Pages

JCI, Week 11 (with Seed Projections)

2/27/2006 0 comments

The updated JCI rankings with games through Sunday February 26th can be found by clicking the following link:

http://home.comcast.net/~jcolton31/index.html

I added my projected seeds to the JCI rankings for the first time this week. These seeding's are my assessment on where I think the seeds should be if the season ended today, based purely on analysis of a team's wins and losses with extra weight given to the last 10 games. This is not an assessment of what I think the seeds will look like from the Selection Committee either today or on Selection Sunday. Obviously, they don't have the benefit of the superior JCI data to help guide their decisions, therefore their results will be influenced by the RPI and a slew of other factors.

Current Thinking, Feb 27th
1: Duke, Connecticut, Villanova, Memphis
2: George Washington, Texas, Gonzaga, Ohio State
3: Pittsburgh, Illinois, Tennessee, Georgetown
4: West Virginia, North Carolina, LSU, Iowa
5: North Carolina St, Boston College, Florida, Michigan St
6: Marquette, Bucknell, Michigan, Oklahoma
7: Wisconsin, UCLA, Cincinnati, Syracuse
8: Wichita St, Indiana, Arkansas, Washington
9: Kansas, Missouri St, Northern Iowa, Nevada
10: Kentucky, Alabama, George Mason, Hofstra
11: Creighton, Florida St, Louisville, Arizona
12: Texas A&M, UNC Wilmington, Seton Hall, Western Kentucky
13: Kent St, Northwestern St, San Diego St, Wis-Milwaukee
14: Winthrop, Murray St, Pacific, Manhattan
15: Pennsylvania, Northern Arizona, Georgia So, Delaware St
16: Oral Roberts, Fairleigh Dickinson, Albany, Lipscomb, Southern U

A few observations:

  • My current seedings have 10 Big East teams. I don't honestly think that the Big East will get 10 teams in, I think the number is probably more like 8. My guess is both Louisville and Seton Hall will fall on the wrong side of the bubble, especially considering that only the top 12 teams make the Big East tourney. Miss the conference tourney and you can kiss your chances goodbye. Be one of the four teams that loses a play-in game and your chances are pretty slim too. I think Syracuse and Cincinnati are safe at this point, but they could be sweating it out with an early exit.
  • The RPI isn't doing Louisville any favors. Check out Louisville vs. Arizona, both 17-10. The JCI has Louisville #44 and Arizona #45. A detailed analysis of each team's win and losses would prove that they should be very close. Louisville has only one top 50 win (home vs Cincinnati), but Arizona only has 2 (vs Kansas and at Washington). However, Louisville is 11-0 against teams ranked 101+ while Arizona has two bad losses (at #125 Oregon and #143 Oregon State). The RPI, however, paints a far rosier picture for Arizona:

    Arizona - RPI: 19, RPI SOS: 7, JCI SOS: 46
    Louisville - RPI: 71, RPI SOS: 55, JCI SOS: 31

    Louisville is more deserving than Arizona for an at-large bid given the fact they have the same record but have played a slightly more difficult schedule. However, you know that despite the Committee's belitting the role of the RPI in the Selection process, it would certainly have an impact in this instance. I think it's safe to assume that Arizona has a much better chance at an at-large bid than Louisville, driven primarily by inaccuracies in the RPI numbers (do you see how the faulty RPI can have significant ramifications?)
  • By the way, here are the top 15 overrated and underrated teams by the RPI, so you can get some sense for teams that the Committee might be more likely to move up or down.

    Overrated by RPI:
    1. Arizona JCI: 45, RPI: 19, JCI SOS: 46, RPI SOS: 7
    2. Middle Tenn St JCI: 141, RPI: 101, JCI SOS: 166, RPI SOS: 111
    3. Tennessee JCI: 11, RPI: 4, JCI SOS: 39, RPI SOS: 6
    4. Utah St JCI: 79, RPI: 49, JCI SOS: 202, RPI SOS: 97
    5. Houston JCI: 91, RPI: 54, JCI SOS: 195, RPI SOS: 114
    6. George Mason JCI: 39, RPI: 23, JCI SOS: 118, RPI SOS: 83
    7. Western Kentucky JCI: 69, RPI: 47, JCI SOS: 224, RPI SOS: 118
    8. Louisiana Tech JCI: 99, RPI: 64, JCI SOS: 85, RPI SOS: 76
    9. Wis-Milwaukee JCI: 87, RPI: 53, JCI SOS: 149, RPI SOS: 107
    10. Oklahoma JCI: 24, RPI: 12, JCI SOS: 62, RPI SOS: 30
    11. Nevada JCI: 36, RPI: 21, JCI SOS: 126, RPI SOS: 84
    12. Missouri St JCI: 34, RPI: 20, JCI SOS: 76, RPI SOS: 47
    13. Montana JCI: 112, RPI: 84, JCI SOS: 320, RPI SOS: 216
    14. Wisconsin JCI: 25, RPI: 15, JCI SOS: 35, RPI SOS: 9
    15. UNC Wilmington JCI: 51, RPI: 37, JCI SOS: 123, RPI SOS: 104
    Underrated by RPI:
    1. George Washington JCI: 5, RPI: 29, JCI SOS: 153, RPI SOS: 204
    2. Purdue JCI: 120, RPI: 166, JCI SOS: 14, RPI SOS: 37
    3. Penn State JCI: 67, RPI: 109, JCI SOS: 23, RPI SOS: 57
    4. Memphis JCI: 4, RPI: 6, JCI SOS: 78, RPI SOS: 46
    5. Texas JCI: 6, RPI: 8, JCI SOS: 42, RPI SOS: 54
    6. Notre Dame JCI: 60, RPI: 98, JCI SOS: 9, RPI SOS: 32
    7. Mississippi JCI: 108, RPI: 136, JCI SOS: 60, RPI SOS: 92
    8. Connecticut JCI: 2, RPI: 3, JCI SOS: 4, RPI SOS: 25
    9. Georgia Tech JCI: 110, RPI: 139, JCI SOS: 19, RPI SOS: 42
    10. Louisville JCI: 44, RPI: 71, JCI SOS: 31, RPI SOS: 55
    11. St. John's JCI: 96, RPI: 125, JCI SOS: 25, RPI SOS: 45
    12. Virginia Tech JCI: 88, RPI: 115, JCI SOS: 38, RPI SOS: 69
    13. North Carolina St JCI: 17, RPI: 34, JCI SOS: 36, RPI SOS: 56
    14. Nebraska JCI: 62, RPI: 97, JCI SOS: 68, RPI SOS: 80
    15. Georgetown JCI: 12, RPI: 22, JCI SOS: 11, RPI SOS: 43

  • The Louisville/Arizona argument may be moot if we see a lot of upsets in the conference tourneys. The current seeds assume that the current conference leaders will win their tournament. Memphis (imagine CUSA as a one-bid conference!), George Washington, Gonzaga, Bucknell and perhaps Nevada can make the tournament without an automatic bid, so each upset in one of their respective conferences means one less at-large bubble spot.
  • George Washington is really the wild-card here. Most bracketologists have them as a 3 or 4 seed but I think they deserve to be higher. Certainly their RPI numbers don't help their cause. I understand GW has played a weak schedule, but at some point you have to give them credit for being 24-1. Even against GW's weak schedule, a lower ranked team would have 2 or 3 losses to this point. I estimated that a typical 9-12th ranked team would be expected to have 22.9 wins against GW's schedule, and a typical 13-16th ranked team would be expected to have 22.4. Maybe GW's just been lucky to have 24 wins, but I think they should get the benefit of those wins.

