Below are the RPI's and then power ratings for Pac-12 teams from four sources - Realtimerpi.com (RTR), KenPom.com (POM), Sagarin Predictor (SAG), and ESPN's BPI (BPI):

[FONT=Courier New]UPDATED Rankings as of 3/7/16

Team___________Average_Power_Rankings
Team_(RPI)___RTR__POM__SAG__BPI____AVG
UA____(25)____16___13___13___11_____13
UO_____(4)_____9___14___25___20_____17
UTAH___(8)____12___25___24___27_____22
CAL___(15)____24___22___27___21_____24
USC___(45)____61___53___44___44_____51
CU____(29)____42___61___52___47_____51
OSU___(30)____62___59___61___62_____61
UW____(82)____87___69___63___57_____69
UCLA__(98)___113___64___58___66_____75
STAN__(74)____96___94___86___89_____91
ASU___(95)___115___92___84___78_____92
WSU__(202)___229__188__170__172____190[/FONT]

UPDATED Rankings as of 12/30/15

[FONT=Courier New]Team___________Average_Power_Rankings
Team_(RPI)___RTR__POM__SAG__BPI____AVG
UA____(39)_____9___17___19___25_____18
UO____(23)____29___29___35___34_____32
USC___(37)____46___35___31___24_____34
CU____(22)____27___44___37___29_____34
CAL___(62)____42___39___32___35_____37
UTAH__(24)____23___38___36___61_____40
UCLA__(60)____32___42___50___52_____44
ASU___(28)____44___51___51___44_____48
OSU___(41)____47___48___60___59_____54
STAN__(69)____60___89___68___75_____73
UW___(161)___103__113___65___88_____92
WSU__(172)___127__118__114__129____122
[/FONT]
Heading into conference play, this shapes up to be a super-competitive season in the Pac-12. Arizona currently holds the top ratings, but then the 2 through 9 spots are all bunched together pretty closely. And while Stanfurd and the Washingtons are clearly a notch below, there will be no easy-outs this season. It'll be interesting to see how this list changes as the season progresses (I'll try to post updates on a weekly basis).

The team that surprises me the most is our first opponent, Colorado. They are shooting a blistering 41% from three so far this season, and they have a strong post presence with Josh Scott and Wesley Gordon. I can't figure out if the shooting percentage is a hot start that will come back to the mean, or if they are just a better shooting team this year, because they were not a great shooting team last year, and lost one of their better shooters in Askia Booker (although he was pretty streaky). For example, their point guard Dom Collier is shooting 41% from the floor, 83% from the line, and 49% from the arc. Last year, those numbers were 35%, 61% and 27%. Now, he was a freshman last year, so the improvement may be permanent, or those numbers may pull back a bit. But they also have a couple of new guys this year, George King (redshirt) and Josh Fortune (transfer), and those guys are killing it this year as well. If that shooting percentage holds up, they are going to be a real contender, especially considering how tough they are to play in Boulder. If the shooting does cool off, however, they're a team that has seemed to struggle at times offensively under Boyle.

Arizona - reloading as usual. Top of the list.

8 teams with an average between 32-54 (UO, USC, CU, CAL, UTAH, UCLA, ASU, OSU). All have some issues to sort out, but also have the talent and upside to compete for the conference title and make the tourney. Interesting to me how the individual metrics vary so much - particularly with CAL & Utah.

Stanford - see Johnny Dawkins.

UW - almost 100 position difference between RPI and Sagarin - WOW!

WSU - I'm sure they will have their share of upsets.

Thanks for sharing this Lou!

I don't know if you've ever seen the RPIforecst.com and their RPI Wizard, but it is pretty cool. It uses actual results to date, and simulations based on Sagarin Predictor ratings, and forecasts the season ending RPI. The Wizard allows you to see the forecasts based on your own game-by-game projection of wins and losses (instead of Sagarin Predictor averages).

Based on the Sagarin simulation, we are forecasted to go 10-8 in conference, and that would get us an ending RPI of about ~39. If you use the Wizard, and assume we win all of the games that Sagarin has us at 50% or higher, we'd finish 12-6 in conference, with an RPI of 19.

