Pitt's RPI vs NET

[Sean Miller Fan]

Our RPI is 161. NET rank is 94.

Why the huge difference? RPI is too simplistic. It looks at who you played and did you win or lose. Our SOS is 301 but it doesn't factor in "how" you played. Are you beating these bad teams by 50 or by 1? How's your efficiency (adjusted)?

At the risk of this being labeled a Dixon post, I would like to use TCU to illustrate this point further. Jamie has gamed his way to #18 in the RPI by beating some ok teams but nobody really good. Their NET rank is 39.

I couldn't believe the vitriol spewed at this new ranking system when it came out. Anything is better than the RPI. The problem I have with NET is that it doesn't give the formula but I believe it's going to be much better than RPI

 

[mo cheeks]

Is it going to lead to teams trying to run up the score at the end of games?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Is it going to lead to teams trying to run up the score at the end of games?

No, they cap scoring margin at 10 which I think is really stupid. If anything, it should be capped at 20. Even better, I think there should be no cap but a formula should be worked out to credit teams less for each point differential over 20. So beating a team by 50 is better than beating a team by 20 but it's not much different than beating a team by say 30.

 

[Ski11585]

Remember when you said you didn’t start Dixon threads and then decide of the 300+ schools to use to talk about NET you choose TCU?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Remember when you said you didn’t start Dixon threads and then decide of the 300+ schools to use to talk about NET you choose TCU?

This isn't a Dixon thread. We are familiar with Dixon scheduling so I figured there is no better way to illustrate the difference between RPI and NET than TCU. Its the perfect example of one of things the NCAA is trying to avoid (ie gaming the system).

 

[H2P 2003]

This isn't a Dixon thread. We are familiar with Dixon scheduling so I figured there is no better way to illustrate the difference between RPI and NET than TCU. Its the perfect example of one of things the NCAA is trying to avoid (ie gaming the system).

You mentioned Dixon in the first post.

 

[ScrantonicityIII]

Our RPI is 161. NET rank is 94.

Why the huge difference? RPI is too simplistic. It looks at who you played and did you win or lose. Our SOS is 301 but it doesn't factor in "how" you played. Are you beating these bad teams by 50 or by 1? How's your efficiency (adjusted)?

At the risk of this being labeled a Dixon post, I would like to use TCU to illustrate this point further. Jamie has gamed his way to #18 in the RPI by beating some ok teams but nobody really good. Their NET rank is 39.

I couldn't believe the vitriol spewed at this new ranking system when it came out. Anything is better than the RPI. The problem I have with NET is that it doesn't give the formula but I believe it's going to be much better than RPI

No, you never start Dixon posts. Ha!

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I couldn't believe the vitriol spewed at this new ranking system when it came out. Anything is better than the RPI. The problem I have with NET is that it doesn't give the formula but I believe it's going to be much better than RPI

They replaced one stupid system with another stupid system. It remains to be seen exactly how bad NET ends up being, but one thing we can all be assured of, no matter where it ends up it will still be stupid.

 

[HailToPitt1985]

None of these systems matters at this point, and none of them are close to accurate or valid. So forget about all of them until say late February.

 

[levance2]

They replaced one stupid system with another stupid system. It remains to be seen exactly how bad NET ends up being, but one thing we can all be assured of, no matter where it ends up it will still be stupid.

And it is assured that coaches will game NET like they gamed RPI. They haven’t yet only because nobody even knows what it is.

 

[Pitt3Putt]

Our RPI is 161. NET rank is 94.

Why the huge difference? RPI is too simplistic. It looks at who you played and did you win or lose. Our SOS is 301 but it doesn't factor in "how" you played. Are you beating these bad teams by 50 or by 1? How's your efficiency (adjusted)?

At the risk of this being labeled a Dixon post, I would like to use TCU to illustrate this point further. Jamie has gamed his way to #18 in the RPI by beating some ok teams but nobody really good. Their NET rank is 39.

I couldn't believe the vitriol spewed at this new ranking system when it came out. Anything is better than the RPI. The problem I have with NET is that it doesn't give the formula but I believe it's going to be much better than RPI

The RPI is bad because the schedule is garbage.

The NET is slightly better because Pitt has 2 neutral site wins, 2 away losses, and 1 home loss.

The NET will reward teams for away wins and penalize for home losses, and then the converse is true as well. Neutral wins and losses just count as wins and losses, they aren't rewarded or penalized.

The NET ranking will stabilize once everybody gets into Conference play and starts taking home losses and the good teams start to win some away games with consistency.

It's basically a dumbed down KenPom that then adjusts records based on where wins and losses occurred (i.e. I believe a road win is worth 1.25 wins, a road loss is worth 0.75 losses, and a neutral loss is worth 1 loss and then you can probably back into the home values from there).

TCU has a discrepancy because they have a home loss on their record, albeit to a pretty solid team (Lipscomb is ranked 58th on KenPom and returned all 5 starters from a NCAA team a year ago).

Pitt dropped precipitously as soon as they lost at home, which was expected. It was dumb to release the rankings that early other than as a publicity stunt.