Bloated RPIs

[TheShockersOfWichitaState]

The BIG 12 ladies and gentlemen.
Who can't KU lose to? And they win this thing every year.
Should team's be rewarded for losing?
Thats the jist of what Big 12 Basketball is... Teams with bloated schedules, and bloated RPIs who play a tough SOS, then all play each other twice...
If you look at RAW ratings, its borderline embarrassing that this league gets the attention that it does.

Thoughts?

[Flip1381]

The BIG 12 ladies and gentlemen.
Who can't KU lose to? And they win this thing every year.
Should team's be rewarded for losing?
Thats the jist of what Big 12 Basketball is... Teams with bloated schedules, and bloated RPIs who play a tough SOS, then all play each other twice...
If you look at RAW ratings, its borderline embarrassing that this league gets the attention that it does.

Thoughts?

What are the stats of the Raw ratings that make it embarrassing? Can you post the numbers?

[ciaomichael]

That's why I've thought the RPI should be multiplicative, not additive. In other words, you only get credit for an opponent's winning percentage if you actually beat them. For the so-called "power conferences" they usually have a overwhelming percentage of non-conference games played at home. Since the RPI only adjusts for home and away games for direct winning percentage (just 25% of the total RPI score), any team that just plays in a power conference - even if they are themselves poor or mediocre - has a huge leg up entering conference play just by virtue of being a member of that conference. When I say multiplicative, I mean if and when you actually win a game, by all means, you should pick up the benefit of your vanquished opponent's winning percentage. But if you lose, you should get exactly zero benefit.

[Flip1381]

That's why I've thought the RPI should be multiplicative, not additive. In other words, you only get credit for an opponent's winning percentage if you actually beat them. For the so-called "power conferences" they usually have a overwhelming percentage of non-conference games played at home. Since the RPI only adjusts for home and away games for direct winning percentage (just 25% of the total RPI score), any team that just plays in a power conference - even if they are themselves poor or mediocre - has a huge leg up entering conference play just by virtue of being a member of that conference. When I say multiplicative, I mean if and when you actually win a game, by all means, you should pick up the benefit of your vanquished opponent's winning percentage. But if you lose, you should get exactly zero benefit.

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?

[RoyalShock]

Several years ago the committee started "penalizing" power-conference teams for not playing non-conf games on the road. I think that was an attempt to try and offset the RPI bloat they get from playing in a highly rated conference.

[moshock]

I've been amazed at the fact that the 3rd place B12 team (Texas) also finished 3rd in the CBI. It has gone un-noticed

[Flip1381]

I've been amazed at the fact that the 3rd place B12 team (Texas) also finished 3rd in the CBI. It has gone un-noticed

Amazed? As in "wow they sure sucked, just shows you how bad the big 12 is"?

[moshock]

Amazed? As in "wow they sure sucked, just shows you how bad the big 12 is?"

I don't necessarily think that Texas sucked - I think BYU proved that they are better than them and we proved that we are better than both of them

[Flip1381]

I don't necessarily think that Texas sucked - I think BYU proved that they are better than them and we proved that we are better than both of them

I wish Texas would have won against BYU, so WSU could have played Texas. It would have been a good RPI boost (hindsight it didn't matter), but would have added another quality win to the resume. BYU is decent but the Texas win would have looked better, I think.

[Kung Wu]

Ut oh. There goes the JH4P bat signal again.

[TheShockersOfWichitaState]

What are the stats of the Raw ratings that make it embarrassing? Can you post the numbers?

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.

[TheShockersOfWichitaState]

That's why I've thought the RPI should be multiplicative, not additive. In other words, you only get credit for an opponent's winning percentage if you actually beat them. For the so-called "power conferences" they usually have a overwhelming percentage of non-conference games played at home. Since the RPI only adjusts for home and away games for direct winning percentage (just 25% of the total RPI score), any team that just plays in a power conference - even if they are themselves poor or mediocre - has a huge leg up entering conference play just by virtue of being a member of that conference. When I say multiplicative, I mean if and when you actually win a game, by all means, you should pick up the benefit of your vanquished opponent's winning percentage. But if you lose, you should get exactly zero benefit.

Very well said.

I remember in 2006, the MVC was a top 6 conference nationally. Even where we have a strong disadvantage to BCS conferences...
In March 4 teams got in. The 1,2,3 and 5th team. Bradley was the 5th place team. They beat Kansas.
Missouri State was the 4th place team... They had an rpi of 44 (maybe even better if I remember right)
They didn't get in... We played the last team of I believe 11 from the Big East who got in... Seton Hall and demolished them by 30+....
That Missouri State team would have beat Seton hall 20 out of 20 times....

They simply got into the tournament becuaase they lost to a lot of teams with higher RPIs and strong SOS....

[OregonShocker]

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 agree. I've never understood fully the so-called "good" losses. For instance, if you take a 10 team conference, all are pre-season 1-10 ranked, and #11 plays and beats one of these teams, #11 is still looked down upon because "they didn't play as tough a schedule as #7" even though #7 lost many times. Seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy with some of these highly ranked conferences/teams.

[moshock]

Very well said.

I remember in 2006, the MVC was a top 6 conference nationally. Even where we have a strong disadvantage to BCS conferences...
In March 4 teams got in. The 1,2,3 and 5th team. Bradley was the 5th place team. They beat Kansas.
Missouri State was the 4th place team... They had an rpi of 44 (maybe even better if I remember right)
They didn't get in... We played the last team of I believe 11 from the Big East who got in... Seton Hall and demolished them by 30+....
That Missouri State team would have beat Seton hall 20 out of 20 times....

They simply got into the tournament becuaase they lost to a lot of teams with higher RPIs and strong SOS....

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

[Flip1381]

I don't think there is a perfect metric for measuring college basketball teams, which is why there are so many variances even among the experts. I think you have to take all of them into account and also take them with a grain of salt at times. Like using the BPI raw score, we notice that Mercer, Stephen F. Austin, Georgia State, and Vermont are all in the top 30 because they won a lot of their games, but that doesn't make them as good or better than other teams below them that have lost but also doesn't mean they couldn't beat them. I think historically teams like those have not fared well against the larger conference schools, but they get in the conversation because of their record. Not always, but seems to be most the time.