Anyone got an Idiot's Guide to ESPN's BPI? Cause it seems bogus to me

[paladinhawk]

Dakich said something like 'it's a rating of how a team is playing currently'.

Umm Indiana 1 and seven over the last 8 BPI = 30

Mayland 2 and 5 BPI = 43

Iowa 5 and 5 (this can be skewed by where you choose to start counting)BPI = 90(not updated for tonight's win).

 

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

BPI is worthless and get this...it's not used by the committee.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

BPI is some bull crap that ESPN came up with to try and influence basketball and football media members. It's garbage. Just like ESPN.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

BPI in both football and basketball includes recruiting, last year's results, and pre-season rankings. It's crap.

 

[LarryMullenJr.]

I run a LGM (Larry Greatness Metric) where I rank teams. It's about as valuable as the BPI.

 

[djwoody]

I have Iowa as a 1 seed in the WTFPI.

 

[Clifford C. Clavin]

It's a more in depth metric than RPI is.

 

[paladinhawk]

It's a more in depth metric than RPI is.

Not to come off as snide, but how is it more in depth (better) than RPI? I used to be a baseball stats geek, but I don't get BPI at all.

 

[SotaHawk87]

BPI is worthless and get this...it's not used by the committee.

Not true. Committee does in fact use it!

 

[Clifford C. Clavin]

Not to come off as snide, but how is it more in depth (better) than RPI? I used to be a baseball stats geek, but I don't get BPI at all.

I don't have anything in front of me, but stuff I've read leads me to believe that RPI is the most simplistic thing out there (and I'm a stats geek too). Granted this is from ESPN, so it is going to be slanted toward BPI, but this is pretty telling:

If it's true that RPI doesn't take SOS beyond opponent's W-L record (and not include the opponents' opponents' records), that is crazy that it is even allowed in the room with the committee. I could write something more sophisticated than that.

 

[SWIowahawks]

I don't have anything in front of me, but stuff I've read leads me to believe that RPI is the most simplistic thing out there (and I'm a stats geek too). Granted this is from ESPN, so it is going to be slanted toward BPI, but this is pretty telling:

If it's true that RPI doesn't take SOS beyond opponent's W-L record (and not include the opponents' opponents' records), that is crazy that it is even allowed in the room with the committee. I could write something more sophisticated than that.

The RPI has its own SOS ranking. So I would almost guarantee that it uses it.

 

[ICWestfan]

I run a LGM (Larry Greatness Metric) where I rank teams. It's about as valuable as the BPI.

Interesting, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I use the Historical Greatness Metric. Example: Indiana won the championship in 1976 so should ALWAYS be considered for the tourney. It's a very valuable tool.

 

[1stplacehawk]

Any type of computer based power ranking generated by ESPN is completely worthless. They have the worst informatics people on the planet

 

[Kurt Warner]

Interesting, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I use the Historical Greatness Metric. Example: Indiana won the championship in 1976 so should ALWAYS be considered for the tourney. It's a very valuable tool.

husker football loves this kind of thinking

 

[L. Wade Childress]

RPI SOS is simply your opponents record (50%) and opponents opponents record (25%), unadjusted for home/away