Projecting the RPI

[wcd35]

That's pretty ridiculous. Some of them have a chasm between NC and Overall. Its as major conference-leaning as the BCS

[GoneGolfin]

Brian, I would think the RPI could be fine tuned to be a better tool. Wins should count more period. Just a guess, but move wins from 25% to 30% and move that second group from 50% to 45% there would be an important improvement. If that does not cull out the middle fo the pack losers from the power conference sweet spot move it a little more.

While I agree that winning must count for more, fixing the RPI is much more complicated than "fine tuning" it. Fine tuning it will not get you the results needed. Other than the problems with component weighting, the lack of distinction between home/road, and an arbitrary bonus system, you have a very significant flaw in how you calculate the strength of schedule component (SOS) ... that together with the WP (winning component) forms the RPI.

This flaw is what I termed the "arbitrary levels of recursion" used to calculate the SOS component. The discussion that made CajunRed puke. Two levels is not nearly enough (OWP and OOWP). This significant shortcoming gets exposed in many ways. But just one example is ...

You have an opponent on your schedule (let's call them South Alabama for simplicity) that is obviously a component of your OWP (and thus South Alabama is very important). Whom South Alabama plays on their schedule is of less consequence to you (this represents your OOWP, while it represents South Alabama's OWP). But that opponent's SOS is not represented in your RPI. It is only represented partly in South Alabama's OOWP. But South Alabama's performance against that team will certainly affect your RPI. So, what we have is a win/loss result that affects your RPI without providing any input as to the real strength of that opponent (as measured by their SOS).

Once you identify the above as a fundamental flaw of the RPI ... and then set out to implement a real fix ... you end up with an entirely different system that bears little resemblance to the RPI. So let's call it like it is. A new system is needed.

Could you make it more tolerable by making some tweaks? Yes. But it would still be a bad an unfair system. Why not fix it right the first time?

I just cannot ever get over a team moving up the RPI while losing. That is just crazy.

Yes, this is where the RPI shows its a$s.

Brian (I found a hole in Turbine's language filter)

[GoneGolfin]

That's pretty ridiculous. Some of them have a chasm between NC and Overall. Its as major conference-leaning as the BCS

Precisely. I was hoping someone would be able to appreciate how much of a chasm exists in those numbers. It is simply stunning. And while baseball has a problem here as well, it is not as nearly as egregious as that of softball (due to the ridiculous bonus system implemented in softball).

While it is still possible for a school outside of the elite conferences to crack the Top 16 at selection time, it really takes a special season. Last year, there were none.

Brian

[CajunRed]

Brian...is there or will there be a new points system in place for softball like there will be next year for baseball...awarding 1.3 for an AWAY win and so forth?

[GoneGolfin]

Here is a more clear breakdown of the differential between the "All Games Adjusted RPI" and the "Non-Conference Adjusted RPI" at NCAA selection time in 2011. The rankings below are for "All Games Adjusted RPI", not "Non-Conference Adjusted RPI".

2011 Adjusted RPIs at NCAA Tournament Selection Time (Overall) vs. (Non-Conference)

#1 Arizona State (.7080) vs. (.6422)
#2 Georgia (.7059) vs. (.6872)
#3 Texas (.7054) vs. (.6596)
#4 Alabama (.7014) vs. (.7181)
#5 Missouri (.6978) vs. (.6409)
#6 Florida (.6962) vs. (.6952)
#7 California (.6946) vs. (.6371)
#8 Arizona (.6876) vs. (.6677)
#9 Oklahoma (.6743) vs. (.6451)
#10 Michigan (.6673) vs. (.6610)
#11 Baylor (.6658) vs. (.6281)
#12 Tennessee (.6601) vs. (.6146)
#13 Washington (.6563) vs. (.6479)
#14 Texas A&M (.6482) vs. (.5877)
#15 Oregon (.6470) vs. (.6108)
#16 Nebraska (.6407) vs. (.6161)

Brian

We looked at the Top 16 RPI schools above, all of which are from the elite conferences. Now let's look at the 2011 Top 16 RPI schools from the smaller conferences (outside of the Pac-12, SEC, Big XII, Big Ten, and ACC) and compare their Overall Adjusted RPIs vs. their Non-Conference Adjusted RPIs ...

#17 Notre Dame (.6400) vs. (.6181)
#22 Houston (.6290) vs. (.6207)
#24 Louisville (.6234) vs. (.6258)
#26 Syracuse (.6207) vs. (.6067)
#28 Tulsa (.6133) vs. (.6002)
#32 DePaul (.5956) vs. (.6016)
#33 East Carolina (.5921) vs. (.5825)
#34 Long Beach State (.5902) vs. (.6209)
#35 Louisiana (.5900) vs. (.5684)
#36 Fresno State (.5886) vs. (.6183)
#37 Fordham (.5880) vs. (.5983)
#38 UAB (.5879) vs. (.5781)
#39 BYU (.5856) vs. (.5803)
#40 Illinois State (.5854) vs. (.6085)
#43 San Diego State (.5796) vs. (.5935)
#44 Jacksonville (.5790) vs. (.5536)

The average Overall Adjusted RPI for the Top 16 elite conference schools was .0311 higher than their Non-Conference Adjusted RPI.

