The acronym “RPI” continues to haunt many sports fans, especially for the period between mid-February and mid-March when you are guaranteed to hear it mentioned 20 times each day. No I am not talking about Rensslear Polytechnic Institute (do they have athletics?) or the economic term “Real Price Indicator.” The most confusing stat in all of sports does have a similar name however; the Ratings Percentage Index. While some of you more casual fans might not wonder about RPI, any true college basketball fan hears RPI and wonders exactly what the term means. So, for general edification, I will do my best to enlighten you with the full knowledge I may lose some readers by the end. Your loss if you fall into that category.
Since I haven’t made this clear yet, the NCAA Selection Committee uses RPI as a main element of determining the field of 68 for the NCAA Tournament bracket. The stat first came into existence in 1981 and has been a mainstay ever sense. Many in college basketball feel it works best to keep all teams on equal terms, adjusting for strength of schedule.
At its heart, RPI tries to judge a team’s performance through strength of schedule and wins. The latter factor is calculated simply: winning percentage. Strength of schedule, however, uses a broader brush during calculations. An opponent’s winning percentage and that opponent’s opponents winning percentage also enters the formula. Generally, the formula looks something like this: RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25), where OOWP stands for opponent’s opponents winning percentage. On an interesting sidenote, wins at home count as 0.6 of a win compared to 1.4 wins on the road. Inversely, 0.6 of a loss if on the road and 1.4 if losing at home. Seems like an awfully good, though complex system.
But, in my opinion, RPI does nothing other than promote the inherent elitism of college basketball; namely, that schools from the bigger, more prestigious conferences will receive an invitation over an equally (or more) talented school from a lesser conference. Because a school like Rutgers consistently plays Syracuse, Georgetown, and UConn, their 22-10 record looks much better than Iona’s 25-7 record, even though Iona might’ve played Duke tough at the beginning of the season. (Hypothetical teams and numbers, but the case is true every year). For instance, Northwestern this year is ranked 45th in RPI and 8th in strength of schedule. Despite going 5-12 against the top 100, it most likely stands a better chance than Colorado State (21 RPI, 5 SOS, 8-9 top 100), for no explicable reason other than conference affiliation.
On the other hand, some mid-majors schedule aggressively to boost RPI numbers for this exact purpose, especially given the higher emphasis on nonconference strength of schedule in the last few years. For example, Alabama last year went 12-4 in the tough SEC, but the Committee left it out, mainly due to low nonconference scheduling numbers. To act as if conference play (2/3 of the season) means less than the first one-third sounds a little ridiculous to me, especially given the intensity and increased attention on conference games, not to mention a lack of cohesion within a team during the months of November and December. To be fair, conference matchups rarely happen in the Tournament, but if the Committee looks closer at nonconference schedules from three months prior to Selection Sunday then the past six weeks of work, it misses a main benefit of the regular season’s longevity: bad teams will be weeded out and good teams will emerge.
In the end, RPI presents a mixed bag. If anything, I am fine with the Committee emphasizing straight win-loss records, whether non-conference or otherwise. But, to release this statistic that can be manipulated to inflate tournament profiles doesn’t help finding the 32 best teams who didn’t win a conference. Big conference teams gain an edge (along with prestigious programs who schedule good games at the beginning of the season) and mid-majors must continue to boost their profile artificially by scheduling teams they have a very small chance of beating. If anything, Selection Sunday will be interesting this year with all the mid-major talent of the Missouri Valley and CAA to see which of those teams does not enter the tournament in favor of Big Eats or Big Tem schools.
Bit #1: End of an era
I would’ve made this a main post, but I exhausted the topic in my first post to hook all of you into Dibbles and Bits, so I will be shorter. As I said then, Peyton Manning deserves praise for his incredible work in reviving the franchise. Former Colts coach Tony Dungy said on the radio this morning, “when I got here, it was Indiana Hoosiers basketball and Pacers basketball and then Colts. Now, you see blue and white everywhere.” Again, Manning’s worth fully came to fruition as he grew expendable to Colts management, a sad state of affairs for everyone involved.
One question remains: how will Manning ride into the sunset? Johnny Unitas, the other great Colt QB, played one miserable season in San Diego before retiring. Joe Montana, on the other hand, played for the Chiefs after the 49ers and led them to the AFC Championship game before retiring after two seasons. While I hope Manning performs like Montana did, I will note that very few people remember Unitas in San Diego. Barring a Favrian shuffle among teams, Manning’s legacy will be secure for all time.
Bit #2: True Journeyman
Much of the golf world buzzed on Sunday about Rory McIlroy reaching the top ranking in golf at age 22. In my house, however, I cheered loudly for Tom Gillis, who finished in second. Gillis embodies one of the strangest features of golf: the journeyman. While fans hold against golf the dearth of top shape athletes, golf also allows for older players to re-emerge for one week, creating a great story. Gillis, aged 46, has played in over 20 countries and didn’t finish in the top 100 of the Nationwide Tour’s Money list as recently as 5 years ago and considered quitting. And yet I appreciate his second place finish on Sunday because he looks like one of us out there: mismatched shoes, ill-fitting shirt, 45 foot birdie putts, etc. Say what you will about golf, but stories like this are rare in any other sport out there.
Bit #3: War of words across borders
In the strangest rant I’ve ever heard, Canadian Broadcasting Company’s Don Cherry, a former coach of the Boston Bruins and worst dressed man in sports, took to the airwaves to express his discontent with Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke, attacking along shall we say xenophobic lines. “Every team in the National Hockey League has a guy from Ontario except one — it’s Ontario’s Toronto Maple Leafs,” said Cherry. While I think Cherry’s rant humorous, he clearly does not accept the globalization of hockey. Before long, we may see Swedish/Russian/Finnish General Managers who will be more inclined to appreciate international talent, not necessarily Canadian. Cherry should get over it.
Bit #4: March 6, 1964 – Mohammed Ali becomes official
Not exactly, but on this date in 1964 Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali after publicly converting to Islam, allegedly under the influence of Malcolm X. Ali won three heavyweight titles over his career including an Olympic gold medal as an amateur. His brash style and personality either repulsed or enchanted fans, with many of his fights going down in history. Ali also fought in the Golden Age of boxing when networks carried fights and the sports world hung on every jab, so his antics gained more attention than they might today. Ironically, three years to the day after changing his name, Ali was drafted to fight in Vietnam, sparking a firestorm of controversy when he refused to go. Truly a firebrand persona whose invectives against everyone else would be out of the norm in today’s sports world, but remain extremely entertaining.
No comments:
Post a Comment