Teams in the Sweet Sixteen: RPI vs Pomeroy

[dmShortSaledude]

What is really skewing the RPI are the tricks the MWC use to inflate their RPI. The biggest one is the DII and JuCo schools they schedule for warm up games that do not show up on the RPI. If they were forced to substitute those games against teams from the low majors then the RPI would fall right in place.

But the Pomeroy ranking system is definitely better than the RPI, it not only take into account the SOS (which is the main component of the RPI) but it also factors in individual games and such. While the RPI is easy to manipulate Pomeroy is a little more difficult.

We can debate RPI all day long and some here really hate it (understandably so) but one thing we all have to remember is with the RPI we know exactly what it looks at so the coaches know exactly what they are doing when they schedule games against bad low majors. Fran himself even said he was counting on a couple of upsets in the conference schedule that did not happen. Going forward I am sure he learned his lesson and will use the RPI to his advantage and schedule non conference better. You can get away with scheduling a couple of warm up games against bad low majors, but not SEVEN of them.

We can still easily schedule some cupcakes against bad teams, we just have to make sure they are not in the 300+ range. Like the MWC. The RPI is obviously flawed when weighting the low teams. Anything below a 225 shouldn't make much a difference, as they all suck just about as bad as one another.
Its is too bad for those lower teams looking for revenue and/or a chance to play better teams. They will be squeezed.

 

[hawkfan340]

Plus every rating system has inherent biases. I've said the before but Kenpom has Pitt and wisky in the top 10. Anybody want to legitimately argue they deserved a 2 or 3 seed?

There may be flaws in other rating systems, but when 75% of the weight of the system has absolutely nothing to do with how well you perform, your system is absurdly screwed.

Think about that, you're ranking teams, and 75% of the input to your model has nothing to do with their performance. It honestly boggles the mind.

 

[HomerChampless]

Well, I guess I gotta 'splain....

I first posted:

Do you think the NCAA screwed Oregon with Oregon's seeding in the basketball tournament partially caused by a starting point guard out many games?

Do we want the RPI to reflect the entire season or the last, say, 10 games?

How does one explain Florida Gulf Coast? Or Butler of previous years?

You replied, Dodger...

QUOTE=DodgerHawki;1106430]You ask several different questions, which aren't all related.

Was Oregon underseeded? Probably. That does happen.

Not sure what the last 10 games has to do with it. (Homer's edit:Before the tourney. Before the tourney.. The NCAA tourney champion will be the team that's the hottest at the beginning of, and throughout the NCAA tourney. For example, Kansas from previous seasons is an example of a team that's great during the regular season, but flops during the NCAA tourney). According to the last 10 games theory, Gonzaga should still be playing since they hadn't lost in forever before losing to Wichita State.
Homers's edit: (No, Gonzaga lost to Wichita State in the tourney...)...

Hopefully the RPI will lessen in importance, but I wouldn't be on that. It is a way for the mid-majors to rank more highly than they should and gives the Selection Committee the cover to include teams like Middle Tennessee and Boise State as at-large teams.[/QUOTE]

Homer's retort to Dodger's musings: What do all my questions have in common, Dodger? Well, RPI ratings, of course.

 

[blubberhawk]

Clearly, the MWC gamed the RPI system very effectively.

Now, I think they had some good teams,and New Mexico was one of them that deserved to make the tourny,along with San Diego St. and Col. St. Boise and UNLV should have been relegated to to the NIT.

I think you could make a case for Virginia to get one of those slots...and maybe Iowa?...or Southern Miss.

The MWC is the poster child for why the RPI needs to just go away. Best conference? The only win the conference posted in the tourney was by San Diego State and that was over another team who shouldn't even have been in the tourney. I watched every one of those teams play. New Mexico was the best team in the league and would not have been in the upper division of the BIG or even the Big 12.

RPI = RIP

 

[BryceC]

There may be flaws in other rating systems, but when 75% of the weight of the system has absolutely nothing to do with how well you perform, your system is absurdly screwed.

Think about that, you're ranking teams, and 75% of the input to your model has nothing to do with their performance. It honestly boggles the mind.

I'd like to see more of a middle ground. Performing well and losing a lot of close games to good teams does partially prove the quality of a team. However, actual wins and losses (literally the only thing rpi measures) do matter as well. It's one of the reasons Kenpom really overvalues teams like wisky and Pitt, they play grind ball and rarely lose by anything more than a few points.

 

[Wassabbe]

It's going to be 10 years from now and Stormin is still going to be whining about this

 

[JHHawk]

So there were like 36 mid-major teams that made the tourny,and 3 survived.
Meanwhile there were 32 major conference teams that made the tourny and 15 survived.

And in the NIT, it looks like Va,Iowa,Md,Bama,Baylor,ASU have survived with BYU and Southern Miss still alive.

