Goodbye RPI... Thoughts?

1 Like

Great development. RPI was garbage. Loooooong overdue, but we’ll also have to see how this new ranking system works. Capping MOV at 10 points is understandable, but also problematic.

Not crazy about the fact that they aren’t going back to seed past tournaments as that would show some transparency into how well this system operates. Glad they are getting away from RPI, which is very flawed.

1 Like

Wednesday’s changes to feature efficiency measures more prominently makes Wichita State a clear winner. The Shockers have consistently been regarded favorably by advanced metrics, only to be spurned by the NCAA Tournament selection committee and the RPI.

To bad the NCAA won’t tackle fairness in the FBS football world.


Unfortunately, the NCAA can only do what the schools want them to do. Right now, the P5 has no interest in the NCAA managing postseason in football. It’s why the NCAA doesn’t name a national champion in FBS football.

From BYU AD:
Later, Holmoe said: “The thing we’ve been pursuing is to compete with the Power 5 conferences on a regular basis. Our kids can compete with anybody, person-to-person. But the conferences have been aligned to where you don’t get to do that. I just yearn to see our kids compete against the best. It’s hard to do that when you can’t get into a conference or compete in a conference like that.”

We feel his pain!

1 Like

This part is concerning to me: Wins. A team’s overall D-I winning percentage will play a not-insignificant part.

I just realized that I may have misread that line… a not-insignificant part. How did that make it through editing, lol.

1 Like

It is a very awkward way of saying significant. My rhetoric professor would have counted off for that.

1 Like

The powered by AI and predictive algorithms part is what worries me…

I am just surprised the tag line is not



There are people that focus on reverse engineering AI so would not be surprised to see someone use reported data over time to create a simulated NET value that could be applied to prior years as well as what if scenarios.

In the article they mention how the algorithm can be updated to include stats that hep get the “worthy” teams into the tourney (paraphrasing)…

1 Like


1 Like

Yep…that’s why it’s very concerning that they aren’t going back to show how it would have fared in past years.

Could easily end with a result very much like what the CFP selection process generates…bias towards the P5. Who would play Bama’s role as the guaranteed participant? :flushed:


On some level, this stance is understandable. The open-source nature of the RPI allowed its output to be posted in multiple locations outside the NCAA’s control, sometimes with variations from site to site. The new system provides an opportunity for a fresh start, and as someone who runs a website based on a rating system, I can appreciate the NCAA’s desire to protect its work.

A by-product of not revealing every detail about the NET is that all interested parties must hit for the tool’s output during the season. But the lack of historical data available to the public has the potential to cause serious issues during the season. Public opinion of the NET will be entirely based on what everyone sees this season. That’s a problem because there will be outliers. Even in the best rating system, there are outliers.

©Copyright 2017