If used, I’d cut it off at 20.
Martin RPI
- Thread starter Hback
- Start date
No way! I let Yappi slide at 35, and since that is where the running clock comes in I'm fine with that difference.
When teams play a relatively competitive schedule across the board, 20 may work. But in 2012 -2015 a team I followed closely was in a relatively weak conference compared to their talent. The average margin of victory for their conference games far exceeded 20. Many were 60 point margins. People on Yappi back then claimed, and I think rightfully so, that they had better be beating the competition by 40 a game or they weren't very good. So for the very purpose of realizing the disparity in talent between teams I belie e it should be more in the 50-60 range for the cutoff, but 35 may be sufficient. Twenty would not be. If you want to use point margin to aid in determining strength then it has to be set at a point that would measure that difference , and 20 isn't it.
I would further add, it should be a percentage of score differential not point margin. A 100 - 85 game and a 30-15
game are the same 15 point margin, but one is a relatively close game while the other is a butt whipping. Defense should matter, and low scoring game with high point differential should matter.
A 20 point cut off may work for D1 schools, but those 75-9 , 92-17, 18-4 games all mean something and small D4 schools are where such scores show up more often. That 18-4 game is a real score from a couple years back. The team with 4 kept it close by holding the ball for three quarters each time they got it and failed to score until the fourth quarter. But hey, they didn't get blown out and kept it to a 14 point margin. That is where I believe the better team needs to be rewarded with percentage of margin vs a simple point margin.
The more you post the more you show you agree with me on our positions.....you are ok with some egregious rankings as long as human "error" is not involved while I will take human error for materially accurate rankings. Nothing wrong with that.
The RPI removes the flawed coaches, but adds a flawed formula......it is picking the lessor of two evils.
Hahaha. It doesn't seem that way to me. I like the RPI instead of the coach vote. It's not perfect but it does not give favors like the coach vote does. You see human but because you like it, accept a favorable top seed even though 5 or 6 other teams are being mistreated down the line. I just see human flaw in the system and teams being mistreated. It doesn't matter to me if it is the #2 or the #10 team.
You see a flawed formula. I see a formula that treats everyone the same and when i use could reward teams for playing good competition and winning. Which is what rankings have always been about, to me
A ranking system that has the best team in Ohio ranked in the 40s (Taft last year) is severely flawed, but it is ok to prefer that because it treats everyone the same. Odd that you refuse to accept that reality.
Let's inject the human element into this a bit more.
If I'm coach, I can motivate my team more to respond aggressively to a human coach vote snub than I can to a formula that determines seeding. Even if we find the weak spot in the formula, it's hard to get mad about factual data determining your seeding. With coach vote, the emotions can be messaged in such a way to add extra motivation to prove ones self worothy of a higher seed.
If for no other reason than team motivation, I like coach vote .
Again, with your opinions. Have you seen every team in Ohio play?
According to some OG beat the best team in Ohio last year and then lost a close game to Taft. What makes your opinion worth more? Have you ever coached a HS team? Have you ever planned a HS basketball practice> Have you ever scouted a HS team to play them? What make your opinion so valuable?
I think you are correct but if your team needs that motivation for a tournament game you wont go very deep anyway.
For that reason, over 75% of the coaches in the NWAD voted to eliminate the coach vote. Maybe the people in charge of the teams do not feel that motivation is needed.
Did you talk to anyone last year that thought Taft wasn't a top 5, even 10 team in Ohio D3?? Every coach I talked to last year in SWOH said Taft was one of the best teams in SWOH regardless of division. The RPI had them in the 40s, any reasonable HS basketball follower without an agenda would say there is a flaw in that ranking.
Again, admitting the system you like has huge flaws is ok
Honestly I am not located in the SWO area and Taft was not in any discussions I had. So now they have gone from being "the best in Ohio" to "one of the best in SWO". Last years RPI is not what is being used today. So you think someone had an agenda to keep Taft down?
Any system that has and will be used in the near future will have some flaws because a perfect system has not been created. The goal is to find a statewide system and having Cincy coaches voting on Youngstown teams is not an option. Admitting you don't understand that or even like it, is ok.
