RPI Review & Update

[Cambridge]

So I broke down the numbers again, and I think our resume is solid. With an RPI of 35 and a SOS of 56 (which will get big bumps from UConn and ND games), I think we have everything we need to get in:


Our Results vs RPI Opponents (total games against) & key games:
1-10: 0-2 (2) -- L vs Illinois & L @bc
11-20: 1-1 (3) -- W @nova & L @cuse (OT)
21-50: 1-1 (4) -- L vs UConn & W vs ND
51-100: 3-1 (5) -- L vs Temple, W @davidson, W @pitt, W vs WV
101-200: 5-1 (7) -- L vs Oral Roberts (neutral), W vs Clemson (neutral), 3 road BE wins (RU, SJ, SHU)
201-300: 5-0 (5)
300+: 1-0 (1) -- W vs Howard (only 300+ team on sched)

Overall: 16-6 (8-3) (27)
RPI: 35
SOS: 56
Pomeroy: 52
Sagarin: 44 (ELO CHESS 20/PURE POINTS 71)

[Jack]

www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2005/nitty Warren Nolan's calculations place GU at 38.

Can anyone explain the elevation of mid-majors under the new RPI? The following teams are currently ranked ahead of GU- S. Illinois, Vermont, Miami-Ohio, Pacific, Old Dominion, Wichita St, St. Mary's with Kent St, Holy Cross, and Boston U all close behind. None of those teams has more than 1 Top 50 win, and several of their big wins are against each other.

It becomes dangerous if any of those teams maintain a Top 30 RPI then lose in their conference tourney. I believe Georgetown is safe if they do what they are supposed to do, but I also believe that Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, even GW are better tournament teams than Vermont, Taylor Coppenrath or no. I recognize that the RPI is only a "crude tool," but I also believe that no Top 30 RPI team has ever been left out.

[SirSaxa]

I can't explaing the new RPI.
Heck, I can't even explain the OLD RPI (but I get the general idea.)

However, I have a different take on these mid-major teams with great records. Do they deserve to get in over the 7th team from the Big East and the 6th team from the ACC? Yes. I think so.

Why? Because this is COLLEGE sports.
If a small time team has a 24-3 record or something, why not give them a shot at the tourney. Who knows, maybe they will surprise someone and advance a round or two. That kind of thing is exciting for the tournament and a just reward for a smaller team that worked hard and had a perhaps once-in-a-lifetime experience.

Contrast that with a (for example) NC STate. Hey, if they has all season to make a mark in their own conference, and ended up with a :500 record, or slightly better in conference, I think they have proven they don't deserve a TOURNEY bid. They had their chance. Had a mediocre season. That's enough.

Same with the BE or any other major.

Taking 4 teams from a conference is a lot.
I am not saying we need a cap on teams per conference.
But I am suggesting that a big time team that couldn't get it done when it had all season to do so, does not deserve a tourney bid.
Why not give a few of those bids to the smaller teams?

[SaxaCD]

That's why i think you should need to go at least .500 in conference to get to the tourney. Possibly even over .500. Make the conference schedule count for something again.

[YB]

Agreed...

I wouldn't take ND as of right now for the tourney- they played a very soft non-con schedule and have an RPI over 50.

I think teams should be rewarded for playing tough schedules, but give the good record teams a shot too.

I always pick the 23-2 #14 seeds in the tourney for my upsets.

[SFHoya99]

Simply put, the new RPI gives a huge bonus to Road Wins and discounts road losses relative to Home Wins and and Home Losses.

The net result is that the more road games a team plays, the better the RPI, everything else equal. Mid-majors tend to play an even or even road-heavy non-conference schedule, while the majoe conference teams often onyl have one or two actual road games.

[Jack]

The weighting just has to be off on the RPI. That much must be tweaked in the future. It is good to encourage the majors to play off campus a little more, but there is no way S. Illinois going 5-6 on the road (2-0 neutral) should help them more than GU being 4-2 on the road (2-1) neutral. I simply don't buy the Dicky V argument that the little guys should "get a chance"- they do get a chance, it is called winning their conference. No one forces the small conferences to have a tournament for their automatic bid. And if you put UVM in the Big East they would be in last place and everyone knows it.

