so

75% of the basic RPI formula is who you play, not how you did. Then it gets adjusted for where.

 

And?
Don't sleep on Kentucky (who beat Tennessee) or Kent State, either. Kentucky has done very well over the last few weeks. I know they just lost Patterson (their second leading scorer), but hey - teams can play through injuries, right? BYU also beat a very good Louisville team.

So, please explain something to me. People on this board are FOR or AGAINST the RPI rankings? Seems that those that are FOR them pull for teams that are ranked pretty high and those that are AGAINST them pull for teams that aren't ranked or SUCK.
Either way - everyone quit crying that the RPI is stoopid - it's what is used in college basketball.

 

What? Chapel Hill hasn't played any of those teams. The CNN writer must of meant Butler had the highest RPI of any team Chapel Hill has beaten. Of course that was in November and the RPI has changed since then. RPI means nothing until conference play anyway.

 

This has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. Ok, let's say you can drop the bottom 4 teams in the big easy, then we'll drop the bottom 4 teams in the ACC.
The ACC STILL has a higher average RPI than BE.
40.75 vs. 41.08
That better?

 

Ok, I'm confused - what's your question?

 

math continues to contend I "hung my hat" on the RPI, which is bullshit. did I come whining about the RPI when I pointed out the obvious — that the Big East is a stronger conference? no, I did not.

The Big East is stronger than the ACC, and RPI has absolutely nothing to do with it. The top 12 teams in the Big East are better than the 12 teams that make up the ACC. anyone who disagrees is ignorant, an incurable homer, or both. Probably both.

enjoy getting your asses handed to you in the tournament. again.

 

You moron, you used the RPI to prove both of those points. How many times do I have to quote your own goddamn posts? I've already done it enough to make you look stoopid on this one. Go practice your spinning in Politics.

 

The RPI is a terrible measurement tool both because of the formulation that puts way too much emphasis on who you play (and was previously ignorant of where), and because of the bias the committee displays when choosing how much weight to grant it. Basicly, if you are a mid major with a good RPI number as your main claim to a bid, they ignore it. If you're a big conference team with a great RPI and no wins win over decent competition, they give the bid because of the RPI.

The bias is actually worse now than it was before the home/away factor was added. Previously, you could predict NCAA tournament seeding within 1 spot by dividing a team's RPI by 4, and to hell with what their resume really looked like. And teams with better than 40 RPI got in, and teams with 50 or worse didn't, except for New Mexico that one year (AD on commitee).

 

Can any team that plays in a conference that DOES NOT have a Round Robin system really use Conference RPI as an indicator of strength with regards either getting in the NCAA tournament of justifying a seed in the NCAA tournament? It's like VA Tech this year. They only play UNC and Duke once while some schools play UNC/Duke twice. Doesn't seem like RPI is much of an indicator in this situation.

 

LOL!