2024 top 20

[rolldodge]

I actually don't mind some aspects the current selection criteria. I think the grouping of wins and losses based on RPI ranges is good. It smoothes out the edges in just using straight RPI.

What I don't like is the inclusion of SOS in addition to RPI. SOS is already included in the RPI calculation. No reason to double count it.

On the issue of "not counting losses"... Even in a world where losses do not detract directly from a team's resume, a loss is a missed opportunity for a win. You can't add to your quality win count if you don't win.

As far a valuing "close losses", its not that this information is not potentially valuable in evaluating the strength of a team. Its that I don't see a way to incorporate that information in a systematic way that doesn't have bad side effects.

I would be open to some special consideration of OT losses, the way its done in hockey. Particularly because OT is sudden victory.

[a fan]

I actually don't mind some aspects the current selection criteria. I think the grouping of wins and losses based on RPI ranges is good. It smoothes out the edges in just using straight RPI.

What I don't like is the inclusion of SOS in addition to RPI. SOS is already included in the RPI calculation. No reason to double count it.

On the issue of "not counting losses"... Even in a world where losses do not detract directly from a team's resume, a loss is a missed opportunity for a win. You can't add to your quality win count if you don't win.

As far a valuing "close losses", its not that this information is not potentially valuable in evaluating the strength of a team. Its that I don't see a way to incorporate that information in a systematic way that doesn't have bad side effects.

I would be open to some special consideration of OT losses, the way its done in hockey. Particularly because OT is sudden victory.

Great post. In particular, calling out OT wins and losses. And the doubled counting of SOS....SOS's entire reason for existence is to qualify/quantify losses.

In the end, if the teams that usually show up on the bubble are cool with the NCAA system? So am I. This stuff is just fun to talk about. Clearly, because we've had this same discussion for 20 years plus.

[wgdsr]

your... rpi... does... not.... go... up... with... a loss.

It can only go in three places after a game: up, down, or stay the same.

You're telling me that RPI doesn't go up with a loss against a quality team? I'd buy that if your'e #1, and lose to...well....anyone, but are you sure this is a hard and fast rule?

I'm seeing "new RPI's" that NCAA sports have adopted of late where the weight on outcomes moves around, so maybe we're not talking about the same RPI?

rpi evaluates the totality of your record against the totality of your schedule. qw's as constituted does not do that.

Yes. RPI and SOS are there to quantify losses. QW ignores losses, as well as wins against weak teams.

Which is what the NCAA tournament does. We've discussed this LONG ago: I want teams to WIN their way to a bid. I don't care who a team lost to.

And I completely understand that I'm alone on an island with this view.

firstly, i wrote it like that, as an absolute, because that is how you did. but the opposite. secondly, in practice, for the top 20-25 or so rpi teams (which is hoo we're talking about), the instances of a "top team" benefiting your rpi are rare. read: most all teams you play will ding your rpi with a loss. if you're a top 25 rpi team and you lose to an undefeated maryland team whose opp' record holds up against your own opp' opp' record? yes, will help. if that same team had a 13-2 record or worse (like 99% of "top teams")? no. losing your way to a better tournament rpi is not a thing.

and i care if a team lost to bad teams.

this is all without saying that, as the rules for criteria to be primarily considered for selection are presently and have always been written: YOUR OWN RPI IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MATTER! but like you said in a later post, as the coaches, fans, etc. don't seem to care how the sausage is made or if they're following directions, then i don't care, either. just tell me who is in.

[coda]

your... rpi... does... not.... go... up... with... a loss.

It can only go in three places after a game: up, down, or stay the same.

You're telling me that RPI doesn't go up with a loss against a quality team? I'd buy that if your'e #1, and lose to...well....anyone, but are you sure this is a hard and fast rule?

I'm seeing "new RPI's" that NCAA sports have adopted of late where the weight on outcomes moves around, so maybe we're not talking about the same RPI?

rpi evaluates the totality of your record against the totality of your schedule. qw's as constituted does not do that.

Yes. RPI and SOS are there to quantify losses. QW ignores losses, as well as wins against weak teams.

Which is what the NCAA tournament does. We've discussed this LONG ago: I want teams to WIN their way to a bid. I don't care who a team lost to.

And I completely understand that I'm alone on an island with this view.

firstly, i wrote it like that, as an absolute, because that is how you did. but the opposite. secondly, in practice, for the top 20-25 or so rpi teams (which is hoo we're talking about), the instances of a "top team" benefiting your rpi are rare. read: most all teams you play will ding your rpi with a loss. if you're a top 25 rpi team and you lose to an undefeated maryland team whose opp' record holds up against your own opp' opp' record? yes, will help. if that same team had a 13-2 record or worse (like 99% of "top teams")? no. losing your way to a better tournament rpi is not a thing.

and i care if a team lost to bad teams.

this is all without saying that, as the rules for criteria to be primarily considered for selection are presently and have always been written: YOUR OWN RPI IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MATTER! but like you said in a later post, as the coaches, fans, etc. don't seem to care how the sausage is made or if they're following directions, then i don't care, either. just tell me who is in.

