Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
Author Message
blunderbuss Offline
Banned

Posts: 19,649
Joined: Apr 2011
I Root For: ECU & the CSA
Location: Buzz City, NC
Post: #21
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-20-2014 11:40 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 10:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  RPI only can become trustworthy with a large sample size. It can work with basketball, not football.

What? With the OP in mind the 'sample size' certainly seems big enough. The American has played 70 games, 46 of them non-conference. The Mountain West has played 84, 46 non-conf. CUSA has played 89, 53 non-conf.

I think you missed the posts above his comparing Marshall and ECU's RPI and the predictor of SMU beating Memphis based on some RPI formula.
(This post was last modified: 10-20-2014 11:43 AM by blunderbuss.)
10-20-2014 11:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mlb Offline
O' Great One
*

Posts: 20,276
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 540
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:

Donators
Post: #22
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-20-2014 11:40 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 10:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  RPI only can become trustworthy with a large sample size. It can work with basketball, not football.

What? With the OP in mind the 'sample size' certainly seems big enough. The American has played 70 games, 46 of them non-conference. The Mountain West has played 84, 46 non-conf. CUSA has played 89, 53 non-conf.

You obviously don't have a clue. You are talking about 6 games for each team. You cannot reliable rank them based on these formulas. You need 20+ games for each team to get anything reliable.
10-20-2014 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tigers2B1 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,593
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 243
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #23
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-20-2014 11:46 AM)mlb Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:40 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 10:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  RPI only can become trustworthy with a large sample size. It can work with basketball, not football.

What? With the OP in mind the 'sample size' certainly seems big enough. The American has played 70 games, 46 of them non-conference. The Mountain West has played 84, 46 non-conf. CUSA has played 89, 53 non-conf.

You obviously don't have a clue. You are talking about 6 games for each team. You cannot reliable rank them based on these formulas. You need 20+ games for each team to get anything reliable.

You obviously don't understand what the words "with the OP in mind" mean. Take a little more time before you respond next time, tay?
10-20-2014 11:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mlb Offline
O' Great One
*

Posts: 20,276
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 540
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:

Donators
Post: #24
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-20-2014 11:48 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:46 AM)mlb Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:40 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 10:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  RPI only can become trustworthy with a large sample size. It can work with basketball, not football.

What? With the OP in mind the 'sample size' certainly seems big enough. The American has played 70 games, 46 of them non-conference. The Mountain West has played 84, 46 non-conf. CUSA has played 89, 53 non-conf.

You obviously don't have a clue. You are talking about 6 games for each team. You cannot reliable rank them based on these formulas. You need 20+ games for each team to get anything reliable.

You obviously don't understand what the words "with the OP in mind" mean. Take a little more time before you respond next time, tay?

Ok, please explain it to me, the simpleton. What are you saying?
10-20-2014 11:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KNIGHTTIME Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,511
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 308
I Root For: '17 Natty Champ
Location:
Post: #25
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-20-2014 11:38 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  
(10-19-2014 09:26 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  
(10-19-2014 09:19 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-19-2014 09:13 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  UNC is ranked 37th now. Just saying.

Are you saying this is legit? Before you answer Marshall is #25 and ECU is #34. Just sayin. 03-wink

Oh no, it's freaking RPI, but CUSA fans love their realtime RPI...Akron is 81st.

No, you guys love the RPI. You guys are the ones that presented this RPI crap. The RPI is about as meaningless as the Sagarin but posters used it when it benefits their argument of who is best.

Why exactly are you getting worked up? This RPI ranking shows us behind the mwc so it isn't like we are beating our chests. C-usa has Marshall which might be really good. The rest is a hot mess winning 0 against the p5 and losing to at least 2 FCS teams.

Right now the aac has at least 3 major advantages over the c-usa. 1) TV exposure. 2) attendance which is more $$$ 3) and overall perception of the 2 leagues.

That isn't to say the c-usa is doing bad either. There are multiple FBS startups and sunbelt callups. It is going to take time to take away advantages that are built in. We offer conference membership to any c-usa member and they are ours. That is just a fact.
10-20-2014 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
shere khan Offline
Southerner
*

Posts: 60,515
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 7461
I Root For: Tulane
Location: Teh transfer portal
Post: #26
Re: RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-20-2014 11:38 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  
(10-19-2014 09:26 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  
(10-19-2014 09:19 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-19-2014 09:13 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  UNC is ranked 37th now. Just saying.