    Their schedule to this point basically comes down to 6 meaningful games: at NC State, at Temple, at Xavier, at St. Joseph's, vs. Maryland, and at Charlotte. Not a backbreaking schedule by any means, but a typical 12th ranked team would be expected to go 4-2 in those six games. Again, I think GW deserves credit for going 5-1 instead.
  • Strength of Schedule

    2/24/2006 0 comments

    By the way, here are the top 15 most underrated and overrated SOS's. My SOS measure calculated the expected win percentage of a 30th ranked team against a given team's schedule, factoring in the location of the game. The RPI SOS puts the home/road adjustment in the win/loss factor, so it doesn't show up in the SOS measure. That combined w/ the linearity problem lead to the inaccuracies in the RPI SOS measure.

    UNDERRATED SCHEDULES
    1. Georgetown 18-7 JCI SOS: 10 RPI SOS: 52
    2. Penn State 13-12 JCI SOS: 23 RPI SOS: 58
    3. Connecticut 24-2 JCI SOS: 6 RPI SOS: 38
    4. Virginia Tech 13-13 JCI SOS: 30 RPI SOS: 69
    5. West Virginia 17-8 JCI SOS: 3 RPI SOS: 29
    6. Notre Dame 13-11 JCI SOS: 8 RPI SOS: 35
    7. Indiana 14-10 JCI SOS: 2 RPI SOS: 18
    8. Florida St 17-7 JCI SOS: 52 RPI SOS: 97
    9. Georgia Tech 10-15 JCI SOS: 13 RPI SOS: 39
    10. Boston College 20-6 JCI SOS: 59 RPI SOS: 95
    11. North Carolina St 21-6 JCI SOS: 37 RPI SOS: 60
    12. Illinois 22-5 JCI SOS: 31 RPI SOS: 54
    13. St. John's 12-13 JCI SOS: 26 RPI SOS: 47
    14. Mississippi 14-12 JCI SOS: 57 RPI SOS: 85
    15. Northwestern 12-12 JCI SOS: 9 RPI SOS: 25


    OVERRATED SCHEDULES
    1. UCLA 21-6 JCI SOS: 78 RPI SOS: 21
    2. UNLV 15-10 JCI SOS: 167 RPI SOS: 74
    3. New Mexico St 13-12 JCI SOS: 119 RPI SOS: 66
    4. Western Kentucky 19-6 JCI SOS: 214 RPI SOS: 106
    5. Arizona 16-10 JCI SOS: 39 RPI SOS: 4
    6. Hawaii 15-9 JCI SOS: 137 RPI SOS: 81
    7. Iowa State 14-11 JCI SOS: 58 RPI SOS: 24
    8. Montana 18-5 JCI SOS: 320 RPI SOS: 207
    9. George Mason 21-6 JCI SOS: 112 RPI SOS: 72
    10. Utah St 18-6 JCI SOS: 220 RPI SOS: 121
    11. San Diego St 16-8 JCI SOS: 170 RPI SOS: 98
    12. Kansas St 14-10 JCI SOS: 108 RPI SOS: 67
    13. BYU 16-7 JCI SOS: 177 RPI SOS: 101
    14. Tennessee 20-4 JCI SOS: 32 RPI SOS: 5
    15. Houston 17-6 JCI SOS: 219 RPI SOS: 128

    More Comparisons

    2/23/2006 0 comments

    Check out the tournament resumes for the following four teams with identical records.

    Team A Top Wins Losses
    W-L 20-6 a#18 n#5
    RPI 11 h#18 h#33
    SOS 18 a#23 a#35
    Last 10 6-4 n#27 h#35
    W-L vs:   h#62 h#66
    1-25 3-1 h#87 a#95
    26-50 1-3  
    51-100 3-2    
    Team B Top Wins Losses
    W-L 20-6 a#21 n#4
    RPI 28 n#40 h#17
    SOS 73 a#45 a#35
    Last 10 6-4 h#45 h#35
    W-L vs:   h#60 h#62
    1-25 1-2 h#82 a#82
    26-50 3-2  
    51-100 2-2    
    Team C Top Wins Losses
    W-L 20-6 a#15 h#1
    RPI 39 h#58 N#13
    SOS 96 a#69 h#26
    Last 10 8-2 h#69 a#47
    W-L vs:   h#74 a#59
    1-25 1-2 n#91 a#142
    26-50 0-2  
    51-100 5-1    
    Team D Top Wins Losses
    W-L 20-6 a#16 h#1
    RPI 22 h#34 h#12
    SOS 59 a#52 n#19
    Last 10 8-2 h#52 a#42
    W-L vs:   h#67 a#54
    1-25 1-3 a#86 a#113
    26-50 1-1  
    51-100 6-1    

    Team A is UCLA using RPI data. Team B is UCLA using JCI data. Look at the boost that UCLA is getting from the RPI data. #11 RPI, #18 SOS. Two wins against Arizona (#18 in the RPI) look like quality Top 25 wins. Based on that data, looks like they're a solid 4 seed.

    Team C is Boston College using RPI data. Team D is Boston College using JCI data. BC's RPI profile is not very flattering: #39 overall, #96 SOS, only 1 top 50 win. However, their JCI paints a slightly rosier picture.

    The variation in the RPI numbers are purely artificial, simply an outcome of inaccuracies in the RPI formulas and methodology. And even if the Selection Committee understands the basic shortcomings of the RPI, they won't be able to account for and adjust for each of the discrepancies that filter down to all of the RPI-based factors they look at. For instance, they might be able to recognize that UCLA's RPI is inflated, but they can only guess how far the number is off. And I doubt that they'd be able to reach any conclusion that would lead to Boston College being placed higher than UCLA, although the true rankings suggest that this should be the case.

    Boston College is another victim of the 'bottom feeder' effect that I talked about earlier. BC played five games against opponents ranked above 250th while UCLA didn't play any (maybe the Pac-10 has figured this out, because Arizona did the same thing). UCLA's RPI SOS is 18th and BC's is 96th even though it would be tougher for a team to go 20-6 against BC's schedule than it would against UCLA's.

    Current Thinking...Feb 23

    0 comments

    A lot of games last night between ranked teams: Ohio State/Michigan St, Florida/Tennessee, UNC/NC State leads to some shake-up in my seed lines. I'll continue to post my current thinking leading up to the tournament.

    WHAT I THINK THEY SHOULD BE
    1: Duke, Connecticut, Villanova, Memphis
    2: George Washington, Tennessee, Texas, Gonzaga
    3: Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Illinois, Georgetown
    4: North Carolina, Iowa, North Carolina St, LSU
    5: Florida, West Virginia, Michigan St, Boston College
    6: Michigan, Bucknell, Marquette, Oklahoma
    7: Kansas, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Wisconsin
    8: Wichita St, UCLA, Kentucky, George Mason
    9: Washington, Missouri St, Florida St, Northern Iowa
    10: Arkansas, Indiana, Alabama, Creighton
    11: Seton Hall, Nevada, Louisville, Maryland
    12: Arizona, Hofstra, Bradley, Virginia

    WHAT I THINK THEY WOULD BE (differences due to RPI)
    1: Duke, Villanova, Connecticut, Memphis
    2: Tennessee, Ohio State, Gonzaga, Texas
    3: George Washington, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, Illinois
    4: Iowa, LSU, Michigan St, Georgetown
    5: Oklahoma, North Carolina St, Wisconsin, Marquette
    6: Michigan, Florida, West Virginia, UCLA
    7: George Mason, Boston College, Cincinnati, Wichita St
    8: Bucknell, Syracuse, Kansas, Missouri St
    9: Arizona, Kentucky, Northern Iowa, Nevada
    10: Creighton, Washington, Alabama, Bradley
    11: Seton Hall, Indiana, UNC Wilmington, Arkansas
    12: Florida St, Hofstra, Western Kentucky, Maryland

    Bracketology

    2/22/2006 0 comments

    I really don't want to be the next Joe Lunardi, but I couldn't think of anything else to title this column. This is my view of what the seeds should look like if the season ended today (games through Tuesday Feb 21st), so it's not a projection of what the brackets will or would look like. I'm not going to waste my time agonizing about first-round match-ups, regions or site locations, so I'll just present them as seed lines. Feel free to post your comments or projected seeds below.

    1: Duke, UConn, Villanova, Memphis
    2: George Washington, Gonzaga, Texas, Tennessee
    3: Pitt, Ohio State, North Carolina St, Illinois
    4: Georgetown, Florida, Michigan State, Iowa
    5: West Virginia, North Carolina, Boston College, LSU
    6: Bucknell, Michigan, Marquette, Oklahoma
    7: Kansas, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Wisconsin
    8: Northern Iowa, Wichita St, UCLA, Kentucky
    9: George Mason, Washington, Missouri St, Arkansas


    A couple of thoughts:
  • George Washington is really the wild-card here. I don't think they'll be seeded higher than 3rd, but they just keep humming along. How do you slot a 22-1 team who's only loss is at NC State? With their weak SOS (155 in the JCI, 218 in the RPI), they have very little margin of error. One loss could easily drop them 2-3 seed lines. And although their RPI of 33 is way off, that can only hurt them come Selection Sunday.
  • Although most of IlliniNation is in a panic after yet another road loss in conference (there's some talk of a 8 or 9 seed!), the Illini currently have a very strong tournament resume, including the 4th best total of quality wins in the country. As much as everybody talks about dropping them down dramatically after every loss, there's not a whole lot of worthy suitors to take their spot. Florida maybe. Most of the teams ranked 8-20 have been losing left and right of late as well. In fact, of the teams ranked 8-23 on my 'S-Curve', they average 6.8 wins out of the last 10, not much better than Illinois' 6-4 mark. However, if they continue their downward trend and lose 2 of the remaining 3 regular season games (Iowa, at Minnesota, at Michigan State) and bow out early in the Big Ten tourney, they'll finish with a 4-6 record in their last 10. That's certain to stick out as a negative with the Selection Committee, even if it flies in the face of their 'body of work' argument.


  • Mike Davis
    I meant to mention someting about Mike Davis resigning at Indiana in my last post but forgot to add it, so I'll throw it in here. It's a very strange situation with him staying on until the end of the year, basically he's shot that program in the foot for this year. They were looking like a tourney lock until they went into a tailspin and lost 7 of their last 8. They have the #2 SOS in the JCI (#16 RPI SOS), but a 13-10 overall record and 5-7 conference record combined with their recent play would probably put them in the NIT. They do have games left against Penn State and Purdue and a home date vs. Michigan State, so the opportunity is still there for them to make the tourney if they turn it around.

    What a strange situation this must be for the Indiana players. Obviously, Indiana didn't want to make any kind of commitment to a new coach right away so they could try to lure Steve Alford away in the offseason, so you know that must have at lease some effect on the Iowa guys too. Plus, Davis was pretty much a loose cannon (who can forget him running on the court slapping his forehead...while the game was still going on!), even when he to worry a little bit about losing his job. Now that he has no job, who knows what he might do next. Letting him coach it out is like leaving a ticking timebomb. He's already said he's got something up his sleeve for senior night.

    JCI, Week 10

    2/21/2006 0 comments

    The updated JCI rankings can be found here: http://home.comcast.net/~jcolton31/index.html

    The list of teams that fall inside/outside the top 25 & 50 JCI vs RPI is growing. Check out the groups below:

    Group A: Top 25 RPI, Non-Top 25 JCI
    29. UCLA 20-6, RPI: 14 JCI SOS: 74 RPI SOS: 22
    28. Oklahoma 18-6, RPI: 15 JCI SOS: 61 RPI SOS: 31
    47. Arizona 16-10, RPI: 17 JCI SOS: 39 RPI SOS: 3
    35. George Mason 21-5, RPI: 20 JCI SOS: 141 RPI SOS: 82
    26. Northern Iowa 20-6, RPI: 23 JCI SOS: 65 RPI SOS: 55
    30. Wichita St 20-7, RPI: 24 JCI SOS: 58 RPI SOS: 34
    36. Missouri St 18-7, RPI: 25 JCI SOS: 72 RPI SOS: 42

    Group B: Top 25 JCI, Non-Top 25 RPI
    5. George Washington 22-1, RPI: 33 JCI SOS: 150 RPI SOS: 216
    14. Georgetown 17-7, RPI: 29 JCI SOS: 5 RPI SOS: 51
    17. West Virginia 17-8, RPI: 32 JCI SOS: 3 RPI SOS: 27
    18. Boston College 20-5, RPI: 34 JCI SOS: 60 RPI SOS: 89
    21. Bucknell 20-4, RPI: 39 JCI SOS: 108 RPI SOS: 155
    24. Syracuse 19-8, RPI: 27 JCI SOS: 27 RPI SOS: 11
    25. Cincinnati 17-9, RPI: 26 JCI SOS: 6 RPI SOS: 7

