Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Orangezoo, post: 2422209, member: 237"] 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... [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?