NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:57 am

Help support by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Ways to improve RPI
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:01 pm 

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:06 am
Posts: 221
We are nearing the end of another basketball season. I was thinking of ways to add lower division opponents to RPI scheduling. While i know no lower division school plays 30 total games against division 1 teams. I was thinking of combing all games involving d-2 teams into one division 2 "team" and so on for each division or the NAIA.

The first way to add lower division schools to the RPI formula would be to just automatically create 3(4) divisional ranks below all active D-1 basketball schools. Division 2 would permanently be ranked as the 352 school in RPI. Division 3 will be 353 and NAIA would be 354. A fourth division could be created to schools that might not belong to any other organization. For transitional schools the first 2 years of transition you belong to the lower division based in RPI. After the end of the second year you move up(or down) to the division you moved to. The pros of having the spots static is that regardless of having a full 30 game schedule the divisions would count in the RPI. The bad thing is that it will or could drop RPI's allot if you play a lower division team.

The second way is to average out for each division and keep them free flowing. You would count each game the schools play and common opponents For example Chaminade would add 3 decent teams to the division 2 ranking through the Maui invitational and Alaska Anchorage university would add another 3 games to the division 2 rankings. Unlike the first suggestion the divisional teams RPI would fluctuate as a regular schools would. So should a lower division 1 school loses to a d-2 team it would help there rpi. Also having this formula will also keep schools going to the Maui invitational or the Alaskan shootout. The only plus i see for this formula is that it wouldn't as many schools as the first formula would.The biggest drawback is that their isn't going to be a full 29-30 game schedule to base it off from and each d-2 school varies in strength.

I figure there isn't much to talk about since realignment stopped for now.Any opinions or thoughts about adding lower divisions schools to the RPI or other RPI tweaks you would like to see?

Fan of:
Sun Belt Conference
Summit League
Us National Soccer Team

 Post subject: Re: Ways to improve RPI
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:48 pm 

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 1031
Well, I don’t think they need to be included for a variety of reasons. You’re pretty much supposed to beat a Division 2, Division 3, NAIA school if you’re a Division I team.

There’s PlENTY of RPI tweaks that not only would I like to see, but I think are NECESSARY to undo the horrific effects of what we have.

The RPI formula was invented in 1981, when the powerful teams of college basketball were spread out. You had 22 really good programs in 20 conferences/independents:

Big 8: Kansas
Big East: Syracuse
Big Sky: Boise St
Big Ten: Michigan State
Eastern 8: West Virginia
East Coast: St. Joseph’s
CAA: Richmond
Independent: South Carolina, Dayton
Metro: Louisville
Midwest: Xavier
MVC: Creighton
Pac 10: UCLA
PCAA: Fresno State
SEC: Kentucky
SoCon: Davidson
Sun Belt: VCU
Southwest: Baylor
WAC: Utah, BYU
WCC: Gonzaga

Well now, those same 22 teams are in NINE conferences: ACC, B12, BE, B10, SEC, A10, MWC, P10, WCC.

The RPI was a good tool back in 1981 because everyone played over 50% of their schedules against non-conference teams and about 40% of their schedules in 20 relatively evenly matched conferences.

And NOW everyone’s playing 18 conference games, 62% of their teams against conference opponents. The difference between “Wichita State’s MVC schedule vs Xavier’s MWCC schedule” in 1981 wasn’t that much. But the difference NOW between WSU’s MVC slate and Xavier’s BE slate is enormous.

Because everyone is playing 18 conference games, and EVERY CONFERENCE goes .500 against itself, the VAST MAJORITY of each team’s SOS doesn’t come from “who you schedule OOC.” It comes from “How the bottom team in your league does OOC.”

Those things need to be addressed.

Yet another thing that should be addressed is this: Every NCAA at-large candidate is expected to go about 8-1 against teams outside the Top 100 of the RPI. But the RPI counts the difference in record between every single one of those teams. If you beat a 7-22 team, you just played a .2414 team. But if you play a 12-18 team, it’s .4000. Who cares? You beat ‘em.

One of the secrets to game the RPI is what the Pac-12 did this year. They all scheduled the conference favorites of bad leagues. The teams that will finish 17-14 and be 175 in the RPI instead of the 6-24 teams that will be 300 in the RPI. And that’s why their RPIs are all ridiculously high this season; yet almost ALL their marquee wins are against each other. USC, UCLA both lost at home to Monmouth (Notre Dame and Georgetown lost to them too). The Pac-12 is not that strong. Monmouth’s RPI continues to fade.

And finally, when you have these power conference teams playing a bunch of nobodies OOC, racking up ridiculous OOC win percentages, then playing each other… these 6 power conference teams have about 42 of the top 50 of the RPI.. which is 6-8 teams each. Which means they’re playing 10 Top 50 games against each other. And the NCAA Selection Committee COUNTS Top 50 wins. As if Colorado’s 3-7 is better than Monmouth’s 2-2.

A fourth thing that’s jacked about the RPI is they made a switch to make road wins worth more than home wins. Which is “fine” I guess, but it didn’t encourage teams to go face people on the road OOC. It basically encourage all the big boys to play Neutral site games against each other. There HAS to be a better way. There IS a better way.

With the statistical revolution in baseball, where we have WAR telling you how much better than a replacement player everyone is… why can’t we develop a formula that:

#1 - Puts the value of win percentage and SOS in the correct ratios. I’d say 2-1 Win Pct to SOS, and eliminate Opp SOS. This eliminates the Conference effect and sets a 1-350 list of teams.

#2 - Sets a FLOOR on the SOS for bad teams you beat (say, .400). You beat a team under .400, you get .400 on your SOS. You lose to them? Count it fully. Now “bad losses” are built in.

#3 - Takes the average win percentages of teams in the Top 68 of our new RPI against each category:
Home vs 1-40, Road vs 1-40, Neutral vs 1-40 (NCAA locks!)
Home vs 41-80, Road vs 41-80, Neutral vs 41-80 (NCAA bubble!)
Home vs 81-120, Road vs 81-120, Neutral vs 81-120 (NIT/Postseason teams)
Home vs 121-200, Road vs 121-200, Neutral vs 121-200 (Respectable teams)
Home vs 200-350, Road vs 200-350, Neutral vs 200-350 (inferior teams)

Then breaks down each teams’ win percentage against each category, and assesses a value for “expected win percentage vs each group, assuming a balanced schedule.” and assigns everyone their expected wins against a 250-game schedule (10 home/10 road/5 neutral) vs each category. And it’s decimal place wins.

So, let’s say Kansas is 3-0 on the road against 81-120, and the average of Top 68 is .806. We wouldn’t make Kansas 10-0. We’d say they’d go between 1.00 and .806 in their remaining 7 games. You build in how much better than expected they should go based on what they’ve done so far.

Then we add it all up into one neutralized, expected win percentage. We could then multiple that win percentage by the number of games into the season we are.

On January 1st, a 12-0 team might be: 11.788
On February 1st, a 17-3 team might be: 16.677
On March 1st, a 22-6 team might be 20.011
On Selection Sunday, a 24-8 team might be 23.415.

1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

 Post subject: Re: Ways to improve RPI
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:08 pm 

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 1347
Location: Columbus, OH
I think we should just appoint JPShmack chief of all basketball statistics. Have you considered applying your formula to teams this season to come about a more meaningful set of rankings than what RPI provide us?

If St Bonaventure is ranked #1 overall I'm calling shenanigans though.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:

Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group