OU now #1 in RPI

#1 RPI
#1 BPI
#3 Jeff Sagarin
#2 Ken Pom

#1 in all human polls by this afternoon. #1 overall seed in every bracketology.

And we haven't played a complete game since Kansas.
 
pnkranger said:
#1 RPI
#1 BPI
#3 Jeff Sagarin
#2 Ken Pom

#1 in all human polls by this afternoon. #1 overall seed in every bracketology.

And we haven't played a complete game since Kansas.
Click to expand...

Wow. It wasn't so long ago that, this time of year, we were all parsing the remaining schedule to see if there were enough wins to get OU into the tournament. Now I find myself rooting against OU's competition for the #1 seed. It's been a fun ride.
 
campbest said:
The committee really doesn't use RPI anymore, generally accepted as a "flawed" statistic. The other stats listed in this thread carry much more weight.
Click to expand...

That's just not true. In fact, the only metric they refer to specifically in their "Principles and Procedures" document is the RPI:

http://www.ncaa.com/content/di-principles-and-procedures-selection

@ page 5: "The RPI is one of many resources/tools available to the committee in the selection, seeding and bracketing process."

Edit: Though I agree that they should move away from it as it is a flawed metric.
 
Last edited:
DenverSooner said:
OU is number one when I click on that link. I certainly believe you that OU was not when you linked it but they are now.
Click to expand...

Well thats good, when i posted it, it said updated 1/18/2016 and had Villanova 1, Xavier 2, Kansas 3 and OU 4
 
pnkranger said:
#1 RPI
#1 BPI
#3 Jeff Sagarin
#2 Ken Pom

#1 in all human polls by this afternoon. #1 overall seed in every bracketology.

And we haven't played a complete game since Kansas.
Click to expand...

Lol, #2 in KenPom when we beat #1 Villanova by 23. Same with Sagarin.
 
mizzOUstu702 said:
Lol, #2 in KenPom when we beat #1 Villanova by 23. Same with Sagarin.
Click to expand...

Those ratings are not based on wins, but based wholly on efficiency. We have not played our best since the Kansas game and, besides that game, since Washington State.
 
Max Power said:
Well thats good, when i posted it, it said updated 1/18/2016 and had Villanova 1, Xavier 2, Kansas 3 and OU 4
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I saw. It's also funny that they show OU with a "Previous" RPI of 2 when they were clearly listed at #4 earlier this morning and last Monday.
 
pnkranger said:
Those ratings are not based on wins, but based wholly on efficiency. We have not played our best since the Kansas game and, besides that game, since Washington State.
Click to expand...

This. People simply don't understand that Kenpom, It is technically a "rating" system, but that isn't the main objective of the metric. It's standard formula is to measure efficiency on offense/defense weighted with tempo and strength of schedule. It doesn't even take "wins/losses" into account in its formula. However, it does incorporate a "Luck" measure as a lagging indicator in its formula and this factor is based upon predictive outcome vs. actual outcome. It also seems to have an inherent recency bias built in, but that bias is dynamic and constantly changing.

Personally, I think Kenpom is the best metric for predicting future outcomes, but it's FAR from perfect. As a matter of fact, I think it overvalues blow-out wins. And I also think it tends to favor/over-rank teams that play at a slower pace. This is why it has Nova as its #1 team, even though OU blew them out on a neutral floor.
 
Zimwillett said:
That's just not true. In fact, the only metric they refer to specifically in their "Principles and Procedures" document is the RPI:

http://www.ncaa.com/content/di-principles-and-procedures-selection

@ page 5: "The RPI is one of many resources/tools available to the committee in the selection, seeding and bracketing process."

Edit: Though I agree that they should move away from it as it is a flawed metric.
Click to expand...

The RPI metric is primarily used by the committee to measure "strength of wins" (RPI top 50 etc.) or conversely, "bad losses". I agree with you that it is certainly a flawed metric and can be manipulated, to a degree, by clever scheduling....check out this link on the reasoning of Texas Tech's high RPI because of their "smart" scheduling:
http://basketballpredictions.blogspot.com/2015/12/how-to-inflate-your-resume-how-texas.html
 
mizzOUstu702 said:
Lol, #2 in KenPom when we beat #1 Villanova by 23. Same with Sagarin.
Click to expand...

It's an efficiency rating to compare apples to apples. That's why conference play is a great barometer on a team's strength, you're playing each team twice...home and away. OU's win over Villanova was damn impressive, couldn't shoot it much better than that. But there is no way OU is 23pts better than Villanova on average. Basketball is just a funny game like that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TEvans4Three
Oklahoma in Conference (TE4T numbers edition)
2
Replies
27
Views
499
TEvans4Three
TEvans4Three
6
Tickets for OU-TEXAS BB 1/15/25
Replies
5
Views
154
BoulderSooner
BoulderSooner
W
OU vs Michigan - Best Game I Ever Saw In Person!
2
Replies
38
Views
951
MsProudSooner
M
S
#8 OU vs #13 Duke 3:30pm 11/27
2 3
Replies
43
Views
1K
Soonercuda
S
BoulderSooner
Which Guys do you Trust??
Replies
19
Views
672
WichitaSooner
W
Back
Top