Today's RPI (1/12/03)

[Jennifer]

<pre style="font size: 10pt;">
SOS Polls
Rank School W-L RPI Rank Rating AP USA

1 Kansas St 15-1 0.7055 11 0.6282 4 4
2 Tennessee 9-3 0.7044 1 0.6892 5 5

3 Texas Tech 13-1 0.7040 10 0.6291 8 8
4 Connecticut 13-0 0.6988 21 0.5984 3 2
5 Duke 14-0 0.6781 47 0.5708 1 1
6 Stanford 12-1 0.6777 24 0.5960 6 5
7 Illinois 10-3 0.6719 7 0.6394
8 North Carolina 13-1 0.6713 32 0.5855 10 9
9 Villanova 12-1 0.6662 35 0.5805 22

10 Oklahoma 10-4 0.6633 4 0.6464 25 22


20 Colorado 11-2 0.6382 49 0.5688 24 23
54 Texas 9-4 0.5903 63 0.5563 20 20
89 Iowa State 6-7 0.5521 33 0.5823
90 Baylor 12-2 0.5516 244 0.4498
125 Texas A&M 8-5 0.5255 164 0.4956
132 Nebraska 7-5 0.5201 158 0.4990
133 Missouri 6-7 0.5176 94 0.5363
134 Kansas 7-6 0.5168 137 0.5096
174 Oklahoma St 4-9 0.4841 84 0.5430

</pre>


[This message has been edited by Jennifer (edited 01-12-2003).]

[AusTech]

Who would have thought that Big 12 play would bring down our SOS?!?! http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by AusTech (edited 01-12-2003).]

[YCN]

RPI 1/13/2003 from http://www.collegerpi.com/women/03/rpi.html

1 Tennessee
2 Connecticut
3 Kansas St
4 Texas Tech
5 Stanford
6 Duke
7 North Carolina
8 Oklahoma
9 Penn State
10 Mississippi

21 Colorado
53 Texas
90 Baylor
100 Iowa State
122 Texas A&M
132 Missouri
133 Nebraska
135 Kansas
167 Oklahoma St

Tennessee and UConn wins on Sunday propelled them to the top. OU didn't play and somehow climbed from 10 to 8. ISU took a huge hit from 89 to 100, I'll bet that they were in a large group of teams with nearly identical RPI numbers.

[YCN]

RPI 1/14/2003 from http://www.collegerpi.com/women/03/rpi.html

1 Tennessee
2 Connecticut
3 Texas Tech
4 Kansas St
5 Duke
6 North Carolina
7 Stanford
8 Oklahoma
9 LSU
10 Penn State

20 Colorado
54 Texas
91 Baylor
98 Iowa State
121 Texas A&M
130 Missouri
132 Nebraska
133 Kansas
168 Oklahoma St

[Bobcat4956]

Forgive me, but what I don't understand (and I am sure you Texas Tech fans will take exception to this), but how can TT have that high of an RPI. They have played only ONE ranked team and lost that game. Just not so sure about how they figure this.

[Jennifer]

Originally posted by Bobcat4956:
Forgive me, but what I don't understand (and I am sure you Texas Tech fans will take exception to this), but how can TT have that high of an RPI. They have played only ONE ranked team and lost that game. Just not so sure about how they figure this.

Part of the calculations is your opponents record and your opponents' opponents records. Plus, it doesn't hurt that they've only lost one game.

Date Rank Opponent
Nov 10 15 vs La Tech L 76-85 (Tip Off Classic)
Nov 24 29 Washington W 99-67
Nov 27 144 Valparaiso W 81-46
Dec 4 39 Creighton W 98-70
Dec 14 71 @ Wyoming W 84-64
Dec 17 89 Oregon St W 67-51
Dec 20 30 vs Chattanooga W 66-53 (Ala Moana Classic)
Dec 21 32 @ Hawaii W 67-40 (Ala Moana Classic)
Dec 28 173 @ Southern Miss W 86-62
Dec 30 112 @ Rice W 70-66
Jan 2 40 Rutgers W 94-81
Jan 5 256 Pacific W 76-45
Jan 8 121 @ Texas A&M W 77-56
Jan 11 91 Baylor W 62-48

[swok34]

but how can TT have that high of an RPI

La Tech has played Tennessee....Hawaii has played Connecticut...
Rutgers has played Stanford...you get the picture...

