beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 11050 Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
Posted: 04/04/18 11:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Speaking as a guy who's fascinated by RPI, post-tournament RPI is pretty darned peculiar. Since the purpose of RPI isn't to create a meaningful ranking, but to give the committee an understanding of who has good wins and who has bad losses, and who played weak and strong schedules, all as part of setting the bracket, a post-tournament RPI is kind of a useless appendage.
I didn't do this exercise this year, but when you look at RPI and compare it to seeding, you rapidly become aware that the committee really doesn't use raw RPI to set the bracket. After the top 6 or 8 teams, the correlation between RPI and seeding breaks down rapidly because the committee just is looking at other things. (It gets better again at the bottom, but that's partly because the teams with 15 and 16 seeds usually are much worse than the ones above them.)
All of that said, it is fun to see what changed from the end of the regular season, which mostly is not too much:
1. Notre Dame +1
2. Connecticut -1
3. Louisville same
4. Mississippi State - +1
5. Baylor -1
6. Oregon +1
7. Ohio State -1
8. UCLA +2
9. Florida State -1
10. South Carolina +1
11. Texas +1
12. Tennessee -3
13. Stanford same
14. Duke +5
15. Central Michigan same
16. NC State +1
17. Texas A&M -1
18. Maryland same
19. South Florida -5
20. Buffalo +2
Only 5 teams in the post-tournament top 20 moved up or down by 2 or more spots. And only one team that had been in the top 20 at the end of the year - DePaul - dropped out.
|
|