(02-28-2013 12:40 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:38 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:22 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:18 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:07 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  "Margin of Victory" inherently implies that victories are accounted for in the metric. Strength of Schedule is accounted as well.

But you seem to be focusing directly on Pomeroy's system (efficiency), what about Sagarin, Massey, BMI?

The only things that matter are wins and losses. By being measured against your opponents' wins and losses and their opponents' wins and losses, you get a very accurate and very fair measure of who the best teams are.

Adding all the other stuff doesn't matter and that's why the selection committee doesn't give a crap about it. It's meaningless.

But it's not accurate.



The RPI is not the Real Predictive Indicator

The RPI is the worst indicator of "which team is better" in this study, clearly worse than Kenpom in all categories.

Whether or not it is better or worse as a predictive metric is fairly irrelevant as the NCAA clearly uses it. It may be imperfect, but it is a tool the powers that be use in selection and rankings.

However, it's just one tool. From the Seth Davis article, they seem to reference A LOT of other metrics to determine where to place teams...

Again, I'm not in the room. I think they just pick the minimum number of non-big 6 teams and then fill the rest with as many of the BCS 19-13 77 RPI types as they think we will swallow...

RPI is always quoted. They might look at other stuff, but every single time they are asked to justify their decisions; out comes the RPI.

Unless they're screwing a Missouri State team or letting in a sub .500 BCS team with a 55+ RPI, then they zip their lips on the subject.

(02-28-2013 12:43 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:38 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:35 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 11:47 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Only the RPI is referenced by the selection committee.

Stammers, I actually thought pretty much the same thing until reading this:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...-thoughts/

"Debunking Selection Sunday's biggest myths" - Seth Davis (Mock NCAA Selection Participant"

Quote:I won't get into the tiresome debate about the RPI, but I do want to point out that much of the complaining is based on a myth -- namely, that the committee ignores the other valid metrics that are readily available. In fact, every member of the committee is not only free to look at other rankings, they are encouraged to do so.

On the NCAA's own internal website, there is a link that reads "Links to Other Sites." Those sites are: NCAA RPI, Polls, Sagarin Ratings, CollegeRPI.com, RPI Ratings, LRMC Rankings, Pomeroy Rankings, Composite Ranking, Conference Monitoring, ESPN BPI.

Jeanie Boyd, a veteran NCAA staffer who works closely with the committee from inside the room, told us that she has seen members arrive at selection week with their own rankings that aren't among those listed. Those other metrics are definitely a part of the discussion. If there is a big discrepancy between the rankings, the committee will go into a discussion to probe further into the numbers.

caveat, this was a MOCK process and for all we know, the committee throws darts at boards for 6 days and drinks beer.

I think the point is, the committee uses a vast range of inputs to come to their conclusions. However, RPI is certainly 'the industry standard' and a place to start the discussion. And a great RPI doesn't mean automatic acceptance (the most glaring case I can remember is the Missouri State - 20 RPI snub).

So, I'd say:

1. RPI is very important and having a good one is a major plus, while having a bad one is often fatal.
2. It is not the sole metric used, but it is the 'industry standard'.
3. It is irrelevant our own feelings on the RPI (I think you can game it), it is still a factor.
4. However, it's only one factor.

I'm curious about threads / comments that reference us as a bubble team or needing to win out or auto bid. Seems pretty rough to me. I think we're pretty much in, but it's 1 6-12 seed at stake.

As always, all of the above is just my very humble opinion.

People have shown him this in multiple threads. He'll ignore it, then probably insult you or make a comment about an agenda.

I don't think the specific article had been quoted, and as I said, I actually thought the same until recently (I can't process everything in my own life, I generally don't concern myself with the NCAA selection details, I just make educated guesses on watching lots of Selection Sundays)

I don't see an agenda in either of you actually:

You: The RPI is not a good metric (I'm inclined to agree)
Stammers: The RPI is the only metric used (Not true, but it is the first one they go to) and a high RPI should protect our bid and hopefully help our seed (both true I think).

