RPI Problems

[Schasz]

Pitt was surely in before last nights win, and I agree this years RPI is a joke.

[Billiphan]

To say that the field mirrors the RPI is wrong. There are probably a good 10+ teams a year that fall out of the top 64. It's also wrong to suggest that your RPI is an exact indicator or your seeding. The RPI is a factor in determing the field and seeding but not the end all that you make it out to be.

[kwyjibo]

There are several things being mixed up here and while they are all related, they are not the same thing.

First, there is the RPI as an objective measure of ranking the actual performance of teams. On this it is far from perfect, however, I think the weighting of home/road is a good thing. The weighting actually in part corrects for the big conference bias inherent in the RPI (the weighting of SOS is 75% which was constructed for the sole purpose of allowing big conference teams in the tournament with seemingly mediocre records and keeping small conference teams with a handful of victories out). I definitely think the SOS should be a part just not 75%.

Second, there is the completely separate issue of ranking teams in terms of "how good they are". Teams like Cincy are ready every night and they always have a good RPI. If and when they get beat it is because the other team was better. Then there are teams who don't show up with their A-game every night (Memphis?) and they lose games maybe they should have won. Sure, you can say things like the team is "better than their record" and reward them with a tourney birth but why? I think teams should be judged solely by their record, warts and all, no "spinning" the losses with a few quality wins. The other problem is that "how good they are" is a lot about hype and bluster. I am sure you all have competed against people who talk a good game (or have paid analysts talk their game for them) and then there are those who get it done. The NCAA should reward those who get it done.

Third, there is the issue of matchups. There is no single ranking of teams that says who is better. Yeah, I think Pitt will win over BC more times than not (because BC does not have a lot great outside shooters, particularly the bigs) and West Virginia will win over Pitt more times than not (because Pitt cannot defend the shooting bigs). But BC will beat West Virginia because of their excellent passing. This is played out amongst 319 teams in an infinite of ways. A ranking is only a summary of where the team sits. This is also why picking the tournament is fun with all the different matchups and styles. This is what I think is wrong with your SIU vs. Louisville point. SIU might be able to beat more of the 319 teams than Louisville even if Louisville was a slight favorite in a head to head.

Lastly, there is the issue of who should be selected. The committee structure favors the big conferences and mediocre teams in big conferences get several bites at the apple while a smaller team has to have the whole orchard (I think Holy Cross deserves an at-large bid but no major analyst says so--remember conferencemate Bucknell beat your Pitt example at Pitt--the point is when Pitt beats BC its proof of something but when Bucknell beats Pitt its an anomoly).

Personally, I would like there to be more of an automatic, fair objective process that everyone agrees to. This year seems worse than ever with all the politicking (Calipari's appearance on Game Day was shameful and pathetic--the ESPN crew was just grinning and hyping without any objective sense that in order to let Memphis in you would have to ignore at least 30 better cases). The truth is the "talking tools" at ESPN want to promote their own power over what is good for fairness and the game. They do that already with their coverage which, because of limited audience knowledge and air time, cannot be fair or balanced. It is much easier to promote a few stories than to give an objective overall view.

I think the committe actually does a decent job (so far) but I am worried that the inevitable politicking is going to takes its toll on fairness.

[Schasz]

Now I understand their bias having Hdq. in Bristol, CT, but this guy has 8 Big East teams making the field. He also has 4 from CUSA and two from A10 (GW and St. Joes). Wow only SIU from the MVC...how can that be??? This is one guys best guess, and right now I would only put the winner of the A10 as a definite Big Dance participant...I don't have GW's RPI in front of me, so not sure if St. Joe's wins the A10 tourney if GW has the goods to also get an invite.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology

[StLouBlue]

The A-10 is the 17th rated conference. When you click on the conference ratings, the conferences are ranked in order of Average Non-Conf RPI, you need to look at the Average Overall RPI and you will see the A-10 as 17th.

I haven't followed the A-10 enough to know what the next few years look like but hopefully most of these schools will bounce back.

[StLouBlue]

The NCAA and also the TV networks & ESPN all want the same old teams to be good each year. The TV stations have invested a lot of money into making people believe that the best basketball is played only by the top leagues & teams. If people knew the school down the street was playing ball nearly equal to what they watch on TV each weekend, the fans might start paying more attention to these little schools and less to whats on TV. Parity is happening in college basketball whether people recognize it or not.

I enjoy watching the smaller schools play because they run more set offensives, trapping, presses, etc, while it seems like the big schools are more and more like the NBA letting the athletics go one on one.

As far as expanding the tournament, I would agree with this as long as it doesn't become giving the top league schools byes and letting the smaller schools fight their way into the tournament--this is what I fear would happen if they expand.

[Billiphan]

There were 12 teams with an RPI higher than 66 that made the tournament field last year. SLU and Mizzou were among the twelve teams with an RPI 64 or lower that didn't make the tourney field. Bay ARea Billiken can argue that the RPI mirrors the field all he wants but he will be wrong.

[Major Majerus]

That's OK - you probably raised my stock on the board...

