RPI rankings | The Boneyard

RPI rankings

C

Cornell Lt

Joined
Mar 2, 2018
Messages
1,525
Reaction Score
8,236
Cornell Lt said:

RealTimeRPI.com Women's College Basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI) Ratings - A leading sports ratings and resources community on the Internet

RealTimeRPI.com: RPI, RPI Rankings, college basketball rpi, Real Time NCAA College Basketball and Sports Ratings - the most accurate independent analysis of the NCAA college basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI)
www.realtimerpi.com
Expand ...
Yes, isn't it pretty to think so.

I mean I think this team still has the potential to make the final four when it comes together, and they've started to do that in the last few games, but I don't see how they can be ranked above three undefeated teams who beat them.
 
Cornell Lt said:

RealTimeRPI.com Women's College Basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI) Ratings - A leading sports ratings and resources community on the Internet

RealTimeRPI.com: RPI, RPI Rankings, college basketball rpi, Real Time NCAA College Basketball and Sports Ratings - the most accurate independent analysis of the NCAA college basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI)
www.realtimerpi.com
Expand ...
First of all, that site is missing data. Our result vs. North Carolina is not listed, and other teams have missing results as well. For a more true RPI ranking reflecting all results to date, see Warren Nolan's site.

But even if we ignore the fact that the RPI now a museum relic in college basketball, this is nothing to get excited about. At this stage our high RPI is overwhelmingly reflecting our strength of schedule. That's how an 8-3 team with a 0.7433 strength of schedule ranks higher on RPI than a 12-0 team with a 0.6425 strength of schedule, even though the latter completely dominated the former in an actual game.

A quick perusal of the RPI shows how out of touch it is with actual team performance: Gonzaga is #5, Maryland is #9, and VCU (#19) is 7 spots ahead of Texas (#26).
 
Why do you think that the NCAA went away from the RPI and went to the NET. Almost every year UConn had the top RPI and it hurt those big conference teams in placement because of their weak out of conference scheduling.

This year alone they have played against @2 NC St, #3 UCLA, #9 Maryland, #10 Louisville and #47 Texas. They have also scheduled to by the end of the regular season: #5 South Carolina, #12 Notre Dame, #16 Seton Hall 2X, #17 Creighton 2X, #26 Marquette 2X and #33 Villanova 2X.
 
Last edited:
MSGRET said:
Why do you think that the NCAA went away from the RPI and went to the NET. Almost every year UConn had the top RPI and it hurt those big conference teams in placement because of their weak out of conference scheduling.

This year alone they have played against @2 NC St, #3 UCLA, #9 Maryland, #10 Louisville and #47 Texas. They have also scheduled to by the end of the regular season: #5 South Carolina, #12 Notre Dame, #16 Seton Hall 2X, #17 Creighton 2X, #26 Marquette 2X and #33 Villanova 2X.
Expand ...
The biggest reason that they eliminated the RPI is because it made no sense. It was often better to lose by 75 points to a team with a good record than to beat a mediocre team by 75 points. I once demonstrated to a friend that a team could go 0–30 and have a top hundred RPI. The NET is better but far from perfect.
 
Lots of flaws in RPI. But it seems more focused on prediction than the NET is. The predictions are often unpersuasive. The NET, by contrast, looks like an assessment tool as opposed to a prediction tool, and it gets more precise as the season wears on. This makes the NET much more appropriate for NCAA purposes.
 
Bone Dog said:
Lots of flaws in RPI. But it seems more focused on prediction than the NET is. The predictions are often unpersuasive. The NET, by contrast, looks like an assessment tool as opposed to a prediction tool, and it gets more precise as the season wears on. This makes the NET much more appropriate for NCAA purposes.
Expand ...
I don't see that. The RPI is largely flawed because it can be "gamed". It was a very simple formula - your record times .25, your opponents records times .5 and your opponents opponents records times .25 The benefit of playing a tough schedule (which is the 2nd and 3rd factors) is that it counts as 75% of the RPI. But you can game it by playing mediocre teams in very good conferences or very respectable teams in mediocre conferences (i.e. playing a team that goes undefeated in their conference, which is a significant part of their won/lost record, which is 50% of their contribution to your RPI).

RPI had its uses, but the NET is better. However, the NET is much less practical to calculate as a fan.
 
KnightBridgeAZ said:
I don't see that. The RPI is largely flawed because it can be "gamed". It was a very simple formula - your record times .25, your opponents records times .5 and your opponents opponents records times .25 The benefit of playing a tough schedule (which is the 2nd and 3rd factors) is that it counts as 75% of the RPI. But you can game it by playing mediocre teams in very good conferences or very respectable teams in mediocre conferences (i.e. playing a team that goes undefeated in their conference, which is a significant part of their won/lost record, which is 50% of their contribution to your RPI).

RPI had its uses, but the NET is better. However, the NET is much less practical to calculate as a fan.
Expand ...
I don't disagree. That was one of the flaws I had in mind. But the NET can be gamed, too, as Kim showed last season. It gives too much weight to point differentials and a cupcake schedule would not be compensated for until later in the season by its SoS factor. As a result, too many experts thought of LSU as a juggernaut merely on the basis of its OOC results and gave them more credit than they'd really earned. This effect lingered through March and, I think, influenced poll rankings and seedings. Fortunately, it seems like the pundits are more attuned to this problem after last season and are less willing to credit early season NET information without a closer look.
 
Bone Dog said:
As a result, too many experts thought of LSU as a juggernaut merely on the basis of its OOC results and gave them more credit than they'd really earned. This effect lingered through March and, I think, influenced poll rankings and seedings.
Expand ...
As far as seedings go, LSU was clearly penalized by the committee for its weak schedule. That's why they were only a 3-seed despite being #3 overall in the NET.

The polls are a different beast, and have always tended to reward teams who simply avoid losing even if they are playing weak opponents. But the polls aren't considered in the tournament seedings.

The jury is very much still out on whether there's a trick to “gaming” the NET and, if so, how. It's been around in the men's game for six years now, and AFAIK no clear pattern has emerged.
 

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
2,596
Total visitors
2,678
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,209
Messages
4,387,415
Members
10,195
Latest member
ArtTheFan


.
..
Top Bottom