Why RPI?

hawkfan33 said:
If it's not broke, why fix it? The bubble teams really have almost no impact on the tournament's success. It's not like any legit title contenders are getting left out because of their RPI.
Click to expand...

I just can't get into that mindset.

The NCAA Tournament itself is not broke. For my money, it's the single best sporting event there is. But extending invites pretty much solely on RPI, in my opinion, IS a broken process. It doesn't impact the best teams in the country who will most likely be the ones to win it, because they are in no matter what, anyway.

But do you want someone on a fringe NCAA team (like Eric May, for instance) to be told "Iowa doesn't matter - they didn't have a chance to win it anyway, so there's no reason for us to look at improving the selection process. We're sorry that you never had a chance to play in the NCAA Tournament, by the way."

That said, teams like VCU, Butler and George Mason have all made the Final Four, so bubble teams aren't necessarily easy outs.
 
patmyne said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what gets me. Or the team that loses in triple OT to a good team doesn't get any more credit than someone who loses to that same team by 50. In the RPI's eyes, a loss is a loss. Period.

If that's the way it works, Fran may as well go ahead and schedule murderer's row, because it apparently doesn't matter if you won or lost those games. Just as long as you participated in those games, you're golden. That's the message that seems to be getting sent.
 
1977Hawkeye said:
I just can't get into that mindset.

The NCAA Tournament itself is not broke. For my money, it's the single best sporting event there is. But extending invites pretty much solely on RPI, in my opinion, IS a broken process. It doesn't impact the best teams in the country who will most likely be the ones to win it, because they are in no matter what, anyway.

But do you want someone on a fringe NCAA team (like Eric May, for instance) to be told "Iowa doesn't matter - they didn't have a chance to win it anyway, so there's no reason for us to look at improving the selection process. We're sorry that you never had a chance to play in the NCAA Tournament, by the way."

That said, teams like VCU, Butler and George Mason have all made the Final Four, so bubble teams aren't necessarily easy outs.
Click to expand...

That's not the selection committee's fault, there's a reason each of these teams are on the bubble, they all have flawed resumes. It's hard to get too worked up over who is really in the 64th-68th spot in the field, unless your team is left out, of course.
 
1977Hawkeye said:
Yeah, that's what gets me. Or the team that loses in triple OT to a good team doesn't get any more credit than someone who loses to that same team by 50. In the RPI's eyes, a loss is a loss. Period.

If that's the way it works, Fran may as well go ahead and schedule murderer's row, because it apparently doesn't matter if you won or lost those games. Just as long as you participated in those games, you're golden. That's the message that seems to be getting sent.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Play 3 games against the likes of duke, gonzaga and Kansas. Hope you win one, but if you don't oh well. The rest of your ooc can be patsies. Win 8-10 league games and you are golden.
 
hawkfan33 said:
That's not the selection committee's fault, there's a reason each of these teams are on the bubble, they all have flawed resumes. It's hard to get too worked up over who is really in the 64th-68th spot in the field, unless your team is left out, of course.
Click to expand...

When this is your résumé, yes, I'll get worked up every time.


