(12-10-2017 04:32 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  RPI has everything to do with average winning % and nothing to do with where a team is in the RPI

Oh yeah? Then why does a win against a top RPI team move you up higher in the RPI than a win over a team with a bad RPI? Even if the teams have identical records.

(12-10-2017 05:39 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 04:32 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  RPI has everything to do with average winning % and nothing to do with where a team is in the RPI

Oh yeah? Then why does a win against a top RPI team move you up higher in the RPI than a win over a team with a bad RPI? Even if the teams have identical records.

Because it's opponents' opponents win percentages, too. Beating good (high win percentage) who beat other good teams will boost your RPI. Beating a 10-2 team that has played a lot of really bad teams will not help. And losing to one will kill ya.

(12-10-2017 07:51 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 05:39 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 04:32 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  RPI has everything to do with average winning % and nothing to do with where a team is in the RPI

Oh yeah? Then why does a win against a top RPI team move you up higher in the RPI than a win over a team with a bad RPI? Even if the teams have identical records.

Because it's opponents' opponents win percentages, too. Beating good (high win percentage) who beat other good teams will boost your RPI. Beating a 10-2 team that has played a lot of really bad teams will not help. And losing to one will kill ya.

Actually this is not necessarily true. Depends on what you are comparing it to and whether you are comparing it to something realistic. If you beat a 10-2 team whose opponents are collectively 15 games below .500 then it's going to be better than beating a 2-10 whose opponents are 15 games above .500 (and without doing the math I would say as high 40 games over .500). Reason? Last time I checked 50% is higher than 25%. That main opponent whether 10-2 or 2-10 is going to count double what that team's opponents records are and thus impact your own RPI to a higher degree. That is unless the 2-10 teams opponents are all undefeated, which isn't realistic. YG is correct here.

I am glad the league has improved this season, but I still don't get the obsession with RPI? The selection comm. will change the goal posts or use whatever criteria they can to exclude teams from conferences not with money and power....Even if we have a team go 28-4 and RPI is 18 and they lose in conference tournament semifinals do you really think they will get in over say Minnesota who is 23-11 in Big Ten with an RIP of 45? ...I just cannot get caught up in RPI discussion when it doesn't matter one iota when it comes down to Selection Sunday for conferences not in Power conferences with all the money...What does matter is seeding but really season starts in Conference Tournament for us and it looks like league winner this season may have min. of 4 losses in this conference....The only good thing maybe with improved teams this season is instead of getting a 15th seed with say a 24-9 record, maybe we get a 13th or 12th seed which can make a huge difference in winning that first round game....I do hope the days of this conference getting 14-16 seeds are over...

(12-11-2017 09:41 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  I am glad the league has improved this season, but I still don't get the obsession with RPI? The selection comm. will change the goal posts or use whatever criteria they can to exclude teams from conferences not with money and power....Even if we have a team go 28-4 and RPI is 18 and they lose in conference tournament semifinals do you really think they will get in over say Minnesota who is 23-11 in Big Ten with an RIP of 45? ...I just cannot get caught up in RPI discussion when it doesn't matter one iota when it comes down to Selection Sunday for conferences not in Power conferences with all the money...What does matter is seeding but really season starts in Conference Tournament for us and it looks like league winner this season may have min. of 4 losses in this conference....The only good thing maybe with improved teams this season is instead of getting a 15th seed with say a 24-9 record, maybe we get a 13th or 12th seed which can make a huge difference in winning that first round game....I do hope the days of this conference getting 14-16 seeds are over...

It does matter when you are talking about getting into an RPI that is that good. No team has ever been left out in the top 20. Only two have been snubbed that had an RPI in the 20's. A handful of teams between 30 and 35 have been left out but it's not a huge list.

What makes this year different is that the NCAA has already stated they are going to rely less on RPI this year and more on advanced metrics and other ratings such as Kenpom, BPI, and KPI will be used this year. RPI is now just going to be a fandom argument, so your point is well made in that regard.

(12-11-2017 11:20 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 09:41 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  I am glad the league has improved this season, but I still don't get the obsession with RPI? The selection comm. will change the goal posts or use whatever criteria they can to exclude teams from conferences not with money and power....Even if we have a team go 28-4 and RPI is 18 and they lose in conference tournament semifinals do you really think they will get in over say Minnesota who is 23-11 in Big Ten with an RIP of 45? ...I just cannot get caught up in RPI discussion when it doesn't matter one iota when it comes down to Selection Sunday for conferences not in Power conferences with all the money...What does matter is seeding but really season starts in Conference Tournament for us and it looks like league winner this season may have min. of 4 losses in this conference....The only good thing maybe with improved teams this season is instead of getting a 15th seed with say a 24-9 record, maybe we get a 13th or 12th seed which can make a huge difference in winning that first round game....I do hope the days of this conference getting 14-16 seeds are over...