The rest is really just noise, correct?

Correct. This is just a discussion. Frankly, I don't get the "agenda" stuff, and I don't really understand what my "agenda" is supposed to be. Discrediting the RPI?

(02-28-2013 12:45 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:40 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:38 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:22 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:18 PM)Stammers Wrote:  The only things that matter are wins and losses. By being measured against your opponents' wins and losses and their opponents' wins and losses, you get a very accurate and very fair measure of who the best teams are.

Adding all the other stuff doesn't matter and that's why the selection committee doesn't give a crap about it. It's meaningless.

But it's not accurate.



The RPI is not the Real Predictive Indicator

The RPI is the worst indicator of "which team is better" in this study, clearly worse than Kenpom in all categories.

Whether or not it is better or worse as a predictive metric is fairly irrelevant as the NCAA clearly uses it. It may be imperfect, but it is a tool the powers that be use in selection and rankings.

However, it's just one tool. From the Seth Davis article, they seem to reference A LOT of other metrics to determine where to place teams...

Again, I'm not in the room. I think they just pick the minimum number of non-big 6 teams and then fill the rest with as many of the BCS 19-13 77 RPI types as they think we will swallow...

RPI is always quoted. They might look at other stuff, but every single time they are asked to justify their decisions; out comes the RPI.

Unless they're screwing a Missouri State team or letting in a sub .500 BCS team with a 55+ RPI, then they zip their lips on the subject.

When they mention top 50 wins, they are always referencing the RPI.

(02-28-2013 12:41 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:38 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  Whether or not it is better or worse as a predictive metric is fairly irrelevant as the NCAA clearly uses it. It may be imperfect, but it is a tool the powers that be use in selection and rankings.

However, it's just one tool. From the Seth Davis article, they seem to reference A LOT of other metrics to determine where to place teams...

Again, I'm not in the room. I think they just pick the minimum number of non-big 6 teams and then fill the rest with as many of the BCS 19-13 77 RPI types as they think we will swallow...

We all know the NCAA uses RPI. They use it as "the main metric" when looking at a team's record. They can use others, but RPI is the "industry standard".

The argument is that it's subpar to most of the other measurements out there at determining the better team, and should be discarded.

I have no problem with it being used, so long as it is not the end all / be all.

I think trying to find a metric that is perfect (i.e. seed / select with only that metric) is fool's good.

There was an odd movie a while back called 'Pi' (not 'Life of', just 'Pi' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_(film) ) and this line was part of the opening dialogue:

Quote:Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.

As a designer and architect, that line is anathema to everything I understand about the process of creation and many other things including love, passion, will, etc.

We as a people want to quantify everything and have perfect metrics. Is it really such a bad thing if the NCAA committee uses some gut analysis, same as we all do, everyday?

The RPI is not perfect, but perfect metrics don't exist and really aren't even rational goals in a complex world in my opinion...

(02-28-2013 12:49 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:45 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:40 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:38 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:22 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  But it's not accurate.



The RPI is not the Real Predictive Indicator

The RPI is the worst indicator of "which team is better" in this study, clearly worse than Kenpom in all categories.

Whether or not it is better or worse as a predictive metric is fairly irrelevant as the NCAA clearly uses it. It may be imperfect, but it is a tool the powers that be use in selection and rankings.

However, it's just one tool. From the Seth Davis article, they seem to reference A LOT of other metrics to determine where to place teams...

Again, I'm not in the room. I think they just pick the minimum number of non-big 6 teams and then fill the rest with as many of the BCS 19-13 77 RPI types as they think we will swallow...

RPI is always quoted. They might look at other stuff, but every single time they are asked to justify their decisions; out comes the RPI.

Unless they're screwing a Missouri State team or letting in a sub .500 BCS team with a 55+ RPI, then they zip their lips on the subject.

When they mention top 50 wins, they are always referencing the RPI.

