Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 3/10/2010

Quote: Originally posted by doomey on 3/10/2010
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Dude if the RPI didn't figure in quality oppenents it would be garbage and wouldn't be used. If you beat a good team your rpi rises, if you lose to bad one, it drops. Everything else is variants in between. How hard is that? "Special attention paid"... Bah!

He's right though(With regards to RPI in isolation): Unless I"m looking at it wrong, RPI doesn't have that level of granularity; it doesn't look at individual games, only aggregates. It looks at your OVERALL winning percentage, your opponents aggregate winning percentage and your opponent's opponent's aggregate winning percentage. Nowhere in that formula does it even attempt to look at specific games. If you are nine and one against a schedule that has only three losses among it(Other than the losses to you), all to the same team, it doesn't matter if you lose to one of the teams that is undefeated aside from you, or to the team with the three losses(Aside from you) The numerical result is the same


Nor should it. That is the job of the committee. Those aggregates guage the level of your competition as a whole, not through any filter of hype for one game or another. Your scenario isn't applicable because no teams play identical schedules and win/loss is mitigated by home or away. Did I beat all 3 on the road, did I lose to the undefeated at home? colonels just tends to generalize the RPI as GIGO just because it chooses not to look at one or two games as defining a season. As I keep saying, it is a tool, not an end result. It just ends up that way here because there is no committee to temper it with analysis; something I don't think any forumula can do to anyone's satisfaction. No formula is going to take injury into concideration, for instance. The committee does.

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 3/11/2010

Nor should it. That is the job of the committee. Those aggregates guage the level of your competition as a whole, not through any filter of hype for one game or another. Your scenario isn't applicable because no teams play identical schedules and win/loss is mitigated by home or away. Did I beat all 3 on the road, did I lose to the undefeated at home? colonels just tends to generalize the RPI as GIGO just because it chooses not to look at one or two games as defining a season. As I keep saying, it is a tool, not an end result. It just ends up that way here because there is no committee to temper it with analysis; something I don't think any forumula can do to anyone's satisfaction. No formula is going to take injury into concideration, for instance. The committee does.

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 3/11/2010And we are back to your rankings...

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 3/11/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 3/11/2010

Nor should it. That is the job of the committee. Those aggregates guage the level of your competition as a whole, not through any filter of hype for one game or another. Your scenario isn't applicable because no teams play identical schedules and win/loss is mitigated by home or away. Did I beat all 3 on the road, did I lose to the undefeated at home? colonels just tends to generalize the RPI as GIGO just because it chooses not to look at one or two games as defining a season. As I keep saying, it is a tool, not an end result. It just ends up that way here because there is no committee to temper it with analysis; something I don't think any forumula can do to anyone's satisfaction. No formula is going to take injury into concideration, for instance. The committee does.

You're right, the RPI is a good/great/solid tool for the committee but it does leave things to be desired. That's why I started doing cbb rankings, because I thought I could output something better/more intricate than the RPI and I believe that I've done that. Arguably, my system would be a better tool because it individually takes into account who you beat and who you lost to, a small weight to game location, etc.

I'm not a fan of committees picking and choosing who belongs and who doesn't because in the end, regardless of rankings, they're always going to err towards the big boys and those with more tradition. Take the 31 REGULAR SEASON conference champions and add in the next top 33 teams for the at-larges in a nationally agreed upon ranking system and run with that....that's how I would/do do it. Human beings aren't always objective. The ranking system doesn't adjust its rules/criterion throughout the season due to results or otherwise.

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 3/11/2010And we are back to your rankings...

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 3/11/2010
for something like the NCAAs in real life, how would one adjust for injuries and other factors that lead one to conclude - assume this is true objectively - that a team is a bunch better or worse right now than the full body of work? My answer to this is that it doesn't matter. Injuries and runs are apart of the game, and as far as a ranking system is concerned, those things are and should be overlooked. You start getting into muddy water when you're looking at "what if" and who's played better later than earlier, and that's my problem with human choice, because recency is a big deal and it isn't always objective. Like I said, ranking systems aren't changing their stripes at any point in the season.

adjust - by human hands - or just leave it - and have some say 3 seed that really should be a 6 or vice versa? I understand that I'm in the minority here and that a "proposal" like mine probably would never take flight, however I feel like humans tend to over-adjust for the factors that you mentioned above. I feel like my and most other ranking systems out there properly account for what's happened on the basketball court, better than any human being has interpreted those results, because beyond the specific ranking rules/formats...they're completely objective.

We really just have a difference of opinion here and as history has shown, I tend to have opinions that you've never seen before, or seen supported so hard before.

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 3/12/2010



That is a good reason why we shouldn't listen to you about the ratings. When the selection committee looks at a team that had a significant injury, they will adjust based upon whether or not that player will be there to contribute. If you went 20-10, but your stud went out in the last few games and you started losing big, that's a factor to be looked at in seeding. Does it mean you won't get in, no, the body of work says you should get in, but it does mean your actual seed will be scrutinized because human beings have the facility to interpret results outside of a formula. 2 things. First, when you start taking into account what a team would or wouldn't have done if an injury hadn't happened, I think you're getting into very murky water, being very subjective and more or less GUESSING at what would have happened, which is a slippery slope...where does it stop? "What if" has no place in real life or in cbb selections, because it didn't happen, therefore, it doesn't matter. Second, every team should be judged by the same criterion...you can't/shouldn't adjust for some teams for some reasons and not do it for others...it should be a concrete system for ALL teams.

If a team has an injury, or the coach is benching the best player because he's been hurting more than helping the team, then thems the breaks...that's how college basketball works and no adjustment needs to be made for everyday happenings in cbb. If that team gets a higher seed (which is probably its proper seed) and gets knocked off in the first round...tough, that's what happens...injuries are apart of the game, but teams shouldn't be down-seeded because of it...you either look at the entire body of work or you don't, and I don't understand why you wouldn't.