Why RPI?
- Thread starter UncleHawk
- Start date
HawkeyeTech
Well-Known Member
The RPI is a self-fulfilling prophesy. The Mountain West conference teams all played a good non-conference schedule. Therefore they all had higher RPI's whether they won those games or not. Then, when they played each other in conference, they were playing higher RPI teams and thus maintained their higher RPI standing. Like Jay Bilas said, it's not who you beat, it's who you lost to.
But I still haven't figured out how Middle Tennessee got in.
But I still haven't figured out how Middle Tennessee got in.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
The RPI is still jacked, whether it hurts Iowa or not.
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
Honestly, I think there are several reasons...
1. Precedence is hard to overcome unless the party involved is motivated to change (which the NCAA is not). RPI has been around longer than the other modelers, so it has the benefit of the doubt.
2. RPI crudely attempts to force teams to schedule better OOC teams. This may drive better games for the NCAA to promote the sport. Problem is there are actually ways to manipulate this aspect of the RPI, but I believe the scheduling part is a goal.
3. RPI is very transparent. A 1st grader can understand the formula. That allows the NCAA to defend its picks in a way joe-prole can get, even if the picks are stupid.
4. RPI favors decent mid-majors that can drive the "madness" part of March. This means eyeballs and $$$.
Just shooting from the hip. Probably many others.
I
ILHawk
Guest
So why didn't Fran figure it out?
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Fran said it himself, that he scheduled an easy non-con for the benefit of the young players. Whether you buy it or not is up to you, but that's the story. Word is that the schedule will be better next year.
patmyne
Well-Known Member
I would have to say its kind of a crapshoot to guess what teams are gonna suck the least. Yes you can generally gauge a team by what they return and clearly if they will be around the top 100. Guessing whether a team will finish from 250-350 prolly not so much. More 250 and less 300 and we may have had a different story...
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
Interesting thing is, even if we moved to the more complex ratings, as soon as you start rewarding teams for doing well by those new standards, you incentivize teams to manipulate the new system. I would bet Saragin and KenPom would be tougher to game, but the motivation will still be there. This problem will always occur, but hopefully it can be minimized.
Herkyalert
Banned
It stinks but it is what it is. You can beat the RPI if you schedule right and beat the teams you are supposed to.
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
Outside the ACC/B1G challenge and the intrastate games, the non-conference teams we played had an RPI last year of 15 (WSU), 189 (WKU), 279, 280, 285, 291, 293, 315, and 343. I think he had an idea that these teams were going to suck royally.
patmyne
Well-Known Member
Yes, I know. I'm just curious what our rpi woulda been if say they would have matched those numbers or slightly improved. Minus South Carolina st or whoever that was almost the worst team the others coulda probably have ranged anywhere from 200-347 with a couple more wins. Those teams all suck is what I'm saying...
Here's a decent read too...
The Cautionary Tale of Iowa: Why Northwestern's New Coach Needs To Schedule Smart - Sippin' On Purple
HawkeyeMHA
Well-Known Member
If we would have scheduled tough this year with three frosh, just would of had more losses. I don't have a problem with what farking frannie did schedule wise. We were young, inexperienced, and needed some wins to rebuild this program.
patmyne
Well-Known Member
While true and I understand why Fran did what he did. The point remains a 50 point loss to a top 50 rpi team on the road is better than a 50 point win at home against a scrub. Iowa could have afforded a few more losses this year if it was New Mexico and duke they lost to.
