RPI-ology

Earlier this year I made the mistake of allowing myself to get sucked into a ‘hypothetical’ conversation about NC State’s chances of making the NCAA Tournament. At the time our Wolfpack was tracking in the 30s and 40s of the RPI and I was trying to use facts and statistics to de-bunk ridiculous statements and incorrect conclusions being spread on the internet by your typical nameless, faceless, uninformed fan.

The focus of my analysis was focused on identifying correllations between certain RPI ratings and NCAA Tournament berths for programs like that of NC State who play in major conferences. Despite the annual flood of public statements from NCAA Tournament Committee members that the RPI is ‘just a tool’ and represents only ‘one datapoint’, the results of my analysis yielded a pretty simple set of rules and parameters that continued to hold true to form in this year’s NCAA Tournament selections.

Therefore, I am logging this entry – updated for the 2008 Tournament – so that we can refer to these trends and analyses in the future to help squelch the misinformation and false conclusions that invariably arise when uneducated and inexperienced people get a hold of a keyboard and log on to the internet.

Here goes —

In the last EIGHT YEARS:

Only twelve teams with RPIs of 40 or better have failed to make the NCAA Tournament. Therefore, 320 teams have finished in the Top 40 of the RPI and 308 of those teams have played in the NCAA Tournament in those years.

Additionally, EVERY team from a major conference who achieved an RPI of better than #38 has been extended an NCAA Tournament bid.

Of the 12 teams that finished in the Top 40 and failed to earn an NCAAT berth, only three teams played in the top power conferences of the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big East, Pac-10, Big Twelve. Those situations of those three schools who missed were as follows:

* In 2001 – #40 Mississippi State was 16-12 and 5-5 in their last 10 games. The Bulldogs were 3-8 vs the Top 50 and 7-11 against the Top 100. They played the 50th ranked OOC SOS.

* In 2004 – #38 LSU was 18-10 and only 4-6 in their last 10 games. The Tigers were 6-6 vs the Top 50 and 9-9 against the Top 100. They played the 121st ranked OOC SOS.

* In 2006 – #40 Cincinnati was 18-12 and 5-5 in their last 10 games but were mired in the national turmoil of the Bob Huggins debacle. The Bearcats were 4-8 vs the Top 50 and 11-11 against the Top 100. They played the 22nd ranked OOC SOS.

Eight of the remaining nine teams that missed the NCAAT with RPIs of 40 or better were as follows: Dayton (08), Illinois State (08), Hofstra, Missouri State (twice), Bradley and Air Force and Creighton. Hardly big names that would correlate to an ACC program.

Conversely, the worst RPI rating to secure an at large bid was to #70 Air Force in 2004 who finished the season 22-6 with a 3-1 record against the Top 50 and who finished the season 7-3. Additionally, America had entered into war at the same time that this service academy was given the bid.

Including Air Force in 2004, only six programs have earned at large berth’s with RPIs of 60 or worse and only Air Force has earned a berth with an RPI worse than #65. Those programs are as follows:

* In 2002 – #64 Wyoming was 20-8 overall; 5-4 vs the Top 50; and 7-3 in L10 while playing the 300th ranked OOC SOS.

* In 2004 – #60 Washington was 19-11 overall; 4-4 vs the Top 50; and 8-2 in L10 while playing the 151st ranked OOC SOS.

* In 2005 – #63 Iowa State was 18-11 overall; 4-5 vs the Top 50; and 7-3 in L10 while playing the 201st ranked OOC SOS.

* In 2005 – #65 NC State was 19-13 overall; 4-8 vs the Top 50; and 6-4 in L10 while playing the 259th ranked OOC SOS.

* In 2007 – #65 Stanford was 18-12 overall; 4-8 vs the Top 50; 4-6 in L10 while playing the 116th ranked OOC SOS.

Parting Comments: For the record, I HATE the RPI. It is exactly the type of simplistic and shallow tool that you would expect from the NCAA. But, for the NCAA to try to tell the public that they don’t use it is absurd. THEY CREATED IT! The only reason the RPI exists is because the NCAA created it to use it. Now they tell people that they don’t use it? If that were the case it wouldn’t exist and nobody would talk about it because it is a seriously flawed tool.