[Bay Area Billiken]

I disagree with you re the RPI's effect on the selection of the tournament field. Because our Billikens, in good years, often were on the bubble, I have watched the RPI closely for years, especially after a Rich Grawer coached team was left out. There are usually only 2 or 3 variances between the final RPI ratings on Selection Sunday and the NCAA field, not 10. This year, that number might be higher because this year's RPI seems a bit odd, perhaps due to this new formula about home and road wins, and because this year more mid-majors would be in to the exlusion of more big conference teams.

On the other hand, I do not think the RPI plays nearly as much of a role in the actual tournament seedings once the NCAA field is determined.

[Bay Area Billiken]

What RPI calculation are you looking at? I would like to see it.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Billiphan, with all due respect, I am not wrong.

Look at the 1994 RPI at kenpom.com.

The teams that received automatic bids are listed in parenthesis. Sure, there are many teams with low RPI's that get automatic bids from their conferences. There is no NCAA Committee discretion there.

The point here is the at large bids, not the automatic bids.

The only 2 variances with the RPI for at large bids last year were #60 Washington and #70 Air Force getting in to the exclusion of #38 LSU and #43 Utah State.

[Bay Area Billiken]

I meant to look at the 2004 RPI, not 1994.

[Quality Is Job 1]

Actually, SLU was seeded 7th, and Maryland was 10th.

[billiken_roy]

by no means am i expecting siu to get a 3 or 4 seed. what i am saying is that they deserve one. what they get and what they deserve are two different things. my belief is that the old boys line will always be protected and the expected schools will always get the preferential seed. and those of you that dont see where it matters, it matters a lot. if siu was supposed to get a 3 and instead get a 7 or an 8, that means instead of facing a 14 seed the first round they will face a 10 or a 9 seed. i.e. a very evenly matched game instead of one the automatic seeds that really doesnt even belong in the tourney. then the second round will be vs a #1 or #2 team instead of a #4 seed. the first 3 seeds are gifts that almost guarantee sweet 16.

[billiken_roy]

let's put it this way, if i had to pick a team and my player bank consisted of louisville and and siu, only garcia and the couple of the louisville bigs would play over the siu players. i definitely would play all the siu guards before the louisville guards except garcia.

[Billiken Rich]

I mean hell we could win the CUSA title and get into the dance with a brutal rpi.

(this should have been a response to a later post in thread)

[kshoe]

I look forward to wajoring with you at an even point spread on the game.

[Billiken Rich]

I mean hell, we could win the CUSA title and get into the dance with a brutal rpi.

[billiken_roy]

billiphan, those 10 teams you are talking about would be the automatic bids from the lower conferences. there are 31 conferences. all 31 get one automatic bid. that leaves 34 at large bids.

look at it this way. if you take the top 40 teams per the rpi, you will find that they cover 16 conferences. that leaves 15 conferences that dont have a top 40 team, however, will get an automatic bid.

40 + 15 = 55

that only leaves 10 teams above the top 40 for at large other picks.

you would think, ok, that means that teams 41-50 are in. well that assumes that in those top 16 conferences, the conference tourney winner was also one of the top 40 teams. if not, then that will bump one of the 41-50 teams per surprise tourney winner. or that the committee would bump a top 40 team. that rarely happens. it has happened, but not often. and to assume that an at large bid will go to a team above the top 50 is even more rare. someone mentioned butler got in one year like that, i dont remember that, but if it did happen, that is rare.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Yes, that seed does mean a lot. Look at SLU's trip to the NCAA in Atlanta, Larry Hughes' freshman year. SLU won a fight to the finish first round game as a 10 seed over UMass. #2 seeded Kentucky won a cakewalk over totally outmanned South Carolina State. The Billikens had nothing left in the tank and got blown out in Round 2 by Kentucky.

On the other hand, Spoon's second NCAA team won an 8-9 game over Minnesota in Round 1, and gave #1 seeded Wake Forest fits in Round 2 before falling 64-59.

But I think, in general, the seeding is very important. Getting to play an easier game in Round 1 is an advantage. Of course, there have been some shockers there too over the years. Remember Princeton?

[billiken_roy]

i am not a sports gambler, so i sadly admit i dont have a clue what a "spread" is or means. but if you are saying straight up louisville vs siu who will win, i would take siu unless the game is in freedom hall. of course it would be close though simply because of the pitino factor. meaning a superior coach and every third party influence in the world thinks he should win and thus will give him the breaks.

[billiken_roy]

bay billiken said, "On the other hand, I do not think the RPI plays nearly as much of a role in the actual tournament seedings once the NCAA field is determined."

i totally agree with that. the seedings turn into trying to make the teams the ncaa wants to win win.

[kwyjibo]

Joe Lunardi works at St. Joe's University in Philadelphia. I have lost a lot of respect for him and some of the bracketologists as they use the lead-up to the tourney to promote some teams over others irrespective of merit.

When things start shaking out during championship week then they finally realize that their "bracketology" is going to be judged against actually tourney picks and they change things.

[billiken_roy]

actually to have included pitt before last night would have been a farce. they had a mid 60's rpi and to include them at that level would have demonstrated the bias that this string is about. i do not think a mid 60's team will get an at large bid in the tourney.

[Bay Area Billiken]

You are right. SLU was a #7 seed in 1994.