Martin RPI

H

Hback

Well-known member
For those Joe Eitel fans....could be coming to basketball really soon!

"The Northwest District Athletic Board is looking to use Martin RPI next winter for seeding for boys and girls' tournaments instead of coaches voting on who should receive seed numbers. Last spring at the OHSBCA Spring meeting all the OHSBCA state directors in the room were in favor of Martin RPI for seeding purposes. The NWDAB is looking to be the pilot for this year's tournament seeding in basketball then looking at the rest of the state in future years."
 
 
Love the RPI because it is another thing to talk about during basketball season, but seems to need some tweaking to use as the seeding tool. Last year it had Taft, one of the clear favorites to win state, as the 49th ranked team in Ohio. They would have been the 7th seed in Cincy and the 13th seed in the Region.

Lutheran East, Taft and Africentric were in the Final Four at UD and also had the 3 toughest D3 schedules in Ohio per MartinRPI, but were ranked 45th, 49th and 15th in Ohio by them. Clearly something is broken in the formulas.
 
SWOHHoops said:
Love the RPI because it is another thing to talk about during basketball season, but seems to need some tweaking to use as the seeding tool. Last year it had Taft, one of the clear favorites to win state, as the 49th ranked team in Ohio. They would have been the 7th seed in Cincy and the 13th seed in the Region.

Lutheran East, Taft and Africentric were in the Final Four at UD and also had the 3 toughest D3 schedules in Ohio per MartinRPI, but were ranked 45th, 49th and 15th in Ohio by them. Clearly something is broken in the formulas.
Click to expand...

Correct.

I believe by him adjusting the L1 Pts from 5% to 7.5% will help that, right? That is his plan for this upcoming season.
 
Hback said:
Correct.

I believe by him adjusting the L1 Pts from 5% to 7.5% will help that, right? That is his plan for this upcoming season.
Click to expand...
I will admit I am not very familiar with how the formulas work so can't say for sure. A quick look at the site says L1 "gives you more points for beating bigger schools" so a close loss to a great team gets you nothing?

For example, last year Taft lost to Pick Central by 11, but led by 1 after 3Q. A coach in their district should see that and know very few D3s in Ohio are competing with Pick Central thus getting them votes, but that gets them very little in the RPI because they lost. They also lost to Woodward by 5 and 7 last year and the RPI seems to respect that in SoS, but they were still 49th in Ohio. Increasing the L1 wouldn't help if it is a factor against wins only.
 
The formula also cannot predict someone going on a good tournament run.

Taft had a District rating of 2nd with 11 wins posted and they were behind Dayton Christian with 17 wins. So that may be a reason.
 
Nobody in their right mind thought DC was better than Taft last year and if this system would seed DC ahead of Taft then it is severely flawed and can't be used.
spirit454 said:
The formula also cannot predict someone going on a good tournament run.

Taft had a District rating of 2nd with 11 wins posted and they were behind Dayton Christian with 17 wins. So that may be a reason.
Click to expand...
 
spirit454 said:
The formula also cannot predict someone going on a good tournament run.

Taft had a District rating of 2nd with 11 wins posted and they were behind Dayton Christian with 17 wins. So that may be a reason.
Click to expand...
Right, but the Taft situation was not a team going on a good run, everyone knew they were one of the top 3 or 4 teams in Ohio in D3.

The District ranking you see was done after the tournament draw so it only incudes teams in their district and everyone in SWOH ran as far away from them as possible in the seed meetings. If you look at the regional ranking (DIII Region 12) and count Cincy teams, you can see if it was used last year they would have been the 6th seed in Cincy last year.

And them ranked behind DC with 17 wins is interesting as well. DC was 17-4 against the 196th toughest schedule in D3 while Taft was 11-8 against the 3rd toughest schedule in Ohio in D3. DC was ranked 32nd in Ohio while Taft was 49th. Definitely seems flawed.
 
Bill Wennington said:
Nobody in their right mind thought DC was better than Taft last year and if this system would seed DC ahead of Taft then it is severely flawed and can't be used.
Click to expand...
NO disagreement from me. I was just pointing out that winning 17 games vs 11 games is going to throw any formula off a little.
 
SWOHHoops said:
Right, but the Taft situation was not a team going on a good run, everyone knew they were one of the top 3 or 4 teams in Ohio in D3.

The District ranking you see was done after the tournament draw so it only incudes teams in their district and everyone in SWOH ran as far away from them as possible in the seed meetings. If you look at the regional ranking (DIII Region 12) and count Cincy teams, you can see if it was used last year they would have been the 6th seed in Cincy last year.

And them ranked behind DC with 17 wins is interesting as well. DC was 17-4 against the 196th toughest schedule in D3 while Taft was 11-8 against the 3rd toughest schedule in Ohio in D3. DC was ranked 32nd in Ohio while Taft was 49th. Definitely seems flawed.
Click to expand...
That's why the voting is done by coaches. You cannot earn credit in a formula with a loss.
 
Hopefully the OHSBCA rejects this, outside of a few spiteful coaches over the years, there is no issues in SWOH with the seeding process.
 
SWOHHoops said:
Hopefully the OHSBCA rejects this, outside of a few spiteful coaches over the years, there is no issues in SWOH with the seeding process.
Click to expand...

From my understanding, it has gained a lot of traction. I see this becoming a reality more than a possibility in the next few years.
 
If this does happen, expect the next step to be bracket placement like the NCAA. Currently coaches get to select their location and game time from what is available. If they take the voting away, the next step will be automatic bracket placement.
 
SWOHHoops said:
Right, but the Taft situation was not a team going on a good run, everyone knew they were one of the top 3 or 4 teams in Ohio in D3.

The District ranking you see was done after the tournament draw so it only incudes teams in their district and everyone in SWOH ran as far away from them as possible in the seed meetings. If you look at the regional ranking (DIII Region 12) and count Cincy teams, you can see if it was used last year they would have been the 6th seed in Cincy last year.

And them ranked behind DC with 17 wins is interesting as well. DC was 17-4 against the 196th toughest schedule in D3 while Taft was 11-8 against the 3rd toughest schedule in Ohio in D3. DC was ranked 32nd in Ohio while Taft was 49th. Definitely seems flawed.
Click to expand...

The RPI is obviously a ranking of only the regular season. Taft went 1-8 against teams above .500. 3rd toughest SoS in the State is great, but it doesn't help if you only beat ONE good team. Losses to really good teams are still losses. Why should you be rewarded for losses, no matter who it's against? 90% of coaches will say they don't believe in "moral victories" aka close losses to really good teams.

Joe Eitel's football rankings aren't any different. You can schedule as tough of a schedule as you want, but if you don't actually beat any of those teams, it is not going to raise your computer points a whole lot if you lose. No matter if it's by one point, you still have to win!

Obviously you can't quantify the "eye test." Bottom line is, yes, most people know Taft was better than 49th in the State in D3. But they have the same formula as nearly 800 other teams. It's a pretty accurate assessment of 95% of the teams in the State. Taft is a pretty obvious anomaly considering they wound up winning State. Eitel's rankings always has a handful of headscratchers as well. No ranking in the world, at any level, in any sport, is perfect. There's certain aspects of sports that you can't put a number on, but the RPI does a solid job as a whole!
 
This would be really interesting if it happens. I do like the fact that it takes the political aspect out of the coaches voting system.

Just looking at Division IV from last year - Botkins and Tri Village at #10 and #11 didn't make a lot of sense, nor did Richmond Heights at #8.
 
Diebler33 said:
The RPI is obviously a ranking of only the regular season. Taft went 1-8 against teams above .500. 3rd toughest SoS in the State is great, but it doesn't help if you only beat ONE good team. Losses to really good teams are still losses. Why should you be rewarded for losses, no matter who it's against? 90% of coaches will say they don't believe in "moral victories" aka close losses to really good teams.

Joe Eitel's football rankings aren't any different. You can schedule as tough of a schedule as you want, but if you don't actually beat any of those teams, it is not going to raise your computer points a whole lot if you lose. No matter if it's by one point, you still have to win!

Obviously you can't quantify the "eye test." Bottom line is, yes, most people know Taft was better than 49th in the State in D3. But they have the same formula as nearly 800 other teams. It's a pretty accurate assessment of 95% of the teams in the State. Taft is a pretty obvious anomaly considering they wound up winning State. Eitel's rankings always has a handful of headscratchers as well. No ranking in the world, at any level, in any sport, is perfect. There's certain aspects of sports that you can't put a number on, but the RPI does a solid job as a whole!
Click to expand...
Don't disagree with a lot of what you said, and I can only speak for SWOH, the current seeding/placement process on the boys side rarely has any major issues. I do disagree with the premise you have to beat teams to get credit for playing them. Under that thought-process you would seed me last if I went 0-22 against all D1 teams and lost every game by 1. I'm clearly better than most of the D3 teams you are comparing me to for seeding, but since I didn't win any of the games you would seed me last. That is the tough part about "automating" seeding.

The difference I see between this and the Harbins is the original intent of the Harbins was to decide who makes the playoff so some type of formula had to be developed to accomplish that but in sports where all teams make the playoffs why would we take the input of coaches, who in most cases are highly invested and knowledgeable about the teams, out of the process. Hopefully the SWDAB doesn't adopt it since there has been very few occasions where seeding was an issue, sounds like that isn't the case up north.
 
