Transmogrified Tiger

So because they use it to determine the field, that makes it more accurate? That would mean that a team's last ten games should determine their ranking. And it also should mean that Wisconsin is the 8th best team in the country. I've already gone over why it's more accurate. Your stance on the issue is changing with every post. First the polls are better because they're widely used, then RPI isn't worthwhile because it's a small factor considered(compared to not at all with the polls). Now being used to select the tourney makes it less valid somehow?

Apples and oranges. Statistics are not the same thing as rankings. A lot of guys had more wins than Roger Clemens last year, but how many would you rank ahead of him as being a better pitcher? They most certainly are the same. You're proving my point for me. How many times do you see the media point to wins as an evaluator, compared to WHIP for example? What's popular isn't necessarily what's right.

RPI is probably one of the smallest of the factors considered when selecting teams. They look at how you've done over your last ten games, quality wins, quality losses, etc. And not the polls. That's what we were talking about.

I look at it this way - if RPI was more effective than the polls, then that's how teams would be ranked. That's what would be in the papers and all over ESPN. The tournament selection committee uses RPI. It doesn't use the polls. EDIT: Because ESPN shows AVG/HR/RBI for all the players in their graphics during games, does that make it more effective than AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS, or a number of other stats?

But it most certainly considers the opponents, which is a huge part(the most important part actually) of the example you provided.

Because I don't trust a machine that uses mathematical formulas to determine a game that is based completely on human actions. RPI doesn't take into account margin of victory or any of that. Again, RPI is not flawless. That still doesn't mean it's not more effective than other methods. That's incorrect.

I'm not saying it's head and shoulders above it. They're definitely close. It's just my opinion that the Big East is better. But I wouldn't go as far as to call RPI reliable. The polls are probably more reliable in my eyes. They generally pick a more accurate top 25 than RPI does. I can tell you right now, there is no way that Wisconsin is a top 10 team. And there is surely no way they should be ranked ahead of UConn. That's because they've sustained the losses they have. Pomeroy's rankings has UConn #1 over the last 5 games, and Wisconsin #101 over their last 5 games. I really don't know how you can say that the polls with all their what-have-you-done-for-me-lateliness, bias towards longtime powers, and general human element are more reliable though.

Because I think we've all learned from the BCS that a computer isn't an accurate way to tell what team is better. Louisville has lost a lot of games that it shouldn't have, you're right. But they're still a very good team. Is Tennesee a better team than Illinois? Probably not. Is unranked Wisconsin better than #1 ranked UConn? I'd say no. But according to RPI, they are better. I'm not saying RPI is flawless, but it's a heckuva lot better than the polls, who suffer much worse problems because of the human element. And either way, the fact that a fairly reliable evaluating tool has the B10 better than the Big East shows that it's not clearly the best conference, or head and shoulders above any other.

How many prospects get each grade? Are there a lot of A's, is it a bell curve, etc.?

Eh, until the Big Ten can beat the ACC in the Big Ten/ACC challenge at least once, I won't give them any credit. (Kidding) Big 10 is solid this year, can't argue that. But I don't see any way that they are better than the Big East. RPI be damned. How many different teams has the Big East had in the top 10 this year? How many in the top 25? Receiving significant votes? The Big Ten is also having a great year, and anyone can win that conference this year, but I still put them behind the Big East. The polls are super subjective and biased. What good is counting Louisville among the teams that were in the top-10 at one point if they aren't even going to make their conference or the NCAA tourney at this point? I don't see how you can just discount RPI then hold up the polls as proof.

It's amazing, Louisville was ranked as high as 4th this season, and they might not even make the conference tournament in the Big East. Conference is STACKED. Final Four last year + get most of your good players back (exception F. Garcia) + C-USA to Big East = no top-12 conference finish. Last week, Seton Hall, a middle of the road Big East team at best, walked into Raleigh, home of the 3rd best team in the ACC (NC State) and crushed them. Georgetown beat Duke, which no one other than Va Tech has even come close to this year. The conference is obscene. When you have 16 teams, you're more likely to get upsets. RPI wise, the Big East still trails the Big 10(FTR, the B10 had a better non-con RPI as well). The Big 10 has 7 teams in the RPI top 20, compared to 3 for the Big East. Avg. RPI is 53 for the B10(17 median), 56 for the Big East(35 median). I understand that it's a deep conference, but it's not as head and shoulders amazing as some claim it to be.

