Bloated RPIs

[choida]

rpi dont mean **** compared to the overall scheme of things

[TheShockersOfWichitaState]

IIRC, MSU's RPI was 21 (?). They are still the highest RPI team to not make the dance.

I was way off.
That was unbelievable that year.
Barry Hinson deserved it too.
If you look at the RAW rank I posted, almost every top 20 team is ranked high except KU...
They are merely boosted upwards by their schedule.

[TheShockersOfWichitaState]

If you look at Maryland who is ranked 143rd Raw Rank, has 15 loses. and has the number 1 SOS... their BPI comes out at 40.... That shows exactly what we are talking about.

[_kai_]

If you look at Maryland who is ranked 143rd Raw Rank, has 15 loses. and has the number 1 SOS... their BPI comes out at 40.... That shows exactly what we are talking about.

But you're totally ignoring the fact that Mercer, NCCU, SF Austin, La Tech, Green Bay, Georgia State and NDSU are top 25 RAW Rank teams.

You can't cherry pick the teams that make your argument valid, and ignore the teams that counter your argument.

[TheShockersOfWichitaState]

But you're totally ignoring the fact that Mercer, NCCU, SF Austin, La Tech, Green Bay, Georgia State and NDSU are top 25 RAW Rank teams.

You can't cherry pick the teams that make your argument valid, and ignore the teams that counter your argument.

Read closer friend...

"Now I know you cant just go off of these numbers (WSU is number 1)
Just based on how well they play...

But they cant be absolutely meaningless"

[im4wsu]

Comparing Kansas and Wichita, home, road and neutral sites:

	Kansas	WSU
Home Games	15	16
- Record	14-1	16-0
- MOV	16.8	16
- RPI Opp	74.9	158.4
Away Games	11	12
- Record	5-6	12-0
- MOV	1.5	12.4
- RPI Opp	57.8	146.5
Neutral Games	7	5
- Record	5-2	5-0
- MOV	4.7	18.4
- RPI Opp	43.1	108.2

KU certainly has better RPI,butlook at non-home MOV and disparity between RPI between home and other contests.

[TheShockersOfWichitaState]

Comparing Kansas and Wichita, home, road and neutral sites:

	Kansas	WSU
Home Games	15	16
- Record	14-1	16-0
- MOV	16.8	16
- RPI Opp	74.9	158.4
Away Games	11	12
- Record	5-6	12-0
- MOV	1.5	12.4
- RPI Opp	57.8	146.5
Neutral Games	7	5
- Record	5-2	5-0
- MOV	4.7	18.4
- RPI Opp	43.1	108.2

KU certainly has better RPI,butlook at non-home MOV and disparity between RPI between home and other contests.

KU also has 9 loses. We arent comparing two teams with 0 loses here.

[ShockerFever]

Ut oh. There goes the JH4P bat signal again.

I expect his presence will be felt in this thread before Sunday is over.*


* - not that we actually care

[Rlh04d]

Thats actually BPI

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/sort/rawRating

Now I know you cant just go off of these numbers (WSU is number 1)
Just based on how well they play...

But they cant be absolutely meaningless

KU isnt even in the top 30 by the way.

You need to scroll down a lot to see BIG12 teams... Because honestly, they lost A LOT.

Thats kinda what I am getting at.
If you play Syracuse, Duke, Villanova, Kentucky, UNC, Michigan State, Arizona, Ohio State, Cincinnati as your NON Con and lose all of those games, then dominate the BIG 12.... Are we still hearing Ku being mentioned as a potential 3 or 4 seed?
I think we are, because they lost to a bunch of great teams... Not because theyve actually beaten anyone, and to me thats why the statistic is corrupt.
Loses shouldnt reward you.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. SF Austin is #5 in those ratings. So your argument is that SF Austin is better than Kansas?

I get the argument against "good losses." But pretending like schedule strength isn't relevant is stupid. And in a normal year, most of you would be making the exact opposite argument if we had a few losses and a SWAC team with the #296 SOS was going undefeated. Schedule strength DOES matter. And while I don't like Kansas, they scheduled one of the toughest schedules in the history of college basketball this year ... good for them. They could have easily been cowardly like Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Oklahoma State, and so on, and they likely wouldn't have had it held against them.