    Group C: Top 50 RPI, Non-Top 50 JCI
    56. UNC Wilmington 20-7, RPI: 38 JCI SOS: 123 RPI SOS: 100
    60. Western Kentucky 19-5, RPI: 42 JCI SOS: 229 RPI SOS: 114
    54. Air Force 19-5, RPI: 48 JCI SOS: 210 RPI SOS: 168
    72. Saint Joseph's 11-12, RPI: 49 JCI SOS: 11 RPI SOS: 4
    78. Utah St 17-6, RPI: 50 JCI SOS: 227 RPI SOS: 122

    Group D: Top 50 JCI, Non-Top 50 RPI
    38. Florida St 16-7, RPI: 60 JCI SOS: 52 RPI SOS: 98
    42. Arkansas 17-8, RPI: 56 JCI SOS: 53 RPI SOS: 73
    44. Louisville 16-9, RPI: 67 JCI SOS: 35 RPI SOS: 47
    49. UAB 18-5, RPI: 53 JCI SOS: 155 RPI SOS: 157
    50. Vanderbilt 14-9, RPI: 59 JCI SOS: 38 RPI SOS: 37

    It's pretty astonishing that the Selection Committee would continue to have confidence in a tool that can be wrong 30 slots or more for any given team. Remember, the RPI being off has further ramifications for the other tools that the Committee looks at -- for example, each of the 10 teams that has beat Arizona this season gets credit for a top 25 win even though they only beat the 47th-ranked team.

    Arizona is a perfect case study. Their RPI is 17th and they are 16-10!!! How can this be? Here's their wins and losses to date:

    Wins
    12/31 W at 33 Washington
    11/21 W vs 32 Kansas
    2/19 W at 100 Stanford
    12/29 W at 115 Washington St
    1/21 W 59 California
    12/21 W 60 Western Kentucky
    12/17 W at 138 Utah
    11/27 W 64 Virginia
    1/25 W at 153 Arizona St
    1/7 W 82 Southern California
    1/19 W 100 Stanford
    12/19 W 121 Sam Houston
    12/10 W 124 St. Mary's
    2/9 W 133 Oregon
    2/11 W 139 Oregon St
    12/8 W 141 Northern Arizona

    Losses
    11/22 L 2 Connecticut
    1/28 L at 19 North Carolina
    2/4 L at 29 UCLA
    11/23 L 16 Michigan St
    2/16 L at 59 California
    2/2 L at 82 Southern California
    12/3 L at 89 Houston
    1/5 L 29 UCLA
    1/14 L at 133 Oregon
    1/12 L at 139 Oregon St

    Arizona is clearly benefitting from not having played any teams below 153rd in the JCI, and this is artificially boosting their RPI SOS and RPI. They have the 3rd strongest schedule according to the RPI, however their JCI SOS is 39th. [Note: The JCI estimates the expected winning percentage of the 30th ranked team against a given team's schedule accounting for the location of the game, so it provides a much more accurate SOS number. While the RPI accounts for home/road adjustments in the win-loss record (albeit inaccurately), the SOS number doesn't account for home/road.]

    The RPI is clearly affected by the number of bottom feeders you play (or inArizona's case, don't play). Want to 'game' the RPI (say, for example, you know you're truly the 47th best team in the country, but you want to make your RPI look much better)? Instead of scheduling against the perennial bottom third of Division I, go slightly upmarket and schedule games against the teams in the 100-150 range (on the road would be even better, although the economics may not allow it). The probability of beating a 150th ranked team versus a 250th ranked team is not much different (see table below), but your RPI will receive a nice boost.

      Expected Win Percentage
    47th Ranked Team vs.
    Opp Rank Home Neutral Away
    50 70.23% 53.37% 35.71%
    100 85.11% 73.50% 57.38%
    150 93.47% 87.42% 77.14%
    200 96.90% 93.81% 88.04%
    250 98.49% 96.94% 93.90%
    300 99.43% 98.83% 97.61%

    You can see that the probability of winning the game doesn't go down much when you move from 250th to 150th...a top-tier program should have no problem beating either team at home.

    We should be able to show the impact to Arizona if we altered their schedule a little bit. Let's assume that for some of their lower-ranked non-conference wins, they played a team that was 100 slots below the team they actually played. I'm guessing their JCI won't move much but they're RPI will move dramatically.

    12/8 141 Northern Arizona --> switch to 241 Charleston Southern
    12/10 124 St. Mary's --> switch to 224 Bowling Green
    12/17 at 138 Utah --> switch to 238 Delaware
    12/19 121 Sam Houston --> switch to 221 Marshall

    Switching just these 4 games in Arizona's schedule would cause their RPI to drop from 17th to 34th and their RPI SOS from 3rd to 25th. Meanwhile, their JCI would fall from 47th to 49th and JCI SOS from 39th to 48th. The best way to make sense of this information is to ask yourself: does beating first 4 teams as opposed to second 4th change my opinion of Arizona's season by 17 slots and their schedule by 22 slots? I would argue not. Sure, they should get the benefit of playing the slightly stronger schedule, and the JCI accurately reflects the difference.

    To show this 'bottom feeder' effect a different way (without picking on Arizona), take two schedules. Schedule A: at #1 Duke, at #3 Villanova, at #333 Savannah State. Schedule B: home vs. #110 Pacific, home vs. #79 Northwestern St, home vs. #128 IUPUI. It's obvious that Schedule A is a far more difficult schedule -- the expected win percentage for the 47th-ranked team is 34.5% for Sch A and 86.3% for Sch B. However, the RPI SOS would be IDENTICAL for either schedule. Keep that in mind when you hear Jay Bilas talking about some team's strength of schedule.

    Brett Petway

    Check out this hilarious video compiled to a song written and performed by Michigan's very own Brett Petway. Among the classics moments are the line 'NIT 2004, other teams pursuing that' and the technique of rhyming 'Hunter' with 'Hunter' and 'Hunter' again. Pure lyrical genius.

    This song will undoubtedly spawn an age-old debate: is Brett Petway a better rapper or a better basketball player.?

    Deez Nuutz!!!

    2/20/2006 0 comments

    Fantasy Hoops, All-Star Break Edition

    2/17/2006 0 comments

    The All-Star break is the perfect time to (cue Jesse Jackson) reflect, detect, and project what's going on in the world of fantasy hoops. With nearly 65% of the regular season completed and the trading deadline fast approaching, the next few weeks will be crucial for fantasy squads still in contention.

    Fantasy Disappointments

    You're probably well out of the race if you drafted either Stephon Marbury or Steve Francis. I saw Marbury go as early as the first round and Francis as early as the 2nd round. It seems fitting to lump these two together since they are very similar -- talented but underachieving, absolutely maddening to NBA coaches and GM's. Now they're finally having the same effect on their fantasy owners. How long before we add Tracy McGrady to this list and make it a 'franchise players on lottery teams' triumverate? Honorable mention: T-Mac, Carlos Boozer, Emeka Okafor, Kyle Korver, Tayshaun Prince.