He is averaging over 20 a game in the Big Ten and gets to the line on a consistent basis why wouldn't you classify him as a scorer? As a John Wooden Player of the year candidate I would say he is a scorer. Just because he doesn't translate well to the NBA doesn't mean he isn't a scorer on the college level. Look back in the thread, Tucker isn't very efficient at all. Until he suffered that nasal injury his numbers were pretty good. Even on nights when he has shot poor he has still "scored" Just cause he isn't a pure shooter doesn't mean he isn't a scorer. check the edit

He is averaging over 20 a game in the Big Ten and gets to the line on a consistent basis why wouldn't you classify him as a scorer? As a John Wooden Player of the year candidate I would say he is a scorer. Just because he doesn't translate well to the NBA doesn't mean he isn't a scorer on the college level. Look back in the thread, Tucker isn't very efficient at all. Here's an update: In eFG%, he's now tied with Chappell for 2nd worst on the team, 49th of 61 in the conference. In PPWS, he's now in front of Krabbenhoft at second worst on the team(of players that play regularly), and 56th of 61 in the conference.

my point is that randle matches up very well with him. Has Randle matched up with anyone that plays down low/posts up as much as Tucker? Randle is a fantastic perimeter defender(shutting down Ager and Gardner are two immediate examples, wonder why I thought of them...), but is his lean frame conducive to being able to stop a more experienced, more solidly built player like Tucker? That said, Tucker isn't that great a scorer, like I pointed out earlier in this thread I believe. I think the difference you'll see tonight is heavily dependent on officiating. If Augustine plays a good portion of the game in foul trouble, then U of I is in a lot of trouble. If not, they have a good shot if Brown can find the net.

My logic is undeniable.

Fun stuff here. Enter cb2006 for this year's college basketball season, and let the fun begin. My favorite: 2006-01-10 Missouri 71 @ Oklahoma 69 2006-01-28 @ Oklahoma 82 Texas 72 2005-11-21 Texas 76 West Virginia 75 Kansas City, MO 2006-01-11 @ West Virginia 68 Georgetown 61 2006-01-21 @ Georgetown 87 Duke 84 Transitivity proves that Missouri is better than Duke. This 5 game conquering path predicts: Missouri over Duke by 23 points. and just for Cuse... 2006-01-10 Missouri 71 @ Oklahoma 69 2006-01-28 @ Oklahoma 82 Texas 72 2006-01-14 @ Texas 58 Villanova 55 2006-01-21 @ Villanova 80 Syracuse 65 Transitivity proves that Missouri is better than Syracuse. This 4 game conquering path predicts: Missouri over Syracuse by 30 points. EDIT: hahahaha 2006-01-16 @ Missouri 89 Kansas 86 O1 2006-01-28 Kansas 95 @ Iowa St 85 2005-12-09 @ Iowa St 72 Iowa 60 2006-01-07 @ Iowa 63 Illinois 48 Transitivity proves that Missouri is better than Illinois. This 4 game conquering path predicts: Missouri over Illinois by 40 points.

yes

Lugo also rates as one of the best defensive SS in the game in Baseball Musings' Probabilistic Model of Range.

Uhh? Gordon, Smith, Frazier, McBride, Pruitt, Randle, Semrau, maybe Freemen, Beverly, and Rose. Am I forgetting anyone? I'm sure they'll be ranked at least. Gordon doesn't come in til 2007-2008 class, Beverly has stated that Illinois is out of it now, Rose no one knows about. Hopefully we get Freemen (if he qualifies) or Darquavis Tucker who shortened his list down to I think Mich St. Illinois and Uconn.. It's unusual that Tucker is still high on MSU, because they really don't have a scholarship for him with Summers/Allen/Lucas coming in, unless they get an unexpected academic scholarship.

I've said that I don't like fantasy baseball, I suck at it and I don't really like playing it.

Eric Gordon, Brian Carlwell, Richard Smerau, Billy Cole, and Mike Tisdale are all four or five stars. We are reloading. If we can add either Dar Tucker or Derrek Rose we will be great again. Who's coming in next year? Is it just Carwell and Semrau?

Illinois is hitting Wisconsin at the right time. No Landry or Stiemsma. After the Michigan game, Taylor is Questionable and Flowers and Krabbenhoft are Day to Day. Wow. The road hasn't been too kind to U of I thus far(1-2). They are shooting 38% from the field in their 3 B10 road games, Dee Brown is shooting 28% (19% from 3) in those games. In their 4 B10 home games, 44% from the field, and Dee is shooting 47% (44% from 3).

You can't call all of Walker, Neifi, and Hairston bench players. One of them has to start on the middle infield. That is why I said over $10M in bench players $13M - one of the $2.5 salaries. Math is fun...

Jeez, kU laying the lumber to another team, up 20+ on Texas Tech in Lawrence.

You can't call all of Walker, Neifi, and Hairston bench players. One of them has to start on the middle infield.