Up first - Jay Bilas of ESPN. Jay is calling for the end of the RPI, and uses Drake as his prime example.
Numbers game: It's starting already ??¦ we've now begun to simply count wins against the RPI rated teams as the best evidence of how good a team is. Are we not smarter than that? The RPI is unnecessary and past its prime. If you actually watch all of these teams play (and the committee says it is doing that), then why do we need the RPI? It presents a certain perception, and that perception is not always correct. I believe that the selection of teams has become formulaic, and I'm not crazy about it. If you think that Team A is better than Team B, then Team A should go into the field first. You don't need to count wins against RPI Top 100 or RPI top 50 competition. The only objective participants in the NCAA Tournament are the automatic qualifiers (the teams that win their conference titles). Everyone else is in a beauty contest. But, based upon RPI numbers, we are all assuming that Drake is in the field -- barring a collapse. But, if Purdue has played the same schedule as Drake and was 16-1, do you think anyone would be saying that the Boilermakers would be in? I doubt it. I think we would be questioning the schedule and whether Purdue had beaten anyone. Watch Drake play, and decide whether the Bulldogs are among the best 34 teams after the automatic qualifiers. That is plenty good enough. I think we need a new measure, and we need to get away from the RPI. It doesn't work, and it never did. It is a crutch, and we can do better without it.
Numbers game: It's starting already ??¦ we've now begun to simply count wins against the RPI rated teams as the best evidence of how good a team is. Are we not smarter than that? The RPI is unnecessary and past its prime. If you actually watch all of these teams play (and the committee says it is doing that), then why do we need the RPI? It presents a certain perception, and that perception is not always correct. I believe that the selection of teams has become formulaic, and I'm not crazy about it. If you think that Team A is better than Team B, then Team A should go into the field first. You don't need to count wins against RPI Top 100 or RPI top 50 competition. The only objective participants in the NCAA Tournament are the automatic qualifiers (the teams that win their conference titles). Everyone else is in a beauty contest. But, based upon RPI numbers, we are all assuming that Drake is in the field -- barring a collapse. But, if Purdue has played the same schedule as Drake and was 16-1, do you think anyone would be saying that the Boilermakers would be in? I doubt it. I think we would be questioning the schedule and whether Purdue had beaten anyone. Watch Drake play, and decide whether the Bulldogs are among the best 34 teams after the automatic qualifiers. That is plenty good enough. I think we need a new measure, and we need to get away from the RPI. It doesn't work, and it never did. It is a crutch, and we can do better without it.
Comment