Martin RPI

Diebler33

New member
My fault, I misunderstood!

I'm pivoting from seeding in general back to RPI, I don't think Taft is harmed by being the 7th seed because they are the best team. I think the credibility of the ranking system is killed by Taft being 7th (when they are the best team) and I think seeds 1-6 are harmed by Taft being 7th.
If Taft doesn't want to be 7th they should win more than 11 games
 

Diebler33

New member
If Taft doesn't want to be 7th they should win more than 11 games

Focusing on 1 school like that is like looking at defending D4 State Football Champs Clinton-Massie, who's 1-4 through 5 games so far (against very tough schedule) and ranked #19 in their region and calling for Joe Eitel's head and saying those rankings lose ALL credibility cause everyone knows Clinton-Massie is a Top-5 team in that region. EVEN THOUGH the other 705 schools seem to be pretty darn accurate in terms of their rankings.

Where's the outcry for that? Since Joe Eitel is only a good ranking for 98% of teams instead of 100%, surely you must be writing letters and talking to your coaching buddies trying to abolish those rankings, right?? Has to be the case! If Joe Eitel will just fix D4 R16, then I'll agree those rankings will suffice! Until then, complete garbage! Blasphemy! Any by the way, I think Chick-fil-A is the worst restaurant on the planet because they have coke products instead of pepsi (even though they have the best chicken sandwiches on the planet)!!!
 

spirit454

Well-known member
My fault, I misunderstood!

I'm pivoting from seeding in general back to RPI, I don't think Taft is harmed by being the 7th seed because they are the best team. I think the credibility of the ranking system is killed by Taft being 7th (when they are the best team) and I think seeds 1-6 are harmed by Taft being 7th.
Any seeding formula worth it's salt that we have seen would look at some combination of winning percentage, winning % of opponent and opponent school division. The formula will not support a team going .500 even if they are the best team. Giving credit for a loss is not a good option. Credit could be given for playing larger schools instead of only when you beat a larger school.
 

Diebler33

New member
Any seeding formula worth it's salt that we have seen would look at some combination of winning percentage, winning % of opponent and opponent school division. The formula will not support a team going .500 even if they are the best team. Giving credit for a loss is not a good option. Credit could be given for playing larger schools instead of only when you beat a larger school.
I believe this is what the new formula takes into account
 

SWOHHoops

Active member
Any seeding formula worth it's salt that we have seen would look at some combination of winning percentage, winning % of opponent and opponent school division. The formula will not support a team going .500 even if they are the best team. Giving credit for a loss is not a good option. Credit could be given for playing larger schools instead of only when you beat a larger school.
@Diebler33 First, never "called for anybody's head" and I have said many times that I love the RPI because it is another conversation about HS hoops, I just don't like it as the seeding tool. Again, football MUST have some type of standard selection formula because they are qualifying and disqualifying teams from the playoffs, the basketball conversation centers around the CHOICE to use this over using coaches knowledge. The knock on the AP poll is always "all they do is look at record" but that is the exact thing you are saying when you say "win more games". I don't want teams having that mindset when they do schedules. Also, in D3, we aren't talking about one team being off a little in the rankings, if that was the case you would have a point. We are talking about three final four teams being ranked behind 20-40 other teams. That is a big shot at credibility.

@spirit454 Yes! That is what I said a couple posts ago, if they can figure out how to quantify how you perform against other good teams, especially those bigger than you, rather than just if you beat them they are really on to something. The recent tweak doesn't seem to be enough to correct the gap but if they find a way to do it, geniuses!
 

spirit454

Well-known member
@spirit454 Yes! That is what I said a couple posts ago, if they can figure out how to quantify how you perform against other good teams, especially those bigger than you, rather than just if you beat them they are really on to something. The recent tweak doesn't seem to be enough to correct the gap but if they find a way to do it, geniuses!
Regardless, you will never create a formula that is 100% accurate comparing a .500 team against a team winning 90% of their games. Wins matter as does strength of schedule.
 

SWOHHoops

Active member
Regardless, you will never create a formula that is 100% accurate comparing a .500 team against a team winning 90% of their games. Wins matter as does strength of schedule.
I agree a formula won't be perfect, neither is coaches voting. But if there is going to be a change it should be something that is close to what we know. Everyone knew those teams were the best and the rankings had them as average.
 

spirit454

Well-known member
I agree a formula won't be perfect, neither is coaches voting. But if there is going to be a change it should be something that is close to what we know. Everyone knew those teams were the best and the rankings had them as average.
And again, the issue was playing 19 games in a 22 game season and only winning 11.
 

SWOHHoops

Active member
And again, the issue was playing 19 games in a 22 game season and only winning 11.
Ok, lets follow that logic...a team is penalized in seeding for scheduling games they probably won't win, but the experience prepares them for the tnmt, and snowed out games they can't get rescheduled? That doesn't seem like the right way to rank teams. Or vice-versa, a team is rewarded for scheduling a bunch of teams that they know they will beat.

What if we come up with a way that smart basketball people can watch games, regardless of how many are played, and then determine the seeds?? ;)
 

spirit454

Well-known member
Ok, lets follow that logic...a team is penalized in seeding for scheduling games they probably won't win, but the experience prepares them for the tnmt, and snowed out games they can't get rescheduled? That doesn't seem like the right way to rank teams. Or vice-versa, a team is rewarded for scheduling a bunch of teams that they know they will beat.

