pages

Meet Craig Littlepage...

1/31/2006 1 comments
This is Craig Littlepage. Besides being the Athletic Director at the University of Virginia, he's also the new Chairman of the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee. Similar to Bob Bowlsby, the last Chair, I've had some e-mail conversations with Craig about the shortcomings of the RPI and the need for a new and more useful ratings tool (such as the JCI). Below is the ongoing dialogue. Doesn't look like they're going to budge on the RPI -- they continue to belittle its role in the selection process although you know it plays a larger role than they're letting on. But maybe Craig will be the first Chairman to actually get it. He certainly seems less hard-headed than Bowlsby at least. We'll keep fighting the good fight.

JIM:
Mr. Littlepage,
Congratulations on taking over as the head of the Selection Committee this year. I applaud your recent decision to make the official RPI available to the public. I agree that releasing the results has a number of positive benefits for both programs and fans, greatly increasing the transparency and general interest in college basketball as a whole.

However, I cannot see the logic in continuing to use the RPI as a tool in the selection process. I believe that the RPI does a poor job with what it was designed to do -- measure a team's SOS and its success against that SOS. Additionally, last year's home-and-road adjustments have made the ratings even more misleading. I know that the RPI is just one tool that the Committee uses, but the RPI also filters down into a number of other tools that the Committee has traditionally looked at (Top 50 W-L, Top 100 W-L, etc). And even in the very limited context in which the RPI is placed, any reliance on inaccurate information will ultimately lead to bad decision making, despite the Committee's best intention.

As a basketball fan, I simply do not want that to happen. I believe that the best and most deserving teams should get in. Basketball players and coaches should know upfront that they if the perform over the course of the season, that they'll earn the opportunity to make the tournament. I sincerely hope that this is the NCAA's and Selection Committee's intention as well. Maybe the Committee can see through the flaws in the RPI enough to get it right in the end. However, I believe that relying on inaccurate information is making an already tough job even tougher. And that's unfortunate when more accurate information may already be available.

I hope that as the new Chair of the Selection Committee you'll have to opportunity to revisit every step of the selection process in order to make the game and the tournament even better. I'd be happy to discuss any ideas with you in more detail.

Sincerely,
Jim Colton



CRAIG:
The RPI doesn't get a team in nor does it eliminate a team from the tournament. The Comm spends a great deal of time watching teams play which is a far beter way to evaluate teams. Thanks for your interest. CL

(Reaction: It's clear he didn't even read my e-mail. I'm sure he gets 100 'The RPI is screwing my team' e-mails per week and this is his gut response.)

JIM:
Craig,
I clearly understand the RPI and how it is and isn't utilized by the Committee. All I'm saying is if you are trying to measure one team's resume of wins and losses, or 'body or work', versus another's, why not use a rating tool that does exactly that? Although it was designed to help in that regard, the RPI falls well short of that objective to the point it hinders instead of help your decision making process. A more accurate rating tool would make your job a lot easier.
Jim


CRAIG:
Hello Jim--Each Comm member decides how to use the tools that are available. I think the composite of all resources allows each member to make good decisions. I would not say that my method is any better or more accurate than one that is more influenced by the quantitative tools. If there is such a tool that is better than a composite of all of the resources that we have, I haven't seen it yet. Thanks again for your thoughts.

Reaction: Still skeptical but at least leaving the door open.

JIM:
CL Smooth (Okay...I made that part up),

Obviously no computer system can capture all the nuances that occur over the course of the basketball season, but a ranking system should be able to make sense of all of the win-loss data. I've developed a rating tool that is a true 'body-of-work' index (call it the JCI). In other words, using all of the win-loss information over the entire season, it evaluates whether or not Team A's resume of wins and losses is better than Team B's. Even if it's just one resource, it would help the Committee get to their answer faster and more effectively, with a higher degree of confidence compared to the RPI. Same inputs as the RPI, more intuitive, just as easy to produce, and much better output.

Below is the current top 60. You won't find many, if any, examples where if you went through your careful analysis you'd find your final answer closer to the RPI than the JCI. In fact, for a quick-and-dirty check, compare Group A vs. Group B and Group C vs. Group D below I and think you'll reach the same conclusion. The other nice benefit is the SOS rating captures the home-road effect accurately whereas the RPI SOS ignores it (by the way, the home-road adjustments made to the RPI last year only make it less accurate than it was before).