It does matter when you are talking about getting into an RPI that is that good. No team has ever been left out in the top 20. Only two have been snubbed that had an RPI in the 20's. A handful of teams between 30 and 35 have been left out but it's not a huge list.

What makes this year different is that the NCAA has already stated they are going to rely less on RPI this year and more on advanced metrics and other ratings such as Kenpom, BPI, and KPI will be used this year. RPI is now just going to be a fandom argument, so your point is well made in that regard.

Here's a link to a list of those snubs. Not many sub-35 RPIs get sent to the bench, but they're all non-major programs.

I hope the NCAA is serious about diversifying their rating metrics. Too many people see the RPI as an immutable ranking that definitively determines team quality (But how can Big City U with a 41 RPI be in the tournament when Tinytown Tech with a 38 RPI isn't?) No formula, or combination of formula, will give you that. But we Americans love to have everything quantified.

This would be the perfect year to go to a fluid conference schedule that allows the top teams to play each other more often to keep their RPIs strong. I still have doubts that CUSA will get two bids but at least they'd be in the conversation for an at-large, and with more top teams in the NIT instead of Crazy Charlie's College Basketball Bonanza.

Good point we may have more teams in NIT this season than most similar to a few seasons ago when we had 3 teams in NIT...

Well doesn't RPI give you more for a road win?

What if teams played the exact same schedule and won/lost the same exact games. Team A won all home games and lost all road games. Team B lost all home games and won all road games. From what I understand in the RPI, Team B would have a higher RPI rating?

If that is correct and Team B has the higher RPI, would beating Team B end up being a better win than beating Team A who has the same record?

(12-11-2017 08:31 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  Well doesn't RPI give you more for a road win?

What if teams played the exact same schedule and won/lost the same exact games. Team A won all home games and lost all road games. Team B lost all home games and won all road games. From what I understand in the RPI, Team B would have a higher RPI rating?

If that is correct and Team B has the higher RPI, would beating Team B end up being a better win than beating Team A who has the same record?

False. For starters, you have ignored 25% of the formula which is opponent/opponents records. You would then also have to assume that every team that Team A and Team B played also played the exact same teams in their own non-conference which gets to be even more ridiculous than your example.

But even if that were the case their RPI would be exactly the same. Plus 1.4 for road wins. Minus 1.4 for home losses. Plus .6 for home wins. Minus .6 for road losses. If you run these out for a 30 game schedule or a 1000 times the net for this portion of the RPI is zero either way (of course that's assuming the same number of home and away games). There would be variance if there was an offset in the number of home vs. road games. The team that plays one more road game would have the advantage. At the end of the day if they played exact same schedules and inversely won the home and away games they would have the exact same numerical value for the "team winning percentage" variable of the RPI formula.

(12-11-2017 08:31 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  Well doesn't RPI give you more for a road win?

What if teams played the exact same schedule and won/lost the same exact games. Team A won all home games and lost all road games. Team B lost all home games and won all road games. From what I understand in the RPI, Team B would have a higher RPI rating?

If that is correct and Team B has the higher RPI, would beating Team B end up being a better win than beating Team A who has the same record?

Yes but not better for your RPI. You're correct that team B would have a higher RPI than team A but winning or losing a game played against either would have the same effect on your RPI calculation because the home/away adjustment only applies to your own winning percentage not to your opponent's (or your opponent's opponent's) winning percentages. So mathematically beating team A or team B would have the same effect on you RPI but I'd rather say I beat RPI ranking 49 than 51 so beating B is preferable.

(12-11-2017 10:10 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 08:31 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  Well doesn't RPI give you more for a road win?

What if teams played the exact same schedule and won/lost the same exact games. Team A won all home games and lost all road games. Team B lost all home games and won all road games. From what I understand in the RPI, Team B would have a higher RPI rating?

If that is correct and Team B has the higher RPI, would beating Team B end up being a better win than beating Team A who has the same record?

Yes but not better for your RPI. You're correct that team B would have a higher RPI than team A but winning or losing a game played against either would have the same effect on your RPI calculation because the home/away adjustment only applies to your own winning percentage not to your opponent's (or your opponent's opponent's) winning percentages. So mathematically beating team A or team B would have the same effect on you RPI but I'd rather say I beat RPI ranking 49 than 51 so beating B is preferable.

