Well, it’s finally happened – we have gotten the 2010 version of the RPI bracket up and running.  For a few reasons, all kind of geeky, we hit a couple of snags.

Then, the first version of the bracket had a couple of significant anomalies in it.  Since it is only our second year, and probably only about the 25th time that we generated the bracket, we didn’t mind taking a quick look at the algorithm to see what we could see.  In case you are interested, we made a slight tweak to it.

So, we are once again poised to (hopefully) help college basketball fans see exactly how the selection committee screws over teams from the non-BCS conferences.  I know, I know – big surprise.  Everyone knows that it is going on, so what’s the point?

Well, the point is that we can, with our proprietary algorithm and bracket, not only quantify the level of the screw-job, but we can tell exactly which teams, based solely on the data, got screwed over…and by how much.

We have a high level of confidence in our algorithm, and the key metric that it spits out for all 347 teams in Division I, the Tournament Index (T.I.).  It is a completely objective jumping-off point for comparisons between and among teams. 

As mentioned on the RPIBracket.com site, there is no room for any bias whatsoever – no big conference bias, no program tradition bias, no revenue generation potential bias, etc. – just the data.  And we don’t just do that for tourney qualification, we do that for seeding as well.  For instance, if you look in our current bracket, you will see that Michigan State is a 10 seed, despite being ranked #14 in the polls.  This is because MSU has lost 2 games against teams ranked 51-100 in the RPI, and their February record was 2-4.  Those happen to be 2 things that our algorithm does not like.  Plus, the Big Ten is not very strong this year compared to other conferences…so you have Ohio State with a 5 seed in our bracket, even though they are a Top 10 team, according to the polls.

While it is a great bonus that there are 2 Big Ten teams that our bracket is not giving respect, that was not our intention.  Besides, there is risk with any system.  For instance, Tom Izzo is capable of elevating his team way beyond what they should be capable of.  Thad Matta, on the other hand, is capable of losing a first round game in the tournament to a grossly inferior team.  Seriously, he is a contender for this year’s Rick Barnes award…although with Barnes himself in the mix, it is tough to see someone else stepping up (down?) and “coaching” their team to an early exit with the same level of proficiency exhibited on a year-in, year-out basis by Rick Barnes.

At any rate, the 2010 version is now live.  It is not perfect, but please feel free to check it out and chime in.  Based on the information in the algorithm, it’s definitely a good basis for comparing two teams, and I am more than happy to share the generalities of the data, if not the algorithm itself.  Also, unlike anyone that calls themselves a bracketologist, I am receptive to criticism and have even tweaked the algorithm in the past based on clearly presented arguments from readers and fans.

Popularity: 1% [?]