Adjusted RPI (4/14)

[GoneGolfin]

_ Funny, I was thinking the same thing ... our new scheduling consultant!

What we can do is hold off on scheduling 6 games each year, then add them in with some local RPI winners! Just kidding on this but there is some benefit. They don't have to schedule the maximum number of games prior to the season. I remember picking up a game or two in the past during the season. _

I also enjoyed the days when coaches could schedule a three game series between the conference tournaments and the opening games of regional play. This was before regional selections were made.

Brian

[GoneGolfin]

_ RPI ranking this Saturday morning..."54"...and ahead of Tulame at 62.

Brian...reading over your RPI comments and how and why it is better to play a 225 team than a 110 team. Although the RPI has some overall benefits, it is disappointing that it works that way. When a team can actually benefit from playing a weaker schedule, you know something is wrong with its use. Thanks for the explanation, though.

Btw...you are now officially on my payroll. Free peanuts for you and your daughters when i see you at The Tigue!!

I am honored to be on your payroll. But instead of peanuts, could you do the following for me?

Could you take Cajun90's iPhone from him at the game (you can give it back to him after the game). He continues to taunt me in the following manner (see attached pic) ...

He takes a picture of my season ticket-holder seat, with my own season ticket for that particular game, a cold beer, and spicy peanuts ... whenever I am home in Austin and cannot attend the game.

Yes, he has a sick sense of humor.

No need to rough him up. I can do that.

Thanks,
Brian

[CajunRed]

Now that's down right shameful!

I am honored to be on your payroll. But instead of peanuts, could you do the following for me?

Could you take Cajun90's iPhone from him at the game (you can give it back to him after the game). He continues to taunt me in the following manner (see attached pic) ...

He takes a picture of my season ticket-holder seat, with my own season ticket for that particular game, a cold beer, and spicy peanuts ... whenever I am home in Austin and cannot attend the game.

Yes, he has a sick sense of humor.

No need to rough him up. I can do that.

Thanks,
Brian

igeaux.mobi

[Cajun90]

Now that's down right shameful!
igeaux.mobi

Cruel isn't it......
Just one more week before I can continue the torture.
Its an easy fix and short six hour drive.

[Zeebart21]

_ Cruel isn't it......
Just one more week before I can continue the torture.
Its an easy fix and short six hour drive. _

cruelest of the cruel......

Z

[J-Town Cajun]

_ Thanks. I also do not like subjective polls. But the RPI is not the best we have. The NCAA simply chooses not to listen and adapt. The RPI can be improved dramatically and the flaws I have pointed out rectified by some simple formula changes. But baseball has held fast to the original flawed formula.

Additionally, Boyd Nation's ISR system is superior to the RPI as it does not succumb to the flaws I have mentioned ... and better address the connectivity problem.


Ha! No, I would advise without fee if asked. Of course, each sport has its own nuances as the formulas can be different from sport to sport.

Brian _

Could you give us some insight and differences in Boyd Nation's ISR and the current RPI that the NCAA currently uses? I would first have to factor in home and away into the formula and maybe give more weight to OOWP into the formula.

And what other changes you would make if you could?

[GoneGolfin]

_ Could you give us some insight and differences in Boyd Nation's ISR and the current RPI that the NCAA currently uses? I would first have to factor in home and away into the formula and maybe give more weight to OOWP into the formula.

And what other changes you would make if you could? _

The principal difference between the ISR and the RPI is that the ISR is not subject to the same connectivity issues that plagues the RPI. This is because the ISR employs a real algorithm that is recursive in nature and extends far beyond two levels deep into SOS (OWP and OOWP).

From Boyd's page ...
"The basic idea is an iterative one. Begin with all teams set to an even rating -- 100 in this case. Then, for each game played, give each team the value of their opponent's rating plus or minus a factor for winning or losing the game -- 25 in this case. Total all of a team's results, divide by the number of games played, and that's the end of a cycle. Then use those numbers as the start of the next cycle until you get the same results for each team for two consecutive cycles."

This is the best I can explain it without coding the algorithm for you. But simply imagine an RPI with no limits (until the recursive stop condition is hit) as to the depths that SOS is calculated. Meanwhile, RPI has an arbitrary depth of two (OWP and OOWP). Imagine OWP, OOWP, OOOWP, OOOOWP, ... until the stop condition is hit.

The only knock I have against the ISR is that it does not take into account home vs. road games. But that was not its intent. It was intended to provide a better version of what the RPI was attempting to accomplish.

As far as "upgrading" the RPI if I was stuck using it ... I would equally weight win/loss percentage and strength of schedule. I would also apply a factor to home wins and road wins. I have not decided what that should be. But obviously a home win would be worth less than 1.0 and a road win would be worth more than 1.0.

But again, the above is simply patching a flawed system. You cannot accurately assess SOS by simply going two levels deep. It is an arbitrary system.