I've no argument for that, you are 100% correct on that point.

(02-28-2013 12:07 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:03 PM)memphis mania Wrote:  Why keep tab on who won the games then? If it's just by per possesion, who cares who won?

"Margin of Victory" inherently implies that victories are accounted for in the metric. Strength of Schedule is accounted as well.

But you seem to be focusing directly on Pomeroy's system (efficiency), what about Sagarin, Massey, BMI?

I think it's just stupid to say, "Well even though you didn't come up with as many wins as that other team even though you had the exact same schedule, you are going to get a nod over them because overall you played each possession better."

Pom and Sag do the per possession well, but comparing teams on who you beat and who you lost to basis, RPI does that.

(02-28-2013 12:52 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  I have no problem with it being used, so long as it is not the end all / be all.

I think trying to find a metric that is perfect (i.e. seed / select with only that metric) is fool's good.

There was an odd movie a while back called 'Pi' (not 'Life of', just 'Pi' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_(film) ) and this line was part of the opening dialogue:

Quote:Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.

As a designer and architect, that line is anathema to everything I understand about the process of creation and many other things including love, passion, will, etc.

We as a people want to quantify everything and have perfect metrics. Is it really such a bad thing if the NCAA committee uses some gut analysis, same as we all do, everyday?

The RPI is not perfect, but perfect metrics don't exist and really aren't even rational goals in a complex world in my opinion...

I liked "Pi".

And I agree that there are no perfect metrics. But some are better than others, and the RPI has been shown to be worse than most. Leave the archaic RPI in the past and start using some more accurate measures. We'll all get a better tournament experience because of it.

(02-28-2013 12:58 PM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:07 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:03 PM)memphis mania Wrote:  Why keep tab on who won the games then? If it's just by per possesion, who cares who won?

"Margin of Victory" inherently implies that victories are accounted for in the metric. Strength of Schedule is accounted as well.

But you seem to be focusing directly on Pomeroy's system (efficiency), what about Sagarin, Massey, BMI?

I think it's just stupid to say, "Well even though you didn't come up with as many wins as that other team even though you had the exact same schedule, you are going to get a nod over them because overall you played each possession better."

Pom and Sag do the per possession well, but comparing teams on who you beat and who you lost to basis, RPI does that.

Well, first, if each team somehow played the same exact schedule, then seeding teams would be a lot easier.

But the reality is no two teams play the same schedule.

Also, you may want to look into how Sagarin actually does his rankings. He doesn't do "per possession" numbers like you keep stating. If you are concered strictly with W/L, then his "Elo Chess" rating is for you. Much better than the RPI.

"Sagarin, like the developers of many other sports rating systems, does not divulge the exact methodology behind his system. He offers two rating systems, each of which gives each team a certain number of points. One system, "Elo chess," is presumably based on the Elo rating system used internationally to rank chess players. This system uses only wins and losses with no reference to the victory margin. The other system, "Predictor," takes victory margin into account. For that system the difference in two teams' rating scores is meant to predict the margin of victory for the stronger team at a neutral venue. For both systems teams gain higher ratings within the Sagarin system by winning games against stronger opponents, factoring in such things as home-venue advantage."

(02-28-2013 12:58 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:52 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  I have no problem with it being used, so long as it is not the end all / be all.

I think trying to find a metric that is perfect (i.e. seed / select with only that metric) is fool's good.

There was an odd movie a while back called 'Pi' (not 'Life of', just 'Pi' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_(film) ) and this line was part of the opening dialogue:

Quote:Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.

As a designer and architect, that line is anathema to everything I understand about the process of creation and many other things including love, passion, will, etc.

We as a people want to quantify everything and have perfect metrics. Is it really such a bad thing if the NCAA committee uses some gut analysis, same as we all do, everyday?

The RPI is not perfect, but perfect metrics don't exist and really aren't even rational goals in a complex world in my opinion...

I liked "Pi".