[Eurostar]

i have no problem with a mid major making the tournament if they dont win their conference, but they need to have some sort of resume. if say pacific doesnt get an automatic bid, i dont want them making it over a 7th team from the big east (ex georgetown at 10-6 or even ND at 9-7). they played at kansas and lost, but that is literally the only legitimate team they have played all year. if they want in the tournament they have to follow gonzaga and schedule some quality OOC games.

[FOTP]

I actually think this is going to be a very fascinating year in terms of the selection and seeding. The "new" RPI, although with good intentions, can be ridiculous in some areas. WAY too much credit is given to winning crappy road games in conference and WAY too much of a negative impact is given to losing at home to potentially strong teams.

I know what they were trying to do with the new rankings, but things have gotten completely off course once you get out of the Top 10 teams.

My personal feeling is getting "good" wins on the road are huge and these RPI-inflated schools (I'm looking at you Vermont, Southern Ill, Pacific etc.) will take a haircut come selection Sunday.

[Cambridge]

Exactly, Vermont got clipped at BU...but that doesn't seem to even impact the discussion because it was away. That's ridiculous. They are a one man team (Coppenwrath had 31 of UVMs 36 points at one point in the second half.)

[HoyaDestroya]

Can anyone explain this... I know we shouldn't concern ourselves too much with rankings, but how does Minnesota go from not being ranked getting in while losing two games?!

www.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/polls/top25

[Jack]

Looks like last week's to me- note that BC is also no. 3 in that poll, and the commentary under each team appears to be a week old. It is neither the AP nor the Coaches poll. And it does not matter, but you already knew that.

[GIGAFAN99]

I've got a novel idea. How about if the mid-majors send their regular season champ instead of being forced into the contrived excitement of "championship week" on ESPN?

Mid-majors would send their best, and get a reputation for sending better teams. And we'd get to see better games in the tournament. The RPI is now trying to remedy a problem that can be fixed by just eliminating the conference tournaments: the mid-majors sending second-tier teams to the NCAAs. Thanks to the conference tournaments, what has been decided over three months is wiped away in a weekend.

Even if they want "championship week" just have the top two teams square off instead of allowing the #8-seed MEAC team get hot and represent the conference.

[SirSaxa]

GIGAFAN99 said:

I've got a novel idea. How about if the mid-majors send their regular season champ instead of being forced into the contrived excitement of "championship week" on ESPN?

Mid-majors would send their best, and get a reputation for sending better teams. And we'd get to see better games in the tournament. The RPI is now trying to remedy a problem that can be fixed by just eliminating the conference tournaments: the mid-majors sending second-tier teams to the NCAAs. Thanks to the conference tournaments, what has been decided over three months is wiped away in a weekend.

Even if they want "championship week" just have the top two teams square off instead of allowing the #8-seed MEAC team get hot and represent the conference.

I'M sure you know the answer to that one: $$$

The only reason any of the conferences - ACC, BE, whatever -- hold those tournaments at the end of the season is to make some extra $$.
Whatever team wins the ACC regular season championship is going to the NCAA tournament anyway. The ACC tournament is just a way to make money and occasionally send another team to the NCAAs too.

The smaller conferences also want to make extra money. So they have a tournament. In order for the tourney to mean anything, there has to be a reward -- hence, the NCAA slot.

Doesn't make competitive sense. Makes a lot of $$ sense.
We keep thinking this is a sport, but it is really a business.

[hoyadrummer]

GIGAFAN99 said:

I've got a novel idea. How about if the mid-majors send their regular season champ instead of being forced into the contrived excitement of "championship week" on ESPN?

Mid-majors would send their best, and get a reputation for sending better teams. And we'd get to see better games in the tournament. The RPI is now trying to remedy a problem that can be fixed by just eliminating the conference tournaments: the mid-majors sending second-tier teams to the NCAAs. Thanks to the conference tournaments, what has been decided over three months is wiped away in a weekend.

Even if they want "championship week" just have the top two teams square off instead of allowing the #8-seed MEAC team get hot and represent the conference.

I agree. There was actually a good article on ESPN.com about this backed up with statistics based on the Ivy League's performance over the past several years (Ivy is only conference that sends regular season champ as auto bid)

I would make the following modification to your suggestion: Non major conferences could have still have a championship game between the top two teams in the conference, and mid majors could have a mini-tournament among the top four teams. Gives ESPN something to show (not like they show the first round game of the MEAC tournament), keeps a real crappy team from making it, and prevents the last four games of non major conference schedules from becoming meaningless.