RPI
- Thread starter cyclonestunners
- Start date
Any ranking - ANY ranking - that currently has Iowa ahead of Oklahoma is not worth the electrons it's etched in stone on.
Specifics of RPI numbers is bound to change a lot, but an isolated observation, comparing ISU & NC resumes, Iowa State still has 3 games remaining vs. two teams that already beat UNC: Texas (twice) and UNI.
You arent very logical are you. That doesn't at all illustrate a lack of valuing wins. Educate yourself about relativism. Iowa didnt lose to the 7 teams surrounding them. They lost to the number 1 rpi. It very much matters that they lost. If they had won there would be a very different result. In fact (little rust on the math, but if my math is right) if they had won they would have jumped to #12
Illustrating the exact opposite of what you are complaining about. Don't ***** about things you dont properly understand. It most definately matters if they win or lose. In rpi, only six games into the season, it is almost impossible for team (a) to jump team (b) after losing to team b. In ken pom, it happens all the time.
Last edited:
Well we all know ken pom must be total garbage. who could possibly have dayton 30 spots behind iowa state. We all know they're one of 8 teams iowa has played that are better than iowa and iowa state.
It also has Iowa ahead of all three teams that have beaten Iowa this year and all three have better records and by any other measure/system all three have comparable or better Strength of Schedule. I can understand 1 or two of the inconsistencies as some teams have great games against better competition. Upsets happen, but the rating system is 0 for 3 on all of Iowa's losses makes very little sense. Why? Because it completely disregards the intangibles and "clutchness" of actually winning a game. So a 1 point loss is almost exactly the same as a 1 point win. It doesn't care at all that Iowa chokes in close games and falls victim to bad coaching. While clutch teams beat them by one
The system is a joke when it comes to ranking teams. Its utter garbage. It isn't meant to be a ranking system. It just cares how many points you average on each side of the ball so you can figure the over/under and is sometimes good for spreads when you take it in a vacuum of no pressure. It's quite poor at predicting close games. because it takes into account point spread (indirectly). Do you think ISU cared about APB today. If they played to their potential, They blow out APB by 50 or 60. Some teams care about point spread some don't. ISU was out there just to figure out when they had to flip the switch. If we played APB before an upcoming game with Syracuse and they chose to work on attacking the zone, the results would have been very different.
It has very little value in predicting w/l. Because it places value on something that is meaningless. Point spreads. depending on the situation, a coach choses what to work on when you don't have to worry about the winning part.
Last edited:
