My final thoughts on rankings, RPI, etc.

[CatsTopPac]

I don't know if everyone keeps arguing about rankings etc. just to argue, or if any of you actually think that any of it (at any point in the year) means shit. It doesn't: not at the beginning, the middle, or the end. Hell, Gonzaga was the #1 team for the last three weeks heading into March, and they didn't even get the #1 overall seed in the tourney.

Really, who fucking cares???

If you think your team is the best in the country, then you should get a #1 seed and get to the Final Four. Seriously, if SU does what they are supposed to do, they'll get the #1 seed in the East. If Wisky does the same, they will get the #1 seed in the Midwest, and if AZ follows suit, they will get the top seed in the West. What is the fucking problem here???

If you are really concerned that your team is not #1 in the rankings, then it means that your team is still good enough to be the #1 seed in your closest region, and it's really not a big deal. The goal of any regular season is to get the #1 seed in your closest region because it you the least possible travel in the tourney to get to the FF.

Again, WTF is the argument???

No ranking, index, or rating is completely accurate. And because they are not perfect, and because they use different qualifiable and quantifiable indicators, they are usually different from each other. The committee uses a wide variety of qualifiable and quantifiable indicators to decide seeding. Not just one, and each member weighs differently. It's not an exact science. Besides, the main point is that if your team has done what they needed to do, then they will be the #1 seed in their region, regardless of the rankings. And don't give me the overall #1 seed bullshit. If you really think that your team is good enough to make it to the Final Four, then it doesn't matter who else gets put in at the opposite end of your bracket.

Wisky should be worried this season about MSU, OSU, etc.; not AZ.
SU should be worried about Pitt, 'Nova, etc.; not AZ.

If you are not really worried about the teams that will challenge you for the #1 seed in your region, then great!!!!

The only time you should worry about a team that has no threat of challenging your region is if/when you get to Arlington for the Final Four.

Other than that, you people are wasting your time on some seriously worthless bullshit. Enjoy the fucking season, we've all had to wait an entire offseason for this. Don't waste it being consumed with why you are not at the top of some bullshit category.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

I completely agree with your main point, that the rankings simply don't matter so there isn't much point in arguing over them. They're meaningless.

That said, I think the main point of the polls (at least for CBB) is to spark conversation/debate, so I don't really have an issue with people arguing about them. I don't really even care if they're arguing just for the sake of arguing, or playing devil's advocate, or even if they're just trolling. Fine. Whatever knock yourself out.

My problem arises when someone makes a poor argument based on some logical fallacy, misapplied statistics or, or just stupid bullshit in general. Every time someone does that, God kills a puppy, and that makes me mad. Stop killing puppies people!

 

[john01992]

my thoughts,

1. people are confusing ratings with rankings far too often

2. RPI (and other stats) should be used for rating a teams resume. i really don't see how someone can argue that wisky is better than zona or cuse simply because they are higher in rpi.

3. until BPI gets taken seriously by the vast majority of college basketball analysts, i will not take it seriously. espn may own it, but those outside of espn have the option to reference it.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

until BPI gets taken seriously by the vast majority of college basketball analysts, i will not take it seriously. espn may own it, but those outside of espn have the option to reference it.

Well for starters, I don't think the vast majority of college basketball analysts agree what color the sky is because a lot of them are contrarian pricks. Also, there is about as much data out there on what color they think the sky is, compared to what they think of the BPI which means any opinion you've formed on on the matter is nothing but speculation. Furthermore, you have no idea what options analysts have for referencing proprietary metrics owned by competitors, to state otherwise is (without proof) is once again, speculation. If you know otherwise, prove it.

You seem pretty set in your beliefs that Arizona is #1. Do the majority of college basketball analysts agree with that? Can you provide proof?

You seem okay with the RPI. Do the majority of college analysts think the RPI is a sound metric? Can you provide proof?

Is there some reason you have such a high burden of proof for the BPI other than your own personal bias?

 

[CatsTopPac]

my thoughts,

1. people are confusing ratings with rankings far too often

2. RPI (and other stats) should be used for rating a teams resume. i really don't see how someone can argue that wisky is better than zona or cuse simply because they are higher in rpi.

3. until BPI gets taken seriously by the vast majority of college basketball analysts, i will not take it seriously. espn may own it, but those outside of espn have the option to reference it.

You have been relying on RPI for weeks and weeks to prove that SU is better than AZ, and now you say that RPI shouldn't be used to determine that Wisky is better than SU?