Anyway, I thought this site was kind of interesting . . .

http://www.rpiforecast.com/index2.html

http://www.rpiforecast.com/wizard/California.html

no doubt this is the toughest Pac12 in the last 5+ years
I saw recently it was 3rd

Very concerned about just about every team in the conference
Surprise teams are ASU, USC and Washington. All 3 go fast, so it will be interesting how we play against that style, as we haven't yet played a running team. You would think we would play well against that style, but these 3 teams have been playing fast all year, so they are more prepared/experienced at it. Add Oregon, the other team to run, and we have 4 opponents who will fast break. From the sounds of it, Oregon just tires people out

Also factor in that some teams have key injuries (AZ, Oregon, Stanford), yet my guess is they are just being held out till conference starts. We'll see who returns this week

Cal needs to sweep this week and establish themselves in the top group. With the competitive Pac12, we have to win at home

Nice, Lou.
Please do keep us up on this little table within this same thread as we move along. Nice use of spacing, too, so the table is readable.

LOUMFSG2;842624085 said:

---

Below are the RPI's and then power ratings for Pac-12 teams from four sources - Realtimerpi.com (RTR), KenPom.com (POM), Sagarin Predictor (SAG), and ESPN's BPI (BPI):

UPDATED Rankings as of 12/30/15

[FONT=Courier New]Team...........Average.Power.Rankings
Team.(RPI)...RTR..POM..SAG..BPI....AVG
UA....(39).....9...17...19...25.....18
UO....(23)....29...29...35...34.....32
USC...(37)....46...35...31...24.....34
CU....(22)....27...44...37...29.....34
CAL...(62)....42...39...32...35.....37
UTAH..(24)....23...38...36...61.....40
UCLA..(60)....32...42...50...52.....44
ASU...(28)....44...51...51...44.....48
OSU...(41)....47...48...60...59.....54
STAN..(69)....60...89...68...75.....73
UW...(161)...103..113...65...88.....92
WSU..(172)...127..118..114..129....122
[/FONT]

---

So most of the conference has tourney aspirations.

6 bids at minimum. Conference tourney could be vital in separating a bunch of 10-8 teams.

To someone who has always been dubious about the meaningfulness of RPI, this table is fascinating. I agree that RPI includes statistics that are indicative of good teams, but combines them using arbitrary weights, while also excluding statistics that might be more meaningful.

For nine of the twelve teams, the RPI ranking is further from the average than the outlier among the RTR, POM, SAG, and BPI rankings. E.g., for Cal, the outlier among the non-RPI measures is SAG, which is five away from AVG. RPI is twenty-five away.

Randomly, one would expect this to be true of two or three clubs. Nine is improbably far, maybe one-in-a-thousand, from two or three. One must either accept the wisdom of RPI or the collective wisdom of the other four measures. I go with the latter.

Dave75;842624483 said:

---

To someone who has always been dubious about the meaningfulness of RPI, this table is fascinating. I agree that RPI includes statistics that are indicative of good teams, but combines them using arbitrary weights, while also excluding statistics that might be more meaningful.

For nine of the twelve teams, the RPI ranking is further from the average than the outlier among the RTR, POM, SAG, and BPI rankings. E.g., for Cal, the outlier among the non-RPI measures is SAG, which is five away from AVG. RPI is twenty-five away.

Randomly, one would expect this to be true of two or three clubs. Nine is improbably far, maybe one-in-a-thousand, from two or three. One must either accept the wisdom of RPI or the collective wisdom of the other four measures. I go with the latter.

---

RPI is very different than the four "power ratings". It is purely based on wins and losses of the team (25%), their opponents (50%), and their opponents' opponents (25%), with some adjustments for location, but it does not factor in scoring margin. The power ratings use scoring margin, offensive and defensive efficiency calculations, and/or other qualitative measures. To clarify, the "AVG" column in my table only averages the four power ratings. I just included RPI as an additional piece of information, but it is not factored into the average.

