In Part 4, I discussed and showed the differences between teams' NCAA RPI ranks and their ranks as Strength of Schedule contributors under the NCAA RPI formula. In this article, I will show predictions for how these differences will affect teams by the end of the 2025 season.
For each team, the following table shows its predicted:
Opponents' average NCAA RPI rank
Conference opponents' average NCAA RPI rank
Non-conference opponents' average NCAA RPI rank
Opponents' average rank as Strength of Schedule contributors under the NCAA RPI formula
Conference opponents' average rank as Strength of Schedule contributors under the NCAA RPI formula
Non-conference opponents' average rank as Strength of Schedule contributors under the NCAA RPI formula
These numbers allow you to see how the NCAA RPI rank versus Strength of Schedule contributor rank differences relate to:
1. Teams' in-conference schedules, which teams basically can't control;
2. Teams' non-conference schedules, which teams can control at least to some extent; and
3. Teams' overall schedules.
If you review the table's numbers with a view to the strength of the teams' conferences, you will see that generally speaking the NCAA RPI formula understates the strengths of schedule of top tier conferences' teams, gets the strengths of schedule of middle tier conferences' teams about right, and overstates the strengths of schedule of bottom tier conferences' teams. I've arranged the teams by conference so you can better see how this NCAA RPI defect affects teams by conference. Scroll to the right, if necessary, to see the entire table.
NOTE: The differences in the Conference Opponents Average Rank column for teams from the same conference are primarily due to conference teams not playing full round robins. The differences in the Non-Conference Opponents Average Rank column for teams from the same conference are due the different teams' non-conference scheduling strategies.
I'll use Baylor, from the Big 12, with a predicted NCAA RPI rank of #66, and Lamar, from the Southland, with a predicted NCAA RPI rank of #55, as examples. I've chosen these teams because no team ranked poorer than #57 ever has gotten an at large position in the NCAA Tournament. Thus Baylor is outside the historic at large candidate group and Lamar is within the candidate group.
Baylor (Big 12):
Conference opponents' average NCAA RPI rank is 81 and conference opponents' average Strength of Schedule contributor rank under the NCAA RPI formula is 119.
Non-conference opponents' average NCAA RPI rank is 110 and non-conference opponents' average Strength of Schedule contributor rank under the NCAA RPI formula is 108.
Overall, opponents' average NCAA RPI rank is 93 and opponents' average Strength of Schedule contributor rank under the NCAA RPI formula is 115.
Thus Baylor's Strength of Schedule component of the NCAA RPI significantly discriminates against Baylor in relation to its conference schedule and only barely offsets that discrimination in relation to its non-conference schedule. The overall result is that the Strength of Schedule component significantly discriminates against Baylor.
Lamar (Southland):
Conference opponents' average NCAA RPI rank is 212 and conference opponents' average Strength of Schedule contributor rank under the NCAA RPI formula is 185.
Non-conference opponents' average NCAA RPI rank is 153 and non-conference opponents' average Strength of Schedule contributor rank under the NCAA RPI formula is 184.
Overall, opponents' average NCAA RPI rank is 193 and opponents' average Strength of Schedule contributor rank under the NCAA RPI formula is 185.
Thus the Strength of Schedule component of the NCAA RPI significantly discriminates in favor of Lamar in relation to its conference schedule and offsets that discrimination some in relation to its non-conference schedule. The overall effect, however, is that the Strength of Schedule component still discriminates in favor of Lamar.
Given that Baylor is outside but in the vicinity of the ranking area of teams that historically are candidates for NCAA Tournament at large selections and Lamar is only a little inside that ranking area, this demonstrates the importance of this NCAA RPI defect. History suggests that Lamar, if not an Automatic Qualifier, would not get an at large selection. For Baylor, however, being outside the historic candidate area, there is a question whether, if inside the candidate area and considered by the Committee, it might displace one of the "last in" at large teams. In other words, this NCAA RPI defect may have negative NCAA Tournament at large selection consequences. (And, by a similar analysis of seeding candidate groups, may have negative seeding consequences.)
The significance of this kind of example is reinforced if you consider Lamar's and Baylor's ranks using my Balanced RPI. The Balanced RPI is a rating system that builds on the RPI, with modifications that fix the NCAA RPI's defective discrepancy between teams' NCAA RPI ranks and their ranks as Strength of Schedule contributors under the NCAA RPI formula. The Balanced RPI's predicted rank for Lamar is 110, well outisde the NCAA Tournament at large selection candidate range. For Baylor, its predicted rank is #57, in other words a candidate for at large selection.
No comments:
Post a Comment