COLUMN: RPI – Why we got hosed by the NCAA
It is perhaps the most hated acronym in NCAA Sports. Well, for USC fans it might be tied with BSC. The RPI is how a basketball team with only three losses can somehow manage to miss the tournament in its best season ever.
It is why that same team’s in-state rivals can make the Big Dance with twice as many losses, while another team back east can lose the first round of its conference tournament and still get a No. 1 seed.
Quite frankly, the RPI tends to have few friends; at least here out west. But I’m not here to criticize or praise the men’s basketball ranking system. I have no idea what goes on in the heads of the NCAA selection committee. All I can say is that I wouldn’t want their job.
Why, the hate mail alone must take months to answer. I’ve received only one piece of hate mail in my short career, and I was up until midnight responding to it. Okay, so I received the e-mail at 11:30.
But seriously, there’s a lot to be said for a group of men endowed with the responsibility of deciding the exact order of over 300 teams, most of whom haven’t even played each other.
I’d like to take this opportunity to stretch your minds and expand your understanding by answering the question to which everyone is dying to know the answer: How does that blasted RPI work?
Believe it or not, those who created it do know, and they’re kind enough to release it to the general public. So without further delay, let’s get started:
According the Sports Line RPI Home Page (www.sportsline.com), “The RPI (Ratings Percentage Index) is a measure of strength of schedule and how a team does against that schedule.” It was created because the men’s basketball committee wanted to base its tournament selections on strength of schedule. To measure that, they created the RPI, which is supposed to make it easier to decide who belongs in the tournament.
Much to the dismay of Aggie fans, the RPI decided that opponents like UC Santa Barbara and CS Northridge just weren’t talented enough to constitute a tournament-worthy schedule.
Basically, a team’s RPI is calculated by multiplying its winning percentage by 25 percent, added to 50 percent their opponents’ winning percentage, and added to 25 percent their opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage. To simplify that, let’s say USU had a 1.000 winning percentage. 25 percent of that would be .250. If their opponents’ average winning percentage was .800, 50 percent of that would be .400. Now say the Aggies’ opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage was .600. 25 percent of that would be .150. That gives us .250+.400+.150. All told, USU’s total RPI would add up to .800, which is pretty good.
Confusing, isn’t it? Just wait a minute, because it gets even better. This RPI is affected by a number of other factors as well: If a team plays somebody more than once, that team’s winning percentage is included more than once. As one might guess, our win over Pacific didn’t help us quite as much as their win over us did. Adjustments are also made based on penalties for losing to non-Division I teams, Division I teams ranked below 150, and on penalties for scheduling 50 percent of their non-conference schedule against teams ranked below 150.
Next, a team’s strength of schedule is determined by two-thirds their winning percentage and one-third their opponents’ winning percentage. One question that this explanation might answer is why the rankings are often distorted at the beginning of the season. The answer is because often times a team’s opponents may not have played anyone else yet, which affects 75 percent of the formula.
There are actually several other small factors, but those are the major ones. Essentially, the RPI spells ruination for small schools like our own. However, I’m not about to go on a tangent about how little respect our school gets from the ranking system.
Admittedly, there are many schools out there that, once you factor in the RPI, deserve the credence that they are given. We just happen to be the victims of a vicious cycle that’s hard to get out of. But that’s another column altogether.
Now that that’s over, I seriously feel a migraine coming on. Maybe ignorance is bliss. Although I constantly hear people criticize the way the NCAA ranks its teams, after taking the time to study and analyze its system, I feel no inclination to complain. Kudos to the committee.
Matt Andersen is a junior majoring in technical writing. Comments can be sent to mattandersen@cc.usu.edu