AS an aside. I think Andy Shay has scheduling down with an eye towards RPI. He tends to schedule solid mid-majors and avoids the "blue bloods". Scheduling games you should win, that are still beneficial to RPI.

[CU77]

What I don't like is the inclusion of SOS in addition to RPI. SOS is already included in the RPI calculation. No reason to double count it.

Prior to 2009, not only was SOS double counted, it was the official top criterion. The criteria were ranked in order of importance, and SOS was #1.

This led to many selection and seeding debacles over the decades, climaxing with 2007, which was so egregiously bad (committee chair was Dave Cottle, and I have never forgiven him) that the NCAA finally insisted on reform.

[OCanada]

For those interested i suggest looking into how HS tournament selections are made in states like CN, NY,NJ ….i have been told, perhaps in error, they use the same formula. It is not a topic i follow much.

I am extrapolating from a couple of conversations not from any originsl work

[DocBarrister]

What I don't like is the inclusion of SOS in addition to RPI. SOS is already included in the RPI calculation. No reason to double count it.

Prior to 2009, not only was SOS double counted, it was the official top criterion. The criteria were ranked in order of importance, and SOS was #1.

This led to many selection and seeding debacles over the decades, climaxing with 2007, which was so egregiously bad (committee chair was Dave Cottle, and I have never forgiven him) that the NCAA finally insisted on reform.

Come on, dude, are ya still whinin’ and cryin’ about 2007???

No one was going to beat the Johns Hopkins Band of Brothers in those playoffs. Not Duke, not Cornell, nobody ….

Blue Jays struggled, worked hard, banded together, and forged themselves into a team of destiny that year.

Get over it ….

DocBarrister

[Farfromgeneva]

I actually don't mind some aspects the current selection criteria. I think the grouping of wins and losses based on RPI ranges is good. It smoothes out the edges in just using straight RPI.

What I don't like is the inclusion of SOS in addition to RPI. SOS is already included in the RPI calculation. No reason to double count it.

On the issue of "not counting losses"... Even in a world where losses do not detract directly from a team's resume, a loss is a missed opportunity for a win. You can't add to your quality win count if you don't win.

As far a valuing "close losses", its not that this information is not potentially valuable in evaluating the strength of a team. Its that I don't see a way to incorporate that information in a systematic way that doesn't have bad side effects.

I would be open to some special consideration of OT losses, the way its done in hockey. Particularly because OT is sudden victory.

Incorporate a MOV and iterate the model and you’ll have an array of values for losses

[Chousnake]

What I don't like is the inclusion of SOS in addition to RPI. SOS is already included in the RPI calculation. No reason to double count it.

Prior to 2009, not only was SOS double counted, it was the official top criterion. The criteria were ranked in order of importance, and SOS was #1.

This led to many selection and seeding debacles over the decades, climaxing with 2007, which was so egregiously bad (committee chair was Dave Cottle, and I have never forgiven him) that the NCAA finally insisted on reform.

Come on, dude, are ya still whinin’ and cryin’ about 2007???

No one was going to beat the Johns Hopkins Band of Brothers in those playoffs. Not Duke, not Cornell, nobody ….

Blue Jays struggled, worked hard, banded together, and forged themselves into a team of destiny that year.

Get over it ….

DocBarrister

If Cornell or Duke played Delaware on Saturday rather than each other and JHU had to play the other of Cornell or Duke, I'm almost certain the Monday final is Cornell vs Duke. I am completely certain that whichever of Cornell or Duke that played Delaware on Saturday would have beaten JHU in the title game on Monday. Delaware a far easier opponent, that was the early game, it was brutally hot that day ( the temperature was 97 degrees)and the Cornell Duke game was a physically brutal game. The JHU/Delaware game was a slow paced snoozer compared to the Duke/Cornell track meet. Duke was spent and looked like they were wearing ankle weights on Monday.

[Gobigred]

What I don't like is the inclusion of SOS in addition to RPI. SOS is already included in the RPI calculation. No reason to double count it.

Prior to 2009, not only was SOS double counted, it was the official top criterion. The criteria were ranked in order of importance, and SOS was #1.

This led to many selection and seeding debacles over the decades, climaxing with 2007, which was so egregiously bad (committee chair was Dave Cottle, and I have never forgiven him) that the NCAA finally insisted on reform.

Come on, dude, are ya still whinin’ and cryin’ about 2007???

No one was going to beat the Johns Hopkins Band of Brothers in those playoffs. Not Duke, not Cornell, nobody ….

Blue Jays struggled, worked hard, banded together, and forged themselves into a team of destiny that year.