And I agree that there are no perfect metrics. But some are better than others, and the RPI has been shown to be worse than most. Leave the archaic RPI in the past and start using some more accurate measures. We'll all get a better tournament experience because of it.

I was pretty horrified by Pi, but I am a huge wimp (the ending? gross....) and not a math lover (despite doing very well at it in school), so I am not the target demographic... Might rewatch it, it's been a while.

No argument on your point. I prefer KenPom, but it is what it is. I just hope the committee doesn't Missouri State someone this year.

(02-28-2013 01:07 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:58 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:52 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  I have no problem with it being used, so long as it is not the end all / be all.

I think trying to find a metric that is perfect (i.e. seed / select with only that metric) is fool's good.

There was an odd movie a while back called 'Pi' (not 'Life of', just 'Pi' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_(film) ) and this line was part of the opening dialogue:

Quote:Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.

As a designer and architect, that line is anathema to everything I understand about the process of creation and many other things including love, passion, will, etc.

We as a people want to quantify everything and have perfect metrics. Is it really such a bad thing if the NCAA committee uses some gut analysis, same as we all do, everyday?

The RPI is not perfect, but perfect metrics don't exist and really aren't even rational goals in a complex world in my opinion...

I liked "Pi".

And I agree that there are no perfect metrics. But some are better than others, and the RPI has been shown to be worse than most. Leave the archaic RPI in the past and start using some more accurate measures. We'll all get a better tournament experience because of it.

I was pretty horrified by Pi, but I am a huge wimp (the ending? gross....) and not a math lover (despite doing very well at it in school), so I am not the target demographic... Might rewatch it, it's been a while.

No argument on your point. I prefer KenPom, but it is what it is. I just hope the committee doesn't Missouri State someone this year.

As long as that someone is not us, then I won't complain.

(02-28-2013 12:58 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:52 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  I have no problem with it being used, so long as it is not the end all / be all.

I think trying to find a metric that is perfect (i.e. seed / select with only that metric) is fool's good.

There was an odd movie a while back called 'Pi' (not 'Life of', just 'Pi' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_(film) ) and this line was part of the opening dialogue:

Quote:Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.

As a designer and architect, that line is anathema to everything I understand about the process of creation and many other things including love, passion, will, etc.

We as a people want to quantify everything and have perfect metrics. Is it really such a bad thing if the NCAA committee uses some gut analysis, same as we all do, everyday?

The RPI is not perfect, but perfect metrics don't exist and really aren't even rational goals in a complex world in my opinion...

I liked "Pi".

And I agree that there are no perfect metrics. But some are better than others, and the RPI has been shown to be worse than most. Leave the archaic RPI in the past and start using some more accurate measures. We'll all get a better tournament experience because of it.

The RPI is easily the best because it counts the only things that matter; namely wins and losses. Teams are measured against other teams based on wins and losses and their opponents' wins and losses. There are so many games. (your 32 plus games, your opponents 1,000 plus games and your opponents opponents 1,000 plus games), that is more than enough of a sample to get an accurate measure of SOS.

None of the other stuff matters. Most of the results are based on data that is tainted and meaningless.

(02-28-2013 01:24 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:58 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:52 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  I have no problem with it being used, so long as it is not the end all / be all.

I think trying to find a metric that is perfect (i.e. seed / select with only that metric) is fool's good.

There was an odd movie a while back called 'Pi' (not 'Life of', just 'Pi' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_(film) ) and this line was part of the opening dialogue:

Quote:Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.

As a designer and architect, that line is anathema to everything I understand about the process of creation and many other things including love, passion, will, etc.

We as a people want to quantify everything and have perfect metrics. Is it really such a bad thing if the NCAA committee uses some gut analysis, same as we all do, everyday?

The RPI is not perfect, but perfect metrics don't exist and really aren't even rational goals in a complex world in my opinion...

I liked "Pi".