I'm tickled pink that OU is up so high in the RPI.... http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

And just because they may not be ranked in the coaches or AP poll doesn't mean they are not a Top 50 team....if you go to the RPI site and pull up Texas Tech....you'll see the $ signs that show wins against Top 50 and a $$ sign for a Top 25 win.....and they might just have one of those after tomorrow nite http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by swok34 (edited 01-14-2003).]

[YCN]

Like it or not, and fair or not, you really get slammed for playing really poorly ranked teams in the RPI. For instance, Tech has played only 2 teams not in the RPI top 150, while Duke has played 5.

But look at Duke's top 6 games versus Tech's:

Duke
1 Tennessee
14 Arkansas
24 Old Dominion
36 Florida International
43 Georgia Tech
44 Clemson

Tech
15 La Tech (loss)
29 Washington
30 Chattanooga
32 Hawaii
39 Creighton
40 Rutgers

And just for fun, throw in OU's top 6 games:
1 Tennessee (loss)
2 UConn (loss)
6 North Carolina
7 Stanford (loss)
50 TCU
60 SMU (loss)

OU has played one team with an RPI below 141.

Half of your RPI comes from your opponent's records, while 1/4 comes from your record, and that of your opponents' opponents.

[two cents]

I don't take exception to the question. In fact, I can easily understand the motivation. If you look at Tech's schedule and UT's schedule, for example, many people would conclude that UT's schedule with teams like Tennessee and LSU among others is the tougher schedule. In some respects it is. So why is their SOS so far down in the rankings? Why is Tech's SOS and RPI so high with only one "ranked" opponent?

There are others who frequent this board who probably have a better understanding of the RPI than I do, but I understand it fairly well I think. I don't know if it will be tonight, but maybe later this week, I will write a post demonstrating how to calculate Tech's RPI as an example. I might discuss some of the other issues surrounding the measure. I won't pick on Baylor specifically again, but I might pick on the Big 12 conference as a whole.

YCN, a few weeks ago, wrote an excellent post initiating a very interesting discussion of this year's non-conference schedules. I added a couple of late posts to that thread. In one of them, I suggested that the Big 10, as a conference, does a better job scheduling than the Big 12. I always intended to elaborate on that point a little bit more, but I never got around to it. I might take a crack at that.

I have also considered illustrating how to estimate the relative RPI "value" of an opponent at a given point in time. This way one could compare the relative "expected" value of two possible alternate opponents. However, this requires a little bit of math or a formula, and I'm not sure it would be of interest to anyone but me. I've never actually constructed the formula or compared opponents in this way, but hypothetically it shouldn't be too difficult to do.

[two cents]

Sorry, YCN. Didn't realize you were already dealing with this issue while I was writing my post.

[YCN]

two cents, I think your post added a great deal to the discussion. With all the "synthetic" benchmarks in football and basketball there is much controversy, but I was amazed at how much the NCAA selection committee followed the RPI rankings in their selections last year. Of course the most notable exception was in giving a top seed to Vandy last year instead of Tennessee, although I thought the committee did a good job of explaining why their choice made sense.

I'll be starting another thread in the not distant future where I discuss the new method this year of "promoting greater competitive balance" by pre-selecting sites for the women's subregionals; I think that when people look at the facts and figures that they will be a little bit disturbed by the apparent lack of thought that has gone into this new method of creating so-called competitive balance.


[This message has been edited by YCN (edited 01-14-2003).]

[textom]

There are two things I don't like about the RPI. One is that a close win counts just as much as a blowout. The other will take a longer explanation, below.

Imagine two teams with the same RPI. Team A played a few top 10 teams and a bunch of cupcakes. Team B only played a bunch of mediocre teams. Which team faced the higher likelihood of incurring losses? A, of course. A team should be awarded more points for taking that risk.

[textom]

Sagarin (http://www.rpiratings.com/womrate.htm) tries to make up for some of the shortcomings of the RPI formula. His approach also reults in an automatic score prediction. For Texas Tech at Oklahoma:

Texas Tech = 95.35
Oklahoma = 86.41

The difference is 8.94 points. However, Sagarin also automatically computes a home court advantage adjustment, which is currently 3.87 points. 8.94 - 3.87 = 5.07.

In other words, the Sagarin predictor says Texas Tech should win by 5 points at Oklahoma. If the game were being played at Texas Tech, the prediction would be Tech by 8.94 + 3.87 = 12.81, a 13 point win for Tech.