But you and Trolly essentially arrived at the same point: there is a plethora of markers that the committee, the voters, fans, and the press use to determine #1. They do it not because it actually matters right now (although some will argue it does), but because they want to generate discussion.

Just keep in mind though, that if the committee incorporates everything from Sagarin and Pomroy, to RPI and BPI, etc., into their seeding, then you should too (if you are one to make an argument for a team to be #1 or a #1 seed.

And another couple points about BPI:

1) People might not be using it because ESPN owns it, and they don't want to have to give credit to their market competitor.

2) Even if they don't use it, it still doesn't mean that it's not as relevant of a marker as anything else. Because the commitee uses the same factors as the BPI, even if they don't necessarily say, "We use the BPI." Past the rankings, Sagarin, Pomroy, and RPI, they also account for injured players more degrees of SOS, etc. It doesn't matter if they come out and say it or not, if they include the same additional factors to the RPI that the BPI includes, then they use BPI (whether they look to it specifically, or they calculate it on their own). Now I get that they could calculate it differently (like a more accurate measurement of injured players that the BPI uses), but it still doesn't negate the value of the BPI, just because people outside of ESPN don't explicitly say, "We consult the BPI." If they use the same markers, then it applies whether they admit to it or not.

But it sounds like Trolly is arguing to prove a point or how John is just arguing just to argue. And I can get on board with that. I just think that John is willing to use whatever necessary to show that SU is better than a certain team, but then be the first to throw those same points out, if it also proves that another team is better than SU. And that's where it gets ridiculous. I'm not just singling John out, because it's rampant in these types of discussions. I just think that having the discussion at all is worthless.

Each of the rankings/ratings/indices is important in that it paints a better picture down the road for seeding. But in and of themselves, they are almost worthless in what they omit. My argument for the BPI is just that they are just as valuable as anything else, because they are as accurate as anything else, in being one of the many factors that the committee considers. But picking through each or all of them, to take away which factors supports your team, and omitting the factors that don't is crazy.

Besides, teams that are up now, will be down by the end of the season, and vice versa. And teams that are up at the beginning of March, will flop in the tourney.

The whole goal of the season is to get practice on different match-ups, work on weaknesses, develop players, and play for seeding. I'll throw in there conference, rivalry, and elite matchup success too; and all of that even takes a backseat if another team you dominated in the regular season does better in March.

So I just don't get why everyone gets in such an uproar over why they aren't #1, or is better because they have the highest RPI, or BPI, or leads Pomroy, or Sagarin, etc.

Quick, 6 years ago, in week 13, who led in RPI, or the rankings, or Sagarin. That's right, no one gives a fuck. See the point? Who won that year, who was in the Final Four, and who won each conference? Now we are getting to the point where the answers matter (especially in-conference for that last question). Other than that, none of it matters enough to argue and get so pissy about.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

my thoughts,

1. people are confusing ratings with rankings far too often

You're kinda right, but not really.

The term "ranking" is pretty much universal and can be used to describe one teams relative position in any ordered list. I rarely ever see "ranking" misused.

Arizona is ranked #1 by the AP.
Arizona is ranked #1 by Sagarin.

the term "ranking" applies in both situations and is equally valid, despite one being a poll, and the other being a rating system.

As far as ratings go, I'll occasionally hear someone refer to a team's rating, but not nearly as often as ranking.

Arizona is ranked #1 by Sagarin
Arizona is rated 93.79 by Sagarin.

I do think there is a little bit of confusion over polls and rankings. An individual voter in the AP or Coach's Poll typically does not quantify anything in their ballot. They simply put the teams in an ordered list. That would fall under the definition of a ranking. The collection of those individual rankings would be a poll. Parrish's Top25+1 on CBS is a ranking, not a poll. The AP & Coach's are both polls and rankings. (again, "ranking" is pretty universal) Last year when Parrish and Goodman both participated in the 25+1, you could have argued it was a poll, as it was a collection of opinions.

The only time I really see people confuse ranking and rating is with the RPI and even then it's really not a big deal.

Arizona's RPI is not 5. It's 0.6775
Arizona's RPI rank is 5.

But the only time I would call attention to something like that is if the improper use creates some sort of ambiguity. In most cases when someone says "Arizona's RPI is 5th" I know exaclty what they mean so there isn't much point in correcting them.

 

[john01992]

You have been relying on RPI for weeks and weeks to prove that SU is better than AZ, and now you say that RPI shouldn't be used to determine that Wisky is better than SU?

this is why i really wish zona improves its academics. their fans are really lacking in the reading comprehension department.