RollingTrain said:
This would be really interesting if it happens. I do like the fact that it takes the political aspect out of the coaches voting system.

Just looking at Division IV from last year - Botkins and Tri Village at #10 and #11 didn't make a lot of sense, nor did Richmond Heights at #8.
Click to expand...
This would probably be the biggest positive of this system. It eliminates the politicking and seed manipulation that sometimes goes on.

That being said, although this seems to have gained a lot of traction, I have a hard time believing that many coaches would be in favor of it. Coaches want to retain the ability to place themselves on the bracket and this really doesn't allow for that. If it did, then you would have to do it before the end of the season like we currently do. If the goal is for the process to be as objective as possible, then I'm not sure how this accomplishes that because not everyone will have played the same number of games at that particular point in time.

Not only that...as our girls coach pointed out to me, this affects how you do your scouting for the tournament. Currently, you do that with a much narrower focus because you have a pretty good idea of who you'd be more likely to be matched up with. With this system, that would need to happen on a broader scale.
 
Ericles said:
That being said, although this seems to have gained a lot of traction, I have a hard time believing that many coaches would be in favor of it. Coaches want to retain the ability to place themselves on the bracket and this really doesn't allow for that.
Click to expand...
Great point....imagine the seed meeting last year in Cincy if Taft was the 6th seed. Every coach seeded 1-5 has to go on the bracket scared to death Taft will decide jump in their bracket and a good season ends prematurely. They all probably pass and try to get Taft to go up first since they know they are the #1 seed.
 
SWOHHoops said:
Don't disagree with a lot of what you said, and I can only speak for SWOH, the current seeding/placement process on the boys side rarely has any major issues. I do disagree with the premise you have to beat teams to get credit for playing them. Under that thought-process you would seed me last if I went 0-22 against all D1 teams and lost every game by 1. I'm clearly better than most of the D3 teams you are comparing me to for seeding, but since I didn't win any of the games you would seed me last. That is the tough part about "automating" seeding.

The difference I see between this and the Harbins is the original intent of the Harbins was to decide who makes the playoff so some type of formula had to be developed to accomplish that but in sports where all teams make the playoffs why would we take the input of coaches, who in most cases are highly invested and knowledgeable about the teams, out of the process. Hopefully the SWDAB doesn't adopt it since there has been very few occasions where seeding was an issue, sounds like that isn't the case up north.
Click to expand...
But the result is you still make the tournament. So who cares if you are 1st, 3rd or 12th. If you play the toughest schedule and loss every game but are the best team in your district then you can still win your district. Nobody is being eliminated from post season by a basketball ranking.
 
Ericles said:
This would probably be the biggest positive of this system. It eliminates the politicking and seed manipulation that sometimes goes on.

That being said, although this seems to have gained a lot of traction, I have a hard time believing that many coaches would be in favor of it. Coaches want to retain the ability to place themselves on the bracket and this really doesn't allow for that. If it did, then you would have to do it before the end of the season like we currently do. If the goal is for the process to be as objective as possible, then I'm not sure how this accomplishes that because not everyone will have played the same number of games at that particular point in time.

Not only that...as our girls coach pointed out to me, this affects how you do your scouting for the tournament. Currently, you do that with a much narrower focus because you have a pretty good idea of who you'd be more likely to be matched up with. With this system, that would need to happen on a broader scale.
Click to expand...

In the recent poll sent out the NW District coaches it did ask if preferred to use the Martin RPI system only for ranking purposes and still allow coaches to place themselves on the bracket.
 
spirit454 said:
But the result is you still make the tournament. So who cares if you are 1st, 3rd or 12th. If you play the toughest schedule and loss every game but are the best team in your district then you can still win your district. Nobody is being eliminated from post season by a basketball rankinking.
Click to expand...
It is not only the team that gets seeded lower than they should, it also has an effect on the team that had a great regular season and then gets screwed by playing a team that is much better than it should be playing in the first round of the tournament.
 
Ericles said:
This would probably be the biggest positive of this system. It eliminates the politicking and seed manipulation that sometimes goes on.

That being said, although this seems to have gained a lot of traction, I have a hard time believing that many coaches would be in favor of it. Coaches want to retain the ability to place themselves on the bracket and this really doesn't allow for that. If it did, then you would have to do it before the end of the season like we currently do. If the goal is for the process to be as objective as possible, then I'm not sure how this accomplishes that because not everyone will have played the same number of games at that particular point in time.