Regardless of our feelings about the tool, we have to watch it because of the excessively strong historical correllation between RPI and NCAA Tournament berths and seedings.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

07-08 Basketball NCS Basketball Stat of the Day

29 Responses to RPI-ology

  1. Howler 03/17/2008 at 3:56 PM #

    How about “Winning Games” as a tool to determine worthiness for eligibility? Although that is a tool we do not possess.

  2. Howler 03/17/2008 at 3:59 PM #

    Actually, Lee Fowler is the biggest tool we possess.

  3. roandaddy 03/17/2008 at 4:08 PM #

    Howler made me choke on my gum from laughing!

    These conversations are usually had by the overly optimisits or those guilty of a “loser” mentality. Please read lose mentality as- the fan who justifies losing – ala- we should have gone to they tourny b/c our SOS was so much better.. throwing out the fact that the team is barely over .500, or has lost 5 games in a row, etc. Its basically another way for fans to put lipstick on a pig.

  4. ncsuftw01 03/17/2008 at 4:14 PM #

    ^^ Hear hear

  5. choppack1 03/17/2008 at 4:29 PM #

    If you don’t think that the RPI is used for selection, explain why Miami got a bid and VaTech didn’t. Granted, Miami had a better win (beating Duke) – but VaTech was clearly better at the end of the season.

    Also, Arizona State’s omission and Arizona’s inclusion would appear to confirm this as well. While the Sun Devils had a better conference record and swept the Wildcats, the Devils had a gawd awful RPI and Arizona had a solid one.

  6. Girlfriend in a Coma 03/17/2008 at 4:37 PM #

    Clearly, RPI is a big (if not the only) reason ASU (RPI #88) was snubbed in favor of U of A, ASU having beaten U of A twice and having a better conference record. Obviously they use it extensively.

  7. Girlfriend in a Coma 03/17/2008 at 4:43 PM #

    Also, IIRC last year double-digit seeds who got at-large berths won ZERO games. This is the general group we are talking about as the last ~4 in/out.

    So IMO it really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things who comprises the last handful of “big six,” ~.500 conference record teams you let in each year. But it is fun to talk about.

  8. choppack1 03/17/2008 at 4:48 PM #

    GIAC – Unless you are one of the last 4 out. And, I’d add, this probably proves they are choosing the wrong teams – which given their propensity to put mid-majors in these spots increasingly – isn’t surprising.

  9. Girlfriend in a Coma 03/17/2008 at 4:59 PM #

    ^ Of course! If we are in that last group, obviously I feel very strongly that we deserve to be in!

  10. Wulfpack 03/17/2008 at 6:07 PM #

    “If you don’t think that the RPI is used for selection, explain why Miami got a bid and VaTech didn’t.”

    I don’t think the RPI mattered here. Miami had wins over Duke and Clemson and three more overall wins. VT’s best win was against Miami in the ACC tourney (Miami won the regular season match-up) — that was the Hokies’ only win over a tourney team. The committee made another edict — you have to beat solid teams to get an at large bid.

    Interestingly, the conference RPI rating was totally ignored. The ACC was tops, and we only get four bids.

  11. inhoc... 03/17/2008 at 6:46 PM #

    sorry for being completely off the subject guys and gals, but does anyone know if tony baker got a medical redshirt and will be able to play next year?

  12. tommy 03/17/2008 at 6:55 PM #

    Did everyone see what billy donovan did at florida for practice? He made the team practice away from the multimillion dollar arena. He also would not let them wear any florida gear. He said they did not deserve to have florida on anything that they were wearing. Do you think coach lowe saw that? That is what coach should have done and just maybe that would have got the players attention.

  13. VaWolf82 03/17/2008 at 7:45 PM #

    But, for the NCAA to try to tell the public that they don’t use it is absurd. THEY CREATED IT! The only reason the RPI exists is because the NCAA created it to use it. Now they tell people that they don’t use it?

    Not only did they create it, they modified the formula several years ago. If they didn’t use it, then there would be no need to “tweak it”. But for the most part, I don’t have a problem with the RPI because it is not blindly followed when awarding the at-large selections.

