TCU hosts - I wouldn't mind being there.
http://www.ncaa.com/news/...regional-hosts-announced
My guess is we end up in Atlanta.
http://www.ncaa.com/news/...regional-hosts-announced
My guess is we end up in Atlanta.
UCLA gets hosting site with 32 RPI
- Thread starter 615dawg
- Start date
and we end up in one of the Texas regionals.
They were saying on ESPN2 that UCLA won the PAC-10- I think they actually shared the title.
What it could mean more than anything is that Warren Nolan and Boyd might have their RPI projections off a little bit.
They were saying on ESPN2 that UCLA won the PAC-10- I think they actually shared the title.
What it could mean more than anything is that Warren Nolan and Boyd might have their RPI projections off a little bit.
The NCAA RPI formula is published:<div>
</div><div>.25(win%)+.5(SOS)+.25(opponent's SOS)</div><div>
</div><div>where SOS is defined as opponent's win%</div><div>
</div><div>The committee has access to Boyd's ISRs, which historically have predicted the NCAA Tournament better than RPIs, and may be using that. UCLA is 18 in ISR, and all of the other hosts are better than that.</div>
</div><div>.25(win%)+.5(SOS)+.25(opponent's SOS)</div><div>
</div><div>where SOS is defined as opponent's win%</div><div>
</div><div>The committee has access to Boyd's ISRs, which historically have predicted the NCAA Tournament better than RPIs, and may be using that. UCLA is 18 in ISR, and all of the other hosts are better than that.</div>
Since baseball doesn't make as money as the NCAA basketball tournament, the committee has been known to try to make some match-ups in the regionals interesting in an attempt to get more people interested in it.
So, I definately agree about RPI not being looked at as much by the committee as far as baseball in concerned.
Also, there have been some discrepancies between Boyd and Warren Nolan as far as RPI- especially us. If the committee uses Boyd's numbers, then that's good for us because he has us higher than Nolan. I also noticed that Etheridge uses Nolan- and he has us as one of the last five in, although if you read his article, he has us basically as the second team of the last five in.
So, I definately agree about RPI not being looked at as much by the committee as far as baseball in concerned.
Also, there have been some discrepancies between Boyd and Warren Nolan as far as RPI- especially us. If the committee uses Boyd's numbers, then that's good for us because he has us higher than Nolan. I also noticed that Etheridge uses Nolan- and he has us as one of the last five in, although if you read his article, he has us basically as the second team of the last five in.