Checking in on the RPI, ACC, and Pac 10

06-07 Basketball General Media34

A quick peak at what is going on in the ACC and partiuclarly a nice piece on the conference and the RPI.

The Atlantic Coast Conference currently has EIGHT TEAMS (66% of the conference) ranked amongst the nation’s Top 38 in the RPI. Interestingly, the league’s two hottest teams are currently the ACC’s two lowest rated programs of the top 38 – VPI and Boston College!

Although some like Jeff Goodman at Fox laud the Pac-10 as “the nation’s best conference”, it is quantifiable data such as this that discounts such proclamations. You gotta love Goodman’s ‘deep’ analysis and discount of reality in his comment:

It’s no surprise that the ACC is ranked as the top conference in the country by the RPI because of its balance and scheduling (the ACC-Big Ten Challenge helps). However, next up are the Missouri Valley and the Pac-10 — ahead of the SEC, Big Ten, Big East and Big 12.

Translation:

“It is no surprise that the ACC is ranked as the top conference in the country by the RPI because they have a lot more good teams, a lot less bad teams, and have proven themselves more by playing tough out of conference schedules…but, I want to say the Pac-10 is the best so I am going to ignore all the data that says otherwise.”

What Goodman and others don’t seem to understand is the overall strength of the ACC in both the middle and even the bottom of the conference. Our own Jeff didn’t need the season to get underway to explain the conference’s composition as he made the following comments in early November.

We all know that the middle of the ACC is always the strongest of any conference in America. Every team projected to finish #5-#8 in the ACC is included in mulitple NCAA Tournament projections. Of a potential eight games that could have been scheduled against these teams, the Wolfpack plays seven.

As usual, the real differentiation lies in the middle and at the bottom of the conferences where most lazy analysts and journalists don’t want to spend time considering.

To more completely prove this point, realize that

* the ACC has DOUBLE the amount of programs ranked in the Top 38 that the Pac-10 has produced.

* After boasting the two top ranked teams in the RPI in UCLA and Arizona; the Pac-10 gives Oregon and Washington State at (#22) and (#23).

* Despite the fact the ACC has more opportunities to be bad with our 12 teams compared to the Pac-10’s ten teams – 20% of the Pac-10 are ranked significantly below the worst ACC program (Miami at #159).

* How would the top of the ACC look if everyone got four games against the likes of Oregon State (#178) and Arizona State (#247)

* Just HOW BAD is Arizona State? There is only ONE other program from a ‘BCS’ conference ranked worse than the Sun Devils (Colorado at #249).

* In fact, the NEXT worst rated program from a power conference is the Big East’s Rutgers, who is SIXTY spots ahead of the Sun Devils. There are only 320 teams out there!

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

06-07 Basketball General Media

34 Responses to Checking in on the RPI, ACC, and Pac 10

  1. Redblogger 01/16/2007 at 10:18 AM #

    Speaking of Arizona State, what is the opposite of 6-11?

    11-6

    Glad to see we are getting what we deserve.

  2. Dan 01/16/2007 at 10:21 AM #

    “Interestingly, the league’s two hottest teams are currently the two lowest rated programs – VPI and Boston College!”

    What?

    VT is 35 and BC is 38. There are four ACC teams below them, all of which are 100+.

    SFN: Thought that you could figure out that we were referncing that those teams were the worst of the subset of the Top 38. You couldn’t. We updated the article to clarify.

    Right now the Pac 10 has the highest overall RPI. The SEC is #2. And the ACC is #3.

    Goodman’s article is from 31 days ago.

    SFN: So? Does the date of Goodman’s article make it less relevant that he wants to ignore actually doing any analysis? It is easy to have the highest overall RPI when you have less teams. That is the purpose of peeling back the onion and doing deeper analysis. In short…which conference would you rather play in if your goal were to win as many games as you could?

  3. redfred2 01/16/2007 at 10:44 AM #

    Those last two bullets were just…BULLETS.

    Ouch!

  4. Dr. BadgerPack 01/16/2007 at 10:56 AM #

    The real Goodman translation is something to the extent of “nobody likes me, and nobody pays attention to my ‘analysis’, therefore I shall bash the ACC to get noticed”

    I also fail to see any logic in the perceived benefit of the ACC/Big Ten challenge (for either conference, really). Depending on the year, the ACC plays 5/6 road games against a major conference. Don’t care who you are, road games are tough– ask Arizona about their UVa trip.

