Posted by Iguana1 on 3/19/2011 4:25:00 PM (view original):
It's possible HD doesn't use the method that the NCAA uses.

I'm just suggesting that the wikipedia link you posted, stating that OWP and OOWP ignores locations, disagrees with what the NCAA says. 
Unless one chooses to believe the NCAA uses a method other than one it states in it's handbook.

First, I didn't post a wikipedia link.

Second, you haven't posted anything that comes directly from the NCAA.  The only link you posted that even cites the NCAA actually supports the position that OWP and OOWP are not weighted. 

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/02/ncaa-doesnt-earn-any-trust-points-with.html

That is an article about how the DIII NCAA committee screwed up by intending to use the same formula as DI for RPI but included weighting in OWP and OOWP unlike the DI formula:

I say this because D-I and D-II are applying the multipliers in a completely different manner than D-III is.

CollegeRPI.com collects and publishes RPI data, and they have an explanation of how the home/road multiplier is used in Division I.

According to this explanation, the multipliers are used against a team's winning percentage, not their strength of schedule. So we can't rightly expect that simply slapping the same multipliers on the strength of schedule would yield useful results without first studying the potential effects of doing so.
 

For the 2004-05 season, the formula was changed to give more weight to road wins vs home wins. A team's win total for RPI purposes is 1.4 * road wins + neutral site wins + 0.6 * home wins. A team's losses is calculated as 0.6 * road losses + neutral site losses + 1.4 * home losses.

For example, a team that is 4-0 at home and 2-7 on the road has a RPI record of 5.2 wins (1.4 * 2 + 0.6 * 4) and 4.2 losses (0.6 * 7). That means that even though it is 6-7, for RPI purposes, it is above .500 (5.2-4.2).

This "weighted" record is only used for the 25% of the formula that is each team's winning percentage. The regular team records are used to calculate OWP and OOWP.

So at this point we have two sources for each formula.  It would be nice to have something directly from the NCAA to be sure.

(Sorry about the formatting of the quote, but I'm done trying to make it look better.  In the actual article, the second block appears between the second and thrid paragraphs of the first block and has a yellow background.)

Posted by _hannibal_ on 3/19/2011 3:15:00 PM (view original):
Iguana, I won't argue the point as to how RPI is calculated in real life (although you may want to read the entirety of the third article you linked to).  However, in the game, I am certain that OWP and OOWP are not weighted by location.  I have done the RPI calculation by hand in the past to verify this.

@hitman, I am only talking about the SOS portion of RPI.  The 25% for adjusted winning percentage is certainly affected by location of games.

The opponents' and opponents' opponents' winning percentage are calculated independent of location in both HD and real life.  It's your winning percentage that includes location adjustments, both in HD and real life.

From the FAQ: "A: The RPI (Rating Percentage Index) is a measure of strength of schedule and how a team does against that schedule. It does not consider margin of victory. It is used by the NCAA as one of their factors in deciding which teams to invite to the NCAA tournament and where to seed them. The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage (WP), 50% opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP). When calculating winning percentage (WP), the RPI weights a road win as 1.4 x a normal win, a home loss as 1.4 x a normal loss, a road loss as 0.6 x a normal loss, a home win as 0.6 x a normal win and neutral site games are weighted at 1.0."

It's the same formula in real life.

Posted by doomey on 3/18/2011 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 3/17/2011 10:44:00 AM (view original):
Well isn't that taken care of by RPI?

There's almost no way a 23-win, 200-SOS team is going to have a better RPI than a 19-win, 25-SOS team.

Wrong on both points. Just as an example USC with 19 wins, 18 RPI and 9 SOS was a 9 seed; below New Hamshire (27 wins, 33 RPI, SOS 255) and 5 seeded Furman (27 wins, 30 RPI, 135 SOS), among others.

RPI in no way tracks SOS, it deals only with winning percentage augmented by location. It dances around SOS only slightly by including opponents opponents winning percentage, but the RPI can be gamed by a team in a ghost confrence very easily by just scheduling beatable teams they think will have winning records (usually second-third place teams in other ghost conferences).

If you look at what WIS says they look at SOS is included, but if you also concider that it is vastly outwieghed by valuing wins over 20 (which IS included in RPI) and other blind win-based criteria (conference champ regardless of strength of conference is a big boost), you realize that more emphasis needs to be put on SOS as a smell test. SOS and quality wins is what the real committee uses primarily with RPI being primarily a guage of what the initial pool looks like.

So I was right?

Let's look at what I said: "There's almost no way a 23-win, 200-SOS team is going to have a better RPI than a 19-win, 25-SOS team."

Let's look at your example: USC 19 wins, 9 SoS; NH 27 wins, 255 SoS; Furman 27 wins, 135 SoS.

According to you, I'm wrong, which means USC would have a worse RPI.  But, USC in fact had a better RPI.  Which means I'm right. 

If it was seeded by RPI, USC would have been a better seed than both.  I'm not sure what point you're making. 

And doomey, as someone else asked, I'm curious how you think SoS is calculated that makes it so vastly different from the SoS formula used in RPI.

I think doomey realized that SOS is actually something other than what he thought it was, and has backed off considerably.