|
This is just One Reason why the RPI, BPI, is meaningless
storage
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
|
Replies: 22
| visibility 1
|
Scout Team [175]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 84
Joined: 8/25/15
|
This is just One Reason why the RPI, BPI, is meaningless
Jan 26, 2016, 8:05 AM
|
|
and it should be thrown out of consideration when determining ANYTHING related to basketball. Whoever came up with this formula, it is seriously a mockery and a joke, there are no other words, explanation
or reasoning for it, with this simple comparison that I make........
Can anyone refute this or explain to me, why I or anyone that watches or is involved in any type of voting process in college basketball, that I am wrong......
Take Georgia Tech and Clemson and compare them in the RPI. I do not make this up. http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi/_/groupId/2
According to the RPI Georgia Tech would make the playoffs and Clemson would not.
The RPI only rewards teams that play the hardest schedules, win OR lose. So If you go by RPI OR BMI which BOTH should be thrown out and void when considering rankings, the only thing that matters at all is if you schedule "hard teams". You could have the SOS 1 and lose all of your games except for 2 but be ranked 25 in the nation..... why hasn't anyone pointed this crap out? It is like they are choosing who they want in the NCAA tournament before the season starts, because the schedule is made a certain way.........This has NOTHING to do with any person who knows basketball and watches on television and KNOWS for a fact who the best teams in the nation are....... The RPI and BPI is A JOKE and should be completely taken out.
Georgia Tech is ranked 67 in the RPI their record is 11-8 SOS is "16" verses top 25 they are 1-3 top 50 they are 0-2 . In the ACC they are 1-5
So who has GT beat? cornell, green bay, Tennessee, arkansas, wofford, tulane, vcu, south eastern lousiana, colgate, dequenese, Their ONLY quality win at home to virginia 68-64
So who has GT lost too? ETSU, #8 NOVA, UGA,UNC, PITT, ND, VT, Louisville. Take all of this in
They have Clemson as ranked 93 in RPI, that is almost 30 spots behind GT. Clemsons record 12-7
SOS 102 vs top 25 Clemson is 2-2 compared to Gt 1-3 and top 50 clemson is 2-1 to GT 0-2
Who is the better team by those stats? You would say obviously Oh, Clemson......They have a better record, They have better record vs top 25 teams, they have a better record vs top 50 teams and in conference they are better than GT at 5-2 while GT is 1-5.........
That alone raises eyebrows, so what the heck, well who has Clemson beat?
Wofford, NCCU, TX ST, UTSA, Rutgers,Upstate, Pres, Quality wins : FSU, AT SYR, #16 louisville, #9 Duke, #8 Miami That is 4 more quality wins than GT. Well holy cow, they win in that test too.
Losses: #13 UVA, #7 UNC #24 South Carolina, AT georgia, AT minnesota,Tournament game UMASS
so dang, the only losses Clemson has are against pretty quality opponents right? So what gives you guys? This doesn't make any sense. To anyone who is over 5 years of age, you would say Man, Clemson seems to be a lot better than that GT team (also the rpi and bpi doesnt take into consideration how you are doing at the end of the season vs the beginning)
So what is being rewarded here? What is the catch? What do RPI and BPI rankings mean? It is only this... And this is ridiculous.......... If you schedule PRIOR to the season a REALLY hard schedule, EVEN IF you don't win the games, you will still be put ahead of teams that didn't schedule more difficult opponents. SO wait, this seems corrupt, this doesn't seem right at all, how could anyone with common sense, use this as their criteria for choosing the best teams? Oh the talking heads at espn do........that is where loonardi gets his fix for selecting teams......... So maybe the teams that are getting into the tournament are the ones that they pre select before the season starts based on this RPI and BPI stuff............. That is not fair, is it, this isn't how it should be played.
Feel free to post this to the media and all over espn and expose The RPI and BPI for the BS that it is.
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
Re: This is just One Reason why the RPI, BPI, is meaningless
Jan 26, 2016, 8:11 AM
|
|
UGA Minn and UMass are all very bad losses. That is why our RPI is where it is.