    There is one thing that the RPI does a very good job at. It is really good at identifying teams that build an impressive W/L record by playing absolutely no one.

  14. haze 03/17/2008 at 7:59 PM #

    ^ …and maybe that was it’s truest intent from the beginning; not so much to distinguish the best as to identify the posers.

  15. wufpup76 03/17/2008 at 8:40 PM #

    I used to hate on the RPI much like the author, but have come around to see it’s more practical uses … I don’t like the fact that Kentucky loses by 41 pts. at Vandy but Kentucky’s RPI goes UP after the game … BUT, the RPI can be useful as a measuring tool as stated above in the comments

    The only potential issue I have w/ the Selection Committee using the RPI is how objectively (or perhaps, selectively) they use the tool for or against select teams … Coaches keep complaining that the Selection Committee is always made up of “non-basketball” people … If that’s true, and they’re using the RPI as a primary (as opposed to a secondary) measuring stick then I could see potential problems there … There’s passing the “eyeball test”, and then there’s the RPI … I would hope knowledgeable basketball people on a committee would rely more on seeing basketball teams perform and use SOS and RPI as useful guides … And as always, it comes down to who did you play, where did you play them, and did you win?

    I love college basketball 🙂

  16. redfred2 03/17/2008 at 9:14 PM #

    “I used to hate the RPI much like the author”

    I had no idea there was a problem between you and SFN.

  17. wufpup76 03/17/2008 at 9:38 PM #

    ^lol, you got me redfred …

  18. choppack1 03/17/2008 at 9:55 PM #

    VaWolf – Was the “tweak” eliminating margin of victory/defeat and if so, do you think this was done to help the mid majors?

  19. turfpack 03/17/2008 at 10:06 PM #

    They don’t choose the best 65 teams-about half are winners of their sometimes chickensh&% conferences-then they choose the next socalled
    34 teams-using the RPI and other data-then select who they feel should be in the NCAAT.

  20. Texpack 03/17/2008 at 10:15 PM #

    The tweak was valuing road wins more than home wins and penalizing home losses more than road losses. This confirms the brilliance of Uncle Jed scheduling the ECU game in Greenville.

    I totally agree that the RPI exposes gawdy records built by playing the WCC, MEAC, and the patriot league. That makes it important.

  21. BJD95 03/18/2008 at 7:03 AM #

    It’s a great tool for evluating non-conference SOS. That is more meaningful to me than the overall rating. Glad to see ASU punished for a truly candy-assed schedule.

  22. WolftownVA81 03/18/2008 at 7:07 AM #

    Until the NCAA picks the 64 best teams, it’s all BS. Who cares if a team wins there conference tournament. If that’s the criteria, then no need to put out effort all season long – maybe our team figured this out.

    SFN: Why do they have to pick the “64 best teams”? The NCAA doesn’t say that is their goal. Why do you buy into the media’s fabrication of this standard of picking the “64 best teams”? The NCAA trys to choose the “34 best teams” AFTER automatic bids. What is so wrong with that?

  23. packgrad93 03/18/2008 at 8:26 AM #

    “This confirms the brilliance of Uncle Jed scheduling the ECU game in Greenville.”

    we should have won

  24. BoKnowsNCS71 03/18/2008 at 9:34 AM #

    That was the straw that made me realize we were in for a bad year.

  25. tcthdi-tgsf-twhwtnc 03/18/2008 at 11:07 AM #

    “Clearly, RPI is a big (if not the only) reason ASU (RPI #88) was snubbed in favor of U of A, ASU having beaten U of A twice and having a better conference record. Obviously they use it extensively.”

    ASU had the 86th ranked schedule and finished 19-12, Arizona finished 18-14 with the #2 ranked schedule in the country. Those of us familiar with the former regime at NC State, know that ASU fans will get used to complaining about the weak schedule and how it fails to prepare the team, gain respect and produce an RPI rating that puts your name on the list of teams to be considered.

    A team is not even on the list with a RPI of 83. Not that it bothers me but ASU fans are in for years of what if…

Leave a Reply