Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="pearl31, post: 1681411, member: 1531"] This is a key question. The traditional metric for years has been the ol' tried and true RPI. But with the advent of efficiency and strength analytics (KenPom, BPI, etc) there is growing sentiment in "bracketology world" that the committee may now rely on these as much as or even more than RPI for deciding on teams and seeding. Per the selection protocol guidelines published on ncaa.com: [I]Committee members have a wide-range of observation, consultation and data resources available to them throughout the season and during selection week. These resources provide the foundation for a thorough and educated process that is reinforced by the committee member’s discussion and deliberation. Among the resources available to the committee are an extensive season-long evaluation of teams through watching games, conference monitoring calls and NABC regional advisory rankings; complete box scores and results, head-to-head results, results versus common opponents, imbalanced conference schedules and results, overall and non-conference strength of schedule, the quality of wins and losses, road record, player and coach availability and [/I][B]various computer metrics[/B]. [I]Each of the 10 committee members uses these various resources to form their own opinions, resulting in the committee’s consensus position on teams’ selection and seeding. [/I] and: [I]The RPI is one of many resources/tools available to the committee in the selection, seeding and bracketing process. Computer models cannot accurately evaluate qualitative factors such as games missed by key players or coaches, travel difficulties, the emotional effects of specific games, etc. [/I] So then, let us take a look at where we stand in the composite computer rankings, [URL='http://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm']compiled by Massey Ratings[/URL], a composite ranking of 39 different ranking systems (I would have to think the committee members would utilize this composite, at least to some extent). We are ranked #46. For comparison sake, Monmouth is #63, St. Bonaventure is #56, and Temple is #68. For P5 competitors, USC (considered by most a virtual lock) is #47 and Oregon St. is #52. So, no one really knows how much the analytics and computer rankings are used, except for the members themselves. But if they do use them, I think we compare favorably to a number of other bubble teams. FWIW [I][URL='http://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm'][/URL][/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?