NCAA Selection is a rigged game....

[pnow15]

RPI was designed to punish good teams in weaker conferences so that the p-5 can get more team in the tournament.

Ask this one question: why not simplify this process.

Put teams into ranking, top 50, top 100, next 150, 16o+

The 160+ is the rating for all teams not in top 150.

This equals out the ratings for top teams in all conferences.

This baloney that we beat the 186th loser is better than you beating the 206th loser so I go to the dance and you stay home has got to end.

Use this formula and you get the best teams in the tourney, not the mediocre teams from the best conferences.

Do you think this is workable?

 

[VAHuskyFan]

RPI was designed to provide an "objective" measure of a team's strength without looking at margin of victory. The NCAA thinks margin of victory is problematic due to concerns about teams running up the score and its association with gambling spreads.

The Selection Committee has been "using" it since 1981 -- long before the P5 existed (so it isn't a conspiracy). But in reality, they don't rely on RPI -- they basically just pretend to.

The funny thing is, if they did rely on the RPI it would have helped the AAC a lot this year.

SMU is #13 RPI (4-seed) but #24 BPI (6-seed). They got a 6-seed.
Temple is #34 RPI (9-seed) but #66 BPI (no bid). They didn't get a bid.

Simplifying the process wouldn't solve anything. The Committee needs to look at a variety of factors and, yes, they need some degree of discretion. They just need to use that discretion a little better and not reward mediocre teams from power conferences (cough Texas, UCLA) who have played 10+ games against Top 100 teams and managed to lose 70%+ of those games.