BPI RANKINGS

[20Plus]

We are 34 in BPI
TEAMW-L BPI RK SOS RK SOR RK RPI RK
1.DUKE 15-4 4 39 19 15
2.UNC18-3 5 23 8 10
3. UVA15-3 7 26 15 16
4.LOU16-4 8 1 9 8
5. ND17-3 17 21 7 17
6.FSU 16-2 19 36 5 9
7.MIA 12-6 27 40 50 77
8. CLEMSON11-7 32 4 42 42
9.SYR 11-9 34 54 111 128
10.WAKE 12-7 39 5 36 24
11.VTECH14-4 48 59 28 50
12. NCST-7 58 95 83 48
13. Pitt12-7 59 27 51 41
14. GTECH11-8 116 11 66 90
15.BC 9-11 155 48 165 165

 

[MSOrange]

So that means we're right on the bubble - right????....

 

[20Plus]

So that means we're right on the bubble - right????...

It just means that's a lot larger discrepancy then I've ever seen before for one team between the RPI and bpi

 

[upperdeck]

it also shows the huge flaw in RPI since it rates who you play not how you play.

 

[SoBeCuse]

I say there is a huge flaw in BPI, lol.

 

[Cusefan0307]

it also shows the huge flaw in RPI since it rates who you play not how you play.

The RPI is done. The NCAA announced that Monday. It's going to be replace by a consensus between KenPom, BPI, and Sagarin.

 

[jncuse]

The RPI is done. The NCAA announced that Monday. It's going to be replace by a consensus between KenPom, BPI, and Sagarin.

Except I think that is for next year. This year it is still RPI.

But really the key for RPI was that it was always used to measure top 50 wins (rather than selecting teams based on individual RPI). Of course you had to keep the RPI somewhat reasonable. If it doesn't get above 80, no matter what a team does, they will look for warts (and find them)

 

[Cusefan0307]

Except I think that is for next year. This year it is still RPI.

But really the key for RPI was that it was always used to measure top 50 wins (rather than selecting teams based on individual RPI). Of course you had to keep the RPI somewhat reasonable. If it doesn't get above 80, no matter what a team does, they will look for warts (and find them)

Officially done next year and I think I read the committee admitted it's already being slowly phased out for analytics.

 

[jncuse]

Officially done next year and I think I read the committee admitted it's already being slowly phased out for analytics.

I have read they have been using it for a while "but its not an official metric". It possibly eliminated some of the bubble teams last year -- for eample St.Bonnie who had a terrible KP rating.

 

[CuseinNYC]

I hate to say this, but it looks to me like the RPI has it right, and the BPI has it wrong. In fact, any metric that has this Orange team as the 34th best team in the country should probably not be used for choosing the NCAA field. Losses to UConn, St. John's, GTown, and no road wins whatsoever don't scream top 40 to me.

 

[jncuse]

I think they both have it wrong.

Syracuse is an outlier because of the huge margins they have in their wins. It will normalize itself to an extent by seasons end like the RPI. I do tend to trust
Something like KP the most in the imperfect world of ranking teams but Syracuse is the headscratcher as you go down his list as well but 57 at least seems a little more reasonable.

 

[orangenirvana]

Except I think that is for next year. This year it is still RPI.

But really the key for RPI was that it was always used to measure top 50 wins (rather than selecting teams based on individual RPI). Of course you had to keep the RPI somewhat reasonable. If it doesn't get above 80, no matter what a team does, they will look for warts (and find them)

They use all the ratings and drop the biggest outlier.

 

[jncuse]

They use all the ratings and drop the biggest outlier.

In basketball? They don't just drop the RPI, even if as an "individual" number that means little in terms of separating teams when you are in an acceptable range.

I think you might be confusing things with football unless there is some new standard that I am unaware of.

 

[Eric15]

but it looks to me like the RPI has it right, and the BPI has it wrong.

Agreed -- a ranking of 34 equates to about an 8 seed in the tourney, which is just stupid and not helpful because obviously we are nowhere near that.

 

[UnknownOrange]

What about the eye test?

 

[Cusefan0307]

Agreed -- a ranking of 34 equates to about an 8 seed in the tourney, which is just stupid and not helpful because obviously we are nowhere near that.

Why is the RPI going away then? I don't think the BPI is right at all, but the RPI is probably worse. We beat Monmouth by 20 and Pitt by 11 and they both have a higher RPI than us.

TBH, this is why most of the board doesn't get point spreads. Way to many people look at the RPI to try and determine team strength. It's a flawed metric. Monmouth's RPI went up when up when they lost to us at the dome by 20.

I can't wait until the RPI is gone and frankly it's about time. If it was gone in 2007 we would have made the tournament.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Who knows. Pitt did beat Viginia while we don't have any good wins, frankly. I took a look at Pitt's schedule. Their defense is really horrendous with Stallings running the show. When were they ever really blown out under Dixon as well? They are even worse than us (99) in KenPom AdjD Efficiency at 157. Top three are South Carolina, Louisville, and Baylor.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Who knows. Pitt did beat Viginia while we don't have any good wins, frankly. I took a look at Pitt's schedule. Their defense is really horrendous with Stallings running the show. When were they ever really blown out under Dixon as well? They are even worse than us (99) in KenPom AdjD Efficiency at 157. Top three are South Carolina, Louisville, and Baylor.

KenPom and Sagarin are probably the most accurate analytics sites. It's not a coincidence you can determine Point Spreads by these ratings. And yes Stallings has screwed up the Pitt defense.