[Roberton3]

This article opened my eyes a bit re: RPI:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/sports...ref=sports

I think The School near Oakland will do some damage this year in the tournament, and I expect them to be considerably better next year.

Among people who have thought much about ranking systems, the RPI is well-known to be severely flawed.  Perhaps the most obvious problem is that playing a very good team will improve your RPI even if you lose by 100 (unless you already have a very good RPI), and playing a very bad team will worsen your RPI even if you win by 100 (unless you already have a very bad RPI).  Pretty much every other computer-based ranking system is clearly superior.  The main reasons the RPI is still used are inertia (we've used it for a long time, so why change) and that it's simple enough that you can explain it to someone who doesn't know any math above the 6th-grade level. 

[Note: edited to correct a typo.]

[Roberton3]

This article opened my eyes a bit re: RPI:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/sports...ref=sports

I think The School near Oakland will do some damage this year in the tournament, and I expect them to be considerably better next year.

Among people who have thought much about ranking systems, the RPI is well-known to be severely flawed.  Perhaps the most obvious problem is that playing a very good team will improve your RPI even if you lose by 100 (unless you already have a very good RPI), and playing a very bad team will worsen your RPI even if you win by 100 (unless you already have a very bad RPI).  Pretty much every other computer-based ranking system is clearly superior.  The main reasons the RPI is still used are inertia (we've used it for a long time, so why change) and that it's simple enough that you can explain it to someone who doesn't know any math above the 6th-grade level. 

[Note: edited to correct a typo.]