LOUMFSG2;842624490 said:

---

RPI is very different than the four "power ratings". It is purely based on wins and losses of the team (25%), their opponents (50%), and their opponents' opponents (25%), with some adjustments for location, but it does not factor in scoring margin. The power ratings use scoring margin, offensive and defensive efficiency calculations, and/or other qualitative measures. To clarify, the "AVG" column in my table only averages the four power ratings. I just included RPI as an additional piece of information, but it is not factored into the average.

---

I understood that RPI wasn't included in the average. I also understand that RPI measures something different than the other four.

My point is that if the four other measures are statistically-refined approaches to measuring relative power, then an arbitrarily-constructed measure that differs significantly from the other four should be considered of uncertain and likely dubious value, making it scary for the NCAA to rely on it.

concordtom;842624283 said:

---

...Nice use of spacing, too, so the table is readable.

---

Thanks. On that topic, which do you think looks better, the periods as spacers or the underlines below? Too bad spaces don't seem to work. I think I like these underlines better.

[FONT=Courier New]Team___________Average_Power_Rankings
Team_(RPI)___RTR__POM__SAG__BPI____AVG
UA____(39)_____9___17___19___25_____18
UO____(23)____29___29___35___34_____32
USC___(37)____46___35___31___24_____34
CU____(22)____27___44___37___29_____34
CAL___(62)____42___39___32___35_____37
UTAH__(24)____23___38___36___61_____40
UCLA__(60)____32___42___50___52_____44
ASU___(28)____44___51___51___44_____48
OSU___(41)____47___48___60___59_____54
STAN__(69)____60___89___68___75_____73
UW___(161)___103__113___65___88_____92
WSU__(172)___127__118__114__129____122[/FONT]

Dave75;842624498 said:

---

I understood that RPI wasn't included in the average. I also understand that RPI measures something different than the other four.

My point is that if the four other measures are statistically-refined approaches to measuring relative power, then an arbitrarily-constructed measure that differs significantly from the other four should be considered of uncertain and likely dubious value, making it scary for the NCAA to rely on it.

---

Yeah, it seems the thing the NCAA is trying to do with RPI is to use a measure that doesn't encourage teams to run up the score in games. Pretty much any true power rating is going to look at the margin of victory in some way, and if the NCAA used that, teams would have the incentive to win each game by as many points as possible. But I agree with you, it's not a great measure of how good a team is. It also creates an interesting incentive for teams to try to game the RPI through scheduling. There's pretty much a science to scheduling teams that are easier to beat, but provide a bump to your RPI, and I believe some schools have gotten pretty savvy about picking their opponents to try to maximize RPI.

LOUMFSG2;842624502 said:

---

Thanks. On that topic, which do you think looks better, the periods as spacers or the underlines below? Too bad spaces don't seem to work. I think I like these underlines better.

[FONT=Courier New]Team___________Average_Power_Rankings
Team_(RPI)___RTR__POM__SAG__BPI____AVG
UA____(39)_____9___17___19___25_____18
UO____(23)____29___29___35___34_____32
USC___(37)____46___35___31___24_____34
CU____(22)____27___44___37___29_____34
CAL___(62)____42___39___32___35_____37
UTAH__(24)____23___38___36___61_____40
UCLA__(60)____32___42___50___52_____44
ASU___(28)____44___51___51___44_____48
OSU___(41)____47___48___60___59_____54
STAN__(69)____60___89___68___75_____73
UW___(161)___103__113___65___88_____92
WSU__(172)___127__118__114__129____122[/FONT]

---

Agreed about underlines.

Can anyone calculate what our RPI would be had any one off a hundred things been different at Charlottesville ?

LOUMFSG2;842624531 said:

---

Yeah, it seems the thing the NCAA is trying to do with RPI is to use a measure that doesn't encourage teams to run up the score in games. Pretty much any true power rating is going to look at the margin of victory in some way, and if the NCAA used that, teams would have the incentive to win each game by as many points as possible. But I agree with you, it's not a great measure of how good a team is. It also creates an interesting incentive for teams to try to game the RPI through scheduling. There's pretty much a science to scheduling teams that are easier to beat, but provide a bump to your RPI, and I believe some schools have gotten pretty savvy about picking their opponents to try to maximize RPI.

