|
Post by lonewolf on Oct 30, 2011 10:30:49 GMT -5
You better resolve yourself to it now because there is a darn good chance its going to happen. Either you had some sort of impact in creating the RPI or you are in love with UNI; or both. Nearly everyone on here has stated that there should be other rankings besides the RPI; while you stand firmly behind it. Even a UNI fan has come on here to say they are a solid team, but more of a #10 type team in their opinion; yet you want to love on their "tough schedule". You also apparently don't understand common English that well either, because you are asking way too many questions about easy concepts. "What does overrated mean?" "What does quality win mean?" "I need help understanding because you didn't explain yourself and I don't like having to interpret on my own, can anyone help?" (obviously that wasn't one of your real questions, just thought I should point that out before you asked a question about when you said that). Again dawgs, you're mixing up arguments. There's a difference between arguing that something is in an ideal state, and arguing for how something will happen based on previous results. Bofa said that UNI has a good chance of being a top seed, not because Bofa thinks they are one of the top 4ish teams in the country, but because they have a resume that the NCAA has rewarded. As for their schedule, again, Bofa is just pointing out what the NCAA selection committee has rewarded in the past. As for your 'common english' you've used a lot of ambiguous terms, you may know what they mean to you (and others may agree), but a lot of this thread, and past threads like this, have spent a lot of time with arguments due to a disagreement on interpretation of verbiage.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 30, 2011 11:19:23 GMT -5
Wait a minute.
"What is a quality win?" is an easy concept?
Good lord, no wonder this discussion is going nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 30, 2011 11:23:16 GMT -5
Moreover, they have the 5th most difficult non-conference schedule of any team in the country, which the committee LOVES to see for teams from mid-majors. On which basis are you making such a claim?
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 30, 2011 11:28:05 GMT -5
Moreover, they have the 5th most difficult non-conference schedule of any team in the country, which the committee LOVES to see for teams from mid-majors. On which basis are you making such a claim? RPI nitty gritty on richkern.com Remember, we are talking about how they are viewed by the committee, so I am using the committee's perspective
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 30, 2011 12:23:41 GMT -5
On which basis are you making such a claim? RPI nitty gritty on richkern.com Remember, we are talking about how they are viewed by the committee, so I am using the committee's perspective I understand that the committee likes teams with high RPI rankings. The question is whether RPI measures how difficult schedules are. It seems to me that all RPI measures is, well...RPI. If RPI can't be said to measure comparative team strengths, it can't be said to measure schedule strengths either.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 30, 2011 12:42:56 GMT -5
RPI nitty gritty on richkern.com Remember, we are talking about how they are viewed by the committee, so I am using the committee's perspective I understand that the committee likes teams with high RPI rankings. The question is whether RPI measures how difficult schedules are. It seems to me that all RPI measures is, well...RPI. If RPI can't be said to measure comparative team strengths, it can't be said to measure schedule strengths either. For starters, that doesn't follow (the average of many teams can be far more reliable than a single team). Second, the committee does consider strength of non-conference schedule, as measured by RPI, so they do use it that way.
|
|
|
Post by dawgsfan on Oct 30, 2011 13:22:24 GMT -5
Either you had some sort of impact in creating the RPI or you are in love with UNI; or both. Nearly everyone on here has stated that there should be other rankings besides the RPI; while you stand firmly behind it. Even a UNI fan has come on here to say they are a solid team, but more of a #10 type team in their opinion; yet you want to love on their "tough schedule". You also apparently don't understand common English that well either, because you are asking way too many questions about easy concepts. "What does overrated mean?" "What does quality win mean?" "I need help understanding because you didn't explain yourself and I don't like having to interpret on my own, can anyone help?" (obviously that wasn't one of your real questions, just thought I should point that out before you asked a question about when you said that). Again dawgs, you're mixing up arguments. There's a difference between arguing that something is in an ideal state, and arguing for how something will happen based on previous results. Bofa said that UNI has a good chance of being a top seed, not because Bofa thinks they are one of the top 4ish teams in the country, but because they have a resume that the NCAA has rewarded. As for their schedule, again, Bofa is just pointing out what the NCAA selection committee has rewarded in the past. As for your 'common english' you've used a lot of ambiguous terms, you may know what they mean to you (and others may agree), but a lot of this thread, and past threads like this, have spent a lot of time with arguments due to a disagreement on interpretation of verbiage. Actually only one of those questions was mine and I understood what the other person was talking about. Not that difficult to understand that beating a bunch of 15-30 ranked teams aren't good wins for a team that is ranked #4 in RPI.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 30, 2011 13:34:57 GMT -5
Second, the committee does consider strength of non-conference schedule, as measured by RPI, so they do use it that way. That they "use it that way" doesn't mean that RPI actually measures "strength of non-conference schedule" - at best, it seems to me, it utilizes RPI as a proxy for team and schedule strength. If there is any equivalence on either score, it is a very rough one. If RPI does not measure comparative team strengths, then it seems to me it can't be said to measure comparative schedule strengths either. All it measures is how teams stack up relative to the RPI formula. A win over a Stanford counts no more than a win over a Poughkeepsie State, say, as long as their win-loss records and opponents of opponents win-loss records are equivalent.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 30, 2011 13:44:49 GMT -5
Second, the committee does consider strength of non-conference schedule, as measured by RPI, so they do use it that way. That they "use it that way" doesn't mean that RPI actually measures "strength of non-conference schedule" - at best, it seems to me, it utilizes RPI as a proxy for team and schedule strength. If there is any equivalence on either score, it is a very rough one. If RPI does not measure comparative team strengths So let me clarify - UNI has the 5th highest non-conference RPI. But as I noted, you are also making a mistake. Even if a single team's RPI is not a measure of team strength (as reflected in who beats whom), it can still be the case that the summation of 10 RPIs CAN be interpreted that way. What is it, "the central limit theorem" I believe?