I'm not trying to push my rating system to you. I'm just trying to show you that quantitative resources that are far superior to the RPI are out there. As the Chairman of the Selection Committee, I'm sure you are committed and probably passionate about making the tournament the best that it can be. I assume that part of that committment would include making sure that each one of the resources that is at the selection committee's disposal is the best that it possibly can be. Given this level of committment, I'm surprised that the Committee continues to use an antiquated system such as the RPI.

Thanks for the time. Jim

(Included Current Top 60)

Group A: Top 25 RPI, Non Top 25 JCI
26. UCLA 17-4, RPI: 14 JCI SOS: 88 RPI SOS: 14
31. Southern Illinois 16-4, RPI: 23 JCI SOS: 118 RPI SOS: 80
36. Creighton 14-5, RPI: 25 JCI SOS: 64 RPI SOS: 46
40. Wis-Milwaukee 14-4, RPI: 20 JCI SOS: 121 RPI SOS: 81
46. Arizona 13-7, RPI: 16 JCI SOS: 46 RPI SOS: 3

Group B: Top 25 JCI, Non Top 25 RPI
7. George Washington 16-1, RPI: 43 JCI SOS: 182 RPI SOS: 240
12. Georgetown 14-4, RPI: 29 JCI SOS: 19 RPI SOS: 74
13. North Carolina St 16-4, RPI: 30 JCI SOS: 25 RPI SOS: 67
19. West Virginia 14-4, RPI: 33 JCI SOS: 23 RPI SOS: 54
22. Bucknell 15-3, RPI: 34 JCI SOS: 122 RPI SOS: 133

Group C: Top 50 RPI, Non Top 50 JCI
52. Air Force 15-3, RPI: 49 JCI SOS: 276 RPI SOS: 186
60. George Mason 15-5, RPI: 36 JCI SOS: 185 RPI SOS: 89
61. Saint Joseph's 9-8, RPI: 42 JCI SOS: 12 RPI SOS: 11
62. Old Dominion 15-6, RPI: 39 JCI SOS: 165 RPI SOS: 66
63. UNC Wilmington 16-6, RPI: 44 JCI SOS: 153 RPI SOS: 100

Group D: Top 50 JCI, Non Top 50 RPI
39. Louisville 14-6, RPI: 67 JCI SOS: 51 RPI SOS: 59
42. Washington 16-4, RPI: 56 JCI SOS: 180 RPI SOS: 102
44. Arkansas 14-6, RPI: 58 JCI SOS: 69 RPI SOS: 70
49. Miami-Florida 12-8, RPI: 71 JCI SOS: 17 RPI SOS: 41
50. Florida St 12-5, RPI: 95 JCI SOS: 78 RPI SOS: 171


Note: According to the JCI numbers, Group B would be expected to win 76% of the games in a round robin event against Group A. Groud D would be expected to win 59% of the games against Group B. So tell how the NCAA can justify using a RPI that has the higher quality teams 21 slots worse on average than the lower quality team.

CRAIG: Jimmy to da C (okay...maybe not),
Thanks for your analysis. I'll look over the information. CL


Reaction: Who knows if he's really going to look at it or not. He was probably just telling me this so I would stop harassing him. However, the numbers speak for themselves, so hopefully he will reach the right conclusion sooner rather than later.

JCI, Week 7

1/30/2006 0 comments
Here's the updated JCI with games through Sunday January 29th. The Illini move up to 5th, jumping ahead of Florida and creeping right up on Texas. Big road game for Illinois Tuesday at Wisconsin. For more information on the JCI, click here.

NCAA and the RPI

The NCAA recently announced that they will start publishing the official RPI rankings every Thursday (with games as of the previous Monday). Apparently, it takes two days to compute the RPI. This is definitely a step in the right direction -- posting the RPI improves the amount of transparency and will definitely get people talking about the rankings and college basketball in general.

On a related note, there's a new Chairman of the Selection Comittee this year. His name is Craig Littlepage, Athletic Director at Virginia. This is also a positive since previous chair Bob Bowlsby had a less-than-stellar run at the top, including the seedings gaffe involving BYU a couple years ago and implementing the home-road adjustments to the RPI that only made the rankings even more misleading. Similar to Bowlsby, I've had some e-mail conversations with Littlepage (He signs off as CL...I'm just dying to address him CL Smooth). I'll post the e-mail banter here in the near future.

Jayhawk Watch

Look at Kansas creep up the JCI with two big road wins at Texas A&M and Iowa State this past week. Bill Self just might get the Jayhawks into the tourney (and I'm not talking about the NIT) this year after all. Everybody needs one good first-round lock in the tournament pool, so maybe we should root for Kansas to make it.

JCI Week 7
1. Duke 19-1, RPI: 1, LW:1 JCI SOS: 8
2. Connecticut 18-1, RPI: 7, LW:3 JCI SOS: 30
3. Memphis 19-2, RPI: 2, LW:4 JCI SOS: 20
4. Texas 17-3, RPI: 12, LW:2 JCI SOS: 15
5. Illinois 19-2, RPI: 8, LW:6 JCI SOS: 33
6. Villanova 15-2, RPI: 3, LW:7 JCI SOS: 14
7. George Washington 16-1, RPI: 43, LW:8 JCI SOS: 182
8. Pittsburgh 17-1, RPI: 6, LW:12 JCI SOS: 123
9. Gonzaga 17-3, RPI: 11, LW:9 JCI SOS: 53
10. Tennessee 14-3, RPI: 4, LW:11 JCI SOS: 37
11. Florida 18-2, RPI: 18, LW:5 JCI SOS: 100
12. Georgetown 14-4, RPI: 29, LW:18 JCI SOS: 19
13. North Carolina St 16-4, RPI: 30, LW:10 JCI SOS: 25
14. Michigan St 15-5, RPI: 5, LW:13 JCI SOS: 2
15. Iowa 16-5, RPI: 10, LW:17 JCI SOS: 4
16. Northern Iowa 17-3, RPI: 13, LW:19 JCI SOS: 55
17. Ohio State 14-3, RPI: 15, LW:14 JCI SOS: 42
18. Michigan 15-3, RPI: 17, LW:26 JCI SOS: 63
19. West Virginia 14-4, RPI: 33, LW:16 JCI SOS: 23
20. LSU 13-5, RPI: 21, LW:24 JCI SOS: 11
21. Indiana 12-5, RPI: 19, LW:15 JCI SOS: 5
22. Bucknell 15-3, RPI: 34, LW:21 JCI SOS: 122
23. Wisconsin 15-5, RPI: 9, LW:22 JCI SOS: 32
24. Wichita St 16-5, RPI: 22, LW:23 JCI SOS: 40
25. Boston College 15-4, RPI: 24, LW:31 JCI SOS: 60
26. UCLA 17-4, RPI: 14, LW:30 JCI SOS: 88
27. Maryland 13-5, RPI: 28, LW:28 JCI SOS: 36
28. Cincinnati 13-7, RPI: 26, LW:25 JCI SOS: 7
29. Marquette 14-6, RPI: 31, LW:33 JCI SOS: 24
30. Syracuse 15-6, RPI: 32, LW:20 JCI SOS: 38
31. Southern Illinois 16-4, RPI: 23, LW:36 JCI SOS: 118
32. Iona 15-3, RPI: 45, LW:38 JCI SOS: 178
33. Colorado 15-3, RPI: 47, LW:34 JCI SOS: 177
34. Xavier 13-4, RPI: 50, LW:29 JCI SOS: 81
35. Oklahoma 13-4, RPI: 27, LW:50 JCI SOS: 83
36. Creighton 14-5, RPI: 25, LW:35 JCI SOS: 64
37. North Carolina 12-5, RPI: 37, LW:32 JCI SOS: 44
38. Kentucky 14-6, RPI: 35, LW:40 JCI SOS: 45
39. Louisville 14-6, RPI: 67, LW:42 JCI SOS: 51
40. Wis-Milwaukee 14-4, RPI: 20, LW:37 JCI SOS: 121
41. Seton Hall 12-6, RPI: 38, LW:95 JCI SOS: 31
42. Washington 16-4, RPI: 56, LW:27 JCI SOS: 180
43. Vanderbilt 12-5, RPI: 48, LW:39 JCI SOS: 65
44. Arkansas 14-6, RPI: 58, LW:44 JCI SOS: 69
45. Temple 11-7, RPI: 41, LW:61 JCI SOS: 21
46. Arizona 13-7, RPI: 16, LW:48 JCI SOS: 46
47. UAB 14-4, RPI: 46, LW:51 JCI SOS: 160
48. Missouri St 13-6, RPI: 40, LW:43 JCI SOS: 67
49. Miami-Florida 12-8, RPI: 71, LW:55 JCI SOS: 17
50. Florida St 12-5, RPI: 95, LW:46 JCI SOS: 78
51. Clemson 13-6, RPI: 64, LW:41 JCI SOS: 74
52. Air Force 15-3, RPI: 49, LW:64 JCI SOS: 276
53. Hofstra 14-4, RPI: 70, LW:66 JCI SOS: 213
54. Akron 14-4, RPI: 73, LW:52 JCI SOS: 211
55. Alabama 11-7, RPI: 54, LW:57 JCI SOS: 26
56. Iowa State 12-7, RPI: 57, LW:49 JCI SOS: 57
57. Bradley 12-7, RPI: 55, LW:63 JCI SOS: 54
58. Kansas 12-6, RPI: 65, LW:86 JCI SOS: 91
59. Rutgers 12-7, RPI: 74, LW:54 JCI SOS: 47
60. George Mason 15-5, RPI: 36, LW:62 JCI SOS: 185

Fantasy Hoops, Week 14

1/27/2006 0 comments

Quick update on fantasy basketball and the Frelton Spencer's quest for world domination .

The big news, of course, is the Artest-for-Peja trade.  But the bigger fantasy news might be Jermaine O'Neal going down for 8 weeks.  I've always felt that Jermaine is overrated both as a player and a fantasy contributor.  At some point during each of the last 4-5 years, I'd be watching Sportscenter and someone will utter the terms 'MVP candidate' and 'Jermaine O'Neal' in the same breath and I'd sit there and scratch my head.  Really?  Who in their right mind would vote JO'N ahead of KG or Duncan on their MVP ballot?  Probably the same guys who pick him in the first or second round of their fantasy team and wonder why they're in the middle of the pack.  That said, Jermaine going down has a major impact on the fantasy world and impacts the fantasy ramifications of the Artest/Peja deal. 

Check out the following transaction that occured in one of my leagues this morning:

01/27/06 01:26 am ET kgticket
Taylor, Maurice F NY - Added
O'Neal, Jermaine F IND - Dropped

Ouch! I couldn't help but feel for this guy and picture him clicking his mouse to submit this transaction, probably with tears in his eyes.  This had to hurt. 

Thankfully, I don't own O'Neal on any of my six teams, so I benefit greatly by him going down.  Plus, I quickly picked up Austin Croshere who should reap the benefits of getting additional minutes.  He should put up decent-enough numbers to warrant a spot start when the schedule moves to Indiana's favor.  Also, Stephen Jackson was beginning to look like the odd man out after that Artest deal -- seriously, if you're driving the lane and you have Peja open on one wing and S-Jax open on the other, who are you going to pass it to?  But with O'Neal going down, Jackson and Peja are going to be throwing up shots left and right.

Wally World / Ricky Davis Trade

In my last installment , I predicted that Wally Szczerbiak and Michael Olowokandi would be dealt to Indiana for Artest.  Right guys, wrong team.  I don't think this deal has a whole lot of fantasy implications -- Wally's might go down a little, Davis might improve playing w/ KG instead of Pierce.  The big winner might be Mark Blount, who will no longer get jerked around by Doc Rivers.  Blount stinks, but he could be a serviceable fantasy center with 30+ consistent minutes.  However, he may be the only big man who rebounds worse than Eddy Curry.

It's clear that the T-Wolves had to do something.  I've watched them closely this year and they just can't win the close ones.  Garnett is incredible, but I don't remember him hitting a whole lot of game-winning shots.  He's probably too unselfish with the ball, especially down the stretch.  When the T-Wolves blew a large lead late to the Sixers last week, Garnett took one shot in the 4th quarter!  I watched the game and Trenton Hassell was taking nearly all of the shots down the stretch.  Ricky should give them a more versatile weapon than Wally.  And unlike Wally, when KG passes it out to Ricky, there might a chance he actually gets the ball back.

Frelton Spencers Update

In general, things are going well for the Spencers, and with Camby coming back this week and Yao Ming next week, expect them to make a major move over the next 2-3 weeks.  There has been very little trade activity in the leagues of late as a number of bottom feeders have effectively dropped out.

