RPI vs BPI .. ??

#26
#26
i think they were referring to SOS, Conference strength, out conference schedules, etc.

There was a tweet last week from a media member that said the committee gets a packet of all rankings and known formulas.
 
#27
#27
The RPI is the one to look at. The committee looks at it as well. BPI is just something ESPN made up to rival Pomeroy ratings. I don't believe the selection committee looks at either of the two, it would be nice if they did though because we are a top 25 team in the Pomeroy rankings.

Top 25?
That's all I need to know about the reliability of that system.
 
#28
#28
The BPI considers missing players in its rankings. And, there's no way you can do that with a computer and remain objective. I have never taken the BPI seriously.

What if a player is suspended for violating team rules? Is a win over them now worth less? Is a loss to them now worse than before?

What if the team steps up and plays better without the lost player? Still going to devalue those games?

What if someone is lost for the rest of the season? Going to flip it and now devalue all games that the lost player was in?
 
#29
#29
The BPI considers missing players in its rankings. And, there's no way you can do that with a computer and remain objective. I have never taken the BPI seriously.

What if a player is suspended for violating team rules? Is a win over them now worth less? Is a loss to them now worse than before?

What if the team steps up and plays better without the lost player? Still going to devalue those games?

What if someone is lost for the rest of the season? Going to flip it and now devalue all games that the lost player was in?

Actually, yes. That is something the selection committee looks at. If a player hurts his ankle and the team drops a couple of games, it doesn't affect their seeding as much as if they had their star player. Same if a star player goes down for the season late down the stretch. It would likely affect their seeding. That's been told a few times during Selection Sunday and I think we even experienced it when Lofton got hurt a few years ago.
 
#30
#30
"We take missing players into consideration as we look at the teams," committee chairman Gene Smith. We rely on information from the schools. We rely on information from the conferences relative to their status.

"But we still look at how those teams performed at the end of the day. We look at how those teams responded to the adversity they faced, whether they lost a player early, got them back, were able to sustain. We kind of take it into consideration based upon the situation."

Also, you see a lot of WTF moments. Like when Florida dropped that game late in the SECT but still got probably the same seed they would have gotten if they won. The committee turns preliminary ballots in before a lot of conference tournaments are over. That's been a big deal to me because I think they leave a lot of the same stuff and conference tournament do matter. In Florida's case, they got a 2 or a 3 and probably should have dropped to at least a 4 or so. Georgetown was another example of this a few years ago, where they played decent up until Sunday and then laid a giant egg but still got a nice seed.
 
#31
#31
Actually, yes. That is something the selection committee looks at. If a player hurts his ankle and the team drops a couple of games, it doesn't affect their seeding as much as if they had their star player. Same if a star player goes down for the season late down the stretch. It would likely affect their seeding. That's been told a few times during Selection Sunday and I think we even experienced it when Lofton got hurt a few years ago.
IIRC, it also hurt Buzz's chances one year when Jon Higgins was declared academically ineligible and wouldnt have been available for post-season play.
 
#32
#32
Does not matter. If the Vols make it in they will be one and out, two and out if they get extremely lucky.

The biggest problem for the team is just getting in the big dance... however, if they do make it somehow they can be dangerous
 
#36
#36
why is that funny? If they come out and play like we know they're capable of and Martin coaches well then we can beat almost anyone.

The problem with your theory that most people see is the whole "Martin coaches well" part. I think we would all agree with your theory but don't see it as much of a possibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#38
#38
Actually, yes. That is something the selection committee looks at. If a player hurts his ankle and the team drops a couple of games, it doesn't affect their seeding as much as if they had their star player. Same if a star player goes down for the season late down the stretch. It would likely affect their seeding. That's been told a few times during Selection Sunday and I think we even experienced it when Lofton got hurt a few years ago.

I agree completely with the Selection Committee considering the impact of missing players.

What I don't agree with is a computer rankings formula considering missing players. I should have been more clear about that. It's not possible for a computer to fairly, completely, and objectively consider missing players. That's a big reason why I think the BPI is a joke.

But, I definitely think it's good for the Committee to discuss missing players among themselves when considering teams.
 
#39
#39
I agree completely with the Selection Committee considering the impact of missing players.

What I don't agree with is a computer rankings formula considering missing players. I should have been more clear about that. It's not possible for a computer to fairly, completely, and objectively consider missing players. That's a big reason why I think the BPI is a joke.

But, I definitely think it's good for the Committee to discuss missing players among themselves when considering teams.

I see what your saying. I thought you meant they don't consider it but yeah I agree 100% of what your saying. The BPI is flawed in that way. I guess they take the injured / missing players stats and they are factored in for the overall weight of the victory / loss? I've never really looked at how the BPI works
 
#40
#40
Every computer rankings has it's flaws, including the RPI.

You can bash it all you want, but as long as the committee keeps putting a lot of stock into it we have to take it for what it is.
 
#41
#41
Every computer rankings has it's flaws, including the RPI.

You can bash it all you want, but as long as the committee keeps putting a lot of stock into it we have to take it for what it is.

Pretty much.

At least there is an actual committee though so we should be thankful for that (unlike the BCS)
 
Last edited:
#42
#42
Picking 68 teams to compete for a national title is a lot easier than picking just 2
 
#43
#43
Picking 68 teams to compete for a national title is a lot easier than picking just 2

I agree. And theres tons of more games to win / lose to justify it. Only a couple of teams get screwed a year IMO. Most are pretty clear.
 
#44
#44
I think the challenge is seeding them correctly. Which they normally do a pretty good job IMO
 
#46
#46
Every computer rankings has it's flaws, including the RPI.

You can bash it all you want, but as long as the committee keeps putting a lot of stock into it we have to take it for what it is.

Very true. One big flaw is that D-2 games are not counted.
Another way to manipulate your ranking is to fluff your schedule with teams ranked, say, 150-250. Don't play any of the worst or best teams. Run through that, and you'll be ranked very high.
 
#47
#47
it just looks like ESPN wants to get a rating service in,just to boost there money making machine,just like the grey uniforms by Adidas,now the grey is almost legend,on how many times they will lose a game when UTs wearing them
 

VN Store



Back
Top