Brian

[J-Town Cajun]

_ The principal difference between the ISR and the RPI is that the ISR is not subject to the same connectivity issues that plagues the RPI. This is because the ISR employs a real algorithm that is recursive in nature and extends far beyond two levels deep into SOS (OWP and OOWP).

From Boyd's page ...
"The basic idea is an iterative one. Begin with all teams set to an even rating -- 100 in this case. Then, for each game played, give each team the value of their opponent's rating plus or minus a factor for winning or losing the game -- 25 in this case. Total all of a team's results, divide by the number of games played, and that's the end of a cycle. Then use those numbers as the start of the next cycle until you get the same results for each team for two consecutive cycles."

This is the best I can explain it without coding the algorithm for you. But simply imagine an RPI with no limits (until the recursive stop condition is hit) as to the depths that SOS is calculated. Meanwhile, RPI has an arbitrary depth of two (OWP and OOWP). Imagine OWP, OOWP, OOOWP, OOOOWP, ... until the stop condition is hit.

The only knock I have against the ISR is that it does not take into account home vs. road games. But that was not its intent. It was intended to provide a better version of what the RPI was attempting to accomplish.

As far as "upgrading" the RPI if I was stuck using it ... I would equally weight win/loss percentage and strength of schedule. I would also apply a factor to home wins and road wins. I have not decided what that should be. But obviously a home win would be worth less than 1.0 and a road win would be worth more than 1.0.

But again, the above is simply patching a flawed system. You cannot accurately assess SOS by simply going two levels deep. It is an arbitrary system.

Brian _

Got it. Thanks! If Boyd's ISR system makes more sense I wonder why the NCAA would not use it. I know why home and road games are not factored in, it is because it would penalized the big conference teams. If the NCAA would implement this formula with road and home games factored in, then we would see more of the big boys travel which in the long run create more parity.

[CajunRed]

Correct. Right now they have ZERO incentive RPI wise to ever leave home.

Got it. Thanks! If Boyd's ISR system makes more sense I wonder why the NCAA would not use it. I know why home and road games are not factored in, it is because it would penalized the big conference teams. If the NCAA would implement this formula with road and home games factored in, then we would see more of the big boys travel which in the long run create more parity.

igeaux.mobi

[CajunRed]

Golfin...just want you to know that when i finally read your 4th to last paragraph...the one that mentions algorithum...i had to stop to hurry and go take two tylenol.

The principal difference between the ISR and the RPI is that the ISR is not subject to the same connectivity issues that plagues the RPI. This is because the ISR employs a real algorithm that is recursive in nature and extends far beyond two levels deep into SOS (OWP and OOWP).

From Boyd's page ...
"The basic idea is an iterative one. Begin with all teams set to an even rating -- 100 in this case. Then, for each game played, give each team the value of their opponent's rating plus or minus a factor for winning or losing the game -- 25 in this case. Total all of a team's results, divide by the number of games played, and that's the end of a cycle. Then use those numbers as the start of the next cycle until you get the same results for each team for two consecutive cycles."

This is the best I can explain it without coding the algorithm for you. But simply imagine an RPI with no limits (until the recursive stop condition is hit) as to the depths that SOS is calculated. Meanwhile, RPI has an arbitrary depth of two (OWP and OOWP). Imagine OWP, OOWP, OOOWP, OOOOWP, ... until the stop condition is hit.

The only knock I have against the ISR is that it does not take into account home vs. road games. But that was not its intent. It was intended to provide a better version of what the RPI was attempting to accomplish.

As far as "upgrading" the RPI if I was stuck using it ... I would equally weight win/loss percentage and strength of schedule. I would also apply a factor to home wins and road wins. I have not decided what that should be. But obviously a home win would be worth less than 1.0 and a road win would be worth more than 1.0.

But again, the above is simply patching a flawed system. You cannot accurately assess SOS by simply going two levels deep. It is an arbitrary system.

Brian

igeaux.mobi

[GoneGolfin]

_ Got it. Thanks! If Boyd's ISR system makes more sense I wonder why the NCAA would not use it. I know why home and road games are not factored in, it is because it would penalized the big conference teams. If the NCAA would implement this formula with road and home games factored in, then we would see more of the big boys travel which in the long run create more parity. _

Yes, there is certainly a powerful lobby here that plays a significant role in the decision to retain the current system.

I do not know why the NCAA has not considered the use of the ISR or something else superior to the RPI. But if they ditched the RPI in baseball, they would need to be prepared to ditch it in all sports. Anything else would come under harsh criticism.

To my knowledge, the NCAA has never even consulted Boyd to obtain more information. It make take the current generation of NCAA statisticians to retire before change is made.

Brian

[GoneGolfin]

_ Golfin...just want you to know that when i finally read your 4th to last paragraph...the one that mentions algorithum...i had to stop to hurry and go take two tylenol.

LOL. I think you are sandbagging me now. But the humor is appreciated.

Brian