BPI vs RPI

For those who think that the selection committee switching reliance from RPI to BPI might help get more mid majors into the NCAA tournament, I did a little research.

Using today's rankings in both RPI and BPI, and comparing Louisiana to the schools in the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12 and the SEC:

There are 21 schools in those conferences with better RPI than Louisiana.

There are 29 with better BPI.

Follow the money. ESPN developed BPI... care to guess which conferences make the most money for E$PN?

In all other conferences there are 15 schools with better RPI than Louisiana and 14 with better BPI.

Kinda makes you go HHMMM, doesn't it?

Yea.
So, right now there are 36 schools with a better RPI than Louisiana?
And, there are 43 schools with a better BPI than Louisiana.
Is that right?

Assuming the 21 RPI schools in the power conferences are among the 29 with better BPI,
can you name the other 8 schools with the better BPI?

There are 43 schools with better BPI, 36 with better RPI. That is correct.

There are 15 non P5 schools with better RPI than the Cajuns:

Xavier, Villanova, Rhode Island, Cincinnati, Wichita State, Nevada, Houston, Seton Hall, MTSU, St. Bonaventure, Gonzaga, Creighton, Loyola Chicago, Butler and Buffalo.

Of the 29 P5 schools with better BPI, these 8 have worse RPI than Louisiana:

Florida State, Louisville, Virginia Tech, Notre Dame, Texas, Baylor, Penn State and Maryland

Of the 36 schools with better RPI, 13 are favored to get automatic bids, and only Rhode Island, MTSU, Loyola Chicago and Buffalo are from one bid leagues. Assuming chalk outcomes, there will be only 23 non-conference champions with better RPI than the Cajuns, competing for 35 at large spots.

Assuming Louisiana loses in the finals of the conference tournament, and does not get an at large, that means that Louisiana got passed over in favor of at least 12 teams with worse RPI.

Assuming we win the automatic bid, and get a 12 seed, and that our RPI remains 37, there will be at least 8 teams with worse RPI seeded above us.

Win, we’re in. Don’t, we’re Not In Tourney. On the road for sure, at a P5.

Can’t get much simpler than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZoomZoom

Win, we’re in. Don’t, we’re Not In Tourney. On the road for sure, at a P5.

Can’t get much simpler than that.

---

Pretty much. But not the point here. The point is that BPI will be no kinder to mid majors than RPI as a selection tool for getting at large bids or for seeding.

I don't think anyone thought for one minute that the NCAA was going to do ANYTHING to hurt their cash flow.
And thanks for putting the stats together. Interesting stuff

It drives me nuts that basketball and the stick and ball sports don't have set standards for getting into postseason play. Come up with some criteria that sets a standard for getting in, and a predetermined way to break ties on the bubble and put it in place. That way, everyone knows exactly what they need to do to get in, and if they do it, they are in and they know their seeding.

I think that comes from being a track guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VObserver

It drives me nuts that basketball and the stick and ball sports don't have set standards for getting into postseason play. Come up with some criteria that sets a standard for getting in, and a predetermined way to break ties on the bubble and put it in place. That way, everyone knows exactly what they need to do to get in, and if they do it, they are in and they know their seeding.

I think that comes from being a track guy.

---

That’s the thing about track. It’s black and white. The stopwatch/tape measure doesn’t lie. No subjectivity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cajunrunner

That's the thing about track. It's black and white. The stopwatch/tape measure doesn't lie. No subjectivity.

---

Never been a track coach who signed a 6 minute miler because he looked like a runner, or didn't sign a 4 minute guy who ran ugly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VObserver

There are 43 schools with better BPI, 36 with better RPI. That is correct.

There are 15 non P5 schools with better RPI than the Cajuns:

Xavier, Villanova, Rhode Island, Cincinnati, Wichita State, Nevada, Houston, Seton Hall, MTSU, St. Bonaventure, Gonzaga, Creighton, Loyola Chicago, Butler and Buffalo.

Of the 29 P5 schools with better BPI, these 8 have worse RPI than Louisiana:

Florida State, Louisville, Virginia Tech, Notre Dame, Texas, Baylor, Penn State and Maryland

Of the 36 schools with better RPI, 13 are favored to get automatic bids, and only Rhode Island, MTSU, Loyola Chicago and Buffalo are from one bid leagues. Assuming chalk outcomes, there will be only 23 non-conference champions with better RPI than the Cajuns, competing for 35 at large spots.

Assuming Louisiana loses in the finals of the conference tournament, and does not get an at large, that means that Louisiana got passed over in favor of at least 12 teams with worse RPI.

Assuming we win the automatic bid, and get a 12 seed, and that our RPI remains 37, there will be at least 8 teams with worse RPI seeded above us.

---

Thanks for the research and analysis. Makes sense that espn would want those 8 p5 conference schools seeded higher. They want a greater roi for the telecasts. It is a shame they have so much influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VObserver

For those who think that the selection committee switching reliance from RPI to BPI might help get more mid majors into the NCAA tournament, I did a little research.

Using today's rankings in both RPI and BPI, and comparing Louisiana to the schools in the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12 and the SEC:

There are 21 schools in those conferences with better RPI than Louisiana.

There are 29 with better BPI.

Follow the money. ESPN developed BPI... care to guess which conferences make the most money for E$PN?

In all other conferences there are 15 schools with better RPI than Louisiana and 14 with better BPI.

Kinda makes you go HHMMM, doesn't it?

---

No, not really. First, ESPN isn't picking the field and ESPN has no rights whatsoever to the tournament. Second, I assume you are aiming the opening comments at me since we have argued over this for a few weeks now. Well, you again are simply not reading what is being said. I've never said they would switch their criteria from RPI to BPI. NEVER. What I did say is that the committee has been instructed to now consider alternative criteria for selection and seeding in the tournament. If you don't believe me, just google it with all this research you are doing and its right there in front of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zephyr

No, not really. First, ESPN isn't picking the field and ESPN has no rights whatsoever to the tournament. Second, I assume you are aiming the opening comments at me since we have argued over this for a few weeks now. Well, you again are simply not reading what is being said. I've never said they would switch their criteria from RPI to BPI. NEVER. What I did say is that the committee has been instructed to now consider alternative criteria for selection and seeding in the tournament. If you don't believe me, just google it with all this research you are doing and its right there in front of you.

---

It isn't particularly pointed at you. Just a couple of questions for you... Where does the NCAA get their money from March Madness? Do you think that the NCAA is going to do anything which threatens to negatively affect their revenue stream?

I have never said that RPI is perfect, nor that BPI will be better or worse for schools like Louisiana. Some on here (not you) have conjectured that the addition of BPI to the criteria the committee will use going forward might help more mid major schools get into the tournament. My research is an indicator that this is likely not the case.

As to any disagreement on this subject between you and I; I believe it is mostly semantics. We both agree, and have for practically the whole season, that we aren't getting an at large. My arguments about scheduling are based on trying to achieve as high an RPI and BPI as possible in an attempt to improve our tournament seeding if we get in the Dance, and to improve the possibility of a home game in the NIT, should we end up there.

Now, I think that this year we have a shot at a home NIT game and you don't. But I certainly would not be surprised to see us on the road in that event, and I doubt that you would be shocked to see us at home.