    Oh, wait- the ACC benefits because they actually go out and WIN the majority of those games.

  5. BoKnowsNCS71 01/16/2007 at 10:58 AM #

    Interesting optimism by Goodman —

    “Look for the Sun Devils to be much-improved in the next year or two now that Herb Sendek has taken over for Rob Evans. The Sun Devils have already landed a Top 25 caliber recruiting class that is headlined by James Harden (Scout.com, No. 15).”

  6. Dan 01/16/2007 at 11:33 AM #

    SFN, I didnt mean any offense there. It just seemed the stats were screwy.

    The date DEFINITELY matters. The RPI is more correct as more games are played. The more games that are played, the more data there is to process. A month ago its much easier to argue with the RPI than it will be a month from now. So yeah, the date has everthing to do with the RPI.

    Look, I dont like Goodman at all. But you cant criticize him for ignoring “quantifiable data” and then do the exact same thing yourself. The only quantifiable data out there says the ACC is third. Anyone who says differently is ignoring that data. (Not that everyone is wrong who does it. The RPI is flawed and incomplete). Now, you have to give Goodman a little credit in that his prediction of the Pac 10 being the best has come true up until this point. He wrote an article a month ago saying the RPI was wrong at the time, and it has changed to prove him right. If they finish there, which is yet to be seen, then he deserves kudos for predicting it.

    But the RPI is still incomplete, and we’ll see how it finishes. I dont think Goodman will be proven right, but you just dont know yet. The Pac 10 has 6 teams in the top 50. The ACC has 8. Now, I dont know if there are any pretenders in that ACC group. FSU jumps out to me as does Miami.

    I think the SEC will finish #1, but I’m just throwing darts. I’d also pin the Pac 10 at 4th behind the ACC and the Big 10 (now with Oden). But right now the Pac 10 is doing well. We’ll see if Washington St and Cal can keep them ranked so high. And I doubt Arizona and UCLA will finish 1-2.

    And to put more ammo in the SFN gun, Arizona State is bad. But Oregon St is also a complete mess. The Beavers should send a thank you note to ASU for taking the shame spotlight off of Oregon State. Oregon State’s BEST win this year was against #247….tada!… Arizona State. If you want a laugh, look at OSU’s wins. They are way worse than Wake or Miami. So I agree with you when you comment on how horrible the Pac 10 bottom is. Its remarkably bad.

  7. choppack1 01/16/2007 at 11:34 AM #

    Badger Pack – the only problem I have w/ the ACC-Big 10 challenge is that it’s results are routinely ignored. Since it’s inception, the ACC has NEVER LOST THE CHALLENGE. However, by mid-January the talking heads have forgotten this even took place, and they’ll be boostering the Big 10 and it’s depth.

  8. Dr. BadgerPack 01/16/2007 at 12:13 PM #

    choppack – excellent points. What I’ve most enjoyed about the ACC-Big Ten challenge is that the Big Ten schools expect to win it every year, without fail (this based strictly upon observing the general fan attitudes at UofI and UW over the last 7 years).

    The lack of respect that a football conference shows the ACC in basketball is rather appalling (again, my personal observation, may not be the overwhelming attitude). When I attended State, in general we didn’t talk about waxing the Big Ten in their sport (we’d just harp on it AFTER we beat them).

    The other big issue is that when results aren’t outright ignored, they are qualified. OSU lost w/out Oden, who played at home, etc. But that is when you know your conference is the best– when people look to minutia to diminish conference standing.

  9. nycfan 01/16/2007 at 12:16 PM #

    From a purely subjective POV, I’ve watched a lot of PAC-10 games this year and my feeling is that the PAC-10 is a better conference right now than the ACC. Despite their RPI, Oregon State a tougher opponent than you might imagine — they do find ways to lose, don’t get me wrong, but they are often on the cusp of a huge upset before making one of the more baffling mistakes you’ll ever see in each and every game. Really, AZU is the only team that flat out stinks, and even they keep games relatively close, if painfully boring.

    Ultimately, the teams at the top of the PAC-10 are stronger — I think UCLA is a tougher team than UNC, and, to me, AZ, Oregon, and Washington State are better than the next three in the ACC, whoever they are. AZU aside, what makes the PAC-10 a ton of fun this season is that the mid to lower-tier teams are competitive. Southern Cal is a tough team. Stanford is a tough team with a big man who reminds me (sacrilege alert) of a young Tim Duncan. Washington was overrated but at 1-5 have to be the best 1-5 team in the country by a lot, esp. now that Witchita State has notched another conference win.

