RPI

[FirstDownB]

Purdue takes care of business, utterly DESTROYS inferior opponent...
and is rewarded by dropping 11 spots in the RPI from 36 to 47.
This metric just needs to die!!!

 

[jadeezra]

Still top 12 in kenpom and sagarin . I rarely look at that one as it's very inaccurate . But I get your point the selection committee does

 

[FirstDownB]

Still top 12 in kenpom and sagarin . I rarely look at that one as it's very inaccurate . But I get your point the selection committee does

And I will believe the rumors about the committee de-emphasizing RPI when I see it. Heard that last year, too. Did not carry over to selection Sunday.

 

[Purdue0034]

That is crazy.... (and true), meanwhile while we sit mired in mediocrity at no. 47, 9 and 3 Florida, who if you recall we just destroyed last year is No. 5. Even more crazy, the RPI is referenced as a metric that the NCAA selection committee can use to make tournament selection decisions. I think I want to make my own computer program that ranks teams. I am sure I can do better than the RPI model.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Purdue takes care of business, utterly DESTROYS inferior opponent...
and is rewarded by dropping 11 spots in the RPI from 36 to 47.
This metric just needs to die!!!

It forces schools to schedule quality opponents, that's not a bad thing. And it will settle out by the middle of conference season. Worrying about daily fluctuations is worthless.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

FDB,

This comes up in several discussions each season.....just the mere fact of playing the 200+ rated schools kills the RPI rating. Sometimes there's no choice in filling out the remaining schedule, but the less of those games the better, IMO It makes a difference come selection Sunday and with seeding for sure.

I was one of those also who thought RPI was being "phased out," and although it appears not, at least some other metrics are at least being used. How much that diffuses RPI issues.....uncertain. On the flip side, IIRC, in some years, RPI has helped Purdue get a bid.

 

[DG10]

Purdue takes care of business, utterly DESTROYS inferior opponent...
and is rewarded by dropping 11 spots in the RPI from 36 to 47.
This metric just needs to die!!!

Admittedly not a fan of the RPI either, yet, when teams schedule clearly inferior opponents, hard to argue that they should be rewarded as well, regardless of whether they "take care of business" or "utterly DESTROY" said clearly inferior opponent...it's not like IU (or Duke or whoever) are rewarded when they do the same, so no reason to suggest that Purdue would or should be...a better solution would be to quit scheduling games that seerve no purpose at all other than to generate revenue by merely playing a game.

 

[IndySouthsider]

Admittedly not a fan of the RPI either, yet, when teams schedule clearly inferior opponents, hard to argue that they should be rewarded as well, regardless of whether they "take care of business" or "utterly DESTROY" said clearly inferior opponent...it's not like IU (or Duke or whoever) are rewarded when they do the same, so no reason to suggest that Purdue would or should be...a better solution would be to quit scheduling games that seerve no purpose at all other than to generate revenue by merely playing a game.

Stupid idea. The Norfolk States of the the world rely on the matchups and possible financial gain for then athletic programs to survive.

 

[FirstDownB]

Admittedly not a fan of the RPI either, yet, when teams schedule clearly inferior opponents, hard to argue that they should be rewarded as well, regardless of whether they "take care of business" or "utterly DESTROY" said clearly inferior opponent...it's not like IU (or Duke or whoever) are rewarded when they do the same, so no reason to suggest that Purdue would or should be...a better solution would be to quit scheduling games that seerve no purpose at all other than to generate revenue by merely playing a game.

I have also argued against scheduling traditionally high RPI teams in other threads. I am favor of phasing out RPI, but I also think that in the meantime you have to "play the game", so to speak.

 

[FirstDownB]

FDB,

This comes up in several discussions each season.....just the mere fact of playing the 200+ rated schools kills the RPI rating. Sometimes there's no choice in filling out the remaining schedule, but the less of those games the better, IMO It makes a difference come selection Sunday and with seeding for sure.

I was one of those also who thought RPI was being "phased out," and although it appears not, at least some other metrics are at least being used. How much that diffuses RPI issues.....uncertain. On the flip side, IIRC, in some years, RPI has helped Purdue get a bid.

Yep. I have brought it up several times myself. It's a flawed rating, but is still the primary one the committee uses and media uses. Even when people talk SOS and Top 25/50/100 wins, they are referencing an RPI basis. Smart programs/AD's need to be scheduling accordingly in the meantime.

You may be right about Purdue benefiting in the past. I know we haven't recently. Regardless, if it is a bad metric, it is a bad metric. People used to think ERA and BA were the best metrics in baseball. Times change and analytics evolve.

 

[Chuchumutha]

I have a mild case of dyslexia and when I saw the subject of this thread I thought someone died.

 

[rgarlitz]

Count me among those who believes the RPI will work itself out over time. ND will rise above 54, and given their recent histories, both Utah State and Norfolk State looked like quality mid-major opponents when the schedules came out.

