153:
neutral game counts as 1 win or 1 loss. This change was based on statistical data that consistently showed home teams in
Division I basketball winning about two-thirds of the time. Note that this location adjustment applies only to the WP factor and not the OWP and OOWP factors. Only games against Division 1 teams are included for all RPI factors. As an example, if a team loses to Syracuse at home, beats them away, and then loses to Cincinnati away, their record would be 1–2. Considering the weighted aspect of the WP, their winning percentage is 1.4 / (1.4 + 1.4 + 0.6) = 0.4118
472:
1.3 against a team’s RPI and each road loss counts 0.7 against a team’s RPI. Neutral-site games have a value of 1.0, but the committee is studying how to determine if a game should be considered a neutral-site contest. The adjustment is based on data showing that home teams win about 62 percent of the time in
Division I baseball." The change was made because of the discrepancy in the number of home games teams play. Some schools are able to play 35–40 of their 56 allowable games at home, while other teams, due to factors such as weather, may play only 20 home games.
471:
The formula used in NCAA baseball is the same as that used in basketball except for the adjustment of home and road records. Starting in 2013, college baseball RPI formula values each road victory as 1.3 instead of 1.0. Each home win is valued at 0.7 instead of 1.0. Conversely, each home loss counts
475:
This adjustment replaces the previous system of bonuses or penalties that teams received. Bonus points were awarded for beating top-75 non-conference opponents on the road and penalty points were given for losing to bottom-75 non-conference opponents at home. Bonuses and penalties were on a sliding
171:
Syracuse has played and beat the team in question (which, excluding the games against
Syracuse, only lost to Cincinnati), lost to the team in question (excluding Syracuse, only lost to Cincinnati), and lost one other game (excluding Syracuse, this team has no WP). Syracuse's OWP is (0/1 + 0/1) / 2 =
156:
The OWP is calculated by taking the average of the WP's for each of the team's opponents with the requirement that all games against the team in question are removed from the equation. Continuing from the example above, assume
Syracuse has played one other game and lost, while Cincinnati has played
113:
Some feel that the heavy emphasis upon strength of schedule gives an unfair advantage to teams from major conferences. Teams from "majors" are allowed to pick many of their non-conference opponents (often blatantly weaker teams). Teams from minor conferences, however, may only get one or two such
152:
For
Division 1 NCAA Men's basketball, the WP factor of the RPI was updated in 2004 to account for differences in home, away, and neutral games. A home win now counts as 0.6 win, while a road win counts as 1.4 wins. Inversely, a home loss equals 1.4 losses, while a road loss counts as 0.6 loss. A
101:
In its current formulation, the index comprises a team's winning percentage (25%), its opponents' winning percentage (50%), and the winning percentage of those opponents' opponents (25%). The opponents' winning percentage and the winning percentage of those opponents' opponents both comprise the
105:
The RPI lacks theoretical justification from a statistical standpoint. Other ranking systems which include the margin of victory of games played or other statistics in addition to the win/loss results have been shown to be a better predictor of the outcomes of future games. However, because
123:
has successfully done this: It has become one of the top-rated RPI conferences, despite having very few of its teams ranked in the two national Top 25 polls. In 2006, the NCAA began to release its RPI calculations weekly starting in
January. Independent sources, such as
414:, one criterion for determining selection to the NCAA Tournament has been performance against certain RPI quadrants. Typically, a quadrant 1 win is considered a "good win", while a quadrant 4 loss is considered a "bad loss". The quadrants are defined as follows:
164:
Continuing the example above, a team has played
Syracuse twice and Cincinnati once. Syracuse has played one other game and lost, while Cincinnati has played two other games and won. Next, for simplicity, assume none of the unnamed teams has played any other games.
175:
Cincinnati has played the team in question (excluding
Cincinnati, they went 1–1 vs. Syracuse) and won versus two other opponents each of which have no WP when games versus Cincinnati are excluded. Cincinnati's OWP is (1/2) / 1 = 0.5000.
