You are good at changing conversations instead of answering challenges. Everyone in Ohio knows PC is a top 10 team in Ohio and the RPI has them at 42. Last year Taft was the best team in Ohio and they were in the 40s before the tournament. The RPI is severely flawed as a ranking tool.
Martin RPI
- Thread starter Hback
- Start date
I didn't see a question.
Many people have an opinion of who is top 10, and I bet you would get a variety of top 10 opinions if you asked for it. What everyone does know, is that PC has lost 33% of their games so far this season and that makes them vulnerable in a ranking.
Last year Taft won the D3 state title which means they were playing well at the end of the season. Saying they were the best team in Ohio is your opinion and a fair claim they can make holding the trophy. If they played the season over it may come out very different. HS sports can be very beautiful.
You have to be a lawyer in real life
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once.You have to be a lawyer in real life
jj150
Active member
20 bucks says He is mid 20 something with 4-5 or more screen names living at home….. lYou have to be a lawyer in real life
I'd take that $20 from you real quick.
jj150
Active member
Nope, not a chance the rpi says I am 100% spot on can’t argue it is my formula and everyone agreed it is the best. Yep spot onI'd take that $20 from you real quick.
Show me the formula that takes 30+ years off and I'll make more then the $20.
One of the favorites to play at UD in March is now the 36th best team in Ohio according to the RPI. A few more wins and they may crack the top-20!!
Your guy put out a strength of schedule tweet. Alter has the 2nd toughest schedule in D2 and are 8-5 against it with close losses to Dunbar and CJ. They are ranked 23rd in Ohio and 7th in their region. The RPI is flawed as a ranking of best teams because it can't accurately quantify anything but wins.
Philly_Cat
Well-known member
Alter is 7th in their region, played 2 of the 6 teams ahead of them, and lost to both. The other
4 teams are Taft, Woodward, Tippecanoe, and Wyoming. After this Omnia Academy next game, they get a 2nd crack at CJ, and the rest is a pretty mediocre schedule. Now, if as you think, Alter is ranked too low, those other 4 teams will falter during the rest of their schedule and Alter will move up to their "rightful" place. Or they won't and maybe it is you that has them ranked wrong in your head because you rely too much on your feelings and gut.
The system takes their opponents' win percentages AND their opponents' opponents' win percentages into consideration. That means it's factoring strength of schedule. At the end of the day it sounds like you want teams getting credit for losses as well as wins. Good luck with that.
Nobody above them has more than 3 losses....and only 4 of the teams even have that many. I'd say the strength of schedule is working for them. You need to go to Watterson at #46 to find another team with 5 losses. It's great to have a #2 strength of schedule....but you eventually need to win some of the big games if you want to get credit for that schedule
OH_sportsfan
Member
I am obviously late to this thread and do not have the patience to read through each previous page so apologies if this has already been said/mentioned... I am a big fan of this system and I wish my region (NEO D1R1) would adopt this for ranking teams as well! In recent years with the expanded districts, I have seen/talked to numerous coaches who have no idea who some of the schools/teams they are voting on even are and just arbitrarily rank them without context. I am a fan of taking some bias (intentional or unintentional) out of the seeding process!
CleveHoopFan08
Active member
Does it also use a multiplier if you have any wins over higher classification opponents or subtract anything if you lose to a lower class one?
Philly_Cat
Well-known member
The factors used are at the bottom
ABOUT
I’m a current resident of Defiance, Ohio, which is buried up in the northwest corner of the state. An Ayersville High School alum, I’ve long been a fan of Ohio high school basketball. I…
martinrpi.com
The beautiful thing is they can play the toughest schedule in Ohio, deal with adversity, injuries, sickness and suffer some losses and still be able to make it to the State Finals if they play well in tournament.
Just for curiosity... If a teams schedules the 22 toughest teams in the state and goes 0-22(all 2 point losses), where do you feel they should be ranked?
The D1 Central District ranks about 45-50 teams. There is no way a coach playing and preparing for a 22 games season has time to research all 45 teams and accurately vote placement. Friendships, league connections, attitudes and favors all factor into coach voting regardless if we want to admit it or not.
Logically I would say somewhere around top 10. If a team plays that tough of a schedule and can compete that consistently they are a very good team.
Dayton Jeferson from 20-30 years ago is a good example of your point. They played in the Dayton City league with Dunbar, Meadowdale, Colonel White etc., who were all much larger schools. They would come into the tournament with a losing record and make it to regionals or further some years. But very seldom would they get the seeding or ranking they deserved, why? I believe to many fans of the sport, wins and losses are all that matter in rankings,
Hey,we prefer to be called smaller. D4 is not lower class, just smaller.
