|
Post by leftout on Oct 27, 2011 2:00:40 GMT -5
Unlike some previous posters I believe the RPI system favors the tougher conferences. Some of those programs schedule a soft preseason so initially they have low RPI's until they are well into their conference. In Hawaii's case its just the opposite. They have to play a hard pre/post season to keep their RPI from droping so much because they are in the WAC.
|
|
|
Post by smiley on Oct 27, 2011 2:16:38 GMT -5
Hawaii knows how to keep up their RPI despite being in a weaker conference. Are the coaches of the mighty Pac 12 uninformed or they just don't know how to figure it out?
|
|
|
Post by leftout on Oct 27, 2011 2:53:33 GMT -5
Some Pac 12 coaches may feel that their strong conference schedule would raise their RPI regardless of a soft preseason. Or use the preseason to workout kinks. Its hard on the Wahine to play three tough preseason tournaments on succesive weekends after weeks of two a days. I think that the Pac 12 coaches have more flexiblity in preseason scheduling and use it to their advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Oct 27, 2011 3:05:35 GMT -5
and yet there is only one East Coast team in the top 10 (#9 Florida State). 7 of the 10 are west of the Mississippi, and the other two (Minnesota and Illinois) are pretty darn close to it (a few blocks, in the case of MN) yes, it illustrates RPIism Cal & Wash didn't have 'eastern' pre-conf schedules - their RPI sucks. Stanford, Hawaii, USC had 'eastern' pre-conf schedules - their RPI is good Iowa State played 'east', same for Northern Iowa - in non-conf. that's why those teams are in the top 10. It highlights the bias even more and just how bad overall the East Coast ( the Big-10, MVC, & Big 12 feast on the East) is compared to the rest of the country. Cal did go 'east' for a tournament in the preseason. and they also invited a few 'eastern' teams for their 2 home tournaments. sometimes you can schedule 'east' teams, but still not have it work out for you. just go to show, if you're trying to 'game' the RPI, you still have to do it right ...
|
|
|
Post by siddhartha on Oct 27, 2011 7:51:42 GMT -5
Ah, the annual RPI thread. I never quite understand the controversy. The RPI is what it is. Everyone knows that it will be used and how it works. It's a known quantity. If you don't schedule accordingly, who's fault is it? RPI's?
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Oct 27, 2011 8:18:11 GMT -5
The RPI is biased towards the East Coast. It's bad, and it's not a good metric for selecting a national tournament. The WCC is 4-1 against the ACC. The WCC will get 2 teams and the ACC 4 teams in the tournament - but there's no reason to believe Duke & NC are any better than St. Marys, SF, & BYU. (Especially since St. Marys beat Duke). The Big East would get 4 teams in - now that's a real bad joke. The the MAC would get 3 teams. Based on RPI this week. It's not that Ball State, Illinois State, & Western Michigan are bad, but what wins do they have that indicate they are any better than the western teams that have as good or better wins, but have lower or much lower RPI (like Long Beach, St. Marys, San Francisco, BYU, Oregon State)? Aside from FSU of the ACC, I would take Oregon State on a neutral site as even money or better against everyone else from those conferences. Not that they are bad conferences, but RPI masks the teams strength because of the RPI bias from scheduling predominately east of the Mississippi. Hawaii makes out better this year because they got Cinncinnati, Ohio State, & Rice to come to islands pre-season, but they'll keep slipping RPI as WAC play goes on. And so is the Heismann.......... Would absolutely love to hear how you are defining "east coast". As there are probably only two "east coast" schools even ranked, your definition should be interesting. I'm not defending the RPI which certainly has flaws, I'm arguing against your point, and defending the US geography, and elementary school social studies teachers across this great land. Your argument threatens what is being taught in our schools and may confuse children who may follow volleytalk.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Oct 27, 2011 8:23:21 GMT -5
Since it hasn't been brought up, and a few in this thread so far seem to not have looked too deeply into the actual RPI computations I guess I'll post it.