    BTW, if you have a chance to catch some Mizzou Valley Conference games, do it. The level of players is not the same, but those games *really* remind me of the ACC’s golden era in the 80s when almost every conference game was a war. Great stuff. I’m definitely a fan of The Valley this season.

    I dunno, the ACC seems to lack a toughness component this year. Purely subjective and by February things can change. But the conference just feels SOFT compared to the play I see in PAC-10 and MVC games. Heck, even the Mizzo at KU game last night had an edge that a lot of (not all) ACC games have seemed to lack. Maybe it is just that UNC is soft and Dook is below their standards, but I also think it is that teams like BC and VPI only show up for certain games and then lose to dogs OOC.

  10. RabidWolf 01/16/2007 at 12:22 PM #

    I DO like the Arizona State reference. Incidentally, I did recently purchase a new mattress after seeing some of the “Sleep America” tournament. Watching ASU play ball made me realize how uncomfortable my mattress actually was. Thanks Herb!!

  11. redfred2 01/16/2007 at 12:46 PM #

    I bought a “Sleep America” mattress too, but we took it back. It was only comfortable around the perimeter.

  12. VaWolf82 01/16/2007 at 1:23 PM #

    As a result, BC’s RPI as of Monday night is 38 and Tech’s is 36, and that’s after knocking off RPI No. 8 Duke and No. 4 North Carolina in the last 10 days.

    This sentence from the Andrew Jones article shows a complete misunderstanding of what a RPI rank is and how it is derived. I may have to prepare a refresher on the RPI, what it means, and how it is used, and how it is too often misused.

    BTW, I wonder where Andrew Jones got the idea to track the conference RPI on a weekly basis?

  13. smfrank 01/16/2007 at 1:31 PM #

    Whenever people talk about a strong conference – they routinely talk about conferences in relation to the top of the conference. This is why the ACC has been talked down the past couple of years – because we haven’t had that true strong team like a few years ago when Maryland, Duke and UNX were winning championships.

    With the Big 10 challenge, we’ll usually split the marque games (say the better 4 games), then loose 1 or 2 of the rest (7 games). Basically what that shows is the middle of the pack is tough. Really, there aren’t too many conferences where the #1 seed goes into a game with the #9 seed and is routinely challenged like in the ACC. Think VaTech this year. Think FSU against Duke in the past.

  14. Jeff 01/16/2007 at 1:40 PM #

    ^ Very true points. The top-heavy nature of the analysis has really killed our national perception in football the last couple of years.

    How “great” was the top of the Big Ten this year once the dust settled?

  15. thebigwood 01/16/2007 at 1:53 PM #

    Red, that was awesome!

  16. Dan 01/16/2007 at 2:26 PM #

    VaWolf is right about Jones’ misunderstanding of the RPI. I actually think Jones writes a worse piece than Goodman there.

    The RPI, to me, is effective at two points of the season. Just before conference play begins and at the end of the season with the latter being far more important as its the main point of the ranking. The point just before conference play begins is more of interested factoid than a surefire indicator. The RPI cannot by its nature account for the full strength of a conference until that conference season is over and all games played.

    But, in my opinion, the main problem with the RPI is that a win does not equal a win. A 40% bonus/penalty depending on where the game is played is too much. Holding court in the ACC really gets marginalized when compared to a team the wins half of its games on the road in a weak conference (i.e. MVC teams that have weak bottom half teams that allow easy road wins… this could also keep the Pac 10 on top) What it basically comes down to is that according to the RPI, beating a top 100 team at home doesnt count as much as beating a much worse team on the road.

    Look at how the MVC teams have learned to exploit the loophole:

    Southern Illinois played St. Mary’s (145), Lousiana Tech (253), and Western Kentucky (60) on the road, but they get big credit (+40%) for beating those teams in the opponents gyms versus getting a -40% PENALTY for WINNING the game at home.

    The real kicker comes into play when two teams play the same weak opponent, i.e. a gimme win. Now if Team A beats Gimmie U. at home its only worth around 40% of what Team B gets for beating Gimmie U on the road (140% vs 60%). Team B gets more than double what Team A gets. But they both beat a team they should beat regardless of venue. It makes a team like Valpo a good win for Butler and Marquette (who beat them at Valpo) but a bad win for NC State (who beat them at home).

