Wichy drops to 23 in KP after beating Drake. 20-4. I'm not seeing an updated RPI for the Shockers.

Saturday night's probably do or die for them. If they can't pull it off, they'll have to win the MVC tournament outright.

Indiana squeezes past Penn State, and also dropped. 41.

I think one thing folks have a huge problem with is the logic that conferences should get x number of teams. That's not how it rolls. Teams earn bids, not conferences.

Big East is a PRIME example this season..... #3 conference in RPI and Ken Pom. But with 4 top teams, who have lost only 5 games to teams outside their group, it's really making the margin for error for the rest pretty small. Especially with St John's and DePaul having like 3 wins vs the 4 bubble teams.

(02-02-2017 10:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think one thing folks have a huge problem with is the logic that conferences should get x number of teams. That's not how it rolls. Teams earn bids, not conferences.

Big East is a PRIME example this season..... #3 conference in RPI and Ken Pom. But with 4 top teams, who have lost only 5 games to teams outside their group, it's really making the margin for error for the rest pretty small. Especially with St John's and DePaul having like 3 wins vs the 4 bubble teams.

I guess it's the value of a win.

Like, if you beat Duke or Michigan State in any season when they are toward the top of the favorite metric components, it's as if there are four value components to it:

-non-conference road/neutral
-non-conference home
-conference road
-conference home

It seems absurd in a way. If you beat those guys, it's impressive. But the committee and various data methods put weight to it. And I think it's there where the lines blur about conference strength and bid worthiness. Hey, if you're forced to play a Duke or Michigan State yearly, or even twice yearly, shouldn't that give you some credit above those that don't? The metrics DO give credit to it. People seem to forget that, or don't think it goes far enough.

(02-02-2017 09:10 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Wichy drops to 23 in KP after beating Drake. 20-4. I'm not seeing an updated RPI for the Shockers.

Saturday night's probably do or die for them. If they can't pull it off, they'll have to win the MVC tournament outright.

Indiana squeezes past Penn State, and also dropped. 41.

I agree. Without a win Saturday, it absolutely requires a win in STL. A win Saturday doesn't guarantee anything though.

It's so funny to see so many stat illiterate people rattle of KenPom or BPI numbers like they are gospel. Let me make this clear: the KenPom is a PREDICTIVE RATING system. That means IT IS NOT solely a measure of how well you have performed thus far but is designed to help PREDICT future games. It is dependent entirely on PPP differentials. At some point you have to actually win games and there is some underlying factor as to why average teams lose close games that great teams win. I know Pomeroy uses a cap on margins but a downside of the rating is when you kill bad teams (like Wichita St) you are inherently over-valued. It is certainly a TOOL to help decide who the best teams are but it is just ONE of MANY metrics that should be considered in deciding the quality of the team.

(02-02-2017 12:02 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 09:10 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Wichy drops to 23 in KP after beating Drake. 20-4. I'm not seeing an updated RPI for the Shockers.

Saturday night's probably do or die for them. If they can't pull it off, they'll have to win the MVC tournament outright.

Indiana squeezes past Penn State, and also dropped. 41.

I agree. Without a win Saturday, it absolutely requires a win in STL. A win Saturday doesn't guarantee anything though.

Assuming, after a WSU win, that neither lose again (and meet in the tournament final), WSU gets a top 50 win it's been needing.

(02-02-2017 10:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think one thing folks have a huge problem with is the logic that conferences should get x number of teams. That's not how it rolls. Teams earn bids, not conferences.

Big East is a PRIME example this season..... #3 conference in RPI and Ken Pom. But with 4 top teams, who have lost only 5 games to teams outside their group, it's really making the margin for error for the rest pretty small. Especially with St John's and DePaul having like 3 wins vs the 4 bubble teams.

Right, being in a good conference should only help a team in that it gives them many opportunities to beat good teams, and even then it should help only if they win enough of those games against quality opponents. IMO there is no such thing as a quality loss.

(02-02-2017 12:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 10:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think one thing folks have a huge problem with is the logic that conferences should get x number of teams. That's not how it rolls. Teams earn bids, not conferences.

