I think RPI is a useful metric but it shouldnt be looked at alone.

#14 RPI doesnt necessarily mean you should be hosting, but is a good sign that you should be in the discussion

RPI, SOS, record against top 25, record against top 50, conference record, etc should all be taken into account.

One thing that no one has mentioned is that BOTH our top 25 and top 50 records are extremely top heavy. What I mean by that is we are 8-8 against top 25. But of those 16 games, over half are against top 5ish rpi teams. There is a similar trend for top 50 games.

I think we have done enough to get a host spot. That said, I could see the committee cutting us if they didnt want to have too many sec hosting sites.

once the committee picks the 16 hosts...they may lean heavily on RPI to seed them.

if that's the case, the Ags (with an RPI of #14) might be able to reach the 12th or 13th seed for hosts.

(figuring that #11 Tennessee will not host and #13 UCSB will get the 16th seed due to weak SoS)

W said:

---

once the committee picks the 16 hosts...they may lean heavily on RPI to seed them.

if that's the case, the Ags (with an RPI of #14) might be able to reach the 12th or 13th seed for hosts.

(figuring that #11 Tennessee will not host and #13 UCSB will get the 16th seed due to weak SoS)

---

It always been the other way around. RPI is a pretty good indicator of who will host and get national seed, but they make adjustments when seeding.

Quote:

---

TCU was not a guarantee for a national seed when it went to the committee. The frogs lost their first two Big 12 tournament games to RPI 124 Baylor and 80 Texas Tech. There was discussion that with that dismal showing and moving behind us in RPI that we might get that bid.

Sporting News mentions as much (and the Missouri State situation) in this article

It has to do with it being "ignored", because we were better in every metric they should be using to seed teams....RPI, SOS, win percentage. We just came in 3rd in the #1 conference in the country instead of winning the 5th best conference.

---

The 4 teams with worse RPIs than #6 A&M in 2015, that got national seeds, were...

#7 Missouri State, champion of the #6 ranked conference.
#8 TCU, champion of the #5 ranked conference.
#12 Louisville, champion of the #2 ranked conference.
# 13 Illinois, champion of the #7 ranked conference.

There's a commonality.

Quote:

---

And if you're keen on giving the Big 12 champ with a nice RPI a national seed each year....A&M was the Big 12 regular season champ in 2011 and WON the postseason tournament....AND the Big 12 was the #3 RPI conference that season AND had a higher SOS with an RPI of 9. And we were given the excuse that it was because Stilson was hurt.

---

They gave national seeds to 2 teams with lower RPIs than the Aggies. A&M was 10th. Rice was #11 and the champion of the #5 conference. Texas was #12 and also the Big 12 champion, and holder of a head-to-head series win vs. A&M.

I understand the Stilson injury affected their decision. It doesn't invalidate the conference championship point, considering Rice and Texas were also champions. They had 3 teams with good RPIs and conference championships, and only 2 spots to give.

#7, 8, and 9 didn't get national seeds, either. #6 was the SEC co-champion South Carolina and #1 seed due to tiebreakers. If #6 A&M was the SEC champion in 2015, certainly if they had the tiebreakers, I'm 100% positive they'd have been a national seed, too.

Quote:

---

So the point still stands....RPI is their metric until it isn't. One year they'll decide that the championship matters, one year they won't, or they'll just make something up.

---

Winning one of the better conferences matters, year after year. I understand the frustration that the Stilson injury seemed to matter more than the Big 12 tournament. But considering they announce seeds before some conference tournaments are finished, I think they've removed any ambiguity whether they give a damn.

Back on track:

A&M's RPI sits at 15.

Stanford is #16. They've got 3 games left at #33 Arizona State to finish out the Pac-12 regular season. They're obviously a threat to move up.

Auburn is #17. They play on in the SEC tournament, but they're sitting on a sub-.500 conference record.

Then there are three of the ACC giants. #18 Miami, #19 NC State, and #20 North Carolina. All have 2 games left in the ACC tournament pool play. Miami and UNC play each other on Friday afternoon.

And clearly, their job wasn't to give 9 teams national seeds. It was to give 8 national seeds.

Not giving Missouri State a national seed would have forced them to go to a national seed in the Super Regional round. Geographically and given the rest of the field, they probably would have ended up at #3 seed Louisville.

But again, while I get it, that's a different discussion. And its not a thing anymore given they seed to 16.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

And clearly, their job wasn't to give 9 teams national seeds. It was to give 8 national seeds.

Not giving Missouri State a national seed would have forced them to go to a national seed in the Super Regional round. Geographically and given the rest of the field, they probably would have ended up at #3 seed Louisville.

But again, while I get it, that's a different discussion. And its not a thing anymore given they seed to 16.

---

No, it wouldn't. They gave Mo. State a national seed, but they had to travel for the super regardless. How many Hyman socks do we have posting on this thread?

twk said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

And clearly, their job wasn't to give 9 teams national seeds. It was to give 8 national seeds.