Are you saying this is legit? Before you answer Marshall is #25 and ECU is #34. Just sayin. 03-wink

Oh no, it's freaking RPI, but CUSA fans love their realtime RPI...Akron is 81st.

No, you guys love the RPI. You guys are the ones that presented this RPI crap. The RPI is about as meaningless as the Sagarin but posters used it when it benefits their argument of who is best.

He still butt hurt. Lol
10-20-2014 12:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ultraviolet Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,713
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 308
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #27
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-19-2014 09:36 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  Most of these computer rankings are just nonsense…How in the world is UNC 37th??? They have a losing record and were beaten by Va Tech who is ranked below them….That is the problem with computer rankings, a lack of the ability to think rationally.

Aren't your opponents opponents factored in too?
10-20-2014 03:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
T-Moar Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 285
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 13
I Root For: Houston and Arizona
Location:
Post: #28
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-20-2014 11:48 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:46 AM)mlb Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:40 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 10:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  RPI only can become trustworthy with a large sample size. It can work with basketball, not football.

What? With the OP in mind the 'sample size' certainly seems big enough. The American has played 70 games, 46 of them non-conference. The Mountain West has played 84, 46 non-conf. CUSA has played 89, 53 non-conf.

You obviously don't have a clue. You are talking about 6 games for each team. You cannot reliable rank them based on these formulas. You need 20+ games for each team to get anything reliable.

You obviously don't understand what the words "with the OP in mind" mean. Take a little more time before you respond next time, tay?

Again, though, who were those OOC games against? Who was in them? The second-best CUSA team playing Bama isn't the same thing as, say, UCF playing Florida.
10-20-2014 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DowdyPirate Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,078
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 234
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #29
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-20-2014 03:21 PM)ultraviolet Wrote:  
(10-19-2014 09:36 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  Most of these computer rankings are just nonsense…How in the world is UNC 37th??? They have a losing record and were beaten by Va Tech who is ranked below them….That is the problem with computer rankings, a lack of the ability to think rationally.

Aren't your opponents opponents factored in too?

Yep, from Wikipedia

"RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)"
10-20-2014 07:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TIGERCITY Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,908
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 437
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #30
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-20-2014 03:30 PM)T-Moar Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:48 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:46 AM)mlb Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:40 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 10:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  RPI only can become trustworthy with a large sample size. It can work with basketball, not football.

What? With the OP in mind the 'sample size' certainly seems big enough. The American has played 70 games, 46 of them non-conference. The Mountain West has played 84, 46 non-conf. CUSA has played 89, 53 non-conf.

You obviously don't have a clue. You are talking about 6 games for each team. You cannot reliable rank them based on these formulas. You need 20+ games for each team to get anything reliable.

You obviously don't understand what the words "with the OP in mind" mean. Take a little more time before you respond next time, tay?

Again, though, who were those OOC games against? Who was in them? The second-best CUSA team playing Bama isn't the same thing as, say, UCF playing Florida.

You post that as if it's not factored into the conference ranking ---
10-20-2014 09:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
T-Moar Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 285
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 13
I Root For: Houston and Arizona
Location:
Post: #31
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-20-2014 09:54 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 03:30 PM)T-Moar Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:48 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:46 AM)mlb Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:40 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  What? With the OP in mind the 'sample size' certainly seems big enough. The American has played 70 games, 46 of them non-conference. The Mountain West has played 84, 46 non-conf. CUSA has played 89, 53 non-conf.

You obviously don't have a clue. You are talking about 6 games for each team. You cannot reliable rank them based on these formulas. You need 20+ games for each team to get anything reliable.

You obviously don't understand what the words "with the OP in mind" mean. Take a little more time before you respond next time, tay?

Again, though, who were those OOC games against? Who was in them? The second-best CUSA team playing Bama isn't the same thing as, say, UCF playing Florida.

