if boardingham doesnt learn how to stay out of foul trouble along with our guard play making better passes, it wont matter what our rpi ends up being....hell, our 35 wasnt good enough last year

(12-20-2013 08:46 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  C-USA is one of only two leagues with an above .500 mark ranked from 12 to 20. Obviously, there is something wrong with that when a league that's only won 35% of its games could be ranked higher.

Clearly, the league is not scheduling the right people. That can be the only explanation. Stop scheduling these schools you know are going to be 300 plus. Even with that this thing is still flawed.

For example, how can this be. Nebraska Omaha has the exact same record as Middle Tennessee yet MT's SOS is rated three percentage points higher, so how is it Omaha has an RPI 16 places ahead of MT? What I'm seeing in the RPI this year is some of the most illogical data I've ever seen in the system. And clearly C-USA is being penalized for it for whatever reason.

They probably have more road wins. Road wins count 1.4 while home wins are only 0.6 in the AWP.

(12-20-2013 09:41 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 08:46 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  C-USA is one of only two leagues with an above .500 mark ranked from 12 to 20. Obviously, there is something wrong with that when a league that's only won 35% of its games could be ranked higher.

Clearly, the league is not scheduling the right people. That can be the only explanation. Stop scheduling these schools you know are going to be 300 plus. Even with that this thing is still flawed.

For example, how can this be. Nebraska Omaha has the exact same record as Middle Tennessee yet MT's SOS is rated three percentage points higher, so how is it Omaha has an RPI 16 places ahead of MT? What I'm seeing in the RPI this year is some of the most illogical data I've ever seen in the system. And clearly C-USA is being penalized for it for whatever reason.

They probably have more road wins. Road wins count 1.4 while home wins are only 0.6 in the AWP.

Then how do some of these power schools and leagues end up with such good RPI's. Some of them don't play a road game until conference play starts.

(12-21-2013 09:52 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 09:41 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 08:46 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  C-USA is one of only two leagues with an above .500 mark ranked from 12 to 20. Obviously, there is something wrong with that when a league that's only won 35% of its games could be ranked higher.

Clearly, the league is not scheduling the right people. That can be the only explanation. Stop scheduling these schools you know are going to be 300 plus. Even with that this thing is still flawed.

For example, how can this be. Nebraska Omaha has the exact same record as Middle Tennessee yet MT's SOS is rated three percentage points higher, so how is it Omaha has an RPI 16 places ahead of MT? What I'm seeing in the RPI this year is some of the most illogical data I've ever seen in the system. And clearly C-USA is being penalized for it for whatever reason.

They probably have more road wins. Road wins count 1.4 while home wins are only 0.6 in the AWP.

Then how do some of these power schools and leagues end up with such good RPI's. Some of them don't play a road game until conference play starts.

Look at Louisville's RPI. 46 with a 10-1 record.

(12-20-2013 08:46 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  C-USA is one of only two leagues with an above .500 mark ranked from 12 to 20. Obviously, there is something wrong with that when a league that's only won 35% of its games could be ranked higher.

Clearly, the league is not scheduling the right people. That can be the only explanation. Stop scheduling these schools you know are going to be 300 plus. Even with that this thing is still flawed.

For example, how can this be. Nebraska Omaha has the exact same record as Middle Tennessee yet MT's SOS is rated three percentage points higher, so how is it Omaha has an RPI 16 places ahead of MT? What I'm seeing in the RPI this year is some of the most illogical data I've ever seen in the system. And clearly C-USA is being penalized for it for whatever reason.

You don't understand RPI if you don't know the answer to that one...W-L records are weighted based on game location. You get 1.4 for a road win or home loss, 0.6 for home wins and road losses, and 1.0 for neutral site wins and losses.

MT (6-3) is 5-1 at home and 1-2 away, making it 4.4-2.4 (.6471).
Omaha (6-4 DI) is 3-0 at home and 3-4 away, making it 6.0-2.4 (.7143)

Since W-L records are 25% of the RPI, Omaha is ahead of MT by .0168 just looking at records.

(12-21-2013 05:08 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 08:46 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  C-USA is one of only two leagues with an above .500 mark ranked from 12 to 20. Obviously, there is something wrong with that when a league that's only won 35% of its games could be ranked higher.

