RPI Project Continued

This will probably be my last RPI post. It probably hasn't been as successful a project as I'd hoped. Ehh.

Anyway, as the rounds progress, and the superior teams advance, the better teams are probably going to win over a worse team even if that worse team is "underrated."

In Round 2, this was pretty clearly evident.

The "more underrated" teams went 6-8 in the second round (2 games neither team was "more underrated"). But that doesn't really tell the story either.

There were 6 games where one team was underrated by the committee and playing a team seeded higher. Cincinnati, Southern Illinois, Pacific, Bucknell and Vermont all lost. Villanova won, but they were playing a team only seeded one spot higher.

I now propose that the only analysis that matters from here on won't be whether a team is underrated or overrated, but rather which team the RPI has rated higher, regardless of seed by the committee. New and Old RPI ratings in parentheses.

Illinois (1,2) vs. UW-Milwaukee (47, 50)
Oklahoma St. (4, 4) vs. Arizona (9, 9)
Washington (3, 6) vs. Louisville (12, 11)
Texas Tech (29, 27) vs. West Virginia (44, 31)
UNC (6, 5) vs. Villanova (15, 14)
Wisconsin (14, 17) vs. NC State (54, 45)
Duke (5, 3) vs. Michigan State (24, 22)
Kentucky (10, 10) vs. Utah (23, 25)

The higher seeded teams are all rated higher by the RPI. Not much to get out of this. Oh well. It might've helped pick an upset or two, and might've had some gambling use, but I'm not going to put in the time to prove a thesis I'm not sure I really believe in.