Much has been made of the Pac-12’s above average Ratings Percentage Index this season. The conference has seven teams inside the RPI Top 50, and its regular season conference champion, No. 8 Oregon, ranks fourth nationally in the statistic.
The metric, which rates teams based on wins and losses compared to its strength of schedule, has become a commonly used denominator to quantify success. And based on the Ducks’ resume, the team has formed a decent case for why it may be one of the better conference champions in the country.
They’re 6-2 in record in games against the RPI Top 50 and in a conference tied with the ACC for having the most teams in the RPI Top 100 (11). Not since 2005 has a conference entered Selection Sunday with 11 teams rated that high, according to the Pac-12. But, the RPI being this qualified and valid source on who are the best teams in the nation has certainly met opposition, which is why Oregon’s track record has provoked skepticism.
“It seems as though the love for the Pac-12 Conference is getting a little ahead of reality,” The Sporting News‘ Mike DeCourcy wrote in January.
As DeCourcy points out, the Pac-12 went a combined 15-15 against teams in the other major conferences this year. The teams also went 12-19 against outside competition ranked inside the RPI Top 50, further emphasizing his point that the conference, despite what the RPI says, may not actually be better than conferences like the ACC.
The RPI is just one of the many resources the NCAA Tournament Committee uses to evaluate teams come Selection Sunday, though — or so it proclaims. The Wall Street Journal discovered in 2011 that the rating was extremely indicative of whether a team on the bubble would make the tournament or not.
In addition, Ken Pomery wrote on Slate in 2011 that, while plenty of RPI rankings appear sensible, many of them do not deliver a ranking a team deserves.
“The biggest problem with the metric is how it uses strength of schedule,” stated Pomeroy, whose own analytical system has become commonly cited in reference to college basketball. “Theoretically, the best team in the country could play the weakest possible slate of opponents. While playing bad opponents shouldn’t imply that you’re a bad team, three-quarters of the RPI is determined by a strength-of-schedule component. That means who you play is often more important than whether you win or lose.”
Pomeroy’s system is more predictive and uses point margin in wins and losses to deliver rankings. His ranking looks quite different than the RPI or Associated Press Top 25. Oregon is ranked No. 15 in it, and does not have the highest likelihood to win its conference tournament despite being the top seed.
It’s difficult to fully comprehend what all of this means. It is college basketball after all, and each season appears to offer more parity than the previous. By Jan. 22, 19 teams ranked inside the AP Poll’s top five had lost, according to ESPN. The consistent narrative this year is that there is no elite, cut-above-the-rest team, which could lend itself to a particularly crazy NCAA Tournament full of upsets.
Oregon figures to be a 2 or 3 seed in this year’s tournament, and wherever they are matched, dwelling on how they got that seeding doesn’t seem necessary.
“The only thing we can control is winning,” head coach Dana Altman said. “Three years ago, [when we had] our first appearance as a 12-seed, I told our guys we’re only a 12 if we think we’re a 12. No one goes into that tournament without extreme confidence.”
Altman also pointed to Iowa State’s season last year when asked about building momentum in the Pac-12 Tournament. The Cyclones won their conference tournament in 2015 and figured to be a Final Four contender. But their season ended just four days later in the first round of the NCAA Tournament.
And it seems to drive home a point that a variety of rankings certainly have value — maybe one more so than the other — but that the NCAA Tournament will always be chaotic in spite of it.
Follow Justin Wise on Twitter @JustinFWise