    In my book, beating Valpo is beating Valpo. You should win that game no matter where its played. That’s how some of the mid-majors have tweaked the RPI. They play chump teams on the road and use a loophole to get a bonus for beating a bad team.

    Note: Not picking on Valpo. I just used them as an example given the scheduling similiarities. They arent as good this year as they have been and would be seen as a scheduled win for the three teams mentioned regardless of venue.

  17. Jeff 01/16/2007 at 2:30 PM #

    For the record…and I have said it 100 times —

    The RPI absolutely sucks. It is horrible. I don’t contend that it is effective or achieves what it is designed to do.

  18. wufpaxno1 01/16/2007 at 2:32 PM #

    Yeah Red, we’ve dicovered that they do tend to be a little soft in the middle and don’t provide much back side support!

  19. BoKnowsNCS71 01/16/2007 at 3:02 PM #

    Yeah Red – I prefer a setting in the high 90s rather than the low 50’s.

    Too low makes it hard for you to get up.

  20. VaWolf82 01/16/2007 at 3:17 PM #

    That’s how some of the mid-majors have tweaked the RPI. They play chump teams on the road and use a loophole to get a bonus for beating a bad team.

    An absolutely correct statement….but some discussion is still neeeded.

    Teams in the MVC tweak their RPI another way……they don’t play the true cupcakes that we have seen too often in the RBC in December tournaments. The real reason that so many MVC teams can tweak the RPI is that so many teams prefer to beat up on teams fielded by the Sisters of the Poor at home to generate income for the athletic department.

    The change in the RPI formula that Dan discusses had the net effect of elevating teams at the top of a weak conference at the expense of teams in the middle of a power conference. FSU once received an at-large bid to the NCAAT with a 6-10 conference record. You will never see this happen again.

    But tweaking the RPI only helps so much because the RPI is not blindly used to issue the at-large invitations and to seed the teams. Missouri St finished tied for second in the MVC last year, with a 20-8 (12-6) record, and a RPI ranking of #21…..and didn’t receive an at-large bid.

    Missouri St and Creighton (from the MVC) both had RPI rankings substantially better than State last year, but neither received an at-large bid.

  21. highstick 01/16/2007 at 3:22 PM #

    We’ve been very enthusiastic about Sydney, but thought you might want to see that Derek is also doing fairly good this year himself. I certainly wish both the best and would love to see both in the Sweet 16 soon.

  22. highstick 01/16/2007 at 3:23 PM #

    Darnit, forgot to include the link to Fordham, so here goes:
    http://www.fordhamsports.com/asp_new/recap.asp?RecapID=453056198&ScheduleID=3353&TeamID=143

  23. Gene 01/16/2007 at 3:27 PM #

    The RPI weights away games more heavily, I think, because the NCAA’s wants to force larger schools to not just line up a cupcake buffet at home, in November and December.

    I remember a couple of years ago, Wake Forest got a lot of adulation in the press for playing four non-conference road games, against the likes of New Mexico. WFU was just given credit for being a school from a big conference that left the comfy confines of him, in the fall.

    I think this is also done to get some equality for smaller schools, who often end up playing some of the toughest non-conference schedules in the country because they travel to Durham, Chapel Hill, Gainesville, etc. to raise money for their athletics department, by playing the top teams.

  24. Gene 01/16/2007 at 3:31 PM #

    Just to put Fordham’s 9-7 record, this year, into context, the Rams had won two games the season before Whitt took over. They got credited with two more wins, for a total of four wins, when St. Boniventure forefeited their season.

  25. VaWolf82 01/16/2007 at 3:33 PM #

    The RPI absolutely sucks. It is horrible. I don’t contend that it is effective or achieves what it is designed to do.

    Depends on what you think it was designed to do. It certainly doesn’t adequately determine who the top teams in the country are….but then again, what system would?

    I am less concerned about the RPI calculation than I am about the NCAAT selection process. The bottom of the at-large selections from last year were truly horrible. Air Force played a pitiful schedule (0-1 against RPI Top 50), lost in the first round of the conference tournament, and received an at-large bid. Creighton was 6-6 against the Top 50, also lost in the opening round of their tournament, and didn’t receive a bid.

1 2

Leave a Reply