Not giving Missouri State a national seed would have forced them to go to a national seed in the Super Regional round. Geographically and given the rest of the field, they probably would have ended up at #3 seed Louisville.

But again, while I get it, that's a different discussion. And its not a thing anymore given they seed to 16.

---

No, it wouldn't. They gave Mo. State a national seed, but they had to travel for the super regardless.

---

Read that closer.

If Missouri State wasn't a top 8 seed, they would have had to be paired with a top 8 seed. So, yes, not giving them a national seed would have forced them to go a national seed (assuming national seed won their regional.)

To make it relevant to this year, they have a somewhat similar opportunity with UCSB. It's very doubtful that they are deserving a regional, and can't even host at home, so what they should probably do is send the team that loses out on hosting to Las Vegas as the 2 seed--effectively a neutral site regional. If they send UCSB some lightweight 2 seed, like Baylor, that will be criminal.

They were traveling regardless. But as just said, they would have been traveling to a national seed if they weren't given a national seed.

And that likely would have been Louisville.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

twk said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

And clearly, their job wasn't to give 9 teams national seeds. It was to give 8 national seeds.

Not giving Missouri State a national seed would have forced them to go to a national seed in the Super Regional round. Geographically and given the rest of the field, they probably would have ended up at #3 seed Louisville.

But again, while I get it, that's a different discussion. And its not a thing anymore given they seed to 16.

---

No, it wouldn't. They gave Mo. State a national seed, but they had to travel for the super regardless.

---

Read that closer.

If Missouri State wasn't a top 8 seed, they would have had to be paired with a top 8 seed. So, yes, not giving them a national seed would have forced them to go a national seed (assuming national seed won their regional.)

---

Maybe you should read my post closer. They had a team that was questionable as to deserving a national seed, who couldn't host a super. Make them the 8, and pair them with the next best team; problem solved.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

They were traveling regardless. But as just said, they would have been traveling to a national seed if they weren't given a national seed.

And that likely would have been Louisville.

---

It damn sure wasn't OSU, Eric.

twk said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

twk said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

And clearly, their job wasn't to give 9 teams national seeds. It was to give 8 national seeds.

Not giving Missouri State a national seed would have forced them to go to a national seed in the Super Regional round. Geographically and given the rest of the field, they probably would have ended up at #3 seed Louisville.

But again, while I get it, that's a different discussion. And its not a thing anymore given they seed to 16.

---

No, it wouldn't. They gave Mo. State a national seed, but they had to travel for the super regardless.

---

Read that closer.

If Missouri State wasn't a top 8 seed, they would have had to be paired with a top 8 seed. So, yes, not giving them a national seed would have forced them to go a national seed (assuming national seed won their regional.)

---

Maybe you should read my post closer. They had a team that was questionable as to deserving a national seed, who couldn't host a super. Make them the 8, and pair them with the next best team; problem solved.

---

It was perfectly reasonable for the committee to not disregard a bunch of their governing principles to make the tournament artificially harder for Missouri State.

Quote:

---

It was perfectly reasonable for the committee to not disregard a bunch of their governing principles to make the tournament artificially harder for Missouri State.

---

What governing principal? The excuse for the OSU pairing was geography, which has nothing to do with competitive equity, and is all about the dollars.

How about the governing principal of using the RPI as the metric for comparing teams from different conferences? It's OK to ignore that one when it suits them.

twk said:

---

To make it relevant to this year, they have a somewhat similar opportunity with UCSB. It's very doubtful that they are deserving a regional, and can't even host at home, so what they should probably do is send the team that loses out on hosting to Las Vegas as the 2 seed--effectively a neutral site regional. If they send UCSB some lightweight 2 seed, like Baylor, that will be criminal.

---

If UCSB sweeps their series this weekend and stays up there in RPI, this is exactly what I expect. If the Ags lose to Ole Miss and the wrong few teams make a run the next couple of days, it might even be us. Personally I think LSU would be the perfect candidate but I bet they get to host.

Quote:

---

What governing principal? The excuse for the OSU pairing was geography, which has nothing to do with competitive equity, and is all about the dollars.

How about the governing principal of using the RPI as the metric for comparing teams from different conferences? It's OK to ignore that one when it suits them.

---

At the time, and they still are, geography and other factors (including conference championships, to get back to original point) were among the published, publicly available governing rules that the committee operated under.

You clearly showed up to *****. Goal achieved. Well done. Goodnight.

Quote:

---

If UCSB sweeps their series this weekend and stays up there in RPI, this is exactly what I expect. If the Ags lose to Ole Miss and the wrong few teams make a run the next couple of days, it might even be us. Personally I think LSU would be the perfect candidate but I bet they get to host.

---

Your implicit assertion is if you don't host at your home stadium, your regional should be harder than it otherwise might be.