RPI, is a mathematical computation. The general formula is thus (there are some known and unknown weightings depending upon sport):
0.25 x Team record + 0.50 x Team Opponent record + 0.25 x Team Opponent record
e.g. If team A has a is 20-10, their opponents have a record of 150-150, and the Opp, opp have a 60% win%(didn't feel like putting actual large numbers): .67x.25 + .50x.50 + .60x.25 =.5675 (then add weightings)
Do this for all the teams and rank from highest to lowest.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Oct 27, 2011 8:26:07 GMT -5
Unlike some previous posters I believe the RPI system favors the tougher conferences. Some of those programs schedule a soft preseason so initially they have low RPI's until they are well into their conference. In Hawaii's case its just the opposite. They have to play a hard pre/post season to keep their RPI from droping so much because they are in the WAC. Those programs schedule easier pre-season because they need to make sure they're above .500, and because they know their RPI will be solid because of their conference. They know this as even the bottom team's in conference come in with a pretty good record, and your Opp record makes up 50% of your RPI.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 27, 2011 8:55:15 GMT -5
Ah, the annual RPI thread. I never quite understand the controversy. The RPI is what it is. Everyone knows that it will be used and how it works. It's a known quantity. If you don't schedule accordingly, who's fault is it? RPI's? easiier said than done sometimes
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 27, 2011 8:58:23 GMT -5
The RPI is biased towards the East Coast. It's bad, and it's not a good metric for selecting a national tournament. The WCC is 4-1 against the ACC. The WCC will get 2 teams and the ACC 4 teams in the tournament - but there's no reason to believe Duke & NC are any better than St. Marys, SF, & BYU. (Especially since St. Marys beat Duke). The Big East would get 4 teams in - now that's a real bad joke. The the MAC would get 3 teams. Based on RPI this week. It's not that Ball State, Illinois State, & Western Michigan are bad, but what wins do they have that indicate they are any better than the western teams that have as good or better wins, but have lower or much lower RPI (like Long Beach, St. Marys, San Francisco, BYU, Oregon State)? Aside from FSU of the ACC, I would take Oregon State on a neutral site as even money or better against everyone else from those conferences. Not that they are bad conferences, but RPI masks the teams strength because of the RPI bias from scheduling predominately east of the Mississippi. Hawaii makes out better this year because they got Cinncinnati, Ohio State, & Rice to come to islands pre-season, but they'll keep slipping RPI as WAC play goes on. And so is the Heismann.......... Would absolutely love to hear how you are defining "east coast". As there are probably only two "east coast" schools even ranked, your definition should be interesting. I'm not defending the RPI which certainly has flaws, I'm arguing against your point, and defending the US geography, and elementary school social studies teachers across this great land. Your argument threatens what is being taught in our schools and may confuse children who may follow volleytalk. what part of my argument don't you understand - would children not get that the ACC is on the East Coast & the WCC is on the West Coast, can they not look up on a map or wikipedia and figure out where San Diego & North Carolina are?? Would they not understand that the WCC being 4-1 against the ACC debunks any argument that the ACC is a better and more 'deserving' conference than the WCC?? Make an argument please - why is the ACC better than the WCC?? Because RPI says so?? sheesh!! RPI doesn't reflect strength because of the preponderance of conferences centered on the East Coast (ok more Eastern part) of the US that aren't as strong at Volleyball. Ivy League, half of SEC, half of Big East, and all those no-name conferences out East. For every Albany or American, there are 6-7 teams in those conferences that stink - but by geographical bias have records similar to good West Coast teams like St. Marys who would wipe them clean if they played. Even with geographical bias/advantage for them, there's still only ONE true East Coast team in the RPI top 10 - FSU.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 27, 2011 9:46:04 GMT -5
