RPI Graph Update-3

Greetings from the Left Coast! I’ve updated the graph of State’s RPI ranking through the WF game. I’ve changed the format and appearance and hope you like the changes.

State’s RPI Ranking

As of this moment, State is 2-3 against the RPI Top-50. GW has snuck back in the Top-50 at #43. However, with their upcoming game against Duquesne (#312), they will have a hard time staying there…win or lose.

I had hoped to WF’s RPI graph up before the game, but had trouble finding something other than “dirt road” access to the Information Superhighway. But, better late than never:

WF’s RPI Ranking

Using historical trends as a measuring stick, here’s a snapshot of the rest of the conference:









North Carolina St


Boston College




North Carolina





Wake Forest




Florida St





Georgia Tech


Virginia Tech


About VaWolf82

Engineer living in Central Va. and senior curmudgeon amongst SFN authors One wife, two kids, one dog, four vehicles on insurance, and four phones on cell plan...looking forward to empty nest status. Graduated 1982

General NCS Basketball

20 Responses to RPI Graph Update-3

  1. Trout 01/23/2006 at 9:03 AM #

    How many teams will the ACC get in? I think 4 at the least, 6 at the most. For the first time EVER, I think the ACC is NOT one of the top 2 conferences. The Big East and the Big 10 take the top honors.

    Clemson’s RPI may be 47, but I just dont see them being on the “bubble.” In your “bubble” group, I see UNC IN, Wake as a true “bubble” and Clemson and UVA will be in the NIT.

    I think only Miami has a shot at climbing out of the “OUT” group into the “bubble” group.

  2. Jeff 01/23/2006 at 9:29 AM #

    I think the range is between 5 and 7 teams. If the teams in the Bubble range separate themselves from the last place teams (like Carolina did last night vs FSU) then we can have more in there.

    Don’t forget, we did wax the Big 10 in the Challenge this year. That doesn’t hurt.

  3. Sam '92 01/23/2006 at 10:00 AM #

    The statistical breakdowns and rankings are good, but I’m more impressed with the *way* we beat Wake — come from behind, late second half surge to pull away, that’s what it takes to beat the good teams.

    Kudos to Herb and the team, those are the kind of performances that win tournament games.

  4. choppack 01/23/2006 at 10:30 AM #

    IMHO – Clemson is positioning themselves nicely -and as of right now, I’d put them on the bubble. They have a win at GaTech – and have bubble showdowns vs. UNC-Ch, Wake and FSU.

    GaTech had a really bad week. If they miss the tourney, they will probably look back at this week at where it all fell apart. If NCAA bids were to go out tomorrow, they wouldn’t get one because of the losses to Clemson and Wake.

  5. Jim 01/23/2006 at 10:35 AM #

    During the “Gameday” show from Freedom Hall Saturday night all the “experts” were tripping all over themselves talking about how many teams the Big 10 and Big East would get in the tourney. No mention of the ACC or that the ACC waxed the Big 10 yet again this year.

    Side note. How many teams are actually in the (basketball) Big East? 37? They don’t even play every team (even once) every year. Can this even be called a conference?

    Side note #2. Syracuse is giving BC a run for the most overrated team in preseason.

  6. choppack 01/23/2006 at 11:22 AM #

    Jim and Jeff – I’ve often wondered why we even play the ACC-Big 10 challenge. It seems like every year, we win it, but they still say the Big 10 is better, unless the ACC is just brutal – like it was last year.

    For whatever reason, the ACC doesn’t get much love from ESPN – compared to the Big East and Big 10.

    Also, excellent point on the Big East – 16 teams I think. They better get 8 or 9 in the tourney since they were just cherry-picking good b’ball schools.

  7. VaWolf82 01/23/2006 at 11:32 PM #

    My bubble label was based solely on the RPI ranking…not the team name or history. IF Clemson finishes at #47 (which is probably a stretch), then they would definitely be on the bubble. State has gotten into the NCAAT twice in the last three years with a ranking worse than #47.

    GT has never gotten close to even bubble status this year. From the RPI thread on PP, GT’s highest ranking was #91. No team has ever received an at-large bid with a RPI ranking of 75+

  8. class of '74 01/24/2006 at 6:37 AM #

    Look for Maryland to fall with the Chris McCray problem. My guess is three teams from the ACC will make it, maybe four at the very best. This is stacking up to be a very poor year for the ACC. No really bad teams but only two top 25 tier teams.

  9. class of '74 01/24/2006 at 6:39 AM #

    Oh I forgot, kudo’s to LF’s prediction. “We’ll be better because they’ll be worse next season.”

  10. choppack 01/24/2006 at 8:26 AM #

    VaWolf – After their quick ACC start, I thought GaTech was positioning themselves nicely. They seemed to be improving at a rapid pace and you could see them going .500 or better in the conference. Of course, all that momentum is gone after last week.