We win 2 out of 3 of those and we arent on the bubble rgiht now we are in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Not that I disagree with your main point...
Jan 26, 2016, 8:12 AM
|
|
But let me temper a couple of points:
GT also has a high-quality win in VCU, who is 15-5 and on a 10-game winning streak. They will be in the NCAA tournament.
Clemson's losses to Minnesota and UMass are very poor at this point. UMass is 4-10 since beating Clemson, and Minnesota is 1-12!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Furthermore, if you ask anybody with knowledge...
Jan 26, 2016, 8:17 AM
|
|
I think they'd tell you that Clemson would be ahead of GT right now in the pecking order for the NCAA tournament. For example, Lunardi, whom you mention in your post as using RPI as a basis, currently has Clemson in and Georgia Tech nowhere near being in. I don't think RPI matters as much as you seem to think it does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14451]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 22869
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: This is just One Reason why the RPI, BPI, is meaningless
Jan 26, 2016, 8:20 AM
|
|
HERE IS AN IDEA. LETS WIN A FEW MORE GAMES AND THAT WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF. JUST A THOUGHT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
Re: This is just One Reason why the RPI, BPI, is meaningless
Jan 26, 2016, 8:21 AM
|
|
Yep we keep playing like we are playing now and we will be in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10762
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: This is just One Reason why the RPI, BPI, is meaningless
Jan 26, 2016, 9:43 AM
[ in reply to Re: This is just One Reason why the RPI, BPI, is meaningless ] |
|
What is wrong with you? It was very clearly a discussion, and a detailed one, about RPI. Do you believe the board should be reserved exclusively for one or two sentence adulations for our teams and absolutely nothing else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6516
Joined: 6/1/99
|
Here's what I got out of your post
Jan 26, 2016, 8:22 AM
|
|
neither team is NCAA tournament worthy with their current resume so the RPI difference between 67-93 is meaningless.
And don't forget, the "RPI cut off" isn't at 62 (or 66). The RPI cut off is around 35-45 for an at large bid. Obviously that number can fluctuate depending on how many conference leaders get the automatic bid from their conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
Re: Here's what I got out of your post
Jan 26, 2016, 8:37 AM
|
|
You are wrong about your RPI cut off...
"The lowest rated teams to get at-large bids (ALB): #67 USC, #64 Marquette (2011), #63 NC State (2005), #63 Stanford (2007)."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6516
Joined: 6/1/99
|
Seeing as how you had to go back to 2007
Jan 26, 2016, 8:48 AM
|
|
and found just a handfull of examples kinda proves the point. Obviously there is no set cut off in the RPI so the committee can do whatever it wants with the "eye test." Plus you are going to have outliers of teams that either got hot at the right time or had a late injury and dropped a few at the end. But to assure an at large bid you need to be around the 40s. Its just simple math. There are 68 teams, 32 (or 34?) automatic bids. Of those automatic bids about half of them are going to be from top teams anyway so don't cut down on the RPI. So take 36 at large bids, plus about 16 for teams and that gets you to 52. If you at the 50 range, you better pray that there are no upsets in conference tournaments. If you are in the 40s you are pretty safe to get in. If you are in the 60s, you are a long shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
Re: Seeing as how you had to go back to 2007
Jan 26, 2016, 8:51 AM
|
|
Im not the one who used the term "cut off"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6516
Joined: 6/1/99
|
Why do you think it was in quotes?***
Jan 26, 2016, 8:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10762
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Why do you think it was in quotes?***
Jan 26, 2016, 9:52 AM
|
|
He doesn't think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
Re: Why do you think it was in quotes?***
Jan 26, 2016, 9:58 AM
|
|
Hey look its the troll who cant ignore me even though he has me on ignore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20568]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8609
Joined: 10/27/00
|
Piggybacking on the O.P....
Jan 26, 2016, 8:28 AM
|
|
Seems to me the most important stat would be how you do against quality opponents. I would call that Top 50. If you can hang in the Top 50, then you should do well in the Tourney.