Your stubbornness to agree the RPI has some major flaws, like any formula driven ranking, is only surpassed by your ability to change the conversation.
Disagree. Making regionals from 4 seed or below is an accomplishment. Those teams I have been around that have done this are very motivated to prove their worothy of higher seeding. A good coach will use that to their benefit. A poor coach will just let things play out.
If, as has been claimed, the creator of the Martin RPI said that it would only work with super-district setups, what does it say about those 75% that voted yes? How much can they know?
I've been following along and have several questions around the Taft conversation: Question 1. Them being ranked 40th in the state overall with last years RPI- when was this ranking set? Was it after the state final? Was it before the Sectionals started? Or was it at the meeting draw time frame usually a couple weeks before sectionals start? I don't know the answer but my thought is depending on the three time frames they would be ranked much higher after winning the state championship then vs the time of the draw. Question 2. If this years formula was applied to this ranking from last year I wonder if that dramatically moved them up or down? I think its easy to confuse the argument of the best team in the state vs the RPI ranking. You can be the best team (which isn't proven until the state final buzzer) and still not have the highest RPI.
Q1 - Taft was in the 40s at the tournament seed time and he updated it after the season and they were in the 20s I believe. I searched for past RPI rankings but couldn't find any. I know it was discussed in this thread somewhere. Some people have said the RPI formula for this year was tweaked because of results like that from last year.
Q2 - I can't answer that, but Pick Central is the same situation as Taft. They have an extremely tough schedule and are 10-5 with losses to teams from Indiana, Kentucky, Florida, Centerville and Spire. They are ranked 39th in Ohio.
We see the same thing but you want something you feel is perfect and that will not happen. I see a formula equation that takes data and spits out a result that has the same feelings towards every team that provides data. The formula is doing what it is supposed to. IT is only as good as the data going in. So you should feel the data is flawed.
First, thanks for the feedback! So for my first Question that makes sense that after the state final the overall ranking went higher significantly. I do believe the formula was tweaked based off last years feedback/review. For Question 2 I understand the scenario and I think the argument can be made PC is one of the best teams in Ohio. (I'm not pro or con RPI here) but I think its a different conversation saying the RPI ranking is the same as who is a top team in the state. I also agree the formula doesn't properly accommodate the out of state teams and especially the national prep school teams (not sure what/if their is a fix for that other than just exclude all out of state teams from the calculation- so its like the game was never played for purposes of the Ohio RPI) The other thing is that these are such fluid rankings I think you could say PC for example is one of the best teams in the state, now RPI wise they would be ranked lower but that only matters for seeding not for the argument of who is actually best in the state. Even after this years state final say PC losses all their games until the Sectionals then runs the table and wins every game by 30, there would be no question they would be the top team in the state but RPI wise because they had a high number of losses they might only end up 8th or something. Is this right or wrong? I don't know, I just thinks its comparing two different things (which we want to match but won't always) I'm not sure how Columbus or Cincy does their draws but here in NWOH but if I was PC and not one of the top 4 seeds that wouldn't bother me a but because I know I am better than all the top 4 and can go after which matchup I like best and scare away all the teams behind me too. By having the top seeds pick first and not know who is going to jump them or into their bracket was never much of a reward for a good year to me.
I have summarized your statement in many of my comments on here that @spirit454 spins and talks around
-There is no perfect system
-The RPI is not a ranking of top teams, but an order based on a formula
-The formula has limitations (quantifying good losses/playing oos teams/injuries/head-to-head) which cause some head-scratching "rankings"
-The formula is heavily skewed by winning percentage
All that causes me to say coaches voting is better, but acknowledging all of the above and saying you accept that and still prefer RPI is reasonable as well.
