For you to be so high on the RPI, you sure do ignore it when looking at the wins and losses. Rutgers had FAR more wins (5 vs 1) than Oklahoma against Top 50 RPI teams. Yet they dont have a win over "a Colorado State or someone decent"?? How about a UVA or a Princeton? I guess since Oklahoma didn't play them they aren't good teams? FYI: CSU has an RPI of 116 and UVA has an RPI of 33 and Princeton an RPI of 27.
Numbers can be skewed to favor your team. Every fan base is like that when evaluating their own team. But come on Sybarite.. You can't really think Rutgers didn't have the quality wins to get in (not necessarily over Oklahoma). However, Oklahoma has by far the fewest quality wins when you compare all the teams you listed as to who else got in over RU.
If you had paid any attention to the softball thread on this and other boards over the past several years, you might notice that I have always been very suspicious of the rpi. Somehow, it seems to find a way to get 12 SEC teams into the top 16 seeds, or something as ridiculous. The rpi is good in comparison to records. I have learned to care less what a team's record might be. It is all about who they played and where.
My general feeling about the rpi is that it can reveal what should be obvious. Such and such was really good. Once you get past five or ten teams, it begins to be a little murky. There's probably a much greater difference between a #5 and #15 than between a #15 and #25. If I were a #15, I don't know that I could beat the #5. If I were a #25 or even #35, I think I would have a decent shot at #15. There is a lot more mixing. In general, you can feel that two teams that are fifty apart may be quite different, but you do see upsets of a #50 by a #150. OU's biggest problem is that we played a bunch of game where you just don't beat a #1 or #2 seed unless everything goes right. Rutgers didn't do that. Now, let's take another look:
OU played Connecticut on the road, Oregon on the road, Baylor and Texas on the road and at home. Rutgers only game against a #1 or #2 seed was against South Carolina in a Florida tournament, losing 68-78. SC really looked bad against Mississippi State and UConn, which may have something to do with them falling to a #11 rpi. They also lost a game to Washington State in this tournament. Did beat Western Michigan. What should we do about OU playing six games that they realy were supposed to lose solidly, whereas Rutgers played only one such game. What happens to those five extra losses?
Then, Rutgers had three road game:
James Madison
Temple
UNC Charlotte
Nothing to write home about here.
The rest of Rutgers non-conference was at home:
NC State
Sienna
Virginia
Seton Hall
Fairleigh-Dickinson
Princeton
Houston
That's it. They really took a lot of chances with their schedule this year. You like NC State, Virginia, and Princeton.
OK. Let's look at who did beat whom? You mentioned rpi rated teams that Rutgers beat. The rpi is one computerized source. Let's look at the Sagarin Ratings.
#17 South Florida, best team that either beat, in Norman.
#22 Michigan, best Rutgers win
#24 West Virginia, two wins for Oklahoma,, best road win
The rpi ratings are not that accurate, and they get muddled. But, one thing was clear. OU played a lot of road games against teams in the tournament. Rutgers did NOT. OU went on the road to Oregon, UConn, South Dakota State, UALR, Texas, DePaul, and Baylor, all of whom are in the tournament. Rutgers played a nice schedule.
As the spokesman for the NCAA said when she was asked about the rpi, it means a lot. Then, they look at the actual records to see how that was established. If you have some team that plays six games against top two seeds and goes on the road against seven tournament teams, you might just take that into your thoughts. Did Rutgers do that?
I think Rutgers would have a better argument against a Pac 12 team.