AS Bilas said on seleciton sunday....these BCS league teams are going to get sick of having the mid-majors get the nod on the bubble in every case,like they did this year. All the surviving NIT BCS teams belong in the NCAA tourny.

 

[ssckelley]

So there were like 36 mid-major teams that made the tourny,and 3 survived.
Meanwhile there were 32 major conference teams that made the tourny and 15 survived.

And in the NIT, it looks like Va,Iowa,Md,Bama,Baylor,ASU have survived with BYU and Southern Miss still alive.

AS Bilas said on seleciton sunday....these BCS league teams are going to get sick of having the mid-majors get the nod on the bubble in every case,like they did this year. All the surviving NIT BCS teams belong in the NCAA tourny.

Majority of the time a major college wins the NIT as well, since 2000 only 3 mid majors have won the NIT Dayton (2010), Wichita State (2011), and Tulsa (2001). This is even when over half of the NIT invites go to mid/low majors (this year 19 of the 36). So you might have a good point.

But what sells in the NCAA is the Butler tournament runs, George Mason, and Gonzaga's. When you think about people all across the country tuning in for the tournament are they more inclined to watch Marquette vs Miami or to see if Florida Gulf Coast can knock off Florida?

 

[Rlesterfan]

It's going to be 10 years from now and Stormin is still going to be whining about this

and I am glad he is, the over reliance of the RPI by the NCAA is the worst part of college basketball for me.

 

[hawkfan33]

Majority of the time a major college wins the NIT as well, since 2000 only 3 mid majors have won the NIT Dayton (2010), Wichita State (2011), and Tulsa (2001). This is even when over half of the NIT invites go to mid/low majors (this year 19 of the 36). So you might have a good point.

But what sells in the NCAA is the Butler tournament runs, George Mason, and Gonzaga's. When you think about people all across the country tuning in for the tournament are they more inclined to watch Marquette vs Miami or to see if Florida Gulf Coast can knock off Florida?

Well if the NCAA just cares about the drama they should just set aside a certain number of slots for midmajors and a certain number for major conferences. Make it so there are no major conference matchups in the first round. At least be transparent about it instead of holding major conference teams to much tougher standards than mid majors.

 

[RocknRollface]

Well if the NCAA just cares about the drama they should just set aside a certain number of slots for midmajors and a certain number for major conferences. Make it so there are no major conference matchups in the first round. At least be transparent about it instead of holding major conference teams to much tougher standards than mid majors.

They can't just come out and admit it.

 

[ssckelley]

Well if the NCAA just cares about the drama they should just set aside a certain number of slots for midmajors and a certain number for major conferences. Make it so there are no major conference matchups in the first round. At least be transparent about it instead of holding major conference teams to much tougher standards than mid majors.

I do not think the committee votes thinking they have to get more drama in the tournament, I think they are just trying to get the best 37 at large regardless of what conference they come from. The mid majors have proved they belong from VCU, to Butler, to the Florida Gulf Coasts they have had success in this tournament. A big reason for this is because they get decent basketball players that end up playing 4 years while the top teams are grabbing the top talent every year and they only stay 1 season. The college game has become diluted, it used to be rare a player left early for the NBA now teams wonder what is wrong with a player if he stays all 4 years.

 

[BryceC]

So there were like 36 mid-major teams that made the tourny,and 3 survived.
Meanwhile there were 32 major conference teams that made the tourny and 15 survived.

And in the NIT, it looks like Va,Iowa,Md,Bama,Baylor,ASU have survived with BYU and Southern Miss still alive.

AS Bilas said on seleciton sunday....these BCS league teams are going to get sick of having the mid-majors get the nod on the bubble in every case,like they did this year. All the surviving NIT BCS teams belong in the NCAA tourny.

How many of those mid majors had 10+ seeds? You can't just look at the number of bids.

 

[Eda]

Sorry, I missed this. These are the games Iowa played that killed their RPI and ultimately kept them out of the NCAA tournament:

South Carolina State - (6-24)
Texas A&M CC - (6-23)
Howard - (7-24)
Coppin State - (8-24)
South Dakota - (10-20)
Central Michigan - (11-20)
@ Virginia Tech - (13-19)

Combined W/L - (61-154)
Combined W % - 28%

Your opponents win percentage counts as half of your RPI score and that 28% win percentage of those 7 teams killed Iowa's RPI. Iowa does not really have to play a much tougher schedule all they got to do is avoid the really bad teams of the low majors. Of those teams Iowa played 3 teams from the MEAC if instead of playing Howard, Coppin State, and S Carolina St they play Savannah State (19-15), Delaware St (15-18), and North Carolina A&T (19-17) the opponent win percentage would have jumped 13% between those 7 teams (41%). Iowa would have won the same amount of games, probably would have ended up with an RPI in the 50s, and in the NCAA tournament.

People can gripe about the RPI all they want but at least with the RPI you know exactly what you are dealing with and how to schedule around it. Iowa needs to start using it to their advantage.

Great post. Thx!