[YCN]

RPI 1/15/2003 from http://www.collegerpi.com/women/03/rpi.html

1 Tennessee
2 Connecticut
3 Texas Tech
4 Kansas State
5 Duke
6 North Carolina
7 Stanford
8 Oklahoma
9 Penn State
10 Mississippi State

19 Colorado
55 Texas
86 Baylor
103 Iowa State
122 Nebraska
128 Texas A&M
132 Missouri
135 Kansas
168 Oklahoma State

It should be noted that no one but the NCAA selection committee actually knows how quality wins and bad losses are factored into their eventual tournament selections. Everyone's published RPI's out there are either using their own proprietary criteria for evaluating those signature wins and losses, or else (as in the case of Jerry Palm's CollegeRPI.com site) simply using the formula where a team's W-L record counts 25%, their opponents' W-L records (against all other D-I teams except the team for which the RPI rating is being calculated) count 50%, and the W-L records of your opponents' opponents (against all other teams except the team which was the opponent of the team for which the RPI is being calculated) counts 25%.

I call Palm's RPI ratings the "base RPI" because it is strictly a mathematical formula based on wins and losses and nothing else. Of course everyone would like to know how the NCAA treats a win over a top 5 team or a loss to a team outside of the top 200, but they aren't telling. If I had to venture a guess, I would say rather than any fixed rule, they probably discuss the relative merits of two teams close in RPI rankings on the basis of their exceptional wins and dubious losses, and decide after discussion which team deserves to be seeded where.

(P.S. - Some people may wonder why this thread is being kept alive by daily RPI postings. Palm is the only one who updates the RPI ratings daily, but he doesn't archive the ratings. By having this thread people can look at top 10 and Big 12 teams and see how their RPI's have gone up or down over the course of the season. It may be a trivial pursuit, but I kind of think it is at least somewhat interesting.)

[textom]

For whatever it's worth, Sagarin (http://www.rpiratings.com/womrate.htm) also updates daily.

[YCN]

RPI 1/16/2003 from http://www.collegerpi.com/women/03/rpi.html

1 Tennessee
2 Texas Tech
3 Connecticut
4 Kansas St
5 Duke
6 North Carolina
7 Stanford
8 LSU
9 Mississippi St
10 Oklahoma

20 Colorado
47 Texas
86 Baylor
97 Iowa State
127 Nebraska
129 Missouri
134 Texas A&M
157 Oklahoma St
159 Kansas

I have an interesting seeding exercise for anyone who might want to take a stab at it. I've chosen Vanderbilt and Oklahoma for the exercise.

Overall records:
Vanderbilt 10-4
Oklahoma 10-5

Poll rankings:
14/14 Vanderbilt
25/22 Oklahoma


RPI rankings: (CollegeRPI.com)
10 Oklahoma
45 Vanderbilt


Last 10 games:
Vanderbilt 6-4
Oklahoma 6-4


Win-loss summary:

Vanderbilt

Losses:
at 62 Louisville
at 48 TCU
vs 15 Purdue
at 9 Mississippi State

Wins:
88 Harvard
91 Austin Peay
96 Holy Cross
at 111 Duquesne
at 122 Syracuse
132 Charlotte
189 Wisconsin-Milwaukee
at 210 Boston U
at 230 Tennessee-Martin
268 Youngstown State


Oklahoma

Losses:
60 SMU
at 7 Stanford
vs 3 Connecticut
2 Texas Tech
at 1 Tennessee

Wins:
vs 6 North Carolina
at 48 TCU
at 67 Wichita State
at 79 Tulsa
at 101 Oral Roberts
124 SE Missouri State
at 127 Nebraska
vs 128 Fordham
144 Stephen F. Austin
308 Sam Houston

If the season ended today, where would you seed these two teams in the NCAA tournament, and why?

My guess: Vanderbilt gets a 7 seed, OU gets a 5 seed. Despite a much higher poll ranking for Vandy, the three teams with the best RPI's that Vanderbilt has beaten are 88 Harvard, 91 Austin Peay, and 96 Holy Cross. All of those games were on Vanderbilt's home court. Oklahoma has four wins against teams with better RPI's than anyone Vandy has beaten this year, 6 North Carolina, 48 TCU, 67 Wichita State, 79 Tulsa. In addition, the North Carolina win was on a neutral court, while the other three games were road wins. The best team that Vanderbilt has beaten on the road is 111 Duquesne.