    Fantasy Surprises

    Chances were David West and Boris Diaw weren't drafted in your league, and the owner who swooped them up early has been reaping the benefits all year. Diaw is a personal favorite of my fantasy partner-in-crime, Marc Fredman, and how can you blame him -- the guy plays multiple positions and can fill up the stat sheet. Even after Amare comes back, Diaw will continue to put up fantasy viable numbers. He's difficult to trade because his numbers are hard to replace. West is a guy that I wish I had the foresight to pick-up, unfortunately I'm left plugging in the 3rd and 4th forward spots with guys like the aforementioned Korver and Tayshaun. West isn't spectacular, but he's solid enough to contribute in your line-up week-in and week-out.

    Elton Brand and Chauncey Billups are two guys that were already solid fantasy players but have taken it to the next level this year. Both guys are outperforming a bunch of players that were probably drafted before them (T-Mac & Duncan in the case of Brand and Marbury, Francis and Bibby in the case of Billups). In one of our leagues, I drafted Corey Maggette in the 4th round w/ Billups still out there. Ouch! Honorable Mention: Rashard Lewis, Gerald Wallace (would probably be first if it weren't for injuries), Marcus Camby (ditto), Rasheed Wallace, Chris Bosh, Carmelo Anthony, Mehmet Okur, Mike James, Delonte West.

    'Fantasy Experts' Corner

    It's been awhile since I've called anybody out for their lack of fantasy expertise. Trust me, it's not due to a shortage of viable candidates. However, this next one from Daniel E. Dobish, 'Senior Fantasy Writer' at CBS Sportsline, really deserves special mention.

    The Mailbag
    Chris: I'm in a head-to-head league and I need help at the forward position. I have been offered Portland's Zach Randolph for Denver's Marcus Camby. Centers are at a premium in this league, but I also have L.A. Clippers' Chris Kaman and Chicago's Tyson Chandler. Should I make this deal?

    D.E.D.: Chris, this is a solid trade to help fill a need. Randolph has produced more points per game this season and is nearly identical in free throw percentage. You lose out in blocks and slightly in rebounding, but overall Randolph has been more productive. Kaman and Chandler have played well recently and should be able to hang in there for you barring any injuries. That is what tips the scales here, too - Camby's propensity for injury. He has played in just 31 games due to various ailments, while Randolph has appeared in 46 of his team's 47 games.

    Okay, nobody feels the effect of Camby's knack for injury more than me -- he broke his finger and missed 8 weeks two days after I traded for him. However, Camby is a top 20 player when he actually does play, while Randolph certainly is not. Zach is listed as an honorable mention on my 'top 10 guys to never draft under any circumstances' list for a reason -- he simply is not a very good fantasy player (and as the Trailblazers are finding out, not exactly a guy you want to sign to a max contract either...yikes!). Would you waste a 5th or 6th round pick on Zaza Pachulia, Udonis Haslem, Donyell Marshall, Mark Blount or Marko Jaric? Probably not. But all five of those guys are OUTPERFORMING Zach Randolph so far this year. He's the 110th rated player on a cumulative basis, while Camby is 53rd even with all of those missed games (basically refuting Daniel's 'but overall Randolph has been more productive' claim.

    So Dobish makes the fantasy rookie mistake of overvaluing points and rebounds. Guess what, Danny? There are 6 other fantasy categories and each is worth the same amount of points. The other mistake he makes is he simply counts categories when comparing the two instead of really looking at the statistical difference in each. 'You lose out in blocks and slightly in rebounding' is a slight underexaggeration when Camby averages 12.0 boards and 3.0 blocks and Randolph averages 8.6 and 0.2 (amazingly low blocks for a big). You wouldn't say a guy averaging 5.0 rebounds per game is slightly less than another guys with 8.4 boards per game, would you? The fantasy impact on your squad would be the same. Dobish mysteriously fails to mention the 1.5 to 0.7 difference in steals per game, which is another huge difference. Points is really the only thing you are gaining in with Randolph, and the 18.2 to 14.8 ppg advantage isn't nearly as big fantasy wise relative to Camby's advantage in REB, STL, FG% and especially blocks.

    In my fantasy rankings, I convert each players box score into a fantasy contribution, or 'FC'. So a guy gets positive points for each PTS,REB,AST,STL,etc, with each category weighted differently based on league averages and variance. Based on my projection for the rest of the year, each game that Camby suits up for yields about 3.65 FC points, good enough to rank 10th in the league. Randolph yields 1.93 FC points per game, ranking him 105th. So if Randolph were to play in each of the Trailblazers 31 remaining games, Camby would have to play in only 16.4 of Denver's remaining 28 games to match Randolph's cumulative output. And even if their FC were equal, you'd still prefer Camby's contribution given the fact that you be able to replace at least a portion of his missed games with some other replacement-level player.

    Yet another hole in Dorbish's argument (could there be anything left to poke at?), is he uses the past games played to assess future trade value. While it's obvious the Camby will likely miss more games the Randolph, just because Camby missed 39% of Denver's games to date (21 of 54) doesn't mean he's going to miss the same percentage going forward. Most of those missed games came as a result of the broken pinky finger which he's now back from. And although Zach has only missed one game so far all year, he hasn't exactly been Cal Ripken in his career either. Last year, he only played in 46 games.

    Frelton Spencers Update

    The Spencers are finally getting healthy and starting to make their move, moving into first in four of the six leagues. Two leagues are already locked up. S6 continues to battle injuries but should be right there by the end. No major trades as the overall level of league activity has diminished. Hopefully we'll be able to land a couple of deadline deals to cement our place at the top of the standings (and make ourselves up to $3,000 richer).

    Spencers 1: Current - 73 pts, T1st place; Projected - 77 pts, 2nd place (1st place = 78 pts)
    Spencers 2: Current - 70 pts, 1st place; Projected - 68 pts, 2nd place (1st place = 69 pts)
    Spencers 3: Current - 79 pts, 1st place; Projected - 82 pts, 1st place
    Spencers 4: Current - 78 pts, 1st place; Projected - 77 pts, 1st place
    Spencers 5: Current - 74 pts, 2nd place; Projected - 75 pts, 2nd place (1st place = 77 pts)
    Spencers 6: Current - 59 pts, 3rd place; Projected - 74 pts, 1st place

    JCI Year-by-Year History

    2/10/2006 0 comments

    I posted the detailed JCI year-by-year over the last 10 seasons. Tournament games are double-weighted, although I plan to post both the straight and weighted results eventually.

    http://home.comcast.net/~jcolton31/jci_all_10data.html

    No JCI update until late next week, hopefully the Illini will have moved up due to an impressive road win at Ohio State.

