This is the last time I ever take stock in RPI rankings. They're trash. They're not a good tool to measure a team's quality. This is the second time in the last eight years Utah's position was over-inflated due to RPI. The Utes are nowhere near being a top-ten team.
Before the tournament, I was concerned because of all the other rankings that were NOT high on Utah. Ken Pom, BPI - they all had Utah in the high 20s and that was not the place you'd expect a three-seed to be. The Utes lucked out due to the conference being over-inflated by the RPI and the team, which gave 'em a three-seed despite sites like BPI and Ken Pom putting 'em more toward the 5-7 area. To be honest, that's the only reason Utah got out of the first round. They were given a good seed against a bad opponent. Put 'em in that 5/12 match-up against SFA again this year and we're one and done, probably with a similar result as tonight.
Truth be told, this team was not that great. They were very flawed. You saw it in their blowout losses and the fact, against tournament teams, they barely could muster comfortable wins. Only their victory over USC, on the road, and then in Vegas, was what I'd consider comfortable - every other tournament team they played, they either won narrowly or got blown out.
RPI didn't pick up on that, though, as it doesn't consider MOV. Instead, it leans way too much on overall winning percentage, whether you won or not, which bolsters teams who schedule hard. Fantastic. But it doesn't necessarily tell us who's the best. Utah benefited because, despite being blown out by Miami and Wichita State, and then barely beating Duke, their overall opponent winning percentage was high - especially when you couple it with the conference.
No way should a 20 point loss to a top-fifteen team be considered equal to a 20-point win over a team ranked in the 30s. But to the RPI, it is.
This was a big reason that, in 2009, Utah again was over-seeded. They finished 9th overall in the RPI rankings, despite not playing all that great of a schedule and losing to Southwest Baptist State (a loss that didn't go against their overall RPI ranking because SWB was not a D-1 program) to start the season. Utah was not a five-seed that year, and while they were given no gift playing Arizona, the Wildcats were barely a bubble team and a lot of people thought they didn't deserve to be in the tournament. The Wildcats definitely were better than their record, but they controlled most the game against Utah and set 'em packing.
Last year's team, though, had an RPI of 20. Their BPI, however, and Ken Pom rankings were legit - 10th and 8th respectively (compared to 30th and 35th for each this year). Despite Utah being overlooked entering the tournament, and the popular pick for the 5/12 upset, the Utes fended off a legit SFA team and then beat Georgetown to advance to the Sweet 16.
This isn't to compare Utah teams. It's clear last year's Utes were much better. It's just a cautionary tale. Don't get too caught up in RPI. It's so flawed now that it won't give you a good idea who's the best team and only inflate your hopes.
Utah was exposed - but they shouldn't have been exposed. Had we listened to Ken Pom or ESPN's BPI, we would've seen this loss coming a mile away - as Gonzaga was rated higher in both.
Before the tournament, I was concerned because of all the other rankings that were NOT high on Utah. Ken Pom, BPI - they all had Utah in the high 20s and that was not the place you'd expect a three-seed to be. The Utes lucked out due to the conference being over-inflated by the RPI and the team, which gave 'em a three-seed despite sites like BPI and Ken Pom putting 'em more toward the 5-7 area. To be honest, that's the only reason Utah got out of the first round. They were given a good seed against a bad opponent. Put 'em in that 5/12 match-up against SFA again this year and we're one and done, probably with a similar result as tonight.
Truth be told, this team was not that great. They were very flawed. You saw it in their blowout losses and the fact, against tournament teams, they barely could muster comfortable wins. Only their victory over USC, on the road, and then in Vegas, was what I'd consider comfortable - every other tournament team they played, they either won narrowly or got blown out.
RPI didn't pick up on that, though, as it doesn't consider MOV. Instead, it leans way too much on overall winning percentage, whether you won or not, which bolsters teams who schedule hard. Fantastic. But it doesn't necessarily tell us who's the best. Utah benefited because, despite being blown out by Miami and Wichita State, and then barely beating Duke, their overall opponent winning percentage was high - especially when you couple it with the conference.
No way should a 20 point loss to a top-fifteen team be considered equal to a 20-point win over a team ranked in the 30s. But to the RPI, it is.
This was a big reason that, in 2009, Utah again was over-seeded. They finished 9th overall in the RPI rankings, despite not playing all that great of a schedule and losing to Southwest Baptist State (a loss that didn't go against their overall RPI ranking because SWB was not a D-1 program) to start the season. Utah was not a five-seed that year, and while they were given no gift playing Arizona, the Wildcats were barely a bubble team and a lot of people thought they didn't deserve to be in the tournament. The Wildcats definitely were better than their record, but they controlled most the game against Utah and set 'em packing.
Last year's team, though, had an RPI of 20. Their BPI, however, and Ken Pom rankings were legit - 10th and 8th respectively (compared to 30th and 35th for each this year). Despite Utah being overlooked entering the tournament, and the popular pick for the 5/12 upset, the Utes fended off a legit SFA team and then beat Georgetown to advance to the Sweet 16.
This isn't to compare Utah teams. It's clear last year's Utes were much better. It's just a cautionary tale. Don't get too caught up in RPI. It's so flawed now that it won't give you a good idea who's the best team and only inflate your hopes.
Utah was exposed - but they shouldn't have been exposed. Had we listened to Ken Pom or ESPN's BPI, we would've seen this loss coming a mile away - as Gonzaga was rated higher in both.
Last edited:
