Plebe
La verdad no peca pero incomoda
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2016
- Messages
- 20,031
- Reaction Score
- 73,696
I’m trying to predict what the committee will do. It’s easy to pick at the flaws in the RPI but as long as the committee continues to use it then my thoughts on its merits are irrelevant. Top 50 wins has long been one of the criteria most commonly cited by committee chairs in discussing their decisions and, for better or worse, when they say “top 50” they mean in the RPI. The team sheets and nitty gritty sheets that the committee members use to evaluate and compare teams are organized by RPI rankings. Massey may be a better ranking system but I’ve never heard any evidence that the committee even considers it.They committee might use your standard for their decisions, but you seem overly focused on top 50 RPI actually meaning more than it does. Massey and many other rating systems give a far better perspective of a teams strength. RPI is very flawed. I personally will celebrate the day when it is finally scrubbed as a criteria.
Plebe-- I have a question for you. Do you really believe that the RPI is a good criteria, or do you just use it because you know the committee uses it. If it's the latter, then that would eliminate any argument in respect to your opinions on which teams will make it. The only factor unknown factor that would then be left for discussion, would be how much value the committee gives the RPI?
It would also help if you clarified if your choices are based on who you think should make it, or are just a prediction of who you believe the committee will chose? Many people are expressing their own views as to who deserves to make the dance. For discussion purposes it would clear up any confusion if people knew what was actually being discussed.
FWIW the committee is also clearly aware that the RPI is flawed because their selections and seedings *never* follow the RPI strictly. Whether they do a good job of departing from the RPI is a matter for another talk show.