Spencers 1: Current - 67 pts, 4th place; Projected - 76 pts, 1st place
Spencers 2: Current - 65 pts, T2nd place; Projected - 73 pts, 1st place
Spencers 3: Current - 76.5 pts, 1st place; Projected - 81 pts, 1st place
Spencers 4: Current - 77.5 pts, 2nd place; Projected - 80 pts, 1st place
Spencers 5: Current - 72.5 pts, T2nd place; Projected - 76 pts, 2nd place
Spencers 6: Current - 55 pts, 5th place; Projected - 75 pts, 1st place

The only trade of note was an offer that we accepted yesterday in S6:  Traded away Samuel Dalembert and Marko Jaric for Pau Gasol and Mark Blount.  Our plan is to flip both Gasol and Blount at some point down the road, but it's still a decent deal.  Gasol has tremendous trade value, although he is generally overrated.

Top 40 Fantasy Players, Week 14 and Beyond

1.  James,Lebron
2.  Marion,Shawn
3.  Garnett,Kevin
4.  Arenas,Gilbert
5.  Brand,Elton
6.  Wade,Dwyane
7.  Pierce,Paul
8.  Kirilenko,Andrei
9.  Nowitzki,Dirk
10.  Iverson,Allen
11.  Nash,Steve
12.  Billups,Chauncey
13.  Kidd,Jason
14.  Bryant,Kobe
15.  Allen,Ray
16.  Mcgrady,Tracy
17.  Camby,Marcus
18.  Carter,Vince
19.  Lewis,Rashard
20.  Wallace,Rasheed
21.  Duncan,Tim
22.  Johnson,Joe
23.  Redd,Michael
24.  Paul,Chris
25.  Bosh,Chris
26.  Davis,Baron
27.  Gasol,Pau
28.  Davis,Ricky
29.  Bibby,Mike
30.  Howard,Dwight
31.  Jefferson,Richard
32.  Wallace,Ben
33.  Marbury,Stephon
34.  Ming,Yao
35.  Richardson,Jason
36.  Okur,Mehmet
37.  Miller,Brad
38.  Odom,Lamar
39.  Ilgauskas,Zydrunas
40.  Hinrich,Kirk

JCI, Week 6b

0 comments

Here's the updated JCI heading into the weekend.

1. Duke 18-1, RPI: 1
2. Texas 17-2, RPI: 11
3. Connecticut 17-1, RPI: 6
4. Memphis 18-2, RPI: 2
5. Illinois 18-2, RPI: 7
6. Villanova 14-2, RPI: 5
7. George Washington 15-1, RPI: 54
8. Pittsburgh 16-1, RPI: 10
9. Gonzaga 16-3, RPI: 9
10. Tennessee 13-3, RPI: 4
11. Florida 17-2, RPI: 24
12. Ohio State 14-2, RPI: 13
13. Michigan St 14-5, RPI: 3
14. Indiana 12-4, RPI: 17
15. Georgetown 13-4, RPI: 30
16. Iowa 15-5, RPI: 12
17. Northern Iowa 16-3, RPI: 14
18. North Carolina St 15-4, RPI: 33
19. Michigan 14-3, RPI: 26
20. West Virginia 13-4, RPI: 37
21. Bucknell 14-3, RPI: 31
22. Wisconsin 15-4, RPI: 8
23. Wichita St 16-4, RPI: 22
24. Syracuse 15-5, RPI: 25
25. Maryland 13-4, RPI: 21
26. LSU 12-5, RPI: 27
27. Boston College 14-4, RPI: 19
28. UCLA 16-4, RPI: 16
29. Cincinnati 13-6, RPI: 18
30. Marquette 14-5, RPI: 29

Other teams of interest (let me know if you want your team added):

36. Louisville 14-5, RPI: 65
38. Kentucky 13-6, RPI: 35
40. North Carolina 11-5, RPI: 44
46. Arizona 13-6, RPI: 15
53. Oklahoma 12-4, RPI: 34
56. Wake Forest 12-7, RPI: 75
63. Notre Dame 10-7, RPI: 98
75. Kansas 11-6, RPI: 81
79. DePaul 8-10, RPI: 64
80. Oklahoma St 12-7, RPI: 74
87. Northwestern 9-8, RPI: 88
98. Penn State 10-7, RPI: 125
132. Minnesota 9-8, RPI: 119
166. Purdue 7-11, RPI: 198

It's amazing how many traditionally powerhouse teams have their work cut out for them this year.  The NIT could have some big names in it this year...get your tickets now!  It will be interesting to see if any of these teams get in on name recognition only, similar to how UNC snuck in as a 8 or 9  seed a few years back and ended up making the Final Four.