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 30, 2011 13:47:24 GMT -5
Not that difficult to understand that beating a bunch of 15-30 ranked teams aren't good wins for a team that is ranked #4 in RPI. Really? I'd like to hear more about that. Tell me how what led you to that conclusion, aside from "I made it up"
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 30, 2011 15:06:47 GMT -5
So let me clarify - UNI has the 5th highest non-conference RPI. But as I noted, you are also making a mistake. Even if a single team's RPI is not a measure of team strength (as reflected in who beats whom), it can still be the case that the summation of 10 RPIs CAN be interpreted that way. What is it, "the central limit theorem" I believe? I acknowledged there might be a rough correlation. I don't think there is much more than that.
|
|
|
Post by siddhartha on Oct 30, 2011 16:36:38 GMT -5
Again dawgs, you're mixing up arguments. There's a difference between arguing that something is in an ideal state, and arguing for how something will happen based on previous results. Bofa said that UNI has a good chance of being a top seed, not because Bofa thinks they are one of the top 4ish teams in the country, but because they have a resume that the NCAA has rewarded. As for their schedule, again, Bofa is just pointing out what the NCAA selection committee has rewarded in the past. As for your 'common english' you've used a lot of ambiguous terms, you may know what they mean to you (and others may agree), but a lot of this thread, and past threads like this, have spent a lot of time with arguments due to a disagreement on interpretation of verbiage. Actually only one of those questions was mine and I understood what the other person was talking about. Not that difficult to understand that beating a bunch of 15-30 ranked teams aren't good wins for a team that is ranked #4 in RPI. Actually, eliminating that kind of subjectivity is the whole purpose of using an RPI type tool. Are there better ones? I suppose...but I'm sure they all have their faults and there will always be a measure of controversy.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Oct 30, 2011 17:34:56 GMT -5
Actually only one of those questions was mine and I understood what the other person was talking about. Not that difficult to understand that beating a bunch of 15-30 ranked teams aren't good wins for a team that is ranked #4 in RPI. By what measure are you looking at #15-30 (RPI/Pablo/AVCA?) And by any measure, why aren't they good wins? Statistically, you're talking about teams that are in the top 4%-8% in the country. And as far as the ratings and this year goes, you're talking about teams that are quite often taking the top 15 to the wire, and beating them.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Oct 30, 2011 17:55:22 GMT -5
By what measure are you looking at #15-30 (RPI/Pablo/AVCA?) Alphabetic.
|
|
|
Post by sivert on Oct 30, 2011 18:41:54 GMT -5
I'm long time lurker and a UNI Panther fan. (Just my bias). Rating the RPI could be done in three ways:
1. How well does it do at picking the 64 most-likely-to-win teams? It probably only does this medium-well. Rankings like Pablo or AVCA might do this better. But then there would be charges of bias.
2. How well does it give every team a chance to show itself to be the best? This might be the RPI's best strength. To make the tournament, a B1G team has to win a lot of tough games. That's impressive, so we know they deserve to be in the tourney. So how will we know when a Mid-Major team deserves a chance in the tourney to demonstrate that they are the best? This, the RPI does well. It will always tend to pick the best of each conference.
3. What does the RPI cause to happen? This hasn't been discussed very much. The PRI causes teams to desire scheduling games against high-RPI teams from other conferences. Minnesota benefits from playing UNI and UNI benefits from playing Minnesota this year (regardless of who wins). In other words PRI encourages high-quality (at least high-RPI) head-to-head matches. That's a good thing for getting real data for good selection.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bofa, to make the RPI better, what would you think of slightly increasing the influence of each team's non-conference SOS?
|
|