And I agree that there are no perfect metrics. But some are better than others, and the RPI has been shown to be worse than most. Leave the archaic RPI in the past and start using some more accurate measures. We'll all get a better tournament experience because of it.

The RPI is easily the best because it counts the only things that matter; namely wins and losses. Teams are measured against other teams based on wins and losses and their opponents' wins and losses. There are so many games. (your 32 plus games, your opponents 1,000 plus games and your opponents opponents 1,000 plus games), that is more than enough of a sample to get an accurate measure of SOS.

None of the other stuff matters. Most of the results are based on data that is tainted and meaningless.

But's it been proven that it's not the best. That's the point that you won't address. It's used because it's the easiest to understand.

Also, please address Sagarin's "Elo Score" system in your next response, if you would, which doesn't take "margin of victory" into account.

(02-28-2013 01:51 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 01:24 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:58 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:52 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  I have no problem with it being used, so long as it is not the end all / be all.

I think trying to find a metric that is perfect (i.e. seed / select with only that metric) is fool's good.

There was an odd movie a while back called 'Pi' (not 'Life of', just 'Pi' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_(film) ) and this line was part of the opening dialogue:

Quote:Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.

As a designer and architect, that line is anathema to everything I understand about the process of creation and many other things including love, passion, will, etc.

We as a people want to quantify everything and have perfect metrics. Is it really such a bad thing if the NCAA committee uses some gut analysis, same as we all do, everyday?

The RPI is not perfect, but perfect metrics don't exist and really aren't even rational goals in a complex world in my opinion...

I liked "Pi".

And I agree that there are no perfect metrics. But some are better than others, and the RPI has been shown to be worse than most. Leave the archaic RPI in the past and start using some more accurate measures. We'll all get a better tournament experience because of it.

The RPI is easily the best because it counts the only things that matter; namely wins and losses. Teams are measured against other teams based on wins and losses and their opponents' wins and losses. There are so many games. (your 32 plus games, your opponents 1,000 plus games and your opponents opponents 1,000 plus games), that is more than enough of a sample to get an accurate measure of SOS.

None of the other stuff matters. Most of the results are based on data that is tainted and meaningless.

But's it been proven that it's not the best. That's the point that you won't address. It's used because it's the easiest to understand.

Also, please address Sagarin's "Elo Score" system in your next response, if you would, which doesn't take "margin of victory" into account.

This is pretty interesting discussion, I think you both have some pretty solid points. Way to argue the facts and keep punch above the belt. +3 to both of you.

(02-28-2013 01:51 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 01:24 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:58 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:52 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  I have no problem with it being used, so long as it is not the end all / be all.

I think trying to find a metric that is perfect (i.e. seed / select with only that metric) is fool's good.

There was an odd movie a while back called 'Pi' (not 'Life of', just 'Pi' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_(film) ) and this line was part of the opening dialogue:

Quote:Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.

As a designer and architect, that line is anathema to everything I understand about the process of creation and many other things including love, passion, will, etc.

We as a people want to quantify everything and have perfect metrics. Is it really such a bad thing if the NCAA committee uses some gut analysis, same as we all do, everyday?

The RPI is not perfect, but perfect metrics don't exist and really aren't even rational goals in a complex world in my opinion...

I liked "Pi".

And I agree that there are no perfect metrics. But some are better than others, and the RPI has been shown to be worse than most. Leave the archaic RPI in the past and start using some more accurate measures. We'll all get a better tournament experience because of it.

The RPI is easily the best because it counts the only things that matter; namely wins and losses. Teams are measured against other teams based on wins and losses and their opponents' wins and losses. There are so many games. (your 32 plus games, your opponents 1,000 plus games and your opponents opponents 1,000 plus games), that is more than enough of a sample to get an accurate measure of SOS.

None of the other stuff matters. Most of the results are based on data that is tainted and meaningless.

But's it been proven that it's not the best. That's the point that you won't address. It's used because it's the easiest to understand.

Also, please address Sagarin's "Elo Score" system in your next response, if you would, which doesn't take "margin of victory" into account.