JCI, Week 6

1/24/2006 0 comments

Here's the updated JCI w/ games through Sunday January 22nd.  Interesting week with all of the previously undefeated teams losing.  Pitt took the biggest hit, dropping from 3rd to 12th because of its weak schedule.  Duke holds on to the top spot in the JCI even with its loss at Georgetown.

The biggest story of the week has to be Wisconsin losing at home to North Dakota State.  All this talk about the Kohl Center being a tough place to win can now officially be put to rest.  The Badgers dropped from 10th to 22nd (they also lost at Ohio St last week).  North Dakota St rose from 170th to 163rd (two days before beating Wisconsin, the Bison lost at #278 Utah Valley St...yikes!).  The fine folks at the JCI Institute calculate the probability of North Dakota St beating Wisconsin is approximately 1.6%.

The North Dakota win was the 2nd biggest upset of the year so far, topped only by #303 UC Riverside's win at #120 Pacific on January 7th.  Here's the top 10 biggest upsets so far this year (all games were road games except the Monmouth win over SIU which was on a neutral court):

Date Rk Team Rk Opp Exp Win%
1/7/2006  303- UC Riverside  120- Pacific 1.41%
1/21/2006  163- North Dakota St  22- Wisconsin 1.61%
11/29/2005  144- Dayton  25- Cincinnati 2.11%
1/19/2006  316- St. Francis-PA  208- Wagner 2.33%
1/5/2006  272- Canisius  107- Marist 2.86%
12/30/2005  180- Elon  41- Clemson 2.94%
1/21/2006  243- Central Michigan  85- Buffalo 3.22%
12/2/2005  317- Army  234- Columbia 3.31%
11/24/2005  216- Monmouth  36- Southern Illinois 3.34%

 

UConn #1 in the polls

I normally don't like to be in the position to have to defend Duke, but they still deserve to be #1 in the polls even after losing this week.  The pollsters tend to operate week-to-week (you lost this past week, therefore you must move down) instead of looking at the season as a whole.  Fortunately, we have the JCI to provide an objective view of a team's overall resume of wins and losses.  When looked at as a whole, the comparison between Duke and UConn isn't even close at least at this point.  Duke has 3 wins that are more impressive than UConn's most impressive win, and Duke's loss at #18 Georgetown isn't as bad as UConn's loss at #33 Marquette. (note: The Exp Win% below gives the probability that the #50 team would win against that opponent considering the location of the game).

Connecticut Top 8 Wins Duke Top 8 Wins
Date Rk Opp Exp Win% Date Rk Opp Exp Win%
11/23    9- vs Gonzaga   10.2% 12/10    2- vs Texas   3.3%
1/16    20- at Syracuse   10.8% 11/25    4- vs Memphis   4.5%
1/21    42- at Louisville   29.3% 11/30    15- at Indiana   6.7%
1/14    18- Georgetown   34.9% 1/18    10- North Carolina St   21.9%
1/7    24- LSU   45.0% 1/14    41- at Clemson   28.6%
1/9    25- Cincinnati   45.4% 1/8    45- at Wake Forest   30.0%
11/21    44- vs Arkansas   48.5% 1/2    21- Bucknell   43.7%
11/22    48- vs Arizona   50.9% 1/11    28- Maryland   49.0%
Connecticut Loss Duke Loss
Date Rk Opp Exp Win% Date Rk Opp Exp Win%
1/3    33- at Marquette   21.7% 1/21    18- Georgetown   9.6%

JCI, Week 6 (games as of Sunday Jan 22nd)