Thank you and everyone else who responded. This makes sense to me now. I never understood how RPI worked.

(12-11-2017 10:41 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 10:10 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 08:31 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  Well doesn't RPI give you more for a road win?

What if teams played the exact same schedule and won/lost the same exact games. Team A won all home games and lost all road games. Team B lost all home games and won all road games. From what I understand in the RPI, Team B would have a higher RPI rating?

If that is correct and Team B has the higher RPI, would beating Team B end up being a better win than beating Team A who has the same record?

Yes but not better for your RPI. You're correct that team B would have a higher RPI than team A but winning or losing a game played against either would have the same effect on your RPI calculation because the home/away adjustment only applies to your own winning percentage not to your opponent's (or your opponent's opponent's) winning percentages. So mathematically beating team A or team B would have the same effect on you RPI but I'd rather say I beat RPI ranking 49 than 51 so beating B is preferable.

Thank you and everyone else who responded. This makes sense to me now. I never understood how RPI worked.

Except mturn got the math problem wrong.

Team A: 15 games at home (all wins), which equals nine wins and 15 games on the road (all losses), which equals nine losses. Team A's wins pct for RPI purposes is 9/18=.500(.25)=.25

Team B 15 games at home (all losses), which equals 21 losses and 15 games on the road (all wins), which equals 21 wins. Team B's win pct. for RPI purposes 21/42=.500(.25)=.25

The .25 for both would be one quarter of the team's RPI. The other three quarters comes from opponents win pct (50% and in our example it would be a draw as well) and opponents opponents win pct (which accounts for the final 25%).

Going back to yg's original point, this is - in micro sense - how MT has been able to vaguely manipulate the RPI to our advantage. Can only imagine how impressive our RPI could be with a league at .500. If y'all keep it up this year we might get to find out.

One of those who contested his point said its not near as good to beat a team in a bad league as it is to lose to a team in good league. This defies the logic of the formula.

If you've noticed MT isn't exactly playing a lot of big name schools out of conference. Yes, we have a few SEC schools and mix in a tournament this year like Diamondhead which give us a shot at USC, but look at the non-conference schedule. Belmont, Murray, FGCU, and last year we had UNCW, Akron, etc.

These are all teams that are in conferences that are going to finish sub. 500 as a league almost every year but the teams we play from these bad conferences are the ones expected to win or be at the very near top. MT gets a lot of mileage out of beating sure fire 20+ win teams like Belmont and FGCU as they go through their own league's and bludgeon their weak opponents. Only 25% of the RPI is opponents opponents. The other 75% is did you win the game and the record of your opponent (that 50% is huge). Bottom line is the record of your opponent accounts for half of the RPI. Of course the problem is winning those games. When you are playing the top team from another league there is always a chance you will lose no matter how crappy the league is.

So, that's the trick folks. Play teams that are going to win lots of games and beat those teams. If you do that you too will have a nice looking RPI.

(12-11-2017 11:28 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 10:41 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 10:10 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 08:31 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  Well doesn't RPI give you more for a road win?

What if teams played the exact same schedule and won/lost the same exact games. Team A won all home games and lost all road games. Team B lost all home games and won all road games. From what I understand in the RPI, Team B would have a higher RPI rating?

If that is correct and Team B has the higher RPI, would beating Team B end up being a better win than beating Team A who has the same record?

Yes but not better for your RPI. You're correct that team B would have a higher RPI than team A but winning or losing a game played against either would have the same effect on your RPI calculation because the home/away adjustment only applies to your own winning percentage not to your opponent's (or your opponent's opponent's) winning percentages. So mathematically beating team A or team B would have the same effect on you RPI but I'd rather say I beat RPI ranking 49 than 51 so beating B is preferable.

Thank you and everyone else who responded. This makes sense to me now. I never understood how RPI worked.

Except mturn got the math problem wrong.

Team A: 15 games at home (all wins), which equals nine wins and 15 games on the road (all losses), which equals nine losses. Team A's wins pct for RPI purposes is 9/18=.500(.25)=.25

Team B 15 games at home (all losses), which equals 21 losses and 15 games on the road (all wins), which equals 21 wins. Team B's win pct. for RPI purposes 21/42=.500(.25)=.25

The .25 for both would be one quarter of the team's RPI. The other three quarters comes from opponents win pct (50% and in our example it would be a draw as well) and opponents opponents win pct (which accounts for the final 25%).

