Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Rating percentage index

The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) is a quantitative metric employed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to evaluate and rank teams across various Division I sports, calculating a composite score from three weighted components: a team's own winning percentage (25% of the index), the average winning percentage of its direct opponents (50%), and the average winning percentage of those opponents' opponents (25%). Developed in 1981, the RPI was initially introduced to supplement subjective judgments in selecting at-large teams and seeding participants for NCAA tournaments, with a particular emphasis on accounting for strength of schedule beyond simple win-loss records. While it became a cornerstone of men's college basketball selection until 2018—when it was supplanted by the more nuanced NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) that incorporates factors like game location and efficiency margins—the RPI remains in active use for sports such as baseball and soccer to inform postseason qualifications and bracket assignments. Over the years, the formula has undergone refinements, including a 2005 adjustment to penalize teams for scheduling weak non-Division I opponents and a 2013 revision for baseball that adjusted win values based on home (0.7) versus road (1.3) games to better reflect performance context. Despite criticisms for overemphasizing certain scheduling patterns and underweighting margin of victory, the RPI's simplicity and focus on schedule strength continue to make it a foundational tool in collegiate athletics ranking systems.

Overview and History

Definition and Purpose

The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) is a formula-derived used to rank teams quantitatively by integrating a team's performance with the strength of its schedule. It combines three primary elements: the team's own (WP), weighted at 25%; the average winning percentage of its opponents (OWP), weighted at 50%; and the average winning percentage of those opponents' opponents (OPOP), also weighted at 25%. This structure provides a composite score that reflects both direct results and indirect schedule difficulty, producing a value between 0 and 1 where higher scores indicate stronger teams. The primary purpose of the RPI is to facilitate objective decision-making in competitive sports, particularly within programs, by aiding in tournament selections, seeding, and evaluations of schedule strength without relying on subjective judgments. It helps selection committees identify qualifiers and determine bracket placements by accounting for the quality of competition faced by each team, thereby promoting fairness across diverse conference structures. First implemented in 1981 for men's selections, as of 2025, while it has been replaced by the metric in since 2018 for more advanced analytics, the RPI remains in use for NCAA sports such as and to support similar ranking and selection processes.

Origins and Adoption

The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) was developed in 1980 by NCAA statistician Jim Van Valkenburg and the Division I Men's Basketball Committee as an objective metric to mitigate subjective biases in tournament team selections, where prior rankings relied heavily on polls and human judgment. This initiative stemmed from growing concerns over the expanding NCAA tournament field and the need for a data-driven supplement to evaluate team strength based on wins, losses, and schedule difficulty. The RPI received its first formal adoption in 1981 for selecting bids and teams in the men's basketball tournament, marking a shift toward incorporating in postseason decisions. It quickly became a standard tool, providing the committee with a consistent framework to compare teams across conferences. The committee followed suit in 1984, integrating RPI into their selection process. Over the following decades, the RPI expanded beyond to other NCAA sports, beginning with in to aid in regional and at-large selections. By the early , it was adopted for soccer, with regular RPI rankings released starting around 2006, and for , with first official rankings in 2010, where it helped standardize evaluations for championship fields amid varying conference schedules. saw limited application in lower divisions by the late 2010s, though major playoff selections primarily used alternative metrics. A significant milestone occurred in 2018, when the NCAA introduced adjusted RPI formulas across multiple sports—excluding , which transitioned to the NCAA Evaluation Tool ()—to refine home/away win valuations and reduce scheduling incentives. These modifications aimed to enhance fairness without overhauling the core methodology. As of 2025, RPI remains in use for non-Division I contexts, including Division II and III championships in sports like and soccer, supporting ongoing tournament selections.