You post that as if it's not factored into the conference ranking ---

I don't see any evidence that it is...
10-20-2014 09:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TIGERCITY Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,908
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 437
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #32
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-20-2014 09:56 PM)T-Moar Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 09:54 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 03:30 PM)T-Moar Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:48 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:46 AM)mlb Wrote:  You obviously don't have a clue. You are talking about 6 games for each team. You cannot reliable rank them based on these formulas. You need 20+ games for each team to get anything reliable.

You obviously don't understand what the words "with the OP in mind" mean. Take a little more time before you respond next time, tay?

Again, though, who were those OOC games against? Who was in them? The second-best CUSA team playing Bama isn't the same thing as, say, UCF playing Florida.

You post that as if it's not factored into the conference ranking ---

I don't see any evidence that it is...

Visit the site -- note that conference winning percentage and ranking don't always line up. What do you think causes that?
10-20-2014 09:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
T-Moar Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 285
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 13
I Root For: Houston and Arizona
Location:
Post: #33
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-20-2014 09:58 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 09:56 PM)T-Moar Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 09:54 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 03:30 PM)T-Moar Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:48 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  You obviously don't understand what the words "with the OP in mind" mean. Take a little more time before you respond next time, tay?

Again, though, who were those OOC games against? Who was in them? The second-best CUSA team playing Bama isn't the same thing as, say, UCF playing Florida.

You post that as if it's not factored into the conference ranking ---

I don't see any evidence that it is...

Visit the site -- note that conference winning percentage and ranking don't always line up. What do you think causes that?

They could just be using the regular RPI formula and just attribute team wins to the conference. That could produce results like these. Until they publish some sort of formula, we can't definitively say what's in it.
10-20-2014 10:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TIGERCITY Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,908
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 437
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #34
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-20-2014 10:04 PM)T-Moar Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 09:58 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 09:56 PM)T-Moar Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 09:54 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 03:30 PM)T-Moar Wrote:  Again, though, who were those OOC games against? Who was in them? The second-best CUSA team playing Bama isn't the same thing as, say, UCF playing Florida.

You post that as if it's not factored into the conference ranking ---

I don't see any evidence that it is...

Visit the site -- note that conference winning percentage and ranking don't always line up. What do you think causes that?

They could just be using the regular RPI formula and just attribute team wins to the conference. That could produce results like these. Until they publish some sort of formula, we can't definitively say what's in it.

Of course they attribute team wins to the conference -- hence the AAC's total wins. How else could you get total wins. They also attribute loses. They also consider, as I recall, the wins and loses of each of the terams in each of the other conferences that the teams in The American have won or lost to --- drilling down to two or three degrees removed from the game / conference being ranked.
10-20-2014 10:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tigers2B1 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,593
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 243
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #35
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-20-2014 11:52 AM)mlb Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:48 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:46 AM)mlb Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:40 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 10:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  RPI only can become trustworthy with a large sample size. It can work with basketball, not football.

What? With the OP in mind the 'sample size' certainly seems big enough. The American has played 70 games, 46 of them non-conference. The Mountain West has played 84, 46 non-conf. CUSA has played 89, 53 non-conf.

You obviously don't have a clue. You are talking about 6 games for each team. You cannot reliable rank them based on these formulas. You need 20+ games for each team to get anything reliable.

You obviously don't understand what the words "with the OP in mind" mean. Take a little more time before you respond next time, tay?

Ok, please explain it to me, the simpleton. What are you saying?

OK, after your review of both the post you quoted and my orginal post starting this thread you still don't understand what I'm saying ... how about this, since it's become obvious that you have no clue how RPI works. Go to GOOGLE or better, go to Wikipedia, and do a search. Educate yourself to some elemental degree then come back and ask again what I'm saying. It'll make it much easier. Thanks in advance.
(This post was last modified: 10-21-2014 09:09 PM by Tigers2B1.)
10-21-2014 09:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blunderbuss Offline
Banned

Posts: 19,649
Joined: Apr 2011
I Root For: ECU & the CSA
Location: Buzz City, NC
Post: #36
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-21-2014 09:09 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:52 AM)mlb Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:48 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:46 AM)mlb Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:40 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  What? With the OP in mind the 'sample size' certainly seems big enough. The American has played 70 games, 46 of them non-conference. The Mountain West has played 84, 46 non-conf. CUSA has played 89, 53 non-conf.

