Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="jncuse, post: 2081219, member: 1969"]
Interesting article.

1) I think the one thing that people confuse is that individual RPI matters when they assess a team -- it generally does not .   In itself it is either a non factor or a very minor factor.   The only time I think it factors is when it gets too high.   BUT while your individual RPI does not matter when they analyze you, they rely heavily on the  RPI's of other teams to assess your quality wins.   So there is clearly a flaw there.

2) From the header to the article they claimed that through the years the system has been too "strength of schedule" based.   [B]The thing is through that no matter what "composite" you use, the P5 teams will always have the schedules to dominate in the key metrics -- top 25, top 50, top 100 wins.  So if they are ignoring schedule, does that mean the composite will have more value moving forward?  .  [/B]They said they are not really looking to change the metrics, so there will always be an apple and orange thing when looking at key wins.

Some examples this year
Wichita St #13 in KP, but only 1 top 1oo RPI win... if they were using a new composite, maybe it's 2 or 3 top 100 "Composite" wins.  It still does not hold up.  Will they use the composite more for mid tier teams in terms of seeding and the bubble.

Some other examples - Houston #38 on KP... assume that is the composite.  Will they look at that individual figure more now and ignore the other metrics.   It's quite clear that for mid major schools in the 30's and 40's they have no confidence in the individual RPI right now,

Middle Tennesse St at #51 on KP>   That might be just enough to get into the field of 68 if you base it on a composite like KP.  Do they get the benefit of the doubt.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?