Core Components and Calculation

Key Elements

The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) relies on three core components to evaluate team performance relative to schedule strength: the team's (WP), opponents' winning percentage (OWP), and opponents' opponents' winning percentage (OPOP). These elements form the foundational building blocks of the index, emphasizing both direct results and contextual factors like opponent quality. The (WP) serves as the baseline measure of a team's performance, calculated as the of wins to total , with ties treated as half a win and half a loss where applicable. In NCAA implementations, WP is adjusted for game location to better reflect performance context, weighting wins and losses at 0.6, wins and losses at 1.4, and neutral-site games at 1.0 (with slight variations, such as 0.7/1.3 for ). Opponents' winning percentage (OWP) gauges the strength of a team's schedule by averaging the winning percentages of all opponents faced, adjusted to exclude games played against the team in question. This adjustment ensures an unbiased assessment of opponent quality, focusing on their performance in other contests to reflect the overall competitiveness of the schedule. Opponents' opponents' winning percentage (OPOP) extends this evaluation by averaging the OWP values of the team's opponents, thereby capturing the indirect quality of the schedule through the opponents' own scheduling challenges. This layer accounts for broader competitive ecosystems, rewarding teams that face opponents with strong slates of games. In the RPI formula, these components are typically weighted with WP contributing 25%, OWP 50%, and OPOP 25%, though variations exist across sports to adapt to specific competitive dynamics.

Step-by-Step Computation

The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) is calculated using a multi-step process that incorporates a team's performance and the strength of its schedule, based on winning percentages derived from game outcomes. This generic computation applies across sports like basketball and baseball, with specific weights determined by the context of application. The process begins with determining the team's own winning percentage and then extends to the winning percentages of opponents and their opponents, excluding the influence of games against the team in question to avoid circularity.
  1. Calculate the team's : Divide the number of wins by the total number of games played, with ties treated as half a win and half a loss: WP = (wins + 0.5 × ties) / total games. In NCAA RPI, this is an adjusted winning percentage, where wins and losses are weighted by game location (e.g., wins at 0.6, wins at 1.4, at 1.0; uses 0.7/1.3). This provides a baseline measure of the team's direct performance adjusted for context.
  2. Calculate the Opponents' Winning Percentage (OWP): For each opponent the team has faced, compute that opponent's WP, but exclude any games played against the team being evaluated. Average these adjusted winning percentages across all opponents to obtain OWP, which assesses the strength of the team's schedule.
  3. Calculate the Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage (OOWP or OPOP): For each of the team's opponents, compute the OWP of that opponent's opponents (again, excluding games involving the original team). Average these values across all of the team's opponents to yield OOWP, which further refines the schedule strength by considering the broader competitive environment.
  4. Combine the components into the RPI: Apply a weighted average using the formula \text{RPI} = w_1 \times \text{WP} + w_2 \times \text{OWP} + w_3 \times \text{OOWP}, where w_1 + w_2 + w_3 = 1 and the specific weights vary by application (e.g., emphasizing schedule strength over performance in some contexts). Location-based adjustments apply only to the WP component, not to OWP or OOWP.
This iterative exclusion in steps 2 and 3 ensures that the index reflects metrics without self-referential . All calculations typically use final season records, including postseason games where applicable, and are updated periodically as schedules progress.

Application in

Specific Formula

The specific formula for the Rating Percentage Index (RPI) in men's is given by: \text{RPI} = (0.25 \times \text{WP}) + (0.50 \times \text{OWP}) + (0.25 \times \text{OPOWP}) where WP is the team's adjusted , OWP is the average of the team's opponents (excluding games played against the team itself), and OPOWP (also denoted as OOWP) is the average of the opponents' opponents. This formula weights the components to emphasize schedule strength, with OWP receiving the heaviest allocation at 50% to account for the quality of competition faced, particularly in conference play where teams frequently match up against shared opponents. The NCAA compiles RPI using results from all I games, with calculations updated daily during the to reflect the latest outcomes. Key adjustments to the formula include location-based multipliers applied to WP to reward quality wins, implemented starting in the 2004-05 season for men: wins and losses are weighted at 0.6, wins and losses at 1.4, and neutral-site games at 1.0; these factors enhance the value of tougher victories without altering the core weighted structure. OWP specifically excludes the focal team's games against each opponent to avoid circular inflation from mutual results. This framework remained fundamentally unchanged through the 2017-18 season, when it was succeeded by the metric, though the home/road tweaks persisted as a means to incentivize challenging schedules.

