RPI is all bunched up

[Aike]

We are sitting 8th in RPI right now, which is as high as we've been in a while.

However...

Here's how close teams are:

The difference between 8 and 17 is LESS than the difference between 8 and 7.

That is CLOSE.

With 3 road games remaining against decent to good teams, we have a chance to make some noise in the metrics. But a little slip up can quickly lead to a big fall as well.

 

[UKDC80]

A lot of teams ranked higher than us are playing today and may very well lose. Not going to list all of them. If we pull this win out today and these teams all lose, we are going to skyrocket up the polls. Screw LooneyArdi. We have a shot at a 2 seed of we finish strong.

 

[Aike]

A lot of teams ranked higher than us are playing today and may very well lose. Not going to list all of them. If we pull this win out today and these teams all lose, we are going to skyrocket up the polls. Screw LooneyArdi. We have a shot at a 2 seed of we finish strong.

Without question. But our margin is also extremely thin.

Our last 5 are pretty tough. 3 coin flip road games, and two home games vs. teams needing signature wins. No breathers left.

 

[The_Answer1313]

In this day and time with all the advanced metrics we have, I can't for the life of me understand why the selection committee still uses RPI.

While they have gotten better and added 5 more metrics (Kenpom,Sagarin etc etc) it seems like RPI is still the main component.

What makes it worse is they don't just use RPI but when they place teams in bins RPI wins vs 25 vs top 50 100 etc, they are then compounding the problem.

 

[KWilt43atbuzz]

So that puts UK at a 2 seed right now.
I think with 2 more gms at home, tough gms but home nonetheless and 1-2 wins for sure in SECT UK is looking at no worse than a 5 seed but could get a 1 seed if they win out.

 

[The_Answer1313]

So that puts UK at a 2 seed right now.
I think with 2 more gms at home, tough gms but home nonetheless and 1-2 wins for sure in SECT UK is looking at no worse than a 5 seed but could get a 1 seed if they win out.

Not really. RPI of 8 doesn't = 2 seed.

While the RPI is still a big thing with the selection committee it's not the only thing.

As long as the SEC continues to stink, UK is gonna be punished with seeding. Unless you get years like 2010, 12 and last year where it's clear we deserve a 1 seed, you're gonna run into this

 

[Aike]

Not really. RPI of 8 doesn't = 2 seed.

While the RPI is still a big thing with the selection committee it's not the only thing.

As long as the SEC continues to stink, UK is gonna be punished with seeding. Unless you get years like 2010, 12 and last year where it's clear we deserve a 1 seed, you're gonna run into this

I've seen them use RPI to specifically justify seedings that make no sense at times.

Even right now, Kansas being considered #1 overall. Oregon as a 2 in the mock selection. Those are RPI and record vs. top RPI based.

Kansas is still probably a 1 right now without RPI, but RPI is the only metric propping up Oregon.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Yep.

And then what happens is not only do you over seed Oregon but the teams that beat Oregon benefit from that because that win looks better than it really should be given Oregon's position.

Hopefully as advanced metrics become more popular, RPI will die off.

 

[Aike]

Yep.

And then what happens is not only do you over seed Oregon but the teams that beat Oregon benefit from that because that win looks better than it really should be given Oregon's position.

Hopefully as advanced metrics become more popular, RPI will die off.

They know RPI is crap. I think they use it exactly for that reason. It allows them to more easily insert human opinion and bias into the conversation.

They don't ever go strictly by RPI or any other metric. But it gives them a crutch to lean on when the want to make an odd decision.

TL/DR - If they went strictly by advanced metrics, those guys wouldn't get to take a week off to party in Indy every March. Maybe a day?

 

[KWilt43atbuzz]

Oregon may not be that much of factor for UK because they will be out West.

If the Cats take care of business they will not be West.

 

[The_Answer1313]

They know RPI is crap. I think they use it exactly for that reason. It allows them to more easily insert human opinion and bias into the conversation.

They don't ever go strictly by RPI or any other metric. But it gives them a crutch to lean on when the want to make an odd decision.

TL/DR - If they went strictly by advanced metrics, those guys wouldn't get to take a week off to party in Indy every March. Maybe a day?

What I think they should do is select the teams like they always do. Cause let's be honest, for the most part they get that right. The mere fact that most fans can predict like 95% of the teams shows me the right teams for the most part are getting in. And wbo really cares if one team should be the 68th team vs another. Only people that care are the teams that get left out and Dicky V.

However once u get to seeding, that's the most important part. Pick a metric and go strictly with it. Down the list. Will teams still be under or over seeded? Yeah but it at least removes the bias and teams and coaches know the deal before selection Sunday takes place. Don't use RPI. Use Kenpom. Use Sagarin, Use BPI. Something like that. I don't want to diminish the "eye test" but I'd much rather remove that and any potential bias it creates.

