
| July 2008 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
My Big 12 preview
My espn.com archives
Most recent entries
BP is on line!
Moving On
What the heck is not going on here?
NST’s
The Orange Effect
Monthly Archives
October 2007
September 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
Complete Archives
Category Archives
Blogging Superheroes
yoco:: College Basketball
big ten wonk
The Mid-Majority
Other College Hoops Blogs
NIT-ology
Hoops Nerd
Blue Devil Hoops
ACC Now
Tempo-Free Suburbia
The Joe Cribbs Car Wash
The CAA: Life as a Mid-Major
Big Ten Chronicle
Hoya Prospectus
ACC Basketblog
MGoBlog
Bracket Express
March Madness All Season
Phog Blog
Vandy Sabermetrics
Syndicate
Hits on this page: 2313664
Page rendered in 0.2194 seconds
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
New vs. Old RPI
While you’re waiting impatiently (You are impatient, right? Tell me you are. Please.) for my latest at espn.com to get posted, you can check out our boy Yoni’s piece on how the road rage RPI is possibly affecting the selection process. Let’s just say the CAA will owe a big thank you to the new formula if they get an at-large bid or two.
Also, reader Sean McGrath took the log5 formula and applied it to the Pythagorean Ratings to come up with some probabilities for the Big East and ACC tourneys. Enjoy.
Seed Team Quarters Semis Finals Champion 1 UConn 100.00% 81.66% 61.21% 39.71% 2 Villanova 100.00% 80.60% 52.64% 28.00% 6 Pitsburgh 66.54% 37.86% 17.53% 7.66% 3 West Virginia 100.00% 48.79% 19.52% 7.33% 4 Marquette 100.00% 47.14% 14.17% 5.34% 5 Georgetown 55.89% 30.99% 10.67% 4.56% 12 Notre Dame 44.11% 21.86% 6.50% 2.42% 11 Louisville 33.46% 13.35% 4.19% 1.22% 8 Cincinnati 57.95% 11.77% 5.10% 1.70% 10 Rutgers 51.81% 10.33% 3.33% 0.80% 9 Syracuse 42.05% 6.57% 2.35% 0.63% 7 Seton Hall 48.19% 9.06% 2.79% 0.63% Seed Team Quarters Semis Finals Champion 1 Duke 100.00% 83.06% 65.29% 40.83% 2 UNC 100.00% 84.94% 66.47% 38.08% 3 Boston Col. 100.00% 61.49% 18.74% 6.11% 4 NC State 100.00% 54.43% 15.37% 5.34% 5 Florida St. 67.02% 34.33% 10.01% 3.58% 6 Maryland 61.73% 26.40% 6.65% 1.80% 9 Clemson 51.78% 9.02% 3.97% 1.15% 8 Miami 48.22% 7.92% 3.35% 0.93% 10 Va. Tech 53.86% 8.60% 3.54% 0.81% 7 Virginia 46.14% 6.46% 2.42% 0.50% 12 Wake Forest 32.98% 11.24% 1.99% 0.45% 11 Georgia Tech 38.27% 12.12% 2.18% 0.42%
Line o’ the Night
FG 3pt FT Reb
Min M-A M-A M-A O-T A F S TO BLK Pts
Karandick Ogunride 32 5-10 0-0 8-12 9-16 0 0 2 4 0 18
Result: Win. Norfolk St. 73, UMES 71.
Friday, October 14, 2005
The new RPI and its effect on scheduling
I love it when data speaks for itself. It doesn’t happen often, but I believe I’ve found one of those cases.
When it was revealed last summer that the RPI would be altered to give an undisclosed bonus to road wins and then when the formula was announced last summer, it was hailed as a boon for teams in non-power conferences. Not only would they be rewarded with a boost in the RPI for all of the non-conference road games they have to play, but they would also reap the benefit of power conference teams that want to take advantage of the road win component of the RPI. Power conference teams would in turn schedule a few more road games because of the new formula. Life would be great.
I recall this claim being rather common. Unfortunately, the only example I can find at the moment is from Dick Vitale.
[The new RPI] will become a factor as schools realize the added importance of winning on the road. Also look for this to influence scheduling in the future, because a big road win will help even more on the road to securing a bid to the Big Dance. Dick Vitale, espn.com, 12/27/04.
Dick Vitale didn’t get to where he is because of his journalistic prowess, so I feel a little sheepish about singling him out. And to be precise, he doesn’t specifically claim that power-conference teams will schedule more road games. But I received e-mails last season from people wondering if the new formula would spur the kind of movement that Vitale alluded to. Now that schedules are set for this season, we know the answer.
Power conference non-conference games
Home Road %Home
2002-2005 1655 341 82.9
2006 451 86 84.0
The numbers represent games played by power conference teams against teams from outside the power conferences. By a power conference team, I mean a member of the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, or SEC. By 2006, I mean this season, and 2002-2005 represents the previous four seasons combined. The data ignores (nearly) all games played on psuedo-home courts and games against teams outside of Division I.
So with that said, nothing more needs to be said. I will add the caveat that this season’s data does not contain games that haven’t been scheduled yet, and I am referring to in-season tournament games that will played on home courts like the second round games of the Guardians Classic and Preseason NIT. I expect that this will push the percentage of home games incrementally higher for the power conferences.
We can only speculate on the reason for the lack of change in scheduling practices, but to me it’s clear. Teams with the big budgets are not willing to trade two or three spots in the RPI for the money that home dates bring in. This may come back to haunt one or two teams each season, thereby costing them revenue they would get from the NCAA Tournament, but most schools are willing to take that risk.
To give you an idea of how little things have changed, Syracuse will play their first game in a hostile arena the same night as Baylor - and due to NCAA sanctions, Baylor doesn’t start its season until the second week of January. Washington takes the cake by waiting until January 12th to hit the road.
For those that are curious, here is the breakdown of true home and road non-conference games for all conferences. Only games against Division I opponents are included.
Home Road %Home Big XII 86 18 82.7 SEC 92 25 78.6 Big East 115 33 77.7 ACC 90 28 76.3 Pac 10 55 18 75.3 Big Ten 76 27 73.8 MWC 58 26 69.0 CUSA 73 48 60.3 Atlantic 10 82 57 59.0 MVC 40 29 58.0 WCC 44 40 52.4 WAC 43 40 51.8 CAA 40 43 48.2 Horizon 35 40 46.7 MAC 34 42 44.7 Ivy League 40 50 44.4 Patriot 35 47 42.7 Big Sky 28 39 41.8 Big West 32 45 41.6 Sun Belt 41 62 39.8 MAAC 27 41 39.7 SoCon 32 56 36.4 NEC 30 53 36.1 America East 30 54 35.7 Independents 49 98 33.3 OVC 14 34 29.2 MidCon 20 51 28.2 Southland 21 54 28.0 Big South 16 43 27.1 Atlantic Sun 17 48 26.2 MEAC 16 68 19.0 SWAC 6 60 9.1
Monday, August 01, 2005
RPI Help
The Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) is the formula used by the NCAA to rate men’s and women’s college basketball teams. The formula is described below.
The RPI is calculated by adding three parts.
Part I (25% of the formula): Team winning percentage. For the 2005 season, the NCAA added a bonus/penalty system, where each home win or road loss get multiplied by 0.6 in the winning percentage calculation. A home loss or road win is multiplied by 1.4. Neutral games count as 1.0. More on the effect of these changes can be found here.
Part II (50%): Average opponents’ winning percentage. To calculate this, you must calculate each opponent’s winning percentage individually and average those figures. This is NOT calculated from the opponents’ combined record. Games involving the team for whom we are calculating the RPI are ignored.
Part III (25%): Average opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage: Basically taking all of the opponents’ Part II values and averaging them.
Only games against other teams playing a mostly D1 schedule count when computing the RPI.
Here’s a simple example of how it’s calculated:
Team A has played two games and beat Team B and Team C.