Still, I'd be interested in hearing an explanation for the disparity in the current rankings of these three teams (all using CBS RPI):

Minnesota: 11-1, RPI 12
Wins: 20 (Texas Arlington), 25 (Arkansas), 90 (Vandy), 127 (UL Lafayette), 144, 153, 211, 229, 241, 243,
Losses: 14 (@Florida State)

Texas Arlington: 9-3, RPI: 20
Wins: 18 (St. Mary's) 55 (Texas Southern), 123 (Texas), 175, 207, 226, 278
Losses: 12 (@Minn), 25 (@ Arkansas), 105 (@FL Gulf Coast)

Purdue: 11-2, RPI 36
Wins: 54 (Notre Dame), 59 (Auburn), 66 (Georgia State), 113 (Arizona State), 199, 215, 224, 241, 270, 276, 342
Losses: 1 (Villanova), 4 (@ Louisville)

 

[FirstDownB]

Count me among those who believes the RPI will work itself out over time. ND will rise above 54, and given their recent histories, both Utah State and Norfolk State looked like quality mid-major opponents when the schedules came out.

Still, I'd be interested in hearing an explanation for the disparity in the current rankings of these three teams (all using CBS RPI):

Minnesota: 11-1, RPI 12
Wins: 20 (Texas Arlington), 25 (Arkansas), 90 (Vandy), 127 (UL Lafayette), 144, 153, 211, 229, 241, 243,
Losses: 14 (@Florida State)

Texas Arlington: 9-3, RPI: 20
Wins: 18 (St. Mary's) 55 (Texas Southern), 123 (Texas), 175, 207, 226, 278
Losses: 12 (@Minn), 25 (@ Arkansas), 105 (@FL Gulf Coast)

Purdue: 11-2, RPI 36
Wins: 54 (Notre Dame), 59 (Auburn), 66 (Georgia State), 113 (Arizona State), 199, 215, 224, 241, 270, 276, 342
Losses: 1 (Villanova), 4 (@ Louisville)

I am curious what you and others mean by "work itself out". I assume that to mean teams that win more games from this point forward will rise in the RPI. Well of course that is true. But the starting point matters. At this point in the season, with nonconference games about wrapped up, it is an appropriate time to reflect on where teams and conferences are lined up. Think of it as a 2 lap race. One lap has been completed and some teams have a head start on the second lap over others. Sure, you can make up ground but you have to accomplish more just to draw even.

The explanation for your question relates to the fundamental flaws of the RPI: (1) There is no consideration for margin of victory or points per possession differential. (2) Although strength of teams is generally not a linear function 1-350, the RPI treats it a such. Therefore, playing the #10 and #350 teams earns the same merit as playing the #180 team.

 

[TC4THREE]

Stupid idea. The Norfolk States of the the world rely on the matchups and possible financial gain for then athletic programs to survive.

That sounds like a problem for Norfolk State to worry about. Not us.

 

[Boiler Buck]

Purdue takes care of business, utterly DESTROYS inferior opponent...
and is rewarded by dropping 11 spots in the RPI from 36 to 47.
This metric just needs to die!!!

That's what happens sometimes when your team plays a worthless game to an opponent that was so bad our walk on could have likely took them. The only good thing that came out of that game was no injuries.

 

[BoilerFan#35]

47 because Purdue has played some of the worst mid majors in the country. Only 2 of the mid majors Purdue has played have winning records. Athletic department needs to do a better job at scheduling quality mid majors.

 

[Boiler Wolf]

This has been my concern for a while also. Need teams in the 75 to 150 range to replace teams in the 250 to 350+ range. Since the equation is linear, those high RPI teams really hurt our rating.

Also, how much did the last 2 games prepare the team for conference play? I would argue that IH and CS could do things in those games that will not be able to do in league play. So how did we get better? Only benefit is it counts as a win.

 

[rgarlitz]

I am curious what you and others mean by "work itself out". I assume that to mean teams that win more games from this point forward will rise in the RPI. Well of course that is true. But the starting point matters. At this point in the season, with nonconference games about wrapped up, it is an appropriate time to reflect on where teams and conferences are lined up. Think of it as a 2 lap race. One lap has been completed and some teams have a head start on the second lap over others. Sure, you can make up ground but you have to accomplish more just to draw even.

The explanation for your question relates to the fundamental flaws of the RPI: (1) There is no consideration for margin of victory or points per possession differential. (2) Although strength of teams is generally not a linear function 1-350, the RPI treats it a such. Therefore, playing the #10 and #350 teams earns the same merit as playing the #180 team.

When I say the RPI will "work itself out" I do mean that Purdue will rise based on future wins and fall based on (hopefully not many) future losses.

