This website has us in the tourney!

Donate To GopherHole


ESPN now has us at #36 in the BPI.


The BPI hated us last year, had us way underrated. Loves us this year. RPI hates us (#69).

Frankly I'm skeptical that RPI is any better than any of the other statistical measurements (Palm, BPI, etc.). Drives me nuts how RPI punishes you for playing a few teams in the #300's as compared to teams in the 150-200 range in non-conf ... you're heavily favored in all of them and if you lose to any of them it should be a bad loss. I just don't think you show yourself to be an NCAA team any more by beating a #150 team than a #300 team.
 

WanderingGopher said:
ESPN now has us at #36 in the BPI.


The BPI hated us last year, had us way underrated. Loves us this year. RPI hates us (#69).

Frankly I'm skeptical that RPI is any better than any of the other statistical measurements (Palm, BPI, etc.). Drives me nuts how RPI punishes you for playing a few teams in the #300's as compared to teams in the 150-200 range in non-conf ... you're heavily favored in all of them and if you lose to any of them it should be a bad loss. I just don't think you show yourself to be an NCAA team any more by beating a #150 team than a #300 team.
Click to expand...

I think the RPI still matters more.
If you are a big conference and ranked in the top 49 RPI you get in.
Last year the Gophers were 50.
 

Face The Facts said:
I think the RPI still matters more.
If you are a big conference and ranked in the top 49 RPI you get in.
Last year the Gophers were 50.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the particulars are on either measure, but BPI is an ESPN made up rating and has nothing to do with the NCAA. It's talking head material and nothing else.

I'm surprised they are as high as 69 in RPI, though. They have plenty of chances with the Badgers twice and Sprty once to upgrade that rating as well.
 


Holy Man said:
I have no idea what the particulars are on either measure, but BPI is an ESPN made up rating and has nothing to do with the NCAA. It's talking head material and nothing else.
Click to expand...

Excactly.

BPI is just another measurement ESPN is trying to shove down everyone's throat because they created it. It has no more bearing on who gets selected for the NCAA tourney than the man on the moon. It is funny, though, how they act like it's really important, and constantly tell us "little people" how it takes into account much more than the RPI does!
 


SelectionSunday said:
Excactly.

BPI is just another measurement ESPN is trying to shove down everyone's throat because they created it. It has no more bearing on who gets selected for the NCAA tourney than the man on the moon. It is funny, though, how they act like it's really important, and constantly tell us "little people" how it takes into account much more than the RPI does!
Click to expand...

Yeah, understood. I was just making the point that the RPI doesn't necessarily deserve its exalted status...it's a made-up statistical measure just like BPI and everything else, and it has big flaws. In particular, it gives us no credit for all of our close losses (would be the same if we had lost by 30), it doesn't take into account the strength of a team WHEN you played them (e.g., playing Michigan a month ago far different than now), and it drags you down too much for playing "really bad" teams vs only "bad" teams (a difference that in my opinion should be immaterial).

This wikipedia description is apt, I believe --

"The RPI lacks theoretical justification from a statistical standpoint. Other ranking systems which include the margin of victory of games played or other statistics in addition to the win/loss results have been shown to be a better predictor of the outcomes of future games. However, because the margin of victory has been manipulated in the past by teams or individuals in the context of gambling, the RPI can be used to mitigate motivation for such manipulation."
 

WanderingGopher said:
Yeah, understood. I was just making the point that the RPI doesn't necessarily deserve its exalted status...it's a made-up statistical measure just like BPI and everything else, and it has big flaws. In particular, it gives us no credit for all of our close losses (would be the same if we had lost by 30), it doesn't take into account the strength of a team WHEN you played them (e.g., playing Michigan a month ago far different than now), and it drags you down too much for playing "really bad" teams vs only "bad" teams (a difference that in my opinion should be immaterial).

This wikipedia description is apt, I believe --

"The RPI lacks theoretical justification from a statistical standpoint. Other ranking systems which include the margin of victory of games played or other statistics in addition to the win/loss results have been shown to be a better predictor of the outcomes of future games. However, because the margin of victory has been manipulated in the past by teams or individuals in the context of gambling, the RPI can be used to mitigate motivation for such manipulation."
Click to expand...

Sorry about that, wasn't directed at you. Directed at Big Brother (ESPN) and its self-importance as it pertains to the BPI.

I completely understand the RPI has flaws, as do all the metrics. But until I hear the Selection Committee no longer uses it as one of its primary measuring tools, I don't pay much attention to the other ones (BPI, KenPom, etc.).
 



lol -- this post gave me actual flashbacks of us playing Xavier for the first round in Milwauee. That was a scary performance by Xavier's Jordan Crawford with 28 points, 5 assists, 6 rebounds, 2 steals and 1 block.
 

howeda7 said:
Psh. Xavier? They're no good. We'll crush Baldy McBaldwimp!
Click to expand...

I always loved that one.

RPI is an inferior model, but it's the one they use. It's politically correct in that it doesn't take score into account. So it does measure whether you can pull games out (which the Gophs have not done), but that's not a total measure of how good you are. Still, if NCAA invitations are based on how good a chance there is that you'd be able to win a game in the tournament, I suppose RPI is logical. But, as someone once wrote, it's formulated to be able to be computed by a Commodore 64, which is a great part of why it's so unsophisticated.
 

The BPI is more accurate at picking winners than the Sagarin rating system and both the BPI and Sagarin are better at picking winners than the RPI. Who cares who created it? The best rating system is the one that should be used as the primary one.

And I've read that the Selection Committee DOES take other rating systems like the Ken-Pom and Sagarin into consideration.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom