storminspank
Justin VanLaere
I would tend to agree.
ESPN Bubble Watch
- Thread starter theboat
- Start date
I would tend to agree.
I love speculation, hell the first four letters of speculation spell out my last name (plus a k) so I almost feel inclined to do it, but I think it's become as simple as win 2 and we're looking pretty good. Win 3 and we're locks in my uninformed opinion. This year has been so much more exciting though after following the dark ages of Lickliter ball.
I sure do miss that Little Lick fella though. He had moxy.
I sure do miss that Little Lick fella though. He had moxy.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
I didn't say that would be bad. But there's no way just going off the eyeball test would fly.
storminspank
Justin VanLaere
Whaddaya mean? The eyeball team works just fine for the BCS and college bowl games, yeah?
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
Gotta disagree. Blame for poor selection should be on the selection process, imo.
Rlesterfan
Well-Known Member
The problem is not that numbers/computers are used, the problem is how they are used. The RPI is awful. Way too much of who you play, and way too much weight placed on the bottom teams. Is there really that much difference between #220 and #320 ? Yes, according to the RPI.
Look at some of the teams ahead of Iowa, it just amazes me.
#27 Middle Tennessee (one top 100 win, but the dominate the #200's of the NCAA)
#34 Southern Miss (this alone makes the RPI look like a joke. When your #34 team best win is Denver @ home, you computer model is flawed)
#57 Denver (Hey, they beat New Mexico St)
#68 North Dakota ST (1 top 100 win)
#69 Wyoming (4-12 ! on the Mountain West)
#70 Eastern Kentucky (ZERO top 100 wins, ZERO)
All ahead of Iowa, because we played Coppin ST and a few other MEAC teams instead of playing Drake, Kent ST and Towsen. There are more examples, but after Eastern Kentucky being ahead of us in the RPI it is too depressing to go on.
storminspank
Justin VanLaere
Yeah, you're preaching to the choir here.
I've been opposed to RPI for a long, long time. I've been a KenPom fan for nearly a decade. I'm a tempo-free ranking/stats fan.
I hate the RPI like most hate the BCS.
But here's the deal.... Iowa knows what's at stake when they schedule teams. No one says they have to book Duke, Syracuse, et al every year. But you have to be smart about it. Instead of booking teams that are going to be low-major cellar dwellars, why not book middle of the road mid-majors? It boosts RPI and you're likely to still get a win (hopefully). There is more to the process than just calling up an AD and getting a game schedule, so Iowa is stuck with some of those super sweet cupcakes, but the Hawkeyes had a chance to put together "better" teams in the non-conf and chose to go extra-light on the opponents in the non-conf to try to win more games. That worked fine, but in the same point they can't complain about their RPI, they knew what they were doing.
You guy know it, I know it, most of the media knows it - Iowa is, at face value, much more deserving than some of the other lower locks and teams ahead of them on the Bubble. But their resume is what's holding them back. Again, the only finger pointing that can happen is either the U of I at themselves or the team for not closing out 5 winnable conf games. If Iowa beats NEB on the road after being up 19, they prob just need to beat NW to get in. If they beat MN on the road or MSU at home, they are prob in. But they didn't. And that goes on the resume... and that's what the committee will look at.
Rlesterfan
Well-Known Member
I agree. Pretty soon every big college coach is going to have an RPI expert advising them. Then about 50-75 NCAA teams won't be able to fill out a schedule because nobody will play them. Iowa would be better off with playing a scrimmage that doesn't count than playing a MEAC team.
If you simply take a couple of those 300+ wins off our SOS, we move up into the mid 60's. There is a better system than the RPI, I hope someday the NCAA moves to it. The RPI needs to be trashed or changed.
Ok after reading this it makes me wonder how stupid the people were that created the RPI and how its even possible that it is still used today. I already knew it was bad but this shows how ridiculous it is.
Does anyone out there know enough about the RPI formula to figure what our RPI would be if our bottom 5 teams were 50-75 points higher?
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
This, is what really ticks me off. The RPI is a joke.
Does anybody really believe that a single one of those teams on that list are actually a better team than Iowa? Yet apparently the selection committee is still all hung up on a selection process that uses RPI so heavily nevertheless.
Yes, you can blame Iowa for its scheduling. Fair enough. But you can't tell me the selection process isn't flawed, either. There is blame to go around IMO.
Last edited:
What is it about these teams schedule that makes their RPI so much higher? I can't imagine they played as many high ranked teams as we have. We played 18 conference games and hardly any are over 150 RPI. It's mind numbingly stupid.
Rlesterfan
Well-Known Member
I could do a crude estimation. I am surprised a website doesn't have a program where you can do this. The RPI is pretty simple, so it would not be hard.
Rlesterfan
Well-Known Member
I can tell you 90% of the problem. We played 5 teams that are 310+ at home. That pretty much sabotages Iowa's RPI. For example, Wyoming played zero teams with an RPI over 300.
V tech also hurt, as they were playing well when we played them (Beat Oklahoma the next game), and then proceeded to fold the rest of the season. However, the main problem is Howard, Coppin St, TX-Pan, SC St and TX-CC.
clicheusername3
Banned
The problem is you would have to also factor in the results of about 200 other teams as well to get an accurate number.
Rlesterfan
Well-Known Member
I would just change the 5 home games for Iowa. The RPI effect on other top 100 teams would be real minimal, but that is why it would be an estimation and not exact. A computer program could spit out exact numbers in a second. I know they have those for the BCS, not aware of any for the RPI.
The only other real effect would be on those teams playing or not playing Iowa in the hypothetical example (bottom tier teams).
clicheusername3
Banned
But if you go out to Jerry Palm's "Palm Reader", you can see just how crazy the RPI calculation gets, especially in the middle of the season where the games are coming fast and heavy.
For example, let's say every single one of Iowa's non-con opponents are playing on the same night, that's 26 other teams you have to worry about, then take everyone lets say 10 places ahead and 10 behind, and they are all playing on that night as well that's 40 more teams you would have to guess on. Then all of those 40 teams non-con opponents are also playing so there is 80 more teams. At that point you probably get a little overlap but still the sheer volume of factors is starting to get ridiculous.
The bottom line is if there was a feasible way to make a calculator such as this it would have been done. Live-RPI is about as good as it gets and that still is dependent on results that actually happen.
Last edited:
RocknRollface
Well-Known Member
No winning games would make up for the hit in strength of schedule. I would say Iowa would be closer to 12-13 wins in a conference like the sec or pac12 or even the b12.
Rlesterfan
Well-Known Member
LIVERPI actually does do this with the 'future RPI projection' website. The program would be very similar. All I am talking about is changing the Iowa's schedule by 5 games. Yes, there would be an effect on other teams. A computer program can handle that just like they do when computing the RPI. We just have very different opinions of what a computer can do.
It can easily be done. The likely reason there is not one is a lack of demand. Not many people actually care how a teams RPI would change if the schedule is changed.
