Yep. The RPI had to be dumped because mid-majors learned how to game the system.
NET Rankings are Flawed
- Thread starter BillBrasky4Cy
- Start date
Yep. The RPI had to be dumped because mid-majors learned how to game the system.
This thread is about how the NET rankings are flawed - I agree, but I've always maintained they are way better than what we had before, which was the RPI. I think that's pretty obvious.
NET is without question better than RPI. NET at least gives you a rating system aligned with team efficiency metrics even if it falls short on the resume side. RPI did neither of those things.
NET was fine until a couple years ago when they put more weight on metrics. This current formula is just as bad as RPI if not worse. Apparently who you play no longer matters.
This is just the 4th season of NET. The change was 2 years ago which basically just made two components - the efficiency metric and the TVI which is supposed to be a results based metric. I and I think pretty much everybody would likely agree the TVI is undervalued while the efficiency is overvalued. Hopefully they continue to tweak it.
However, if you look at the RPI for this season, you'll see some just absolutely insane stuff. St. Mary's, #4. ISU #65, behind Hofstra and Furman. It doesn't take long to make you just absolutely scratch your head.
It continues. Conference tournament game results evaluated the same as regular season.
In a way I disagree. They carry in but mostly the losses are discounted and the wins are what matters.
The conference tourney effect on net are almost ignored, but the SOR And the Q 1 wins can only help your resume.
