If I were to make computer rankings to seed the NCAA Tournament, I'd base them upon how you fared against your schedule compared to how the average NCAA Tournament team would be expected to fare against your schedule.
These rankings would be based on win probability and not opponent record. What does that mean? Say Team A beats RPI No. 3 Michigan State (28-8) and RPI No. 344 Binghamton (2-29). In my ranking they'd get credit of say, 85 percent for beating Michigan State – I estimate the average NCAA Tournament team would lose to Michigan State 85 percent of the time – and 0.3 percent for beating Binghamton, as a tournament team would only lose 3 in 1,000 times to that squad. Combine a team's performance in each game into a season-long rating and tada, we have a rational way to select and seed the tournament. Indeed, most credible computer rankings (read: not the RPI) rank teams based upon similar logic.
Instead, we have the RPI, which is one-half your opponent's win percentage, one-quarter your opponents' opponents' win percentage and one-quarter your win percentage. (Ignore your own record and now you have the formula the NCAA uses to calculate strength of schedule.) On the surface this sounds reasonable, the more you win and the more your opponents win, the better you'll be. However, in the above example, MSU and Binghamton are a combined 30-37, a losing record.
So you would actually lose ground on your opponents' win percentage and, with Binghamton in such a crappy conference, your opponents' opponents' win percentage.( Sure, your record would go up if you won both games, but that's only 25 percent of the formula.)
Bottom line: Your RPI would likely go down for beating MSU and Binghamton. You would probably be ranked higher if you hadn't played those two teams at all.
Instead, you would have been better off playing two middling teams who happened to have good records, say No. 117 Norfolk State (25-9) and No. 136 Georgia State (22-12). Those teams were a combined 47-21, so you would get a lot of credit in the RPI and SOS rankings for wins there (and your ranking might actually improve with losses, remembering that your own record is just 25 percent of the formula). A fairer set of rankings, however, would recognize that an average NCAA team would only lose to those teams, say, 20 percent of the time, so you'd rightfully get more credit for beating MSU and Binghamton.
Life, however, isn't fair, and neither is the RPI. It's high time we got onboard.
How can you game this system? Simple: play crappy teams with good records. How do you get absolutely screwed by this system? Simple: play crappy teams with crappy records.
Okay, the non-math majors can tune back in: it's time for some actual numbers. With its NIT championship, Stanford finished No. 69 in the RPI and No. 101 in the associated strength of schedule (SOS) ranking, the two numbers the committee most heavily leans on when selecting and seeding the field. That RPI number is really unfair to us; we finished No. 32 to KenPom, No. 51 to Warren Nolan, and No. 29 and No. 41 in Sagarin's two calculations. The difference is the disproportionate weight the RPI puts on our awful out-of-conference schedule.
This season, Stanford played seven teams from subpar conferences with sub-.500 records: Central Arkansas (6-20), Fresno State (11-20), UC Davis (4-26), Pacific (9-19), Seattle (9-15), San Diego (11-18), and Bethune-Cookman (16-17). All told that's a 66-135 mark.
Had we been able to replace those seven teams with teams nearly as overmatched but with an opposite 135-66 mark, we would have finished 21st in the RPI and 20th in strength of schedule! That's a 48-team jump in the RPI and a 81-team jump in strength of schedule, even though our schedule wouldn't have had to get that harder. We could have substituted with Norfolk State and Georgia State from above, two games we should win. We could add in-state Long Beach State (24-8) and San Diego State (24-8) – two teams that should absolutely become staples on our schedule moving forward. Heck, we could have added any of the 25-30 teams with RPIs between 50 and 150 and at least 20 wins, all of whom an NCAA contender should handle: Denver (22-9), UT-Arlington (23-9), Mercer (26-11), Loyola Maryland (24-9) and on and on. (Note: I gave us one extra loss and one fewer win in reflection of the slightly tougher schedule and was generally conservative in my estimates, so the real results could have been better yet.)
Alternatively, had we simply not played UC-Davis and Central Arkansas, we would have finished No. 55 in the RPI and No. 65 in SOS, 14- and 36-team jumps respectively. Put another way, playing and beating UC-Davis and Central Arkansas dropped us 14 slots in the RPI and 36 slots in SOS.
A wonderful case study is Colorado State, who despite a worse postseason performance (one and done in the tourney), a worse conference, and a significantly worse record (19-12 vs. 26-11), finished the year with an RPI of No. 29 and a SOS of No. 13, light years ahead of us. We beat those guys by 12, yet we missed the Tourney by the mile, while they made the Big Dance, almost exclusively because of their RPI and SOS.
They're a 19-11 team from a so-so conference who never received a top-25 vote the entire season, and whose best wins were against Colorado and San Diego State. By the head-to-head result and the eyeball test of schedules, I think we were a better team than they were. (Here is Colorado State's schedule. Here is ours. Judge for yourselves.) So how did the Rams do it?
Simple: their out-of-conference opponents racked up great schedules. Seven of their 13 non-Mountain West opponents would finish with at least 21 wins, while only one team, Northern Colorado (8-18), finished with fewer than 10 wins. (They did play a Division II team in Nebraska Omaha, but by the strange NCAA logic, Nebraska Omaha could have been 0-30, because Division II games don't count in the RPI.) We went 10-2 out of conference, while Colorado State went 10-4, had but we and the Rams switched out-of-conference results, they definitely would not have been in the tournament, while we very well might have been dancing on the big stage.
Anyhow, if I (and many others) can point out the importance of getting out-of-conference teams with awful records off the schedule, there is absolutely no excuse for the athletic department and basketball front office. Luckily, our scheduling patterns can change overnight.
I know people will point to the fact that we're going to play tough out-of-conference teams next year. That's not the point at all. We played tough out-of-conference teams this year (Syracuse and Butler, for starters), but we finished 48 slots lower in the RPI than we could have had we simply replaced the bad teams on our schedule with nearly as bad teams who happened to have better records. Again, it's not about playing star teams in or out of conference; it's about avoiding the god-awful ones.
People will also point to the fact that we can't know in advance how many games each team will win. That's true, but we can use common sense and make pretty educated guesses. I bet we win more games than Utah and USC next year. I bet Duke wins more than Boston College (9-22). I'll also bet some team which has won 20-plus and made the NCAA Tournament five of the last seven years from a league you've never heard of is going to do better than whoever finished seventh in their league.
It's crazy that beating Binghamton and Michigan State would lower your ranking, that not playing UC- Davis and Central Arkansas would raise your ranking 14 slots, or that replacing bad out-of-conference teams with slightly better but still bad out-of-conference teams would catapult your RPI from No. 101 to no worse than No. 20. It's also crazy that because of these gaping holes in the RPI logic Colorado State made the NCAA Tournament, while Stanford, a better team with better results, was lucky to make the NIT.
But this is the world we'd live in, and next year, I'd rather be a Colorado State than a Stanford, and even if we exceed expectations and the Tourney is assured, I'd rather be a five-seed than a 10-seed. All the Athletic Department has to do is make some strategic decisions and some phone calls.
Bob Bowlsby and the basketball front office should consider all the blood, sweat and tears the players and coaches expend each season to try to scrape out one extra win, and contrast that with how much impact, easily the equivalent of five wins, they could achieve with some critical thinking.
P.S.: If you've got friends in high places, please pass this along.