RPI Rankings do not show strength at the top of each conference

If you are unfamiliar with how the board of athletic directors select the team for the NCAA tournament in March it comes from several things. The board will look at each teams RPI rankings, strength of schedule, wins over Top-50 or Top-100 teams (according to RPI rankings) in the country, losses against team rated below 150 in the RPI, and what each team's record has been in the games leading up to the tournament. The RPI ratings tend to be the largest part of each team’s “resume” and the formula is interesting.

According to an archival NCAA News (Vol. 18, No. 3) the Ratings Percentage Index was picked up in the early 1980s and is based on “four factors: (1) Division 1 winning percentage, (2) opponents’ success, (3) opponents’ strength of schedule and (4) road success” (page 4). Another formula is RPI=(Winning percentage * .25) + (Opponents’ winning percentage * .5) + (opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage * .25). The RPI began factoring home, win, and neutral results in 2004, giving 1.4 points for away games, .6 for home, and 1 for neutral.

According to RealTimeRPI.com, the Atlantic Coast Conference currently sits in fourth in the country in the "Power Rankings" with a 55.67 average index. These "Power Rankings" are made up of an average strength of schedule, the strength of schedule rank, and the number of teams in each conference. The ACC ranks sixth in conference RPI with a .5618 rating, with the Big Ten leading all conferences at a mark of .5846.

As it is getting closer to March and everyone seems to be doubting the strength of the ACC this season, I decided to go team by team in terms of the standings of every conference to see how the ACC stacks up…

This table shows the top ranked teams from each of the top ten conferences according to their RPI rankings. The columns represented are conference record (Conf), conference RPI (CRPI), overall record versus Division I teams (All), their team RPI, their RPI rank, their team strength of schedule (SOS), and their strength of schedule rank. The consensus is that Kentucky and Syracuse are locks for the top two number one seeds, but upon further review it’s hard to put Kentucky way ahead of Duke, Michigan State, or Kansas. I like Syracuse as the overall number one seed, because of their RPI ranking while going 15-1 in the second best conference in the country. Michigan State also has to be given credit for going 12-3 in the toughest conference in the country and having the overall hardest strength of schedule. Duke represents the ACC well here too. Their RPI ranking is second best nationally and the fact that they have gone 25-4 against the toughest schedule in the country says something. My rankings for the top teams in each conference are Syracuse (1), Michigan State (2), Duke (3), Kansas (4), Kentucky (5), Temple (6), UNLV (7), Wichita State (8), Southern Miss (9), and California (10).

This is the same table as above, just for the second ranked teams in each conference. North Carolina of the ACC seems to be the top choice for this one, with Ohio State making a strong case as well. The RPI rank and strength of schedule of 5 and 12, respectably, for Carolina, make them the best (second best) team in the country. My ranks for the number two teams from each conference go something like this: North Carolina (1), Ohio State (2), Baylor (3), Marquette (4), Florida (5), Colorado St. (6), Memphis (7), St. Louis (8), Creighton (9), Oregon (10).

This table is for the third ranked teams in each of the top ten conferences. A couple things pop out at first glance. First of all, Michigan comes across as a far and away front-runner in this group. Going 11-4 in the top conference in the country, including 20-7 overall against the seventh ranked strength of schedule, is very respectable. There is also, once again, a big drop off from the ACC, Big Ten, Big East, Big 12, and SEC, to the rest of the conferences. My rankings for these schools are Michigan (1), Georgetown (2), Florida State (3), Missouri (4), Vanderbilt (5), New Mexico (6), Xavier (7), Marshall (8), Washington (9), and Northern Iowa (10).

When looking at the table for the fourth ranked teams from each conference you notice sustained strength throughout each conference. For the ACC, Virginia looks good until you get to their strength of schedule. The other top seven conferences all boast good number four teams. My rankings are Indiana (1), Louisville (2), Alabama (3), Kansas State (4), San Diego State (5), Virginia (6), St. Joseph’s (7), Arizona (8), Missouri State (9), and UCF (10).

The fifth ranking is where you start to see the drop off of the mid-major conferences, like Wyoming in the Mountain West and Indiana State in the Missouri Valley. The power five conferences all boast bubble teams here, besides Wisconsin in the top ranked Big Ten. My rankings for the fifth place teams in each conference are Wisconsin (1), Connecticut (2), Miami (3), Iowa State (4), Dayton (5), Mississippi State (6), Colorado (7), Wyoming (8), Tulsa (9), and Indiana State (10).

So if we tally up each conference's rankings of the top five teams they come up as follows:
1. Big Ten (7)
2. Big East (11)
3. ACC (15)
4. Big 12 (19)
5. SEC (24)
6. Atlantic 10 (33)
7. Mountain West (34)
8. Conference USA (43)
9. Pac-12 (44)
10. Missouri Valley (46)

So when you compare the top five teams from each conference based on their full resumes it shows a completely different ranking then the conference RPI ratings. So, during what most people call a down ACC year, there is more power at the top than the mighty Big 12 or SEC. Just my opinion, but the ACC looks completely legitimate this year.