But, I also mean there will be a ripple effect based on what our opponents do. For example, I'll be shocked if ND finishes the season ranked below 50 in the RPI. As ND's RPI rises, Purdue's SOS will improve, which will make our RPI rise. Minnesota, on the other hand, is currently hanging its hat on a win over #20 Texas Arlington. But Arlington is going to struggle to keep that ranking playing in the Sun Belt where 7/12 teams have a sub-200 RPI.

The race analogy strikes me as partially correct, but the cars aren't independent of each other. They're pushed forward or pulled back based on how their opponents do over the entire season. That's why I say it will work itself out over time.

 

[rgarlitz]

47 because Purdue has played some of the worst mid majors in the country. Only 2 of the mid majors Purdue has played have winning records. Athletic department needs to do a better job at scheduling quality mid majors.

Indeed. But, it's really hard to predict which mid-majors are going to be in that 75-150 range. Norfolk State has played in a postseason tournament the past five years. Utah State is a normally reliable mid-major out of the Mountain West. Morehead State is usually among the upper-crust in the OVC.

But, I agree with your overall point. Purdue could schedule a few more from the CAA, MVC, and MWC and a few less out of the MEAC/SWAC variety.

 

[FirstDownB]

When I say the RPI will "work itself out" I do mean that Purdue will rise based on future wins and fall based on (hopefully not many) future losses.

But, I also mean there will be a ripple effect based on what our opponents do. For example, I'll be shocked if ND finishes the season ranked below 50 in the RPI. As ND's RPI rises, Purdue's SOS will improve, which will make our RPI rise. Minnesota, on the other hand, is currently hanging its hat on a win over #20 Texas Arlington. But Arlington is going to struggle to keep that ranking playing in the Sun Belt where 7/12 teams have a sub-200 RPI.

The race analogy strikes me as partially correct, but the cars aren't independent of each other. They're pushed forward or pulled back based on how their opponents do over the entire season. That's why I say it will work itself out over time.

I see what you're getting at, but we are in the mid 40's behind a lot of teams from major conferences. Some of those teams will have similar conference seasons as Purdue (let's say 13-5 for the sake of argument) in a similar SOS conference schedule as the Big Ten. Last year separating Seeds #2 through #5 was splitting hairs.

What you say about our opponents can be said for our competitions' opponents also. The difference is, outside of what anyone or anyone's opponents do from this point forward, they are in a better starting position, often due to meaningless inputs like playing a #220 rated team instead of a #300 rated team in the nonconference.

 

[FirstDownB]

But, I agree with your overall point. Purdue could schedule a few more from the CAA, MVC, and MWC and a few less out of the MEAC/SWAC variety.

I think that is all we can ask for. Look at trends, etc., and try to avoid teams from the perennial 3-4 bottom feeder conferences until the RPI is RIP.

 

[IndySouthsider]

That sounds like a problem for Norfolk State to worry about. Not us.

If that's the case stop pretending like NCAA is about student athletes and call it semi pro.

 

[TC4THREE]

If that's the case stop pretending like NCAA is about student athletes and call it semi pro.

I don't see any connection whatsoever.

 

[IndySouthsider]

I don't see any connection whatsoever.

If the NCAA cared about student athletes such as the ones at Norfolk State, they wouldn't be operating a tournament where the selection criteria would discourage P5 schools from scheduling them.

The simple fix would be to throw those games out as anomalies and not even count them in the RPI at all.

 

[TC4THREE]

If the NCAA cared about student athletes such as the ones at Norfolk State, they wouldn't be operating a tournament where the selection criteria would discourage P5 schools from scheduling them.

The simple fix would be to throw those games out as anomalies and not even count them in the RPI at all.

They appear to be finding games OK with the rules as they are. I don't think the NCAA calling bad teams bad hurts those student athletes as much as those student athletes hurt themselves by sucking.

 

[sixpackpete]

I have a mild case of dyslexia and when I saw the subject of this thread I thought someone died.

And do you plan on sitting up tomorrow night waiting for SATAN to come down the chimney?

I have never seen him but you can tell it's him because he wears a red and white striped suit!

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

This has been my concern for a while also. Need teams in the 75 to 150 range to replace teams in the 250 to 350+ range. Since the equation is linear, those high RPI teams really hurt our rating.

Also, how much did the last 2 games prepare the team for conference play? I would argue that IH and CS could do things in those games that will not be able to do in league play. So how did we get better? Only benefit is it counts as a win.

The fact the team played three games in five days gives them a chance, against a high quality opponent first and two lower ones next to work on their game planning, scheduling, and execution when the team gets to the B1G Tourney and the NCAA. I would prefer a bit better quality in the 125-175 range but the ability of the team to maintain great focus and appear to be well prepared and follow the game plan is a positive.

 

[Chuchumutha]

And do you plan on sitting up tomorrow night waiting for SATAN to come down the chimney?

I have never seen him but you can tell it's him because he wears a red and white striped suit!

Satan would never let himself go like that.