Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

I don't know that it would be the end of the RPI, but it would be part of a composite.

I mean look at this quote :Schaus: “I think always the most critical things in terms of determining where teams are placed is always going to be who you play and who you beat and where you played those games.

That's RPI.

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

milksteak wrote:http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2017-01-12/college-basketball-ncaa-tournament-selection-process-involves

Thanks for the link.

This is indeed a welcome development. RPI is a ridiculous contrivance which long ago outlived its usedulness. When it was first introduced 35 years ago, it was a step forward. Using it today is a step beackward.

As they review their options, I hope that they do revisit something else from their past, which was to give added weight to the last 10 games. Failure to do this ignores the nature of the sport. Collegiate sports are developmental in nature. Coaches may or may not start the season with a core of veteran players. Teams are always restarting every season as the cycle of players leaving and others joining renews itself. Performance at the beginning of the season is simply not the same as performance later in the year unless the team has a lot of returning upperclassmen. That fact should be recognized somehow.

Bill Marsh wrote:

milksteak wrote:http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2017-01-12/college-basketball-ncaa-tournament-selection-process-involves

Thanks for the link.

This is indeed a welcome development. RPI is a ridiculous contrivance which long ago outlived its usedulness. When it was first introduced 35 years ago, it was a step forward. Using it today is a step beackward.

As they review their options, I hope that they do revisit something else from their past, which was to give added weight to the last 10 games. Failure to do this ignores the nature of the sport. Collegiate sports are developmental in nature. Coaches may or may not start the season with a core of veteran players. Teams are always restarting every season as the cycle of players leaving and others joining renews itself. Performance at the beginning of the season is simply not the same as performance later in the year unless the team has a lot of returning upperclassmen. That fact should be recognized somehow.

It's still going to be a part of it- in a new composite type of thing. End of the day, your results will matter.

They even said as much "Schaus: “I think always the most critical things in terms of determining where teams are placed is always going to be who you play and who you beat and where you played those games." Schaus is Ohio U AD who is representing the basketball committee in this. Who you play, who you beat, and where you played those games is entirely RPI.

stever20 wrote:

Bill Marsh wrote:

milksteak wrote:http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2017-01-12/college-basketball-ncaa-tournament-selection-process-involves

Thanks for the link.

This is indeed a welcome development. RPI is a ridiculous contrivance which long ago outlived its usedulness. When it was first introduced 35 years ago, it was a step forward. Using it today is a step beackward.

As they review their options, I hope that they do revisit something else from their past, which was to give added weight to the last 10 games. Failure to do this ignores the nature of the sport. Collegiate sports are developmental in nature. Coaches may or may not start the season with a core of veteran players. Teams are always restarting every season as the cycle of players leaving and others joining renews itself. Performance at the beginning of the season is simply not the same as performance later in the year unless the team has a lot of returning upperclassmen. That fact should be recognized somehow.

It's still going to be a part of it- in a new composite type of thing. End of the day, your results will matter.

They even said as much "Schaus: “I think always the most critical things in terms of determining where teams are placed is always going to be who you play and who you beat and where you played those games." Schaus is Ohio U AD who is representing the basketball committee in this. Who you play, who you beat, and where you played those games is entirely RPI.

Being cynical I suspect things like this are ways the Power 5 schools can block out teams from other conferences. Thankfully, we are too big to be ignored/blocked, but this can be used against other conferences. But, so long as they take into account who played, who won and where it happened, they are getting to the same point.

On a side note, I think the unbalanced conferences that are so huge (especially in football) lead to strange discrepancies in RPI, so that it's hard to get a really objective number due to not enough play outside of conferences and conferences that have a few good teams and a lot of awful teams to hide their weakness overall.

I think it'll be interesting to watch for sure.

looking at your point about blocking out other teams from other conferences.... lets look at the AAC and A10.... Kind of teams you think they would look to "punish" if you will...

AAC-
Cincy right now is 17 RPI, 19 KP, and 15 Sagarin. So won't change much at all....
SMU right now is 33 RPI, 26 KP, and 27 Sagarin. Usage of advance metrics would help them slightly.
Houston right now is 63 RPI, 35 KP, and 38 Sagarin. Usage of advance metrics would help them greatly.

A10-
VCU right now is 24 RPI, 47 KP, and 47 Sagarin. Usage of advance metrics would hurt them a lot
Dayton right now is 31 RPI, 39 KP, and 41 Sagarin. Usage of advance metrics would hurt them slightly
Rhode Island right now is 57 RPI, 45 KP, and 50 Sagarin. Usage of advance metrics would help them some

It's amazing how different things look with the advanced metrics.
and just thinking if it's a composite. maybe 2 parts RPI, 1 part KP, and 1 part Sagarin. Cincy 17 SMU 29.75 Houston 49.75 VCU 35.5 Dayton 35.5 Rhode Island 52.25 So VCU and Dayton would be equal now.

Where the unbalanced conferences IMO are huge is when you have bad teams, top teams only have to play them once. So like where everyone in the Big East has to see DePaul 2x, that's not the case with BC in the ACC.

I agree with ChicagoJayFan. Not sure this is a good thing. I could easily see them developing a new metric and calling it the be-all, end-all, then hiding the actual formula so teams still don't know what they need to do to get in. Either that, or strictly going by the numbers so on Selection Sunday, there's no drama as far as the bubble goes. I'll also be curious to see if they find a way to slant it towards the five major football conferences.

I'm not saying I like the RPI, but creating one composite isn't necessarily a better answer. Especially as there will be the chance any new metric will itself become outdated in 10-15 years. We know the NCAA and their propensity to hang onto something for far too long because it's their proprietary baby...

Can someone give me an actual reason to dislike the RPI? It accounts place of game and goes only off of who won.