RPI doesn't pass the eye test

I am somewhat perplexed as to why, in the week or so leading up to the NCAA tournament, RPI ranking, record vs. RPI top 50 and record vs. RPI top 100 become so important. They seem to get very little mention throughout the season, and else seem to be a highly inaccurate way to measure teams. A few rankings that jump out at me:

Northern Iowa #17
California #20
Ohio St. #26
UTEP #36
Wichita St. #43
Cornell #48
Oakland #52
Minnesota #60
Illinois #74
Northwestern #116
Michigan #132

What do you think the line would be in Michigan-Northern Iowa game? Oakland-Northwestern? California-Ohio St.?

It seems like so much weight gets put on these random cutoff lines of 50 and 100. I understand they are nice, round numbers that make it easier to understand at a glance, but it isn't useful in assessing a team's worth. Why not top 31 RPI? or top #132?

I would hope that the selection committee is little bit more sophisticated than to weight RPI heavily into their decisions. The pundits are obsessed with it.

I 100% agree. The RPI is a joke and no indication of which team is better. Quite frankly I am sick of hearing about it. Oakland, Cornell and Wichita St would be lucky to win 6 games in the Big Ten or Big East - yet their RPI is better or has been better than teams like Minnesota, Illinois and Notre Dame. I am sure Northern Iowa would just roll Ohio State...

RPI

I don't think a specific teams RPI is that meaningful, unless it really high or really low. For example, Cal would have been the team with the strongest RPI (ever) to be left out and Illinois would have been one of the weakest ever to gain an at-large berth.

Where RPI does matter is as a tool to organize the strength of a team's wins (eg record vs Top 50, Top 100 etc.)

Ope3 said:

I don't think a specific teams RPI is that meaningful, unless it really high or really low. For example, Cal would have been the team with the strongest RPI (ever) to be left out and Illinois would have been one of the weakest ever to gain an at-large berth.

Where RPI does matter is as a tool to organize the strength of a team's wins (eg record vs Top 50, Top 100 etc.)

Click to expand...

I don't agree (except maybe the first sentence), and think these statements prove the original points. At least they do to me.

Cal may have a high RPI, but I wouldn't have thought it unjust had they been left out. They didn't beat anybody good all year, the Pac 10 was worse than the WAC and Mountain West, and they crapped away their conf final to let in a team that took someone else's bid. Illinois arguably should've been in, I don't care what their "RPI" says. 5th in a B10 (that included 3 of the top 11 or so teams in the nation for much of the year), 4th in the conf tourney, and taking OSU to double OT in their last game.

All that talk about "wins vs RPI top 50" was worthless and misleading in my opinion because (a) RPI itself is random and misleading, and (b) top 50 cutoff is random and not a good indicator (MN beat 4 top 10 quality teams, and 5 top 20 teams, yet you could say their "record against RPI top 50 was 'only' 5-8" or whatever; meanwhile a team like VA Tech didn't beat anyone in the top 20 all year and they also could claim a 5-8 record against RPI top 50).

I think you combine RPI top 50 wins with the idea of maybe like AP top 25 wins. Like, the Gophers had 5 RPI top 30 wins, but those five wins were also all against teams in the AP/ESPN/whatever Top 25 polls pretty much most of the year. Illinois as well.

I think it really comes into play when you have a team like VT, who I believe only had one win in the top 50 RPI. I mean, that just tells me you really didn't play/beat anyone of significance and I think that should definitely come into play when considering who should get a berth.

I think the committee goes much deeper into their insight than these "talking heads" do on ESPN/CBS/etc.

Monty519 said:

I think the committee goes much deeper into their insight than these "talking heads" do on ESPN/CBS/etc.

Click to expand...

I sure hope so haha!

Maroon

Maroon Shower said:

I am somewhat perplexed as to why, in the week or so leading up to the NCAA tournament, RPI ranking, record vs. RPI top 50 and record vs. RPI top 100 become so important. They seem to get very little mention throughout the season, and else seem to be a highly inaccurate way to measure teams. A few rankings that jump out at me:

Northern Iowa #17
California #20
Ohio St. #26
UTEP #36
Wichita St. #43
Cornell #48
Oakland #52
Minnesota #60
Illinois #74
Northwestern #116
Michigan #132

What do you think the line would be in Michigan-Northern Iowa game? Oakland-Northwestern? California-Ohio St.?

It seems like so much weight gets put on these random cutoff lines of 50 and 100. I understand they are nice, round numbers that make it easier to understand at a glance, but it isn't useful in assessing a team's worth. Why not top 31 RPI? or top #132?

I would hope that the selection committee is little bit more sophisticated than to weight RPI heavily into their decisions. The pundits are obsessed with it.

Click to expand...

I just HAD to ressurect this thread. You can disregard the RPI at your own risk!

Go UTEP?

If you recall, last Sunday Dan Guerrero told CBS's Greg Anthony and Seth Davis that the committee really doesn't look at RPI.

FtB

UTEP ran into Butler, RPI about 12.

I'm not above consuming heaping mounds of crow.

If you recall, last Sunday Dan Guerrero told CBS's Greg Anthony and Seth Davis that the committee really doesn't look at RPI.

Click to expand...

They don't compare RPI directly, but they certainly do look at RPI. RPI Top 50 and Top 100 wins are two of the most important criteria they look at, as admitted by Guererro.

josh087 said:

They don't compare RPI directly, but they certainly do look at RPI. RPI Top 50 and Top 100 wins are two of the most important criteria they look at, as admitted by Guererro.

Click to expand...

I recall him saying said it is one of many things listed on their sheet and they don't really look at it. Which is conflicting with other comments he has made. I'm sure RPI has different significance to each member of the selection committee.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sp...3C4C71984F6A9E31862576DA0011CC4B?OpenDocument

In 2008, chairman Tom O'Connor said, "People get hung up on the RPI" and referred to it merely as "a starting data control point."

UCLA athletics director Dan Guerrero is the 2010 chairman. "The RPI continues to be one of the criteria we evaluate," he said. "The RPI is indicative of the measure of several things that are very, very important to the committee. So we will certainly take that into consideration as we make our decisions."

However, Guerrero said the committee has decided to eliminate conference RPI from the discussion, saying that league affiliations are no longer a factor.

ESPN analyst Jay Bilas calls the RPI "a useless joke" and would like to see the committee go one step further.

"What they can do is just get rid of it," he said. "It's become this mythical thing. They tell you the RPI hardly ever comes up in discussion, that it's for organizational purposes only and it's a blunt instrument rather than a precision tool. I don't think you should use blunt instruments."