|
|
|
|
|
Who came up with the 25-50-25 weighting of a team's winning %, its opponents' winning %, and its opponents' opponents' winning %? Why not 50-25-25 or 40-35-25? A team's winning % should count for more than a quarter of its score.
There's a reason a 16 has beaten a one in the WNCAA tournament.
Don't try to rewrite history and blame RPI for that. Stanford's loss was mainly due to two major knee injuries suffered by starters in its last regular season game (the day before Selection Sunday) and in practice three days before it played Harvard in the first round. If those players had been declared out due to injuries before seedings, Stanford would likely not have been given a #1 seed. And if either one of the two players could have played, #16 teams would likely still be winless.Originally Posted by american
The history refresher is at http://www.fansonly.com/schools//sta...031398aaa.html
The answer is simple...teams aren't allowed to pad their RPIs by scheduling too many obvious wins against inferior opponents. 50% would allow too much padding while 25% doesn't.
I've said it before...schedule and win games against teams that win games and RPI isn't a problem.
If you take a truly deserving one seed and put them on their home court, they will beat Harvard even if they are missing a starter or two. The bottom four qualifiers for the tournament are marginal at best, not even in the top 100.
If a 50% weighting of your winning % allows too much padding while 25% doesn't, what do you have to say about a 30-40-30 weighting or a 40-40-20 weighting? The possibilities are endless. The present 25-50-25 is arbitrary.
With a few exceptions big conference teams play most of their OOC games at home. Their conference mates do the same, so that when the second season begins, the conference has an inflated winning %. They then spend the rest of the season playing each other and racking up relatively high rpis regardless of whether they win. This is an argument for a higher weight on one's own winning %. Why not 35-40-25? Who knows what would be best? A performance analysis should be done.
If you think the Techster's get seeded where they should in the tourney, then it's because you've bought into the selection committee's criteria for seeding teams. Many disagree with this criteria. Look at the AP poll for example.
If the committee made a mistake in seeding in 1998, it was seeding 22-4 Harvard #16. Arkansas' Final Four team didn't exactly blow Harvard off the floor in the second round, pulling away in the second half to win 82-64. Harvard's style of play allowed it to capitalize on Stanford's makeshift lineup. I doubt any of the other three 16 seeds that year could have come close to duplicating Harvard's performance.
How many tournament wins do you think Tech would get without both Carter and Frierson? That was the magnitude of Stanford's injuries--33.8 ppg, 15.4 rpg, almost 58% shooting including the best 3-point shooter at 46%, and 58 minutes per game.
I posted an analysis of Tech's RPI over the past five years over in the "AP on the up" thread. Over the last several years it's been a case of "win and move up if teams ahead lose" without the poll voters casting ballots to accurately reflect Tech's increasingly weak non-conference schedule. The committee may have to bend over backwards this year to prevent Tech from getting a seed number larger than its poll ranking. And even if the committee gives Tech that good of a seed (it would not be deserved based on the projected RPI), I'm sure there will still be numerous gripes about being shafted by the committee on this board. For the last four NCAA selections, Tech has been seeded a net zero positions away from where RPI dictated--that's not getting the shaft by any reasonable definition.
The current RPI system may not be the best--I will be the first to admit that. But it IS the system being used, and griping about it won't change a thing. And while many believe RPI is a bad system, I believe that polls are at least equally as bad. RPI is an objective measure where all teams start each season at zero. Polls certainly aren't objective when the preseason ranking can have an influence on the poll order for much of the season. Eliminate preseason polls and don't begin balloting until January for basketball and October for football.
This year's Techsters without Carter and Frierson would thump that Harvard team. Amber would have shut down their lone scorer. Obaze, Moore, Barkus, Crain, Smith, and Ray would have blown by the Crimson for one layup after another. Thompson and Ray would provide adequate defense in the paint. Can you imagine how many turnovers we would force?
You're right. The committee doesn't get the 16th seeds right either.
Last year the Techsters were ahead of OSU in both AP and RPI. Nevertheless, OSU was seeded 4 and Tech 5.
Frisco,
We aren't arguing with you. I know that the committee uses rpi. The criteria does not state that they have to go by that completely, though (obviously after last year). They are allowed to use human judgement.
I think we are arguing against the rpi being used as a sole determining factor. The rpi unfairly punishes teams in weaker conferences.
I appreciate your input each week on rpi. I know that we have to play the game because it is used. Please keep us up to date on it. Also, I still think that you should consult with Budke on scheduling.
I enjoy Frisco's posts too.
On scheduling... Had we replaced UALR and Southern with LSU and TX (and still won), I think the rpi would still not have us in the top 20. Would we have gone 2-0 against those replacements on the road? They won't come to Ruston.
That's one reason we need to play at Shreveport's Cent.Tel, as DWAYNE has stated the last few years. Some of these teams would be more inclined to play in Shreveport.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote