Cyclones RPI

[cyclones500]

Milwaukee will be. No way that RPI stays sub 100.

A decent chance it'll drop under 100. Rest of Milwaukee's non-conference is unlikely to boost RPI: Montana State, Jacksonville, Western Illinois, at Belmont, Western Mich. If UWM runs the table there and wins A Lot in Horizon, number might stay fairly steady.

It's a micro-detail anyway, ISU's resume isn't going to succeed or fail based on that loss. Worst-case, it'll be a home defeat vs. a sub-150 RPI team. Plenty of chances to balance that with quality wins.

 

[Cyclonepride]

A decent chance it'll drop under 100. Rest of Milwaukee's non-conference is unlikely to boost RPI: Montana State, Jacksonville, Western Illinois, at Belmont, Western Mich. If UWM runs the table there and wins A Lot in Horizon, number might stay fairly steady.

It's a micro-detail anyway, ISU's resume isn't going to succeed or fail based on that loss. Worst-case, it'll be a home defeat vs. a sub-150 RPI team. Plenty of chances to balance that with quality wins.

And a very early home defeat, while missing two key players.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Good luck getting through to these keeeds. stuck in the 80’s/90’s where 20 wins almost automatically meant a tourney berth.

You missed on that one.

 

[KKramer]

ISU lost 10 games last year and was a 5 seed.

Well to be fair, take a look at the RPIs of the teams Iowa State lost to last year:

Gonzaga - 6
Cincinnati - 12
Iowa - 83
Kansas - 4
West Virginia - 20
Texas - 156
TCU - 52
Baylor - 9
Vanderbilt - 42

Take out the Texas loss and all of those losses are to tourney teams or bubble teams with good to great RPIs. Iowa State had great wins that amplified it, but that's why they got the 5 seed with 10 losses.

 

[SolarGarlic]

explain to me how we make the Dance if we lose possibly 2-more non conf games? I think it will take a minimum of (12) B12 wins, how many to you think? We all can come up with examples of P5 teams with 10+ losses getting in as 10-12 seeds, but it it bubblish. jmo

November 28. We have three and a half more months of people not understanding what it takes to get in to the tournament.

12-6 in the Big 12, and you are not sweating on SS. At all.

 

[VeloClone]

explain to me how we make the Dance if we lose possibly 2-more non conf games? I think it will take a minimum of (12) B12 wins, how many to you think? We all can come up with examples of P5 teams with 10+ losses getting in as 10-12 seeds, but it it bubblish. jmo

Getting in with 10+ losses is not rare.

Just last year:
5 ISU 23-10
5 Virginia 22-10
7 Michigan 24-11
7 S Carolina 22-10
8 Miami 21-11
8 Northwestern 23-11
9 Michigan St 19-14
9 Seton Hall 21-11
9 Vandy 19-15
9 Virginia Tech 22-10
10 Okie St 20-12
10 Marquette 19-12
11 Xavier 21-13
11* Kansas St 20-13
11* Providence 20-12
* Play in game
And that doesn't include any of the only in because they won the conference tournament one bid league upset teams.

That is 10 teams that had better than a 10 seed with 10 or more losses so it isn't rare.

 

[Gunnerclone]

November 28. We have three and a half more months of people not understanding what it takes to get in to the tournament.

12-6 in the Big 12, and you are not sweating on SS. At all.

Yep. There is no “magic number” of wins to get in or losses to keep a team out.

 

[EarthIsMan]

It will be a joyous day when the RPI is retired forever. Cannot believe the NCAA selection committee still uses it.

 

[cyclones500]

It will be a joyous day when the RPI is retired forever. Cannot believe the NCAA selection committee still uses it.

Question for anyone here in-the-know: When CBB changes its selection metrics next season, is it dropping RPI completely, or merely incorporating additional metric sources and adding to it? I can't recall specifics about the change.

Another general Q: The argument against RPI in recent years is it has become outdated. So I assume it has been flawed since the outset, but nobody truly could tell since it was pretty much "the only game in town" at that point?

