Search Results


Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of The Chronicle's archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query. You can also try a Basic search




177 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.


















RPI: Impartial arbiter or fuzzy math?

(03/07/01 9:00am)

While it may be as hard to understand as the Bowl Championship Series formula in college football, the Rating Percentage Index (RPI) of college basketball is not only a much more accurate measure, it is also very useful. So useful, in fact, that RPI it is the stat generally pointed out when experts discuss an individual team's fate come Selection Sunday. Used by the NCAA selection committee since 1981, the RPI is a mathematical composite of three key stats in college basketball. The RPI has never been officially published by the NCAA selection committee, but the media has been speculating the RPI calculations for the past few years. This is, of course, due to the fact that the NCAA selection committee says it is one of the main factors in choosing the final "bubble teams." The formula, according to the committee, is 25 percent winning percentage plus 50 percent strength of schedule, plus 25 percent the opponents' strength of schedule. Both strength of schedule factors are figured out by a mathematical formula that even Stephen Hawking couldn't understand. It is completely mathematical, relatively simple if you have a calculator and the only factor the committee has that is not at all opinion-based. It's all numbers and numbers don't lie. However, for some reason the RPI comes under fire almost every year by critics who complain that it's too favorable for the so-called "mid-major" teams like Creighton, Richmond or Gonzaga. It is also viewed as too rough on the teams from major conferences like Duke, Stanford or Michigan State, teams which the RPI punishes for scheduling a few cupcakes along the road. Sorry, guys, but that's life. If the major powers decide to schedule a Wright State, and then fail to make the tournament because they win those games and lose other ones, that's their problem. No special consideration should be given to them because they have to be in a tough conference when they cannot win against top teams. The selection committee continually emphasizes that teams need to win big games, not just play them. As far as the mid-majors go, if they can post good records against teams in the 40-60 strength of schedule range and knock off a few higher quality teams like Creighton did with Providence, why not let them in? Florida's strength of schedule is ranked 100th and people were talking about them being a No. 1 seed. Furthermore, the beauty of the NCAA tournament is not a bunch of powerhouses battling it out. The tournament's flair lies in the possibility of Cinderella stories and fabled runs to the Sweet 16. The RPI may not be perfect, but it's the best non-biased measure the selection committee has.