I remember looking last week at the RPI when SCar was 16-1. They were 0-1 vs Top 50. Clemson was 4-3 vs top 50. Carolina had only played 1 quality team, and had lost to it. Clemson had played 7, and won 4 of those. I realize overall record is important too, but how could SCar be ranked that high, and be 0-1 vs good teams (last week) ?
Now Scar's RPI is 28. The 1 quality team they had beaten has fallen out of top 50, so Scar is 0-0 vs top 50 teams. Clemson is still 4-3 vs top 50.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10762
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: This is just One Reason why the RPI, BPI, is meaningless
Jan 26, 2016, 9:40 AM
|
|
I agree that the RPI is poor measure but it is the one in use. Also, GT would not make the field. 67 RPI is the lowest to ever make the field as an at large and only 4 teams with a 60+ RPI have ever made the field as an at large. Among power 5 schools a top 40 RPI is the safety point. No Power Five school has ever been left out with a RPI better than 40. The ACC may seriously only have 5 of 15 teams in this year. This is a conference that used to get 6 of 9 teams. A record by percentage that no other conference can match and the ACC did 4 times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7456]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15391
Joined: 2/2/01
|
ACC had 7 of 9 one year. The ACC will get far more than
Jan 26, 2016, 11:58 AM
|
|
5 in this year. The conference is a close 3rd in RPI and actually has a better win % than the Pac12 which is in 2nd. Most other measurements have the ACC 2nd behind the Big 12 this year
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10762
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: ACC had 7 of 9 one year. The ACC will get far more than
Jan 26, 2016, 12:15 PM
|
|
What year did we get 7 of 9? I don't think it happens but I could be wrong. Either way, expansion has not helped our basketball brand at all. It was supposed to cement out place as the power basketball conference and suddenly we're middle of the pack. Twice Clemson made the field with 7-9 ACC records. Making the field with a .500 ACC record used to be a given - doesn't even put you on the bubble now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4095]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 5215
Joined: 10/23/10
|
Us Trolls Think ...
Jan 26, 2016, 12:37 PM
|
|
that IF Clemson beats Pitts, then goes on the road and wins a majority of its road games (Committee "likes" teams that win on the road), Clemson will be "in" The Dance ...
When its all said and done, if Clemson has say 20 total wins (regular season) , has beaten >= 4 Top 25 teams ... Clemson will be hard to leave out. They want "hot" teams, and never mind the record 4 months ago ... its whats happ'in now vs "oh look, they lost to Minnesota in November, so therefore they are not worthy" ... See "Eye Test"
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1681]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 2013
Joined: 6/27/13
|
Kenpom's rankings are substantially better
Jan 26, 2016, 1:18 PM
|
|
as both a ranking system and prediction model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10762
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Kenpom's rankings are substantially better
Jan 26, 2016, 2:10 PM
|
|
looking at Kenpom, our biggest problem is that we're playing the 338th worst out of conference schedule of 351 teams. We really need to schedule better and play better in the early season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1146]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 2295
Joined: 11/27/14
|
Re: Kenpom's rankings are substantially better
Jan 26, 2016, 2:15 PM
|
|
I really thought we put together at least a "decent" schedule. At least as much as you could hope for based on last season. But Minnesota, UMASS, even Wofford, USC Upstate, and NC Central have severely underperformed. These are teams that all have had success recently, but they're all killing us this year (win or loss).
Yes the RPI can be ridiculous, but it's still used as a measuring stick to some degree. Hopefully ours continues to rise. So pull not only for us, but for the teams we've played too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10762
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Kenpom's rankings are substantially better
Jan 26, 2016, 2:24 PM
|
|
Doesn't help that the two conferences we interplay the most are the bottom 2 major basketball conferences (SEC and Big 10). The ACC needs to ditch the big 10 challenge and host an early season tourney at MSG with Pac 12 and/or Big 12 teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 22
| visibility 1
|
|
|
|
50