The average Overall Adjusted RPI for the Top 16 smaller conference schools was a mere .0008 higher than their Non-Conference Adjusted RPI. That is practically break even.

Brian

[GoneGolfin]

Brian...is there or will there be a new points system in place for softball like there will be next year for baseball...awarding 1.3 for an AWAY win and so forth?

I am not aware of the NCAA Division I Softball Committee implementing (or proposing) any changes to the RPI next year ... or any year after 2013.

Brian

[GoneGolfin]

We looked at the Top 16 RPI schools above, all of which are from the elite conferences. Now let's look at the 2011 Top 16 RPI schools from the smaller conferences (outside of the Pac-12, SEC, Big XII, Big Ten, and ACC) and compare their Overall Adjusted RPIs vs. their Non-Conference Adjusted RPIs ...

#17 Notre Dame (.6400) vs. (.6181)
#22 Houston (.6290) vs. (.6207)
#24 Louisville (.6234) vs. (.6258)
#26 Syracuse (.6207) vs. (.6067)
#28 Tulsa (.6133) vs. (.6002)
#32 DePaul (.5956) vs. (.6016)
#33 East Carolina (.5921) vs. (.5825)
#34 Long Beach State (.5902) vs. (.6209)
#35 Louisiana (.5900) vs. (.5684)
#36 Fresno State (.5886) vs. (.6183)
#37 Fordham (.5880) vs. (.5983)
#38 UAB (.5879) vs. (.5781)
#39 BYU (.5856) vs. (.5803)
#40 Illinois State (.5854) vs. (.6085)
#43 San Diego State (.5796) vs. (.5935)
#44 Jacksonville (.5790) vs. (.5536)

The average Overall Adjusted RPI for the Top 16 elite conference schools was .0311 higher than their Non-Conference Adjusted RPI.

The average Overall Adjusted RPI for the Top 16 smaller conference schools was a mere .0008 higher than their Non-Conference Adjusted RPI. That is practically break even.

Brian

A few examples from this week that drive home the above ...

Washington went 0-3 this past week with a sweep at the hands of Cal. However, their Adjusted RPI improved from .6613 to .6638 (.0025 increase). This is despite Washington entering the series with the #9 Adjusted RPI in the country. A lower RPI team would have seen more of an increase.

Mississippi State went 1-3 last week ... a win over Mississippi Valley State and a sweep at the hands of Alabama. The Bulldogs' Adjusted RPI saw a healthy increase (.0047) from .5885 to .5932. They moved from #39 to #31 in the Adjusted RPI rankings.

Oregon State went 4-2 last week, going 1-0 vs. Oregon, 2-0 vs. CS-Northridge, and 1-2 vs. UCLA. The four games vs. UCLA and Oregon really helped their OWP ... but they also earned Top 25 bonus points for the 2-2 performance versus Oregon and UCLA. It more than offset two really hurtful games vs. a 6-24 Northridge team. Oregon State's Adjusted RPI went from .5821 to .6044! This helped them move from the #41 position to the #25 position.

You will see the elite conference teams moving up significantly in the RPI over the coming weeks ... displacing the teams that had better non-conference RPIs.

Brian

[CajunZ1]

"Arbitrary Levels of Recursion"

This is my favorite band!

[GoneGolfin]

It is interesting to think about where the Cajuns' Softball RPI and RPI rank might be, depending on how they finish the season. There are many variables at play and you must choose which ones to hold constant in order to obtain a reasonable gauge. The following represents one approach, with assumptions documented. Once an Adjusted RPI figure is determined, you can then compare against the current Adjusted RPIs as well as last year's Adjusted RPIs at selection time to obtain an idea on ranking.

Assumptions:

I am starting with the Cajuns' WP (.9677) and OWP (.5467) through today's results (Sunday 4/1/12) and the OOWP (.5505) from last week (3/25). Once I have updated figures, I can calculate the new OOWP for 4/1/12.

I do not make any assumptions with respect to how non-conference Cajun opponents will play the remainder of their schedule. IOW, I am assuming the same individual OWPs from each team through NCAA selection time.

I am holding the OOWP constant at .5505.

Note that the RPI projections I made a few days ago change little as the actual OOWP through 4/1 was .5521 ... an increase of .0016 over the .5505 used (last week's OOWP). Thus, you can simply add .0004 to the Base RPI and Adjusted RPI projections to achieve the new projections (.6652 vs. .6648 for a 19-0 finish).

For Non-Conference RPI projections, I used an OOWP of .5444. This OOWP has been updated to .5484. Thus, you can add .0010 to both the Non-Conference Base and Adjusted RPIs to achieve the new projections (.6692 vs. .6682).

Brian