Edited:

No the denominator should be the same in both cases, 30. So:

Team A = 9/30 = .3

Team B = 21/30 = .7

15 home games weighted would be 9 games regardless of W/L and 15 away games would be 21.

(12-11-2017 11:37 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Going back to yg's original point, this is - in micro sense - how MT has been able to vaguely manipulate the RPI to our advantage. Can only imagine how impressive our RPI could be with a league at .500. If y'all keep it up this year we might get to find out.

One of those who contested his point said its not near as good to beat a team in a bad league as it is to lose to a team in good league. This defies the logic of the formula.

If you've noticed MT isn't exactly playing a lot of big name schools out of conference. Yes, we have a few SEC schools and mix in a tournament this year like Diamondhead which give us a shot at USC, but look at the non-conference schedule. Belmont, Murray, FGCU, and last year we had UNCW, Akron, etc.

These are all teams that are in conferences that are going to finish sub. 500 as a league almost every year but the teams we play from these bad conferences are the ones expected to win or be at the very near top. MT gets a lot of mileage out of beating sure fire 20+ win teams like Belmont and FGCU as they go through their own league's and bludgeon their weak opponents. Only 25% of the RPI is opponents opponents. The other 75% is did you win the game and the record of your opponent (that 50% is huge). Bottom line is the record of your opponent accounts for half of the RPI. Of course the problem is winning those games. When you are playing the top team from another league there is always a chance you will lose no matter how crappy the league is.

So, that's the trick folks. Play teams that are going to win lots of games and beat those teams. If you do that you too will have a nice looking RPI.

Yeah but you need the marquee wins as well.

(12-12-2017 12:03 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 11:37 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Going back to yg's original point, this is - in micro sense - how MT has been able to vaguely manipulate the RPI to our advantage. Can only imagine how impressive our RPI could be with a league at .500. If y'all keep it up this year we might get to find out.

One of those who contested his point said its not near as good to beat a team in a bad league as it is to lose to a team in good league. This defies the logic of the formula.

If you've noticed MT isn't exactly playing a lot of big name schools out of conference. Yes, we have a few SEC schools and mix in a tournament this year like Diamondhead which give us a shot at USC, but look at the non-conference schedule. Belmont, Murray, FGCU, and last year we had UNCW, Akron, etc.

These are all teams that are in conferences that are going to finish sub. 500 as a league almost every year but the teams we play from these bad conferences are the ones expected to win or be at the very near top. MT gets a lot of mileage out of beating sure fire 20+ win teams like Belmont and FGCU as they go through their own league's and bludgeon their weak opponents. Only 25% of the RPI is opponents opponents. The other 75% is did you win the game and the record of your opponent (that 50% is huge). Bottom line is the record of your opponent accounts for half of the RPI. Of course the problem is winning those games. When you are playing the top team from another league there is always a chance you will lose no matter how crappy the league is.

So, that's the trick folks. Play teams that are going to win lots of games and beat those teams. If you do that you too will have a nice looking RPI.

Yeah but you need the marquee wins as well.

Yep, for the knuckleheads on the selection committee. That above was more or less about making the numbers work.

I do not know what it means, but FAU has broken into the top 100 (94). We still have one more winnable game against ArkState but, then, we are playing two top40 teams to finish out our OOC schedule. Should be enough to drop us to RPI of about 150

(12-12-2017 12:06 AM)goliath74 Wrote:  I do not know what it means, but FAU has broken into the top 100 (94). We still have one more winnable game against ArkState but, then, we are playing two top40 teams to finish out our OOC schedule. Should be enough to drop us to RPI of about 150

You can sort of play around with it here: http://www.rpiforecast.com/wizard/Florid...antic.html

Here's the problem: As soon as mid-majors figure out how to work the RPI in their favor, the committee will use a different data point to justify selecting at-large teams only from P5 conferences. In fact, in the past few years, they've hinted at the fact that they are moving away from the RPI and using other advanced ratings. Basically, they will continue to move the mark to ensure they have an excuse to select middling P5 teams over a 24-6 mid-major.

(12-12-2017 09:36 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Here's the problem: As soon as mid-majors figure out how to work the RPI in their favor, the committee will use a different data point to justify selecting at-large teams only from P5 conferences. In fact, in the past few years, they've hinted at the fact that they are moving away from the RPI and using other advanced ratings. Basically, they will continue to move the mark to ensure they have an excuse to select middling P5 teams over a 24-6 mid-major.

They haven't hinted at it. They have already released information that they are changing the selection criteria this year. I mentioned this earlier in this thread.