Why?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

If UCSB sweeps their series this weekend and stays up there in RPI, this is exactly what I expect. If the Ags lose to Ole Miss and the wrong few teams make a run the next couple of days, it might even be us. Personally I think LSU would be the perfect candidate but I bet they get to host.

---

Your implicit assertion is if you don't host at your home stadium, your regional should be harder than it otherwise might be.

Why?

---

to soften the blow to a team with a more deserving resume, but got passed up in the hosting line due to politics. really its about guaranteeing ticket sales though and LSU and A&M would do a better job at that in a neutral site.

Of course they looked at a bunch of resumes and they voted. They voted on every seed, every team.

My first point was there was no real reason to think TCU wouldn't get the votes and there is no basis to say TCU getting a national seed was at all out of the ordinary. My second point was it didn't come down to TCU vs. A&M. No where in that quote does that committeeman say that, and your link to Hyman's interview states the following...

Quote:

---

I asked about how things stacked up with TCU, Missouri State and Texas A&M and how we stacked up. Now to be frank, if we had gone head-to-head with Vanderbilt for that eighth spot, we would not have gotten it. The RAC had Vanderbilt rated ahead of us."

---

Vanderbilt, mind you, wasn't a national seed, either.

So, while we're at it, put that A&M would have been paired with Missouri State stuff to bed...

It came down to TCU vs. A&M and other teams, directly backed up in the conversation on the first interview. You really have to go out of your way to pretend that couldn't have happened based on those conversations.

Quote:

---

When I got back into the room, I asked about how things stacked up with TCU, Missouri State and Texas A&M and how we stacked up.

---

I could try looking up more direct quotes that explicitly implicate what I'm saying, but I can tell you aren't into that. You really read both of those and come to the conclusion that the committee never considered that A&M or Vanderbilt might get the spot that TCU got instead? ......especially considering Hyman had all his TCU vs. A&M talking points ready for that interview.

Quote:

---

As I said, that they use RPI as a tool until they decide not to, which was my original post. And they'll use something as stupid as sweeping a 1-game-over .500 #88 RPI Texas who made the NCAAs because they won the postseason tourney as part of their reasoning. Which is the definition of "ignoring" the RPI and all the metrics including SOS that go into making it.

---

There have been conference champions who either had a low RPI (and/or whose conference did not have as high an RPI) who didn't get a national seed or a regional, or whatever.

They use and weigh multiple factors. That's not the same thing as "ignoring" a factor.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

If UCSB sweeps their series this weekend and stays up there in RPI, this is exactly what I expect. If the Ags lose to Ole Miss and the wrong few teams make a run the next couple of days, it might even be us. Personally I think LSU would be the perfect candidate but I bet they get to host.

---

Your implicit assertion is if you don't host at your home stadium, your regional should be harder than it otherwise might be.

Why?

---

That has nothing to do with anything. It's about matching up the 16 seed with the last team or two that got left out of hosting. The committee did that last year and has done that in the past. I thought it was pretty clear what I meant in my post.

If you want to split the hair between "ignoring" and "decided to not use", we can do that. Doesn't change that we were absolutely discussed for that spot.

Quote:

---

TCU had nothing to do with it and you know that.

---

Let me know when you can back that up, I had direct quotes to the contrary. There's no real discussion otherwise.

Lance Uppercut said:

---

If you want to split the hair between "ignoring" and "decided to not use", we can do that. Doesn't change that we were absolutely discussed for that spot.

---

I'm not splitting that hair because I don't think they ever ignored or decided not use RPI.

I think they considered and used RPI in every decision they made. They also considered and used other factors. And those other factors are certainly going to be increasingly decisive when RPI is close.

Like, you're literally trying to prove your point by telling me to read a comment from Hyman that starts by stating TCU and A&M's RPIs.

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Quote:

---

TCU had nothing to do with it and you know that.

---

Let me know when you can back that up, I had direct quotes to the contrary. There's no real discussion otherwise.

---

If TCU wasn't ranked ahead of A&M, Texas A&M still wouldn't have been a national seed. That's what your "direct quote" are saying.

Quote:

---

I think they considered and used RPI in every decision they made. They also considered and used other factors. And those other factors are certainly going to be increasingly decisive when RPI is close.

---

Which is what I told the guy in my initial response.....if you don't like RPI, you can know that they use other things to create the seeding....like an injury, or winning an inferior conference. True. Missouri State, Illinois and TCU are all examples of people picked picked for seeds over teams with better RPIs.

TCU was picked over other teams with some better factors despite RPI. True.

A&M and TCU were both discussed and directly compared for one of the final national seeds. True.

I give up. You win

UCSB wakes up this morning at #11 in the RPI.

and 2 days into all the conference tournaments...none of the host bubble teams have made a big move yet. Status quo from the end of the regular season is holding

texas state fell out of the top 50 so that guarantees us a winning record vs Q1 if it holds

Kentucky is down to 50 and BC and Wake Forest have opportunities to pass them.