RPI

[Orange Barrel]

. . . after Dolezaj flew across the court to undercut a Hoya, only to have that inept Michael Stevens call a charge . . .

I thought so too until I watched the replay. Derrickson led with his shoulder directly into Doli's chest. Correct call. It ain't football.

 

[HoustonCuse]

Georgetown will win games in the BE, they're actually better than I was expecting. Getting this win feels great and will be a nice feather in the cap.

 

[jncuse]

At all? Then how do you explain last year when we had decent BPI numbers, competitive Ken Pom numbers and a garbage RPI? To say it means nothing is really speculative. They mentioned using more than just the RPI last year but I never recall it being eliminated from the equation or diluted to being nothing.

Individual RPI has meant nothing in terms of comparing teams on the bubble for as long as I can remember. I have never once heard a committee member say this team got in/got out because of its RPI. But usually a bad RPI, especially for a P5/P6 team, means you have some real crap in your resume. It's the crap that is going to keep you out, and that is what committee members cite.

Now RPI is still very important because it is the factor that determines the quality of your wins which of course is one of the key metrics. Does that make sense that they use it like that. Not really, but it is indeed what they do.

Individual RPI was not our downfall last year. It was our poor OOC performance and the lack of road/neutral court wins. They drove the bad RPI of course.

Another common error that people said about last year was that our out of conference schedule killed us. What killed us was not the schedule, but that we went an awful 8-5 against such a schedule. You can often overcome a bad schedule strength in OOC RPI, if you have a valid record against it.

We had a bad RPI in 2016 as well. But since we won at Duke, and on a neutral court against a 3 seed in Texas A&M, it helped us a lot.

 

[jncuse]

Last year we went 0-3 against non tournament level teams in UConn, Georgetown and St. John's. This year we went 2-0 against them. That has massive impacts on our RPI. But it's not the RPI that will get us in... it's the fact that went 2-0 instead of 0-3 against them.

 

[jncuse]

I understand the factors but reality was RPI was the knife that finished us. You could argue us against the decisions of the last 4 in otherwise but all had a much better RPI than we did. To say it means absolutely nothing is just false.

A good road or neutral win needs a benchmark... Same for non conference. Can't pull a good win out unless there are numbers to justify its' quality.

The knife that finished us was going 8-5 against a subpar OOC schedule strength, Going 0-3 against Georgetown, St. John's and UConn.

And having historically bad road/neutral wins for a bubble team. So let's add losing at BC in the equation,

It's not the RPI that did us in last year.

 

[jncuse]

I will say RPI means more for the bubble than it does for seeding. They definitely de emphasized it for how to seed things out. Also, the other tools all carry their own bias including BPI even if it was friendly to us last year.

No.

 

[jncuse]

The driving factor behind the use of BPI and KP is not a feeling that the current metrics have failed P5/P6 teams. The current system hasn't really failed the non P5/P6 teams. It gives them many games against top 25 / top 50 schools that non P5/P6 teams get. In some years (like 2016 Pac12) it has unfairly evaluated a conference vs another.

If you look at the current RPI, a bunch of small conference teams will come in around #35-#50 and they are always ignored. And the majority of them justifiably. The committee has no faith in the RPI being able to measure these teams. But something like BPI and KP does a much better job measuring these teams.

Interestingly though, even with more one and dones, the P5+BE dominated the top 50 in KenPom much more last year than prior years.

2017 was not really controversial for mid major evaluation - Illinois St was the only one with a mild case. But if you look at 2016 with teams like St. Mary's, Valparaiso, Wichita St, St. Bonaventure, Monmouth, San Diego St.. That seems to be the real driver for change.

 

[Cusefan0307]

The driving factor behind the use of BPI and KP is not a feeling that the current metrics have failed P5/P6 teams. The current system hasn't really failed the non P5/P6 teams. It gives them many games against top 25 / top 50 schools that non P5/P6 teams get. In some years (like 2016 Pac12) it has unfairly evaluated a conference vs another.

If you look at the current RPI, a bunch of small conference teams will come in around #35-#50 and they are always ignored. And the majority of them justifiably. The committee has no faith in the RPI being able to measure these teams. But something like BPI and KP does a much better job measuring these teams.

Interestingly though, even with more one and dones, the P5+BE dominated the top 50 in KenPom much more last year than prior years.

2017 was not really controversial for mid major evaluation - Illinois St was the only one with a mild case. But if you look at 2016 with teams like St. Mary's, Valparaiso, Wichita St, St. Bonaventure, Monmouth, San Diego St.. That seems to be the real driver for change.