In short, OU has been much more severely tested than Vandy this year so far, with four losses against teams in the top 7 in the RPI rankings, better teams than anyone Vandy has faced this year. Vandy has played only one top 10 team this year, losing at 9 Mississippi State.

In every single category except poll rankings, Oklahoma clearly should be considered a better team. It will be interesting to see how the committee sees things in March.

By the time the NCAA tournament comes around, I predict that Oklahoma will have a 20-11 record, while Vandy's record will be 19-11. We'll see.

Another thing to consider: If OU ends up with a 4 or 5 seed in the NCAA tournament, then the subregional in Norman (I'm assuming that OU would play at home) would have #4, #5, #12 and #13 seeds in their subregional. That would mean that OU would have a very favorable environment for reaching the Sweet 16 for the fourth consecutive year.

(I'm a dreamer.)


[This message has been edited by YCN (edited 01-16-2003).]

[two cents]

Your analysis seems correct to me. If anything, it might be overly cautious. OU could sneak in for a 4 seed based on those numbers. Their current record is comparable to Tech's final season record last year. Vandy might not even get a 7 if decisions were made today. No quality road wins, 0-3 against the top 50, 0-2 against top 25 suggests that the RPI has them about right based upon their current record. Nobody is suggesting that they are really the 45th best team in the country, but they haven't proven anything yet. The Commodores have plenty of time to do so; the SEC is a very, very tough conference this year.

By contrast, Texas with a similar RPI (47) would almost certainly be seeded higher than Vanderbilt. The Longhorns are 2-3 against top 50 and 1-1 against top 25 teams. The Longhorns hurt their RPI and SOS by playing four non-conference games against teams ranked below 200 (more on that topic later), but the committee also considers the number of games against and records against quality opponents.

[swok34]

And another factor in the committee's seeding is how well a team played it's last 10 games, did they win on the road?, are they on an upswing or a downswing?

[YCN]

RPI 1/17/2003 from http://www.collegerpi.com/women/03/rpi.html

1 Tennessee
2 Texas Tech
3 Connecticut
4 Duke
5 Kansas St
6 North Carolina
7 LSU
8 Stanford
9 Mississippi St
10 Oklahoma
11 Illinois
12 Arkansas
13 Purdue
14 Penn State
15 Boston College
16 Minnesota
17 Arizona
18 La Tech
19 Villanova
20 Old Dominion

23 Colorado
42 Texas
79 Baylor
90 Iowa State
120 Nebraska
126 Texas A&M
135 Missouri
146 Oklahoma St
154 Kansas

Look for Tech to take a small drop for playing OSU. Same goes for KSU against Nebraska.

OU should skitter down in the RPI while playing A&M, KU and Baylor in the next 3 games. Also look for CU to take a hit with games against KU and OSU next.

Expect Texas to take another big ratings jump with Baylor, Tech and KSU in the next 3 games, unless they lose 2 out of 3 - or worse. Texas has moved from 54 to 42 in just 5 days.

Baylor's schedule is brutal through 2/15, then gets much easier down the stretch. A few wins in the upcoming games would give them a big rankings boost.

Look for ISU to stay fairly even in the rankings over the next few games if they win the ones they should.

After KSU tomorrow, Nebraska runs into a soft stretch where they realistically could go 5-1 or better. Then after KSU again, they ought to be favored to win 2 more. It wouldn't shock me one bit if the Huskers were 8-4 in the conference after 2/19, but 6-6 may be just a bit more realistic.

Missouri's RPI can't improve greatly in their next 3 games against ISU, Nebraska and OSU, but 3 almost sure losses loom after that.

Don't expect OSU's ranking to go anywhere but down after playing Tech and CU next, but 4 more wins starting 1/25 would improve their RPI considerably. I don't think that will happen.

Kansas has 5 top 50 teams in the next 7 games and should stay down near the cellar, unless they improve considerably.

[AmarilloDawg42]

Bobcat, people have a way of judging things weird. like isnt it funny how Plainview wasnt in the top 25 teams in the nation,
Canyon was like 12th, but yet, Plainview beat Canyon the past two years AND won state both years. I mean come on, we lost to the best team in the nation by like only 20 points, with our SECOND string players, we didnt have Alesha, Elyse, or Rebecca, 3 of the main key players. I dont get it.

[YCN]

Put a little more detail in the rankings today, and included every team that was in the top 25 of either of the polls.