Big East is a PRIME example this season..... #3 conference in RPI and Ken Pom. But with 4 top teams, who have lost only 5 games to teams outside their group, it's really making the margin for error for the rest pretty small. Especially with St John's and DePaul having like 3 wins vs the 4 bubble teams.

Right, being in a good conference should only help a team in that it gives them many opportunities to beat good teams, and even then it should help only if they win enough of those games against quality opponents. IMO there is no such thing as a quality loss.

yeah, plus your OOC schedule matters. You can't schedule weak and expect the benefit of the doubt.

(02-02-2017 12:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  yeah, plus your OOC schedule matters. You can't schedule weak and expect the benefit of the doubt.

It's a mix. There was a stretch there where the PAC was blasted for that, and they still got the bids...just not the seeds. I think it was 2009. Like, "shame on you for not challenging yourselves...now take these five bids where you'll all wear your road jerseys and be gone!"

But, after that, and still not challenging themselves, the committee finally cut the cord on those gifts. Several years with only 2 bids. Disgraceful for a major.

That 2009 tournament is so interesting. You had controversy over Arizona making it in with a bad record but a respectable SOS. It was rumored their bid was at Penn State's expense...those guys left the state of PA once during the non-conference. Arizona didn't really thrill with its schedule, but it awarded effort (and 'Zona has been good for that in the PAC-10, challenging themselves when others don't) over the entire course of the season rather than the work accomplished for the back half of the season.

Wichy vaults to 16KP/52RPI.

Illinois State to 47KP/32RPI.

ISU loses, but it's a good enough loss to elevate their RPI.

ISU didn't just lose, they had their souls removed last night.

(02-02-2017 12:24 PM)Tech Savy Wrote:  It's so funny to see so many stat illiterate people rattle of KenPom or BPI numbers like they are gospel. Let me make this clear: the KenPom is a PREDICTIVE RATING system. That means IT IS NOT solely a measure of how well you have performed thus far but is designed to help PREDICT future games. It is dependent entirely on PPP differentials. At some point you have to actually win games and there is some underlying factor as to why average teams lose close games that great teams win. I know Pomeroy uses a cap on margins but a downside of the rating is when you kill bad teams (like Wichita St) you are inherently over-valued. It is certainly a TOOL to help decide who the best teams are but it is just ONE of MANY metrics that should be considered in deciding the quality of the team.

I think I remember the exact same thing being said about the exact same team last year. How did that work out?

There have always been some quirky rankings with the RPI, but this year there are enough quirks I am wondering if their formula has changed (and not for the better).

I compared four other ratings (KenPom, Massey Composite, Sagarin and BPI) with the RPI for five teams. In all cases, it seems to bee the RPI that is out of whack. These schools are (with RPI vs the average of the other four ratings):

.......................RPI...Ave

Wichita State.....52....20
Illinois State......32....55
West Virginia.....34.....5
Syracuse...........72....41
Miami (FL).........55....34

So, if Lunardi isn't paying much attention to other rankings, who can blame him?

FWIW, the selection committee has already said it will greatly reduce its reliance on RPI going forward. If that's the case, then why have it at all?

Illinois State can still experience some crud from the RPI even if they win out the rest of the way ahead of the conference tournament final. Drake, Bradley, and MoState won't be doing much for them.

But, Wichita State still has two against MoState. Unless folks drop well ahead of them, it's not like these guys will sky rocket.

Wichita's wins are just bad, and their schedule is flooded with them. 11 of 21 wins against RPI-200...it doesn't care how badly they win those games.

It's like RPI just doesn't care about "good losses" when compared to other systems. Whether you lose to Michigan State by 3 and you're a somebody, or lose by 30 and a scrub...why differentiate?

The biggest difference is margin of victory. For example... Maryland. When they squeak out home wins against Towson and American, Kenpom thinks they're a little bit worse for it. Lunardi knows the committee will just chalk it up as a W. RPI mainly just marks it a W.

When Witchita beats LSU by 35, Tulsa by 27, Illinois St by 42! Kenpom takes notice.

(02-10-2017 09:21 AM)uccheese Wrote:  The biggest difference is margin of victory. For example... Maryland. When they squeak out home wins against Towson and American, Kenpom thinks they're a little bit worse for it. Lunardi knows the committee will just chalk it up as a W. RPI mainly just marks it a W.

