jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,566
- Like
- 33,296
IMO, there is now enough info to set an initial "lock" target for wins and a "feel good" number. In the last few years when I have set this initial number it has actually moved down a full win as we get closer to the end of the year. I would be stunned if I had to move this number up, but would not be surprised if I move these numbers down one win as we get into February. (The rest of this post is copied from another thread, but I thought it was worth it's own thread, as certainly some people could have different opinions).
A large part of my initial assessment is based on RPI optics and where we are forecast to finish in the RPI. This is the current forecast from RPIForecast.com
Under the former system (years up to 2017), there is no doubt in my mind we get in with 20 wins even if that includes an 8-10 record in the ACC. RPI Forecast says we are trending to an RPI in the 30's with 20 wins, and this site has proved accurate for the last few years in terms of RPI projections. There a few factors that could swerve it of course - getting zero or only one road wins in conference play (possible), the group of teams that we have played turning it down a notch (not that likely because it is diversified amongst 13 teams).
There is no doubt that in the past P5 team with an RPI in the 30's will not get excluded. The main reason they get in is they can't find enough bad to exclude them. They give you the benefit of the doubt.
But things may be different this year - the mere fact of a top 40 RPI in a P5 conference will perhaps not give you an automatic tick. It might be an average metric beside our team ranking... no clarity has been made on that. If they average the RPI, KP, and BPI for example, with 20 wins, it is likely our ranking will not be in the 30's, and could in fact be in the 50's.
I always felt there are some general optics with the RPI for P5 schools:
Starts with a "3" - it's very hard, and almost impossible, not to get in. They can't find enough bad to put other schools in front of you.
"4" - Becomes more of full assessment
"5" t0 "7" - You can get in, but you need a lot of really good stuff to overcome this. And that is how got in during 2016 - because of the overwhelming amount of good.
As mentioned above, the real risk this year is that an average measure of various metrics could move us down from the 30's to the 50's if we end up with 20 wins (moving down from a "3" to a "5" on the scale above). And while we may not have that much bad, we will probably have a lot less really good on our resume with 20 wins than prior years. So to me that is the biggest concern right now - how will the committee determine the individual rankings.
Anyway I am setting our initial "Lock" number at 21 wins because of the above uncertainty with how things will be measured this year, and our "Feel Good" number at 20 wins. Potentially that can move down a win if we see that the RPI has not really been de-emphasized this year in terms of how they rank teams. I await guidance from the committee on how they will rank teams for top 50 wins for example.
As crazy as this sounds we might still be in the discussion at 7-11 in the ACC (if we beat St. Bonaventure), although I would think we would want to finally win one good ACC tournament game in that scenario.
A large part of my initial assessment is based on RPI optics and where we are forecast to finish in the RPI. This is the current forecast from RPIForecast.com
Under the former system (years up to 2017), there is no doubt in my mind we get in with 20 wins even if that includes an 8-10 record in the ACC. RPI Forecast says we are trending to an RPI in the 30's with 20 wins, and this site has proved accurate for the last few years in terms of RPI projections. There a few factors that could swerve it of course - getting zero or only one road wins in conference play (possible), the group of teams that we have played turning it down a notch (not that likely because it is diversified amongst 13 teams).
There is no doubt that in the past P5 team with an RPI in the 30's will not get excluded. The main reason they get in is they can't find enough bad to exclude them. They give you the benefit of the doubt.
But things may be different this year - the mere fact of a top 40 RPI in a P5 conference will perhaps not give you an automatic tick. It might be an average metric beside our team ranking... no clarity has been made on that. If they average the RPI, KP, and BPI for example, with 20 wins, it is likely our ranking will not be in the 30's, and could in fact be in the 50's.
I always felt there are some general optics with the RPI for P5 schools:
Starts with a "3" - it's very hard, and almost impossible, not to get in. They can't find enough bad to put other schools in front of you.
"4" - Becomes more of full assessment
"5" t0 "7" - You can get in, but you need a lot of really good stuff to overcome this. And that is how got in during 2016 - because of the overwhelming amount of good.
As mentioned above, the real risk this year is that an average measure of various metrics could move us down from the 30's to the 50's if we end up with 20 wins (moving down from a "3" to a "5" on the scale above). And while we may not have that much bad, we will probably have a lot less really good on our resume with 20 wins than prior years. So to me that is the biggest concern right now - how will the committee determine the individual rankings.
Anyway I am setting our initial "Lock" number at 21 wins because of the above uncertainty with how things will be measured this year, and our "Feel Good" number at 20 wins. Potentially that can move down a win if we see that the RPI has not really been de-emphasized this year in terms of how they rank teams. I await guidance from the committee on how they will rank teams for top 50 wins for example.
As crazy as this sounds we might still be in the discussion at 7-11 in the ACC (if we beat St. Bonaventure), although I would think we would want to finally win one good ACC tournament game in that scenario.