157:
two other teams and won. The team in question has played
Syracuse twice and therefore Syracuse must be counted twice. Thus the OWP of the team is (0/1 + 0/1 + 2/2) / 3 (number of opponents – Syracuse, Syracuse, Cincinnati). OWP = 0.3333
439:
The NCAA announced on August 22, 2018, that the RPI would no longer be used in the
Division I men's basketball selection process and would be replaced by the aforementioned NET. This new metric takes the following into account:
401:
The RPI formula also has many flaws. Due to the heavy weighting of opponents winning percentage, beating a team with a bad RPI may actually hurt your RPI. In addition, losing to a good RPI team can help your RPI.
160:
The OOWP is calculated by taking the average of each Opponent's OWP. Note that the team in question is part of the team's OOWP. In fact, the most re-occurring opponent of your opponents is the team in question.
118:
conferences regularly compel their member teams to schedule opponents ranked in the top half of the RPI, which could boost the strength of that conference and/or its tougher-scheduling teams. In basketball, the
453:
Scoring margin — While included in the NET, teams receive no extra credit for wins by more than 10 points. Additionally, overtime games are assigned a 1-point victory margin, regardless of the actual score.
595:
1024:
102:
strength of schedule (SOS). Thus, the SOS accounts for 75% of the RPI calculation and is 2/3 its opponents' winning percentage and 1/3 its opponents' opponents' winning percentages.
697:
411:
84:
531:
759:
80:
463:
Game date and order are not included in the NET—all games are treated equally, whether an early-season matchup or a conference tournament championship game.
91:
476:
scale, separated into groups of 25, with the top bonus for a road win against a top-25 team and the worst penalty for a home loss to a bottom-25 opponent.
932:
49:
927:
752:
620:
562:
68:
1029:
848:
110:
in the past by teams or individuals in the context of gambling, the RPI can be used to mitigate motivation for such manipulation.
79:
teams are ranked. This system was in use from 1981 through 2018 to aid in the selecting and seeding of teams appearing in the
745:
140:
The current and commonly used formula for determining the RPI of a college basketball team at any given time is as follows.
146:
where WP is Winning Percentage, OWP is Opponents' Winning Percentage and OOWP is Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage.
1003:
676:
813:
149:
The WP is calculated by taking a team's wins divided by the number of games it has played (i.e. wins plus losses).
120:
644:
823:
902:
853:
596:"The NCAA Tournament committee will select and seed teams using a new ranking system after killing the RPI"
129:
887:
431:
The quadrant system is still in use under the new NET system, with RPI ranking replaced by NET ranking.
942:
418:
Quadrant 1: Home games vs. RPI teams ranked in the top 30; neutral games vs. 1-50; away games vs. 1-75.
897:
792:
768:
45:
41:
363:
UConn: ((Kansas 0.6667) + (Kansas 0.6667) + (Duke 0.3333) + (Wisconsin 0.3889)) / (4 games) = 0.5139
838:
833:
818:
698:"The NCAA ending the RPI in favor of the 'NET' is a long-overdue overhaul on an outdated process"
94:
for the Division I men's basketball tournament. Effective immediately, it was replaced with the
52:
892:
873:
624:
828:
681:
505:
72:
60:
56:
797:
90:
During the 2018 offseason, the NCAA announced that the RPI would no longer be used in the
532:"NCAA Evaluation Tool to replace RPI as team sorting tool for women's college basketball"
344:
UConn: ((Kansas 1.0) + (Kansas 1.0) + (Duke 1.0) + (Wisconsin 0.0)) / (4 games) = 0.7500
978:
968:
782:
64:
17:
1018:
963:
677:"Here's a primer on how NCAA Tournament committee uses Quadrants to decide the field"
168:
The OOWP is calculated as (Syracuse's OWP + Syracuse's OWP + Cincinnati's OWP ) / 3.
