The End of RPI?

[ecasadoSBU]

Anything to make things more complicated and thus make it harder for the average person to determine why a team is in or out. Eventually the goal is to benefit the top conferences. Not surprised.

What is good about the RPI is that is a known formula that WORKS! Everyone knows it, everyone can calculate it, and everyone knows why you were in or left out.

Now they going to add KP, Sagarin, KPI and a bunch of index that will probably benefit the Football schools.

[Bill Marsh]

Anything to make things more complicated and thus make it harder for the average person to determine why a team is in or out. Eventually the goal is to benefit the top conferences. Not surprised.

What is good about the RPI is that is a known formula that WORKS! Everyone knows it, everyone can calculate it, and everyone knows why you were in or left out.

Now they going to add KP, Sagarin, KPI and a bunch of index that will probably benefit the Football schools.

No, it doesn't work. It's nonsense.

[Bill Marsh]

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

It's based entirely on a combination of a team's winning % and their opponents' W% and their opponents' opponents' W%. In other words, the only metric involved is W%, which is about as primitive a measure as anyone could use to compare teams who haven't played the same schedule. There are simply more sophisticated approaches to measuring teams' performances in a way that makes valid comparisons.

RPI was first introduced back in 1981. We simply didn't have the computer power then that we do now, which is why they contrived such a simplistic formula. This is the digital age. We can surely do better than they did 35 years ago.

[ecasadoSBU]

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

It's based entirely on a combination of a team's winning % and their opponents' W% and their opponents' opponents' W%. In other words, the only metric involved is W%, which is about as primitive a measure as anyone could use to compare teams who haven't played the same schedule. There are simply more sophisticated approaches to measuring teams' performances in a way that makes valid comparisons.

RPI was first introduced back in 1981. We simply didn't have the computer power then that we do now, which is why they contrived such a simplistic formula. This is the digital age. We can surely do better than they did 35 years ago.

Listen. There is always going to be flaws with the metrics. But the concern shouldn't be whether the RPI can ALWAYS get the best 68 teams. The concern should be whether the metric is consistent and easy for the public to understand and hard to be manipulated by committees. RPI meets both. . My biggest concern here is predictability and that the decision makers cannot pick and choose which metric to use to give certain teams an advantage. We are already seeing a larger share of Power-5 schools getting at-large bids than ever before. That's largely in a way due to the committee picking-and-choosing when to use RPI and when to use something else (KP, S, Etc).

I wouldn't be opposed against using other metrics if the committee precisely indicated how much of each metric is going to be used to decide who is in and who is out. A composite based on 25/25/25/25 weights wouldn't be a problem. The problem I see here is that the committee does 25/5/70/0 for one team and then does 50/10/15/25 for another for the convenience of the power-5 teams

[Bill Marsh]

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

It's based entirely on a combination of a team's winning % and their opponents' W% and their opponents' opponents' W%. In other words, the only metric involved is W%, which is about as primitive a measure as anyone could use to compare teams who haven't played the same schedule. There are simply more sophisticated approaches to measuring teams' performances in a way that makes valid comparisons.

RPI was first introduced back in 1981. We simply didn't have the computer power then that we do now, which is why they contrived such a simplistic formula. This is the digital age. We can surely do better than they did 35 years ago.

Listen. There is always going to be flaws with the metrics. But the concern shouldn't be whether the RPI can ALWAYS get the best 68 teams. The concern should be whether the metric is consistent and easy for the public to understand and hard to be manipulated by committees. RPI meets both. . My biggest concern here is predictability and that the decision makers cannot pick and choose which metric to use to give certain teams an advantage. We are already seeing a larger share of Power-5 schools getting at-large bids than ever before. That's largely in a way due to the committee picking-and-choosing when to use RPI and when to use something else (KP, S, Etc).

I wouldn't be opposed against using other metrics if the committee precisely indicated how much of each metric is going to be used to decide who is in and who is out. A composite based on 25/25/25/25 weights wouldn't be a problem. The problem I see here is that the committee does 25/5/70/0 for one team and then does 50/10/15/25 for another for the convenience of the power-5 teams

I agree that it should be fair and easily understood. But it shouldn't be garbage and that's what RPI is. I'm also willing to bet that even most ardent college basketball fans couldn't tell you the formula fro RPI. So much for being readily understood.

When we're talking about college basketball fans, we're talking about mostly college graduates. I don't see why we have to dumb it down. What's so hard to understand about what Sagarin or any of the rest do?

As you've pointed out, RPI hasn't prevented the committees from one year to the next from picking and choosing either its criteria, or the metrics to measure those criteria, or where they place their emphasis.