-my whole point has been that cuse should be ranked higher than arizona based on body of work and that the RPI wins that cuse had up to that point in the season completely blew away zona.

-RPI rankings are a pure resume system not an actual ranking system

-i used the syracuse, wisky, zona example because thats where i see a lot of people on this forum using RPI to judge which team is better. at no point did i say that wisky shouldnt be ranked higher than cuse because of their RPI rank

 

[john01992]

You have been relying on RPI for weeks and weeks to prove that SU is better than AZ, and now you say that RPI shouldn't be used to determine that Wisky is better than SU?

But you and Trolly essentially arrived at the same point: there is a plethora of markers that the committee, the voters, fans, and the press use to determine #1. They do it not because it actually matters right now (although some will argue it does), but because they want to generate discussion.

Just keep in mind though, that if the committee incorporates everything from Sagarin and Pomroy, to RPI and BPI, etc., into their seeding, then you should too (if you are one to make an argument for a team to be #1 or a #1 seed.

And another couple points about BPI:

1) People might not be using it because ESPN owns it, and they don't want to have to give credit to their market competitor.

2) Even if they don't use it, it still doesn't mean that it's not as relevant of a marker as anything else. Because the commitee uses the same factors as the BPI, even if they don't necessarily say, "We use the BPI." Past the rankings, Sagarin, Pomroy, and RPI, they also account for injured players more degrees of SOS, etc. It doesn't matter if they come out and say it or not, if they include the same additional factors to the RPI that the BPI includes, then they use BPI (whether they look to it specifically, or they calculate it on their own). Now I get that they could calculate it differently (like a more accurate measurement of injured players that the BPI uses), but it still doesn't negate the value of the BPI, just because people outside of ESPN don't explicitly say, "We consult the BPI." If they use the same markers, then it applies whether they admit to it or not.

But it sounds like Trolly is arguing to prove a point or how John is just arguing just to argue. And I can get on board with that. I just think that John is willing to use whatever necessary to show that SU is better than a certain team, but then be the first to throw those same points out, if it also proves that another team is better than SU. And that's where it gets ridiculous. I'm not just singling John out, because it's rampant in these types of discussions. I just think that having the discussion at all is worthless.

Each of the rankings/ratings/indices is important in that it paints a better picture down the road for seeding. But in and of themselves, they are almost worthless in what they omit. My argument for the BPI is just that they are just as valuable as anything else, because they are as accurate as anything else, in being one of the many factors that the committee considers. But picking through each or all of them, to take away which factors supports your team, and omitting the factors that don't is crazy.

Besides, teams that are up now, will be down by the end of the season, and vice versa. And teams that are up at the beginning of March, will flop in the tourney.

The whole goal of the season is to get practice on different match-ups, work on weaknesses, develop players, and play for seeding. I'll throw in there conference, rivalry, and elite matchup success too; and all of that even takes a backseat if another team you dominated in the regular season does better in March.

So I just don't get why everyone gets in such an uproar over why they aren't #1, or is better because they have the highest RPI, or BPI, or leads Pomroy, or Sagarin, etc.

Quick, 6 years ago, in week 13, who led in RPI, or the rankings, or Sagarin. That's right, no one gives a fuck. See the point? Who won that year, who was in the Final Four, and who won each conference? Now we are getting to the point where the answers matter (especially in-conference for that last question). Other than that, none of it matters enough to argue and get so pissy about.

listen fuckface. i have been against BPI since its incorporation. when it favored syracuse last year i was still against it, if it puts syracuse #1 ==> i will still be against it.

I have been VERY CLEAR on what my beefs with BPI are. i think you are just a two-faced jackass who wants BPI to be relevant because it props up your team. I just don't see how you can call me out for hating BPI only because it props up zona, and yet you are too stupid to look in the mirror and admit that a big part of the reason why you love BPI so much is because it favors arizona.

but hey you are not singling me out right and I am only here to argue

 

[CatsTopPac]

listen fuckface. i have been against BPI since its incorporation. when it favored syracuse last year i was still against it, if it puts syracuse #1 ==> i will still be against it.

I have been VERY CLEAR on what my beefs with BPI are. i think you are just a two-faced jackass who wants BPI to be relevant because it props up your team. I just don't see how you can call me out for hating BPI only because it props up zona, and yet you are too stupid to look in the mirror and admit that a big part of the reason why you love BPI so much is because it favors arizona.

but hey you are not singling me out right and I am only here to argue

I called you out on your flip-flop in using RPI not BPI. It's all right there in the very first sentence; you know, the one you quoted. In order for this conversation to work, you must pull your head out of your ass.