1. Duke 17-1, RPI: 1, LW:1
2. Texas 16-2, RPI: 15, LW:4
3. Connecticut 16-1, RPI: 9, LW:9
4. Memphis 17-2, RPI: 2, LW:5
5. Florida 17-1, RPI: 19, LW:2
6. Illinois 17-2, RPI: 5, LW:6
7. Villanova 13-2, RPI: 3, LW:7
8. George Washington 14-1, RPI: 44, LW:8
9. Gonzaga 15-3, RPI: 7, LW:13
10. North Carolina St 15-3, RPI: 22, LW:11
11. Tennessee 12-3, RPI: 6, LW:20
12. Pittsburgh 15-1, RPI: 11, LW:3
13. Michigan St 14-4, RPI: 4, LW:15
14. Ohio State 14-2, RPI: 10, LW:18
15. Indiana 12-3, RPI: 12, LW:17
16. West Virginia 13-3, RPI: 28, LW:27
17. Iowa 14-5, RPI: 14, LW:14
18. Georgetown 12-4, RPI: 36, LW:49
19. Northern Iowa 15-3, RPI: 13, LW:21
20. Syracuse 15-4, RPI: 21, LW:12
21. Bucknell 13-3, RPI: 38, LW:19
22. Wisconsin 14-4, RPI: 8, LW:10
23. Wichita St 15-4, RPI: 23, LW:28
24. LSU 11-5, RPI: 31, LW:33
25. Cincinnati 13-5, RPI: 17, LW:22
26. Michigan 13-3, RPI: 32, LW:23
27. Washington 16-2, RPI: 35, LW:26
28. Maryland 12-4, RPI: 24, LW:25
29. Xavier 12-3, RPI: 40, LW:16
30. UCLA 15-4, RPI: 18, LW:24
31. Boston College 13-4, RPI: 25, LW:36
32. North Carolina 11-4, RPI: 33, LW:34
33. Marquette 13-5, RPI: 29, LW:41
34. Colorado 13-3, RPI: 66, LW:50
35. Creighton 13-4, RPI: 27, LW:35
36. Southern Illinois 14-4, RPI: 26, LW:30
37. Wis-Milwaukee 13-4, RPI: 20, LW:40
38. Iona 13-3, RPI: 53, LW:56
39. Vanderbilt 12-4, RPI: 45, LW:32
40. Kentucky 12-6, RPI: 43, LW:60
41. Clemson 13-5, RPI: 47, LW:39
42. Louisville 13-5, RPI: 82, LW:29
43. Missouri St 12-5, RPI: 34, LW:38
44. Arkansas 13-5, RPI: 60, LW:45
45. Wake Forest 12-6, RPI: 62, LW:37
46. Florida St 11-4, RPI: 100, LW:31
47. Ohio 10-3, RPI: 81, LW:46
48. Arizona 12-6, RPI: 16, LW:61
49. Iowa State 11-6, RPI: 52, LW:53
50. Oklahoma 11-4, RPI: 30, LW:67
51. UAB 13-3, RPI: 39, LW:57
52. Akron 12-3, RPI: 74, LW:64
53. Winthrop 10-4, RPI: 54, LW:70
54. Rutgers 11-6, RPI: 67, LW:42
55. Miami-Florida 11-7, RPI: 87, LW:43
56. Georgia 12-6, RPI: 63, LW:52
57. Alabama 10-7, RPI: 57, LW:65
58. Nevada 12-4, RPI: 51, LW:51
59. Notre Dame 10-6, RPI: 88, LW:48
60. Mississippi 13-4, RPI: 96, LW:58

Conference Rankings:

1.  Big Ten    0.8014
2.  ACC   0.7971
3.  Big East   0.7917
4.  SEC   0.7913
5.  Big 12   0.7498
6.  Missouri Valley   0.7053
7.  Pac-10   0.6605
8.  Atlantic 10   0.6190
9.  Mountain West   0.5736
10.  Mid-American   0.5645
11.  West Coast   0.5497
12.  WAC   0.5407
13.  Colonial   0.5355
14.  Metro Atlantic   0.5286
15.  Horizon   0.5068

Jayhawk Watch

Kansas beat Nebraska at home over the weekend, raising their record to 10-6 and moving from 93rd to 86th in the JCI.  Will they make the tourney or are they NIT bound?  They have two road games this week - at #69 Texas A&M and at #49 Iowa State that could go a long way towards proving which side of the fence they belong.

JCI, Week 5b

1/18/2006 0 comments

Here's the updated JCI after Tuesday, including Illinois' loss to Indiana.