    Top Basketball Programs...the Top Seeds

    2/09/2006 0 comments

    Here's the complete list of top basketball programs over the last 10 years. I looked at win-loss performance since the 1996-97. Although you could overweight tournament performance, I chose to initial treat them same as any other game. Over a 10-year period, quality teams should be able to perform well in the tournament. And those teams that go deep in the tourney year after year will get a boost in their number of quality wins.

    I will try to put together some more detailed information on these teams soon.

    1 Seeds:
    1. Duke 292 - 48 JCI: 0.9439 JCI SOS: 5
    2. Kentucky 266 - 71 JCI: 0.909 JCI SOS: 4
    3. Kansas 255 - 67 JCI: 0.8923 JCI SOS: 38
    4. Arizona 246 - 76 JCI: 0.8881 JCI SOS: 18

    2 Seeds:
    5. Connecticut 254 - 76 JCI: 0.8848 JCI SOS: 31
    6. Stanford 232 - 68 JCI: 0.8809 JCI SOS: 47
    7. Illinois 242 - 84 JCI: 0.8785 JCI SOS: 15
    8. Michigan St 231 - 86 JCI: 0.8768 JCI SOS: 10

    3 Seeds:
    9. North Carolina 227 - 99 JCI: 0.8751 JCI SOS: 1
    10. Maryland 225 - 95 JCI: 0.8708 JCI SOS: 7
    11. Cincinnati 246 - 73 JCI: 0.8547 JCI SOS: 74
    12. Syracuse 235 - 88 JCI: 0.8526 JCI SOS: 51

    4 Seeds:
    13. Oklahoma 230 - 83 JCI: 0.8441 JCI SOS: 65
    14. Wake Forest 204 - 105 JCI: 0.8409 JCI SOS: 8
    15. Florida 212 - 94 JCI: 0.8383 JCI SOS: 35
    16. Texas 212 - 101 JCI: 0.8272 JCI SOS: 36

    5 Seeds:
    17. Wisconsin 199 - 108 JCI: 0.8247 JCI SOS: 11
    18. Indiana 193 - 116 JCI: 0.8237 JCI SOS: 2
    19. Oklahoma St 218 - 89 JCI: 0.8228 JCI SOS: 67
    20. Gonzaga 238 - 69 JCI: 0.8132 JCI SOS: 114

    6 Seeds:
    21. Utah 221 - 76 JCI: 0.8094 JCI SOS: 87
    22. UCLA 192 - 110 JCI: 0.8051 JCI SOS: 24
    23. Xavier 220 - 86 JCI: 0.7993 JCI SOS: 80
    24. Pittsburgh 196 - 104 JCI: 0.7951 JCI SOS: 59

    7 Seeds:
    25. North Carolina St 186 - 126 JCI: 0.791 JCI SOS: 14
    26. Iowa 188 - 119 JCI: 0.7895 JCI SOS: 22
    27. Tennessee 176 - 114 JCI: 0.7882 JCI SOS: 20
    28. Villanova 186 - 119 JCI: 0.7869 JCI SOS: 23

    8 Seeds:
    29. Louisville 197 - 114 JCI: 0.7838 JCI SOS: 56
    30. Boston College 183 - 114 JCI: 0.7767 JCI SOS: 48
    31. Temple 196 - 117 JCI: 0.7759 JCI SOS: 57
    32. Ohio State 178 - 120 JCI: 0.7706 JCI SOS: 34

    9 Seeds:
    33. Alabama 185 - 120 JCI: 0.7697 JCI SOS: 46
    34. Miami-Florida 174 - 115 JCI: 0.7695 JCI SOS: 40
    35. California 179 - 116 JCI: 0.7653 JCI SOS: 52
    36. Notre Dame 176 - 124 JCI: 0.7649 JCI SOS: 30

    JCI Big Time

    2/08/2006 0 comments

    The JCI has recently been added to Ken Massey's collection of basketball ratings. Check out the link below:

  • http://www.mratings.com/cb/compare.htm
  • Top Basketball Programs, the 4-5 Seeds

    0 comments
    4 Seeds:
    13. Oklahoma 230 - 83 JCI: 0.8441 JCI SOS: 65
    14. Wake Forest 204 - 105 JCI: 0.8409 JCI SOS: 8
    15. Florida 212 - 94 JCI: 0.8383 JCI SOS: 35
    16. Texas 212 - 101 JCI: 0.8272 JCI SOS: 36

    5 Seeds:
    17. Wisconsin 199 - 108 JCI: 0.8247 JCI SOS: 11
    18. Indiana 193 - 116 JCI: 0.8237 JCI SOS: 2
    19. Oklahoma St 218 - 89 JCI: 0.8228 JCI SOS: 67
    20. Gonzaga 238 - 69 JCI: 0.8132 JCI SOS: 114

    6 Seeds:
    21. Utah 221 - 76 JCI: 0.8094 JCI SOS: 87
    22. UCLA 192 - 110 JCI: 0.8051 JCI SOS: 24
    23. Xavier 220 - 86 JCI: 0.7993 JCI SOS: 80
    24. Pittsburgh 196 - 104 JCI: 0.7951 JCI SOS: 59

    7 Seeds:
    25. North Carolina St 186 - 126 JCI: 0.791 JCI SOS: 14
    26. Iowa 188 - 119 JCI: 0.7895 JCI SOS: 22
    27. Tennessee 176 - 114 JCI: 0.7882 JCI SOS: 20
    28. Villanova 186 - 119 JCI: 0.7869 JCI SOS: 23

    8 Seeds:
    29. Louisville 197 - 114 JCI: 0.7838 JCI SOS: 56
    30. Boston College 183 - 114 JCI: 0.7767 JCI SOS: 48
    31. Temple 196 - 117 JCI: 0.7759 JCI SOS: 57
    32. Ohio State 178 - 120 JCI: 0.7706 JCI SOS: 34

    9 Seeds:
    33. Alabama 185 - 120 JCI: 0.7697 JCI SOS: 46
    34. Miami-Florida 174 - 115 JCI: 0.7695 JCI SOS: 40
    35. California 179 - 116 JCI: 0.7653 JCI SOS: 52
    36. Notre Dame 176 - 124 JCI: 0.7649 JCI SOS: 30
    The remaining 12 (in no particular order): Arizona, Cincinnati, Connecticut Duke, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan St, North Carolina, Stanford, Syracuse

    Top Basketball Programs, First the 6-9 Seeds

    0 comments

    6 Seeds:
    21. Utah 221 - 76 JCI: 0.8094 JCI SOS: 87
    22. UCLA 192 - 110 JCI: 0.8051 JCI SOS: 24
    23. Xavier 220 - 86 JCI: 0.7993 JCI SOS: 80
    24. Pittsburgh 196 - 104 JCI: 0.7951 JCI SOS: 59

    7 Seeds:
    25. North Carolina St 186 - 126 JCI: 0.791 JCI SOS: 14
    26. Iowa 188 - 119 JCI: 0.7895 JCI SOS: 22
    27. Tennessee 176 - 114 JCI: 0.7882 JCI SOS: 20
    28. Villanova 186 - 119 JCI: 0.7869 JCI SOS: 23

