Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 20:40:52 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2006 20:40:52 GMT -5
|
|
rob
Sophomore
Posts: 205
|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 20:59:02 GMT -5
Post by rob on Nov 20, 2006 20:59:02 GMT -5
my hu pride are #30. going to be interesting what happens with them on sunday.
|
|
|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 21:00:00 GMT -5
Post by GatorVball on Nov 20, 2006 21:00:00 GMT -5
Minnesota at 3 is way too high.
The SEC being the #4 conference. Very interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 21:02:31 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2006 21:02:31 GMT -5
Minnesota at 3 is way too high. With all respect, that is a silly statement. Are they the third best team in the country? No. Is their RKPI #3? Yes. It's a formula, Gator. It's math. That's like saying 3 + 3 shouldn't be 6.
|
|
|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 21:07:43 GMT -5
Post by GatorVball on Nov 20, 2006 21:07:43 GMT -5
7 losses and you're #3 in the RKPI? Come on. Esp. ahead of a team that beat them twice. I don't want to hear they were missing players for their early matches, cause every team has issues. Do we not count those losses as well for teams who were missing players?
|
|
|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 21:09:13 GMT -5
Post by wiscvball on Nov 20, 2006 21:09:13 GMT -5
Ok, i finally registered for Rich's site... does it take a while to get let in? I had the free 20 day subscription a few weeks ago and that expired, I re-signed up tonight (w/credit card payment) and have tried to log-in 4 times with the same "subscription has expired" message.
|
|
|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 21:10:39 GMT -5
Post by JHAM on Nov 20, 2006 21:10:39 GMT -5
With 7 loses, I think ultimately MN will end up being a low 2 seed or a high 3 seed, contingent on them beating Purdue this coming weekend. If they lose to Purdue however I think they will be a low 3 seed or a high 4 seed. Beating WI twice should keep them ahead of the Badgers regardless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 21:10:54 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2006 21:10:54 GMT -5
Gator, it's still math. The math has them #3. It's not like it's someone's opinion.
I guess I don't really understand your argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 21:12:45 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2006 21:12:45 GMT -5
Ok, i finally registered for Rich's site... does it take a while to get let in? I had the free 20 day subscription a few weeks ago and that expired, I re-signed up tonight (w/credit card payment) and have tried to log-in 4 times with the same "subscription has expired" message. Re-boot. I'm serious. Then e-mail Rich if you still can't get in.
|
|
|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 21:15:49 GMT -5
Post by GatorVball on Nov 20, 2006 21:15:49 GMT -5
Gator, it's still math. The math has them #3. It's not like it's someone's opinion. I guess I don't really understand your argument. I guess it's I don't understand the math then. I don't see how any rating can put a team with 7 losses up that high, esp. right in front of a team that beat them twice, head to head. It'll be interesting to see how much the RPI is used to see teams. Right now, if the RPI is a big factor, Washington has no shot at a #1 seed, but if they win the Pac-10, there's no way they won't be. I think the RKPI really loves the Big-10 a little too much. Purdue at 13, really? Based on what? What I gather the RKPI is more about who you play. If you win, fine, but if you lose, it doesn't hurt you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 21:53:17 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2006 21:53:17 GMT -5
That's the thing: I don't think it's a ranking tool -- other than to rank relative RPIs. By that I mean I don't think its objective is to tell us who the best team is and I doubt the committee uses it that way.
OTOH, what it tells us/them about strength of schedule is interesting.
|
|
|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 21:56:08 GMT -5
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 20, 2006 21:56:08 GMT -5
Gator, it's still math. The math has them #3. It's not like it's someone's opinion. I guess I don't really understand your argument. I guess it's I don't understand the math then. I don't see how any rating can put a team with 7 losses up that high, esp. right in front of a team that beat them twice, head to head. RPI does not care whether wins and losses come in head to head or not, only that they happen.
|
|
|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 23:02:10 GMT -5
Post by Rich Kern on Nov 20, 2006 23:02:10 GMT -5
Ok, i finally registered for Rich's site... does it take a while to get let in? I had the free 20 day subscription a few weeks ago and that expired, I re-signed up tonight (w/credit card payment) and have tried to log-in 4 times with the same "subscription has expired" message. Reboot is not necessary. However, the last step in the process is a manual step and that can take several hours if I am away from my computer. It has been taken care of now so you should have access.