ELO attaches a greater importance to victories against strong opponents. For this reason, it is both flawed and biased. Teams in non BCS conferences get few opportunities to beat strong opponents and get virtually no opportunities at all on their home floor. Every game should have the same value assigned to it based on the strength of the opponent and the opponent's opponents.

When a system rewards Team A, that has 12 opportunities for a quality win within the same peer group as Team B, that has 3 opportunities for similar quality wins; that system is flawed and the results invalid. When you consider that the team with 12 opportunities will probably have 6 on their home floor, and the peer will probably have none; it is exponentially flawed.

When that same system does not assign a greater value to losing to bad teams, it becomes a farce.

(02-28-2013 03:32 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 01:51 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 01:24 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:58 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:52 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  I have no problem with it being used, so long as it is not the end all / be all.

I think trying to find a metric that is perfect (i.e. seed / select with only that metric) is fool's good.

There was an odd movie a while back called 'Pi' (not 'Life of', just 'Pi' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_(film) ) and this line was part of the opening dialogue:


As a designer and architect, that line is anathema to everything I understand about the process of creation and many other things including love, passion, will, etc.

We as a people want to quantify everything and have perfect metrics. Is it really such a bad thing if the NCAA committee uses some gut analysis, same as we all do, everyday?

The RPI is not perfect, but perfect metrics don't exist and really aren't even rational goals in a complex world in my opinion...

I liked "Pi".

And I agree that there are no perfect metrics. But some are better than others, and the RPI has been shown to be worse than most. Leave the archaic RPI in the past and start using some more accurate measures. We'll all get a better tournament experience because of it.

The RPI is easily the best because it counts the only things that matter; namely wins and losses. Teams are measured against other teams based on wins and losses and their opponents' wins and losses. There are so many games. (your 32 plus games, your opponents 1,000 plus games and your opponents opponents 1,000 plus games), that is more than enough of a sample to get an accurate measure of SOS.

None of the other stuff matters. Most of the results are based on data that is tainted and meaningless.

But's it been proven that it's not the best. That's the point that you won't address. It's used because it's the easiest to understand.

Also, please address Sagarin's "Elo Score" system in your next response, if you would, which doesn't take "margin of victory" into account.

ELO attaches a greater importance to victories against strong opponents. For this reason, it is both flawed and biased. Teams in non BCS conferences get few opportunities to beat strong opponents and get virtually no opportunities at all on their home floor. Every game should have the same value assigned to it based on the strength of the opponent and the opponent's opponents.

When a system rewards Team A, that has 12 opportunities for a quality win within the same peer group as Team B, that has 3 opportunities for similar quality wins; that system is flawed and the results invalid. When you consider that the team with 12 opportunities will probably have 6 on their home floor, and the peer will probably have none; it is exponentially flawed.

When that same system does not assign a greater value to losing to bad teams, it becomes a farce.

So are you for Strength of schedule or against it? You try to argue both sides of the coin here.

Sagarin's model doesn't care if you're BCS or not. It's SOS value evolves over the season as does the RPI.

If you're trying to argue BCS bias, it affects the RPI just as much as it does Elo.

(02-28-2013 05:25 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 03:32 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 01:51 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 01:24 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-28-2013 12:58 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  I liked "Pi".

And I agree that there are no perfect metrics. But some are better than others, and the RPI has been shown to be worse than most. Leave the archaic RPI in the past and start using some more accurate measures. We'll all get a better tournament experience because of it.

The RPI is easily the best because it counts the only things that matter; namely wins and losses. Teams are measured against other teams based on wins and losses and their opponents' wins and losses. There are so many games. (your 32 plus games, your opponents 1,000 plus games and your opponents opponents 1,000 plus games), that is more than enough of a sample to get an accurate measure of SOS.

None of the other stuff matters. Most of the results are based on data that is tainted and meaningless.

But's it been proven that it's not the best. That's the point that you won't address. It's used because it's the easiest to understand.