When Witchita beats LSU by 35, Tulsa by 27, Illinois St by 42! Kenpom takes notice.

RPI notices who it's over more than KenPom. KP will care that it wasn't a decisive win, while RPI will care if the opponent was garbage.

It was so frustrating when people ripped the mid-majors over a decade ago for somehow obtaining good RPI numbers, because, to an extent, RPI will be nicer to major conference teams because of the likelihood of meeting more good teams within the conference. A bad team within those conferences seem to find their way out of the very bottom of the RPI barrel (how is it possible that Oregon State, at 4-21, and RPI won't even bother with the non D1 game they won, with NO wins against anyone with a RPI greater than 200, is still not in the RPI 300-51 gutter?).

Talking heads were giving death stares over at the Missouri Valley, CAA, A-10, and Mountain West some of those years...I tend to think some within the Big Ten and PAC were usually bigger scammers than anyone. Some of those guys just don't budge off their home floors much during the non-con, and let the conference schedule do their talking, especially if they pick up a good win or two (and in the Big Ten, virtually nobody but one or two schools were good on the road).

(02-06-2017 10:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  There have always been some quirky rankings with the RPI, but this year there are enough quirks I am wondering if their formula has changed (and not for the better).

I compared four other ratings (KenPom, Massey Composite, Sagarin and BPI) with the RPI for five teams. In all cases, it seems to bee the RPI that is out of whack. These schools are (with RPI vs the average of the other four ratings):

.......................RPI...Ave

Wichita State.....52....20
Illinois State......32....55
West Virginia.....34.....5
Syracuse...........72....41
Miami (FL).........55....34

So, if Lunardi isn't paying much attention to other rankings, who can blame him?

FWIW, the selection committee has already said it will greatly reduce its reliance on RPI going forward. If that's the case, then why have it at all?

The RPI hasn't changed. It's still what it's always been, 25% your record, 50% your opponents' records, 25% your opponents' opponents' records.

What's happened is that
--knowledge of how to game the RPI when building your schedule has spread
--power (defined as coaches, recruits, resources and sometimes programs) have flowed to and towards power conferences
--newer metrics were built specifically to be better than RPI.

Since RPI is 75% your SOS, that's a large built-in advantage for schools who play 16-18 conference games against strong programs with good RPI numbers. Add a little boost from ADs and conference offices who now know and put some effort into scheduling nonconference with an eye on RPI, and the power conference RPI bias gets a little stronger.

Conference affiliation has risen in importance, so today Mississippi State can poach a coach from Middle Tennessee without blinking. (There has always been a pecking order, but power-conference bottom-feeders weren't always above strong midmajor programs in that pecking order. Brad Stevens at Butler and Shaka Smart at VCU didn't used to be such huge outliers.) Much like Seton Hall using Big East affiliation in the 1980s to rise up, Virginia Tech and Miami and Florida State have done the same through the ACC.

What I may do is take a look at the non-BCS conference schools in the top 40 of RPI, KemPom, Massey and maybe ESPN BPI. I expect that if you're top 30 in one of those rankings, you have a pretty good shot at being in the tournament. But if you're in a non-BCS conference, and you're 30+ in all the different metrics, it gets very easy to send you to the NIT.

(02-05-2017 06:49 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 12:24 PM)Tech Savy Wrote:  It's so funny to see so many stat illiterate people rattle of KenPom or BPI numbers like they are gospel. Let me make this clear: the KenPom is a PREDICTIVE RATING system. That means IT IS NOT solely a measure of how well you have performed thus far but is designed to help PREDICT future games. It is dependent entirely on PPP differentials. At some point you have to actually win games and there is some underlying factor as to why average teams lose close games that great teams win. I know Pomeroy uses a cap on margins but a downside of the rating is when you kill bad teams (like Wichita St) you are inherently over-valued. It is certainly a TOOL to help decide who the best teams are but it is just ONE of MANY metrics that should be considered in deciding the quality of the team.

I think I remember the exact same thing being said about the exact same team last year. How did that work out?

It worked out well. Wichita was #10 in the KenPom ratings before the NCAA Tournament but received one of the last 4 in spots (#43 overall) which was much more in line with their resume stats (#47 in the RPI). What was your point exactly?