This thread has turned into an RPI gripe fest, and no one seems to have addresses your questions Just want to see what some people think about the RPI and how legitimate the rankings are. This has kind of been addressed. What do you mean legitimate? As sidhartha notes, RPI is what it is. Also, it is the main tool that the NCAA uses to select teams for the tournament, so in that respect, it is completely legitimate. This is the reality, regardless of whatever wishful thinking anyone has. This sentence does not follow. If you don't know how they are calculated, then how can they appear to be inaccurate? Here's the first thing you need to know about RPI: RPI is RPI. How it is computed is mostly no secret (see lonewolf's comment, although there are some corrections that the NCAA doesn't divulge), and readily available anywhere. What it tells you is the team's RPI. It does not claim nor pretend to tell us anything else. If you want an interpretation of it, I would say that it is the W/L record of the team put into the context of the quality of the competition, as measured by their win/loss records. Not at all. You bring up the example of UNI. UNI's RPI rank has been very high all year. They were #3 even before the conference season has started. Therefore, if anything, UNI's RPI ranking has been hurt by their conference results. Similarly, ask Hawaii fans how rewarded Hawaii gets for walking through the WAC. They are consistently way lower in RPI than they are in other rankings. This year is more of an abberation (and they aren't being helped by the WAC this year, either). See above. Their RPI is exactly what it should be with a team with their record and the records of who they have played. Although it brings up another important point that I mentioned the other day: RPI is not designed nor intended to reflect head-to-head outcomes. Why is UNI #4? Because 1) they have the best winning percentage of any team in the country, 2) their opponent's winning pct is 16th highest. However, most of the 15 teams with higher opponent's winning pct have significantly lower winning%s themselves, so fall behind UNI (unless their opp's winning % is a lot higher, like with Iowa St Now that you understand how RPI is calculated and what it means, you will see that it isn't crazy at all. 1) So why isn't a team like Samford ranked higher? They have a great record in a weak conference, but have a poor RPI. Similarly, whereas Hawaii is ok this year, they have had seasons where RPI treats them terribly. It isn't that simple. 2) The SEC had three teams in the top 20 (Florida, Tennessee, and Kentucky) since before the conference season began. In fact, Tennessee's RPI has generally dropped whenever it plays the weak teams of the conference, and the biggest boost they got was when they played Florida! You cannot attribute Tennessee's top 15 ranking in RPI to the weak teams in the conference. They were 18 before the conference season started. Same story for Florida and Kentucky. Their opponent's record is ridiculously higher than Cal's, which is pretty amazing since NIU's opponent's record isn't that great (#44th best overall; Cal's opponent's record is 115th!) Which has nothing to do with RPI. If you want a Vegas odd match-up, use something like Pablo, which is built to do that. RPI isn't meant to, so it does not make sense to hold it to a standard that it was not designed to meet. As for your overriding question: "Is RPI Overrated?" The answer is, I don't think it is possible to overrate RPI. It is clear that RPI is the single most important factor that the committee uses to determine selections for the tournament, so if you want to make the tournament or get seeded, you need to be focused on RPI. If you are looking at anything else, you are going to have a problem. Now, that question and answer is irrespective of your complaints. If you want to ask, "Is RPI a good measure of team quality for volleyball" I have never talked to anyone anywhere who has ever said anything better than "not all that great." Now, I know the folks in the NCAA have been thinking that it is, mainly because it works better in the other sports they use it for (and I don't see any reason to think that isn't true; I have heard that there is some dissatisfaction among the soccer folks, but have also heard that some more high-profile sports are perfectly fine with it), but the general consensus of people in the volleyball community is that RPI is not the best indication of team quality that we have available. Hard to call that "overrated"
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Oct 27, 2011 10:28:05 GMT -5
I don't think we pay Bofa enough.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Oct 27, 2011 10:28:12 GMT -5
what kind of astounds me is that a 12-7 team (Minnesota) has such a high rating. their opp win% must be off the charts. (not saying they aren't a good team, b/c they are. it's just odd to see 7 losses that far up on the RPI chart)
|
|
|
Post by jake on Oct 27, 2011 10:43:46 GMT -5
what kind of astounds me is that a 12-7 team (Minnesota) has such a high rating. their opp win% must be off the charts. (not saying they aren't a good team, b/c they are. it's just odd to see 7 losses that far up on the RPI chart) The RPI system is too convoluted and should be dropped or seriously revised. I would vote for a team's wins at 75%,...team's opponents' wins at 25% and thats it!!!!!!!!!!! OUT!
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 27, 2011 10:45:39 GMT -5
what kind of astounds me is that a 12-7 team (Minnesota) has such a high rating. their opp win% must be off the charts. (not saying they aren't a good team, b/c they are. it's just odd to see 7 losses that far up on the RPI chart) Their oppW/L record is 0.747! That's crazy high. The difference between them and Iowa St, who has the second highest opp% is 0.046. For reference, that difference is about the same as that between the second and 8th best opp%. Their oppOpp% is also the tops, although not by as much.
|
|