Clearly, the league is not scheduling the right people. That can be the only explanation. Stop scheduling these schools you know are going to be 300 plus. Even with that this thing is still flawed.

For example, how can this be. Nebraska Omaha has the exact same record as Middle Tennessee yet MT's SOS is rated three percentage points higher, so how is it Omaha has an RPI 16 places ahead of MT? What I'm seeing in the RPI this year is some of the most illogical data I've ever seen in the system. And clearly C-USA is being penalized for it for whatever reason.

You don't understand RPI if you don't know the answer to that one...W-L records are weighted based on game location. You get 1.4 for a road win or home loss, 0.6 for home wins and road losses, and 1.0 for neutral site wins and losses.

MT (6-3) is 5-1 at home and 1-2 away, making it 4.4-2.4 (.6471).
Omaha (6-4 DI) is 3-0 at home and 3-4 away, making it 6.0-2.4 (.7143)

Since W-L records are 25% of the RPI, Omaha is ahead of UAB by .0168 just looking at records.

1.4 for a road win
1.0 for a home win or road loss
0.6 for a home loss

neutral site games are 1.0 either way

Basically you get a 40% bonus for winning on the road and suffer a 40% penalty for losing at home.

(12-21-2013 05:12 PM)Freshy Wrote:  

(12-21-2013 05:08 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 08:46 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  C-USA is one of only two leagues with an above .500 mark ranked from 12 to 20. Obviously, there is something wrong with that when a league that's only won 35% of its games could be ranked higher.

Clearly, the league is not scheduling the right people. That can be the only explanation. Stop scheduling these schools you know are going to be 300 plus. Even with that this thing is still flawed.

For example, how can this be. Nebraska Omaha has the exact same record as Middle Tennessee yet MT's SOS is rated three percentage points higher, so how is it Omaha has an RPI 16 places ahead of MT? What I'm seeing in the RPI this year is some of the most illogical data I've ever seen in the system. And clearly C-USA is being penalized for it for whatever reason.

You don't understand RPI if you don't know the answer to that one...W-L records are weighted based on game location. You get 1.4 for a road win or home loss, 0.6 for home wins and road losses, and 1.0 for neutral site wins and losses.

MT (6-3) is 5-1 at home and 1-2 away, making it 4.4-2.4 (.6471).
Omaha (6-4 DI) is 3-0 at home and 3-4 away, making it 6.0-2.4 (.7143)

Since W-L records are 25% of the RPI, Omaha is ahead of UAB by .0168 just looking at records.

1.4 for a road win
1.0 for a home win or road loss
0.6 for a home loss

neutral site games are 1.0 either way

Basically you get a 40% bonus for winning on the road and suffer a 40% penalty for losing at home.

You are off on almost every one of them.

At home wins are 0.6 and losses are 1.4
On the road wins are 1.4 and losses are 0.6
Neutral site games are 1.0 for both.

FriscoDawg had it right.

Vanderbilt.

Same record. Has only played two road games. Lost both.

Best win=176 Everyone else 200+

RPI=71

(12-21-2013 05:24 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Vanderbilt.

Same record. Has only played two road games. Lost both.

Best win=176 Everyone else 200+

RPI=71

Their opponents must be doing well then. Opponents records account for 50% of a team's RPI.

MT best win = 75

Four games on the road three of which against top 56

Makes sense to me.

(12-21-2013 05:26 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(12-21-2013 05:24 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Vanderbilt.

Same record. Has only played two road games. Lost both.

Best win=176 Everyone else 200+

RPI=71

Their opponents must be doing well then. Opponents records account for 50% of a team's RPI.

That's why I would rather see you schedule a Division II team over a 300+ RPI program.

(12-21-2013 05:29 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-21-2013 05:26 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(12-21-2013 05:24 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Vanderbilt.

Same record. Has only played two road games. Lost both.

Best win=176 Everyone else 200+

RPI=71

Their opponents must be doing well then. Opponents records account for 50% of a team's RPI.

That's why I would rather see you schedule a Division II team over a 300+ RPI program.

Which is what ECU has done. The only problem then is that people complain about ECU not playing anyone; but NCSU, UNC and Duke are not going to play ECU at ECU. Not going to happen, because those teams know that ECU could beat them in Minges.