Michigan beat Texas (RPI 24, Kenpom 28) on a neutral court, which is a better win than anything Monmouth has, although neutral wins over ND and USC are pretty good. Monmouth has three losses to teams 200+ in both kenpom and RPI. If Monmouth were to get in over Michigan it’s probably a “story” thing, but unfortunately it’s not totally crazy and UM is in a position it has to worry about such things. And the tournament thrives on stories like Monmouth, while who really cares outside Storrs or Corvallis if UConn or Oregon State get in.
I do wonder if respect for Beilein could play a role.
Look at the bubble teams. The bubble is so soft this year. None of those teams look like tournament teams. That’s the point of this. They have to fill out the bracket. They can’t just say, “Well, Michigan, Monmouth, Valpo, etc, al suck, so let’s just have a 58-team tournament.”
The reason we play the “blind resume” game is because that’s supposedly how the committee thinks about it. They could simply use RPI and have no need for a committee, but they don’t, and they seem to emphasize getting good wins and avoiding bad losses as ways to distinguish teams with similar resumes.
Monmouth has a higher RPI than Michigan despite, at least arguably, Michigan having a better resume, mainly for two reasons: (a) Monmouth has won more games, even though 23 of those wins are against outside RPI 100 (and 16 outside 200) (compared with 16 and 9 for Michigan), and (b) MAAC teams play against each other while B1G teams play most of their games against each other. Playing Sienna is largely the same for RPI purposes as playing Wiscy. Which is supposedly part of the reason the committee is there, to see if certain numbers like RPI are inflated by winning a bunch of unimpressive games or deflated like losing to a bunch of the top teams.
(FYI: “In its current formulation, the index comprises a team’s winning percentage (25%), its opponents’ winning percentage (50%), and the winning percentage of those opponents’ opponents (25%).”
The RPI calculation doesn’t seem like a good method for comparing majors and mid-majors.
I mean, I understand that you need some metric to compare these teams. But I think most people agree that, for instance, a 15-15 B10 team is better than a 15-15 MAAC team. But for 50% of the RPI calculation, that is irrelevant.
You can argue all you want. It’s been said how important the eye test is by all talking heads who have had conversations with committee members. Numbers will be taken into account but this committee knows what they are doing and what they are looking for.
Regarding the eye test, as I said, UM doesn’t look like a good tourny team, but neither do other bubble teams for the most part. That’s why they’re on the bubble.
Like I said above, Cuse just lost to FSU (a sub .500 ACC team) and has lost 4 of 5. USC has lost 4 of 5 and 6 of 8. St. Joe’s has lost 3 or 5 (to Duquesne, St. Bonnie, and Davidson).
Pitt has lost 6 of 9 and two in a row, including to a sub .500 ACC team. VCU recently lost to a GMU team that’s 5-13 in the A10 and 11-20 overall. Florida has lost 4 of 5 and 6 of 8 including to a sub 500 SEC team.
I haven’t watched a ton of these games, so maybe somehow they look awesome despite these bad results, but I doubt it.
Maybe some of these teams will further crap the bed (like OSU losing to ASU, for instance). Would be nice to win a couple games and not have to worry about it.
I don’t see another tool really. You can use the eye test like Pratt said but Michigan certainly hasn’t passed that one with their recent play. How much does that Texas win matter when Caris played in that game? Yes it’s a nice win but the selection committee may not weigh that win necessarily as highly as other wins since he hasn’t played since Dec 30th.
In regards to Cuse/Pitt. Pitt plays Cuse tomorrow and I bet if Pitt beats them a 3rd straight time that gives them a gigantic edge in any bubble discussion. Yes it isn’t fair to judge based on 3 games but 2 teams in a bubble discussion 3 head to head games definitely matter.
Not going to get into the inexact science of bubble résumé comparison but in Monmouth’s defense, there’s no way we wouldn’t be patting our team on the back if they had road wins over UCLA and Georgetown and neutral-site wins over Southern California and Notre Dame. (Georgetown doesn’t have a good record at all but they did beat Xavier on the road…)
Well there was a breathless hope that NC State would win a couple down the stretch and climb into the Top 100, if I recall. Unfortunately, NC State is a bad team and couldn’t manage it. Thankfully Michigan pulled off the close win in Raleigh.
It would theoretically be good for Michigan’s tournament resume if northwestern and penn state had each won 1 more game so their RPIs would improve by 8 and 9 points respectively and fall under the magical 100 cutoff. Would that have made those wins more impressive in the eyes of Michigan fans? Of course not. But for some reason, it would have made a huge difference in the eyes of the committee.