With all due respect to GWin06's post, I think the challenges for GW to win it all (and I applaud his optimism) will have much to do with their seeding.  I don't believe we will win the national championship, but do think we have a better chance than 80% of the NCAA tournament field, at least.

That being said, I wanted to get some perspective on where we "really" will be seeded.  I hate all of these brackets saying we'll be a 3 or  a 7, or everything in between, because this is such an odd year.  There's such a drop-off after the top 6-8 teams, that my guess is the hottest teams at the time of the draw will have the best seeds. 

In other words, win out and we could be a 2 or a 3.  But what about a loss?  With just one loss on the schedule the rest of the way, what would that do to our seeding?

I found an interesting comparison, to College of Charleston in 1999.

Using today’s record/RPI, our RPI’s our identical, at 33.  Our SOS is very similar,  217 vs. 216. although they had a much better out of conference SOS, and a much worse in conference.

Their record at tourney time was 25-2.  Ours with one even one loss would likely be a comparable 28-2 at best.

Their best win was at #7 RPI North Carolina, better than our best win, against a Maryland team much better at the time than their current #45.

They lost one game vs. a non-top 100 RPI team, at University of South Carolina, by 11.  They also lost to #66 RPI Georgia on the road by 21.

They finished the season on a 23-game winning streak.  We’re at 14 and counting. 

They played 15 games, all wins vs. teams 201 .  We have 10 so far, but still have St. Bona on our schedule (#290). 

The only significant difference is our non-RPI computer ratings, and it is significant.  Our KenPom rating is 16 as of today, and theirs was 55 after a loss in the NCAA tournament.  Our Greenfield rating, as of today, is 6, while their rating was #39 after that tournament loss.  We are #7 in the polls...they reached #16 right before tournament selection.   

Now, it is my feeling, that GW, regardless of seed, is not going to be “outmatched” by just about anyone in the country.  We are much better than our RPI, but we all know that it is used by the tournament committee as a primary tool.  I bring this up, because with one loss, we could drop 15 places in those computer polls, which are not even used as significantly as the RPI.  They do reflect our margin of victory though, which is also looked at by the committee.  It is only because of that margin that we are even in discussions for a 2/3 seed.  

Anyway, the significance of winning out is this:  with a loss, we are not very different than Charleston, 1999, and yes, they were a #8 seed!  If there's one seed you don't want to be...it's an 8 or 9...tough first round match-up and a #1 seed on the first weekend.

Interested in other perspectives, but this is a very intriguing historical comparison.  That's all I got...it's my argument about why winning out is imperative if we have realistic aspirations for greatness in the tournament.

Here’s the side by side comparison, for those who made it this far:

CHARLESTON 1999                          GW 2006

RPI: 33                                              33

Record: 25-2                                      22-1

SOS: .4654                                       .4740

SOS Rank: 217                                  216

W-L vs. 1-50: 1-0                                3-1

W-L vs. 51-100: 3-1                            4-0

W-L vs. 101-200: 6-1                          5-0

W-L vs. 201 : 15-0                            10-0

Last 10 games: 10-0                          10-0

Road/Neut. W-L: 14-2                         9-1

Kenpom Rating: 55                            16

Greenfield Rating: 39                          6

Correct...thanks for catching that.  Still, it was in a neutral site (Charlotte), UNC was ranked 3rd in the country at the time, and had just won the pre-season NIT.  The fourth team in the events was ODU, and UNC and USC switched partners from Friday-Saturday...they never played each other.  Actually, that's the model GW/Maryland will likely use if we ever end up back with a 2-day BB&T.

Anyway, here's the link to the Charleston game recap.

I see why you chose that comparison but there are a lot of reasons it doesn't hold up.  CofC played just 1 team in the top 50 (and won).  They played just 4 teams in the 50-100, and went 3-1.  Plus, they lost to that sub-100 team, as you pointed out.

That means they were 4-1 vs. the top 100 with a loss outside the top 100.

We are currently 7-1 vs. the top 100.  We're 3-1 vs. the top 50 (SJU's win got them back in!).    Our only loss is a road game to a likely top 4 seed -- big difference from their two weak losses.

Also, just as importantly, we play in a conference with signifcant national respect.  Our conference has sent I think 7 teams to the elite 8 in the last dozen years, including 2 two years ago.  We are currently 9th in the RPI (WAC passed us thanks to good bracket buster effort); CofC's conference was rated 16th.   In fact, the entire southern conference that year outside of CofC beat eactly one team in the top 100 OOC (Chattanooga over Samford -- not eactly a marquee win), whereas the A-10 has a long list of impressive wins all the way down to second division clubs like Richmond and Dayton.

For all those reasons, I would say that with a loss, we still are quite a bit different from CofC in 98.   Another loss will hurt us in the seeding (best possible case would be a 4, more likely a 5 depending on who we lose to and when), but given that the comparison to CofC doesn't hold up, an 8 seems highly unlikely.

FQ...I agree with all of your arguments, ecept re: our conference helping us.  We were a one-bid conference last year, and are likely again this year.  Past history is just that, and at this point, the A-10 is, in fact, a true mid-major.

I do think the comparison holds up (if we lose a game)...yes our mid-level wins are better than theirs, and we haven't lost a game we shouldn't...but it doesn't change the fact that our non-conference RPI is in the 320's, and the only game against a team currently in the top 50 (St. Joes', Maryland may be too but they're close to not) we lost badly.  That UNC win was huge for them.

I'm not trying to make the committee's argument for them...all I am saying is that winning out is integral...we are as likely to fall to a 7/8 seed, as we are to be a 2 seed.  I'd be very happy with a 29-1 record and a 2 or 3...but not so ecited at 26-3 and a 7 seed.

Ken Pom now has the A-10 as the 11th best conf for RPI.  Surpassed by both the WAC and, Dear Lord, the CAA. 

How do we get into this Bracket Buster competiion?  I would love to play the likes or Creigton, N Iowa or UW-Milwaukee right now to boost our OOC credibility.  I guess the A-10 is "too good" for these kinds of games.  So says our league commissioner, Senior Jaun Bid.

Final note: Guess who's the #1 ranked RPI team in the DC Metro area.  You got it - George Mason University!

Bobo -- the 11th figure is possibly the most meaningless statistic in sports, used only by those who don't understand the RPI whatsoever.  As far as I'm concerned, any journalist who cites us as being 11th should be banned from covering college basketball and busted down to covering pee wee football and Turkey Trots.

We are 9th in OOC RPI.   That's the only stat that has any meaning whatsoever.

Based on the screwy way the RPI works, we are 11th in RPI only if you take the bizarre step of counting conference games in the 9th rated conference as dragging the conference down below league games in the 10th and 11th rated conference. 

Using that 11th stat would be like saying, "GW is the 7th best team during the season, Tennessee is 8 and Pitt is 9.  But if you count practices, GW is only 9th best". 

It makes no sense at all.

Let me know if you need further elaboration on why using "overall" RPI rather than "OOC" RPI is the most misleading statistic in sports.

I believe the OOC RPI is the average RPI not including conf games. The average RPI is eactly as stated.  The tourney committee says both are irrrelivant since they do not rate the conferences and try to peg how many teams each conference gets in based on the strengh of that conf.  They judge the prospective teams based on their record vs quality opponents.

It looks like the MVC could get in  4-5 teams and the CAA might get multiple bids while the A-10 is one and done.   Sad.

You are right about the difference... but doesn't that just point out how poorly designed the RPI is. 

If A-10 teams performed, on average, 9th best against other conferences, what kind of a forumula says that playing each other makes them worst than a weaker conference?