RPI 1/18/2003 from http://www.collegerpi.com/women/03/rpi.html

<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal">---- ---------------- ----- ------ ---- ------ -- ---
S - O - S
Rank School W-L RPI Rank Rating AP USA
---- ---------------- ----- ------ ---- ------ -- ---
1 Tennessee 12-3 .7245 1 .6993 5 5
2 Texas Tech 14-1 .7098 7 .6352 7 7
3 Connecticut 15-0 .7081 16 .6108 3 2
4 Duke 16-0 .6983 23 .5978 1 1
5 Kansas St 16-1 .6878 20 .6034 4 4
6 North Carolina 15-1 .6865 21 .6028 8 10
7 LSU 15-0 .6659 64 .5545 2 3
8 Stanford 13-1 .6635 40 .5752 6 5
9 Oklahoma 10-5 .6588 2 .6562 23 23
10 Mississippi St 12-3 .6578 17 .6104 15 14
11 Illinois 11-3 .6569 15 .6139
12 Purdue 14-2 .6550 33 .5817 9 8
13 Arkansas 15-2 .6543 35 .5783 10 9
14 Penn State 13-4 .6543 13 .6175 13 15
15 Boston College 11-3 .6457 22 .5991 24 22
16 Villanova 12-2 .6407 48 .5686 19 25
17 La Tech 11-2 .6390 44 .5700 11 12
18 Arizona 11-4 .6389 19 .6075 22 21
19 Minnesota 14-1 .6380 86 .5396 12 11
20 Old Dominion 7-5 .6366 3 .6544
21 South Carolina 14-2 .6363 58 .5567 14 13

23 Colorado 12-2 .6289 67 .5528

26 DePaul 13-4 .6244 37 .5776 25 24
27 Wis-Green Bay 14-2 .6226 90 .5384 16 17
35 Notre Dame 10-4 .6085 42 .5733 21 20
39 UC Santa Barbara 11-2 .6022 120 .5209 18 19

42 Texas 10-4 .5994 55 .5611 20 18

46 Vanderbilt 10-5 .5968 41 .5735 17 16

79 Baylor 12-2 .5594 221 .4602
90 Iowa State 6-8 .5511 26 .5920
119 Nebraska 7-6 .5253 119 .5210
128 Texas A&M 8-6 .5198 153 .5026
136 Missouri 6-7 .5155 100 .5335
146 Oklahoma St 5-9 .5063 59 .5560
154 Kansas 7-7 .5012 155 .5016
---- ---------------- ----- ------ ---- ------ -- ---</PRE>

[YCN]

RPI 1/19/2003 from http://www.collegerpi.com/women/03/rpi.html

<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal">
---- --------------- ----- ----- ---- ------ -- ---
S - O - S
Rank School W-L RPI Rank Rating AP USA
---- --------------- ----- ----- ---- ------ -- ---
1 Tennessee 12-3 .7254 1 .7005 5 5
2 Connecticut 16-0 .7183 11 .6244 3 2
3 Texas Tech 15-1 .7034 9 .6253 7 7
4 Duke 16-0 .7029 21 .6039 1 1
5 North Carolina 15-1 .6894 20 .6066 8 10
6 Kansas St 16-1 .6878 22 .6033 4 4
7 Stanford 14-1 .6757 28 .5899 6 5
8 LSU 15-0 .6682 59 .5576 2 3
9 Oklahoma 11-5 .6636 3 .6556 23 23
10 Mississippi St 12-3 .6596 18 .6128 15 14
11 Penn State 13-4 .6586 12 .6232
12 Illinois 11-3 .6577 17 .6150
13 Arkansas 15-2 .6554 33 .5797 13 15
14 Purdue 14-2 .6518 38 .5774
15 Arizona 12-4 .6497 15 .6163 10 9
16 Villanova 13-2 .6465 43 .5731 9 8
17 La Tech 12-2 .6433 46 .5720 22 21
18 Rutgers 9-4 .6428 8 .6263 19 25
19 Old Dominion 7-5 .6394 2 .6580 11 12
20 Minnesota 14-1 .6359 94 .5367

24 Colorado 13-2 .6286 72 .5492
31 Texas 11-4 .6127 44 .5725 16 17
87 Baylor 12-3 .5534 208 .4713
89 Iowa State 6-8 .5518 27 .5929
114 Nebraska 7-6 .5300 113 .5272
130 Texas A&M 8-7 .5194 131 .5148
138 Oklahoma St 5-10 .5164 37 .5774
139 Missouri 6-7 .5155 98 .5334
150 Kansas 7-8 .5062 123 .5194
---- --------------- ----- ----- ---- ------ -- ---</PRE>