The reason for an expanded tournament in the first place is money. As the ones who have the most money invested, P5 schools are always going to want the lion's share of the bids. It was that way from the beginning of the open tournament era. What's changed is that more and more P5 schools that used to care only about football now care about basketball as well. They (plus the Big East) get the lion's share of the best recruits, so it. Should come as no surprise that the top 6-7 conferences also have. Most of the good teams at the end of the day.

I believe that the higher the degree of confidence that committee members have in the measuring instrument, the more likely they are to adhere to it. Their disdain for RPI is reflected by the very fact that they don't adhere to it as you've already described. It's been shocking to see teams ranked as high as 32 in RPI passes over for a bid as we've seen even within the past decade. That needs to change.

[Fieldhouse Flyer]

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

It's based entirely on a combination of a team's winning % and their opponents' W% and their opponents' opponents' W%. In other words, the only metric involved is W%, which is about as primitive a measure as anyone could use to compare teams who haven't played the same schedule. There are simply more sophisticated approaches to measuring teams' performances in a way that makes valid comparisons.

RPI was first introduced back in 1981. We simply didn't have the computer power then that we do now, which is why they contrived such a simplistic formula. This is the digital age. We can surely do better than they did 35 years ago.

The other good thing about the RPI is that it does not reward teams for running up the score against inferior opponents, which is considered to be bad sportsmanship: Indiana tried to run up the score on Rutgers, failed, and Tom Crean was furious - The Dagger - January 15, 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Top-50 RPI Doesn't Guarantee an NCAA Tournament Bid, But It's Close - February 1, 2016

It's been shocking to see teams ranked as high as 32 in RPI passed over for a bid as we've seen even within the past decade. That needs to change.

I agree. Here Are the Teams with the Highest RPI Ever to Miss the NCAA Tournament - March 13, 2013



The 7 Biggest Snubs of this NCAA Tournament Selection Sunday - Fox Sports - March 13, 2016

Last year, St. Bonaventure was passed over for a bid with an RPI Ranking of # 30.

[sciencejay]

I don't love the RPI, but unless they transition to a meta-rankings system where they take multiple, independent systems (RPI, Sagarin, KP, BPI, etc), I fear that the Football 5 will figure out how to use a newer, single system to keep the rest of us out. And yes, I include the BEast in that group of 'those left out'. We can likely agree that there is so much money in the system (BB, Football), that everyone wants to control/obtain as much money/power as possible. And while BB is significant, it pales in comparison to football, so the football 5 remain at the top of the food chain.

Here's where I think they can 'game' the system (if a single metrics is settled upon): each of the rankings systems has its own biases. If they are all sufficiently different (obviously, there is a lot of overlap with SOS, W-L %, etc), then averaging multiple systems in a meta-system should prevent conferences/teams from gaming the system. However, if the F5 decide that they will only play each other in the non-con, everyone else gets screwed. One of the inherent problems with all of the computer systems is that they all start off with a guesstimation of who is good and who isn't before the season even starts. You beat Duke and that's a 'great' win because Duke is good. So if the F5 don't play anyone outsiders in the non-con, they insulate themselves from interlopers who might steal 'good' wins. I can't remember the exact year, but around 2005 (maybe it was 2006 the year Missouri St got screwed), MVC teams had a huge number of great non-con wins. So then all their conference games came with higher RPI considerations (much like it is for the BEast this year--not comparing actual talent/competitiveness nationally between the two situations, just the quality non-con wins and the RPI benefit), and more teams went into selection Sunday with high RPIs. Jay Bilas even said something like MVC teams were 'gaming' the RPI like the whiny biatch that he is. Point being, that year the MVC went on the road in the non-con and earned good wins (seems like WSU winning at Syracuse was one of them). After that, I think it was even harder for MVC teams to schedule games with the big boys. Unless they play them in a tourney, they don't get to play them.

I'm not saying that the BEast will get locked out in the cold, but you can't deny that big money will make people do less than honest things. The way the NCAA tourney money is paid out, they could ensure themselves more money by simply locking everyone else out of the party. Winning a non-F5 conference may then be the only way to get into the big dance. Is this apocalyptic sounding, yes, but not that far-fetched in my mind.

I am totally in favor of taking multiple systems and coming up with an averaging equation that everyone could see clearly and understand what the committee is using for metrics input during the decision-making process. There will still be human bias--committee member X overvalues a win at Kentucky (in a year when UK is good, but not great), just because of the name, and undervalues a win over someone else who is typically mediocre, but it really good that year. But if we fans have a clearer idea of what metrics are used and how they are used, we would all be happier.

[billyjack]

Whatever formula they use, it has to be transparent.

Isn't BPI some ESPN creation with an ESPN special sauce? ESPN cannot be trusted, no matter how much attention they might be giving us this year.