I appreciate the summary and agree with it. I don't know if I have a preference yet as I want to see how this years draw plays out up here and then I will weigh in. Besides the fact that the Martin guy is located in NWOH I think some of the other drivers of this test pilot is that probably more on the girls side than the boys side up here, there have been several controversial coaches votes over the years in the draws and more so on league and district voting. (A McDonald's All America girl was voted 13th best in the district by a league team a few years back) I suspect the district board and AD's and some coaches are searching for ways to take out some bias that could be in the coaches voting.
My point was a personal grudge. I have seen teams for a game against a low voting coach but not motivate a team for a 6-8 game run from a coach's vote. Any good coach who has a regional caliber team, regardless of seeding, should be able to motivate his team for sectional and district games. I hope you don't think a team getting a #1 seed has nothing to be motivated about.
100% of the voting coaches know their tournament setups and did not vote for the state. So I cannot speak for that.
Motivation comes from a myriad of things, but you want to unite a group of 17 year old young men, tell them how knowledgeable coaches dont think they are as good as teams X,Y and Z.
I agree, and now in the NWO tournament area they know all season that their tournament ranking depends on their performance in every game and does not rely on if a coach is knowledgeable or not.
The formula that was used last season (35% Win%; 35% OWP; 25% OOWP; 5% L1 wins) had Taft at #49 i D3 at the end of the regular season. This summer, the website showed the rankings using an adjusted formula (35% Win%; 25% OWP; 15% OOWP; 25% Strength of Schedule). That had Taft at #31 in D3 at the end of the regular season. Neither included tournament games for any school.
This season's formula is 35% Win%; 35% OWP; 25% OOWP, 5% School Size Factor. I can't tell you where the new formula would've put Taft statewide in D3 for last season. What I can tell you is that they would've been behind 7 teams from Northwest Ohio in D3 (Ottawa-Glandorf, Colonel Crawford, Western Reserve, Wayne Trace, Eastwood, Swanton, Bluffton).
Wow thanks for providing the info! So a couple thoughts now knowing the timing better. Assuming the old formula from last year its reasonable to assume that had they included all the tournament games then they most likely would have finished Top 5 (They would have continued to get wins plus getting credit for beating better teams etc) I think the other problem with the Taft example is that the RPI puts out the entire state rankings which makes for interesting conversation on threads like these but in reality the RPI state ranking has no meaning on the actual tournament seeding at the district level which is the true intent. Using the example that they would be behind the 7 NWOH teams- that would make sense because those teams all had better records (I think) than Taft but again this would have been at the end of the regular season not after the state final. To me This Martin site should maybe only show District seeding by district and the SOS and PPG make for interesting data to review but putting out the cumulative state rankings that don't really take into account some elements and the formula can't capture that make for an incomplete ranking.
jj150
Active member
You keep posting it removes human flaws (ie is flawless) and is unbiased. Can you show your studies showing it is unbiased and flawless? Or are you just the unbiased creator (friend brother dad sister or whatever) saying it is unbiased and flawless? Does the rpi boil eggs and cook bacon?They have to win to get credit for a win. You want them to get credit for a loss. They already get credit for playing a good team. I assume you know this but a team's winning percentage is based on their wins.
The faces of the teams are removed to eliminate opinions, favors and connections.
All ranking platforms have areas that can be picked apart. The RPI removes the human flaws. Want a high seed win games and play good teams is the way I see it.
Philly_Cat
Well-known member
It's unbiased because it's simply plugging in numbers into a formula. A formula that stays the same for the entirety of the season. So everyone knows what it is at the beginning and what they need in order to be successful under it throughout the season. It takes out opinion, which is where the bias comes from.
You can argue over whether the formula is correct as is or should be tweaked in areas, but as long as it stays the same for the entire season it's unbiased. Now if we got past the holidays and decided some stats need to be changed because some teams aren't being rewarded properly, AND it was actually changed, well then we would have a biased system and it would be problematic.
jj150
Active member
Bias is not using same system without change. Bias goes to many issues such as how was formula picked, who decided criteria, why was certain percentages given etc. for formula. If it is not actually studied you just can’t say it is unbiased and flawless. If that was the case then we are all unbiased as long as we stay the same? Your answer is actually your biased opinion in this case
Philly_Cat
Well-known member
No