---

Yeah, I agree that the NCAA is trying to disincentivize running up the score, with which I agree. But they do it at the cost of making a one-point victory equivalent to a 30-point victory, which is silly. I don't know all the mechanics of the other ratings, but hope that some, while giving credit to margin of victory, give decreasing credit as the margin increases.

By the way, that was a great table, one that facilitated good discussion. Well done.

concordtom;842624587 said:

---

Can anyone calculate what our RPI would be had any one off a hundred things been different at Charlottesville ?

---

I tried changing the Virginia result to a win in the RPI wizard and recalculated the rest of the season. It had us going 21-10 with an RPI of 27 and an SOS of 18. It doesn't have us winning any more games in conference, just switched us from 20-11 to 21-10.

Dave75;842624588 said:

---

Yeah, I agree that the NCAA is trying to disincentivize running up the score, with which I agree. But they do it at the cost of making a one-point victory equivalent to a 30-point victory, which is silly. I don't know all the mechanics of the other ratings, but hope that some, while giving credit to margin of victory, give decreasing credit as the margin increases.

By the way, that was a great table, one that facilitated good discussion. Well done.

---

My recollection of every interview with someone from the selection committee is that they use RPI simply to shape the discussion of the 'S-curve'. That is - they are using it as a very rough indicator to separate the 25-75 group from the 250-350 group and focus the discussion on a smaller number of teams. Also, many times they have stated that it really only has meaning at the end of the season - not in the middle. I think it is pundits, reporters and others who use RPI as something more than it is.

UPDATED Rankings as of 1/4/16

[FONT=Courier New]Team___________Average_Power_Rankings
Team_(RPI)___RTR__POM__SAG__BPI____AVG
UA____(25)_____9___17___19___20_____16
USC___(33)____45___28___30___24_____32
CAL___(41)____40___30___31___27_____32
UO____(21)____28___38___42___42_____38
CU____(23)____32___49___43___38_____41
UTAH__(32)____21___44___41___72_____45
OSU___(26)____44___41___50___47_____46
UCLA__(72)____31___56___57___60_____51
ASU___(36)____47___58___55___53_____53
STAN__(77)____55___93___73___67_____72
UW____(99)____67__106___62___77_____78
WSU__(135)____99__118__118__116____113
[/FONT]

After the first weekend of conference play, we made a nice little move up to the third spot based on the average of the four power ratings, just a few percentage points behind USC.

Despite losing to UW, USC had an impressive weekend, considering how they were in control against the Huskies when G Julian Jacobs sprained an ankle and had to leave the game with about 16 minutes left and USC leading by about 20. I'm not sure how long Jacobs is expected to be out, but they look to be the real deal and a challenger in the league. I think UW is going to be up and down, looking great one night, and then not-so-great the next. They've got an extremely talented and athletic team, probably just a little too much youth and inexperience this year.

Otherwise, the weekend shows how tough it is to win on the road, and how important it is to defend home court in league. This Oregon trip will give us a good sense of where we stand, as these are two tough road games against strong opponents. If we continue to defend and play the way we've been playing, this is a great opportunity for us to take another step forward this week.

Lou, thanks for updating the numbers. Any chance you can do this on a weekly basis? :p Do you have to enter all 60 numbers manually?

Note that when you edit the original post with the new numbers, BI does not update the time/date stamp. I.e., I had to search for this thread on BI's second page. Weird.

Real nice to finally have a strong Pac-12 this year. It's been a while!

BGGB2;842627920 said:

---

Lou, thanks for updating the numbers. Any chance you can do this on a weekly basis? :p Do you have to enter all 60 numbers manually?

Note that when you edit the original post with the new numbers, BI does not update the time/date stamp. I.e., I had to search for this thread on BI's second page. Weird.

---

I'm planning on updating it on a weekly basis, and I set up a spreadsheet so I can just copy-and-paste tables from the four sites, and then the spreadsheet creates the formatted output that I can copy-and-paste into a post here. It is actually really easy to update (once you get the spreadsheet set up, which took some time)

WSU that just beat UCLA convincingly is in last? Good conference this year!