The college football playoff formula has mystery elements, right? The dinosaur-brained football geniuses have everyone sitting on the edge of their seats each week starting in what, late October, because no regular fan knows the actual formulas and special sauces.

Seriously, who at ESPN came up with BPI...? Does Jay Bilas flash his law degree around, get in the formula room, and plant his thumbs on the BPI scale...? Yeesh.

[stever20]

I don't love the RPI, but unless they transition to a meta-rankings system where they take multiple, independent systems (RPI, Sagarin, KP, BPI, etc), I fear that the Football 5 will figure out how to use a newer, single system to keep the rest of us out. And yes, I include the BEast in that group of 'those left out'. We can likely agree that there is so much money in the system (BB, Football), that everyone wants to control/obtain as much money/power as possible. And while BB is significant, it pales in comparison to football, so the football 5 remain at the top of the food chain.

Here's where I think they can 'game' the system (if a single metrics is settled upon): each of the rankings systems has its own biases. If they are all sufficiently different (obviously, there is a lot of overlap with SOS, W-L %, etc), then averaging multiple systems in a meta-system should prevent conferences/teams from gaming the system. However, if the F5 decide that they will only play each other in the non-con, everyone else gets screwed. One of the inherent problems with all of the computer systems is that they all start off with a guesstimation of who is good and who isn't before the season even starts. You beat Duke and that's a 'great' win because Duke is good. So if the F5 don't play anyone outsiders in the non-con, they insulate themselves from interlopers who might steal 'good' wins. I can't remember the exact year, but around 2005 (maybe it was 2006 the year Missouri St got screwed), MVC teams had a huge number of great non-con wins. So then all their conference games came with higher RPI considerations (much like it is for the BEast this year--not comparing actual talent/competitiveness nationally between the two situations, just the quality non-con wins and the RPI benefit), and more teams went into selection Sunday with high RPIs. Jay Bilas even said something like MVC teams were 'gaming' the RPI like the whiny biatch that he is. Point being, that year the MVC went on the road in the non-con and earned good wins (seems like WSU winning at Syracuse was one of them). After that, I think it was even harder for MVC teams to schedule games with the big boys. Unless they play them in a tourney, they don't get to play them.

I'm not saying that the BEast will get locked out in the cold, but you can't deny that big money will make people do less than honest things. The way the NCAA tourney money is paid out, they could ensure themselves more money by simply locking everyone else out of the party. Winning a non-F5 conference may then be the only way to get into the big dance. Is this apocalyptic sounding, yes, but not that far-fetched in my mind.

I am totally in favor of taking multiple systems and coming up with an averaging equation that everyone could see clearly and understand what the committee is using for metrics input during the decision-making process. There will still be human bias--committee member X overvalues a win at Kentucky (in a year when UK is good, but not great), just because of the name, and undervalues a win over someone else who is typically mediocre, but it really good that year. But if we fans have a clearer idea of what metrics are used and how they are used, we would all be happier.

The MVC in 05-06 didn't have a number of great OOC wins. They had 2 top 25 and 6 top 50 wins. 15-15 vs top 100 teams.

compare to this year's Big East OOC just top 4....
Nova 1 top 25 win, 3 top 50 wins, 8 top 100 wins
Creighton 5 top 50 wins, 5 top 100 wins
Butler 2 top 25 wins, 3 top 50 wins, 7 top 100 wins
Xavier 2 top 50 wins, 3 top 100 wins

so just top 4 have 3 top 25, 13 top 50, and 23 top 100 wins. Teams 5-10 have 1, 4, and 8 wins btw- so as a conference it's 4 top 25 wins, 17 top 50 wins, and 31 top 100 wins. So Big East this year has more top 100 wins than the MVC back then had top 100 games.

Also, you are confusing years. The Wichita win @ Syracuse was in 2006-07 season, not 2005-06 season.

Where the MVC did game the system was they had 7 games vs non D1 schools. So yes, the Valley did game the system(just like the MWC did a few years ago).

looking the year that Wichita did beat Syracuse-
MVC had 1 top 25 win, 8 top 50 wins, and 21 top 100 wins. Went 21-21 vs top 100. So even there, no where close to the Big East this year.

[Hall2012]

Not sure I like this. Advanced analytics are cool discuss and look at, but I don't think they should play a large role in determining at-large bids - that should strictly be about results. It would be a real shame to see something like "Team A played a more challenging schedule and has more impressive wins, but team B has a higher adjusted offensive efficiency, so lets give them the spot instead." I'm not saying it can't be used at all - maybe use it as a tiebreaker for seeding purposes or something, but it shouldn't be a key to getting in the dance. And I'm saying this as a data geek. Basketball games are won on the floor, not on a spreadsheet, and wins/losses on the floor are what should determine who gets in. Better metrics does not necessarily = better basketball team.