Why RPI is Flawed

[Aargh]

I think Valley fans pay too much attention to RPI. RPI is nothing more than an indicator and it can get way out of whack. I think the Selection Committee has recognized this problem many years ago and the Committee has probably been using RPI appropriately by mostly ignoring it.

Let's say that a team played half their season against end-of-the-season top-50 teams and went 8-8 in 16 games. That would establish them as probably the 20th-30th best team in the country. Their RPI would probably be below 10. There's the first problem.

Now, have that same team play another 16 games against bottom-50 teams and win all the games. The cupcakes kill the team's RPI. The team, that is now 24-8 in March, probably has an RPI around 70 or 80.

The team is established as a top-25 type team, yet they have an RPI that would lead to automatic elimination by the Committee if you just looked at RPI.

WSU's game against ChiSt demonstrates this. Compared to all other teams, WSU had been 28th based on their performance to this point. After playing ChiSt, WSU dropped to 50th because the SoS component was affected. WSU didn't actually get worse in comparison to other teams, but the RPI indicates they did.

This is probably what affected MSU a couple of times under Hinson. Other schools had played more games against higher-level competition (and won enough of those games), but also played more games against lower-level competition. MSU had a great W/L record and a solid SoS component, but beating RPI 100-150 teams bumped MSU's SoS higher than some other schools with a bunch of W's over RPI 250+ teams.

If Team A beats an RPI 100-150 opponent and Team B beats an RPI 250 opponent, that does nothing to indicate which team is better, but Team A will have a much higher RPI than Team B.

[unipanther99]

I think we all know the RPI is not THE tool, but is still A tool used by the selection committee. MSU fans can attest to that.

I think keeping our collective conference RPI up will help make the case for multiple bids as much as anything.

[Ace Dad]

RPI is one aspect of many used to subjectivley pick the best 68 teams in the field. No matter the tool or tools used, there are 3-5 teams who should not be on the list and 3-5 teams that should.

[xsaluki]

Good thing there aren't more chicago state caliber RPIs on everyone's schedules.


Oh wait...

[UE 71]

I think Valley fans pay too much attention to RPI. RPI is nothing more than an indicator and it can get way out of whack. I think the Selection Committee has recognized this problem many years ago and the Committee has probably been using RPI appropriately by mostly ignoring it.

Let's say that a team played half their season against end-of-the-season top-50 teams and went 8-8 in 16 games. That would establish them as probably the 20th-30th best team in the country. Their RPI would probably be below 10. There's the first problem.

Now, have that same team play another 16 games against bottom-50 teams and win all the games. The cupcakes kill the team's RPI. The team, that is now 24-8 in March, probably has an RPI around 70 or 80.

The team is established as a top-25 type team, yet they have an RPI that would lead to automatic elimination by the Committee if you just looked at RPI.

WSU's game against ChiSt demonstrates this. Compared to all other teams, WSU had been 28th based on their performance to this point. After playing ChiSt, WSU dropped to 50th because the SoS component was affected. WSU didn't actually get worse in comparison to other teams, but the RPI indicates they did.

This is probably what affected MSU a couple of times under Hinson. Other schools had played more games against higher-level competition (and won enough of those games), but also played more games against lower-level competition. MSU had a great W/L record and a solid SoS component, but beating RPI 100-150 teams bumped MSU's SoS higher than some other schools with a bunch of W's over RPI 250+ teams.

If Team A beats an RPI 100-150 opponent and Team B beats an RPI 250 opponent, that does nothing to indicate which team is better, but Team A will have a much higher RPI than Team B.

BINGO. That's why I don't even look at the RPI any more. Especially, this time of the year when it is as worthless as tits on a boar.

[valleychamp]

RPI is a good, and useful tool. It factors in wins, and the strength of those wins. Its obviously not the only tool that it used for selections, nor should it be, but it is very useful IMO.

[shocker3]

Unfortunately if you are a non-BCS team and your rpi is worse than about 50 you are NOT going to get chosen.

In fact, if your rpi is in the 40s (non-BCS) your chances are very iffy.

But a good rpi doesn't really help you either if you are a non-BCS team, just ask MO State and their 21 rpi in 2006.

Valley teams need to have good rpis just to stay in consideration. A poor rpi gives the committee an excuse to keep you out.

So we do need to pay attention to our rpis (although the only rpi matters is the one you have on selection day).

[Jet915]

It's still only been 8 games so there is still alot of fluctuation. I think RPI still matters somewhat though. Unless you are Mo State, if you have an RPI of <35, you SHOULD get in and if your RPI is above like 60, you probably ARE NOT getting an at-large.

[valleychamp]

WSU's game against ChiSt demonstrates this. Compared to all other teams, WSU had been 28th based on their performance to this point. After playing ChiSt, WSU dropped to 50th because the SoS component was affected. WSU didn't actually get worse in comparison to other teams, but the RPI indicates they did.

The RPI isn't about how "good" you are. Its about your resume, and you will not get rewarded for playing horrible teams.

[Khan4Cats]

The biggest thing is top 50 RPI wins of which the Valley currently only has 3. Of those, only UNLV seems a strong candidate to stay in the top 50. The top Valley teams are going to have to slug it out amongst themselves and not drop any games to the bottom of the conference or they weaken themselves greatly.