Quote: Originally Posted By jbasnight on 10/16/2009

In my humble opinion, this is one area in which HD might improve on real life. The real-life selection committee does heavily favor BCS schools. HD's seeding criteria is arguably more objective than the way the selection committee does things.

I do agree that conference tourney results could be downweighted some. But daalter, as to your point above above quality of wins--isn't that already taken into account in the RPI/SOS calculation?




If you talk to anyone who really understands stats (I'm not including myself here), they'll tell you rpi is a flawed measure. Heck, Ken Pomeroy thinks it's bad enough that he now refuses to carrry it on his site. So to point back and say, "rpi takes that into account" really doesn't carry much weight.

But yes, of course there is some weight given to quality of competition. Myself and others simply believe that not enough weight is being given.

Quote: Originally posted by jskenner on 10/16/2009RPI is:
25% winning % (adjusted by home vs away wins/losses)
50% opponents' winning % (adjusted)
25% opponents' opponents' winning %

IMO, the optimal schedule is to play a bunch of mediocre teams with high winning % (because of weak schedules) on the road. That way, wins are maximized (in the 0.6/1.4 adjustment), and losses are minimized.

The 25% winning % will be somewhat maximized (playing mediocre teams)
The 50% opp win % will be maximized (with those weak teams winning a high %)
The 25% opp opp win % MIGHT be minimized, but this is the factor with the least amount of variance.

JMO.

Quote: Originally Posted By wisefella99 on 10/16/2009

Quote: Originally posted by jskenner on 10/16/2009 RPI is:
25% winning % (adjusted by home vs away wins/losses)
50% opponents' winning % (adjusted)
25% opponents' opponents' winning %

IMO, the optimal schedule is to play a bunch of mediocre teams with high winning % (because of weak schedules) on the road. That way, wins are maximized (in the 0.6/1.4 adjustment), and losses are minimized.

The 25% winning % will be somewhat maximized (playing mediocre teams)
The 50% opp win % will be maximized (with those weak teams winning a high %)
The 25% opp opp win % MIGHT be minimized, but this is the factor with the least amount of variance.

JMO.

I think that is a fairly accurate summary. I am not coming out and saying that I think the seedings are correct either. Just that it is incorrect to say that SOS is not a factor within the RPI. Of course, in real life, the committee will eye ball the schedules and move teams as they see fit. To hear all the complaining in March, they don't get it right either.

We are all well aware of how to game the RPI system within HD. None of us have to manage a budget and schedule tons of home games against crappy teams for our out of conference schedules. I am quite certain that Jim Boeheim would never schedule like I do and if I had to manage a budget and also appease the local alumni with lots of home wins, I would completely change my philosophy as well.

Quote: Originally posted by reinsel on 10/16/2009But you lost in the 1st round to the 11, so maybe they did the right thing? 

Quote: Originally Posted By jeffdrayer on 10/16/2009
To add my two cents -- "fixing" this issue may have to coincide with "fixing" the tremendous power of HCA (not looking for an "HCA is fine/not fine argument here, just stating). Whereas teams in lower-level conferences are facing D+ HCAs on a regular basis and therefore are playing their away games nearly "straight-up" in regards to HCA, when BCS teams go on the road they almost always face a B- or higher, always coached by a human and almost always filled with BCS-caliber players. Which is how you get into my current plight: #1 seed in the entire (Smith) NT, and I am terrified of having to face the #13 seed in my bracket because Oklahoma is a 780 with a walkon, but went 7-7 on the road against a very tough Big 12 this year. I'd much rather face the #4 seed, even though they did dominate the NEC this year.

The fact is, there was a day when BCS teams could go 25-1, but these are becoming fewer and farther between as every BCS road game becomes a gargantuan task. The allure of simply going 24-2 with a 710-rated Bethune-Cookman team that can't lose it's A+ HCA becomes pretty strong...

Quote: Originally posted by tannermcc on 10/17/2009The problem is that the seeding process doesn't take into account two things.

One is team talent. If North Dakota went 27-0 but still had nobody on the team that could have played for a BCS school they would still get seeded in the 4-7 range I would think.

The other is signature wins (and losses). For example my Bowling Green team in Crum is currently 22-0 with a 4 RPI. Lets say they finish the season undefeated with a 5 RPI. They'll almost automatically be a #1 seed by WIS standards. This season they have not played one BCS school. Their best non conference win was against 17-5 45 RPI Loyola Chicago with only 1 other game vs a team in the top 100 of RPI. Their conference only includes two other teams in the top 100 RPI, 19-2 E. Michigan 24 RPI and 15-6 Buffalo with a 69 RPI. The E. Michigan win could be a borderline signature win but no where near beating a BCS team with more talent but slightly worse record.