What if we come up with a way that smart basketball people can watch games, regardless of how many are played, and then determine the seeds?? ;)
You see it as a penalty but it is not. A team just does not get credit for not winning. A team can get better, a team can grow, a team can improve, a team can learn, but without a victory it will not see the results in the win column.

Africentric played a tougher schedule according to the RPI site, and won 17 regular season games.

Smart people watching every game in the state of Ohio and pick seeds? You are a dreamer, good luck.
 

SWOHHoops

Active member
You see it as a penalty but it is not. A team just does not get credit for not winning. A team can get better, a team can grow, a team can improve, a team can learn, but without a victory it will not see the results in the win column.

Africentric played a tougher schedule according to the RPI site, and won 17 regular season games.

Smart people watching every game in the state of Ohio and pick seeds? You are a dreamer, good luck.
That is where I see the value in coaches seeding, the ability to credit teams for performance not just result.

You are correct that Africentric played the 2nd toughest schedule and won 17 games and was ranked 5th in Ohio. Campbell Memorial won 21 games against the 104th toughest schedule and was 2nd. You supported one of my biggest gripes, beating bad schedules is rewarded in the formula. Winning 21 games deserves respect regardless of schedule, but them being above Africentric (or a lot of teams) makes no sense.

I would never want smart people in Cleveland ranking teams in SWOH, it should all be local. Nobody knows the teams in the sectional better than the coaches and they should do the seeding. If there is someone clearly seeding out of spite it should be dealt with directly.
 

D1nwobb

Active member
And again, the issue was playing 19 games in a 22 game season and only winning 11.
The "issue" for Taft wasn't that they played only 19 games. The "issue" was that they went 11-8 (.5789 winning percentage) during the regular season. With the winning percentage having the most weight in the formula, that kept them from being ranked higher.

If Taft had gone 14-8 (with no movement as far as the other factors in the RPI formula), they still wouldn't have been rated in the top 20 statewide in D3. Among the Cincinnati D3's, they would only be the #3. Why? Because their winning percentage still wouldn't be high enough given the weighting (35%) of the winning percentage.

Taft is the poster child among the outliers when it comes to the RPI calculation. I'm not suggesting that the formula should be tweaked to get the outliers to the top, but it will need to continue to evolve if it is to be used and be successful. Using the SOS in the formula and eliminating the L1 calculation as it was used last year are good first steps.
 

spirit454

Well-known member
Well had the played the other 3 games could have had a higher number is my point. A team that is 11-11 can be rated higher than a team 9-9 even though both are .500 teams due to the factor of the opponents winning percentage. But I do agree that winning more games is the quickest way to move up.

Correct me if I am wrong but if they had gone 14-8 wouldn't you have to factor in the winning % of the other 3 teams which would have moved them. So simply by playing more games, all parts of the equation will change.
 

SWOHHoops

Active member
Well had the played the other 3 games could have had a higher number is my point. A team that is 11-11 can be rated higher than a team 9-9 even though both are .500 teams due to the factor of the opponents winning percentage. But I do agree that winning more games is the quickest way to move up.

Correct me if I am wrong but if they had gone 14-8 wouldn't you have to factor in the winning % of the other 3 teams which would have moved them. So simply by playing more games, all parts of the equation will change.
This kind of continues to make my point...sorry Taft, we watched you play and know you are one of the top teams in Ohio regardless of division, played one of the toughest schedules in Ohio and competed extremely well against it, but you are the 6 seed because CHCA played more games than you and worse competition (i.e. more wins).
 

spirit454

Well-known member
Your point has been made very clear. You are against a state wide system that allows every team to have the same options and challenges similar to the model that football has been following for years.

I am also sorry to Taft, but I'm not sure why as they would not be removed or limited in advancement in any way.
 

jj150

Member
Your point has been made very clear. You are against a state wide system that allows every team to have the same options and challenges similar to the model that football has been following for years.

I am also sorry to Taft, but I'm not sure why as they would not be removed or limited in advancement in any way.
Why does basketball need a system similar to football? Everyone makes tournament in basketball not football. Is the current wheel(system) broke? do you make $ off of it? Just another way to interfere and make easy scheduling a successful coach/program to the community
 

SWOHHoops

Active member
@spirit454 Ha, I guess the horse has been beaten to death!

@jj150 Yes!! A uniform system is a must for football because you have to select teams for the playoffs. A uniform system in basketball is a choice, a solution looking for a problem in SWOH
 

spirit454

Well-known member
@spirit454 Ha, I guess the horse has been beaten to death!

@jj150 Yes!! A uniform system is a must for football because you have to select teams for the playoffs. A uniform system in basketball is a choice, a solution looking for a problem in SWOH
With the expansion of football to 16 teams in a region they are a small step away from including every team but the regions and the brackets would still remain. This is the discussion for other sports.
 

SWOHHoops

Active member
With the expansion of football to 16 teams in a region they are a small step away from including every team but the regions and the brackets would still remain. This is the discussion for other sports.
We agree on both points, the football playoffs will eventually include everyone and they will keep the ranking and bracket system. Way too invested at this point to go away from it.
 
.
Top