[YCN]

RPI 1/20/2003 from http://www.collegerpi.com/women/03/rpi.html


<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal">---- --------------- ----- ----- ---- ------ -- ---
S - O - S
Rank School W-L RPI Rank Rating AP USA
---- --------------- ----- ----- ---- ------ -- ---
1 Tennessee 13-3 .7204 1 .6897 5 5
2 Connecticut 16-0 .7188 9 .6250 3 2
3 Texas Tech 15-1 .7045 7 .6269 7 7
4 Duke 16-0 .7027 19 .6036 1 1
5 North Carolina 15-1 .6882 18 .6051 8 10
6 Kansas St 17-1 .6848 23 .5983 4 4
7 Stanford 14-1 .6754 30 .5894 6 5
8 Arkansas 16-2 .6648 29 .5901 10 9
9 LSU 15-1 .6609 49 .5687 2 3
10 Oklahoma 11-5 .6607 2 .6517 23 23
11 Mississippi St 13-3 .6595 17 .6085 0 0
12 Penn State 14-4 .6570 14 .6168 0 0
13 Purdue 14-3 .6491 28 .5909 15 14
14 Minnesota 15-1 .6469 68 .5500 13 15
15 Arizona 12-4 .6463 15 .6117 9 8
16 Villanova 13-2 .6452 45 .5714 12 11
17 Rutgers 9-4 .6447 5 .6289 22 21
18 La Tech 12-2 .6431 44 .5718 19 25
19 Michigan 10-5 .6303 13 .6182 0 0
20 Illinois 11-4 .6302 26 .5958 11 12
21 Colorado 13-2 .6263 78 .5462 0 0

34 Texas 11-4 .6111 48 .5703 25 24
82 Baylor 12-3 .5529 209 .4706 0 0
105 Iowa State 6-9 .5379 31 .5838 0 0
111 Nebraska 7-7 .5368 73 .5490 0 0
127 Missouri 7-7 .5193 116 .5257 0 0
129 Texas A&M 8-7 .5190 128 .5143 0 0
137 Oklahoma St 5-10 .5155 39 .5763 0 0
152 Kansas 7-8 .5047 124 .5174 0 0
---- --------------- ----- ----- ---- ------ -- ---/PRE>

[swok34]

wow, anyone see the new Top 10 RPI this morning, Connecticut has upseated.

1. Connecticut
2. Tennessee
3. Duke
4. Texas Tech
5. North Carolina
6. Kansas State
7. Stanford
8. Arkansas
9. LSU
10. Oklahoma

[YCN]

RPI 1/23/2003 from http://www.collegerpi.com/women/03/rpi.html


<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal"> S - O - S Polls
Rank School W L RPI Rank Rating AP USA
1 Connecticut 17 0 .7191 9 .6255 2 2
2 Tennessee 13 3 .7182 1 .6868 4 4
3 Duke 17 0 .7116 15 .6154 1 1
4 Texas Tech 15 2 .6911 8 .6273 7 7
5 Kansas St 17 1 .6850 23 .5985 3 3
6 North Carolina 15 2 .6839 13 .6177 9 9
7 Stanford 14 1 .6746 29 .5884 5 5
8 Arkansas 16 2 .6643 28 .5894 8 7
9 LSU 15 1 .6616 48 .5696 6 6
10 Mississippi St 13 3 .6604 19 .6096 14 13
11 Penn State 15 4 .6563 18 .6119 13 15
12 Oklahoma 12 5 .6526 3 .6348 22 22
13 Purdue 14 3 .6493 26 .5912 12 11
14 Villanova 13 2 .6482 41 .5754 20 24
15 Arizona 12 4 .6464 17 .6119 19 19
16 Minnesota 15 1 .6461 71 .5490 10 10
17 Villanova 12 2 .6411 49 .5691 11 12
18 Illinois 11 4 .6323 22 .5986
19 Rutgers 9 5 .6314 7 .6276 23
20 Michigan 10 5 .6300 14 .6177
21 Texas 12 4 .6286 30 .5882 17 16
22 Boston College 12 4 .6282 31 .5876 25
23 South Carolina 14 3 .6223 64 .5552 15 14
24 Wis-Green Bay 15 2 .6205 97 .5332 16 18
25 Cincinnati 13 3 .6199 63 .5558
26 Georgia 12 4 .6194 40 .5759 24
27 Xavier 11 5 .6189 24 .5960
28 Colorado 14 2 .6182 98 .5326