    8 Seeds:
    29. Louisville 197 - 114 JCI: 0.7838 JCI SOS: 56
    30. Boston College 183 - 114 JCI: 0.7767 JCI SOS: 48
    31. Temple 196 - 117 JCI: 0.7759 JCI SOS: 57
    32. Ohio State 178 - 120 JCI: 0.7706 JCI SOS: 34

    9 Seeds:
    33. Alabama 185 - 120 JCI: 0.7697 JCI SOS: 46
    34. Miami-Florida 174 - 115 JCI: 0.7695 JCI SOS: 40
    35. California 179 - 116 JCI: 0.7653 JCI SOS: 52
    36. Notre Dame 176 - 124 JCI: 0.7649 JCI SOS: 30

    Top Basketball Programs...Last 10 Years

    6 comments

    Right before the season, my boy Clooney posed the question: "What are the top 10 basketball programs, either current or all-time?" With the help of the JCI, we can rank teams over multiple seasons, say the last 10 years. But before I post the results, I thought I'd throw the topic out there for discussion. Who do you think would be in the top 10 over the last 10 years (note the change, originally I had 5 years but switched it to 10)? Or put another way, if you had to create a bracket using performance over the last 5 years instead of the current year, who would be your 1 seeds, 2 seeds, etc? Post your comments below.

    Complete JCI Now Available

    2/07/2006 0 comments

    You can now get the complete, current JCI rankings at http://home.comcast.net/~jcolton31/

    Look for daily updates during the week. I'll put a permanent link over in the 'Links' section on the right.

    JCI vs. RPI

    0 comments

    The best way to measure the accuracy of different rating systems is to look at its R-Squared, or how well the inputs (the ratings along with home-court info) capture the volatility in the data (the wins and losses over the course of the season). Consider the crudest ranking system one could think of...just ranking teams by their win-loss records. We can use this as a baseline and compare other ranking systems by the amount of lift they provide over this baseline. Here are the results over the last few years:

    R-SQ 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
    W/L BASELINE .3736 .3655 .3946
    OLD RPI .4037 .3919 .4157
    NEW RPI .4011 .3906 .4185
    JCI .4146 .4023 .4352

    A couple of observations:

    1. The JCI provided 47% - 49% greater lift than the new RPI in 2003-04 and 2004-05 and is showing 70% lift so far in 2005-06.

    2. The new RPI (with 40% boost for road wins and 40% penalty for home losses) is about 5% to 10% worse than the old RPI. The new RPI is showing greater lift so far this season, but expect that gain to deteriorate over the rest of the season. The new RPI inaccurately helps teams that win road games against very poor teams, and those types of games are more prevalent during the conference season.

    3. The R-Squared goes down as the season progresses (tougher for one rating to explain 30 games instead of 20), so the R-Squared for 2005-06 will eventually go down closer to 2003-04 and 2004-05 levels.

    JCI, Week 8

    2/06/2006 0 comments

    Here's the updated JCI. The Illini only move down a couple of spots after their bad loss to Penn State. Fortunately, the Illini have the third best quality of wins (behind Duke and UConn), so they are able to somewhat absorb a bad home loss (Penn State is currently ranked 72nd).

    If there's anybody out there besides Bob Bowlsby who wants to try to defend the RPI, look no further than Arizona (#16 in the RPI) and George Washington (#38 in the RPI). How can anybody have any confidence in a system that produces a result like this? As I've said in the past, the RPI rewards you if you play tough teams (not accurately however), but it doesn't matter much if you actually beat those teams.

    Updated JCI, games as of Sunday February 5
    1. Duke 21-1, RPI: 1, LW:1 JCI SOS: 5
    2. Connecticut 20-1, RPI: 5, LW:2 JCI SOS: 15
    3. Memphis 21-2, RPI: 4, LW:3 JCI SOS: 45
    4. Texas 19-3, RPI: 8, LW:4 JCI SOS: 20
    5. George Washington 18-1, RPI: 38, LW:7 JCI SOS: 155
    6. Villanova 17-2, RPI: 2, LW:6 JCI SOS: 16
    7. Illinois 20-3, RPI: 13, LW:5 JCI SOS: 31
    8. Florida 20-2, RPI: 14, LW:11 JCI SOS: 86
    9. Georgetown 16-4, RPI: 21, LW:12 JCI SOS: 19
    10. Tennessee 16-3, RPI: 3, LW:10 JCI SOS: 54
    11. Gonzaga 18-3, RPI: 12, LW:9 JCI SOS: 68
    12. Pittsburgh 17-3, RPI: 9, LW:8 JCI SOS: 62
    13. North Carolina St 18-4, RPI: 22, LW:13 JCI SOS: 33
    14. Iowa 18-5, RPI: 6, LW:15 JCI SOS: 6
    15. Michigan St 16-5, RPI: 7, LW:14 JCI SOS: 4
    16. Ohio State 16-3, RPI: 10, LW:17 JCI SOS: 65
    17. West Virginia 16-4, RPI: 29, LW:19 JCI SOS: 35
    18. Michigan 16-4, RPI: 18, LW:18 JCI SOS: 42
    19. Northern Iowa 18-4, RPI: 15, LW:16 JCI SOS: 58
    20. Indiana 13-6, RPI: 23, LW:21 JCI SOS: 2
    21. Bucknell 17-3, RPI: 42, LW:22 JCI SOS: 148
    22. UCLA 19-4, RPI: 11, LW:26 JCI SOS: 96
    23. Boston College 16-5, RPI: 28, LW:25 JCI SOS: 39
    24. Wichita St 18-5, RPI: 24, LW:24 JCI SOS: 61
    25. LSU 14-6, RPI: 20, LW:20 JCI SOS: 13
    26. North Carolina 14-5, RPI: 26, LW:37 JCI SOS: 34
    27. Creighton 16-5, RPI: 17, LW:36 JCI SOS: 64
    28. Syracuse 16-6, RPI: 30, LW:30 JCI SOS: 49
    29. Marquette 15-7, RPI: 31, LW:29 JCI SOS: 22
    30. Cincinnati 14-8, RPI: 35, LW:28 JCI SOS: 8
    31. Seton Hall 14-6, RPI: 27, LW:41 JCI SOS: 40
    32. Kentucky 15-7, RPI: 32, LW:38 JCI SOS: 30
    33. Wisconsin 15-7, RPI: 25, LW:23 JCI SOS: 32
    34. Oklahoma 14-5, RPI: 19, LW:35 JCI SOS: 73
    35. Maryland 13-7, RPI: 41, LW:27 JCI SOS: 21
    36. Louisville 15-7, RPI: 62, LW:39 JCI SOS: 41
    37. Colorado 15-4, RPI: 48, LW:33 JCI SOS: 130
    38. Florida St 13-6, RPI: 75, LW:50 JCI SOS: 52
    39. Southern Illinois 16-6, RPI: 39, LW:31 JCI SOS: 84
    40. Miami-Florida 14-8, RPI: 61, LW:49 JCI SOS: 24
    41. Missouri St 15-6, RPI: 36, LW:48 JCI SOS: 79
    42. Xavier 13-6, RPI: 69, LW:34 JCI SOS: 60
    43. UAB 15-4, RPI: 44, LW:47 JCI SOS: 158
    44. Arkansas 15-6, RPI: 67, LW:44 JCI SOS: 81
    45. Hofstra 16-4, RPI: 58, LW:53 JCI SOS: 208
    46. Kansas 14-6, RPI: 51, LW:58 JCI SOS: 90
    47. Nevada 16-5, RPI: 37, LW:64 JCI SOS: 156
    48. Washington 16-5, RPI: 59, LW:42 JCI SOS: 149
    49. George Mason 17-5, RPI: 33, LW:60 JCI SOS: 183
    50. Arizona 13-9, RPI: 16, LW:46 JCI SOS: 23
    51. Alabama 12-8, RPI: 49, LW:55 JCI SOS: 27
    52. Iowa State 13-7, RPI: 54, LW:56 JCI SOS: 69
    53. Temple 12-8, RPI: 45, LW:45 JCI SOS: 37
    54. Clemson 13-8, RPI: 63, LW:51 JCI SOS: 38
    55. Georgia 14-8, RPI: 70, LW:72 JCI SOS: 59
    56. Bradley 13-8, RPI: 52, LW:57 JCI SOS: 55
    57. Iona 16-5, RPI: 76, LW:32 JCI SOS: 181
    58. Nebraska 15-6, RPI: 93, LW:65 JCI SOS: 107
    59. Air Force 16-4, RPI: 46, LW:52 JCI SOS: 249
    60. Akron 15-5, RPI: 66, LW:54 JCI SOS: 176


