Anyone seen this?

[URL=http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/weeklyrpi/rpi1.html]http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/weeklyrpi/rpi1.html[/URL]

Is it just me or are all of these rankings horrid? (we’re 99…)

How does our ranking surprise you? It is for games played through 4/12/06, we did not have a good season, we did not make the NCAAs and we did not light it up in the NIT. #99 seems about right.

It’s not just you…99 is pretty horrid. Unfortunately, the list is competely accurate - we earned #99.

I guess the NIT Tournament win bumped us back to double digits - we were hovering past 100 most of the year. That is what happens when you lose to Northwestern, Wyoming, and Mississippi State to start off the year. And then to follow it up with losses to Valpo and Indiana. [SIZE=1]Then Xavier…GW twice…Richmond…Wake…Saint Louis…etc.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]But it’s a brand new year. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]DAs back, Leemire’s back, Coleman’s back and looking fit, Courtney & EJ can finally show what they’re capable of doing this year and Carlos will be running the point. Jamison developed nicely last year too - he made the transition from someone who seemed to not know what the hell he was doing into a legit player toward the end of the year. He actually started a couple of games if memory serves me correctly.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Toss in some newcomers for some long-term chemistry and development with a stronger coaching staff and we (hopefully) won’t see #99 again for a while.[/SIZE]

WHAT have we done to deserve a higher rank? Nada. The good thing is, we can start doing something very soon to improve this - if we just will.

On another note: the billboard on your message: I saw it on Brookshire Freeway coming South from I-85. Almost missed it though. It was behind some trees. A billboard, behind trees? Oh, yeah. We’re Charlotte, not crapple hole. We should get our money back.
Whose cute kid is that?

I said all the rankings…George Mason…Wake…Temple…everything is horrid. I think we should be above 99 considering other ugly teams that are higher (that shouldnt be).

I said all the rankings...George Mason...Wake...Temple...everything is horrid. I think we should be above 99 considering other ugly teams that are higher (that shouldnt be).

I think you’re confusing rankings with standings.

The RPI from ncaa.org is a calculation based on winning percentage. Just like a baseball pitcher’s ERA is determined by the formula (Runs Allowed / Innings Pitched) multiplied by 9.

The simple version of the RPI is 25% Winning percentage + 50% Opponents Winning percentage + 25% Opponent’s opponent’s winning percentage. Note the emphasis on scheduling. That’s how teams with bad records but tough schedules beat out teams with good records and lousy schedules.

check out kenpom.com

The NCAA will use the final list of RPIs during the selection process for seeding the Tournament. Kind of like how MLB will use the final list of ERAs to determine Cy Young award winners.

I think you're confusing rankings with standings.

The RPI from ncaa.org is a calculation based on winning percentage. Just like a baseball pitcher’s ERA is determined by the formula (Runs Allowed / Innings Pitched) multiplied by 9.

The simple version of the RPI is 25% Winning percentage + 50% Opponents Winning percentage + 25% Opponent’s opponent’s winning percentage. Note the emphasis on scheduling. That’s how teams with bad records but tough schedules beat out teams with good records and lousy schedules.

check out kenpom.com

The NCAA will use the final list of RPIs during the selection process for seeding the Tournament. Kind of like how MLB will use the final list of ERAs to determine Cy Young award winners.

Definitely didn’t know that…good info. Thanks.

So is this number used this year at all? Is this where we all start at on the RPI? Or do we start anew.

I’ve always been confused on how they start the RPI for a new year.

[QUOTE=49or bust;193881]So is this number used this year at all? Is this where we all start at on the RPI? Or do we start anew.

I’ve always been confused on how they start the RPI for a new year.[/QUOTE]

It starts brand new based on the teams you have played thus far. That is why our RPI can change not only based on our wins and losses but also based on how the teams we have played do after they play us.

It starts brand new based on the teams you have played thus far. That is why our RPI can change not only based on our wins and losses but also based on how the teams we have played do after they play us.

Basically, root for the teams that we beat and even those that beat us. :49ers:

So is this number used this year at all? Is this where we all start at on the RPI? Or do we start anew.

I’ve always been confused on how they start the RPI for a new year.

The short answer is to say that the RPI starts anew. Everyone starts the year off with a 0.000 RPI.

The long answer is to explain that the RPI won’t make a lick of sense until about halfway through the year. To go back to the baseball analogy, you can start to predict the home run race about halfway through the year. If someone has 30 home runs at the All-Star break, you could say he’s ‘on pace’ for 60 home runs.

But if you start to predict the home run race too early, it’s bizarre. Kind of like the old joke from when a backup catcher swats 3 home runs on opening day. You could tell your drinking buddies that he’s ‘on pace’ for 486 home runs. The same holds true when you try to calculate RPI when the whole country has a 1-1 record.

The confusion occurs when RPI websites get impatient at the start of the year and start making up their own calculations. Then they’ll switch to the legitimate RPI formula when the numbers start making sense. There is no doubting the RPI from the NCAA - those figures are, of course, the most legitimate source. Of course, you’ll probably have to wait until February again before they start releasing their RPIs to the public.