Way to go RPI!!!! ( sarcasm )

[rmilia1]

Syracuse beat Villanova this year. Just saying.

I know... Thats why I said everyone knows Cuse is better BUT what Im saying is that a reasonable person could make the claim that the gap isnt that large between the 2 since Novas schedule has been tougher and Cuse won at home. Who knows how a game at Nova would go?? I for sure have Cuse ahead but the gap isnt that large IMO.

 

[rmilia1]

Pomeroy has the best rankings.

I have a membership and the statistical breakdown is seriously insane.

I agree.. Pomeroy is the best IMO as well.

 

[rmilia1]

Another site I use ALL the time and I think is awesome is this one

NCAA Basketball Power Ratings - NCAA BB Team Overall Power Rating

 

[SEC Official]

The system is broken. There was a good article I read earlier this week on ESPN or USA Today (sorry, I tried to find it but couldn't) that gave you two teams and compared their RPI, SoS, record, etc. and let you make the call on who was better.

It was clear by leaps and bounds that the team with 15 games against top 50 competition and the 1 SoS in the nation was better... than the #31 RPI with a weak conference schedule how really doesn't play the same level of competition... but the rankings don't reflect that.

It was Kansas and Wichita State. But the rankings are based on wins and losses... not quality of competition unfortunately... we see it year after year.

If Wichita played in the B1G they would be lucky to be ranked in the top 25... but none the less we have to deal with the system we are dealt.

Give me my choice in March: Play Kansas or Wichita... I choose Wichita every time even though we already beat Kansas this year.

 

[ericd7633]

I dont necessarily disagree with that in theory but I do think you should be rewarded for dominating wins more so than close wins. For example a 18 point win over Kansas is more impressive to me than a 1 point win over Kansas in a game you trailed the whole game and made a late shot to win or something. I think there should be a cap on being rewarded for MOV such as 20 points or something because a 47 point win shouldnt count for more than a 25 point win IMO since both games werent close.

I've just always thought that since there is a tournament at the end of the year, let's have the best resumes in it. Then the tournament can decide who the champ is. I also don't think MOV is even considered by the committee. I doubt they are able to look at each game individually.

 

[Jack_John_Mark]

I used to make a lot of bets using Pomeroy's scoring predictions.

He breaks down every single matchup using tempo, style of play, effective height advantage, experience, etc etc....

 

[SEC Official]

Wichita St in front of Zona in the coaches poll only highlights how bad thing are.

Thank God we have a tournament in March (unlike Football) else teams would go out and schedule weak games just to ensure their "ranking" at the end of the year.

That is what makes basketball so great and why football will always suck hind tit until they get a real tournament....

 

[Jack_John_Mark]

I hit 11 games straight using Pomeroy last year. Had $100 bet on each one.

Obviously there is luck involved there but I guarantee you he is more often right than wrong.

 

[ericd7633]

Syracuse beat Minnesota, Cal. (who beat Arizona) Baylor (who was #18 at the time), Indiana, St. Johns(if anyone noticed are on a roll of late beating Creighton), Villanova, Duke, Pitt., UNC, Clemson. Yes it isnt great but I dont think its terrible.

Nobody is arguing Cuse's resume or legitimacy. They are the clear cut #1 overall seed at this point. But Nova has a great shot to also get on the 1 line. Having them both on the 1 line does mean it's close. That is all he was saying. And Nova has played a really good schedule.

 

[dcZONAfan]

Nobody is arguing Cuse's resume or legitimacy. They are the clear cut #1 overall seed at this point. But Nova has a great shot to also get on the 1 line. Having them both on the 1 line does mean it's close. That is all he was saying. And Nova has played a really good schedule.

It's not really all that great, though...if this was LAST year's big east they would have a great schedule, but other than KU IOWA and 'Cuse (the first two in the same tournament) and Creighton in conference their schedule has been hideous. I guess we can call SJU good after the win against Creighton, but that's still a stretch...