You obviously don't have a clue. You are talking about 6 games for each team. You cannot reliable rank them based on these formulas. You need 20+ games for each team to get anything reliable.

You obviously don't understand what the words "with the OP in mind" mean. Take a little more time before you respond next time, tay?

Ok, please explain it to me, the simpleton. What are you saying?

OK, after your review of both the post you quoted and my orginal post starting this thread you still don't understand what I'm saying ... how about this, since it's become obvious that you have no clue how RPI works. Go to GOOGLE or better, go to Wikipedia, and do a search. Educate yourself to some elemental degree then come back and ask again what I'm saying. It'll make it much easier. Thanks in advance.

Damn, you're ALMOST as stupid as the Marshall fans that post here.
10-21-2014 09:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tigers2B1 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,593
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 243
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #37
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-21-2014 09:28 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  
(10-21-2014 09:09 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:52 AM)mlb Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:48 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 11:46 AM)mlb Wrote:  You obviously don't have a clue. You are talking about 6 games for each team. You cannot reliable rank them based on these formulas. You need 20+ games for each team to get anything reliable.

You obviously don't understand what the words "with the OP in mind" mean. Take a little more time before you respond next time, tay?

Ok, please explain it to me, the simpleton. What are you saying?

OK, after your review of both the post you quoted and my orginal post starting this thread you still don't understand what I'm saying ... how about this, since it's become obvious that you have no clue how RPI works. Go to GOOGLE or better, go to Wikipedia, and do a search. Educate yourself to some elemental degree then come back and ask again what I'm saying. It'll make it much easier. Thanks in advance.

Damn, you're ALMOST as stupid as the Marshall fans that post here.

I expect nothing better from you.
10-21-2014 09:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #38
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-19-2014 09:10 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  At Realtime ->

http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/...f_Men.html

one day there will be a P7.based on your link we have to stop with the AAC/P6 league talk because the AAC is #7. So lets start rooting for a P7!!!
10-21-2014 10:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blunderbuss Offline
Banned

Posts: 19,649
Joined: Apr 2011
I Root For: ECU & the CSA
Location: Buzz City, NC
Post: #39
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-20-2014 07:10 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  
(10-20-2014 03:21 PM)ultraviolet Wrote:  
(10-19-2014 09:36 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  Most of these computer rankings are just nonsense…How in the world is UNC 37th??? They have a losing record and were beaten by Va Tech who is ranked below them….That is the problem with computer rankings, a lack of the ability to think rationally.

Aren't your opponents opponents factored in too?

Yep, from Wikipedia

"RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)"

The fewer games team plays the more worthless RPI is. A conference average of RPI 6-8 games into the season is possibly even more worthless.
10-21-2014 11:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mlb Offline
O' Great One
*

Posts: 20,276
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 540
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:

Donators
Post: #40
RE: RANKINGS: Mountain West #7, American #8, CUSA #9, Mid-American #10
(10-21-2014 09:09 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  OK, after your review of both the post you quoted and my orginal post starting this thread you still don't understand what I'm saying ... how about this, since it's become obvious that you have no clue how RPI works. Go to GOOGLE or better, go to Wikipedia, and do a search. Educate yourself to some elemental degree then come back and ask again what I'm saying. It'll make it much easier. Thanks in advance.

http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/rpi.html

Quote:The major reason the RPI is a poor model for determining team strength is because it is too simplistic to reliably differentiate teams, and relies completely on the assumption that winning % is a valid indicator of how strong a team is. Certainly there is expected to be a strong correlation between winning games and how good the team is, however when you attempt to rank actual teams against each other, the correlation is not as strong as one would think given the wide range in talent levels found within the Division I. If every school played the same schedule (meaning in practicality that they at least played every other school in Division I on a neutral court), then relying on winning % would prove much more valid. But the reality is that schedules are not the same and consist of playing games against teams with wide degrees of talent level. Perhaps most importantly, only a subset of the teams a school is being ranked against are actually met on the court. This exposes the critical flaw in the system. The fact that the rating is so simplistic prevents the rating from overcoming these basic problems.

Now move along. Everything you have posted here has been moronic.

10-22-2014 09:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.