Found this article on the ESPN site, http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/84824/bpi-talk-why-florida-is-the-best-team which touts Florida as best team and also has this little bit about Iowa.
Is Iowa a top-5 team?
Based on this metric, the Iowa Hawkeyes are No. 5. They're 18-4 with their full squad.
Jarrod Uthoff has played at least 10 minutes in all but two games (at Michigan and against Ohio State). Iowa lost both.
I had a feeling the injury calculation by BPI was off but couldn't quite put my thumb on it until I read the above. Uthoff wasn't injured, how does Iowa get a benefit from a player whose minutes have been pulled because he's not playing as well as other teammates or isn't right piece for the matchups of that day's game.
If you don't know, BPI tries to account for injuries in their formula and boy have they got it wrong. I haven't accounted for all the details just yet, but to summarize, a player is considered injured or a team is considered playing with less than 100% of their roster when a player in the top 5 average minutes on the team has less than 10 minutes in a game.
But Jarrod Uthoff wasn't injured he just hasn't played well in conference so his minutes have dipped. Which brings up an interesting math problem for BPI. To count as top 5 player the player must have played in at least half of the games for the team. Now that Oglesby is at the halfway mark or about to cross over into more than half of the games participating, his minutes are close to Uthoffs and actually before PSU he averages more minutes, but only barely. What will happen to BPI when it has to switch the key contributor list for Iowa game by game as Uthoff and Oglesby switch minutes and we know Oglesby didn't play in a significant amount of games. Their BPI could jump up and down depending on how Fran determines match ups.
Back to Uthoff and BPI, how does this effect Iowa's BPI. When a team loses a game and the participation of key contributor is less then expected for 100%, then the raw score analysis of offense and defense is adjusted to account for the missing player in a positive light. So, against OSU and Michigan St. where Iowa lost with Uthoff playing less than 10 minutes Iowa actually received a bump of their raw score and significantly so. Even though MSU played with even fewer key contributors. Wait, what?
BPI doesn't care which team is playing with less than 100%. Something worse happened against Villanova. I'm not sure if their starter got hurt or if he just didn't play that game because of strategy what have you. But Iowa lost with 100% of key contributors playing and still got a boost to their BPI score because of the injury game weight aggregated by Villanova's own injuries.
In the end, I like that BPI tries to take everything into account including injury. I don't know what the math would come too if they fixed it for the logic errors obvious by these results. Take it for what it is, another rating system that has no value to selection committee.