I don't think it's too rpi dependent right now. My 71 rpi team is projected as a lock in D1 Phelan...

Well heck ... you guys have the teams, the records and even the final results.

Why don't you guys develop an algorithm that ranks them the way you want to see them ranked (using things like wins, record against top 25, record against rpi top 50, etc.)

Then once you have come up with the mathematical formula that does the ranking the way you think it should be ... test it in a couple more worlds and all 3 divisions.

Once you have it doing the rankings exactly as you expect, tell sable the formula.

Or maybe .. there is no real way to make the computer get it right all the time ...

Posted by hughesjr on 1/5/2012 10:45:00 AM (view original):
Well heck ... you guys have the teams, the records and even the final results.

Why don't you guys develop an algorithm that ranks them the way you want to see them ranked (using things like wins, record against top 25, record against rpi top 50, etc.)

Then once you have come up with the mathematical formula that does the ranking the way you think it should be ... test it in a couple more worlds and all 3 divisions.

Once you have it doing the rankings exactly as you expect, tell sable the formula.

Or maybe .. there is no real way to make the computer get it right all the time ...

I like it Hughes... time for me to do some research on Saragin ratings instead of being productive today ;)

Transparency isn't better simple because it's transparent.

Wholly-RPI-based seeding sucked.  Yeah, you knew what you were getting and why, but that doesn't mean it was a good system.