@D4fan said it well but I will add my thoughts. If I am seeding this team in their sectional and they are D1 they would probably be in the lower middle. If this is a D4 team and they played the toughest D1s and D2s in the state that close, they probably end up top 3. Research Badin when they were D3, they would play all the D1/D2 GCL teams and come into the tournament 5-15 and get a top 4 seed in D3.
This is where we disagree on seeding, the RPI would give this team a ranking extremely low because they didn't win while an honest coach who does a good job would give them a higher seed based on the eye test. In my experience SWOH coaches are great at using the eye test. If this thread is a good indicator, the same can't be said for coaches in the northern part of the state.
OR, did they get the seeding they deserved but because of the challenges they had faced during the season, they were a stronger team. There is not a sport in the world, high school college or pro, that rewards teams for a losing record.
I mostly remember Badin being D2. I do remember their 28-0 season but I think that was late 80s. What season were they 5-15 and get a top 3 seed?
I haven't weighed in awhile and now that we are using this up here in NW OH wanted to give my perspective as a former head coach still helping out. So there is alot of argument about the RPI and how teams that play a tough schedule but play close games with some losses are getting the short end- I disagree with this because from a coaching side every year your team is in one of three buckets. Either you are a dominant team that is a top 1, 2, or 3 in the District and you know that going in. You could be a middle pack team where you could be anywhere from 4-8 or you are a lower end team seeds 10-20. ( We have about 20 teams in two districts in our draw) In years where we were loaded and knew we were good, we would try to beef up the schedule and seeding didn't matter much because we weren't afraid to play anyone and would be 1,2,or 3 seed most likely. If we had a down year team then maybe we hoped the seeding would allow us to win a game against someone we could beat but most likely after that the next bracket would have a top 6 type team we would have to knock off. Or most years we were in the middle, where we tried to find the path that could get us the furthest, this was always interesting and fun and matchups really mattered here. So in reference to me not agreeing that the 0-22 team with all two point losses team is hurt by this, I would argue that they benefit from being seeded maybe 9th in a district vs 5th for example. Although I am winless but (played the hardest schedule in the state for example) I would love to be a lower seed (9th) and see where everyone ahead is on the board and then know that most likely I'm stronger than seeds maybe 4-8 for example. Then it comes down to what it always does, the games have to be played and won. For me over the past 23 years I've been doing this I've had teams where we were a 4 seed but a weak 4 seed and teams 5, 6, 7 would jump us game 1 (which I hated) but some years where we might be 7 but felt underseeded we could pick better who we would play or know the path better and we would also scare away the teams after us too. So I would prefer to be underseed than overseeded in many cases. I know this may be weird logic but I think this is how most coaches view this- in down years you hope to win a game or two, in great years you generally know you can make a run and will eventually run into the other top seeds in District finals or regionals etc and the middle teams are looking for ways to get a District championship and finding the right path/matchups plays a big role here.
I think people are forgetting (or not realizing) that yes the NW district is using Martin RPI, but it is for seeding purposes only. Teams will still place themselves on the bracket wherever they want to. It's not like it's going to guarantee 1 v 12, 2 v 11, 3 v 10, etc because of the seeding. Also, NW District doesn't have 40+ team districts where teams can choose from multiple locations. Almost every district is 12-14 teams...and all played at one location. Not a whole lot of big surprises have ever come up in seeding that I can remember.
Hahaha. Coaches are the same all over the state. Their location does not make them honest or dishonest.
I know a few SWO coaches who are friends of mine. I would never call them dishonest but they have told stories about trading favors to get ahead.
Last edited:
And if your team's not ready for tournament it doesn't matter where they're seeded.
CleveHoopFan08
Active member
I meant classification as in size of school. 1, 2 3. Etc
True for seeding only. We have 19 teams in D1 this year and we have 4 sectional sites with two Districts but we all draw together. Per my example, Last year Lima and NV were the clear cut 1 and 2 Top teams this year its not as clear cut so take a team like St John's (assume the current RPI today is how it ended) they would be a 10 seed but have a good schedule, lost some close games to the top seeds they would be a scary 10 seed to me. If coaches voted (as of today's records) they would probably be closer to 6 or 7 I would think. But if I was SJ for the draw I would prefer to be 10 seed because now I can better see who is on the board and know which teams/path I want to go after. I never thought the current way we drew ever really benefitted the top seeds, the only rule we have to protect the 1 seed is that that 2 has to go opposite them in the other district but 3 could jump me game 1- rarely if ever happens but still not much benefit of a great season earning the 1 seed.
Philly_Cat
Well-known member
Are they though? In that example they lost every single game. Close or not, you have to think they don't know how to win, or at best struggle mightily with the little things that win close games. So you think we should hand out "atta boy" rewards?