RPI make sense? Siena rpi 24, sos 77, 0-4 vs. rpi top 50?!?!

[houstondukie]

Other examples:

Utah State: rpi 27, sos 134, 1-2 vs. rpi top 50

Butler: rpi 18, sos 99, 2-1 vs. rpi top 50



How am I suppose to take the rpi seriously?

[Wander]

I think you're underestimating the value of consistently beating teams that you should beat. It's why Maryland has no shot at the NCAA tournament. It's why everyone underestimates Memphis year after year, despite making three straight Elite 8s.

[-jk]

The RPI - for good or ill - is more about strength of schedule than wins and losses.

-jk

[houstondukie]

I think you're underestimating the value of consistently beating teams that you should beat. It's why Maryland has no shot at the NCAA tournament. It's why everyone underestimates Memphis year after year, despite making three straight Elite 8s.

Butler (rpi 18): losses to Wis. Green Bay, Loyola Chicago, Wis. Milwaukee

Siena (rpi 24): losses to Wichita St., Rider, Niagara

Maryland (rpi 67): 15-4 vs. rpi > 50. Only 2 losses to teams rpi > 100.



The RPI needs to count any team with an rpi > 100 the same. What is the difference if you beat a team with rpi 100 vs rpi 150? None. Difference between rpi 1 and rpi 50? Huge.

[CDu]

The RPI - for good or ill - is more about strength of schedule than wins and losses.

-jk

I disagree. The RPI seems to favor winning first and foremost. Then, it favors strength of schedule. Siena has 25 wins but plays a weaker schedule. VCU has only two wins against the RPI top-100, four losses against those in the RPI 100+ (two against RPI 200+). Maryland has a MUCH tougher than either of those teams, but only has 18 wins.

The RPI formula clearly values winning games the most, then strength of schedule. Otherwise, there's no way Siena and VCU (and others) would be ranked ahead of Maryland in the RPI.

That said, it should be noted that the powers that be understand the flaws of the RPI. That's only a small piece of the puzzle.

[BD80]

I disagree. The RPI seems to favor winning first and foremost. Then, it favors strength of schedule. Siena has 25 wins but plays a weaker schedule. VCU has only two wins against the RPI top-100, four losses against those in the RPI 100+ (two against RPI 200+). Maryland has a MUCH tougher than either of those teams, but only has 18 wins.

The RPI formula clearly values winning games the most, then strength of schedule. Otherwise, there's no way Siena and VCU (and others) would be ranked ahead of Maryland in the RPI.

That said, it should be noted that the powers that be understand the flaws of the RPI. That's only a small piece of the puzzle.

Doesn't the RPI value wins at the highest level, then opponent wins at a reduced level, and then wins by opponent's opponents? So strength of schedule is a component, but beating a mediocre team is better than losing to a good team.

[Exiled_Devil]

How about comparing these two teams -


Team 1:
RPI: 9
SOS: 16
Record: 8-1 Away 1-2 Neutral 16-2 Home

Team 2:
RPI: 3
SOS: 3
Record: 6-5 Away 3- 0 Neutral 16-1 Home

Which is a 1 seed and which a 3, according to Lunardi?

[CDu]

Doesn't the RPI value wins at the highest level, then opponent wins at a reduced level, and then wins by opponent's opponents? So strength of schedule is a component, but beating a mediocre team is better than losing to a good team.

You are correct. Winning percentage is priority number one. Opponents' winning percentage is priority #2. Opponents' opponents' winning percentage is priority #3. So yes - in terms of the RPI, beating a mediocre (or even bad) team is better than losing to a good team. And (again, in terms of the RPI) beating a bad team by 1 point is still better than losing to a good team by 1 point, holding all else constant.