johngateswhiteley
01-24-2007, 04:39 AM
...CaptMike, somewhere, is crying like a baby.
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=bilas_jay#20070123
RPI, SchmarPI
While I am getting my undies in a bunch about scouting, let me let loose on the RPI: I think it needs to go.
I know it is just a "blunt instrument and not a precision tool" and it is just a "general indicator of relative strength," but it has taken on a bizarre life of its own, and it is not good enough. First, the game deserves a precision tool, and we can do better than the RPI. Second, a "general indicator of relative strength" is a general indicator of which teams are better. Third, the RPI is used as an "organizational tool." Well, I think it would be difficult to "organize" the top teams in your mind much differently than the RPI presents them.
I really respect the committee that selects the teams for the NCAA Tournament. It is a tough job, and it is largely misunderstood. The difficulty of the job is in making the final few selections and, at the same time, seeding and bracketing the tournament in a short period of time. Annually, there are 34 available spots for selection into the field, and 31 spots that are taken by conference champions (automatic bids). Of those 34 at-large spots, there are really only a few up for grabs entering Selection Sunday, and usually only a half-dozen teams in the running. The final few selections, while arguable at times, really are not that controversial.
It is time for a replacement to the RPI. Those numbers affect perceptions, especially for the public, and the RPI affects scheduling. A team's RPI numbers can be bumped higher not by playing really good teams, but by avoiding playing really weak ones. If you avoid teams ranked in the bottom half of Division I, you will see a significant jump in your RPI. When Florida is ranked in the 30s of the RPI, Air Force is ranked eighth, and Winthrop is ranked in the 80s, something is wrong. We have a lot of smart people in the game. Let's put our heads together and come up with something better.
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=bilas_jay#20070123
RPI, SchmarPI
While I am getting my undies in a bunch about scouting, let me let loose on the RPI: I think it needs to go.
I know it is just a "blunt instrument and not a precision tool" and it is just a "general indicator of relative strength," but it has taken on a bizarre life of its own, and it is not good enough. First, the game deserves a precision tool, and we can do better than the RPI. Second, a "general indicator of relative strength" is a general indicator of which teams are better. Third, the RPI is used as an "organizational tool." Well, I think it would be difficult to "organize" the top teams in your mind much differently than the RPI presents them.
I really respect the committee that selects the teams for the NCAA Tournament. It is a tough job, and it is largely misunderstood. The difficulty of the job is in making the final few selections and, at the same time, seeding and bracketing the tournament in a short period of time. Annually, there are 34 available spots for selection into the field, and 31 spots that are taken by conference champions (automatic bids). Of those 34 at-large spots, there are really only a few up for grabs entering Selection Sunday, and usually only a half-dozen teams in the running. The final few selections, while arguable at times, really are not that controversial.
It is time for a replacement to the RPI. Those numbers affect perceptions, especially for the public, and the RPI affects scheduling. A team's RPI numbers can be bumped higher not by playing really good teams, but by avoiding playing really weak ones. If you avoid teams ranked in the bottom half of Division I, you will see a significant jump in your RPI. When Florida is ranked in the 30s of the RPI, Air Force is ranked eighth, and Winthrop is ranked in the 80s, something is wrong. We have a lot of smart people in the game. Let's put our heads together and come up with something better.