Team B has a 1-1 record. Team B beat a team with a 2-1 record and lost to 2-0 Team A.
Team C has a 1-2 record. Team C beat a team with a 0-2 record, lost to a team with a 2-0 record, and lost to Team A.
So now let’s see how to compute Team A’s RPI.
At 2-0, their winning pct. is 1.000.
Their average opponents’ winning percentage (OWP):
Team B is 1-0 (1.000) without the loss to Team A. Team C is 1-1 (.500) without the loss to Team A. So the OWP is (1.000 + .500)/2 = .750.
Their average opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage (OOWP):
To do this, we need Team B’s and Team C’s OWP. When removing Team B’s results, Team B’s opponents are 2-0 and 1-0 for an average of 1.000. Team C’s opponents are 0-1, 1-0, and 1-0 for an average of .667. The average of these two numbers is .833.
So Team A’s RPI is 1/4 X (1) + 1/2 X (.75) + 1/4 X (.833) = .8333
Here’s how other columns in the RPI grid are computed…
SOS (Strength of Schedule): This is the last two components of the RPI formula:
(2/3) X Opponents Winning Pct. + (1/3) X Opponents Opponents Winning Pct.
Non Conference RPI: This is computed applying the basic RPI formula only to a team’s non-conference games. A common misconception is that a team’s non conference RPI will remain the same after they have played their last non-conference opponent. This is not true because a team’s non-conference opponents’ records and their opponents’ records change as they play their conference games. This can have a substantial effect on the NCRPI. For example, in 2003 Alabama’s NCRPI had a ranking of #23 when they entered conference play. By the end of the regular season it had risen to #3.
L10 (Last 10 Games): A team’s record in their last 10 games against Division I opponents.
RD/NT (Road/Neutral Record): A team’s record away from its home court.
How important is the RPI?
From the NCAA web site:
The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) was created in 1981 to provide supplemental data for the Division I Men’s Basketball Committee in its evaluation of teams for at-large selection and seeding of the championship bracket.
The RPI is intended to be used as one of many resources used by the committee in the selection, seeding and bracketing process. It never should be considered anything but an additional evaluation tool. No computer program that is based on pure numbers can take into account subjective concepts, e.g., how well a team is playing down the stretch, what the loss or return of a top player means to a team, or how emotional a specific conference game may be.
Several independent elements are combined to produce the RPI. These elements are a part of the statistical information that can be utilized by each member in an objective manner.
Each committee member independently evaluates a vast pool of information available during the process to develop individual preferences. It is these subjective opinions--developed after many hours of personal observations, discussion with coaches, directors of athletics and commissioners, and review and comparison of objective data--that dictate how each individual ultimately will vote on all issues related to the selection, seeding and bracketing process.
While the various elements of the RPI are important in the evaluation process, the tournament bracket each year is based on the subjectivity of each individual committee member to select the best at-large teams available and to create a nationally balanced championship.
To read more about the details of the tournament selection process go to this page. Prepared to be bored though.
Why are the RPI ratings different on other pages?
I don’t know and I don’t care. For most of the 2005 season, every site (including this one) that posted the RPI differed significantly from what the NCAA was using. That saga is documented on this page. As of August 2005, ESPN continues to carry bogus RPI data for last season. I am confident what I post is correct, subject to game data errors which are rare but do occur. Now that home/road wins matter, small errors can occur if the NCAA considers certain games neutral that I do not.
How does the RPI factor in margin of victory?
It doesn’t.
How does the RPI handle home site advantage?
As of the 2005 season, the RPI gives more weight to road wins and home losses (see above description of Part I). Prior to 2005, site of game was not a consideration in the formula.
Any more complaints about the RPI?
I’ve written a little on the RPI in an effort to defend it, here, here, and here. It doesn’t mean I think it’s perfect, it’s far from it, but it’s better than most folks think. Especially considering the selection committee is there to clean up any messes, although they do fail occasionally.
Any more questions? Write to ratings@kenpom.com