Get over it ….

DocBarrister

If Cornell or Duke played Delaware on Saturday rather than each other and JHU had to play the other of Cornell or Duke, I'm almost certain the Monday final is Cornell vs Duke. I am completely certain that whichever of Cornell or Duke that played Delaware on Saturday would have beaten JHU in the title game on Monday. Delaware a far easier opponent, that was the early game, it was brutally hot that day ( the temperature was 97 degrees)and the Cornell Duke game was a physically brutal game. The JHU/Delaware game was a slow paced snoozer compared to the Duke/Cornell track meet. Duke was spent and looked like they were wearing ankle weights on Monday.

You're right...but Doc's never gonna admit it. So just wasting your keystrokes.

[joewillie78]

your... rpi... does... not.... go... up... with... a loss.

It can only go in three places after a game: up, down, or stay the same.

You're telling me that RPI doesn't go up with a loss against a quality team? I'd buy that if your'e #1, and lose to...well....anyone, but are you sure this is a hard and fast rule?

I'm seeing "new RPI's" that NCAA sports have adopted of late where the weight on outcomes moves around, so maybe we're not talking about the same RPI?

rpi evaluates the totality of your record against the totality of your schedule. qw's as constituted does not do that.

Yes. RPI and SOS are there to quantify losses. QW ignores losses, as well as wins against weak teams.

Which is what the NCAA tournament does. We've discussed this LONG ago: I want teams to WIN their way to a bid. I don't care who a team lost to.

And I completely understand that I'm alone on an island with this view.

You are NOT on an island, if you follow my posts. I am one that has made it clear that ANY loss is a BAD loss, as I have stated many times.

I have also stated many times that their is no such thing as a "good loss".

I hate losing, to ANYONE.

Oh, JW, your a Cornell fan and your team ALMOST took down a Generational team in Maryland, in the NC, and was the only team to get within 2 goals of that team, blah, blah, blah. That LOSS sucked, and I hated it as much as losing to the #70 RPI team.

So I agree 100%. Win yourself a bid.

Gobigred
Joewillie78

[a fan]

your... rpi... does... not.... go... up... with... a loss.

It can only go in three places after a game: up, down, or stay the same.

You're telling me that RPI doesn't go up with a loss against a quality team? I'd buy that if your'e #1, and lose to...well....anyone, but are you sure this is a hard and fast rule?

I'm seeing "new RPI's" that NCAA sports have adopted of late where the weight on outcomes moves around, so maybe we're not talking about the same RPI?

rpi evaluates the totality of your record against the totality of your schedule. qw's as constituted does not do that.

Yes. RPI and SOS are there to quantify losses. QW ignores losses, as well as wins against weak teams.

Which is what the NCAA tournament does. We've discussed this LONG ago: I want teams to WIN their way to a bid. I don't care who a team lost to.

And I completely understand that I'm alone on an island with this view.

firstly, i wrote it like that, as an absolute, because that is how you did. but the opposite.

That's brilliant....the minute I did that (made it absolute), I regretted it. That's a nuanced put down....and you're not wrong to do it. I had it coming, and this gave me a good chuckle.

and i care if a team lost to bad teams.

So does everyone else. As I wrote, I understand I'm out on an island with my beliefs, and that I'll never get things my way. Them's the breaks.

this is all without saying that, as the rules for criteria to be primarily considered for selection are presently and have always been written: YOUR OWN RPI IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MATTER! but like you said in a later post, as the coaches, fans, etc. don't seem to care how the sausage is made or if they're following directions, then i don't care, either. just tell me who is in.

...and yet as you and I know, that RPI for individual teams does matter. Sometimes. But not always. Or not at all.

It is what it is, as the kids say.

[a fan]

your... rpi... does... not.... go... up... with... a loss.

It can only go in three places after a game: up, down, or stay the same.

You're telling me that RPI doesn't go up with a loss against a quality team? I'd buy that if your'e #1, and lose to...well....anyone, but are you sure this is a hard and fast rule?

I'm seeing "new RPI's" that NCAA sports have adopted of late where the weight on outcomes moves around, so maybe we're not talking about the same RPI?

rpi evaluates the totality of your record against the totality of your schedule. qw's as constituted does not do that.

Yes. RPI and SOS are there to quantify losses. QW ignores losses, as well as wins against weak teams.

Which is what the NCAA tournament does. We've discussed this LONG ago: I want teams to WIN their way to a bid. I don't care who a team lost to.

And I completely understand that I'm alone on an island with this view.

You are NOT on an island, if you follow my posts. I am one that has made it clear that ANY loss is a BAD loss, as I have stated many times.

I have also stated many times that their is no such thing as a "good loss".

I hate losing, to ANYONE.

Oh, JW, your a Cornell fan and your team ALMOST took down a Generational team in Maryland, in the NC, and was the only team to get within 2 goals of that team, blah, blah, blah. That LOSS sucked, and I hated it as much as losing to the #70 RPI team.

So I agree 100%. Win yourself a bid.

Gobigred
Joewillie78

Huh. Well maybe I'm not totally crazy, after all. Yes: win your way to a bid. For me, this business of looking at losses is just one hair away from ignoring all math, and letting the Coach's poll decided who gets in, like they used to do back in the day.

If I'm handing out bids, all I want to know is: who have you proven that you can beat? Don't care about home, away, losses, injuries, sun-in-my-eyes, etc. For me, those are excuses, and I have no interest in rewarding teams for scheduling a team.....and losing to them.

[Farfromgeneva]

your... rpi... does... not.... go... up... with... a loss.

It can only go in three places after a game: up, down, or stay the same.

You're telling me that RPI doesn't go up with a loss against a quality team? I'd buy that if your'e #1, and lose to...well....anyone, but are you sure this is a hard and fast rule?

I'm seeing "new RPI's" that NCAA sports have adopted of late where the weight on outcomes moves around, so maybe we're not talking about the same RPI?

rpi evaluates the totality of your record against the totality of your schedule. qw's as constituted does not do that.

Yes. RPI and SOS are there to quantify losses. QW ignores losses, as well as wins against weak teams.

Which is what the NCAA tournament does. We've discussed this LONG ago: I want teams to WIN their way to a bid. I don't care who a team lost to.

And I completely understand that I'm alone on an island with this view.

You are NOT on an island, if you follow my posts. I am one that has made it clear that ANY loss is a BAD loss, as I have stated many times.

I have also stated many times that their is no such thing as a "good loss".

I hate losing, to ANYONE.

Oh, JW, your a Cornell fan and your team ALMOST took down a Generational team in Maryland, in the NC, and was the only team to get within 2 goals of that team, blah, blah, blah. That LOSS sucked, and I hated it as much as losing to the #70 RPI team.

So I agree 100%. Win yourself a bid.

Gobigred
Joewillie78

Of course vast majority consensus was that Cornell was #2 substantially informed by the nature of the MD game moreso than it having been the finals. Certainly Cornell fans know that seeding means that the the top two teams don’t always get to Face Off in the final round right? So you actually benefitted by a predominantly qualitative analysis wrapped around the margins of victory veneer of quantitative rigor. So you must put some value on he nature of outcomes.

[wgdsr]

your... rpi... does... not.... go... up... with... a loss.

It can only go in three places after a game: up, down, or stay the same.

You're telling me that RPI doesn't go up with a loss against a quality team? I'd buy that if your'e #1, and lose to...well....anyone, but are you sure this is a hard and fast rule?

I'm seeing "new RPI's" that NCAA sports have adopted of late where the weight on outcomes moves around, so maybe we're not talking about the same RPI?

rpi evaluates the totality of your record against the totality of your schedule. qw's as constituted does not do that.

Yes. RPI and SOS are there to quantify losses. QW ignores losses, as well as wins against weak teams.

Which is what the NCAA tournament does. We've discussed this LONG ago: I want teams to WIN their way to a bid. I don't care who a team lost to.

And I completely understand that I'm alone on an island with this view.

firstly, i wrote it like that, as an absolute, because that is how you did. but the opposite.

That's brilliant....the minute I did that (made it absolute), I regretted it. That's a nuanced put down....and you're not wrong to do it. I had it coming, and this gave me a good chuckle.

and i care if a team lost to bad teams.

So does everyone else. As I wrote, I understand I'm out on an island with my beliefs, and that I'll never get things my way. Them's the breaks.

this is all without saying that, as the rules for criteria to be primarily considered for selection are presently and have always been written: YOUR OWN RPI IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MATTER! but like you said in a later post, as the coaches, fans, etc. don't seem to care how the sausage is made or if they're following directions, then i don't care, either. just tell me who is in.

...and yet as you and I know, that RPI for individual teams does matter. Sometimes. But not always. Or not at all.

It is what it is, as the kids say.

of course, we all have our faves!!! i just don't see how isolating a couple of games of an entire resume is fair to anyone but schedulers. the big boys get 6-10 bites at the apple. a mid-major gets several, 4 or 5 if they're lucky.

your position on rpi moving on "good losses" isn't unique. a lot of people don't understand how it works in detail. and people take "good losses" incorrectly, imo (not you, you don't care)... it's not as bad of losses. i agree with the latter that the "explanations" at times have been wanting.

here's where i am: better wins and not as bad losses(or even).. easy pick.
close, slightly or more better wins and slightly + worse losses... the wins should win out.
beyond the problems of "what're they gonna do this year?" is... you lose to a #16 (or #21) vs another team's #12... are they really that different? because that's gonna stick out like a sore thumb. and it's a marginal, fractional calculation in that mix giving you that.