1. Duke 16-0, RPI: 1
2. Florida 16-0, RPI: 10
3. Pittsburgh 14-0, RPI: 6
4. Texas 15-2, RPI: 13
5. Memphis 15-2, RPI: 2
6. Connecticut 15-1, RPI: 16
7. Illinois 16-2, RPI: 5
8. George Washington 13-1, RPI: 58
9. Villanova 12-2, RPI: 4
10. Wisconsin 14-2, RPI: 3
11. Gonzaga 14-3, RPI: 9
12. North Carolina St 14-2, RPI: 26
13. Indiana 11-3, RPI: 11
14. Michigan St 13-4, RPI: 7
15. Iowa 13-4, RPI: 8
16. Ohio State 12-2, RPI: 24
17. Syracuse 15-3, RPI: 20
18. Xavier 11-2, RPI: 33
19. Northern Iowa 14-3, RPI: 15
20. Tennessee 11-2, RPI: 14
21. Cincinnati 12-4, RPI: 19
22. Bucknell 11-3, RPI: 27
23. Michigan 11-3, RPI: 40
24. West Virginia 12-3, RPI: 51
25. UCLA 14-3, RPI: 12
26. Washington 14-2, RPI: 36
27. Maryland 11-4, RPI: 22
28. Wichita St 13-4, RPI: 28
29. Vanderbilt 11-3, RPI: 29
30. LSU 9-5, RPI: 45

Rock, Chalk...

Do you think we'll have a NCAA tournament without Kansas this year?  They're currently 99th in the JCI after their heartbreaking loss to Missouri.  I don't know what I'd enjoy more...seeing their very talented team not make the tourney, or see them make it and 'pull a Bucknell' in the first round like they did last year.  I remember being very upset along with every other Illini fan when Bill Self bolted for Kansas, but it was obviously the best thing that ever happened to the Illini program.

Check out the Jawhawk's current tourney resume:

Wins (9) Losses (6)
47 Kentucky 42 vs Arkansas
49 at Colorado 54 Nevada
109 vs California 56 vs Arizona
180 Pepperdine 78 Kansas St
189 Yale 86 at Missouri
221 New Orleans 91 vs Saint Joseph's
233 Idaho St
309 Western Illinois
319 Northern Colorado

Dickie V:

Normally I try to avoid this guy like the plague, but I couldn't avoid him last night during the Illinois-Indiana game.  I tried disconnecting the center speaker on my surround sound system, but ESPNHD pumps him out on the left and right front as well (doh!).

Dickie V generally has no idea what he's talking about, but one thing he did talk about was how there was no way that the Big East is the 4th best conference out there, according to the RPI (and further supported by the JCI).  He was basically saying that the Big East was slightly ahead of the Big Ten.  Sure, the Big East has some very good teams at the top, but that might have to do with the fact that they have 16 teams! If you take the top 4 teams in the Big East versus the top 4 teams in the Big Ten, the Big East might look better, but is this really a fair comparison?  The conference rankings average all of the teams in the conference.

With the JCI, you can compare the two conferences side-by-side.

Rk BIG TEN JCI Rk BIG EAST JCI
7 Illinois 0.9536 3 Pittsburgh 0.9851
10 Wisconsin 0.9381 6 Connecticut 0.9651
13 Indiana 0.9308 9 Villanova 0.9445
14 Michigan St 0.9228 17 Syracuse 0.9112
15 Iowa 0.9189 21 Cincinnati 0.8890
16 Ohio State 0.9120 24 West Virginia 0.8759
23 Michigan 0.8778 34 Marquette 0.8350
93 Penn State 0.6836 41 Georgetown 0.8012
97 Northwestern 0.6741 43 Louisville 0.7999
125 Minnesota 0.5948 46 Rutgers 0.7949
128 Purdue 0.5824 51 Notre Dame 0.7829
66 DePaul 0.7584
103 Seton Hall 0.6570
108 Providence 0.6371
139 St. John's 0.5614
257 South Florida 0.3030

Using the JCI information, the Big Ten would be expected to come out ahead 104 wins to 72 if the conference's played a massive round robin tournament between the two conferences on a neutral floor.  Taking the Big Ten's top 6 vs. the Big East's top 9 would be the next closest comparison, and the Big Ten would be expected to come out ahead in that match-up 33-21.  Taking the top 6 teams in the Big Ten against the top 7 in the Big East would be just about dead even, with a slight advantage still to the Big Ten.  And all of this is with Pitt likely having a higher JCI ranking than expected simply for the fact that they haven't lost yet.

It will be interesting to see how many teams get in from the Big East considering how massive the conference is.  Right now, they have 12 teams in the top 66 in the JCI.  They're all probably battling for 6 or 7 spots.

 
Wegoblogger #31 © 2011 | Designed by Bingo Cash, in collaboration with Modern Warfare 3, VPS Hosting and Compare Web Hosting