+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: CAAbbs (/forum-676.html)
+---- Forum: CAA Conference Talk (/forum-677.html)
+----- Forum: Drexel (/forum-681.html)
+----- Thread: The end to the RPI (/thread-805498.html)
The end to the RPI - dan10 - 01-14-2017 08:23 AM
Just read a headline story on ESPN Link
My guess is that they are finally sick of the mid majors scheduling in such a way to inflate their RPI numbers and crash the power 5's party. I do agree with this move though as there are much better metrics to use in determining the best teams. Glad they got the various advanced guys involved (sagarin, kenpom etc). However I am pretty sure whatever they choose and how they implement it will not benefit the mid and low majors.
RE: The end to the RPI - J.B. - 01-14-2017 09:28 AM
No matter what they use, it will be up for debate. What they need to do is come up with some sort of statistical formula, and stick to it as gold. That means that they take the top teams in that statistical formula and make them automatically at large teams. They've got to stop with the committee crap, and the eye test crap. It doesn't really matter what formula they use, as long as everybody understands it and it's consistent.
RE: The end to the RPI - EvanJ - 01-18-2017 08:48 PM
(01-14-2017 08:23 AM)dan10 Wrote: Just read a headline story on ESPN LinkEven when mid-majors have great RPIs, the Selection Committee doesn't let them crash the Power 6's party (Power 5 is a football term and excludes the Big East, which is one of the top basketball conferences but no longer exists in football). If four teams who need at-large bids are in consecutive spots in the RPI, with two Power 6 teams and two mid-majors, and I knew that exactly two of them got at-large bids, I would predict the two Power 6 teams would be selected regardless of the RPI order of the four teams. Joe Lunardi's bracket and next eight out includes 44 at-large bids. William & Mary was in the Top 30 in the RPI (including teams leading their conferences who are locks) for some of last season without being one of Lunardi's 44 teams.
My guess is that they are finally sick of the mid majors scheduling in such a way to inflate their RPI numbers and crash the power 5's party. I do agree with this move though as there are much better metrics to use in determining the best teams. Glad they got the various advanced guys involved (sagarin, kenpom etc). However I am pretty sure whatever they choose and how they implement it will not benefit the mid and low majors.
(01-14-2017 09:28 AM)J.B. Wrote: No matter what they use, it will be up for debate. What they need to do is come up with some sort of statistical formula, and stick to it as gold. That means that they take the top teams in that statistical formula and make them automatically at large teams. They've got to stop with the committee crap, and the eye test crap. It doesn't really matter what formula they use, as long as everybody understands it and it's consistent.I agree. There are 36 at-large bids. Give the Top 26 to 30 teams who need at-large bids in whatever formula they use automatic bids, and let the Selection Committee determine 6 to 10 at-large bids.