I am sure this has been brought up at some point this season but I wanted to discuss given our bubble boys are back for another year.
Old method just used basic RPI top 50 and RPI top 100 records as the primary indicator to a teams success in a given year. A bad losses category of over RPI 200 typically. This did NOT take into account WHERE the games were played.
New Method is more confusing but an improvement. Split into 4 categories but the categories change in strength of record based on Home/Neutral/road element. This still uses RPI as the measuring statistic.
RPI Group 1: Home (1-30) Neutral (1-50) Away (1-75)
RPI Group 2: Home (31-75) Neutral (51-100) Away (76-135)
RPI Group 3: Home (76-160) Neutral (101-200) Away (136-240)
RPI Group 4: Home (161-351) Neutral (201-351) Away (241-351)
At 17-8 Kstate is currently 66 in RPI and 80 SOS:
4-6 against group 1, 2-1 group 2, 4-1 group 3, 7-0 group 4
I personally like this method of judging teams. The nuance of location is stressed more which was a major flaw in the previous system. Thoughts?
Old method just used basic RPI top 50 and RPI top 100 records as the primary indicator to a teams success in a given year. A bad losses category of over RPI 200 typically. This did NOT take into account WHERE the games were played.
New Method is more confusing but an improvement. Split into 4 categories but the categories change in strength of record based on Home/Neutral/road element. This still uses RPI as the measuring statistic.
RPI Group 1: Home (1-30) Neutral (1-50) Away (1-75)
RPI Group 2: Home (31-75) Neutral (51-100) Away (76-135)
RPI Group 3: Home (76-160) Neutral (101-200) Away (136-240)
RPI Group 4: Home (161-351) Neutral (201-351) Away (241-351)
At 17-8 Kstate is currently 66 in RPI and 80 SOS:
4-6 against group 1, 2-1 group 2, 4-1 group 3, 7-0 group 4
I personally like this method of judging teams. The nuance of location is stressed more which was a major flaw in the previous system. Thoughts?
Last edited:
