NCAA tournament

[sivert]

I think they should re-name the RPI to "SCI" (Scheduling Choice Index). Because it really is more of an indicator of the choices of difficulty in scheduling than an indicator of team strength.

[UNIFanSince1983]

I think they should re-name the RPI to "SCI" (Scheduling Choice Index). Because it really is more of an indicator of the choices of difficulty in scheduling than an indicator of team strength.

Well sometimes the choice isn't yours. Like teams who happen to play in a good conference so they get their RPI artificially built up by their conference when their true "scheduling choices" were not good at all.

[Wufan]

I think they should re-name the RPI to "SCI" (Scheduling Choice Index). Because it really is more of an indicator of the choices of difficulty in scheduling than an indicator of team strength.

Well sometimes the choice isn't yours. Like teams who happen to play in a good conference so they get their RPI artificially built up by their conference when their true "scheduling choices" were not good at all.

Wins and losses are also taken into account, but I think we all agree that RPI is no longer a very good metric. What I want to know is how come the CBS pundits aren't bitching about how the P5 gamed the Selection committee like they bitched about the MVC in 2006.

[squirrel]

The RPI is a good metric, I think. And the Valley benefited from it the way the P5 did. The difference in 2006 was the bottom 3-4 teams in the Valley WON almost all their non-conference games. The Indiana State's and Evansville's weren't scheduling that much better then than they are now, but at least Evansville went 4-4 and Drake 7-4 and Indiana St 8-1. The calculus still requires leagues to win a bunch of non-conference games. It is better for the teams at the bottom to win rather than schedule tougher...but the teams 2-6 or even 7 still need to step up.

In fact that Indiana State loss to IPFW dropped the Valley RPI out of the top 3 that year.

[SubGod22]

You still have to schedule decently to "game" the system. You can't go rack up 10 wins against 300+ RPI teams and benefit because those records kill your RPI. You have to schedule smart though. Schedule the best games you can win against teams that are expected to do well in their conference. You want to play and beat the top team or two in the OVC, Big South, SoCon or whoever. Teams that will win enough and usually schedule decently enough that even if they lose, they'll benefit from some of those which in turn will help you. You don't have to put together a top 50 noncon if you're not expecting to do something good that season, but there's no reason anyone's SOS should be as low as some of them are.

And there's still zero excuse for the Evansville schedule when they were going to field the best team they've had in forever.

Basically, the bottom half or so needs to schedule smart, not tough. The top half, anyone who wants to compete for the top spot and/or at large consideration, has to do a combination of smart and tough. Some risk/reward scheduling can go a long way.

[squirrel]

You can't go rack up 10 wins against 300+ RPI teams and benefit because those records kill your RPI. You have to schedule smart though.

I don't disagree here...but people vastly undervalue the importance of win % in the non-conference when it gets into league play, because from there on out, you don't have much upward mobility. There are ways to schedule soft AND smart.

I think you can still schedule relatively soft...you MUST win though. Those teams aren't worried about their RPI, but the win % has a greater impact on the league as a whole way more than SOS at the bottom.

[sivert]

Here's my point with calling it a "SCI" (Scheduling Choice Index): The RPI is "good," in my opinion. But what is it good for? It is good for forcing choices in scheduling. IF the NCAA Tourney Selection Committee would come out and say, "We will use the RPI as our primary metric."
That would result in these things:

- Smart Scheduling would need to change.
Smart scheduling would mean wanting away games, because these are valued by RPI.
Smart scheduling would mean wanting to play the toughest teams you think you can beat.
Smart scheduling would mean wanting to play teams that will end near the top of their conference and otherwise consistently schedule well.

- Many schools would not employ smart scheduling.
If you're a school with a huge fan base and you make a lot of $$ from home games, so your OOC schedule is all home pay games. And you might not want to change your scheduling habits.
If you like to play a bunch of TERRIBLE teams in your OOC, you might not want to change your scheduling habits.

- Schools that don't respond to the scheduling will get mistreated by the RPI.
If all schools schedule as best they can for RPI, then the RPI will treat schools fairly. Other metrics will also

RPI would be a good tool for trying to get blue bloods to travel and play tough teams in their OOC. IF they don't do that, then RPI will be a poor measure of team strength. So RPI is a good tool for changing scheduling choices when used as a threat, but not a good tool for evaluating teams that don't schedule for RPI.

What the NCAA needs to decide is: Do we want to force teams to travel and play tough teams or not? If so, then declaring RPI to be the standard would be one way to do it, ASSUMING that schools will understand and schedule accordingly.
A more open and clear way to force the same thing would be to simply mandate travel in the OOC. Just say the number of HOME D1 games must be within one of the number of AWAY.

[ShoxINDST]

It's hard for top mid major schools to schedule against p5 school. No team in a p5 wants to loses against a mid major, because that could be a tournament resume killer if the mid major doesn't make the field. I think it would be cool to see WSU play kansas. But kansas would never do that.

[SubGod22]

It's hard for top mid major schools to schedule against p5 school. No team in a p5 wants to loses against a mid major, because that could be a tournament resume killer if the mid major doesn't make the field. I think it would be cool to see WSU play Kansas. But Kansas would never do that.

It's tough to get the biggest of the big, but finding some mid to lower level P5 schools isn't as difficult. Not saying it's easy. But you don't have to play P5 schools to game the system. You just have to play good teams that win a lot.

Personally, I couldn't care less about playing Kansas. They won't do it and I'm not overly concerned. I like playing Utah and Alabama and Tennessee and Oklahoma just fine. Getting games like Tulsa and Seton Hall are good.

Basically, find good teams in the MAC or OVC or CUSA or Belt or Horizon or Summit. There are teams that can be beneficial. The conferences as a whole may not be all that great, but the top few teams will benefit those that beat them.

[sixth ace]

Did the committee get it wrong As of this am .001 brackets are 100% and that was before Texas, Michigan State & Oregon State went down. Keep pumping the money to the football schools