There are plenty of options to game the system right now.

The DIII home/road adequacy has been brought up before. There is NO reason to play home games in DIII.

However, many would argue that there's no reason to even be playing DIII right now. I know I'm not anymore.

Quote: Originally posted by jskenner on 9/21/2009You make a solid point, oldave. However, for me it comes down to a basic fact. In the comparison between A) beat a team with a poor record and B) lose to a team with a great record, RPI values B more. This is well-meaning (reward those who schedule tough), but ultimately and absolutely wrong. ANY team can lose to a good team (all it takes is scheduling the game), but it actually means something to WIN, no matter how bad the opponent. Any mathematical system used (almost) as a litmus test as a NT selection/seeding tool, needs to be more in line with the basic truth that it means more to beat a bad team than lose to a good one.

I don't get this. Any team can beat the Little Sisters of the Poor (all it takes is scheduling the game). What does that prove?

I think RPI is a pretty good measure, all things considered.

mrpolo, rather than mess around with the weights of the factors in the RPI, I would rather see something that uses SOS as a multiplicative factor to adjust the AWP (adjusted winning percentage). For example consider this hypothetical rating system:



I chose the factors here so that if SOS = .500 then HRS is the same as AWP. If your SOS is above .500, then HRS is greater than AWP; if SOS is below .500 then HRS is less than AWP.

Someone would have to crunch all the numbers to see if this formula really works -- I'm not going to since there is no chance that it gets adopted.

Actually after a little thought I see that the formula is flawed at the low end; when the AWP and SOS combined are less than .25 it starts increasing for lower SOS. Doesn't matter for comparing good teams though.