16-17 Games of Interest

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

So if there was NOTHING to rate between 11-5 and 11-12 explain how the rankings changed? WSU was 190 on 11-5 and 34 on 11-8
without playing a game. IF as you say there is nothing to base the --- rating on HOW DID IT CHANGE ? In order for there to be a change there had to be.
KU went from 2 to 5 on 11-12 ALL things being equal they would of HAD to be below the winning teams. there is no way RPI starts without someone or thing
giving a statistical advantage BASED on what they think is a reason too.

First off, WSU was #34 on 11/5 (and 11/4, and 11/6, and 11/7...), not #190. Not sure what you are looking at.

Every single "rank" you mention still has "---" as an RPI value. You are griping over the algorithm they use BEFORE this year's games are incorporated.

Look at 11/13. It's the first date anyone has an actual RPI value. Only 4 teams do. #1 is UC Davis, #2 TN State, #3 N Arizona, #4 Santa Clara, then come all the "---" teams (Nova, UNC, etc.)

Find me a gripe with the rank of a team that has AN ACTUAL RPI VALUE, or just stop with the conspiracy theory stuff.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Check this out.

On 11/16 there were 57 teams listed with RPI data on teamrankings.com.

Cincinnati was #1 at 2-0. This makes sense because both of their opponents were undefeated at the time, except for their losses to Cincy, and all of their opponents’ opponents were undefeated, except for the single loss to Cincy’s opponents. Basically, a perfect scenario.

Valpo was #41 at 2-0 (remember, out of 57) and well behind many 1-1 and even 0-2 teams. How can this be? Well, Valpo was the opposite of Cincy. Both of their opponents were winless, and all of their opponents’ opponents were winless, except for the single win vs Cincy's opponents. Basically, the worst case scenario.

A team’s own record only accounts for 25% of the RPI. That is why you can see a 2-0 team ranked so low early, or an 0-2 team ranked so high. As more games are played, the winning percentage of opponents and opponents’ opponents start coming much closer to 50%. You no longer have freak cases where a team’s opponents are all undefeated. It takes time for the RPI to be meaningful whatsoever. This is a function of the fact that NO PRESEASON RANKINGS ARE INCORPORATED TO THE FORMULA. It’s only about the games actually played. Small sample size = worthless results.

[jdmee]

The WSU ranked #190 is Washington State not Wichita State. I am not sure how they placed the team before the season starts. But it never impacted the RPI ranking after the season. If you look closely they keep the teams in order and just bump them down until they have an RPI.

[molly jabali]

Check this out.

On 11/16 there were 57 teams listed with RPI data on teamrankings.com.

Cincinnati was #1 at 2-0. This makes sense because both of their opponents were undefeated at the time, except for their losses to Cincy, and all of their opponents’ opponents were undefeated, except for the single loss to Cincy’s opponents. Basically, a perfect scenario.

Valpo was #41 at 2-0 (remember, out of 57) and well behind many 1-1 and even 0-2 teams. How can this be? Well, Valpo was the opposite of Cincy. Both of their opponents were winless, and all of their opponents’ opponents were winless, except for the single win vs Cincy's opponents. Basically, the worst case scenario.

A team’s own record only accounts for 25% of the RPI. That is why you can see a 2-0 team ranked so low early, or an 0-2 team ranked so high. As more games are played, the winning percentage of opponents and opponents’ opponents start coming much closer to 50%. You no longer have freak cases where a team’s opponents are all undefeated. It takes time for the RPI to be meaningful whatsoever. This is a function of the fact that NO PRESEASON RANKINGS ARE INCORPORATED TO THE FORMULA. It’s only about the games actually played. Small sample size = worthless results.

Don't let this go to your head, but your research on this is mighty impressive....

[ShockTalk]

That win for Colorado State last night was huge! They need to just go 2-2 in the remaining regular season games now and win a game in the MWC tournament. Also, they're in first place in the MWC now?! Eustachy really can do a lot with a little.

They will need to play extra well to get that 2-2 finish ( and I hope they do). Three of the four teams have higher RPIs that CSU, they are not favored on the road against New Mexico and Nevada, and while they should beat Wyoming at home, San Diego State will be a handful (game is pretty much a toss up).

[shocks02]

They will need to play extra well to get that 2-2 finish ( and I hope they do). Three of the four teams have higher RPIs that CSU, they are not favored on the road against New Mexico and Nevada, and while they should beat Wyoming at home, San Diego State will be a handful (game is pretty much a toss up).

Looks like I read RPIForecast wrong. If they go 1-3 they will end the regular season with an RPI of 101. Two wins in the MWC tournament, or maybe one win if they get a lucky draw, would probably move them into the Top 100. Needless to say if they go 2-2 it won't matter what happens in the MWC tournament.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Don't let this go to your head, but your research on this is mighty impressive....

Thanks for the compliment, but notice I did research on teams that had played only 2 games. Not many opponent's opponents to worry about at that point.

You can start worrying about me if I try to manually calculate RPI for teams in February. 25 games = 625 opponents' opponents. Yuck. :-)

[wufan]

I thought we had four losses?

Yep... should be 1-3 against 25-50.

[RoyalShock]

First off, WSU was #34 on 11/5 (and 11/4, and 11/6, and 11/7...), not #190. Not sure what you are looking at.

Every single "rank" you mention still has "---" as an RPI value. You are griping over the algorithm they use BEFORE this year's games are incorporated.

Look at 11/13. It's the first date anyone has an actual RPI value. Only 4 teams do. #1 is UC Davis, #2 TN State, #3 N Arizona, #4 Santa Clara, then come all the "---" teams (Nova, UNC, etc.)

Find me a gripe with the rank of a team that has AN ACTUAL RPI VALUE, or just stop with the conspiracy theory stuff.

What you're probably arguing over is that particular site's unique index value in their database. If 300 schools are tied with "---" and no games played (so all record values are 0), it has to order them somehow. It's probably in the order of a primary key index, or some other database value that has absolutely no consequence to the actual algorithm or rating.

[Stickboy46]

Arkansas beats South Carolina. Should make us ranked, but puts Arkansas back on the bubble.

[ShockTalk]

K St going down, Xavier lost, Northwestern lost, and Rhode Island's loss to Fordham should end any bubble talk.

[ShockerFever]

RPI up to 43.

[ShockTalk]

Who do we want to win Indiana at Minnesota? I'm thinking Indiana?

[ShockerFever]

Who do we want to win Indiana at Minnesota? I'm thinking Indiana?

Yeah. Indiana is as good as dead and a win over Minnesota isn't going to just magically break them through.

[ShockTalk]

Saw where Florida's 6'11"/255 center John Egbunu is out with a torn ACL. Not a big scorer at about 8 ppg, but averages 6.5 rpg.