Date Opponent (Expected RPI) Conf Loc Score Outcome Prob(W) Spread
11-9 Alabama St. (328.0) SWAC H 97-53 W 100% 0.0
11-13 Savannah St. (166.0) MEAC A 55-58 W 100% 0.0
11-18 Florida (6.0) SEC N 66-45 L 0% 0.0
11-20 Central Florida (103.0) CUSA A 61-75 W 100% 0.0
11-24 Texas Southern (184.0) SWAC H 79-52 W 100% 0.0
11-29 Louisiana Lafayette (222.0) SB A 58-72 W 100% 0.0
12-2 Akron (43.0) MAC A 82-77 L 0% 0.0
12-5 UAB (144.0) CUSA H 84-64 W 100% 0.0
12-8 Mississippi (50.0) SEC H 65-62 W 100% 0.0
12-13 Belmont (21.0) OVC A 64-49 L 0% 0.0
12-18 Tennessee St. (105.0) OVC H 77-48 W 100% 0.0
12-21 Vanderbilt (120.0) SEC N 56-52 W 100% 0.0
12-29 Florida International (111.0) SB H 69-52 W 100% 0.0
12-31 North Texas (248.0) SB H 75-57 W 100% 0.0
1-3 Arkansas St. (163.0) SB A 66-60 L 0% 0.0
1-5 South Alabama (154.0) SB A 56-60 W 100% 0.0
1-10 Florida Atlantic (218.0) SB H 62-52 W 100% 0.0
1-12 Louisiana Monroe (305.0) SB A 57-66 W 100% 0.0
1-17 Arkansas Little Rock (177.0) SB H 82-50 W 100% 0.0
1-19 Louisiana Lafayette (222.0) SB H 82-60 W 100% 0.0
1-24 North Texas (248.0) SB A 64-72 W 100% 0.0
1-26 Western Kentucky (150.0) SB H 72-53 W 100% 0.0
1-31 Florida International (111.0) SB A 64-66 W 100% 0.0
2-2 Florida Atlantic (218.0) SB A 56-73 W 100% 0.0
2-7 Arkansas St. (163.0) SB H 73-60 W 100% 0.0
2-9 Troy (279.0) SB H 93-41 W 100% 0.0
2-16 Arkansas Little Rock (177.0) SB A 61-66 W 100% 0.0
2-21 South Alabama (154.0) SB H 85-50 W 100% 0.0
2-23 Louisiana Monroe (305.0) SB H 87-46 W 100% 0.0
2-28 Troy (279.0) SB A 56-66 W 100% 0.0
3-2 Western Kentucky (150.0) SB A 62-70 W 100% 0.0
3-9 Louisiana Lafayette (222.0) SB N 81-66 W 100% 0.0
3-10 Florida International (111.0) SB N 57-61 L 0% 0.0
 
patmyne said:
When this is your résumé, yes, I'll get worked up every time.


Date Opponent (Expected RPI) Conf Loc Score Outcome Prob(W) Spread
11-9 Alabama St. (328.0) SWAC H 97-53 W 100% 0.0
11-13 Savannah St. (166.0) MEAC A 55-58 W 100% 0.0
11-18 Florida (6.0) SEC N 66-45 L 0% 0.0
11-20 Central Florida (103.0) CUSA A 61-75 W 100% 0.0
11-24 Texas Southern (184.0) SWAC H 79-52 W 100% 0.0
11-29 Louisiana Lafayette (222.0) SB A 58-72 W 100% 0.0
12-2 Akron (43.0) MAC A 82-77 L 0% 0.0
12-5 UAB (144.0) CUSA H 84-64 W 100% 0.0
12-8 Mississippi (50.0) SEC H 65-62 W 100% 0.0
12-13 Belmont (21.0) OVC A 64-49 L 0% 0.0
12-18 Tennessee St. (105.0) OVC H 77-48 W 100% 0.0
12-21 Vanderbilt (120.0) SEC N 56-52 W 100% 0.0
12-29 Florida International (111.0) SB H 69-52 W 100% 0.0
12-31 North Texas (248.0) SB H 75-57 W 100% 0.0
1-3 Arkansas St. (163.0) SB A 66-60 L 0% 0.0
1-5 South Alabama (154.0) SB A 56-60 W 100% 0.0
1-10 Florida Atlantic (218.0) SB H 62-52 W 100% 0.0
1-12 Louisiana Monroe (305.0) SB A 57-66 W 100% 0.0
1-17 Arkansas Little Rock (177.0) SB H 82-50 W 100% 0.0
1-19 Louisiana Lafayette (222.0) SB H 82-60 W 100% 0.0
1-24 North Texas (248.0) SB A 64-72 W 100% 0.0
1-26 Western Kentucky (150.0) SB H 72-53 W 100% 0.0
1-31 Florida International (111.0) SB A 64-66 W 100% 0.0
2-2 Florida Atlantic (218.0) SB A 56-73 W 100% 0.0
2-7 Arkansas St. (163.0) SB H 73-60 W 100% 0.0
2-9 Troy (279.0) SB H 93-41 W 100% 0.0
2-16 Arkansas Little Rock (177.0) SB A 61-66 W 100% 0.0
2-21 South Alabama (154.0) SB H 85-50 W 100% 0.0
2-23 Louisiana Monroe (305.0) SB H 87-46 W 100% 0.0
2-28 Troy (279.0) SB A 56-66 W 100% 0.0
3-2 Western Kentucky (150.0) SB A 62-70 W 100% 0.0
3-9 Louisiana Lafayette (222.0) SB N 81-66 W 100% 0.0
3-10 Florida International (111.0) SB N 57-61 L 0% 0.0
Click to expand...

