TIme to retire ESPN's Little "BPI"

[Dano564]

This is a truly misleading number.

Examples:
Louisville was the #4 BPI team which made some think they would land a one seed.
Iowa was still #21 which would indicate a 5-7 seed.
Nebraska was 57th which would have kept that out of the tournament had BPI actually mattered, which is good that it doesn't.
Maryland was #40
Utah #34
Pittsburgh was a #13 which would be a 4 seed.

In summary, it's an absolute garbage statistic when compared with the longstanding RPI index.

 

[Holy Man]

This is a truly misleading number.

Examples:
Louisville was the #4 BPI team which made some think they would land a one seed.
Iowa was still #21 which would indicate a 5-7 seed.
Nebraska was 57th which would have kept that out of the tournament had BPI actually mattered, which is good that it doesn't.
Maryland was #40
Utah #34
Pittsburgh was a #13 which would be a 4 seed.

In summary, it's an absolute garbage statistic when compared with the longstanding RPI index.

Clear example of a media outlet creating the news and not reporting it. For them to be indignant about Louisville getting a 4 seed because it did not match up with their own internal index is hogwash. Is there an argument that Louisville should have been seeded higher? Yes, but to cry foul because their standard was not used is out of bounds. Return to journalism, please. ESPN may think they own college basketball, but they don't.

 

[The-Real-Truth]

Clear example of a media outlet creating the news and not reporting it. For them to be indignant about Louisville getting a 4 seed because it did not match up with their own internal index is hogwash. Is there an argument that Louisville should have been seeded higher? Yes, but to cry foul because their standard was not used is out of bounds. Return to journalism, please. ESPN may think they own college basketball, but they don't.

Very good point. I was also very amazed how conservative they were yesterday to pick the team to win it all. They all picked MSU. I think Izzo has got them so scared with his teams in March. They don't want to make fool of themselves so they do what you are saying, picking a champion already.

This time, I pick MSU to be out in the 3rd round. Florida has this one.

 

[upnorthkid]

I see no problem with the number as a prognostic indicator. It is just another stat to look at.

System comparison

How is the College Basketball Power Index by the ESPN Stats & Information group) different than RPI or other advanced rating systems like Kenpom.com and Sagarin? Here is how the included elements compare to other systems.
Includes RPI BPI Sagarin Kenpom
Scoring margin No Yes Yes Yes
Diminishing returns for blowouts No Yes Yes No
Pace of game matters No Yes No Yes
Home/Neutral/Road Yes Yes Yes Yes
SOS beyond Opponent's opponents' W-L No Yes Yes Yes
All wins are better than losses (before Opp Adj) Yes Yes No No
De-weighting games with missing key players No Yes No No

I don't really see any problem with any of the indicators they use for their selection. And hey it works slightly better according to ESPN:

Between the 2007 and 2011 NCAA tournaments, it picked 74.4 percent of the matchups correctly, whereas Sagarin picked 73.2 percent and RPI picked 71.9 percent. (Kenpom is more difficult to evaluate because its pre-tournament rankings are not available.) The average ranking of the NIT finalists was better in BPI than in Sagarin or RPI. Notice, of course, that many of these differences are small. The BPI is not a guaranteed way to pick a perfect bracket, but we do think it is the best power ranking available.

So quit crying about it. It's just a metric like people who spout off other ratings instead. Should it be used instead of RPI? one could argue it should, but then again, you can argue that KenPom or Sagarin should be used also.

 

[station19]

ESPN owns the TV rights to many events especially college games. Other than that they have become irrelevant.

 

[Dr.Don]

ESPN owns the TV rights to many events especially college games. Other than that they have become irrelevant.

Totally agree, 19. ESPN is totally irrelevant to me as I only watch it if there is a Gopher game on. I will watch reruns of Pawn Stars before I watch ESPN.

 

[PitinoFan]

NC State BPI: 66

We could cite numerous examples. As a predictive tool, it's worthless.

 

[Winasota Gopher]

As soon as there is another channel that runs highlights a high percentage of the time, or can telecast live sports the way ESPN does, you're fooling yourself to declare them irrelevant I rarely if ever go to them for insight or analysis, but they are a legitimate source for "news" in the form of rehashing what has already happened. Save the editorial.

I also do enjoy much of their sports documentaries, talk about their methodology or allegiances all you want, I enjoy the programming.

That said, won't the true barometer be how well each of these teams does IN the tournament? They may be vindicated if a Pitt goes further than those that RPI had ranked higher than them.