I think fans who ignore analytics and follow the RPI religiously do in part because the College basketball media makes such a big deal about it when power conference teams get in with high RPIs over mid majors with good metrics even though those mid majors have beat nobody. There’s always that argument that the mid majors should be in over a power 5 team with 12 or 13 losses.

 

[jncuse]

We are well ahead of pace of last year (if we can take care of Buffalo and St. Bonnies)

While we don't have a signature victory:
1) We could only have 1 loss instead of 5 losses, against what projects to be a much better OOC SOS. Not sure if our schedule was that much better, but that is the SOS for you.
2) We have 2 road and neutral victories already... same total as all of last year.

 

[Madbiker]

Meanwhile our best RPI win is Maryland at #83. Bonnies currently #56. While we have avoided playing the #250+ dogs that kill your RPI, we don't have an OOC signature win for the resume either. Will have to get a couple in conference and outside of UNC and ND they are road games.

 

[jncuse]

Sometimes you have to admit you are wrong. And I was wrong to say the individual RPI is meaningless, especially where ours is trending right now. So I do need to apologize to OrangeZoo in that regard.

Top conference teams can also benefit from a good "Empty RPI" in certain situations. In that case it clearly matters, and that is where we could be heading this year. And the tracking of our current RPI does show how we can there.

I was fixated on our "Bad RPI" hurting us last year. It didn't, but that does not mean RPI cannot help. It could be the opposite this year.

With a 20-11 record this year our RPI should come in around #36. The #36 could fluctuate with road/home win mix being abnormal. And of course this is all based on projecting our opponents. So it is fluid, but enough of the season has past that it will not swing past #45 in the worse case.

Why is this happening? Our OOC SOS is projecting at #20 this year while last year it finished at #157.

But if we close out the OOC play with 1 loss, and only go 8-10 in the ACC, we could have an RPI around #35. This is the "Empty RPI" in a top conference coming to help this year. A p5 team will not be excluded at #35.

This also shows we have done a lot less damage to ourselves this year to date than last year, so we don't need the same number as top 50 wins as prior years.

 

[cuseinseattle]

Regardless if RPI, Georgetowns scheduling will kill them in March.

This isn't 1984 when everyone loaded up on cupcakes in pre-conference. There is an emphasis on challenging schedules by the committee.

They had one shot to impress...at home...and they failed the test.

They are going to be closer to the bubble than they thought (they're better than they thought), but they have no shot at getting in unless they have win some road conference games and finish around 12-6.

If not, the committee will make a point of leaving them out to teach Patrick a lesson.

I think the committee will actually go the other way and give them the benefit of the doubt because they want a team with their history in the field. The non conference schedule is a concern but if they can beat a few good teams outside of Nova and Xavier they should be ok. They are going to get better as the year goes on because I think the guard play will improve. Just my opinion.

 

[jncuse]

You can a below average OOC schedule like ours last year that allows for your performance to be measured and evaluated. You can overcome those.

intentionally terrible OOC schedule that makes it impossible to even lose a game are not measurable. Those ones are punished by the committee.

When you have a schedule so bad, that it is impossible for a bubble level team to lose a game, then it becomes of no value at all. The Big East is strong enough that this could be overcome with a 12-6 record in the Big East... or maybe at 11-7. But while other Big East teams will be getting in at 9-9 or 10-8, they certainly will not.

 

[jncuse]

I think the committee will actually go the other way and give them the benefit of the doubt because they want a team with their history in the field. The non conference schedule is a concern but if they can beat a few good teams outside of Nova and Xavier they should be ok. They are going to get better as the year goes on because I think the guard play will improve. Just my opinion.

In recent years Syracuse, Kentucky, Florida, have been on the wrong side of the bubble and did not get benefit of doubt despite their name. Georgetown is very meaningful to us, but they are not that big a name on a national basis.

 

[cuseinseattle]

In recent years Syracuse, Kentucky, Florida, have been on the wrong side of the bubble and did not get benefit of doubt despite their name. Georgetown is very meaningful to us, but they are not that big a name on a national basis.

We lost out last year but got the benefit the year we made the final 4. Regarding UK they have only been in the NIT one time in the last 10 years. I don’t agree.

 

[jncuse]

We lost out last year but got the benefit the year we made the final 4. Regarding UK they have only been in the NIT one time in the last 10 years. I don’t agree.

UK has only been on the bubble once the last 10 years. They have been a clear in every other year.

We didn't really get the benefit of the doubt in 2016 -- they just decided to exclude all mid majors on the bubble, and include all the P5 on the bubble. There is a bias of P5/P6 schools over mid major. But there has never been a bias of big name P5 vs small name P5.

Even if there was a bias to big names, you are giving way too much credit to Georgetown as a "Big Name". They are irrelevant on the national stage.

 

[Ptzburghcuse]

In recent years Syracuse, Kentucky, Florida, have been on the wrong side of the bubble and did not get benefit of doubt despite their name. Georgetown is very meaningful to us, but they are not that big a name on a national basis.

What does help us however is that it was a road win and every one we get is precious just as it is for all teams. Maryland, Uconn, and Georgetown might not be as strong as years past but when people assess the strength of our OOC - they will list those wins and hopefully - should we need a boost - those wins resonate at year end.

FWIW - we were #38 in the Massey composite ratings before the Georgetown win (they were #95).

 

[jncuse]

What does help us however is that it was a road win and every one we get is precious just as it is for all teams. Maryland, Uconn, and Georgetown might not be as strong as years past but when people assess the strength of our OOC - they will list those wins and hopefully - should we need a boost - those wins resonate at year end.
.

I think you were misinterpreting what I was replying to. My post was in relation to Georgetown getting the benefit of the doubt because of their name and history. It was not about our current year.

I agree with everything you say about our current year.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Georgetown’s OOC is worse than ours in 07 when we finished fourth in the Big East and still didn’t make the tournament. They need to do some serious damage in conference to have a chance.

 

[pearl31]

more like RIP amiright?

 

[Orangezoo]

No need to apologize. RPI is one of those tools that until it is erased , it carries some weight if only as a benchmark that has just lasted longer than the other measurement tools.

As you mentioned a P5 team with a solid 30 RPI is not going to get left behind. Even if the reason is far more due to maybe 1 or two good non conf wins and a bunch of wins that aren't 250 plus teams who are bottom feeders in one bid leagues. Sometimes those scenarios are just dumb luck.

Last year was wacky all around in that so many bubble teams had really poor records and bad non conf resumes.

I apologize for not divulging into the mathematical reasoning behind my opinions, and as a math nerd myself I should be better in that regard just been crazy busy and lazy on that front.

Overall the one thing when I look across the ratings tools out there, the reality is that we need something to differentiate quality besides efficiency or wins/losses. Personally I think somehow, past performance needs to play a role to help distinguish programs better. I haven't studied the models enough to know whether anyone is leveraging this variable but I do think it would help. You have P5 teams who have done nothing for years and mid majors who have been solid all the same. Take Monmouth for example, they are a program that has been solid now for a few years.. have to see how that counts into the equation of their quality. By having this you have a better measure to start each year with. Now , I realize this may favor your blue bloods so it can't carry a heavy weight, but it more so should be to ensure that smaller programs who Excel every year have something beyond the name recognition ( which many don't get unless they upset someone if they make the dance) to project them appropriately. This is just throwing it on the wall of course and I could be off base...

 

[NKR1978]

#4 in the RPI as of this morning.

 

[Boozercrook]

#4 in the RPI as of this morning.

And Buffalo is 47 and St. Bonaventure is 50.

 

[Orangezoo]

Still 61 in BPI. Also, when you look at who is above us in BPI it is telling there is a bias. You have teams like Iowa (7-6) and PSU (10-3 with a BPI SOS in the 200s) ahead of SU. Sure that will adjust in conference play but it's still pretty wacky as we are almost now through the non conf slate.

 

[CusefanATL]

Sometimes you have to admit you are wrong. And I was wrong to say the individual RPI is meaningless, especially where ours is trending right now. So I do need to apologize to OrangeZoo in that regard.

Top conference teams can also benefit from a good "Empty RPI" in certain situations. In that case it clearly matters, and that is where we could be heading this year. And the tracking of our current RPI does show how we can there.

I was fixated on our "Bad RPI" hurting us last year. It didn't, but that does not mean RPI cannot help. It could be the opposite this year.

View attachment 117528

With a 20-11 record this year our RPI should come in around #36. The #36 could fluctuate with road/home win mix being abnormal. And of course this is all based on projecting our opponents. So it is fluid, but enough of the season has past that it will not swing past #45 in the worse case.

Why is this happening? Our OOC SOS is projecting at #20 this year while last year it finished at #157.

But if we close out the OOC play with 1 loss, and only go 8-10 in the ACC, we could have an RPI around #35. This is the "Empty RPI" in a top conference coming to help this year. A p5 team will not be excluded at #35.

This also shows we have done a lot less damage to ourselves this year to date than last year, so we don't need the same number as top 50 wins as prior years.

I'd like to see the probability of 30-1? 99%?