 

[rmilia1]

It's not really all that great, though...if this was LAST year's big east they would have a great schedule, but other than KU IOWA and 'Cuse (the first two in the same tournament) and Creighton in conference their schedule has been hideous. I guess we can call SJU good after the win against Creighton, but that's still a stretch...

Yeah its pretty on par with Cuses overall right now. Nova just gets the bump because their BIG games have been played away or on neutral courts where Syracuses have been at home for the most part. Plus the have 2 more games vs the top 50 when compared to Cuse but the schedules themselves are pretty identical otherwise.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

There are currently 5 teams in the top 30 in RPI that arent in the top 30 of ANY OTHER widely used metric ( Sagarin, Pomeroy, Massey, BPI )... I noticed this early in the year but chalked it up to an anomaly. Now we are 75% of the way through the year and it still sits like that. So Ill ask again the same question I asked earlier this year. Why does the committee use the WORST possible metric in discussing teams resumes??? This shit happens every damn year. It would be one thing if the RPI took more variables into account and thats why it had the differences but it actually uses less data. SO we use the worst metric with the least amount of data to help select the tourney teams... That makes sense. LOL

Sigh...

The RPI has significantly different results because it isn't attempting to get similar results, i.e. its measuring something completely different.

The other rankings you list are trying to determine which teams are the best. The RPI is used to determine which resumes are the best. It's a subtle but important distinction. While there is a lot of overlap between the two, there will always be some exceptions because sometimes a team isn't as good as it's resume, or vice versa.

UMass is a perfect example. They aren't that great of a team, but they have a pretty solid resume. Hence, they are in the top of the RPI, but not the other ratings.

Personally, I prefer this method for tournament selection, especially for the teams on the bubble. You should get into the tournament based on your resume, not the perception of how good you actually are. I don't need tempo-free statistics to know if you've had a solid season or not. Wins and Losses, and who you played (and where) do a pretty good job of telling that story.

I do agree that the RPI puts too much weight on the home/away thing. I'd like to see it somewhere around 0.8/1.2 or 0.75/1.25 the 0.6/1.4 is too much.

 

[rmilia1]

Sigh...

The RPI has significantly different results because it isn't attempting to get similar results, i.e. its measuring something completely different.

The other rankings you list are trying to determine which teams are the best. The RPI is used to determine which resumes are the best. It's a subtle but important distinction. While there is a lot of overlap between the two, there will always be some exceptions because sometimes a team isn't as good as it's resume, or vice versa.

UMass is a perfect example. They aren't that great of a team, but they have a pretty solid resume. Hence, they are in the top of the RPI, but not the other ratings.

Personally, I prefer this method for tournament selection, especially for the teams on the bubble. You should get into the tournament based on your resume, not the perception of how good you actually are. I don't need tempo-free statistics to know if you've had a solid season or not. Wins and Losses, and who you played (and where) do a pretty good job of telling that story.

I do agree that the RPI puts too much weight on the home/away thing. I'd like to see it somewhere around 0.8/1.2 or 0.75/1.25 the 0.6/1.4 is too much.

I understand the resume vs teams concept Trolly. And I know that is why the RPI is different. That said I wonder why they dont use as many variables in determining their rankings. If we are debating resumes then we need to use MORE data not less IMO since many times the teams schedules are so dissimilar

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

I understand the resume vs teams concept Trolly. And I know that is why the RPI is different. That said I wonder why they dont use as many variables in determining their rankings. If we are debating resumes then we need to use MORE data not less IMO since many times the teams schedules are so dissimilar

I think for determining the quality of a given team, yeah, the more input you can get, the better.

But a resume isn't tempo-free stats. It isn't offensive or defensive efficiency. A resume is who you played, where you played 'em, and who won.

A resume is:

Game 1: Opponent1 - W
Game 2: @Opponent2 - W
Game 3: Opponent3 - W
Game 4: Opponent4 - W
Game 5: Opponent5 - W
Game 6: @Opponent6 - L
Game 7: Opponent7 - W
Game 8: @Opponent8 - W

That's it.

