Kenpom...including today's games

W

WindsorHawk

Well-Known Member
6 - Iowa
13 - Michigan State
15 - Michigan
16 - Ohio State
20 - Wisconsin

39 - Minnesota
55 - Indiana
76 - Nebraska
80 - Illinois
85 - Penn State

105 - Purdue
109 - Northwestern
 
Nice, but am not sure how Iowa is ahead of MSU & Michigan.

How much weight is put on this when it comes to seeding, etc.? Does the committee look at this?
 
1977Hawkeye said:
Nice, but am not sure how Iowa is ahead of MSU & Michigan.

How much weight is put on this when it comes to seeding, etc.? Does the committee look at this?
Click to expand...

We win big and lose close and only to other highly ranked teams. We don't have a bad loss like UNC-Charlotte or Georgetown that really drops us.
 
I love this team, but until we can finish close games late against quality opponents, I think an objective ranking would have us around #15.
 
So if this exact same Iowa team wins both games at home this wk you see them differently than today?

Or do you think if Iowa wins 2 games by +10pts, you see them differently than today?

Or is this team the exact same team a wk from now as they are now? (barring 20 pt wins or 20 pt losses)
 
kctom said:
So if this exact same Iowa team wins both games at home this wk you see them differently than today?

Or do you think if Iowa wins 2 games by +10pts, you see them differently than today?

Or is this team the exact same team a wk from now as they are now? (barring 20 pt wins or 20 pt losses)
Click to expand...

Are you asking me?
 
LG210 said:
I love this team, but until we can finish close games late against quality opponents, I think an objective ranking would have us around #15.
Click to expand...

Kenpom is about as objective as you can get. Michigan losing to Charlotte or Michigan State losing at home to North Carolina should hurt in the rankings and those losses should stick with them all season, the fact that Iowa's worse loss is to Wisconsin should help us. The only real qualm I have with Kenpom is I don't believe they account for injuries so our home loss to Michigan State should look a little worse than it does according to their ranking system.
 
Way too many poles and rankings. So we are ranked anywhere from six to 30? Well that makes perfect sense
 
How hard is it to average out all ranking systems, come up with a catchy name for that ranking, and use it on selection Sunday instead of stupid RPI?
 
PCHawk said:
How hard is it to average out all ranking systems, come up with a catchy name for that ranking, and use it on selection Sunday instead of stupid RPI?
Click to expand...

I'd be cool with something like that. Some type of blend of all polls, rather than everyone putting so much emphasis on the freaking RPI and seemingly ignoring everything else.

I guess I still don't know what the committee looks at most when determining seed. Didn't Oregon win the Pac 12 regular season & conference tournament titles, and get rewarded with a 12 seed? Looks like their final RPI was 46. Based on that RPI, that puts them right smack at 12, if you give the #1 seeds to RPI 1-4, 2 seed to 5-8, etc. Coincidence?

So I'm tempted to think that RPI still comes into play pretty heavily for everybody, not just for bubble teams.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that Kenpom does not consider wins and losses at all, just offensive and defensive efficiency. RPI is the exact opposite, and only takes in account who you beat/lose to and where (home/away/neutral), not how well you play.

Kenpom is more a "power ranking", while RPI is more of a "resume" ranking. The selection committee's goal is typically to take the teams with the best resume, so it makes sense that they'd use the RPI.

I'm sure its been posted before, but here's a composite ranking put out by Massey on a weekly basis:

College Basketball Ranking Composite
 
"...My understanding is that Kenpom does not consider wins and losses at all, just offensive and defensive efficiency. RPI is the exact opposite, and only takes in account who you beat/lose to and where (home/away/neutral), not how well you play...."

Or like in MLB with BABIP vs BA. 1st player hits .300 must has BABIP of .380 and another player hits .290 but has BABIP of only .310, in a league where Avg is ..333

The hitter w the .290 and .310 BABIP is going to surpass the 1st hitter when is luck normalizes to the league .333 and the 1st hitters normalizes to the mean of .333 . The 2nd hitters esume looks poorer (like RPI), but in reality he is the better hitter bc his luck will soon even out.
 
I think the RPI would be fine if it would fix one problem. Playing a 300 team hurts way worse than playing a 200 team. While it should definitely hurt a little more, is the odds of a top 25 team beating a 300 team THAT much better than beating a 200 team?

If you take last year's schedule and replace our 300 teams with 200 teams, we would have almost certainly still beat them all handedly. Yet those teams crippled our RPI even tho there was essentially no difference in our schedule.
 
ahaselhu said:
My understanding is that Kenpom does not consider wins and losses at all, just offensive and defensive efficiency. RPI is the exact opposite, and only takes in account who you beat/lose to and where (home/away/neutral), not how well you play.

Kenpom is more a "power ranking", while RPI is more of a "resume" ranking. The selection committee's goal is typically to take the teams with the best resume, so it makes sense that they'd use the RPI.

I'm sure its been posted before, but here's a composite ranking put out by Massey on a weekly basis:

College Basketball Ranking Composite
Click to expand...

He does. I'm not sure of his exact formula but he's pretty obsessive over the meaningfulness of margin of victory. The power ranking as opposed to resume ranking does seem to be somewhat accurate as his rankings are meant to be predictive as opposed to what have they done thus far though the two definitely tie together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top