This settles it..

[SotaHawk87]

I have heard the comment made many a time about what the selection committee used.. Here is an article confirming that as early as last year the committee relied HEAVILY on Sagarin, Kenpom, and even a few others besides RPI..

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/...-a-seat-at-the-selection-committee-table.html

 

[HawkAlum2002]

I read an article in the last week that said they've been putting less emphasis on RPI starting all the way back in 2001, but it's also the easiest one to access and break down by teams in the room, and most of the time they aren't far off from the more advanced ones (which also each have their particular faults) by the time selection rolls around anyway. It's not perfect but it's still fair. Like anything else, the folks that would complain about it only complain because it doesn't fit their particular argument at that particular time.

 

[blockm2]

my problem has been that while committee members are aware of things other than RPI, RPI is how all the information about each team is presented.

When they pull up the team sheet for Iowa, it lists Iowa's SOS by RPI. It shows every opponent they've beaten and lost to listed by opponent RPI. All the top 50, top 100, top whatever wins and losses are based on RPI SOS.

So while they can say yep, Sagarin and KenPom both say Iowa looks really good this year, they still can point out their SOS was terrible by RPI measures even if Sagarin and KenPom say their SOS was tougher.

It'll be nice when RPI doesn't exist anymore.

 

[Ngnosis hwk scence]

RPI... RIP Rest in peace.