There's no points for style. From the committee's standpoint it doesn't matter if you Won by 50, or lost by 1. Only that you won or lost. They don't care if you held your opponent to .83 points per possession, only that you held your opponent to fewer points than you scored. The object isn't to win by the widest margin. It isn't to have a +10 rebounding margin. It isn't to lead the country in FT%. The object is to win the game. (insert Herm Edwards clip here.)

It seemed like an annual event every March... Somebody would stick a microphone in fron of Seth Greenburg's face, and he'd start talking about all of the things his team need to do to get off the bubble and make the tournament. Noticeably absent from that list: Win more games. That's why VT never got in. It wasn't because they weren't scoring enough points per possession. It wasn't that they were at a .75" height disadvantage to the average team in the ACC. It wasn't that they needed to score more points in transition. They just needed to win games. That's all the committee really cares about when it comes down to it. And That's what the RPI looks at.

 

[element1286]

Sigh...

The RPI has significantly different results because it isn't attempting to get similar results, i.e. its measuring something completely different.

The other rankings you list are trying to determine which teams are the best. The RPI is used to determine which resumes are the best. It's a subtle but important distinction. While there is a lot of overlap between the two, there will always be some exceptions because sometimes a team isn't as good as it's resume, or vice versa.

UMass is a perfect example. They aren't that great of a team, but they have a pretty solid resume. Hence, they are in the top of the RPI, but not the other ratings.

Personally, I prefer this method for tournament selection, especially for the teams on the bubble. You should get into the tournament based on your resume, not the perception of how good you actually are. I don't need tempo-free statistics to know if you've had a solid season or not. Wins and Losses, and who you played (and where) do a pretty good job of telling that story.

I do agree that the RPI puts too much weight on the home/away thing. I'd like to see it somewhere around 0.8/1.2 or 0.75/1.25 the 0.6/1.4 is too much.

Doesn't RPI just use opponent record and home/away, in that case wouldn't a win over 19-3 Toledo be similar as a win over 19-5 Duke?

 

[rmilia1]

Doesn't RPI just use opponent record and home/away, in that case wouldn't a win over 19-3 Toledo be similar as a win over 19-5 Duke?

A road win by 1 over Toledo would be a "better" win than a 25 point home drubbing of Duke yes... I get WHY they have an RPI, I just dont understand why its the PRIMARY metric. If we are really looking for the 68 best teams then that makes no sense and if we arent looking for the 68 best teams and we are only looking at resumes then we should just take the 34 highest eligible teams in the RPI for the at larges after the auto bids are handed out. Its when the #62 RPI team gets in ahead of the number 35 RPI team that I get confused. In some instances it seems to matter a lot and in others not at all. Very strange.

 

[element1286]

A road win by 1 over Toledo would be a "better" win than a 25 point home drubbing of Duke yes... I get WHY they have an RPI, I just dont understand why its the PRIMARY metric. If we are really looking for the 68 best teams then that makes no sense and if we arent looking for the 68 best teams and we are only looking at resumes then we should just take the 34 highest eligible teams in the RPI for the at larges after the auto bids are handed out. Its when the #62 RPI team gets in ahead of the number 35 RPI team that I get confused. In some instances it seems to matter a lot and in others not at all. Very strange.

See, that pretty much invalidates everything about it.

 

[dcZONAfan]

See, that pretty much invalidates everything about it.

truth

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Doesn't RPI just use opponent record and home/away, in that case wouldn't a win over 19-3 Toledo be similar as a win over 19-5 Duke?

Nope.

RPI uses your win%, your opponent's win% and their opponent's win%.

So beating Duke (19-5) is significantly better than beating LA Tech (19-5)

(and the Duke win would also be better than the Toledo win)

 

[rmilia1]

Nope.

RPI uses your win%, your opponent's win% and their opponent's win%.

So beating Duke (19-5) is significantly better than beating LA Tech (19-5)

(and the Duke win would also be better than the Toledo win)

Depends on where the win was at Trolly. But you know that