Like I said, you wouldn't be upset if Iowa was in too. There's a few fanbases each year that are going to be upset no matter what ranking system is used.
 
hawkfan33 said:
Like I said, you wouldn't be upset if Iowa was in too. There's a few fanbases each year that are going to be upset no matter what ranking system is used.
Click to expand...

It's not just iowa that I'm upset with not being in. It's teams from power conferences that play more than half their schedule against teams equal or better than this teams best win and only win close to it that get punished. Against the only teams with a pulse this team lost. It's the flaw in a system that allows teams to lose to really good teams, beat absolutely no one and carry an rpi of 28 that's ridiculous. This team lost to a team 17-13 in their conference tourney. A game they should have had to win like many other teams that ran their conference slate. Somehow though since Florida and Mississippi kept winning their rpi keeps going up, while Iowa losses 10 spots because 4 top 15 teams they played are playing each other. Makes sense right?
 
It was evident, watching this team, that they were playing very good ball, better than Minny and Illanoy for sure. However, close losses to good teams just doesn't cut it! Win ONE more game over the likes of Mich, Minn, Ind, Mich St, or Wisc and there is no debate - the Hawks are in. I am confident that had MSU not been able to get away with assault & battery at the end of the B1G tourney game, the Hawks would have held on to win that game and, regardless of the next game's results, would have made it to the Big Dance. The non-con was the determining factor because the Hawks lacked another big conference WIN. As Dukey Vitale always says, "Just Win Baby." In the Hawks case, it was "Just win ONE MORE."
 
patmyne said:
It's not just iowa that I'm upset with not being in. It's teams from power conferences that play more than half their schedule against teams equal or better than this teams best win and only win close to it that get punished. Against the only teams with a pulse this team lost. It's the flaw in a system that allows teams to lose to really good teams, beat absolutely no one and carry an rpi of 28 that's ridiculous. This team lost to a team 17-13 in their conference tourney. A game they should have had to win like many other teams that ran their conference slate. Somehow though since Florida and Mississippi kept winning their rpi keeps going up, while Iowa losses 10 spots because 4 top 15 teams they played are playing each other. Makes sense right?
Click to expand...

And we have a winner. Iowa is in the same boat as Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and the bubble teams from power conferences. MTSU has one win over a Top 50 RPI team (Ole Miss, who has an RPI of 50). Played a total of 3 other games against Top 100 teams and got beat by 21 by Florida, 5 by Akron and 15 by Belmont. What about this resume says this team is deserving of an at-large bid? MTSU had 12 wins against teams 200+ in the RPI. Iowa had 7 games against that level of competition. Yet it's Iowa that has the weak schedule.
 
hawkfan33 said:
That's not the selection committee's fault, there's a reason each of these teams are on the bubble, they all have flawed resumes. It's hard to get too worked up over who is really in the 64th-68th spot in the field, unless your team is left out, of course.
Click to expand...

It's not just bubble teams who are affected. Look at the seedings of who did get in. The RPI affected it as well.
 
Wassabbe said:
Quit crying. It's been used for years and nobody complains until it hurts us.
Click to expand...

He's not crying and it's a really good question. There's no doubt that the system is being gamed through scheduling in a way that didn't happen when the committee started using the RPI. So they just need to change tools to more effectively measure teams in the current environment.

And if a team that gets hosed (Maryland, Virginia, Iowa) doesn't complain who will? And why not complain? That's how things change... some times anyway.
 
patmyne said:
Exactly. Play 3 games against the likes of duke, gonzaga and Kansas. Hope you win one, but if you don't oh well. The rest of your ooc can be patsies. Win 8-10 league games and you are golden.
Click to expand...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it matters if you play a few really good teams then play a bunch of patsies. It's the patsies that kill your RPI. It's not about playing good teams, its about playing teams that finish with good records.

For instance, if you have to chose between playing a team like Purdue and the team that goes undefeated in the worst conference, the better team is Purdue. If you schedule the better team in this situation you will hurt your RPI because the other team will end up with a better RPI because they won all their games.

If what I said is true, which I think it is, its not about scheduling good teams as much as it is about scheduling teams with good RPI's.
 
PCHawk said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it matters if you play a few really good teams then play a bunch of patsies. It's the patsies that kill your RPI. It's not about playing good teams, its about playing teams that finish with good records.

For instance, if you have to chose between playing a team like Purdue and the team that goes undefeated in the worst conference, the better team is Purdue. If you schedule the better team in this situation you will hurt your RPI because the other team will end up with a better RPI because they won all their games.

If what I said is true, which I think it is, its not about scheduling good teams as much as it is about scheduling teams with good RPI's.
Click to expand...

Middle Tenn ST played 4, let me repeat, 4 games against teams in the top 100. From December 13th on the highest rated RPI they played was, wait for it.......105. Thats worse than Nebraska's. They finished with an RPI of 28. Meanwhile Iowa played 11 games against the top 40 RPI in that same time frame yet they finished 79th because they only won 3 of them. Middle Tenn ST's best win was on Dec 8th at home against Ole Miss. Their next best win the entire season was Central FL who came in at 103.

I'll state it this way. Iowa could have played Florida and lost by 20. Played a few other decent teams and lost to them as well. Beat Ole Miss at home. Then played Nebraska, Penn St and Northwestern every Big ten game and finished with an RPI of 28.
 
Just clarifying something.

Your opponent's RPI is irrelevant for the calculation. Only your opponent's W-L record matters.

(Well, plus your own venue-weighted W-L record and your opponent's opponent's record.)
 
I don't get how they want you to schedule better. All we have to do is schedule DII teams and it doesn't effect our RPI
 
hawkfan340 said:
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.
Click to expand...

In addition to these points, I think the biggest reason the NCAA uses RPI is that it ignores margin of victory. The NCAA seems to think that utilizing margin of victory to determine tournament seeding or BCS standing will incentive running up the score. Whether true or not, it makes it so that all official NCAA metrics ignore margin of victory even though, at least in basketball, it is one of the very best indicators of future performance at nearly every level.

Side note: IMHO, the best way the NCAA could improve the RPI without including margin of victory would be to weight games according to when they take place in the season. If the tournament is in March, the games that affect the RPI the most should be the games in March, then the games in February, then January, then December, then November. A game from November 11 shouldn't have as much impact as a game played on March 11 on a team's seeding in the NCAA Tournament.
 
thejumper5 said:
In addition to these points, I think the biggest reason the NCAA uses RPI is that it ignores margin of victory. The NCAA seems to think that utilizing margin of victory to determine tournament seeding or BCS standing will incentive running up the score. Whether true or not, it makes it so that all official NCAA metrics ignore margin of victory even though, at least in basketball, it is one of the very best indicators of future performance at nearly every level.

Side note: IMHO, the best way the NCAA could improve the RPI without including margin of victory would be to weight games according to when they take place in the season. If the tournament is in March, the games that affect the RPI the most should be the games in March, then the games in February, then January, then December, then November. A game from November 11 shouldn't have as much impact as a game played on March 11 on a team's seeding in the NCAA Tournament.
Click to expand...

The Mountain West is the "top conference" as far as the RPI is concerned, enough said
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top