107:
40:
is a quantity used to rank sports teams based upon a team's wins and losses and its
988:
947:
937:
882:
787:
485:
366:
Kansas: ((UConn 0.7500) + (UConn 0.7500) + (Wisconsin 0.3889)) / (3 games) = 0.6296
179:
For the team in question, the OOWP is thus (0.0000 + 0.0000 + 0.5000) / 3 = 0.1667
372:
Wisconsin: ((UConn 0.7500) + (Duke 0.3333) + (Kansas 0.6667)) / (3 games) = 0.5833
993:
983:
998:
973:
132:, also publish their own RPI calculations, which are updated more frequently.
76:
427:
Quadrant 4: Home vs. 161-plus teams; neutral vs. 201-plus; away vs. 241-plus.
863:
353:
Wisconsin: ((UConn 0.6667) + (Duke 0.0) + (Kansas 0.5)) / (3 games) = 0.3889
115:
621:"CBS Sports - News, Live Scores, Schedules, Fantasy Games, Video and more"
347:
Kansas: ((UConn 1.0) + (UConn 1.0) + (Wisconsin 0.0)) / (3 games) = 0.6667
424:
Quadrant 3: Home vs. 76-160 teams; neutral vs. 101-200; away vs. 136-240.
737:
922:
421:
Quadrant 2: Home vs. 31-75 teams; neutral vs. 51-100; away vs. 76-135.
316:
Here is the calculation of the WPs, OWPs, and OOWPs for each team:
191:
RPI = (0.4117 * 0.25) + (0.3333 * 0.50) + (0.1667 * 0.25) = 0.3113
95:
563:"New ranking system developed for NCAA tournament, replacing RPI"
843:
369:
Duke: ((UConn 0.7500) + (Wisconsin 0.3889)) / (2 games) = 0.5694
125:
741:
725:
459:
Quality of wins and losses, using the existing quadrant system
350:
Duke: ((UConn 0.6667) + (Wisconsin 0.0)) / (2 games) = 0.3333
731:
182:
For the team in question, the RPI can now be calculated:
734:
Forecasting RPI based on simulations of future schedules
188:
Plugging in numbers from the above example gives you
956:
915:
872:
806:
775:
185:RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)
143:RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)
380:RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)
334:Wisconsin: 0 / 3 = 0.0000 Weighted 0/3.4 = 0.000
328:Kansas: 2 / 3 = 0.6667 Weighted 2.0/2.6 = 0.7692
589:
587:
585:
583:
325:UConn: 3 / 4 = 0.7500 Weighted 2.6/3.2 = 0.8125
556:
554:
552:
435:Replacement with NET for Division I basketball
753:
331:Duke: 1 / 2 = 0.5000 Weighted 0.6/1.2 = 0.500
8:
450:Game location (home, away, or neutral court)
1025:NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament
81:NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament
869:
760:
746:
738:
108:the margin of victory has been manipulated
728:NET Rating Tracker by Team and Conference
638:
636:
634:
114:opponents in their schedules. Also, some
87:from its inception in 1982 through 2020.
933:Harris Interactive College Football Poll
376:These are then combined via the formula
201:
497:
645:"RPI formula altering for 2013 season"
456:Net offensive and defensive efficiency
928:FWAA-NFF Grantland Rice Super 16 Poll
7:
384:resulting in the following ratings:
696:Norlander, Matt (August 22, 2018).
594:Norlander, Matt (August 22, 2018).
199:Assume the following game results:
849:Pomeroy College Basketball Ratings
561:Borzello, Jeff (August 22, 2018).
25:
511:(Mailing list). February 15, 1981
834:English Chess Federation grading
643:Johnson, Greg (August 3, 2011).
675:Pete Grathoff (March 7, 2018).