Also, please address Sagarin's "Elo Score" system in your next response, if you would, which doesn't take "margin of victory" into account.

ELO attaches a greater importance to victories against strong opponents. For this reason, it is both flawed and biased. Teams in non BCS conferences get few opportunities to beat strong opponents and get virtually no opportunities at all on their home floor. Every game should have the same value assigned to it based on the strength of the opponent and the opponent's opponents.

When a system rewards Team A, that has 12 opportunities for a quality win within the same peer group as Team B, that has 3 opportunities for similar quality wins; that system is flawed and the results invalid. When you consider that the team with 12 opportunities will probably have 6 on their home floor, and the peer will probably have none; it is exponentially flawed.

When that same system does not assign a greater value to losing to bad teams, it becomes a farce.

So are you for Strength of schedule or against it? You try to argue both sides of the coin here.

Sagarin's model doesn't care if you're BCS or not. It's SOS value evolves over the season as does the RPI.

If you're trying to argue BCS bias, it affects the RPI just as much as it does Elo.

I'm against anything that measures SOS in a way other than wins and losses, and of course I'm against any measure that gives greater value to wins against tough competition.

Well, Sagarin's ELO model measures SOS via wins and losses. Everyone starts off tied for first before any games are played, and then teams are spread over the spectrum of 1-344 as they win/lose.

Effectively, both ELO and RPI give "greater value to wins against tough competition", so you can't really mean that. A win against a high RPI team (a team with a good winning pct, good O winning pct and good OO winning pct) jumps your RPI score significantly, thus conveying greater value for defeating a greater opponent. As opposed to playing a very low RPI opponent, winning handily and possibly losing ground in the RPI rankings (this is one of my biggest concerns over the RPI). This is the crux of any SOS weighted system.

(03-01-2013 09:09 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  Well, Sagarin's ELO model measures SOS via wins and losses. Everyone starts off tied for first before any games are played, and then teams are spread over the spectrum of 1-344 as they win/lose.

Effectively, both ELO and RPI give "greater value to wins against tough competition", so you can't really mean that. A win against a high RPI team (a team with a good winning pct, good O winning pct and good OO winning pct) jumps your RPI score significantly, thus conveying greater value for defeating a greater opponent. As opposed to playing a very low RPI opponent, winning handily and possibly losing ground in the RPI rankings (this is one of my biggest concerns over the RPI). This is the crux of any SOS weighted system.

This is not true. The RPI gives the same value to a win or a loss with the only variable being the location of the game. Math then determines the value of the win/loss based on data from wins and losses.

ELO assigns an arbitrary value in addition to the mathematical calculation, based on the opponent's strength; which is disproportionally weighted based on the strength of the opponent. In addition, the predictor is biased and is used in tandem with ELO.

If I am wrong in assuming this, please explain why in detail.

Does ELO or a similar weighted system have its place? I think it does. A great example would be with professional golf. The 4 majors are bigger tournaments and victories carry a greater importance. In NCAA basketball, none of the games are more or less important, when considering a team's overall body of work.

(03-01-2013 10:20 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 09:09 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  Well, Sagarin's ELO model measures SOS via wins and losses. Everyone starts off tied for first before any games are played, and then teams are spread over the spectrum of 1-344 as they win/lose.

Effectively, both ELO and RPI give "greater value to wins against tough competition", so you can't really mean that. A win against a high RPI team (a team with a good winning pct, good O winning pct and good OO winning pct) jumps your RPI score significantly, thus conveying greater value for defeating a greater opponent. As opposed to playing a very low RPI opponent, winning handily and possibly losing ground in the RPI rankings (this is one of my biggest concerns over the RPI). This is the crux of any SOS weighted system.

This is not true. The RPI gives the same value to a win or a loss with the only variable being the location of the game. Math then determines the value of the win/loss based on data from wins and losses.