 

[kyjeff1]

Not really. RPI of 8 doesn't = 2 seed.

While the RPI is still a big thing with the selection committee it's not the only thing.

As long as the SEC continues to stink, UK is gonna be punished with seeding. Unless you get years like 2010, 12 and last year where it's clear we deserve a 1 seed, you're gonna run into this

I wonder if the selection committee will show us that they have learned their lesson. They underseeded us in 2011 and it bit Ohio State. They severely underseeded us in 14 and look what happened.
I wonder if they will look at those years and seed us differently. I get it, this is a different season but UK under Cal is pretty consistent with end of the year runs.

 

[The_Answer1313]

I wonder if the selection committee will show us that they have learned their lesson. They underseeded us in 2011 and it bit Ohio State. They severely underseeded us in 14 and look what happened.
I wonder if they will look at those years and seed us differently. I get it, this is a different season but UK under Cal is pretty consistent with end of the year runs.

Probably not. You have to remember in 2011 we almost lost in the first round to Princeton. In 2014, it took incredible clutch shooting by Aaron Harrison to get where we were.

Having said that I don't think there was any question at the end of the year we were better than our seed indicated. I think this will always be a problem for UK. The thing is the selection committee looks at the entire year. With UK, there's alot of turnover so we are always gonna be better in March than we are in November. Compare that with most teams who have little turnover. They get better too during the year but not at the rate we do.

In 2011, we lost a ton of close road games. That's why we got the 4 seed. The fact they were on the road and the fact they were close should have been a flag to the committee that we are probably better than our record indicated. But it didn't. They just see RPI and wins and losses. RPI doesn't factor in margin of victory so it hurt us.

If the mock selection was any indication, they are gonna do the same thing this season. We'll be a 4 seed, maybe a 3 seed. When we are playing basketball like a 2 seed at the moment IMO

 

[The_Answer1313]

Another problem this season is our lack of OPPORTUNITIES for big wins.

Kansas, UL and Duke. That was it. I mean an away win at Texas AM and some others would be good wins but I'm taking big time wins. We only had THREE chances and won two of those.

But compare that with say Kansas. They played OU twice, they played WVU twice, UK, Michigan St.........they just have had more opportunities. They won 4 of those 6.

Two of three and 4 of 6 are still 66% anyway you slice it. But the mere fact they have 4 and we have 2, they are gonna be seeded ahead of us.

This is where playing in a weaker conference hurts.

 

[Aike]

What I think they should do is select the teams like they always do. Cause let's be honest, for the most part they get that right. The mere fact that most fans can predict like 95% of the teams shows me the right teams for the most part are getting in. And wbo really cares if one team should be the 68th team vs another. Only people that care are the teams that get left out and Dicky V.

However once u get to seeding, that's the most important part. Pick a metric and go strictly with it. Down the list. Will teams still be under or over seeded? Yeah but it at least removes the bias and teams and coaches know the deal before selection Sunday takes place. Don't use RPI. Use Kenpom. Use Sagarin, Use BPI. Something like that. I don't want to diminish the "eye test" but I'd much rather remove that and any potential bias it creates.

This would probably be fairest.

Let them make their judgment calls on the last 4 in.

Then use a basket of metrics to seed the tourney. Use systems that account for each game equally. Use systems that account for momentum. Use systems that take injuries into account.

Then, the committee still gets to make shifts in the bracket based on conferences and geography.

 

[Dakota25]

Road wins against RPI top 40 teams gets you a big boost in the RPI ratings. UK has some golden opportunities coming up.

 

[Aike]

Road wins against RPI top 40 teams gets you a big boost in the RPI ratings. UK has some golden opportunities coming up.

Losing those games also hurts a little less. But you don't want to lose them all.

 

[Bkocats]

I wonder if the selection committee will show us that they have learned their lesson. They underseeded us in 2011 and it bit Ohio State. They severely underseeded us in 14 and look what happened.
I wonder if they will look at those years and seed us differently. I get it, this is a different season but UK under Cal is pretty consistent with end of the year runs.

fwiw, I don't really think we were underseeded in 2014 - at least based on our regular season. Before the tourney started, I don't think any us realistically thought we'd make the NC game. I remember thinking, when I saw our seed, "ouch, that sucks, but we probably deserve it."

 

[Aike]

fwiw, I don't really think we were underseeded in 2014 - at least based on our regular season. Before the tourney started, I don't think any us realistically thought we'd make the NC game. I remember thinking, when I saw our seed, "ouch, that sucks, but we probably deserve it."

We definitely were underseeded in 2014. Probably should have been a 6.

 

[Dakota25]

Losing those games also hurts a little less. But you don't want to lose them all.

