Does anybody know how RPI is figured? It hasn't ever made a hell of a lot of sense to me. I noticed Kansas was ranked 119 in the RPI, and even though I've been very down on Kansas this year, I thought that seemed a little low, it was hard for me to imagine 118 teams better than KU. I would say somewhere in the 30's would be more accurate. Following is a list of schools with more losses than Kansas and ranked higher than them in RPI (number of losses is all that is factored here):
Depaul, Auburn, Kentucky, Northwestern State, St. Joseph, Bradley, Davidson, NC-Wilmington, Temple, UVA, Ill-Chicago, Middle Tennessee, Providence, Drexel, Oklahoma State, Miami-Ohio, LSU, Butler, Penn, Charlotte, S. Carolina, St. Peter's, Drake, St. Louis, Utah, La Tech, Holy Cross, St. Mary's and Indiana State.
St. Mary's has a losing record! Anyway, I don't think Kansas is good, but three of their four losses were by less than three points and even the four losses were to Arizona (RPI 5), Arkansas (RPI 58), Nevada (28)and St. Joe (44). I'm only using Kansas as an example because I'm familiar with them. I'm not really bitter and not complaining, I'm just curious what the criteria is. I know strength of schedule is a factor and wins/losses. What else?
I know gambling isn't related to RPI, but I have bolded the teams that Kansas would be favored over regardless of where the game was played. Yet the RPI is saying that several of these teams are nearly 100 spots higher in the RPI?? Keep in mind, all of these teams on the list have MORE losses than Kansas. I can't imagine they are all "good" losses. Anyway, I'm sure there are more, probably better examples. But I can't figure this out.
RPI
Moderators: the_ouskull, helmet, Shine
-
King Crimson
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 8978
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:44 pm
- Location: La Choza, Tacos al Pastor
i think Jerry Palm has an explanation of it at http://collegerpi.com.
if not google Ken Pomeroy or Warren Nolan....they both have rpi sites that might have a explanation.
until about midway through the conference season RPI is about virtually meaningless--just because there isn't enough data to offset weird outliers--due to inflated SOS or gaudy W-L records.
if not google Ken Pomeroy or Warren Nolan....they both have rpi sites that might have a explanation.
until about midway through the conference season RPI is about virtually meaningless--just because there isn't enough data to offset weird outliers--due to inflated SOS or gaudy W-L records.
""On a lonely planet spinning its way toward damnation amid the fear and despair of a broken human race, who is left to fight for all that is good and pure and gets you smashed for under a fiver? Yes, it's the surprising adventures of me, Sir Digby Chicken-Caesar!"
"
"
-
UCant Unretires Again
from Jerry Palm's RPI FAQ:
Why do the rankings seem so weird early in the season?
The RPI is primarily a measurement of strength of schedule and how the team did against that schedule and each season stands on its own. There are no preseason expectations - everyone starts at zero. Consequently, the numbers can really skewed early in the season because teams have played so few games. For example, a team can be 2-0, but its opponents haven't played anyone else yet, so its strength of schedule is 0. That's 75% of the formula, so the team won't be rated very highly. The data starts to take shape and look reasonable as conference play gets into full swing around the end of December. And the more games played, the better the data gets.
Why is my team ranked behind this other team when we beat them?
The RPI is a measurement of strength of schedule and how you did against that schedule. The ENTIRE schedule. To look at only one game ignores the "any given day" aspect of sports. In 1998-99, for example, Iowa lost to Creighton, who lost to Drake, who lost to Evansville, who lost to East Carolina, who lost to James Madison, who lost to Maryland-Eastern Shore, who lost to Delaware St, who lost to New Hampshire, who lost to Yale. No one in their right mind would have rated Iowa behind any of those teams, let alone all of them.
I think the RPI is stupid as hell and I am disappointed that the NCAA actually uses it as part of the tourney selection process. Don't worry about it until we get at least halfway through the conference schedule.
Why do the rankings seem so weird early in the season?
The RPI is primarily a measurement of strength of schedule and how the team did against that schedule and each season stands on its own. There are no preseason expectations - everyone starts at zero. Consequently, the numbers can really skewed early in the season because teams have played so few games. For example, a team can be 2-0, but its opponents haven't played anyone else yet, so its strength of schedule is 0. That's 75% of the formula, so the team won't be rated very highly. The data starts to take shape and look reasonable as conference play gets into full swing around the end of December. And the more games played, the better the data gets.
Why is my team ranked behind this other team when we beat them?
The RPI is a measurement of strength of schedule and how you did against that schedule. The ENTIRE schedule. To look at only one game ignores the "any given day" aspect of sports. In 1998-99, for example, Iowa lost to Creighton, who lost to Drake, who lost to Evansville, who lost to East Carolina, who lost to James Madison, who lost to Maryland-Eastern Shore, who lost to Delaware St, who lost to New Hampshire, who lost to Yale. No one in their right mind would have rated Iowa behind any of those teams, let alone all of them.
I think the RPI is stupid as hell and I am disappointed that the NCAA actually uses it as part of the tourney selection process. Don't worry about it until we get at least halfway through the conference schedule.