I can’t figure out how these sec teAms with eleven losses have higher rpis then us. There’s no way the sec is a better conference. It’s not even close and yet these teams with more losses/same conference losses in a weaker conference are ahead of us. I believe the pac 12 isn’t as good either yet those teams are ranked much higher. I’m not sure how or why the big ten is ranked so much lower
The RPI formula is basically winning percentage of opponents + your own winning percentage with some adjustments for road/home games.
It isn’t a complicated metric like KenPom, that takes into account margin of victory and true quality of opponent.
The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage (WP), 50% opponents’ average winning percentage (OWP), and 25% opponents’ opponents’ average winning percentage (OOWP).
For the 2004-05 season, the formula was changed to give more weight to road wins vs home wins. A team’s win total for RPI purposes is 1.4 * road wins + neutral site wins + 0.6 * home wins. A team’s losses is calculated as 0.6 * road losses + neutral site losses + 1.4 * home losses.
What confuses me though is the sec is trash. Yet it almost appears as if their conference is stronger. I’m supposed to believe 10-6 in sec is better than 10-6 in big ten? Same with pac 12 to extent. The eye test isn’t close to me
Those teams may have played some mid majors with better records OOC than we did. Our buy games this year were reaaallly realllly realllly bad., and that probably drags our RPI
One problem for the Big Ten is that Rutgers and Minnesota are so awful that they drag everyone down. You aren’t expecting to play <200 RPI teams in the conference season really.
That’s what I’ve been wondering. also why don’t we just schedule some better mid majors and less njits. Odds are we still will win and apparently it can build us the better resume