So is RPI officially done now?

[orangenirvana]

Please tell me I don't have to hear those three letters successfully ever again unless it's within the sentence "Remember how dumb it was that the NCAA Tournament committee would use RPI to evaluate college basketball teams?"

Then again they haven't used it to assess individual teams over the last three seasons and yet media/fans continue to cite the rating and claim it as a basis for making/not making the Tournament so I'm sure we'll continue hearing and reading about it regardless of its full irrelevance.

 

[NineOneSeven]

They saw 84 for SU and it made them nervous. I fully believe that.

 

[orangenirvana]

They saw 84 for SU and it made them nervous. I fully believe that.

Maybe. Probably more so the public perception of allowing a team with an 84 RPI than anything else since all of the publications still use it as the ultimate rating system. That and only letting the Pac 12 get three teams in was probably the clincher.

 

[jncuse]

Not yet. They have to decide on an alternative. There a few issues they need to determine before just deciding on a rolling measure:

- KP and Sag are betting measures that are weighted towards recent play - predictive models. That doesn't necessarily fit with the body of work.
- How will they adjust for margin of victory. Will they cap it?

I would not be stunned with this new measure will come with a major change. For example top 35 in the ranking will automatically qualify. That will still leave 15 or so at large spots.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Nothing drives me crazy like the 5 posters on here that continually site the RPI as gospel and did all year.

 

[jncuse]

The RPI is a "look at me" number -- I feel as long as it can get below a certain number people will not focus n the bad. When it's 84 and you are in a P5, it is inevitable you have major crap in terms of some of the primary factors.

So it is not the number itself that did them in, but it is possible that it may have biased some people to look at the crap rather than the good. That was always going to be a problem, because no matter how people want to spin it "Crap" is part of your resume and is clearly part of the evaluation process.

 

[Trueblue25]

The selection committee showed how short in the pants they are. No doubt in my mind this Cuse team had a run in it. Oh well. Time to groom our youth in the NIT. Watch Eric Dungey throw for 86 touchdowns and Chris Slayton literally consume rb's in the football season. Then come back and shock the world next year. The iggy shall be mine.

 

[mhoff44]

Honestly, our RPI this year wasn't too off. Are we the 84th team in college basketball? No. Did we have some really good wins? Yes. However, for every good win, there was an equally bad loss which is what hurt us in the end.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Nothing drives me crazy like the 5 posters on here that continually site the RPI as gospel and did all year.

RPI wasn't too far off from seeding.

I think its a crap metric, but Wake was up there in RPI, so was Butler and Vandy.

 

[orangenirvana]

I would not be stunned with this new measure will come with a major change. For example top 35 in the ranking will automatically qualify. That will still leave 15 or so at large spots.

That would be great, imo. Which makes me think it won't happen.

 

[Cusefan0307]

RPI wasn't too far off from seeding.

I think its a crap metric, but Wake was up there in RPI, so was Butler and Vandy.

Why weren't UK and Zona 1 seeds then? They were 2 and 4 in RPI ahead of UNC and Gonzaga. It's crap. Everyone knows it, but some people still love it.

The fact that the committee still uses RPI to some degree is why we have so many upsets. RPI doesn't measure how good teams are. I don't even know what it shows. It's why Dayton is a 7 point underdog against Wichita St even though they are seeded 25-28 and Wichita is seeded 37-40. Anyone who watches college basketball knows Wichita is better than Dayton.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Why weren't UK and Zona 1 seeds then?

I didn't say it was exact, but middling teams with good RPI rankings were rewarded.

 

[pearl31]

They saw 84 for SU and it made them nervous. I fully believe that.

absolutely.
84
2-11
bye-bye Syracuse

 

[jncuse]

absolutely.
84
2-11
bye-bye Syracuse

A number that high, even in the subconscious, forced people to look at the bad.

I was hoping the 10-8 in the ACC would have the opposite effect -- while the 10-8 is not a criteria to be selected, it would lead to people focusing on the good.

 

[tbonezone]

RIP RPI ?

 

[AZOrange]

RPI wasn't too far off from seeding.

I think its a crap metric, but Wake was up there in RPI, so was Butler and Vandy.

Absolutely. Go look at Vandy and who they beat. I guess you don't have to beat anyone anymore

 

[PhatOrange]

seeing a team with 14 losses as a #9 seed makes me nervous and seeing teams with 15 losses also makes me nervous.

 

[Newhouser]

Unbalanced scheduling makes league records dicey sometimes, especially when around 500. I honestly think the system isn't bad. Every year someone gets left out and that stinks, but creating another matrix will still lead to one of the final five teams being considered crying foul. We have no excuses - BC twice, Pitt twice - St Johns, CONN and G-town. our schedule was ripe for much better than 18 wins.

 

[jncuse]

RPI wasn't too far off from seeding.

I think its a crap metric, but Wake was up there in RPI, so was Butler and Vandy.

To be fair to Butler, they beat Villanova twice, Arizona on a neutral floor, and Cincinnati. That's 4-0 against top 25 teams no matter what measure you use to define the top 25.

They were also 10-4 vs top 50. I think that influenced the 4 seed much more than their RPI.

 

[orangecuse]

Absolutely. Go look at Vandy and who they beat. I guess you don't have to beat anyone anymore

Florida is Vandy's bitch. Not only did they fool them once, and then twice, but dang...3 times a lady.

 

[orangenirvana]

I honestly think the system isn't bad. Every year someone gets left out and that stinks, but creating another matrix will still lead to one of the final five teams being considered crying foul. We have no excuses - BC twice, Pitt twice - St Johns, CONN and G-town. our schedule was ripe for much better than 18 wins.

It's not "creating another matrix." It's dropping the flawed one and replacing it with a better one. One that already exists but just needs modifying.

When RPI can be so easily manipulated and is more often than not the one outlier among all of the metrics then it is proven to be flawed and should be dropped entirely.

 

[Madbiker]

I think BPI is a more meaningful metric. But let's face it SU fans had no problem with the RPI when we were #16 heading into Selection Sunday in 2013.

 

[Newhouser]

I think BPI is a more meaningful metric. But let's face it SU fans had no problem with the RPI when we were #16 heading into Selection Sunday in 2013.

That is sort of my point - this whole process impacts 5 teams. Seeding and that stuff works itself out with upsets and the uncertainty of who gets knocked off. BPI, RPI, Ken Pom, whatever...only a handful of teams care.