Can someone please explain to me how the Big Ten is getting such consideration in spite of their terrible RPIs? Entering the day Minnesota's RPI was 68 (all these from Warren Nolan) and they were right there on the line. Illinois was 73 and they were supposed to be in. Then as I'm watching Purdue look like a 16 playing a 1 they show a comparison of 3 teams vying for that last #1 seed. I don't remember the first two but their RPI was less than 8. Next to them is Ohio State, RPI 25 (27 on whatever CBS was using). And they're making a case for them to be a 1 seed? Is one single player (injured for some losses) worth that much? That an RPI of 25 should vault to a top 4 seed?
Just looking at Lunardi's last bracket, here are the Big Ten teams with their RPIs.
Wisconsin- 4 seed (RPI should be top 16) RPI of 21.
Illinois- 11 seed(top 44) RPI 73
Purdue - 2 seed (top 8) RPI 6.... and of course Hummel is done.
Michigan State - 4 seed (top 16) RPI 29
Ohio State - 2 seed (top 8) RPI 25
Minnesota - first out in his last bracket. Now slide them in at a 13 apparently. (top 52) RPI 68
So you have 6 teams, 3 of them (Illinois, Mich St, OSU) seededsignificantly ahead of their RPI, 2 (Minnesota, Wisconsin) seeded slightly (bordering on significantly, to me) ahead of their RPI, and ONE (Purdue) seeded where their RPI belongs. And they clearly aren't the same team that earned that RPI without Hummel. So is this just bias or what?</p>
Just looking at Lunardi's last bracket, here are the Big Ten teams with their RPIs.
Wisconsin- 4 seed (RPI should be top 16) RPI of 21.
Illinois- 11 seed(top 44) RPI 73
Purdue - 2 seed (top 8) RPI 6.... and of course Hummel is done.
Michigan State - 4 seed (top 16) RPI 29
Ohio State - 2 seed (top 8) RPI 25
Minnesota - first out in his last bracket. Now slide them in at a 13 apparently. (top 52) RPI 68
So you have 6 teams, 3 of them (Illinois, Mich St, OSU) seededsignificantly ahead of their RPI, 2 (Minnesota, Wisconsin) seeded slightly (bordering on significantly, to me) ahead of their RPI, and ONE (Purdue) seeded where their RPI belongs. And they clearly aren't the same team that earned that RPI without Hummel. So is this just bias or what?</p>