 

[john01992]

I called you out on your flip-flop in using RPI not BPI. It's all right there in the very first sentence; you know, the one you quoted. In order for this conversation to work, you must pull your head out of your ass.

and when did i ever flip flop

-i still hate bpi

-i still think rpi should be used to judge quality of wins not ranking

in order for this conversation to work you must have a dose of reality

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

-my whole point has been that cuse should be ranked higher than arizona based on body of work and that the RPI wins that cuse had up to that point in the season completely blew away zona.

Ranked higher by what? The AP?

If that's what you're talking about, that's your first mistake. The AP doesn't go by body of work, so you'll have better luck trying to shit up a rope than to convince people based purely on body of work that Cuse should be ranked higher in the AP.

If not the AP then what the fuck are you talking about?

-RPI rankings are a pure resume system not an actual ranking system

RPI ratings Are a pure resume system. Any rating system can produce rankings.

You complain about people misusing the terms, then you go and do it yourself. Nice.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

until BPI gets taken seriously by the vast majority of college basketball analysts, i will not take it seriously. espn may own it, but those outside of espn have the option to reference it.

You seem pretty set in your beliefs that Arizona isn't #1. Do the majority of college basketball analysts agree with that? Can you provide proof?

You seem okay with the RPI. Do the majority of college analysts think the RPI is a sound metric? Can you provide proof?

Is there some reason you have such a high burden of proof for the BPI other than your own personal bias?

Fixed bold mistake. Questions still stand.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

my beef with espn is that they try to cram these ranking systems down our throats and act like they are flawless regardless of the feedback they get from them.

until BPI gets taken seriously by the vast majority of college basketball analysts, i will not take it seriously. espn may own it, but those outside of espn have the option to reference it.

So....

I want to make sure I read that right...

You take issue with the fact that ESPN is allegedly (you've yet to substantiate that claim) cramming the BPI down our throats. So your solution to have other media outlets use it more?

 

[CatsTopPac]

-my whole point has been that cuse should be ranked higher than arizona based on body of work and that the RPI wins that cuse had up to that point in the season completely blew away zona.

-RPI rankings are a pure resume system not an actual ranking system

-i used the syracuse, wisky, zona example because thats where i see a lot of people on this forum using RPI to judge which team is better. at no point did i say that wisky shouldnt be ranked higher than cuse because of their RPI rank

So you have a problem with people on here using RPI to judge which team is better? Because here is a quote from you on January 3rd at 12:46 pm (Legit rankings without preseason ranking consideration board, post #47):

"SU crushes zona in RPI & SOS ==> I think its pretty obvious as to who is better."

And just to be clear, SU's NCSOS is now 62 and AZ's is 67. So regardless of whether we are talking about rating or ranking of NCSOS, it's pretty much a wash. Conference SOS is 67 for AZ and 97 for SU, so I'm not sure you want to go there. But you did--in fact--base who is better by RPI and SOS. I'm just not sure what you mean by crushing, because even as AZ has a better overall SOS right now (conference and non conference combined), SU is only .0017 ahead of AZ in RPI.

At the time SU had a better RPI (and SOS), and so you used it, but it's almost a wash now. And conveniently, you are now distancing yourself from using RPI to determine the better team.

So it was applicable when it was SU and AZ, but not when it's SU and wisky? Got it.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

Too much reading on this thread lol.

One thing I'll say. I also think BPI is moronic and i pay no attention to it.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Too much reading on this thread lol.

One thing I'll say. I also think BPI is moronic and i pay no attention to it.

Why is it moronic? It's as good as any other marker? I don't think it's perfect by any means, but it is more tailored to what the committee considers than anything else, imo. None of them in themselves is the most accurate, but I think it more accurate than many of the rankings, and RPI.

It has picked the eventual champion both years in existence, is more accurate for picking March winners than RPI, and is a better indicator of who will be in the FF than RPI or rankings.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

Why is it moronic? It's as good as any other marker? I don't think it's perfect by any means, but it is more tailored to what the committee considers than anything else, imo. None of them in themselves is the most accurate, but I think it more accurate than many of the rankings, and RPI.

It has picked the eventual champion both years in existence, is more accurate for picking March winners than RPI, and is a better indicator of who will be in the FF than RPI or rankings.

Because it's just ESPNS way to try and get involved. It's stupid. RPI is what the committee is going to use. Not some made up BPI.

O and everyone had Kentucky winning, and UL most everyone.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Because it's just ESPNS way to try and get involved. It's stupid. RPI is what the committee is going to use. Not some made up BPI.