ELO assigns an arbitrary value in addition to the mathematical calculation, based on the opponent's strength; which is disproportionally weighted based on the strength of the opponent. In addition, the predictor is biased and is used in tandem with ELO.

If I am wrong in assuming this, please explain why in detail.

Does ELO or a similar weighted system have its place? I think it does. A great example would be with professional golf. The 4 majors are bigger tournaments and victories carry a greater importance. In NCAA basketball, none of the games are more or less important, when considering a team's overall body of work.

Ah, but that's only part of the calculation. Your RPI, inherently, takes into account each opponent's win pct and each of their opponent's win pct. Therefore, playing a tougher opponent (a higher RPI team) is of more value than playing a weak opponent. Each win is not treated equally in the RPI's eyes, when looking past each respective team's win pct.

Just think, if the Tigers, at RPI 18 or so as of today, played and beat Miami tomorrow, our RPI would improve significantly because we just beat the RPI #2 team, who has a great win pct and whose opponents have a great win pct. Conversely, if we play and beat Kennesaw State RPI #341, our RPI score barely increases and because other teams grouped around us in the RPI probably played better teams, our RPI rank will slip.

The RPI is weighted by SOS just like all other metrics.

Also, Sagarin's ELO and Predictor are two separate metrics, the predictor doesn't care what your wins/losses are, it only cares about the scores of your games. He combines both to get his "Sagarin rankings".

The ELO rankings assign no more arbitrary numbers than the RPI with its .25s, .5s, .6s and 1.4s.

(03-01-2013 10:39 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 10:20 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 09:09 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  Well, Sagarin's ELO model measures SOS via wins and losses. Everyone starts off tied for first before any games are played, and then teams are spread over the spectrum of 1-344 as they win/lose.

Effectively, both ELO and RPI give "greater value to wins against tough competition", so you can't really mean that. A win against a high RPI team (a team with a good winning pct, good O winning pct and good OO winning pct) jumps your RPI score significantly, thus conveying greater value for defeating a greater opponent. As opposed to playing a very low RPI opponent, winning handily and possibly losing ground in the RPI rankings (this is one of my biggest concerns over the RPI). This is the crux of any SOS weighted system.

This is not true. The RPI gives the same value to a win or a loss with the only variable being the location of the game. Math then determines the value of the win/loss based on data from wins and losses.

ELO assigns an arbitrary value in addition to the mathematical calculation, based on the opponent's strength; which is disproportionally weighted based on the strength of the opponent. In addition, the predictor is biased and is used in tandem with ELO.

If I am wrong in assuming this, please explain why in detail.

Does ELO or a similar weighted system have its place? I think it does. A great example would be with professional golf. The 4 majors are bigger tournaments and victories carry a greater importance. In NCAA basketball, none of the games are more or less important, when considering a team's overall body of work.

Ah, but that's only part of the calculation. Your RPI, inherently, takes into account each opponent's win pct and each of their opponent's win pct. Therefore, playing a tougher opponent (a higher RPI team) is of more value than playing a weak opponent. Each win is not treated equally in the RPI's eyes, when looking past each respective team's win pct.

Just think, if the Tigers, at RPI 18 or so as of today, played and beat Miami tomorrow, our RPI would improve significantly because we just beat the RPI #2 team, who has a great win pct and whose opponents have a great win pct. Conversely, if we play and beat Kennesaw State RPI #341, our RPI score barely increases and because other teams grouped around us in the RPI probably played better teams, our RPI rank will slip.

The RPI is weighted by SOS just like all other metrics.

Also, Sagarin's ELO and Predictor are two separate metrics, the predictor doesn't care what your wins/losses are, it only cares about the scores of your games. He combines both to get his "Sagarin rankings".

The ELO rankings assign no more arbitrary numbers than the RPI with its .25s, .5s, .6s and 1.4s.

First, with the RPI, SOS is weighted solely based on data derived from wins and losses. Second, the values you describe for RPI are not attached to any specific team or any component of performance.