Quadrants and Examples

In , the quadrants system categorizes opponents into four tiers based on their RPI rankings to assess the quality of a team's schedule and the value of its wins and losses. This division helps the NCAA selection committee evaluate performance context, with the specific quadrant for a game depending on the location: , , or away, which sets distinct ranges to emphasize the difficulty of road and neutral-site victories. The ranges are: Quadrant 1 (home vs. ranks 1-30, neutral vs. 1-50, away vs. 1-75); Quadrant 2 (home vs. 31-75, neutral vs. 51-100, away vs. 76-135); Quadrant 3 (home vs. 76-160, neutral vs. 101-200, away vs. 136-240); Quadrant 4 (all remaining teams). For instance, a win against a top-tier opponent on the road carries more weight than the same matchup at . To illustrate RPI's application, consider a hypothetical with a 20-10 overall , facing a mix of opponents whose RPIs place them across the s. The team's (WP) is calculated as wins divided by total games: 20/30 = 0.667. The opponents' (OWP) averages 0.550 across all games played, reflecting the collective strength of the schedule. The opponents' opponents' (OPOWP) averages 0.520, accounting for the quality of those secondary opponents. Using the basketball-specific RPI , these components yield an overall RPI of approximately 0.572 for the team. This example demonstrates how quadrant placements influence the inputs: victories over higher-tier (stronger RPI) opponents elevate OWP and OPOWP, while losses to lower-tier teams can drag them down. The quadrants have significant practical implications for team ratings and strategy. Wins in the top , particularly away or neutral, substantially boost a team's RPI by improving OWP and OPOWP through exposure to elite competition. Conversely, losses in the bottom harm ratings more than equivalent results against mid-tier foes. Coaches leverage this in non-conference scheduling to target high- opportunities, such as games against top-ranked teams, to build a resume favorable for NCAA at-large bids and , often prioritizing over win totals.

Replacement by NET

In 2018, the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Committee announced the adoption of the NCAA Evaluation Tool () as the primary ranking system for evaluating teams in the postseason tournament selection process, effective for the 2018-19 season. This marked the replacement of the Rating Percentage Index (RPI), which had been the standard metric since 1981. The NET was developed in collaboration with basketball experts and Google Cloud, utilizing techniques trained on historical data from the 2017-18 season to create a more predictive and results-oriented tool. Unlike the RPI, which relied primarily on winning percentages, opponents' winning percentages, and opponents' opponents' winning percentages without considering game context, the NET incorporates advanced efficiency metrics, game location, and scoring margins (capped at 10 points to avoid over-rewarding blowouts). It consists of two core components: the Team Value Index (TVI), which assesses the quality of wins and losses with emphasis on road and neutral-site victories, and , which measures a team's net points per 100 possessions adjusted for opponent strength and venue (home, away, or neutral). This approach provides a holistic view of team performance by rewarding in possessions rather than mere outcomes. The shift to NET was motivated by longstanding criticisms of the RPI's vulnerabilities, including its susceptibility to manipulation through strategic scheduling—such as teams padding their records with games against weak non-conference opponents to inflate strength-of-schedule ratings—and its inability to account for margin of victory, game location, or overall efficiency. These flaws often led to misleading rankings that did not accurately reflect team quality or competitive balance, prompting recommendations from the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) ad hoc committee for a more objective and contemporary metric. The NCAA aimed to enhance fairness in the selection process by addressing these issues directly. As of November 2025, the remains the cornerstone for Division I men's and seeding and bid decisions, now in its eighth season of use. However, the RPI continues to be employed in NCAA Divisions and III , as well as in other sports like , where it serves as the official ranking tool for regional selections and overall standings. In some hybrid applications, such as certain or legacy comparisons, RPI values are still calculated and published alongside NET rankings for reference. The introduction of NET has led to greater perceived fairness in NCAA tournament at-large selections by better capturing contextual factors like road performance and efficiency, reducing the influence of exploitable scheduling tactics, and providing a transparent quadrant-based framework for evaluating game quality. Publicly available NET rankings and detailed team sheets, updated daily from December through Selection Sunday, allow for consistent comparisons with historical RPI data, aiding stakeholders in understanding selection trends.

Application in Baseball

Adapted Formula

The adapted formula for the Rating Percentage Index (RPI) in baseball modifies the core structure originally developed for to better accommodate the sport's longer regular season, higher volume of games, and location-based performance variations. Specifically, the RPI is calculated as RPI = (0.25 × WP) + (0.50 × OWP) + (0.25 × OPOP), where WP represents the team's adjusted , OWP is the average adjusted of its opponents, and OPOP is the average adjusted of those opponents' opponents. A key adaptation lies in the weighting of games by location within the calculation of and OWP, which emphasizes the difficulty of and neutral-site contests compared to games. In this system, a win is weighted at 0.7, a win at 1.3, a loss at 1.3 (penalizing it more heavily), a loss at 0.7, and neutral-site games at 1.0; these factors are less extreme than basketball's (0.6 for wins and 1.4 for wins) to reflect baseball's outdoor conditions and typical three-game series format. Ties, which are rare in , do not significantly impact WP calculations, simplifying the process relative to sports with more frequent draws. These adjustments are applied using full-season data, with teams limited to up to 56 games per season, the majority against Division I opponents—far fewer than Baseball's 162 but sufficient for robust statistical evaluation—allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of performance over time. OWP incorporates the adjusted winning percentages from all games played by a team's opponents, providing a direct measure of schedule strength without quadrant divisions. The index is updated frequently during the season to reflect ongoing results, ensuring timely rankings for tournament considerations. As of 2025, the RPI remains the primary metric for baseball regional selections and seeding, guiding at-large bids and bracket assignments despite ongoing discussions of potential refinements, including an expansion to top-32 national seeds for the 2026 tournament.

Role in Team Rankings

The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) plays a central in the postseason by guiding the selection of at-large teams and determining seeding for the 64-team . The consists of 29 automatic bids awarded to conference champions and 35 bids selected by the Committee, which relies heavily on RPI to evaluate teams' overall performance, , and quality of wins and losses. Teams with the highest RPI rankings are prioritized for at-large inclusion, as the metric provides a standardized way to compare programs across diverse schedules, ensuring that only the most competitive squads advance beyond conference play. In addition to at-large selections, RPI is integrated with other factors such as win-loss records, conference tournament performance, and head-to-head results to assign national seeds to the top 16 teams, which host regionals and receive favorable bracket placement. The committee cross-references RPI with supplemental tools like the for bracketing decisions, but RPI remains the foundational metric for initial rankings and thresholds, including informal benchmarks where teams outside the top 75 RPI rarely secure bids. Automatic qualifiers, while guaranteed entry, must still meet basic RPI standards to avoid reseeding penalties, blending the metric with conference achievements for a holistic . Since its adoption by the NCAA for , RPI has significantly shaped tournament outcomes, influencing the majority of decisions and contributing to notable dynamics over decades of use. For instance, in the 2023 tournament, RPI was the dominant factor in filling the field, leading to inclusions of teams with strong late-season surges that boosted their rankings. This reliance has occasionally resulted in upsets, such as the 2019 regional where No. 3 seed UCLA (high RPI) fell to a lower-seeded opponent due to mismatches driven by RPI adjustments for . By the 2025 season, RPI's core function remained unchanged.

Criticisms and Alternatives

Identified Limitations

One major limitation of the Rating Percentage Index (RPI) is its susceptibility to schedule gaming, particularly in , where teams strategically schedule weak non-conference opponents—often termed "buy games"—to inflate their and opponents' winning percentage components without facing meaningful competition. This practice allows programs to "buy wins" by paying lower-division teams to play at home, boosting the RPI while minimizing risk, as evidenced by widespread adoption in the pre-2018 era before reforms. The RPI also fails to account for game margins or contextual factors, treating all wins equally regardless of victories and imposing no penalties for close losses, which diminishes its ability to reflect true team strength. In its basic formulation, it ignores home-court or road advantages, equating a home win against a strong opponent with an away win against a weaker one, despite showing home teams win approximately 60-70% of games across . This oversight leads to distorted rankings that overvalue binary win-loss outcomes over performance quality. Additionally, the opponents' opponents' winning percentage (OOWP) component introduces circular dependencies, creating feedback loops especially in small or isolated conferences where teams' ratings become mutually interdependent and prone to collective inflation or deflation. In such environments, a single upset or win-loss shift can cascade through the network, amplifying minor events into outsized RPI changes, as the system's self-referential nature ties teams' to one another without external anchors. Real-world cases highlight these flaws' impacts. In during the 2010s, numerous high-RPI teams underperformed in NCAA tournaments; for instance, nearly 43% of top-15 RPI squads from 1985-2017 failed to reach the Sweet 16, with examples like the 2013 (RPI No. 7) exiting in the Round of 32 despite a strong regular season. In , overrated road schedules have similarly misled selections, such as in 2019 when (RPI No. 30) secured a tournament bid partly due to an inflated opponents' winning percentage from intra-Power Five play, while mid-major Samford (win percentage .791 but RPI No. 72) was excluded despite superior performance against available competition. These instances underscore how RPI's structure can prioritize scheduling maneuvers over on-field merit.

Modern Replacements and Variations

In 2018, the NCAA introduced the NCAA Evaluation Tool () as a replacement for the RPI in Division I men's and tournament selection and seeding, marking a shift to an -based ranking system designed to better capture team performance. The NET formula emphasizes adjusted net —calculated as points scored minus points allowed per 100 possessions, normalized for opponent strength and game location (home, away, or neutral)—along with a Team Value Index that rewards quality wins, particularly road victories against strong opponents. is incorporated indirectly through the possession-based efficiency metric, providing a more dynamic assessment than the RPI's reliance on win percentages and unadjusted . This transition addressed RPI shortcomings, such as its susceptibility to schedule gaming, by prioritizing comprehensive efficiency data over simplistic winning records. In (MLB), alternatives like (SOS) have gained prominence as a complementary to evaluate team rankings, measuring the average of opponents faced to contextualize records against varying levels of competition. SOS rankings, updated throughout the season, help identify teams that have overcome tougher paths. Win Shares represents another analytics-focused variation, originally developed by for in 2002 and adapted for by Jason Kubatko in 2005, estimating the number of team wins directly attributable to individual or collective performance. In , a team with 80 wins allocates exactly 240 Win Shares proportionally among players based on offensive, defensive, and base-running contributions; the version similarly ties shares to points produced and possessions but adjusts for team context without exact proportionality to wins. This metric has influenced broader by shifting emphasis from binary outcomes to marginal contributions, though it remains supplementary rather than a direct RPI substitute. While Division I has phased out the classic RPI in favor of , the metric continues to be used in Division I for other sports such as , soccer, , and wrestling as of November 2025. In Divisions II and III, rankings for these sports rely on alternative systems like coaches' polls rather than RPI, valuing simplicity for smaller conferences despite calls for modernization. In soccer and , the standard RPI persists without widespread incorporation of win margins in Division I, though ongoing NCAA evaluations explore efficiency adjustments similar to . Recent academic proposals suggest AI-driven models could further evolve these systems by integrating for predictive accuracy, potentially accelerating a broader phase-out of traditional indices by the end of the decade.

References

  1. [1]
    March Madness terms: The NCAA tournament dictionary
    The basic RPI (Rating Percentage Index) consists of a team's Division I winning percentage (25 percent weight), its opponents' winning ...
  2. [2]
    ESPN.com: NCB - Ratings Percentage Index
    Mar 10, 2025 · (AP) -- The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) has been used by the NCAA since 1981 to supplement the selection of at-large teams and the seeding of ...
  3. [3]
    The NET, explained: NCAA adopts new college basketball ranking
    May 12, 2020 · The NCAA has developed the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) a ranking system that will replace the RPI as the primary sorting tool used to ...
  4. [4]
    RPI Help | The kenpom.com blog
    Jan 8, 2005 · The RPI is calculated by adding three parts. Part I (25% of the formula): Team winning percentage. For the 2005 season, the NCAA added a bonus/ ...
  5. [5]
    Ground Rules: Understanding the new R.P.I
    The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) was adopted by the NCAA many years ago with the intent to rank teams based on their strength of schedule.
  6. [6]
    How do NET rankings work in NCAA tournament selection?
    Mar 3, 2025 · The Rating Percentage Index was the primary ranking system from 1981 until 2018 but was replaced by the NET to provide a more comprehensive and ...
  7. [7]
    [PDF] 2009-10 NCAA Men's Basketball Records (Playing Rules History)
    the first time the Rating Percentage Index. (RPI), a computer ranking system, was used as an aid in evaluating teams for at-large selec- tions and seeding:.
  8. [8]
    [PDF] frequently-asked questions about the men's lacrosse rating ...
    A good rule of thumb is 20 or more ranking places, as well as the actual mathematical difference between RPI rankings. Why doesn't the RPI factor in past NCAA ...
  9. [9]
    DI Baseball Rankings - RPI | NCAA.com
    Get updated NCAA Baseball DI rankings from every source, including coaches and national polls.
  10. [10]
    A Simple and Flexible Rating Method for Predicting Success in the ...
    Aug 7, 2025 · However, when the RPI was first conceived by the NCAA in the late 1970's ... rating percentage index (RPI). For the 2011 tournament, the NCAA ...
  11. [11]
    A Madness To The Method? A top-secret computer formula, the RPI ...
    Mar 3, 2003 · However did we get here? Beginning in the late 1970s, the NCAA tournament underwent a welter of changes, including the expansion of the field ...
  12. [12]
    Division I Men's Basketball Committee adopts new ranking system
    Aug 22, 2018 · The RPI was first used in 1981 and was developed by the NCAA to provide supplemental data to the Men's Basketball Committee, which is ...
  13. [13]
    What is RPI? | RPIRatings.com
    The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) is used by the NCAA to help select at-large teams and seed teams for basketball tournaments.
  14. [14]
    College Baseball RPI Rankings by Year
    Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) is available since 1999 for NCAA Division I. RPI is an NCAA ratings system to normalize a team's success across the NCAA ...
  15. [15]
    DI Men's Soccer Rankings - NCAA.com
    Get updated NCAA Men's Soccer DI rankings from every source, including coaches and national polls.Missing: adoption | Show results with:adoption
  16. [16]
    RPI – D1 Men - Lacrosse Reference
    The RPI rankings reflect the NCAA methodology for calculating the official RPI. The SOS metric uses the NCAA's method based on the 10 most difficult opponents.
  17. [17]
    RealTimeRPI.com College Football/NCAAF - College Football ...
    We're very proud that we're the only site in the web that provides real time college football ranking data to college sports fans - and it's totally free of ...
  18. [18]
    News - New Selection Criteria for Division III Championships
    Apr 3, 2024 · The NCAA Power Index (NPI) be adopted as the selection metric for selecting non-automatic qualifiers for the championship field for Division III team sports.
  19. [19]
    College basketball's NET rankings, explained | NCAA.com
    May 6, 2025 · The NET includes more components than just winning percentage. It takes into account game results, strength of schedule, game location, net offensive and ...
  20. [20]
    RPI Calculation Steps | Kentucky High School Athletic Association
    Sep 27, 2019 · These three components are combined to produce the RPI using the following formula: RPI = (WP * WPVAL) + (OWP * OWPVAL) + (OOWP * OOWPVAL).Missing: Rating OPOP
  21. [21]
    RPI Rankings | Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WA)
    WP (Winning Percentage): Divide the number of wins by the number of total games played for your team. · OWP (Opponents' Winning Percentage): · OOWP (Opponents' ...RPI · Boys Basketball · Volleyball · Boys SoccerMissing: steps | Show results with:steps
  22. [22]
    What Are Quadrant 1, Quadrant 2 wins? - Sports Illustrated
    Mar 1, 2018 · Quadrant one wins are those home games vs. teams RPI ranked 1-30, neutral games vs. 1-50, and away games vs. 1–75.
  23. [23]
    College basketball dictionary: 51 terms defined | NCAA.com
    The basic RPI (Rating Percentage Index) consists of a team's Division I winning percentage (25 percent weight), its opponents' winning ...
  24. [24]
    Analyzing the impact of the NCAA Selection committee's new ...
    Aug 1, 2019 · Individual game outcomes are listed within the opponent's Quadrant by RPI, and color-coordinated to identify non-conference games and game site, ...
  25. [25]
    The impact of non-conference scheduling: a statistical exploration
    Nov 16, 2017 · With good scheduling, RPI is an exploitable metric. Most teams could be better at scheduling their non-conference opponents.Missing: quadrants | Show results with:quadrants
  26. [26]
    New ranking system developed for NCAA tournament, replacing RPI
    Aug 22, 2018 · The NCAA has developed a new evaluation system to replace the RPI as the primary sorting tool for teams under consideration for the NCAA ...
  27. [27]
    The NCAA ending the RPI in favor of the 'NET' is a long-overdue ...
    Aug 22, 2018 · "Keep scheduling tough," Gavitt said. "Have a quality strength of schedule. Whether it's the RPI or the NET or anything else, they're all fairly ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  28. [28]
    RPI (Live) 2025 College Baseball | WarrenNolan.com
    2025 College Baseball RPI (Rating Percentage Index) Updated in REAL-TIME for Every Team at the Completion of Every Game.
  29. [29]
    NCAA Introduces NET Ranking System to Replace RPI
    Aug 22, 2018 · The NCAA Men's Basketball Committee is adopting a new ranking system to replace Rating Percentage Index (RPI) as its primary evaluation tool.
  30. [30]
    RPI Deficiency: What is RPI in Basketball, Football, and Baseball?
    Mar 1, 2023 · What is RPI in college basketball, football, and baseball? Contents ... The RPI formula is: R P I = W P 4 + O W P 2 + O O W P 4 RPI ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  31. [31]
    How Does RPI Effect College Baseball and the NCAA Tournament?
    Mar 4, 2024 · The Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) is generally known to dictate which college baseball teams qualify for the NCAA tournament.Missing: formula | Show results with:formula
  32. [32]
    NCAA baseball selection committee altering seeding process for 2026
    Aug 19, 2025 · Teams with the strongest records and overall RPI are often chosen as national seeds. Alabama was one of the SEC teams which just missed out on ...
  33. [33]
    College Baseball Tweaked The NCAA Tournament Selection ...
    Jan 10, 2024 · While the committee kept the RPI formula unchanged, it adjusted the selection process and how it presents the data to the committee. The first ...
  34. [34]
    College Baseball Mulls RPI Reform In Wake Of NCAA Tournament ...
    May 29, 2023 · When the full NCAA Tournament field was announced Monday at noon, again RPI appeared to be the leading factor. The selection committee picks 34 ...
  35. [35]
    The PING Ratings: A Model for Rating NCAA Baseball Teams
    All of the rating systems had roughly the same correlation with RPI: PING (r=0.81), ISR (r=0.83), and NPI (r=0.84). The PING ratings had the 2009 National ...<|separator|>
  36. [36]
  37. [37]
    The RPI is Not the Real Predictive Indicator
    Feb 19, 2013 · The RPI does not take into account margin of victory, making its predictive accuracy dubious at best when compared to rankings like Ken ...Missing: criticism | Show results with:criticism
  38. [38]
  39. [39]
    Does a top RPI ranking predict NCAA tournament success?
    Mar 1, 2018 · But success is not a given in this group. Almost 43 percent of teams in the Top 15 RPI never made it to the Sweet 16, and 18 percent lost in the ...
  40. [40]
    Does RPI give an unfair advantage to Power Five conferences in ...
    Apr 15, 2021 · We have identified two major problems with the current RPI model being deployed by the NCAA which negatively impacts mid-major teams. We utilize ...
  41. [41]
  42. [42]
    MLB Playoff Odds | FanGraphs Baseball
    Strength of Schedule (SOS). This is our estimation of the difficulty of each team's remaining schedule. We take the average neutral-opponent winning ...
  43. [43]
    MLB Remaining Schedule Strength - Tankathon
    Shows the remaining strength of schedule for MLB teams based on the winning percentage of the opponents left on their schedule.
  44. [44]
    NBA Win Shares | Basketball-Reference.com
    James made team Win Shares directly proportional to team wins. In his system, a baseball team that wins 80 games will have exactly 240 Win Shares, a baseball ...
  45. [45]
    Win Shares - Wikipedia
    Win Shares is a 2002 book about baseball written by Bill James and Jim Henzler. The book explains how to apply the concept of sabermetrics to assess the impact ...Concept · Criticism of win shares · Reviews
  46. [46]
    NCAA releases midseason coaches' rank and RPI for 2025 Division ...
    Jul 9, 2025 · The RPI is a calculation that consists of three factors: winning percentage, opponent winning percentage (strength of schedule) and opponent's ...Missing: II | Show results with:II
  47. [47]
    DI Women's Soccer Rankings - NCAA Women's Soccer RPI
    9, 2025. Rank. School. Record. Conference. Road. Neutral. Home. Non-Div I. Previous ... Summit League, 4-2-2, 0-1-2, 5-2-0, 0-0-0, 72. 74, Boston U. 11-4-3 ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  48. [48]