| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
 Posted: 01/08/19 10:17 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| The SEC RPI is a bit of the chicken and the egg. The SEC is given a high starting number just because they are expected to be good. Thus, just by playing each other their RPI stays high. For instance, I haven't seen anything that SoCaro has done that deserves them to either be a tournament team or be ranked. Ditto Georgia. Ditto Auburn.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16358
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/09/19 11:31 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| The SEC RPI is a bit of the chicken and the egg. The SEC is given a high starting number just because they are expected to be good. Thus, just by playing each other their RPI stays high. For instance, I haven't seen anything that SoCaro has done that deserves them to either be a tournament team or be ranked. Ditto Georgia. Ditto Auburn. |
That is not how RPI works.
Rankings work like that, but RPI is based solely on the year's wins and losses.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/09/19 11:52 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| My bad. I was wrong in saying that. I should have said the RPI can be and is gamed, especially by many of the P5 teams...which is why it's being dropped as a parameter for determining tourny teams on the men's side. They've more or less said it is a worthless number. So if it's being used as the reason to include teams like LSU who has already lost to several non-tournament teams, then it's a problem.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
ucbart
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 2815
Location: New York
Back to top |
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16358
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/09/19 12:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| My bad. I was wrong in saying that. I should have said the RPI can be and is gamed, especially by many of the P5 teams...which is why it's being dropped as a parameter for determining tourny teams on the men's side. They've more or less said it is a worthless number. So if it's being used as the reason to include teams like LSU who has already lost to several non-tournament teams, then it's a problem. |
Absolutely.
|
|
Matt5762
Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 607
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/09/19 12:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| My bad. I was wrong in saying that. I should have said the RPI can be and is gamed, especially by many of the P5 teams...which is why it's being dropped as a parameter for determining tourny teams on the men's side. They've more or less said it is a worthless number. So if it's being used as the reason to include teams like LSU who has already lost to several non-tournament teams, then it's a problem. |
But this is probably a bad example. The SEC as a whole is ranked very similarly (and in a few cases notably better) in a more logical ranking system like Massey...
RPI-Massey
15-3 Miss State
24-16 Kentucky
23-19 Tennessee
34-27 S Carolina
31-30 Missouri
39-40 Auburn
43-43 Texas A&M
52-49 LSU
54-55 Arkansas
119-64 Georgia
105-113 Alabama
172-163 Vandy
233-221 Florida
228-226 Ole Miss
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/09/19 3:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hmmm. I haven't looked at how Massey gets his number...but right off the bat, I have to question MissSt being #3. They've played four top 25 teams and beaten three of them (that's good) but lost to the only top 10 team. How does that make them #3? Otherwise their schedule has been cupcake after cupcake. Any system that gives too much credit for beating cupcakes is suspect.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/09/19 5:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| hmmm. I haven't looked at how Massey gets his number...but right off the bat, I have to question MissSt being #3. They've played four top 25 teams and beaten three of them (that's good) but lost to the only top 10 team. How does that make them #3? Otherwise their schedule has been cupcake after cupcake. Any system that gives too much credit for beating cupcakes is suspect. |
Massey's ratings are based much more on point differential.. If Mississippi St beats Stephen F Austin by 50 points and Texas only beats them by 40, Mississippi St is assumed to be better. It is not a perfect system by any means, particularly when the schedule is very weak, but it does have some validity. I believe it is a good guideline (certainly better than the RPI) but it has its deficiencies as well. MSU looks like the best team in the SEC, but whether they are 3 or 10 in the nation is hard to know at this point. Now that they are into the SEC schedule we will get a better understanding. If they are truly a top 3 team they should be able to get through the SEC with no more than 1 loss.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/09/19 5:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| hmmm. I haven't looked at how Massey gets his number...but right off the bat, I have to question MissSt being #3. They've played four top 25 teams and beaten three of them (that's good) but lost to the only top 10 team. How does that make them #3? Otherwise their schedule has been cupcake after cupcake. Any system that gives too much credit for beating cupcakes is suspect. |
Here's a link to Massey that explains their methodology.
https://www.masseyratings.com/theory/massey.htm
I agree about cupcake wins but massey (unlike other ranking systems) actually overweights games against top teams. The other factor that systems like RPI ignore is scoring margins. Beating a weak opponent by a narrow margin can work against a team's Massey ranking.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63763
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/12/19 6:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Last edited by Shades on 01/12/19 10:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
CompSci87
Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Posts: 812
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/12/19 6:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Thanks for the Belibi post. Wrong thread, though!
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/13/19 12:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
calbearman76 is correct to point out that Massey ratings a better than the RPI. There are several factors but the single biggest one is that RPI ignores point differential. Massey does incorporate, not just the win but the size of the win. If I may be a little bit picky, it's technically not the point differential but more likely the ratio. Winning by 10 points 90 – 80, is not the same as winning by 10 points 50 – 40. Although there explanation doesn't give enough information about the math to say for certain, my guess is that winning 100 – 80 is about the same as winning 50 – 40.
Basketball scores tend to follow in a narrower range than football scores, so the difference between ratios and point differentials is modest and not terribly important, although the fact that the differential matters and is ignored in RPI is a big deal.
[Minor wording correction]
Last edited by Phil on 01/17/19 12:21 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/13/19 4:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
calbearman76 is correct to point out that Massey ratings a better than the RPI. There are several factors but the single biggest one is that RPI ignores point differential. Massey does incorporate, not just the win but the size of the win. If I may be a little bit picky, it's technically not the point differential but more likely the ratio. Winning by 10 points 90 – 80, is not the same as winning by 10 points 50 – 40. Although there explanation doesn't give enough information about the math to say for certain, my guess is that winning 100 – 80 is about the same as winning 50 – 40.
Basketball scores tend to follow in a narrower range than football scores, so the difference between ratios and point differentials is modest and not terribly important, although the fact that the differential matters and is ignored and RPI is a big deal. |
There are so many ways to model outcomes and rank teams. I actually liked the Sagarin rankings most, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to be doing women's basketball this season. If I were to build my own system it would include a power rating component and a win component. The power rating would be fully points based, but would only include the first 35 minutes of each game. The last five minutes would not be considered because of the use of subs and fouling which can make a final score not reflect how close a game actually was. The second part would be a win model that would only consider wins and losses. This would be given more weight for competitive contests. Of course the difficulty in developing such a system is that there is no source for 35 minute scores, other than checking play-by-play of every game individually.
Of course I would like to see the NCAA use a better system than the RPI. There are all manner of factors that can be built in, including strength of schedule, play over the latter part of the season, and ideally those factors can be discussed and evaluated. The policymakers could provide the structure and then the math geeks could create the system.
|
|
Marquette Fan
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 3575
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/19 7:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Updated bracketology out this morning from Charlie Creme:
http://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/bracketology
The home court locations look correct on this projection. Marquette is up to a projected 3 seed in this one - wow! I'm hoping they can at least get a 4 seed this year - still expecting at least a couple head scratching losses so don't expect to see them get a 3. Butler is projected at winning the Big East right now with a 9 seed - with DePaul a 7 to make 3 BE teams projected in the field. Butler played a weak non-conference schedule but has my attention with their 5-0 start in BE play.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/19 8:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| If this actually became reality, UConn would have the easiest bracket by far. Of course that would just be normal.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/19 12:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The goal of the selection committee is to produce balanced brackets.
We all know (or at least think we know) that they often fall short of that ideal, but if they meet that ideal, then by definition, the bracket that has the top overall seed will have slightly weaker strength for the remaining 15 compared to the other three brackets. UConn has often been the top overall seed, so it is surprising that this would be a common result. It has nothing to do with UConn it has to do with the seeding principles.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/19 12:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
The goal of the selection committee is to produce balanced brackets.
|
Is it? I think that goal may be secondary to selling tickets and filling arenas.
Minimizing travel costs may also come before competitive balance or fairness.
|
|
Marquette Fan
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 3575
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/21/19 12:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Updated today:
http://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/bracketology
Surprised to see Villanova listed in the next four out - didn't really consider them with a remote chance at the NCAA Tourney this year - they are 2-5 in the BE this year. I like seeing Marquette as a projected 3 seed - really hoping they can host this year.
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/21/19 3:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Looks better this week.
Still think it is unfamiliar (to both of them) to have ND and MS state in same bracket.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/19 12:21 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
Looks better this week.
Still think it is unfamiliar (to both of them) to have ND and MS state in same bracket. |
yes. that's what caught my eye too. And the fact that UConn has, by far, the weakest #2.
|
|
PRballer
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 2544
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/28/19 1:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
New Bracketology out today from Creme:
http://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/bracketology
-Has North Carolina in the field; Tennessee last team in
-South Carolina now a top 16/host
-I know he likes to play around with schemes, matchups and geography but in women's basketball it's location, location, location and it makes me nervous when moves Notre Dame out of Chicago and has Baylor and NC State there.
-Think Greensboro must have NC State or South Carolina, or both, seeded there in order to draw fans to that site. Louisville is doing well at the gates and maybe some of those fans can travel to Greensboro or Chicago.
-Chicago can be okay from a butts-in-seats POV with a combination of Notre Dame, Marquette and maybe Iowa or another Big Ten team
-Albany should draw well based on last year's attendance but UConn should obviously be there - and maybe Syracuse? - to ensure they hit 10,000 again
-Portland will be an interesting regional but if Stanford wins the Pac-12, would they get to go there over the Oregon schools? Why isn't there a scenario where both Oregon schools can get seeded there as a 1/3 or 2/4 combo? I imagine Moda Center can be a great environment if you can get the Beavers and Ducks or even the Zags playing there.
Will be interesting to see what the NCAA reveals in a few weeks around the Top 16 seeds.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/28/19 2:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PRballer wrote: |
-Portland will be an interesting regional but if Stanford wins the Pac-12, would they get to go there over the Oregon schools? Why isn't there a scenario where both Oregon schools can get seeded there as a 1/3 or 2/4 combo? I imagine Moda Center can be a great environment if you can get the Beavers and Ducks or even the Zags playing there.
Will be interesting to see what the NCAA reveals in a few weeks around the Top 16 seeds. |
Stanford is unlikely to win the P12 so I think that is moot. Most likely Oregon and Oregon St. will end up #1,#2 in the conference, so it would be unusual for them to both be put in the same regional. It's slightly more possible if they end up #1,#3 in the conference, or #1, #4 - which are also possible outcomes. Stanford wouldn't help with drawing spectators, but both the Oregon schools and Gonzaga certainly will. If Idaho St. won the Big Sky, they might also draw well there.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
Joe Foss
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 4066
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/28/19 2:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Wow, he's got 3 MAC teams in the tourney - Ohio as the auto-bid and Central Michigan and Buffalo as at-larges. I'm pretty sure that would be a first for the league.
_________________
Ohio Bobcats WBB Fan
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/28/19 2:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| The SEC continues to be overrepresented. They trail the BEast in both winning percentage and CRPI.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Marquette Fan
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 3575
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/28/19 4:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Butler is in the first four out - probably how it should be but I'm sorry to see that. I liked seeing them appear to turn things around a bit and do better. Of course they played an incredibly easy non-conference schedule so that's not doing them any favors.
|
|
|
|
