You seem to be operating from the assumption that the RPI is the be-all, end-all
when it comes to evaluating teams and picking them for the Big Dance. Year after
year, the NCAA selection committee tells us that is not the case by their words
and their actions.

All these efforts to design "better" systems makes no sense to me. IMO, the RPI
does one thing and one thing only-- it measures how tough a schedule you played
and it says a little bit about how successful you were against that schedule. In
that regad, OF COURSE THE MAJOR CONFERENCE TEAMS ARE GOING TO GET A BOOST! News
flash, it is tougher playing Clemson, Florida State, and Virginia than Long
Beach, Evansville, and Northern Illinois. It is tougher playing in the major
conferences where you are competeing with schools who have bigger recruiting
budgets, bigger alumni bases, bigger home arenas, and more athletically gifted
players than in the smaller conferences.

Does any of this mean that I think the NCAA selection committee should leave
teams like So. Ill, Utah State, and Kent State out of the Dance? Of course not.
But, the fact of the matter is that they amassed their impressive records
against vastly inferior competition to that which teams in the ACC, Big East,
and SEC faced this year (BTW, the Bit Ten and Pac Ten are dreadful this season).
Teams at the middle and even some at the bottom of those leagues could post very
impressive W-L records if they played the same schedule as these Mid-major
powers.

I see no reason to bend over backwards looking for a way to reward the smaller
conference teams for playing in a weak conference. I think the way things are
done presently works fairly well. Sure, there are always a few teams who
complain about their seed or about having their bubble burst, but no sysatem is
perfect. The only thing I would change is I would try to force the major
conference teams to at least occassionally play some of the smaller conference
powers in a home-and-homne or a neutral court situation. That is the one fix
which would end most of these arguments. If we had a few more common games by
which to judge how the Southern Illinois and Kent States of the world would do
against bubble teams like Rutgers, Notre Dame, Vandy, Maryland, and Oklahoma
then it would make all this a bit easier.

-Jason Evans

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin R.Wrubleski [mailto:loserbaby42@...]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:20 AM
To: collegerpi@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [collegerpi] An interesting comparison---> the RPI and the PSR


As this poster's previous message has clearly conveyed, your humble
servant is VERY unhappy with the RPI formula--- it seems very heavily
skewed in favo(u)r of the teams from the 6 so-called B(C)S
conferences. By contrast, the PSR ratings seem more objective or
disinterested (in the proper sense of the word, meaning impartial).
Mr. P.'s math treats all teams more equally. Thus, it seems like an
interesting exercise to compare teams' RPI and PSR ratings, and
compile two lists, one list of those teams who seem to benefit from
an inflated RPI, and the other list of those teams whose RPI appears
to be artificially low. Is anyone math-savvy (and a glutton for
punishment) enough to compile said lists? Could Mr.Palm be persuaded
to render this public service? (^-_-^)

At a cursory glance, one gets the impression that being part of the 6
BCS conference gang IS an advantage, particularly for a team with a
large number of losses. Methinks losses should be penalized, but the
RPI doesn't seem to think so, or at least not enough.^^ One notes,
for example, Clemson, 9W-13L, at -14 (PSR of 81, RPI of 67),
Alabama ,12W-9L, at -13 (PSR of 37, RPI of 24), Missouri, 11W-10L,
at -14 (PSR of 61, RPI of 47), California, 11W-10L, at a whopping -26
(PSR 96, RPI 70), Auburn, 12W-9L, -14 (PSR 78, RPI 64), and UCLA, 10W-
11L, at -22 (PSR 124, RPI 102). If Canadianbucko were on the
committee, there's no way he'd vote for ANY of those teams--- their W-
L ratios are WAY too poor--- but unfortunately the status quo will
prevail, so one of either Alabama or Auburn, or maybe both, will get
to go "dancing". Maybe even Clemson--- Yuck!

On the other hand, it appears that some teams from the "great
unwashed" conferences (i.e., non-BCS) are penalized in spite of doing
what should be the most important thing---> namely, winning. One
notes 20W-2L Utah St. at +15 (PSR 24, RPI 39), 20W-2L Southern
Illinois at +12 (PSR 11, RPI 23), 17W-3L Kent St. at +19 (PSR 44, RPI
63), 18W-3L Western Michigan also at +19 (PSR 40, RPI 59), 18W-4L UCF
at +33 (PSR 49, RPI 82), 22W-4L East Tenn.St at +20 (PSR 63, RPI 83),
18W-4L Creighton at +18 (PSR 54, RPI 72), 19W-4L Boston U. at +24
(PSR 68, RPI 92), and 17W-5L Coll. of Charleston at +38 (PSR 79, RPI
117). These teams have taken the mantra "Just win, baby" to heart,
but alas for many of them that won't be good enough. This appears to
this observer to be flawed, unfair, and simply incorrect...





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT


Click HereClick Here

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=274551.4550177.5718621.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=:\
HM/A=1994230/rand=767602088>


_____

Yahoo! Groups Links


* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegerpi/
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegerpi/>


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
collegerpi-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:collegerpi-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]