80 Baylor 13 3 .5592 202 .4748
106 Iowa State 6 9 .5378 34 .5837
115 Missouri 8 7 .5304 108 .5294
119 Nebraska 7 8 .5267 74 .5467
139 Oklahoma St 5 11 .5170 32 .5852
140 Texas A&M 8 8 .5167 122 .5223
151 Kansas 7 9 .5073 104 .5305</PRE>

[Bball Girl]

It also helps us when teams that we blew away turn around and have some upsets. For example Pacific recently beat #21 UCSB, Washington beat now #19 Arizona and had some quality wins against USC, Arizona St. and Cal., Hawaii stayed in the game with La Tech, etc.

[YCN]

For the first time this year, there are five Big 12 teams in the RPI top 25.


RPI 1/24/2003 from http://www.collegerpi.com/women/03/rpi.html

<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal"> S - O - S Polls
Rank School W L RPI Rank Rating AP USA
1 Tennessee 14 3 .7204 1 .6861 4 4
2 Connecticut 17 0 .7198 9 .6264 2 2
3 Duke 18 0 .7026 20 .6035 1 1
4 Texas Tech 15 2 .6914 7 .6278 7 7
5 North Carolina 16 2 .6843 13 .6161 9 9
6 Kansas St 17 1 .6828 25 .5956 3 3
7 Stanford 14 1 .6732 36 .5866 5 5
8 Mississippi St 14 3 .6644 16 .6113 14 13
9 Villanova 14 2 .6591 34 .5872 20 24
10 LSU 16 1 .6560 57 .5610 6 6
11 Purdue 15 3 .6528 27 .5926 12 11
12 Arkansas 16 3 .6523 32 .5890 8 7
13 Oklahoma 12 5 .6494 3 .6306 22 22
14 Penn State 15 5 .6476 14 .6135 13 15
15 La Tech 13 2 .6449 45 .5710 11 12
16 Rutgers 9 5 .6314 8 .6276 23
17 Arizona 12 5 .6310 17 .6060 19 19
18 Boston College 12 4 .6294 31 .5892 25
19 Texas 12 4 .6277 35 .5869 17 16
20 Minnesota 15 2 .6264 81 .5411 10 10
21 Michigan 11 5 .6256 18 .6050
22 Xavier 11 5 .6253 19 .6046
23 Illinois 11 5 .6221 22 .6002
24 Georgia 13 4 .6218 43 .5742 24
25 Colorado 14 2 .6206 91 .5358

76 Baylor 13 3 .5625 192 .4792
106 Iowa State 6 9 .5373 38 .5831
115 Missouri 8 7 .5293 111 .5280
119 Nebraska 7 8 .5282 73 .5487
138 Oklahoma St 5 11 .5151 39 .5827
140 Texas A&M 8 8 .5147 121 .5196
151 Kansas 7 9 .5067 107 .5297 </PRE>

[YCN]

RPI 1/25/2003 from http://www.collegerpi.com/women/03/rpi.html


<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal"> S - O - S Polls
Rank School W-L RPI Rank Rating AP USA
1 Connecticut 17-0 .7208 4 .6277 2 2
2 Tennessee 14-3 .7204 1 .6860 4 4
3 Duke 18-0 .7021 19 .6028 1 1
4 Texas Tech 15-2 .6905 6 .6266 7 7
5 North Carolina 16-2 .6841 13 .6158 9 9
6 Kansas St 17-1 .6839 23 .5970 3 3
7 Stanford 15-1 .6762 34 .5891 5 5
8 Mississippi St 14-3 .6658 15 .6133 14 13
9 Villanova 14-2 .6578 36 .5853 20 24
10 Arkansas 16-3 .6550 27 .5926 8 7
11 LSU 16-1 .6546 57 .5590 6 6
12 Purdue 15-3 .6532 26 .5931 12 11
13 Penn State 15-5 .6509 10 .6179 13 15
14 Oklahoma 12-5 .6505 2 .6321 22 22
15 La Tech 13-2 .6454 45 .5717 11 12
16 Xavier 12-5 .6332 17 .6090
17 Boston College 12-4 .6313 29 .5917 25
18 Rutgers 9-5 .6302 7 .6260 23
19 Arizona 12-5 .6297 18 .6044 19 19
20 Texas 12-4 .6287 35 .5883 17 16
21 Minnesota 15-2 .6283 79 .5437 10 10
22 Michigan 11-5 .6227 21 .6011
23 Illinois 11-5 .6223 22 .6006
24 Colorado 14-2 .6202 93 .5353
25 Ohio State[/b] 13-3 .6200 62 .5558