True, in all honesty if UK can win just one more road game they will be in good shape. That would put UK at 23-8 and 13-5 against the SEC. Win a couple SEC tourney games then our SOS will help us get to a three or four seed from there.

 

[willievic]

To many games to play for the present RPI to determine our seeding at the present time. If we can win out, we will be a No.1 seed. Some of the teams ranked higher then us are going to lose.

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!

 

[Bkocats]

We definitely were underseeded in 2014. Probably should have been a 6.

agree to disagree

ultimately though, it really didn't matter, that year

 

[Aike]

agree to disagree

ultimately though, it really didn't matter, that year

BKO, if you thought we were fairly seeded in 2014, you are literally the only UK fan I've ever talked to who felt that way.


We were right around 20th in the various metrics going into the tourney. We conceivably could have been a 5, with a 6 being fair.

Do you remember if you felt we were fairly seeded at the time? I just remember everyone throwing a fit.

 

[JPScott]

To many games to play for the present RPI to determine our seeding at the present time. If we can win out, we will be a No.1 seed. Some of the teams ranked higher then us are going to lose.

If UK wins out they may well get a #1 seed but it won't have anything to do with their RPI.

Still not sure why UK fans worry about the RPI. Most years UK is safely in the top 25 where RPI really plays little to no role in seeding. (If they were a bubble team it would be a different matter.)

While of course there's some correlation between RPI and seeding, it's not as good as other factors. For example if you wanted a high seed, far better to be ranked #2 in the AP Poll and #10 in RPI, than to be #2 in RPI and #10 in the AP.

 

[SomeDudeCRO]

That close of numbers means really we could lose and still go up or win and still go down just due to statistical fluctuations, though unlikely with how heavily weighted road games are in rpi and I assume A&M has a decent rpi.

For me I'd rather they only minimally use the metrics and basically zero emphasis on the polls, all that is next to meaningless when compared to how a team is playing down the stretch, their talent level and injuries going in, matchups and even things like location. I have much more faith in the eye test than anything, just be sure you got good eyes.

 

[Aike]

If UK wins out they may well get a #1 seed but it won't have anything to do with their RPI.

Still not sure why UK fans worry about the RPI. Most years UK is safely in the top 25 where RPI really plays little to no role in seeding. (If they were a bubble team it would be a different matter.)

While of course there's some correlation between RPI and seeding, it's not as good as other factors. For example if you wanted a high seed, far better to be ranked #2 in the AP Poll and #10 in RPI, than to be #2 in RPI and #10 in the AP.

I don't particularly like RPI, and I used to essentially ignore it.

However, when team quality is being discussed, all we see down the stretch of the season is record vs. top 50 RPI, etc.

Bad losses are based on the teams RPI.

And though the correlation is far from perfect (I'll bow to your research and expertise), I have certainly seen some head scratching seeds that could only be explained by RPI.

 

[The_Answer1313]

The entire team sheets that the NCAA uses are based on RPI.

The bins when they talk about wins vs top 50, top 100.........RPI

They see something like this
https://crashingthedance.com/teams/UK

All the stats on the sheet based on RPI

 

[HenryMuto]

Duke's RPI stayed at 10 after the loss. The RPI is doesn't dock much for losing on the road to good teams.

 

[CharlieT71059]

Just play the game. dont worry about RPI

 

[HenryMuto]

I think the committee while looking at RPI top 50 and RPI to 100 wins and losses outside the top 100 are used I have to believe they dig deeper as not all top 50 wins are equal which goes without saying. Beating a team like Princeton who is ranked in the top 40 RPI isn't even as good as beating say a team like Wisconsin or Michigan who is outside the top 50.

I think when the committee looks at top 50 and top 100 wins they are looking at it in levels. Wins vs teams that are protected seed range teams (top 16 on the S-Curve the 1-4 seeded teams or teams that are in discussion to be a top 4 seed). Those are your elite level wins.

Next you are looking at wins regardless of RPI against teams that are "NCAA level" wins which are wins against teams that would be at large bid teams (including Louisville and SMU wins as they would have been at large). This does not include wins against NCAA auto bid teams that were not even close to the bubble like Winthrop or teams like that.

Then I believe they look at losses against non tournament teams that are not even in the discussion for the bubble especially if you lost to them at home.

They add this all up to come up with your S-Curve position.

 

[The_Answer1313]

I dunno about that. I think it's just the opposite. If Princeton is in the top 40 and Michigan is out of the top 40, they'd view the Princeton win as better.

If not, then what's the point of using the RPI at all to begin with.......or any other statistical measure.

I don't think you can just use something when it goes with your perceptions. I feel like computer systems are used as they provide a non bias way ot ranking teams. The computer don't know that UK is a blue blood and Princeton is well.......Princeton.