  11. Rick Jernigan 01/24/2006 at 9:36 AM #

    VaWolf82 – I actually think Clemson is flying under the radar in pretty good position. The loss of James Mays may eventually be their killer. Currently, they are 14 – 5 overall & 3 – 3 in the conference. They have a freakish in conference schedule – their 2 game series are with FSU, UVA, WF, GT & VPI. If they finish well enough, will the committee look closely enough at this (they certainly should)? I could see Clemson being rightly passed over for the NCAA tourney by another ACC team with a 2 game worse conference record. I doubt this has ever happened in the past.

    I believe it was Jeff that has pointed out how a really easy non-conference schedule can work to a teams advantage – Clemson may be end up being an example of this. Suppose they end up 9 – 7 in the league. Expansion has really changed the dynamics of the regular season. We are going to need a few seasons to figure this out but I’m not sure the 8 – 8 regular season contains the value it was held.

  12. Jim 01/24/2006 at 10:59 AM #

    I should have mentioned Kentucky when I was talking about wildly overrated teams in the preseason. They are so horrid I didn’t even think about them.

    IMO if Clemson goes 9-7 they get in. I don’t know jack about RPIs but I think the committee couldn’t pass on a 9-7 ACC team. IMO Clemson will not get to 9-7 so it won’t come up.

  13. VaWolf82 01/24/2006 at 1:59 PM #

    UVa went 9-7 in 2000 with two wins against UNC. UNC also finished the year at 9-7 in the conference. UNC went to the NCAAT and UVa did not. The RPI calc had UNC ranked at #41 and UVa was ranked at #76. RPI ranking matters, whether we like it or not. Of course, there are other things considered as well.

    The issue about un-balanced conference schedules is new to the ACC, but has been around for other conferences for a while now. I’m not sure how the Selection Committee uses SOS. There have been a number of bubble teams with very high SOS that were left out of the NCAAT. I think Indiana last year was an example of this.

    At this time of year, any bubble discussion is really premature…but what the heck! GT was moving up nicely….but they still had a long way to go. Clemson is alot closer than GT, but we’re not even half-way through the conference season yet. I’m basing all of my bubble comments on the historical trending of the RPI vs at-large bids summarized earlier this season:
    1-35 -> LOCK
    36-75 -> BUBBLE
    76+ -> OUT

  14. choppack 01/24/2006 at 3:05 PM #

    Good point on the new ACC schedule. 9-7 – depending on the schedule isn’t as impressive as it once was.

    UVa really got the shaft that year. Was UNC-Ch actually 8-8 that year? I think UVa had actually gotten a bid at 7-9 and FSU got one at 6-10. I think they are the only team in the history of the conference to not get a bid w/ a winning records since the tourney expanded to 64 to not get a bid. I think 2 teams w/ 8-8 records didn’t go as well.

  15. HeelsFan 01/24/2006 at 3:29 PM #

    The Pack Pride is obvious as VaWolf proudly proclaims UNC as a “Bubble Team” I don’t blame you. I like hearing about State as a bubble myself.

    I wanted to chime in because, in fact most of the entries on this page refer to UNC or refer to UNC as in Jim’s reference to “Kentucky”

    The 99-2000 season discussion is interesting. It must be pointed out that Virginia might have gotten the shaft but the record shows they had NO wins over ranked teams that year and in fact lost 6 out of their last 10 which I’m sure pushed them out of the NCAA. They did in fact lose in the first round of the NIT that year. UNC’s record against ranked teams was better than UVA despite losing two close games to UVA. The committee must have been right since the Tar Heels did go to the Final Four.

    Thanks for letting me comment.

  16. Mr. O 01/24/2006 at 3:59 PM #

    UNC deserved that bid over UVa. They had a higher RPI and much higher SOS.

  17. choppack 01/24/2006 at 4:49 PM #

    Hey, if you’re talking about Pete Gillen at UVA in the post season, you could always justify not giving them a bid!

  18. VaWolf82 01/24/2006 at 5:40 PM #

    The Pack Pride is obvious as VaWolf proudly proclaims UNC as a “Bubble Team�

    If you would take the time to look at my entry “A Look Back at the Bubble”, (which was linked in this entry), you would see that my use of the bubble label as absolutely nothing to do with my personal likes or dislikes. There have been many schools from major conferences left out of the NCAAT with an RPI ranking higher than UNC’s current ranking 45.

  19. VaWolf82 01/24/2006 at 5:47 PM #

    A few more things about 2000:

    UVA was 3-4 against the RPI top 50 and UNC was 3-8. UNC’s SOS was ranked 13 and UVa’s was ranked 109….thus UNC had a much better RPI, even though their winning percentage against the top-50 was much worse. Just a little something to keep in mind the next time someone defends the cupcake OOC schedule that State seems to always schedule.

  20. HeelsFan 01/24/2006 at 7:36 PM #


    Good stuff on your part. You did list UNC at the top of the “bubble” list, that why I mentioned you might be “proud”…….

    Your point about the scheduling is absolutely right.

    There seems to be debate about “perceptions” of programs and despite the seemingly “poor” stats for UNC that year, as an example, most people simply remember a “hodge-podge” team that went to the Final Four.

Leave a Reply