76 Baylor 13-3 .5625 193 .4792
111 Iowa State 6-9 .5348 39 .5797
116 Missouri 8-7 .5307 106 .5298
118 Nebraska 7-8 .5296 69 .5505
138 Texas A&M 8-8 .5164 118 .5218
140 Oklahoma St 5-11 .5153 38 .5829
146 Kansas 7-9 .5077 103 .5311 </PRE>

[Bball Girl]

More on the RPI from a coach's pt of view
http://www.womenscollegehoops.com/coachsviewpart2.html

[YCN]

Very good article link, Bball Girl, thank you! The first article in that series about scheduling is also very good, and brings up issues that hadn't occurred to me before:
http://www.womenscollegehoops.com/coachsviewpart1.html

[YCN]

RPI rankings (non-subjective) from http://www.collegerpi.com/women/03/rpi.html as of 2/14/2003. I included all Big 12 teams, all teams ranked in either poll, and any other teams in the RPI top 30.


<PRE style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal"> S - O - S Rankings
Rank School W-L RPI Rank Rating AP USA
1 Connecticut 23-0 .7120 3 .6161 1 1
2 Tennessee 20-3 .7074 1 .6534 3 3
3 Duke 23-1 .6942 10 .6062 2 2
4 Texas Tech 20-2 .6808 13 .6047 7 8
5 LSU 21-1 .6746 34 .5813 4 4
6 Kansas St 22-2 .6730 21 .5918 5 5
7 North Carolina 22-2 .6693 27 .5869 8 7
8 Penn State 21-5 .6600 6 .6107 12 12
9 Villanova 18-4 .6515 19 .5960 19 20
10 Stanford 19-3 .6449 44 .5721 6 6
11 Purdue 19-4 .6425 35 .5812 9 9
12 Mississippi St 17-6 .6400 9 .6069 16 14
13 Rutgers 15-5 .6394 16 .6025 23 25
14 Arkansas 19-5 .6390 24 .5881 13 13
15 Vanderbilt 16-7 .6316 7 .6103 18 19
16 Georgia 17-5 .6312 33 .5840 14 16
17 La Tech 20-2 .6284 89 .5348 10 10
18 Boston College 15-6 .6238 20 .5937 25 22
19 Texas 16-5 .6226 40 .5762 11 11
20 Virginia Tech 17-5 .6194 46 .5682
21 Oklahoma 15-8 .6176 11 .6060
22 Illinois 14-8 .6173 5 .6109
23 Ohio State 16-6 .6146 39 .5770 22 24
24 South Carolina 17-6 .6132 45 .5712 15 15
25 Notre Dame 14-8 .6115 15 .6032
26 Colorado 17-4 .6089 79 .5420
27 Auburn 17-6 .6087 49 .5653
28 Minnesota 18-4 .6077 84 .5375 17 18
29 Xavier 16-7 .6068 38 .5772
30 Washington 18-5 .6062 73 .5474
32 Arizona 16-6 .6056 50 .5651 24 23
38 Cincinnati 17-5 .5920 96 .5318 24 23
39 Wis-Green Bay 19-3 .5919 146 .5387 21 21
59 UC Santa Barbara 18-3 .5718 194 .5631 20 17
73 Baylor 15-7 .5627 108 .5230
76 Missouri 12-9 .5575 66 .5528
84 Iowa State 9-12 .5462 31 .5855
119 Texas A&M 9-12 .5267 59 .5595
132 Kansas 9-12 .5187 69 .5487
148 Nebraska 8-13 .5066 71 .5485
168 Oklahoma St 5-16 .4913 42 .5757 </PRE>


For some reason, in the last few days Oklahoma has climbed about 5 spots. It also seems to me that Texas ought to be higher than 19, but these are just pure formula numbers, nothing subjective - except in the interpretation of them!


[This message has been edited by YCN (edited 02-14-2003).]