If the committee is just gonna go by perceptions, no need to use the RPI at all.

You can't cherry pick when to use it and when not to.

Also........this bins and records against top team is all BS. The system (if good) should stand on it's own. That's why RPI is poor. The fact they have to go deep and look at away wins and look at things like top 50 wins just shows how poor it is.

You should be able to look at a system and see well Team A is ranked first and Team B is ranked 10th..........Team A is better than Team B. You don't have to worry about anything else cause all that crap should already be factored into the ranking.

 

[HenryMuto]

Kentucky up to 11, Duke falls to 12 with the NC win over Miami.

Kentucky wins today they a top 30 RPI road win that be huge though it's hard to climb up now since they are having to pass teams with high RPI %

 

[HenryMuto]

I dunno about that. I think it's just the opposite. If Princeton is in the top 40 and Michigan is out of the top 40, they'd view the Princeton win as better.

If not, then what's the point of using the RPI at all to begin with.......or any other statistical measure.

I don't think you can just use something when it goes with your perceptions. I feel like computer systems are used as they provide a non bias way ot ranking teams. The computer don't know that UK is a blue blood and Princeton is well.......Princeton.

If the committee is just gonna go by perceptions, no need to use the RPI at all.

You can't cherry pick when to use it and when not to.

Also........this bins and records against top team is all BS. The system (if good) should stand on it's own. That's why RPI is poor. The fact they have to go deep and look at away wins and look at things like top 50 wins just shows how poor it is.

You should be able to look at a system and see well Team A is ranked first and Team B is ranked 10th..........Team A is better than Team B. You don't have to worry about anything else cause all that crap should already be factored into the ranking.

The RPI is just 1 measure the committee uses to select and seed teams it is by no means the be all end all. RPI has flaws. There is no way in the world anyone would considering Princeton a better win than beating Wisconsin or Michigan.

If you look at why Princeton has such a high RPI it's simple they have not lost to horrible teams this year. Their worse loss is vs RPI 57 Yale. Before last night they had 0 top 100 wins though and now they have 1 home win vs top 100 (Yale 57). You can't tell me beating Princeton who has 1 top 100 win and 0 top 50 wins is more impressive than beating Wisconsin or Michigan. The RPI can be gamed if you don't have any bad losses especially at home.

 

[The_Answer1313]

The RPI is just 1 measure the committee uses to select and seed teams it is by no means the be all end all. RPI has flaws. There is no way in the world anyone would considering Princeton a better win than beating Wisconsin or Michigan.

If you look at why Princeton has such a high RPI it's simple they have not lost to horrible teams this year. Their worse loss is vs RPI 57 Yale. Before last night they had 0 top 100 wins though and now they have 1 home win vs top 100 (Yale 57). You can't tell me beating Princeton who has 1 top 100 win and 0 top 50 wins is more impressive than beating Wisconsin or Michigan. The RPI can be gamed if you don't have any bad losses especially at home.

Which is why it shouldn't be used period.

 

[Aike]

Kentucky up to 11, Duke falls to 12 with the NC win over Miami.

Kentucky wins today they a top 30 RPI road win that be huge though it's hard to climb up now since they are having to pass teams with high RPI %

I know you are using WarrenNolan.com. Do you know where UK was according to that site this morning?

I ask because we were up to 8th in ESPN's RPI at the start of the day. Teams are so bunched together that even truncating data within the equation could lead to a 2-3 place difference between various sites.

 

[Mojocat]

Where ever the advanced stats have us at the end, we'll be seeded lower than is suggested because of the bad losses. It's the human element - they won't be able to shake memories of Auburn and the others.

But we're not out of the woods yet. I'll be surprised if either home game is very close, honestly. But we should be dogs in all 3 road games, and losing 2 of them shouldn't shock anyone. If that happens, it's a different conversation anyway.....

 

[Aike]

Where ever the advanced stats have us at the end, we'll be seeded lower than is suggested because of the bad losses. It's the human element - they won't be able to shake memories of Auburn and the others.

But we're not out of the woods yet. I'll be surprised if either home game is very close, honestly. But we should be dogs in all 3 road games, and losing 2 of them shouldn't shock anyone. If that happens, it's a different conversation anyway.....

We aren't a dog today.

Also, at the mock selection the other day they quantified a bad loss as sub-200 RPI on the road. UT and Auburn were in the 125-130 range last I checked.

You may be correct that those losses still pull us down. My argument is that they already have. Win those 2 games and we would be a 1 right now instead of a 3.

 

[The_Answer1313]

One of the few times RPI helps us instead of using another system. RPI has auburn like 130s..........Kenpom has them 180s lol

 

[Cats192]

Whats the site that updates within minutes?

 

[Cats192]

Bump