As for complaining about Kansas, they're 50% against the top 25 RPI, 63% against the top 50, 67% against the top 100, no losses outside of the top 100. They don't deserve a one seed, but the anger against them is misplaced. Look at Michigan that is now being talked about as a 1 seed: 25% against the top 50 RPI, 69% against the top 50, 70% against the top 100, one loss outside of the top 100. I'm not sure Kansas doesn't still have a better profile than Michigan -- it's close.

Things like this are why you look at numbers like KenPom's and not "raw" BPI numbers. Kansas is #9 in KenPom ... I think that's a fair ranking for who they are this year.

[Aargh]

I have to question any system where you can improve your ranking by losing gmes and have your ranking drop by winning games. There's something inherently wrong with that.

[TheShockersOfWichitaState]

I have to question any system where you can improve your ranking by losing gmes and have your ranking drop by winning games. There's something inherently wrong with that.

Amen. :)

[Rlh04d]

I have to question any system where you can improve your ranking by losing gmes and have your ranking drop by winning games. There's something inherently wrong with that.

On the other side, I have to question any system that rewards teams for intentionally scheduling cupcakes and penalizes teams who schedule difficult opponents.

Obviously RPI can be manipulated -- the MVC has done it well itself in the past. And the RPI system probably doesn't penalize for losing enough. But I'm glad there is a system that prioritizes schedule strength and makes it so teams like Syracuse, who intentionally scheduled weaker than they could have, are justifiably punished when they lose a few games. Syracuse SHOULD have a worse RPI than Kansas, despite having only four losses to Kansas' eight.

The problem I have is when the schedule strength argument is manipulated against teams like WSU by holding us to an impossible standard, where we have to get games against teams that refuse to play us on an even footing or we're attacked for it. Teams that want to schedule tougher should be able to, or it shouldn't be held against them if no one will play them.

[pie n eye]

On the other side, I have to question any system that rewards teams for intentionally scheduling cupcakes and penalizes teams who schedule difficult opponents.

Obviously RPI can be manipulated -- the MVC has done it well itself in the past. And the RPI system probably doesn't penalize for losing enough. But I'm glad there is a system that prioritizes schedule strength and makes it so teams like Syracuse, who intentionally scheduled weaker than they could have, are justifiably punished when they lose a few games. Syracuse SHOULD have a worse RPI than Kansas, despite having only four losses to Kansas' eight.

The problem I have is when the schedule strength argument is manipulated against teams like WSU by holding us to an impossible standard, where we have to get games against teams that refuse to play us on an even footing or we're attacked for it. Teams that want to schedule tougher should be able to, or it shouldn't be held against them if no one will play them.

The MVC didn't manipulate RPI in the past. Southern, MSU, CU, WSU, Ill St, UNI have all had good teams over the past decade. When they all had good years at the same time the MVC was a stronger league.

I think the MVC is on the brink of some more "manipulation". Whether or not it will be sustained is the question.

[Rlh04d]

The MVC didn't manipulate RPI in the past. Southern, MSU, CU, WSU, Ill St, UNI have all had good teams over the past decade. When they all had good years at the same time the MVC was a stronger league.

I think the MVC is on the brink of some more "manipulation". Whether or not it will be sustained is the question.

Manipulating might be the wrong word. They played the game better in the past.

MVC teams could have easily had a much better record this year if they had played the game correctly. When you swap 300 RPI teams with 200 RPI teams, most MVC teams are still going to be able to win that game, but yet their RPI gets far more benefit. MVC teams have been stupidly choosing to schedule teams that are consistently around the 300 RPI range for no logical reason lately.

[ciaomichael]

You would be getting penalized three times in that situation, since you already get dinged on your own winning percentage because of the loss. Wouldn't you technically have to get rid of the "Opponents opponent's winning percentage" if you got rid of the Opponents winning percentage of a team you lost to?

No, you wouldn't be penalized 3 times or any times for losing - but you wouldn't get any credit either:

If you win, you pick up: (2/3) x Opponents Win %
Plus (1/3) x Opponents opponents Win%

If you lose, you pick up: Zero

So, you have to win a game to get any positive credit whatsoever.

However, you get much more credit by beating a team with a good winning percentage, and even more credit by beating a team whose opponents have a good winning percentage. There's still plenty of weight in there for strength of schedule, but you must win to realize it.