Post by Commissioner on Jul 31, 2014 19:09:08 GMT -5
The NCAA began the use of the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) for college basketball in 1981. The formula has been tweaked at various times over the years, so that the formula today is not that used in 1981 or in various other seasons. But the basics have remained the same, with three main factors: 1) a team's winning percentage; 2) the winning percentage of its opponents (not including games against the team being calculated); and 3) the winning percentage of opponents' opponents (again factoring out games against one another). Originally, the formula was 40 percent for factor 1 and 20 percent for factors two and three, with another 20 percent for opponents' road success. In recent years, it is 25 percent, 50 percent, 25 percent respectively for the 3 factors, plus a considerable bonus for playing on the road (in calculating factor 1, but not factors 2 and 3, a home win counts as .6 wins, a road win as 1.4 wins; a home loss is 1.4 losses, and road loss is just .6 of a loss).
So bear in mind that the rankings below are not based on a completely consistent formula.
Additionally, RPI has been roundly criticized, especially as statistical analysis and computers have improved. But it is still the single most discussed team stat in college ball, and an important datapoint in NCAA tournament selection and seeding.
Here are Detroit's RPIs over the years. Unfortunately, RPI begins right after Detroit's greatest years, and right before some of our worst.
P.S. You can read the NCAA's 1981 announcement of the new RPI system here fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/1981/19810215.pdf, p. 4. It's kind of quaint, how proud they are of their computer work, real cutting edge stuff. And you can see what the early reports looked like: extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats%20Library/1980%20Final%20RPI.pdf
So bear in mind that the rankings below are not based on a completely consistent formula.
Additionally, RPI has been roundly criticized, especially as statistical analysis and computers have improved. But it is still the single most discussed team stat in college ball, and an important datapoint in NCAA tournament selection and seeding.
Here are Detroit's RPIs over the years. Unfortunately, RPI begins right after Detroit's greatest years, and right before some of our worst.
Year | Record (D-I) | Titan RPI | Total Ranked | Titan Coach |
1980 | 13-13 | 137 | 260 | McCarter |
1981 | 8-17 | 173 | 264 | McCarter |
1982 | 10-17 | 174 | 273 | McCarter |
1983 | 10-17 | 202 | 274 | Sicko |
1984 | 6-19 | 190 | 275 | Sicko |
1985 | 15-11 | 48 | 282 | Sicko |
1986 | 11-15 | 180 | 283 | Sicko |
1987 | 5-21 | 241 | 290 | Sicko |
1988 | 3-21 | 252 | 290 | Sicko/Mulroney |
1989 | 7-20 | 227 | 293 | Byrdsong |
1990 | 10-17 | 191 | 292 | Byrdsong |
1991 | 9-18 | 229 | 295 | Byrdsong |
1992 | 12-17 | 185 | 298 | Byrdsong |
1993 | 13-12 | 151 | 298 | Byrdsong |
1994 | 13-12 | 119 | 301 | Watson |
1995 | 11-15 | 163 | 302 | Watson |
1996 | 17-11 | 85 | 305 | Watson |
1997 | 15-13 | 153 | 305 | Watson |
1998 | 22-5 | 39 | 306 | Watson |
1999 | 24-6 | 45 | 310 | Watson |
2000 | 18-12 | 117 | 318 | Watson |
2001 | 24-12 | 66 | 319 | Watson |
2002 | 18-13 | 90 | 320 | Watson |
2003 | 17-12 | 121 | 326 | Watson |
2004 | 19-11 | 108 | 326 | Watson |
2005 | 13-16 | 176 | 330 | Watson |
2006 | 14-16 | 171 | 334 | Watson |
2007 | 11-19 | 192 | 336 | Watson |
2008 | 6-23 | 287 | 341 | Watson |
2009 | 6-23 | 282 | 343 | McCallum |
2010 | 19-14 | 161 | 347 | McCallum |
2011 | 16-16 | 145 | 345 | McCallum |
2012 | 20-14 | 130 | 344 | McCallum |
2013 | 18-13 | 71 | 347 | McCallum |
2014 | 11-19 | 234 | 351 | McCallum |
2015 | 13-18 | 208 | 351 | McCallum |
2016 | 14-15 | 198 | 351 | McCallum |
2017 | 7-23 | 289 | 351 | Alexander |
2018 | 6-24 | 318 | 351 | Alexander |
2019 | 11-20 | 248/235 NET | 353 | Davis |
2020 | 8-23 | 313/307 NET | 353 | Davis |
2021 | 12-10 | 208/166 NET | 347 | Davis |
2022 | 13-16 | 197/237 NET | 358 | Davis |
2023 | 13-19 | 239/212 NET | 363 | Davis |
P.S. You can read the NCAA's 1981 announcement of the new RPI system here fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/1981/19810215.pdf, p. 4. It's kind of quaint, how proud they are of their computer work, real cutting edge stuff. And you can see what the early reports looked like: extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats%20Library/1980%20Final%20RPI.pdf