UPDATED Rankings as of 1/11/16

[FONT=Courier New]Team___________Average_Power_Rankings
Team_(RPI)___RTR__POM__SAG__BPI____AVG
UA____(30)____11___16___20___22_____17
USC___(17)____40___26___28___20_____29
CAL___(44)____28___32___33___30_____31
UO____(10)____34___33___37___33_____34
UTAH__(21)____33___43___38___63_____44
OSU___(31)____35___48___53___47_____46
CU____(36)____32___66___48___44_____48
UCLA__(45)____51___53___55___49_____52
ASU___(46)____53___62___57___60_____58
STAN__(61)____56___83___71___74_____71
UW____(72)____57___99___64___75_____74
WSU__(148)___107__123__116__113____115
[/FONT]

Despite losing two games this week, we held our position of third in the conference power rankings, showing that losing road games to good opponents by small margins doesn't necessarily hurt your prospects going forward.

Getting a road win over Stanfurd would be big. More importantly, getting some rhythm and confidence from playing well over 40 minutes would be huge.

Interesting that 3-0 UW is still 11th.

Also Lunardi still has us as a 7 seed, FWIW

UrsaMajor;842631416 said:

---

Interesting that 3-0 UW is still 11th.

Also Lunardi still has us as a 7 seed, FWIW

---

UW could just as easily be 0-3.

UPDATED Rankings as of 1/18/16

[FONT=Courier New]Team___________Average_Power_Rankings
Team_(RPI)___RTR__POM__SAG__BPI____AVG
UA____(28)____19___16___16___18_____17
USC___(14)____26___22___26___17_____23
UO_____(9)____28___24___34___31_____29
CAL___(53)____37___37___36___34_____36
CU____(24)____41___48___42___38_____42
UCLA__(59)____29___64___60___56_____52
UTAH__(29)____34___65___48___73_____55
ASU___(50)____57___68___58___55_____60
OSU___(40)____45___67___65___68_____61
STAN__(44)____52___72___63___62_____62
UW____(57)____39___93___73___76_____70
WSU__(152)___122__128__127__122____125
[/FONT]

After three weeks of conference play, Cal is sitting pretty solidly in the fourth spot of the power rankings. At 2-3 and on a three-game losing streak, it feels much worse than that. But the reality is, as strong as the conference has been this year, it is much more solid and deep than it is dominant at the top, and every team has had good games and bad games. We've played very well at home, and if we can get back to the level of play of just two weeks ago against the Mountain schools, we have a chance of getting back into the thick of the conference race.

LOUMFSG2;842635457 said:

---

UPDATED Rankings as of 1/18/16

[FONT=Courier New]Team___________Average_Power_Rankings
Team_(RPI)___RTR__POM__SAG__BPI____AVG
UA____(28)____19___16___16___18_____17
USC___(14)____26___22___26___17_____23
UO_____(9)____28___24___34___31_____29
CAL___(53)____37___37___36___34_____36
CU____(24)____41___48___42___38_____42
UCLA__(59)____29___64___60___56_____52
UTAH__(29)____34___65___48___73_____55
ASU___(50)____57___68___58___55_____60
OSU___(40)____45___67___65___68_____61
STAN__(44)____52___72___63___62_____62
UW____(57)____39___93___73___76_____70
WSU__(152)___122__128__127__122____125
[/FONT]

After three weeks of conference play, Cal is sitting pretty solidly in the fourth spot of the power rankings. At 2-3 and on a three-game losing streak, it feels much worse than that. But the reality is, as strong as the conference has been this year, it is much more solid and deep than it is dominant at the top, and every team has had good games and bad games. We've played very well at home, and if we can get back to the level of play of just two weeks ago against the Mountain schools, we have a chance of getting back into the thick of the conference race.

---

+1

And now, I assume with Ty out, we shall see if the call for Singer to start at the point is a good one.

I hope it is. And for it to be a good development for the Bears, Singer still needs to be more aggressive. He has improved, but (other than Rondo...) good point guards have to be threats to score. Not that that should be their first instinct, but without being credible scoring threats, point guards will be limited in their ability to find open teammates.

