03-02-2010, 11:19 AM
03-02-2010, 11:23 AM
Quote:C.M. Newton, former basketball coach and chairman of the NCAA selection committee, said the media, public and coaches put far too much credence on the RPI than the committee does.
"When I was on the committee -- and I still do this in picking the NIT field-- we used RPI but I also use Sagarin," Newton said. "I looked at polls and what the coaches think and writers think. I ask myself, 'If I were coaching a team, which one of these teams would I not want to play and in what order?' "
If that were true, CM, UAB would dance every year.
03-02-2010, 11:27 AM
(03-02-2010 11:23 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]"When I was on the committee -- and I still do this in picking the NIT field-- we used RPI but I also use Sagarin," Newton said. "I looked at polls and what the coaches think and writers think. I ask myself, Which one of these systems will justify my decision to leave a deserving non BCS school out "
I changed the bolded part to reflect Newton's though process more accurately.
03-02-2010, 11:27 AM
C.M. Newton Wrote:"When I was on the committee -- and I still do this in picking the NIT field-- we used RPI but I also use Sagarin."
The RobSmith is validated!
03-02-2010, 11:30 AM
I liked this quote:
"The only difference between 'buy' games and professional wrestling is that even though everyone knows the match is fixed, in professional wrestling at least the spectators don't know who is going to win."
"The only difference between 'buy' games and professional wrestling is that even though everyone knows the match is fixed, in professional wrestling at least the spectators don't know who is going to win."
03-02-2010, 11:30 AM
C.M. Newton Wrote:"When I was on the committee -- and I still do this in picking the NIT field-- we used RPI but I also use Sagarin."
The RobSmith is validated!
03-02-2010, 11:32 AM
Lunardi said the plethora of data available allows the committee to cherry-pick facts when justifying selections. As long as the committee continues to define quality wins as those against the top 25 or 50 of the RPI, then the RPI will remain significant, he said.
"On the one hand they'll say, 'Such and such's team's RPI isn't what kept them out,' but then they're going to say, 'Oh, they were 1-6 against the top 50,' " Lunardi said. "Well, pick one. I don't have a problem with the RPI being a significant tool. I think by and large it's fair. Like any other statistical model, you have to keep your eyes open for outliers."
"On the one hand they'll say, 'Such and such's team's RPI isn't what kept them out,' but then they're going to say, 'Oh, they were 1-6 against the top 50,' " Lunardi said. "Well, pick one. I don't have a problem with the RPI being a significant tool. I think by and large it's fair. Like any other statistical model, you have to keep your eyes open for outliers."
03-02-2010, 12:03 PM
(03-02-2010 11:32 AM)WesternBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]Lunardi said the plethora of data available allows the committee to cherry-pick facts when justifying selections. As long as the committee continues to define quality wins as those against the top 25 or 50 of the RPI, then the RPI will remain significant, he said.
"On the one hand they'll say, 'Such and such's team's RPI isn't what kept them out,' but then they're going to say, 'Oh, they were 1-6 against the top 50,' " Lunardi said. "Well, pick one. I don't have a problem with the RPI being a significant tool. I think by and large it's fair. Like any other statistical model, you have to keep your eyes open for outliers."
This is the problem exactly. At least with the BCS, there is a specified set of criteria used. It's objective, at least as much as statistics can be objective when they're based on flawed underlying assumptions. But the committee doesn't tell us what they use and may change the influence or value of a particular model depending on what it tells them. And that's BS. I'm glad Lunardi is calling them out for that.
I mean...it's great that RobSmith is validated. But what the hell? You're telling me, CM, that you just decided what you wanted to use and you used it whether it had any viability and whether anybody else was using the same factors you were using or not? That's ludicrous. Everybody should be judging on the same set of information. Pick one, tell us what it is, and then let's all decide for ourselves how best to get there. And if we don't...well, our fault...at least we knew the rules.
This is like a jailhouse confession that the system is a sham. Unbelievable.
03-02-2010, 12:04 PM
(03-02-2010 11:23 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:C.M. Newton, former basketball coach and chairman of the NCAA selection committee, said the media, public and coaches put far too much credence on the RPI than the committee does.
"When I was on the committee -- and I still do this in picking the NIT field-- we used RPI but I also use Sagarin," Newton said. "I looked at polls and what the coaches think and writers think. I ask myself, 'If I were coaching a team, which one of these teams would I not want to play and in what order?' "
If that were true, CM, UAB would dance every year.
Beautiful.