1:
948:USA Today/Amway Coaches' Poll
859:Rating Percentage Index (RPI)
814:Advanced Football Analytics
807:Methods and computer models
530:Nixon, Rick (May 5, 2020).
1046:
121:Missouri Valley Conference
96:NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET)
1030:Tournament rating systems
824:Bowl Championship Series
36:, commonly known as the
854:Pythagorean expectation
34:rating percentage index
18:Rating Percentage Index
769:Sports rating systems
627:on February 28, 2008.
46:sports rating systems
793:Strength of schedule
447:Strength of schedule
42:strength of schedule
44:. It is one of the
27:Sports team ranking
943:NAIA Coaches' Poll
839:Litkenhous Ratings
819:ARGH Power Ratings
136:Basketball formula
85:women's tournament
83:as well as in the
1012:
1011:
916:Polls and opinion
911:
910:
397:Wisconsin: 0.3403
314:
313:
92:selection process
16:(Redirected from
1037:
870:
829:Dickinson System
762:
755:
748:
739:
713:
712:
710:
708:
693:
687:
686:
682:Kansas City Star
672:
666:
663:
657:
656:
654:
652:
640:
629:
628:
623:. Archived from
617:
611:
610:
608:
606:
591:
578:
577:
575:
573:
558:
547:
546:
544:
542:
527:
521:
520:
518:
516:
510:
502:
467:Baseball formula
202:
195:Extended example
21:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1008:
952:
907:
868:
802:
798:Win probability
771:
766:
726:Bracketologists
722:
717:
716:
706:
704:
695:
694:
690:
674:
673:
669:
664:
660:
650:
648:
642:
641:
632:
619:
618:
614:
604:
602:
593:
592:
581:
571:
569:
560:
559:
550:
540:
538:
529:
528:
524:
514:
512:
508:
504:
503:
499:
494:
482:
469:
437:
408:
197:
138:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1043:
1041:
1033:
1032:
1027:
1017:
1016:
1010:
1009:
1007:
1006:
1001:
996:
991:
986:
981:
979:Kenneth Massey
976:
971:
969:John Hollinger
966:
960:
958:
954:
953:
951:
950:
945:
940:
935:
930:
925:
919:
917:
913:
912:
909:
908:
906:
905:
900:
895:
890:
885:
879:
877:
867:
866:
861:
856:
851:
846:
841:
836:
831:
826:
821:
816:
810:
808:
804:
803:
801:
800:
795:
790:
785:
783:Home advantage
779:
777:
773:
772:
767:
765:
764:
757:
750:
742:
736:
735:
729:
721:
720:External links
718:
715:
714:
688:
667:
658:
630:
612:
579:
548:
522:
496:
495:
493:
490:
489:
488:
481:
478:
468:
465:
461:
460:
457:
454:
451:
448:
445:
436:
433:
429:
428:
425:
422:
419:
407:
404:
399:
398:
395:
392:
391:Kansas: 0.6830
389:
382:
381:
374:
373:
370:
367:
364:
355:
354:
351:
348:
345:
336:
335:
332:
329:
326:
312:
311:
308:
303:
300:
296:
295:
292:
289:
286:
280:
279:
276:
273:
270:
264:
263:
260:
255:
252:
248:
247:
244:
241:
238:
232:
231:
228:
225:
222:
216:
215:
212:
209:
206:
196:
193:
137:
134:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1042:
1031:
1028:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1020:
1005:
1002:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
990:
987:
985:
982:
980:
977:
975:
972:
970:
967:
965:
964:Mark Glickman
962:
961:
959:
955:
949:
946:
944:
941:
939:
936:
934:
931:
929:
926:
924:
921:
920:
918:
914:
904:
901:
899:
896:
894:
891:
889:
886:
884:
881:
880:
878:
875:
871:
865:
862:
860:
857:
855:
852:
850:
847:
845:
842:
840:
837:
835:
832:
830:
827:
825:
822:
820:
817:
815:
812:
811:
809:
805:
799:
796:
794:
791:
789:
786:
784:
781:
780:
778:
774:
770:
763:
758:
756:
751:
749:
744:
743:
740:
733:
730:
727:
724:
723:
719:
703:
702:CBSSports.com
699:
692:
689:
684:
683:
678:
671:
668:
662:
659:
646:
639:
637:
635:
631:
626:
622:
616:
613:
601:
600:CBSSports.com
597:
590:
588:
586:
584:
580:
568:
564:
557:
555:
553:
549:
537:
533:
526:
523:
507:
501:
498:
491:
487:
484:
483:
479:
477:
473:
466:
464:
458:
455:
452:
449:
446:
443:
442:
441:
434:
432:
426:
423:
420:
417:
416:
415:
413:
405:
403:
396:
393:
390:
388:UConn: 0.7066
387:
386:
385:
379:
378:
377:
371:
368:
365:
362:
361:
360:
359:
352:
349:
346:
343:
342:
341:
340:
333:
330:
327:
324:
323:
322:
321:
317:
309:
307:
304:
301:
298:
297:
293:
290:
287:
285:
282:
281:
277:
274:
271:
269:
266:
265:
261:
259:
256:
253:
250:
249:
245:
242:
239:
237:
234:
233:
229:
226:
223:
221:
218:
217:
213:
210:
207:
204:
203:
200:
194:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
147:
144:
141:
135:
133:
131:
127:
122:
117:
111:
109:
103:
99:
97:
93:
88:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
62:
58:
54:
51:
47:
43:
39:
35:
30:
19:
989:Jeff Sagarin
938:Legends Poll
883:Chessmetrics
858:
788:Sabermetrics
705:. Retrieved
701:
691:
680:
670:
665:rpistats.com
661:
651:November 16,
649:. Retrieved
625:the original
615:
603:. Retrieved
599:
570:. Retrieved
566:
539:. Retrieved
535:
525:
515:February 26,
513:. Retrieved
500:
486:Bracketology
474:
470:
462:
444:Game results
438:
430:
409:
400:
394:Duke: 0.4340
383:
375:
357:
356:
338:
337:
319:
318:
315:
305:
283:
267:
257:
235:
219:
198:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
112:
104:
100:
89:
37:
33:
31:
29:
1004:Peter Wolfe
994:Nate Silver
984:Ken Pomeroy
732:RPIForecast
506:"NCAA News"
1019:Categories
999:Jeff Sonas
974:Bill James
707:August 22,
647:. NCAA.com
605:August 22,
572:August 22,
492:References
299:Wisconsin
291:Wisconsin
251:Wisconsin
77:volleyball
53:basketball
903:Universal
864:TrueSkill
541:March 17,
406:Quadrants
116:mid-major
48:by which
776:Concepts
567:ESPN.com
536:NCAA.com
480:See also
172:0.0000.
73:lacrosse
61:softball
57:baseball
923:AP poll
227:Kansas
957:People
898:Glicko
876:family
410:Since
306:Kansas
275:UConn
268:Kansas
214:Score
208:Score
130:CNN/SI
75:, and
69:soccer
65:hockey
509:(PDF)
258:UConn
243:Duke
236:UConn
220:UConn
211:Away
205:Home
844:Log5
709:2018
653:2011
607:2018
574:2018
543:2022
517:2014
412:2018
358:OOWP
284:Duke
126:ESPN
50:NCAA
38:RPI,
32:The
893:Elo
888:DWZ
874:Elo
339:OWP
310:62
302:52
294:70
288:81
278:62
272:69
262:72
254:71
246:68
240:82
230:57
224:64
128:or
1021::
700:.
679:.
633:^
598:.
582:^
565:.
551:^
534:.
320:WP
98:.
71:,
67:,
63:,
59:,
55:,
761:e
754:t
747:v
711:.
685:.
655:.
609:.
576:.
545:.
519:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.