- This topic has 7 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi
Need some help here on this RPI thingy. We beat a team by 20 yet are tied with them in the RPI despite their SOS being 90 and ours being 59. our conference record is 10-6 vs 8-8 and overall our record is 20-9 theirs 19-9 by all statistical criteria listed we are ahead of them so why is their RPI tied with us? And throw in 5 top 25 wins for us (don’t know how many FSU has but I bet its not 5).
I understand more now about the rpi than I ever would have without VA’s help, but what I am seeing is that it doesn’t work. All you can do is work to the system, but if you look at the rankings and the resumes of some of the teams, it is becoming more and more obvious that they do not make any sense.
overall our record is 20-9 theirs 19-9 by all statistical criteria l
You included one statistic that is meaningless (point spread) and left out one statistical category that is extremely important. The team’s record is adjusted by applying a weighting factor based on where the games are played.
Home wins count for 0.7 wins and home losses count as 1.4 losses.
Road wins count for 1.4 wins and road losses count as 0.7 losses.
Neutral wins/losses count as 1.0 wins/losses.overall our record is 20-9 theirs 19-9 by all statistical criteria l
You included one statistic that is meaningless (point spread) and left out one statistical category that is extremely important. The team’s record is adjusted by applying a weighting factor based on where the games are played.
Home wins count for 0.7 wins and home losses count as 1.4 losses.
Road wins count for 1.4 wins and road losses count as 0.7 losses.
Neutral wins/losses count as 1.0 wins/losses.Just my opinion but I think this is where the new formula is wrong. The penalty for a home loss and bonus for a home win is overstated. Yes there is an advantage to playing at home but not 30-40%. Plus playing Duke in a neutral NJ site is not really a neturL site .. just saying
The bigger advantage is which refs you get. They would have been better off to adjust wins and loss based on a how a team’s strengths/weaknesses match up to the very well known tendencies of how a ref will call a game ….. just saying squared
-
….
After watching the U beat the holes last night I can agree with the refs thing. UM played 5 on 8 just about the whole second half and still managed to squeak out the win. Maybe that win should count as a “2” in the rpi.
Just my opinion but I think this is where the new formula is wrong.
Then you’ll be relieved that the professors behind the Dance Card found that at-large bids correlated better with the old RPI formula (all wins and losses = 1) than the new,
My theory is that the new formula devalues the home upsets where the Selection Committee values big wins when they sort through the bubble. Likewise the road wins by mid-majors that elevate their RPI relative to teams in the middle of power conferences don’t really mean much.
IMO Oklahoma’s case is a problem too, they are currently 2-8 in their last ten, but RPI remains at 36 and Dancecard has them at 33. Lunardi still has them as a 10. The eye test tells me that State (and many other teams) are far better right now.
I’m not going to disagree, but the Committee made a conscious decision not to use performance down the stretch as a deciding factor.
OU is an interesting case. I hadn’t looked at their resume until you mentioned them. They are 3 games under .500 in the #1 conference and have 5 Top 25 wins. It will be interesting to see how they finish and what the Selection Committee does with them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
