If Wichita Left.... (RPI Talk)

[BirdsEyeView]

the 12 to 16 has been proven false.

Unless you can predict the future, you haven't proven ****. Everything that's being argued is speculative. It's more about you not wanting to credit WSU for anything, which we all get, because of your passionate hate for them.

Defending the crown again. No counter data or facts to discredit Redbirdgrad...just assumptions to defend WSU.

If he can come up with a way to show our league WILL NOT drop from 12 to 16, then you show how it can please with data, not confrontational words...

We all know losing WSU will hurt, that's not his argument. His argument is showing how far the league WON'T fall when they do leave.

Does this make sense Cdizzle and Observer???

[BirdsEyeView]

You tell me? I spent a half minute searching and did not uncover a readily available link for final RPI rankings for previous seasons on the NCAA.com site, but it was always common practice for RPI publication by the NCAA to halt once the postseason commenced. Do you know that this changed, or are you just assuming it did? Honest question. Links would be helpful - then we could see publication date and whether the records reflected in those rankings reflect the entire season's record. Those at WarrenNolan do, and Live-RPI and other sites would produce nearly identical results to those I posted above (some even more favorable).

I am nearly positive the numbers in Redbirdgrad's post are not inclusive of NCAA/NIT play. I think you jumped the gun here.

Open to being proven wrong if you have the ammo, of course.

I have no idea where Redbirdgrad's numbers came from. He didn't identify. I can't find it either for NCAA.com over time, but I'm looking from my phone. I was just trying to neutralize the argument using numbers that the Selection Committee reviews that aren't biased in one's favor.

[Play Angry]

Nevermind, I answered my own question.

The NCAA's historical RPI data is a pain in the butt to access. It looks like they now update these after the season (as late as May/June) to bring everything up to date. Here are links for the following seasons with the corresponding rank:

2016 - 41 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... Gritty.pdf

2015 - 12 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... Gritty.pdf

2014 - 6 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... %20RPI.pdf

2013 - 18 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... %20RPI.pdf

2012 - 18 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... %20RPI.pdf

2011 - 35 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... %20RPI.pdf

Note the NCAA ranks above match up exactly with those I provided from WarrenNolan.

BirdsEyeView - do you have proof behind your rebuke and accusation of cherry-picking numbers?

Note that I did not accuse Redbirdgrad of bad faith in his representation of the rankings, and suggested (correctly) the reasoning behind the discrepancy. You should have done the research before making accusations of malintent and cherry-picking.

[BirdsEyeView]

Nevermind, I answered my own question.

The NCAA's historical RPI data is a pain in the butt to access. It looks like they now update these after the season (as late as May/June) to bring everything up to date. Here are links for the following seasons with the corresponding rank:

2016 - 41 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... Gritty.pdf

2015 - 12 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... Gritty.pdf

2014 - 6 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... %20RPI.pdf

2013 - 18 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... %20RPI.pdf

2012 - 18 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... %20RPI.pdf

2011 - 35 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... %20RPI.pdf

Note the NCAA ranks above match up exactly with those I provided from WarrenNolan.

BirdsEyeView - do you have proof behind your rebuke and accusation of cherry-picking numbers?

Note that I did not accuse Redbirdgrad of bad faith in his representation of the rankings, and suggested (correctly) the reasoning behind the discrepancy. You should have done the research before making accusations of malintent and cherry-picking.

Read my above message. Was just neutralizing to what the committee uses. Good find

[Play Angry]

I am not sure what you mean by neutralize - if that means suggesting I was wrong and willfully chose numbers that are biased (your words, not mine) in favor of my point, I would call it something else. You made a baseless, incorrect and uninformed accusation.

I am glad we got the true data though.

[TheObserver]

Nevermind, I answered my own question.

The NCAA's historical RPI data is a pain in the butt to access. It looks like they now update these after the season (as late as May/June) to bring everything up to date. Here are links for the following seasons with the corresponding rank:

2016 - 41 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... Gritty.pdf

2015 - 12 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... Gritty.pdf

2014 - 6 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... %20RPI.pdf

2013 - 18 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... %20RPI.pdf

2012 - 18 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... %20RPI.pdf

2011 - 35 - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/St ... %20RPI.pdf

Note the NCAA ranks above match up exactly with those I provided from WarrenNolan.

BirdsEyeView - do you have proof behind your rebuke and accusation of cherry-picking numbers?

Note that I did not accuse Redbirdgrad of bad faith in his representation of the rankings, and suggested (correctly) the reasoning behind the discrepancy. You should have done the research before making accusations of malintent and cherry-picking.

Thanks PA! Clearly, when I stated what I did, I included post-season play. Otherwise, what's the freaking point? I thought Mr. Data's numbers were a bit high but didn't go into a 10-paragraph tirade lambasting him for them. It turns out that he moved the target on me to try and disprove my small claim part of a much larger point. Of course, he focussed in on the small claim (which was proved accurate) and ignored the larger point (which of course he can't disagree with).

OUCH.

[BirdsEyeView]

I am not sure what you mean by neutralize - if that means suggesting I was wrong and willfully chose numbers that are biased (your words, not mine) in favor of my point, I would call it something else. You made a baseless, incorrect and uninformed accusation.

I am glad we got the true data though.

Stop getting all worked up. I basically assumed Warren Nolan numbers were not equivalent to NCAAs, which I now know is incorrect. So I apologize.

This is no different than your fellow Shocker fans who make assumptions ALL THE TIME. Call them out for it too.

I apologized, there was no ill will to it. Just relax. My God you Shocker Fans are so tightly wound.

[TheObserver]

the 12 to 16 has been proven false.

Unless you can predict the future, you haven't proven ****. Everything that's being argued is speculative. It's more about you not wanting to credit WSU for anything, which we all get, because of your passionate hate for them.

Defending the crown again. No counter data or facts to discredit Redbirdgrad...just assumptions to defend WSU.

If he can come up with a way to show our league WILL NOT drop from 12 to 16, then you show how it can please with data, not confrontational words...

We all know losing WSU will hurt, that's not his argument. His argument is showing how far the league WON'T fall when they do leave.

Does this make sense Cdizzle and Observer???

What aren't you understanding BirdsEye? He didn't come up with any data supporting a future prediction. Just because he put a spreadsheet of numbers together based on assumptions doesn't mean he proved anything. By his own admission, he assumed several key factors when compiling his "data".

We will never know the true answer to the question until it actually happens or doesn't happen. Until now, he can't PROVE anything. He can claim what he wants, just like I can. And of course, he's going to be contrarian to anything that elevates WSU. That's the only FACT.

[Play Angry]

I am not sure what you mean by neutralize - if that means suggesting I was wrong and willfully chose numbers that are biased (your words, not mine) in favor of my point, I would call it something else. You made a baseless, incorrect and uninformed accusation.

I am glad we got the true data though.

Stop getting all worked up. I basically assumed Warren Nolan numbers were not equivalent to NCAAs, which I now know is incorrect. So I apologize.

This is no different than your fellow Shocker fans who make assumptions ALL THE TIME. Call them out for it too.

I apologized, there was no ill will to it. Just relax. My God you Shocker Fans are so tightly wound.

Not worked up at all. The board appears to be making strides in civility recently, just hoping the momentum is preserved.

Apology accepted.

[TheObserver]

Just relax. My God you Shocker Fans are so tightly wound.

Seriously? This last statement was totally unnecessary and totally hypocritical. retire12 may be the most tightly wound human being on the planet. You're not too far behind. Just because PA responded with facts, without going into a 10 paragraph novel laced with personal attacks, doesn't mean he's "tightly wound". If you're going to make those kind of statements, look toward your own partner in crime. Seriously.