The NCAA has been using RPI, or Rating Percentage Index, to evaluate college basketball teams for more than three decades and, at one point, it was arguably the best tool available in an age where full-fledged data wasn’t widely available. In recent years, however, the metric has come under fire for its flaws and the advent of systems from individuals like Ken Pomeroy helped to usher in a new era of advanced statistical study in the sport.
With that as the backdrop, many have argued that the NCAA should not heavily use RPI in its evaluation when it comes to selecting NCAA Tournament teams and, on Wednesday morning, an official release noted that RPI “has developed a new ranking system to replace the RPI as the primary sorting tool for evaluating teams.” While many celebrated this change on the surface, the NCAA’s decision to go with another central evaluation tool, rather than a conglomeration of other available data is interesting and the organization has consulted with various entities in creating “The NCAA Evaluation Tool.”
The metric, known as NET, will rely “game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses.” This formula will then produce a ranking system and part of its formula will remove any consideration to game date in an effort “to give equal importance to both early and late-season games.”
“The NCAA Men’s Basketball Committee has had helpful metrics it has used over the years, and will continue to use the team sheets, but those will now be sorted by the NCAA Evaluation Tool,” said Dan Gavitt, senior vice president of basketball for the NCAA. “As has always been the case, the committee won’t solely focus on metrics to select at-large teams and seed the field. There will always be a subjective element to the tournament selection process, too.”
What the NCAA is not changing, however, is the quadrant system adopted prior to the 2017-2018 season, in which teams are placed in groups to help in differentiating between strength of schedule, quality victories, and “bad” losses. It is also important to note that the 2017-2018 edition includes three evaluation tools that will still be implemented, with KenPom ratings, Sagarin ratings, and ESPN’s Basketball Power Index still in the mix when team sheets are distributed.
On the whole, the headline is absolutely the removal of the RPI system and, simply put, that is a victory for the NCAA and its fans. It remains to be seen how the new metric will be received, though, and its formula will almost certainly be dissected at the highest levels of the sport when March arrives and teams are placed under the microscope. Until then, celebration reigns and the RPI appears to be dead.
