Big 12 RPI

[ozone]

Using the RPI to rank the competitiveness of conference teams can be mis-leading - aka the Big 12 this year.

The Big 12 had 6 (I believe) new head coaches who spent November and December installing new systems and styles (and players) in preparation for conference play. This is the same time of year that teams play their out of conference schedules. These are the games that the RPI uses to rank conferences.

Obviously, new teams don't play as well in November and December as they do in January, February and March. New teams improve during the season.

Take a conference with a bunch of new coaches and you've got an RPI injustice. The RPI should only be used as one of many factors, which seems to have been forgotten this year.

 

[HILLCYD]

The RPI is only one of many factors used.....

Not getting your point.

 

[cyclonenum1]

You can't lean on the RPI (or any other measure) when it works for you and then scuttle it when it doesn't.

I watch a lot of basketball and, frankly, I don't think the Big 12 was real deep this year. Three real solid teams in KU, Texas, and Texas A&M. Everyone else was quite average (at best).

 

[mwitt]

The RPI is only one of many factors used.....

Not getting your point.

His point is that the RPI was initially one of many factors but has been taking a more prominent role recently.

 

[ozone]

Exactly - it seems to have taken a more prominent role.

When people say the Big12 is down this year, I question that. They certainly were weaker in November and December, but they improved dramatically as a whole. I think the Big12 would compare favorably, top to bottom, with the Big10 (11?) or PAC10 - at the end of the season.

The same can be said about the SOS, Strength of Schedule. It can be more relevant WHEN the out of conference games were played.

I guess it means that there is significant emphasis (with RPI) on the early season games as opposed to how strong teams are come tournament time.

 

[HILLCYD]

Early season, late season, SOS, RPI, Non-Conf, whatever. The Big 12 was down this year IMO.

 

[clone52]

His point is that the RPI was initially one of many factors but has been taking a more prominent role recently.

Fans, the media and outsiders think it has taken a more prominant role. It doesn't take a prominant role from inside the selection room. I don't think conference RPI would probably play any role. Really, RPI is only used to sort teams, not to choose them. The selection committee looks at teams schedule and sorts it by the RPI of the teams that they play. It gives a general idea of 'good wins' and 'bad losses'.

 

[clone52]

Exactly - it seems to have taken a more prominent role.

When people say the Big12 is down this year, I question that. They certainly were weaker in November and December, but they improved dramatically as a whole. I think the Big12 would compare favorably, top to bottom, with the Big10 (11?) or PAC10 - at the end of the season.

The same can be said about the SOS, Strength of Schedule. It can be more relevant WHEN the out of conference games were played.

I guess it means that there is significant emphasis (with RPI) on the early season games as opposed to how strong teams are come tournament time.

I don't know, no one below the top 5 had a legitimate argument for a tournament selection. No one below the top 6 had a legitimate arguement for the NIT. Heck, we were a whisker away from the being in 6th place and another whisker from finished 5th. Does anyone really think we'd have been a tournament contender if we had gone 8-8 in conference and 17-13 before the Big 12 tournament. We may have been an NIT bubble team. The big 12 has 3 very good teams, Kansas(are they experienced enough now not to choke), Texas(scary good, but youth could knock them out early), and A&M. Kansas State wasn't that good. Texas Tech was way inconsistant. I think its a travesty that the Big 10 got 6 teams in, they are worse than the Big 12 I think. But I'm not sure that any teams in the Big 12 6th through 12 could be placed ahead of Illinois, Purdue, Michigan State, Michigan or even Iowa.

 

[cyclonenum1]

When people say the Big12 is down this year, I question that. They certainly were weaker in November and December, but they improved dramatically as a whole. I think the Big12 would compare favorably, top to bottom, with the Big10 (11?) or PAC10 - at the end of the season.

This sounds like Big 12 "homerism".

I do think the Big 12 was "down" this year...they seemed to improve when they started playing each other!

The Big 12 was top heavy (not deep) this year...3 quality teams (KU, Texas, and A&M) with everyone else being very average (at best).