 

[BryceC]

Question for anyone here in-the-know: When CBB changes its selection metrics next season, is it dropping RPI completely, or merely incorporating additional metric sources and adding to it? I can't recall specifics about the change.

Another general Q: The argument against RPI in recent years is it has become outdated. So I assume it has been flawed since the outset, but nobody truly could tell since it was pretty much "the only game in town" at that point?

There is probably going to be two metrics - one, a predictor like KenPom or Sagarain and another that is an assessment of results like RPI or KPI.

I think the RPI gets a bad rap, mostly because it's not as complex a metric as others, but I think results matter more than KenPom specifically targets for.

 

[Cydkar]

November 28. We have three and a half more months of people not understanding what it takes to get in to the tournament.

12-6 in the Big 12, and you are not sweating on SS. At all.

Especially this year when there will be a couple extra slots that the BIG won't get.

 

[FinalFourCy]

There is probably going to be two metrics - one, a predictor like KenPom or Sagarain and another that is an assessment of results like RPI or KPI.

I think the RPI gets a bad rap, mostly because it's not as complex a metric as others, but I think results matter more than KenPom specifically targets for.

The further it can be from the CFP selection process the better.

The Big 10 is so bad that we should see something like when Washington won the PAC 12 at 14-4 and didn’t get in. Obviously the champion will get in, but if a team has a good Big 10 record after struggling in non-conference, they should be out.

 

[CyTwins]

It will be a joyous day when the RPI is retired forever. Cannot believe the NCAA selection committee still uses it.

What is wrong with the RPI?

 

[BryceC]

Again, I like the RPI to a certain extent. I think there is better stuff but I like results.

 

[Cydkar]

What is wrong with the RPI?

It's not a power rating and is almost always discussed as if it is. That doesn't mean there's something "wrong" with RPI, I guess. It certainly has its flaws, as any formula will.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Yep. There is no “magic number” of wins to get in or losses to keep a team out.

Yeah but 20 wins!

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Again, I like the RPI to a certain extent. I think there is better stuff but I like results.

To just use RPI is foolish but I would be really disappointed if the committee stopped using it. Not all conferences schedules are created equally and IMO it's important to put some weight into strength of schedule. RPI also helps some of the mid majors get an invite and I'm all for that.

 

[cyclones500]

The more sources the committee can "officially" use in selection will improve the process. Apparently they already can use metrics beyond RPI (and even use polls as part of the equation), but RPI has been the standard go-to.

Assessments I've encountered along the way says RPI puts significant weight on SOS and loves road/neutral results — if I interpret that accurately. Feel free to correct me on that.

I've said for several years, regardless of baseline system, the ranking itself isn't an end-all, you still have to gauge results within that metric, as I think already is evaluated using RPI --- results vs. top 25/50/100 etc.

 

[EarthIsMan]

Question for anyone here in-the-know: When CBB changes its selection metrics next season, is it dropping RPI completely, or merely incorporating additional metric sources and adding to it? I can't recall specifics about the change.

Another general Q: The argument against RPI in recent years is it has become outdated. So I assume it has been flawed since the outset, but nobody truly could tell since it was pretty much "the only game in town" at that point?

What is wrong with the RPI?

Cyclones500, the NCAA selection committee uses a variety of metrics and criteria, but it does appear that the RPI use among committee members is waning. Also, the NCAA is not interested in rebuilding their own metric, but wanting to use other existing metrics. Statistically, RPI is just very poor and does not have logic.

For example, it is possible to have a team win against a very lowly ranked RPI team, and the winning team's RPI gets worse. Conversely, it is possible for a team to lose to very highly ranked RPI team, and the losing team's RPI improves.

Using solely Massey, Sagarin, KenPom, etc. have their problems too, but they do have much more statistical rigor and logic.

CyTwins, My thought's are not original, but mainly shaped from this article:

 

[BryceC]

Honestly I think the schedule thing is really important, especially as conferences play unbalanced schedules.