UrsaMajor;842631416 said:

---

Interesting that 3-0 UW is still 11th.

Also Lunardi still has us as a 7 seed, FWIW

---

UPDATED Rankings as of 1/25/16

[FONT=Courier New]Team___________Average_Power_Rankings
Team_(RPI)___RTR__POM__SAG__BPI____AVG
UA____(29)____12___12___14___16_____14
UO_____(5)____29___24___31___24_____27
USC___(24)____25___27___33___25_____28
CAL___(37)____39___38___38___30_____36
UTAH__(16)____37___50___39___53_____45
CU____(23)____44___55___47___45_____48
UCLA__(53)____56___62___59___61_____60
OSU___(45)____52___71___63___70_____64
ASU___(71)____74___66___60___58_____65
STAN__(52)____51___87___74___63_____69
UW____(73)____42___95___66___73_____69
WSU__(167)___137__145__133__140____139
[/FONT]

Cal's average power rating held steady in fourth place after the home sweep of the Arizona schools. Oregon has inched ahead of USC.

I also continue to find it interesting that UW remains near the bottom of the league in power ratings (slightly behind Stanfurd in 11th place), despite being tied for the league lead at 5-2. Their Pomeroy ranking (which is based on points scored and points allowed per 100 possesions, adjusted for the quality of the opponent) remains in the 90's. As tsubamoto noted, they've won some close games (and lost pretty big to Arizona, anyway).

LOUMFSG2;842638732 said:

---

UPDATED Rankings as of 1/25/16

[FONT=Courier New]Team___________Average_Power_Rankings
Team_(RPI)___RTR__POM__SAG__BPI____AVG
UA____(29)____12___12___14___16_____14
UO_____(5)____29___24___31___24_____27
USC___(24)____25___27___33___25_____28
CAL___(37)____39___38___38___30_____36
UTAH__(16)____37___50___39___53_____45
CU____(23)____44___55___47___45_____48
UCLA__(53)____56___62___59___61_____60
OSU___(45)____52___71___63___70_____64
ASU___(71)____74___66___60___58_____65
STAN__(52)____51___87___74___63_____69
UW____(73)____42___95___66___73_____69
WSU__(167)___137__145__133__140____139
[/FONT]

Cal's average power rating held steady in fourth place after the home sweep of the Arizona schools. Oregon has inched ahead of USC.

I also continue to find it interesting that UW remains near the bottom of the league in power ratings (slightly behind Stanfurd in 11th place), despite being tied for the league lead at 5-2. Their Pomeroy ranking (which is based on points scored and points allowed per 100 possesions, adjusted for the quality of the opponent) remains in the 90's. As tsubamoto noted, they've won some close games (and lost pretty big to Arizona, anyway).

---

Given our respective position relative to the mountain schools, this coming week will be an important one. Splitting or sweeping on the road would do wonders for our power ranking.

[FONT=Courier New]UPDATED Rankings as of 2/1/16

Team___________Average_Power_Rankings
Team_(RPI)___RTR__POM__SAG__BPI____AVG
UA____(34)____17___18___15___16_____17
UO_____(3)____19___16___26___23_____21
USC___(19)____30___29___35___26_____30
CAL___(39)____39___42___40___39_____40
UTAH__(14)____35___41___38___50_____41
CU____(20)____41___51___44___40_____44
UCLA__(68)____63___62___54___58_____59
UW____(49)____40___76___63___65_____61
ASU___(73)____75___67___59___60_____65
OSU___(64)____61___84___76___87_____77
STAN__(57)____59__103___85___84_____83
WSU__(168)___147__150__142__150____147[/FONT]

Well, after getting swept by the Mountain schools, we surprisingly still hold the fourth slot in the average conference power rankings, although, not surprisingly, the Mountain schools closed a lot of ground. The schedule gets a little more favorable the next seven games (5 home games sandwiching the trip to WA), before we close the season in the desert. Need to get back on track on Saturday.

LOUMFSG2;842642889 said:

---

[FONT=Courier New]UPDATED Rankings as of 2/1/16

Team___________Average_Power_Rankings
Team_(RPI)___RTR__POM__SAG__BPI____AVG
UA____(34)____17___18___15___16_____17
UO_____(3)____19___16___26___23_____21
USC___(19)____30___29___35___26_____30
CAL___(39)____39___42___40___39_____40
UTAH__(14)____35___41___38___50_____41
CU____(20)____41___51___44___40_____44
UCLA__(68)____63___62___54___58_____59
UW____(49)____40___76___63___65_____61
ASU___(73)____75___67___59___60_____65
OSU___(64)____61___84___76___87_____77
STAN__(57)____59__103___85___84_____83
WSU__(168)___147__150__142__150____147[/FONT]

Well, after getting swept by the Mountain schools, we surprisingly still hold the fourth slot in the average conference power rankings, although, not surprisingly, the Mountain schools closed a lot of ground. The schedule gets a little more favorable the next seven games (5 home games sandwiching the trip to WA), before we close the season in the desert. Need to get back on track on Saturday.

---

It does give some reassurance that we've played all of the top teams so far (and earned 3 wins) and now get a shot for redemption at home.

[FONT=Courier New]UPDATED Rankings as of 2/8/16

Team___________Average_Power_Rankings
Team_(RPI)___RTR__POM__SAG__BPI____AVG
UA____(28)____21___13___14___13_____15
UO_____(3)____14___11___23___19_____17
USC___(15)____27___27___33___20_____27
CAL___(34)____42___42___39___37_____40
UTAH__(18)____28___43___40___50_____40
CU____(26)____48___56___49___47_____50
UW____(56)____49___81___60___58_____62
UCLA__(72)____80___68___57___65_____68
ASU___(74)____91___69___63___60_____71
OSU___(42)____56___82___76___80_____74
STAN__(71)____84__103___88___91_____92
WSU__(185)___178__160__150__157____161
[/FONT]

We're holding pretty steady in the power rankings. Thursday is a huge game, gives us a chance for a big resume win. Would love another home sweep this week.

Winning Thursday would be a huge help to the resume.

BoaltBear;842646262 said:

---

Winning Thursday would be a huge help to the resume.

---

And a loss would put us on track for the NIT with half the Pac 12. Early warnings of the Pac teams beating each other up seem to be crystallizing.

[FONT=Courier New]UPDATED Rankings as of 2/15/16

Team___________Average_Power_Rankings
Team_(RPI)___RTR__POM__SAG__BPI____AVG
UA____(22)____15___14___14___13_____14
UO_____(4)____12___20___26___24_____21
USC___(24)____22___26___33___22_____26
CAL___(23)____47___32___37___32_____37
UTAH__(16)____35___40___36___47_____40
CU____(25)____50___63___53___50_____54
UCLA__(68)____86___56___52___63_____64
UW____(61)____70___72___58___59_____65
OSU___(38)____61___71___66___73_____68
ASU___(83)____95___77___65___57_____74
STAN__(75)____90__112___97___98_____99
WSU__(188)___195__163__159__150____167[/FONT]

Here are the Pomeroy percentages for our 6 remaining games (the Sagarin %'s are very similar):

UW - 49%
WSU - 74%
UCLA - 73%
USC - 63%
UA - 24%
ASU - 50%

Running the math, here are the percentages (incl. cumulative) for how that translates, as well as the forecasted RPI in each scenario:

6-0 (13-5) RPI~14: 2.0% (2.0%)
5-1 (12-6) RPI~18: 13.0% (15.0%)
4-2 (11-7) RPI~23: 29.8% (44.8%)
3-3 (10-8) RPI~29: 32.2% (77.0%)
2-4 ( 9-9) RPI~45: 17.7% (94.7%)
1-5 (8-10) RPI~65: 4.8% (99.5%)
0-6 (7-11) RPI~75: 0.5% (100.0%)

So 3-3 is the most likely outcome, with slightly better odds of finishing above .500 than below. 3-3 would give us a 10-8 record overall, and based on RPI Wizard.com, that translates to an RPI~29 (depends on road/away) before the conference tournament. We have a 94.7% chance of finishing 9-9 or better, a 77.0% of finishing 10-8 or better, and a 44.8% chance of 11-7 or better.