    NCAA Goofs Up RPI Release

    As mentioned earlier, the NCAA released the 'official' RPI rankings publicly for the first time last week. However, they screwed up the home-road-neutral distinction for a number of games. More importantly, they counted wins against non-Division I opponents, which should be excluded from the calculation. The problem has since been fixed, but it makes you wonder if they had included those non-Division I games incorrectly in past seasons. At least with the public disclosure, they'll get some more accountability behind the data.


    RPI vs. JCI

    Similar to the information I shared with Craig Littlepage, I'll continue to post the Top 25&50 and Non-Top 25&50 RPI vs. JCI groups each week. I think it's an easy way to compare which teams are being helped and hurt by the RPI formula. Just ask yourself which group of teams would you with if they were to go head-to-head? And remember that one of the important tools that the Committee looks at is Win-Loss record against the top 25 & 50 (and 100), so if the the Top 50 includes teams that shouldn't be there, the W-L record against these groups is misleading.


    Group A: Top 25 RPI, Non-Top 25 JCI
    27. Creighton 16-5, RPI: 17 JCI SOS: 64 RPI SOS: 45
    33. Wisconsin 15-7, RPI: 25 JCI SOS: 32 RPI SOS: 10
    34. Oklahoma 14-5, RPI: 19 JCI SOS: 73 RPI SOS: 28
    50. Arizona 13-9, RPI: 16 JCI SOS: 23 RPI SOS: 3

    Group B: Top 25 JCI, Non-Top 25 RPI
    5. George Washington 18-1, RPI: 38 JCI SOS: 155 RPI SOS: 217
    17. West Virginia 16-4, RPI: 29 JCI SOS: 35 RPI SOS: 57
    21. Bucknell 17-3, RPI: 42 JCI SOS: 148 RPI SOS: 173
    23. Boston College 16-5, RPI: 28 JCI SOS: 39 RPI SOS: 52

    Group C: Top 50 RPI, Non-Top 50 JCI
    51. Alabama 12-8, RPI: 49 JCI SOS: 27 RPI SOS: 7
    53. Temple 12-8, RPI: 45 JCI SOS: 37 RPI SOS: 34
    59. Air Force 16-4, RPI: 46 JCI SOS: 249 RPI SOS: 165
    62. Wis-Milwaukee 15-6, RPI: 34 JCI SOS: 128 RPI SOS: 86
    66. Old Dominion 16-7, RPI: 47 JCI SOS: 129 RPI SOS: 75
    67. UNC Wilmington 17-7, RPI: 43 JCI SOS: 136 RPI SOS: 95
    71. Saint Joseph's 10-9, RPI: 50 JCI SOS: 25 RPI SOS: 22
    74. Utah St 15-5, RPI: 40 JCI SOS: 248 RPI SOS: 119

    Group D: Top 50 JCI, Non-Top 50 RPI
    36. Louisville 15-7, RPI: 62 JCI SOS: 41 RPI SOS: 42
    38. Florida St 13-6, RPI: 75 JCI SOS: 52 RPI SOS: 114
    40. Miami-Florida 14-8, RPI: 61 JCI SOS: 24 RPI SOS: 49
    42. Xavier 13-6, RPI: 69 JCI SOS: 60 RPI SOS: 76
    44. Arkansas 15-6, RPI: 67 JCI SOS: 81 RPI SOS: 92
    45. Hofstra 16-4, RPI: 58 JCI SOS: 208 RPI SOS: 205
    46. Kansas 14-6, RPI: 51 JCI SOS: 90 RPI SOS: 46
    48. Washington 16-5, RPI: 59 JCI SOS: 149 RPI SOS: 108

    Conference Rankings
    1. Big Ten 0.8081
    2. Big East 0.7960
    3. ACC 0.7910
    4. SEC 0.7769
    5. Big 12 0.7455
    6. Missouri Valley 0.7050
    7. Pac-10 0.6700
    8. Atlantic 10 0.6157
    9. Mountain West 0.5851
    10. Colonial 0.5459

    Steelers XL

    0 comments

    Everybody knows that I'm a huge NFL fan, so you know I was glued to the set for the Super Bowl last night. I can claim the Steelers as my favorite football team, so obviously I was thrilled to see them beat the Seahawks. Seattle seemed to outplay the Steelers for the most part but were undone by costly and untimely penalties, poor clock management and questionable play calling throughout, while the Steelers seemed to get the big plays at just the right time. Cowher looked like a genius with his play calling...there's only one thing I love more than NFL Football and that's NFL Football w/ trick plays!

    My celebration was only subdued by the ugly loss by the Illini to lowly Penn State the night before. My boy Jefe couldn't have described the loss any better when he called it 'a major kick in the nuts.' Penn State hadn't won a Big Ten road game in over four years! It's amazing how .1 second could possibly define the conference championship. Illinois has an uphill battle from here on out. Let's see how they respond at Ohio State this weekend.

    More importantly, how far will the Illini drop in the JCI? Stay tuned.

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