Not only that...as our girls coach pointed out to me, this affects how you do your scouting for the tournament. Currently, you do that with a much narrower focus because you have a pretty good idea of who you'd be more likely to be matched up with. With this system, that would need to happen on a broader scale.
Click to expand...

yep, that would be a big question mark. if this were to go in effect you would think the best way is to wait until the regular season is over for everyone, but then different parts of the state start the tournament earlier than others, etc. However in other states that use RPI for postseason seeding, i see FAQ sections where they say RPI is all based on averages so if a team plays 22 games compared to 20 games, that doesn't give one team an advantage over another.

There would be a quick tournaround (2-3 days) from where a team finds their seed & bracket placement to the first tournament game as well, which im sure some coaches won't like due to what you said regarding scouting purposes. Seem to be a lot of question marks around it, but overall I think there's more positive than negative to it
 
spirit454 said:
But the result is you still make the tournament. So who cares if you are 1st, 3rd or 12th. If you play the toughest schedule and loss every game but are the best team in your district then you can still win your district. Nobody is being eliminated from post season by a basketball ranking.
Click to expand...
Everyone makes the tournament but seeding is very important because it is the order you get to choose to go in the bracket, at least in SWOH. If I am a 4 seed I want to know where 1-3 are going before I pick where I am going. A team like Taft/SVSM/Centerville is looking at Regional match-ups when they go in the bracket. Imagine how all that changes if you get teams mis-seeded based on formulas.
 
Sean5 said:
It is not only the team that gets seeded lower than they should, it also has an effect on the team that had a great regular season and then gets screwed by playing a team that is much better than it should be playing in the first round of the tournament.
Click to expand...
Happens every year in football and yet we still play games and the playoffs go fine. IN basketball if you go 0-22 playing the toughest schedule in the state and get a lower seed then you like, the solution is change your schedule. Other than conference games, this is 100% in your teams control. There is no value for a loss. You want a better spot in seeding, win some games.
 
SWOHHoops said:
Everyone makes the tournament but seeding is very important because it is the order you get to choose to go in the bracket, at least in SWOH. If I am a 4 seed I want to know where 1-3 are going before I pick where I am going. A team like Taft/SVSM/Centerville is looking at Regional match-ups when they go in the bracket. Imagine how all that changes if you get teams mis-seeded based on formulas.
Click to expand...
If I am looking at regional matchs-ups before the tournament ever starts, why do I care what my seeding is in sectionals? I'm going to walk thru it.
 
spirit454 said:
spirit454 said:
If I am looking at regional matchs-ups before the tournament ever starts, why do I care what my seeding is in sectionals? I'm going to walk thru it.
Click to expand...

There is no value for a loss.
Click to expand...
There is maybe one team looking at regional match-ups in each meeting, they don't get screwed. The teams that get screwed are the ones who should have been able to see where they go in the bracket and avoid them.

Take Georgetown last year, 15-2 as of seeding and gets the 4th seed. They win a district championship and played in the regional finals, where Taft ran them off the court. If Taft was the 6th seed and picked Gtown's bracket they lose in the first or second round.
 
SWOHHoops said:
There is maybe one team looking at regional match-ups in each meeting, they don't get screwed. The teams that get screwed are the ones who should have been able to see where they go in the bracket and avoid them.

Take Georgetown last year, 15-2 as of seeding and gets the 4th seed. They win a district championship and played in the regional finals, where Taft ran them off the court. If Taft was the 6th seed and picked Gtown's bracket they lose in the first or second round.
Click to expand...
G'town still gets beat by Taft and someone else still wins a district championship.

Are you serious looking for a system that eliminates EVERY what-if?
 
spirit454 said:
G'town still gets beat by Taft and someone else still wins a district championship.

Are you serious looking for a system that eliminates EVERY what-if?
Click to expand...
Huh?? All I was doing was advocating for the current system and providing reasoning for it. Weird response.
 
The state is looking for a system that can be and will be used across the entire state. Currently that is not the case.
 
Works well in FB because the season is over. At what point would they use the numbers? After 18 games? 20 games? Maybe after the season with HUDL replacing scouting? That seems to be the biggest equity issue to meM
 
spirit454 said:
The state is looking for a system that can be and will be used across the entire state. Currently that is not the case.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why, it definitely isn't broken in SWOH so, why not fix it where it is broken and leave the rest alone.

I don't know football well enough to know if it works well there for seeding, but you have to have some type of fair, equitable way to select teams for the playoffs, in basketball and soccer and baseball that isn't an issue.

Look around D4 as well. Everyone in Ohio had Richmond Heights penciled in as the state champion, the RPI had them #7 in Ohio even though the same RPI had them with the toughest schedule in Ohio. In SWOH it had 4 Cincy teams and 2 Columbus teams ranked in the region above Russia and Fort Loramie. Nobody who follows small school basketball would believe those rankings.

The only way to get an accurate seeding is to incorporate the eye-test
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top