O and everyone had Kentucky winning, and UL most everyone.

Yeah, see as much as I think there is an element of ESPN doing that, I think it's mostly them also trying to mirror what the committee is looking for when they pick seeds. In the considerations portion of the NCAA explanation of how they select seeds, they also list factors like player injury, margin of victory, strength of schedule, whether the games are on the road or at home, etc., in addition to RPI. So the BPI is basically RPI plus the factors that the committee lists as important, that the RPI doesn't consider.

And since the BPI has been around, it has been more accurate than the RPI in determining the NC and the Final Four:

BPI 2013:
#1 'Ville (NC)

Other Final Four:

#8 Michigan
#11 Cuse
#24 Wichita State

BPI 2012
#1 UK (NC)

Other Final Four:
#3 OSU
#5 KU
#11 'Ville


However, RPI 2013
#3 Ville

Other Final Four:

#13 Cuse
#17 Michigan
#38 Wichita State

RPI 2012:

#2 UK

Other Final Four:

#6 KU
#7 OSU
#12 'Ville

So, in not one year did RPI predict the winner, whereas the BPI picked the winner both years. And BPI was more accurate in both years of determining the other Final Four teams.

The numbers say that BPI is much more accurate overall than RPI, even if obviously neither is perfect. I think it's just another tool to get seeding more accurate, and I think it's as good as anything else.

 

[john01992]

So you have a problem with people on here using RPI to judge which team is better? Because here is a quote from you on January 3rd at 12:46 pm (Legit rankings without preseason ranking consideration board, post #47):

"SU crushes zona in RPI & SOS ==> I think its pretty obvious as to who is better."

And just to be clear, SU's NCSOS is now 62 and AZ's is 67. So regardless of whether we are talking about rating or ranking of NCSOS, it's pretty much a wash. Conference SOS is 67 for AZ and 97 for SU, so I'm not sure you want to go there. But you did--in fact--base who is better by RPI and SOS. I'm just not sure what you mean by crushing, because even as AZ has a better overall SOS right now (conference and non conference combined), SU is only .0017 ahead of AZ in RPI.

At the time SU had a better RPI (and SOS), and so you used it, but it's almost a wash now. And conveniently, you are now distancing yourself from using RPI to determine the better team.

So it was applicable when it was SU and AZ, but not when it's SU and wisky? Got it.

1. when i said SU crushes zona in RPI it was pretty obvious i was referring to RPI wins. why do you think i cited sos right after? and to be clear ==> you are using RPI numbers from today to blast me for mentioning the RPI numbers from 2-3 weeks ago.......



anyways back when i made those comments heres where the RPI wins between the two were (this was before conference play started):

The Orange have wins over Villanova (5), Baylor (10), Minnesota (27), Eastern Michigan (52) and St. John’s (62). Arizona does not have a single top 25 RPI win. Duke sits at 30th and SDSU 36th. The rest of Arizona’s best RPI wins are New Mexico State (46), Michigan (75), UNLV (89), and Drexel (92).

yeah I think its pretty clear that in that point in the season SU had a clear RPI & SOS advantage. and just a note (and this is a habit from my espn days) when i cite RPI i mean RPI wins. because over there because when everyone talked RPI that was where the conversation led not team X is better than team Y because team X is higher in RPI. the hoop doesn't allow edited posts after 5 min and if I noticed that mistake earlier I would of included wins. bash me all you want for the RPI comment but I think its pretty obvious because whenever I cite RPI its always while I am mentioning SOS

 

[john01992]

the BPI debate

captspac/trolly ==> argue its accuracy

john/hockey ==> argue the way espn forces it as a major ranking system.

neither are gonna budge and we both make good points however......

1. BPI is only 2 years old. we simply don't have enough data to really test its accuracy. if BPI completely bombs it this year in the tourny then that single handedly crushes its "accuracy" point.

2. you are comparing RPI (a resume tool) to BPI based on tourny performance which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with quality of resume's

3. i don't think any ranking system can ever accurately predict a tournament at the rate that you claim BPI can. yes it picked LV/uk correct, but what you fail to mention is that UK/LV were the most picked teams to win it all in both years. uk entered the tourny #1, LV entered the tourny hot of the BET and #2 behind a gonzaga that got very little respect. I think a big component of why the BPI got it correct is that the tourny favorite just happened to win it in the same 2 years BPI existed. and even that makes me skeptical. LV got a huge lift with ware and who knows how they would of ended up if that injury never happened.