Illinois to #0

[Nittany Tar Heel]

Everyone else is losing, can we use a number less then 1?

[McBear]

I have no problem with that. The RPI might though. If anyone has the real RPI ide like to see it because sportslines still has Illinois number 2 behind Cansas. Bullshit.

http://www.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/polls/rpi/index1

[Nittany Tar Heel]

I have no problem with that. The RPI might though. If anyone has the real RPI ide like to see it because sportslines still has Illinois number 2 behind Cansas. Bullshit.

http://www.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/polls/rpi/index1
The RPI is used as a tool mainly to determine strength of schedule and subsequently what teams are tournament worthy, not as a tool to pick through closely rated teams to determine who's #1 and #2, #9 and #10. In short, to be able to normalize won-loss records using what kind of schedules have been played to determine if there's a fraud team with only 1 loss or an 11-loss team that's just played a brutal schedule.

If you try to use it for what you were saying, you're going to hate the results. It's not like the college football polls or anything.

[McBear]

If it doesn't work for teams the number 1 team which is completely off the wall obvious how can we have confidence that it is accurate with lower ranked teams.

[Nittany Tar Heel]

If it doesn't work for teams the number 1 team which is completely off the wall obvious how can we have confidence that it is accurate with lower ranked teams.
Like I said, it's not a tool used to differentiate between #1 and #2, it's used as a strength of schedule tool that can normailze teams with different W-L records that would otherwise be difficult to compare. That's why you always see bubble team's RPI ratings on bracket day to make or break their case, but never a comparison for who does and doesn't get #1 seeds. That's not what it's used for as you can see by simply looking at the top-10. Anyone care to make a case for my Tarheels at #8 either? Of course not. Not what it's for.

[McBear]

Like I said, it's not a tool used to differentiate between #1 and #2, it's used as a strength of schedule tool that can normailze teams with different W-L records that would otherwise be difficult to compare. That's why you always see bubble team's RPI ratings on bracket day to make or break their case, but never a comparison for who does and doesn't get #1 seeds. That's not what it's used for as you can see by simply looking at the top-10. Anyone care to make a case for my Tarheels at #8 either? Of course not. Not what it's for.
I realize what the damn thing is used for. If it doesnt work in differentiating team in the top ten though it wont work for teams on the bubble. It is suppose to normalize teams, yes, but it fails to do so. The proof lies in teams 1 and 2 who have different win loss records but the clear number 1 is incorrect. It's not like the formula would be more accurate for only teams on the bubble.

[Nittany Tar Heel]

I realize what the damn thing is used for. If it doesnt work in differentiating team in the top ten though it wont work for teams on the bubble. It is suppose to normalize teams, yes, but it fails to do so. The proof lies in teams 1 and 2 who have different win loss records but the clear number 1 is incorrect. It's not like the formula would be more accurate for only teams on the bubble.
You're still not getting what I'm saying. You're comparing creating a difference between the #1 and #2 teams and I'm talking about looking at, I don't know, let's say the 35th team in by seeing that one is rated #22 in the RPI and the other is #53. It's not like you ever see an RPI comparison at #44 and #45 and see someone say that there's a clear cut winner there.

Regardless, I see you've made up your mind about it so I won't keep going. I did want to clear that up though.

[McBear]

You're still not getting what I'm saying. You're comparing creating a difference between the #1 and #2 teams and I'm talking about looking at, I don't know, let's say the 35th team in by seeing that one is rated #22 in the RPI and the other is #53. It's not like you ever see an RPI comparison at #44 and #45 and see someone say that there's a clear cut winner there.

Regardless, I see you've made up your mind about it so I won't keep going. I did want to clear that up though.
Understandable point but how much stock can we put into a so called ranking system if it's ranking teams that the committee thinks are very equal but the RPI has ranked #22 and #53.

[Nittany Tar Heel]

Understandable point but how much stock can we put into a so called ranking system if it's ranking teams that the committee thinks are very equal but the RPI has ranked #22 and #53.
Pacific and West Virginia?

http://collegerpi.com/

[McBear]

I dont know what that means

[Nittany Tar Heel]

Understandable point but how much stock can we put into a so called ranking system if it's ranking teams that the committee thinks are very equal but the RPI has ranked #22 and #53.
You said this....when I checked, Pacific and WVa were at #22 and #53 and I was unsure of your point.

[MrTippet]

Illionios's RPI isn't #1 mainly becaue the Big Ten is having a down year not anything they did themself.