Iowa's Pomeroy Rating is 83, best rating since 06-07
- Thread starter storminspank
- Start date
olivecourt
Well-Known Member
Look at all of these post-2004 teams with good RPI ratings that got left out. See any common threads in terms of conference affiliations?
The problem is not the new formula. The problem is that the NCAA instituted a new formula that the selection committee then refused to pay attention to because they prefer to dole out bids to mediocre teams from their own conferences. Just watch what will happen this year: a fun Harvard team with a 35 RPI won't even be on the bubble and a mediocre USC team with a 69 RPI may well get in. I thought the expansion to 68 was fine, but if it's just used to reward sub-mediocre teams from big conferences I'm really going to be angry.
RPI is not a standard of ranking teams for NCAA selection at all. It's only used to categorize the quality of wins and losses a certain team may have. Like wins vs. teams in the RPI top 50 or top 100. The actual RPI number that you have isn't the criteria for selection, only as basis of comparison. It's abused on the selection shows, however.
Granted, your RPI ranking usually gets better when doing good things but you can get a lofty RPI without beating many good teams.
Granted, your RPI ranking usually gets better when doing good things but you can get a lofty RPI without beating many good teams.
storminspank
Justin VanLaere
I like Pomeroy (KenPom) better. I have since Ken put it out there in the early 2000s. It is more stat-based, but uses it's stats BETTER than RPI. It takes the stats that actually matter in basketball. It's hard to argue the Four Factors when it comes to BB. Yes, there are anomalies, and upsets happen. But his predictor is very accurate. And his rankings are based on a system that is very, very good.
KenPom isn't great early in the season, but once you are about 15 games in, it really starts to be accurate. End of season, it's nearly flawless.
KenPom isn't great early in the season, but once you are about 15 games in, it really starts to be accurate. End of season, it's nearly flawless.
olivecourt
Well-Known Member
Exactly right, Cydkar, but I've just never understood the logic. According to the way the selection committee uses RPI, if a team beats Harvard (like Michigan did), they get credit for beating a top 50 team, and so it helps Michigan get an at-large bid. But then when Harvard's name comes up, all of the sudden they pretend that their RPI doesn't matter. Why does Harvard's RPI matter more when it comes to evaluating Michigan than it does to evaluating Harvard itself? I think they should use it completely or not use it all. The way they do it now wouldn't pass muster in a freshman logic class.
It will be interesting to look at the field when it comes out and compare it to the RPI rankings and to KenPom. My guess is that it won't have much correlation with either. Nothing like letting the AD of the number one-ranked team run the show!
olivecourt
Well-Known Member
storminspank
Justin VanLaere
storminspank
Justin VanLaere
Whether you believe in Pomeroy or not (I don't understand why anyone wouldn't).
Ceteris paribus, Iowa was better this year than any of the previous years under Lickliter.
Ceteris paribus, Iowa was better this year than any of the previous years under Lickliter.
hawkeye2188
Well-Known Member
Probably should switch him to a 1 or 2 right?