so what to do? how about... we give points for wins and subtract points for losses? a loss also incurs an opportunity cost, as does having too many cheap wins.

i.e. win vs bottom 20 teams...10 points
win vs next bottom 20 teams... escalating 2 points, so a win vs #35 gives 50 points.
win vs next 15 teams, escalating 3 points... win vs #21 gives 95 points.
win vs next 10, escalating 4 points, up to 135 @ #11.
win vs next 10, escalating 5 points, so vs #1 worth 185 points.

do losses in reverse, maybe tagging #1 loss @ 20 points and escalting slower to finish around 110 or so deductions.

or someone can code more appropriate numbers. you can have everyone play same number of games, or take an average of games, or throw out worst wins so game numbers are equal. don't count conference tournament do-overs.

you're evaluating all the games, because all the games (not just the few good ones you win) should matter.

or... just have some softball and baseball associate ad's run it out for whatever their feels are.

[rolldodge]

your... rpi... does... not.... go... up... with... a loss.

It can only go in three places after a game: up, down, or stay the same.

You're telling me that RPI doesn't go up with a loss against a quality team? I'd buy that if your'e #1, and lose to...well....anyone, but are you sure this is a hard and fast rule?

I'm seeing "new RPI's" that NCAA sports have adopted of late where the weight on outcomes moves around, so maybe we're not talking about the same RPI?

rpi evaluates the totality of your record against the totality of your schedule. qw's as constituted does not do that.

Yes. RPI and SOS are there to quantify losses. QW ignores losses, as well as wins against weak teams.

Which is what the NCAA tournament does. We've discussed this LONG ago: I want teams to WIN their way to a bid. I don't care who a team lost to.

And I completely understand that I'm alone on an island with this view.

firstly, i wrote it like that, as an absolute, because that is how you did. but the opposite.

That's brilliant....the minute I did that (made it absolute), I regretted it. That's a nuanced put down....and you're not wrong to do it. I had it coming, and this gave me a good chuckle.

and i care if a team lost to bad teams.

So does everyone else. As I wrote, I understand I'm out on an island with my beliefs, and that I'll never get things my way. Them's the breaks.

this is all without saying that, as the rules for criteria to be primarily considered for selection are presently and have always been written: YOUR OWN RPI IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MATTER! but like you said in a later post, as the coaches, fans, etc. don't seem to care how the sausage is made or if they're following directions, then i don't care, either. just tell me who is in.

...and yet as you and I know, that RPI for individual teams does matter. Sometimes. But not always. Or not at all.

It is what it is, as the kids say.

of course, we all have our faves!!! i just don't see how isolating a couple of games of an entire resume is fair to anyone but schedulers. the big boys get 6-10 bites at the apple. a mid-major gets several, 4 or 5 if they're lucky.

your position on rpi moving on "good losses" isn't unique. a lot of people don't understand how it works in detail. and people take "good losses" incorrectly, imo (not you, you don't care)... it's not as bad of losses. i agree with the latter that the "explanations" at times have been wanting.

here's where i am: better wins and not as bad losses(or even).. easy pick.
close, slightly or more better wins and slightly + worse losses... the wins should win out.
beyond the problems of "what're they gonna do this year?" is... you lose to a #16 (or #21) vs another team's #12... are they really that different? because that's gonna stick out like a sore thumb. and it's a marginal, fractional calculation in that mix giving you that.

so what to do? how about... we give points for wins and subtract points for losses? a loss also incurs an opportunity cost, as does having too many cheap wins.

i.e. win vs bottom 20 teams...10 points
win vs next bottom 20 teams... escalating 2 points, so a win vs #35 gives 50 points.
win vs next 15 teams, escalating 3 points... win vs #21 gives 95 points.
win vs next 10, escalating 4 points, up to 135 @ #11.
win vs next 10, escalating 5 points, so vs #1 worth 185 points.

do losses in reverse, maybe tagging #1 loss @ 20 points and escalting slower to finish around 110 or so deductions.

or someone can code more appropriate numbers. you can have everyone play same number of games, or take an average of games, or throw out worst wins so game numbers are equal. don't count conference tournament do-overs.

you're evaluating all the games, because all the games (not just the few good ones you win) should matter.

or... just have some softball and baseball associate ad's run it out for whatever their feels are.

This is somewhat similar to the formula I used to use for my poll.

Wins over:

RPI 1-5 = +6
RPI 6-10 = +5
RPI 11-20 = +4
RPI 21-30 = +3
RPI 31-40 = +2
RPI 40+ = +1

Losses to:

RPI 1-25 = -1
RPI 26-76 = -2

Total of all wins/losses is then divided by number of games.

This allows teams who don't have the opportunity to consistently play top 10/20 teams the chance to build up a decent resume by consistently beating teams in the top 30/40. I've found it reveals some solid resumes that would otherwise go overlooked because they don't have any "flashy" wins. At the same time, an undefeated team with wins only over 40+ RPI teams has a pretty hard ceiling on how high they can get in the relative ranking. You're going to need some top 20 and above wins to compete.

The deduction for losses is much less than the addition for wins because the loss already includes the opportunity cost of missing out on the win. The assumption is that on any given game day any team can lose to any other team in the top 25 and still be in the running to be a ranked team. If you lose to a team outside of the top 25, you have a harder time justifying that your team belongs in the top 20.

So, overall, the idea is that top 20 teams should be able to consistently beat teams outside of the top 25 RPI and should be rewarded for those wins relative to the strength of the teams they beat. Losses within the top 25 don't help, but are less of a liability to your resume. Losses outside of the top 25 shed more doubt on the teams claim to be ranked.

This system is also deliberately similar to the selection criteria (minus any consideration of SOS) so that it has a chance of aligning more closely with the teams that get picked for the tournament.

[joewillie78]

your... rpi... does... not.... go... up... with... a loss.

It can only go in three places after a game: up, down, or stay the same.

You're telling me that RPI doesn't go up with a loss against a quality team? I'd buy that if your'e #1, and lose to...well....anyone, but are you sure this is a hard and fast rule?

I'm seeing "new RPI's" that NCAA sports have adopted of late where the weight on outcomes moves around, so maybe we're not talking about the same RPI?

rpi evaluates the totality of your record against the totality of your schedule. qw's as constituted does not do that.

Yes. RPI and SOS are there to quantify losses. QW ignores losses, as well as wins against weak teams.

Which is what the NCAA tournament does. We've discussed this LONG ago: I want teams to WIN their way to a bid. I don't care who a team lost to.

And I completely understand that I'm alone on an island with this view.

firstly, i wrote it like that, as an absolute, because that is how you did. but the opposite.

That's brilliant....the minute I did that (made it absolute), I regretted it. That's a nuanced put down....and you're not wrong to do it. I had it coming, and this gave me a good chuckle.

and i care if a team lost to bad teams.

So does everyone else. As I wrote, I understand I'm out on an island with my beliefs, and that I'll never get things my way. Them's the breaks.

this is all without saying that, as the rules for criteria to be primarily considered for selection are presently and have always been written: YOUR OWN RPI IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MATTER! but like you said in a later post, as the coaches, fans, etc. don't seem to care how the sausage is made or if they're following directions, then i don't care, either. just tell me who is in.

...and yet as you and I know, that RPI for individual teams does matter. Sometimes. But not always. Or not at all.

It is what it is, as the kids say.

of course, we all have our faves!!! i just don't see how isolating a couple of games of an entire resume is fair to anyone but schedulers. the big boys get 6-10 bites at the apple. a mid-major gets several, 4 or 5 if they're lucky.

your position on rpi moving on "good losses" isn't unique. a lot of people don't understand how it works in detail. and people take "good losses" incorrectly, imo (not you, you don't care)... it's not as bad of losses. i agree with the latter that the "explanations" at times have been wanting.

here's where i am: better wins and not as bad losses(or even).. easy pick.
close, slightly or more better wins and slightly + worse losses... the wins should win out.
beyond the problems of "what're they gonna do this year?" is... you lose to a #16 (or #21) vs another team's #12... are they really that different? because that's gonna stick out like a sore thumb. and it's a marginal, fractional calculation in that mix giving you that.

so what to do? how about... we give points for wins and subtract points for losses? a loss also incurs an opportunity cost, as does having too many cheap wins.

i.e. win vs bottom 20 teams...10 points
win vs next bottom 20 teams... escalating 2 points, so a win vs #35 gives 50 points.
win vs next 15 teams, escalating 3 points... win vs #21 gives 95 points.
win vs next 10, escalating 4 points, up to 135 @ #11.
win vs next 10, escalating 5 points, so vs #1 worth 185 points.

do losses in reverse, maybe tagging #1 loss @ 20 points and escalting slower to finish around 110 or so deductions.

or someone can code more appropriate numbers. you can have everyone play same number of games, or take an average of games, or throw out worst wins so game numbers are equal. don't count conference tournament do-overs.

you're evaluating all the games, because all the games (not just the few good ones you win) should matter.

or... just have some softball and baseball associate ad's run it out for whatever their feels are.

This is somewhat similar to the formula I used to use for my poll.

Wins over:

RPI 1-5 = +6
RPI 6-10 = +5
RPI 11-20 = +4
RPI 21-30 = +3
RPI 31-40 = +2
RPI 40+ = +1

Losses to:

RPI 1-25 = -1
RPI 26-76 = -2

Total of all wins/losses is then divided by number of games.

This allows teams who don't have the opportunity to consistently play top 10/20 teams the chance to build up a decent resume by consistently beating teams in the top 30/40. I've found it reveals some solid resumes that would otherwise go overlooked because they don't have any "flashy" wins. At the same time, an undefeated team with wins only over 40+ RPI teams has a pretty hard ceiling on how high they can get in the relative ranking. You're going to need some top 20 and above wins to compete.

The deduction for losses is much less than the addition for wins because the loss already includes the opportunity cost of missing out on the win. The assumption is that on any given game day any team can lose to any other team in the top 25 and still be in the running to be a ranked team. If you lose to a team outside of the top 25, you have a harder time justifying that your team belongs in the top 20.

So, overall, the idea is that top 20 teams should be able to consistently beat teams outside of the top 25 RPI and should be rewarded for those wins relative to the strength of the teams they beat. Losses within the top 25 don't help, but are less of a liability to your resume. Losses outside of the top 25 shed more doubt on the teams claim to be ranked.

This system is also deliberately similar to the selection criteria (minus any consideration of SOS) so that it has a chance of aligning more closely with the teams that get picked for the tournament.

Using this formula, what would this year's point standings look like?

Thanks,

Gobigred
Joewillie78

[rolldodge]

your... rpi... does... not.... go... up... with... a loss.

It can only go in three places after a game: up, down, or stay the same.

You're telling me that RPI doesn't go up with a loss against a quality team? I'd buy that if your'e #1, and lose to...well....anyone, but are you sure this is a hard and fast rule?

I'm seeing "new RPI's" that NCAA sports have adopted of late where the weight on outcomes moves around, so maybe we're not talking about the same RPI?

rpi evaluates the totality of your record against the totality of your schedule. qw's as constituted does not do that.

Yes. RPI and SOS are there to quantify losses. QW ignores losses, as well as wins against weak teams.

Which is what the NCAA tournament does. We've discussed this LONG ago: I want teams to WIN their way to a bid. I don't care who a team lost to.

And I completely understand that I'm alone on an island with this view.

firstly, i wrote it like that, as an absolute, because that is how you did. but the opposite.

That's brilliant....the minute I did that (made it absolute), I regretted it. That's a nuanced put down....and you're not wrong to do it. I had it coming, and this gave me a good chuckle.

and i care if a team lost to bad teams.

So does everyone else. As I wrote, I understand I'm out on an island with my beliefs, and that I'll never get things my way. Them's the breaks.

this is all without saying that, as the rules for criteria to be primarily considered for selection are presently and have always been written: YOUR OWN RPI IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MATTER! but like you said in a later post, as the coaches, fans, etc. don't seem to care how the sausage is made or if they're following directions, then i don't care, either. just tell me who is in.

...and yet as you and I know, that RPI for individual teams does matter. Sometimes. But not always. Or not at all.

It is what it is, as the kids say.

of course, we all have our faves!!! i just don't see how isolating a couple of games of an entire resume is fair to anyone but schedulers. the big boys get 6-10 bites at the apple. a mid-major gets several, 4 or 5 if they're lucky.

your position on rpi moving on "good losses" isn't unique. a lot of people don't understand how it works in detail. and people take "good losses" incorrectly, imo (not you, you don't care)... it's not as bad of losses. i agree with the latter that the "explanations" at times have been wanting.

here's where i am: better wins and not as bad losses(or even).. easy pick.
close, slightly or more better wins and slightly + worse losses... the wins should win out.
beyond the problems of "what're they gonna do this year?" is... you lose to a #16 (or #21) vs another team's #12... are they really that different? because that's gonna stick out like a sore thumb. and it's a marginal, fractional calculation in that mix giving you that.

so what to do? how about... we give points for wins and subtract points for losses? a loss also incurs an opportunity cost, as does having too many cheap wins.

i.e. win vs bottom 20 teams...10 points
win vs next bottom 20 teams... escalating 2 points, so a win vs #35 gives 50 points.
win vs next 15 teams, escalating 3 points... win vs #21 gives 95 points.
win vs next 10, escalating 4 points, up to 135 @ #11.
win vs next 10, escalating 5 points, so vs #1 worth 185 points.

do losses in reverse, maybe tagging #1 loss @ 20 points and escalting slower to finish around 110 or so deductions.

or someone can code more appropriate numbers. you can have everyone play same number of games, or take an average of games, or throw out worst wins so game numbers are equal. don't count conference tournament do-overs.

you're evaluating all the games, because all the games (not just the few good ones you win) should matter.

or... just have some softball and baseball associate ad's run it out for whatever their feels are.

This is somewhat similar to the formula I used to use for my poll.

Wins over:

RPI 1-5 = +6
RPI 6-10 = +5
RPI 11-20 = +4
RPI 21-30 = +3
RPI 31-40 = +2
RPI 40+ = +1

Losses to:

RPI 1-25 = -1
RPI 26-76 = -2

Total of all wins/losses is then divided by number of games.