|
|
|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 23:20:14 GMT -5
Post by Rich Kern on Nov 20, 2006 23:20:14 GMT -5
Gator, it's still math. The math has them #3. It's not like it's someone's opinion. I guess I don't really understand your argument. I guess it's I don't understand the math then. I don't see how any rating can put a team with 7 losses up that high, esp. right in front of a team that beat them twice, head to head. It'll be interesting to see how much the RPI is used to see teams. Right now, if the RPI is a big factor, Washington has no shot at a #1 seed, but if they win the Pac-10, there's no way they won't be. I think the RKPI really loves the Big-10 a little too much. Purdue at 13, really? Based on what? What I gather the RKPI is more about who you play. If you win, fine, but if you lose, it doesn't hurt you. You gather pretty well although it does hurt some if you lose. It is basically only 25% your record, 50% your opponent's record and 25% your opponents' opponent's record. So yes, it is who you play. For instance, Washington played 9 teams that are ranked 126+ where Minnesota played just 1. Also Minnesota played 13 top 25 teams and Washington played 8. The NCAA seeds are not necessarily based on the best teams but who tries to schedule the best and how they do against them. Washington does not meet the criteria so may possibly be penalized because of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
RKPI
Nov 20, 2006 23:52:24 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2006 23:52:24 GMT -5
Minnesota at 3 is way too high. With all respect, that is a silly statement. Are they the third best team in the country? No. Is their RKPI #3? Yes. It's a formula, Gator. It's math. That's like saying 3 + 3 shouldn't be 6. I really do not believe the Committee cares much for the RPI, except as an excuse to justify some of its choices that it otherwise would be hard-pressed to defend. Is there any disagreement that if the NCAA did its job the best way possible, the 16 seeded teams would be in the sweet 16, the top 8 in the elite 8, etc., with the number one seed ending the season as the national champion? If this is in fact--and I believe it to be so-- the standard to which the NCAA should aspire, then it seems the tools it uses to establish the seedings should also have the same goal. If a team has an RPI of 3 yet no one reasonably thinks that team should be rated that highly, then it seems that the RPI is using math that may be correct in the sense that 3+3=6, but that the formula is indeed intrinsically flawed. On another thread on VT ("Rating the Weekly Rankings"), there have been weekly updates that demonstrate that the RKPI--which was nearly identical to the RPI, when the latter was disclosed by the NCAA--ranks lower than Pablo, AVCA poll and the Rich Kern poll in terms of predicting which top 25 teams or so would win matches. In terms of selecting seedings for the Tournament, the NCAA should be most interested in rankings which rank the highest in selecting winners (again, assuming that the NCAA wants the 16 highest seeded teams to be in the sweet 16, etc.) . Seems to me that a compelling argument exists for the NCAA dumping any use of the RPI in favor of Pablo, which has the best record of all of the ratings. (The most recent comparative ratings are shown below: CUMULATIVE RESULTS (Weeks 5-13, covering the period September 18-November 19. These include all the weekly Pablo and RKPI rankings generated this year except for the first two, 9-4 and 9-11): 1. MATCHES WHERE PABLO, RKPI, AVCA AND RICH KERN ARE ALL HEAD-TO-HEAD: Pablo 119-45____72.6% RKPI 112-52_____68.3% Rich Kern 117-47__71.3% AVCA 116-48_____70.7% 2. PABLO HEAD-TO-HEAD WITH RICH KERN ONLY: Pablo 124-51____70.9% Rich Kern 124-51_70.9% 3. PABLO HEAD-TO-HEAD WITH AVCA ONLY: Pablo 125-42____74.9% AVCA 119-53____69.2% 4. PABLO HEAD-TO-HEAD WITH RKPI ONLY: Pablo 157-68___69.8% RKPI 148-77____65.8% 5. RKPI HEAD-TO-HEAD WITH RICH KERN ONLY: RKPI 119-56_____68.0% Rich Kern 124-51_70.9% 6. RKPI HEAD-TO-HEAD WITH AVCA ONLY: RKPI 117-55_____68.0% AVCA 119-53____69.2%)
|
|