This allows teams who don't have the opportunity to consistently play top 10/20 teams the chance to build up a decent resume by consistently beating teams in the top 30/40. I've found it reveals some solid resumes that would otherwise go overlooked because they don't have any "flashy" wins. At the same time, an undefeated team with wins only over 40+ RPI teams has a pretty hard ceiling on how high they can get in the relative ranking. You're going to need some top 20 and above wins to compete.

The deduction for losses is much less than the addition for wins because the loss already includes the opportunity cost of missing out on the win. The assumption is that on any given game day any team can lose to any other team in the top 25 and still be in the running to be a ranked team. If you lose to a team outside of the top 25, you have a harder time justifying that your team belongs in the top 20.

So, overall, the idea is that top 20 teams should be able to consistently beat teams outside of the top 25 RPI and should be rewarded for those wins relative to the strength of the teams they beat. Losses within the top 25 don't help, but are less of a liability to your resume. Losses outside of the top 25 shed more doubt on the teams claim to be ranked.

This system is also deliberately similar to the selection criteria (minus any consideration of SOS) so that it has a chance of aligning more closely with the teams that get picked for the tournament.

Using this formula, what would this year's point standings look like?

Thanks,

Gobigred
Joewillie78

I never automated it, so it takes some time to calculate by hand. If I find some time I'll try to do one after this weekends results.

[CU77]

Wins over:

RPI 1-5 = +6
RPI 6-10 = +5
RPI 11-20 = +4
RPI 21-30 = +3
RPI 31-40 = +2
RPI 40+ = +1

Losses to:

RPI 1-25 = -1
RPI 26-76 = -2

Not to pick on rolldodge specifically (because even the NCAA does this), but groups of 5 or whatever just put in artificial breakpoints: why is beating RPI 41 only half as good as beating RPI 40? Better is a smoothly sliding scale from top to bottom.

And then it should be iterated. Because if you need to modify RPI, shouldn't you then also modify something based on RPI?

This is what systems like KRACH and ColleyMatrix do. They start with raw record, then update based on strength of schedule (which is based on raw record), then update repeatedly until the ratings stabilize.

[Double Sessions]

your... rpi... does... not.... go... up... with... a loss.

It can only go in three places after a game: up, down, or stay the same.

You're telling me that RPI doesn't go up with a loss against a quality team? I'd buy that if your'e #1, and lose to...well....anyone, but are you sure this is a hard and fast rule?

I'm seeing "new RPI's" that NCAA sports have adopted of late where the weight on outcomes moves around, so maybe we're not talking about the same RPI?

rpi evaluates the totality of your record against the totality of your schedule. qw's as constituted does not do that.

Yes. RPI and SOS are there to quantify losses. QW ignores losses, as well as wins against weak teams.

Which is what the NCAA tournament does. We've discussed this LONG ago: I want teams to WIN their way to a bid. I don't care who a team lost to.

And I completely understand that I'm alone on an island with this view.

firstly, i wrote it like that, as an absolute, because that is how you did. but the opposite. secondly, in practice, for the top 20-25 or so rpi teams (which is hoo we're talking about), the instances of a "top team" benefiting your rpi are rare. read: most all teams you play will ding your rpi with a loss. if you're a top 25 rpi team and you lose to an undefeated maryland team whose opp' record holds up against your own opp' opp' record? yes, will help. if that same team had a 13-2 record or worse (like 99% of "top teams")? no. losing your way to a better tournament rpi is not a thing.

and i care if a team lost to bad teams.

this is all without saying that, as the rules for criteria to be primarily considered for selection are presently and have always been written: YOUR OWN RPI IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MATTER! but like you said in a later post, as the coaches, fans, etc. don't seem to care how the sausage is made or if they're following directions, then i don't care, either. just tell me who is in.

AS an aside. I think Andy Shay has scheduling down with an eye towards RPI. He tends to schedule solid mid-majors and avoids the "blue bloods". Scheduling games you should win, that are still beneficial to RPI.

Not sure this take that Shay is gaming the system should go without a response. Yale played nos. 1 and 4 on the road OOC this year. Beat no. 1 Denver in altitude and lost to PSU in sudden death. Yale routinely played Albany during their salad days and used to play Maryland. Yes they play RPI boosters BU and Villanova as non blue blood affairs. But they go home and away with them and even played nova in neutral Texas (and lost). Those are not like zero risk games or anything, but I think Shay would concede that those are smart games to schedule. That said, there’s no evidence I’ve seen that Yale shies away from the best competition. In fact the evidence indicates otherwise - see above. So overall it seems that Yale does both schedule smartly and schedule some top competition/blue bloods. Which is why their rpi is so high. And I’m sure Yale would happily go to Charlottesville etc. Are Duke and Carolina dying to go to New Haven???
XO