RIP RPI

[QDOG5]

Yeah the important thing was to schedule tough road games, win a couple if possible, avoid scheduling the real bottom of the barrel teams, try to schedule teams that will get a lot of wins but won't necessarily but good enough to beat you, and then win ALL of your home games. And then in conference hope as many home teams win. The RPI was very screwed up with home/road weighting.

But the vortex thing is kinda key for conference-wide system hacking. You need a couple actual good teams in your conference to beat other good teams, and then you need your other teams to schedule so they don't lose home games to mediocre/bad teams in nonconf and then have a couple of your above average teams beat the actual good teams which makes them then look like good teams themselves. It needs a bit of a perfect storm to work, but then it's self-sustaining.

Luke Winn: Scheduleball: Colorado State, Pitt exploit weaknesses of RPI

Another good read. Back in the day guys I worked with some guys who ran a pool where the object was for your teams to accumulate as many D1 wins as possible. After the draft I looked at the rosters. There were some blue blood first rounders but there were more Texas Pan American, Nicholls St, and Louisiana-Lafayette type schools in the first round. In the real world you recognize those good low tier D1 teams and schedule them at home. Seems fairly simple. I'm surprised more teams didn't do it. Is this new system supposed to mitigate RPI? Btw, I'm not a fan of using margin of victory as any part of the new metric but I've found when picking NCAA brackets MOV is a pretty good determinant of a teams success. Teams with high MOV rarely get knocked out on the first weekend whereas teams that grind out low scoring wins like back in the day Pitt and Cincy had a tougher time in the first weekend. It doesn't always work (UConns last two titles are proof of that) but many times it does(UConns first two titles, UNC under Roy Williams). Kansas and Memphis were one/two in MOV the year they played in the title game.

 

[auror]

Another good read. Back in the day guys I worked with some guys who ran a pool where the object was for your teams to accumulate as many D1 wins as possible. After the draft I looked at the rosters. There were some blue blood first rounders but there were more Texas Pan American, Nicholls St, and Louisiana-Lafayette type schools in the first round. In the real world you recognize those good low tier D1 teams and schedule them at home. Seems fairly simple. I'm surprised more teams didn't do it. Is this new system supposed to mitigate RPI? Btw, I'm not a fan of using margin of victory as any part of the new metric but I've found when picking NCAA brackets MOV is a pretty good determinant of a teams success. Teams with high MOV rarely get knocked out on the first weekend whereas teams that grind out low scoring wins like back in the day Pitt and Cincy had a tougher time in the first weekend. It doesn't always work (UConns last two titles are proof of that) but many times it does(UConns first two titles, UNC under Roy Williams). Kansas and Memphis were one/two in MOV the year they played in the title game.

The new metric completely replaces RPI. MOV is only a piece of the new metric ("NET") and it seems like the "resume" portion is more important, so winning games against good teams (or teams that get a lot of wins) will still be a key to way to boost your ranking in the new NET ranking..

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Yeah the important thing was to schedule tough road games, win a couple if possible, avoid scheduling the real bottom of the barrel teams, try to schedule teams that will get a lot of wins but won't necessarily but good enough to beat you, and then win ALL of your home games. And then in conference hope as many home teams win. The RPI was very screwed up with home/road weighting.

But the vortex thing is kinda key for conference-wide system hacking. You need a couple actual good teams in your conference to beat other good teams, and then you need your other teams to schedule so they don't lose home games to mediocre/bad teams in nonconf and then have a couple of your above average teams beat the actual good teams which makes them then look like good teams themselves. It needs a bit of a perfect storm to work, but then it's self-sustaining.

Luke Winn: Scheduleball: Colorado State, Pitt exploit weaknesses of RPI

In that article, the argument for ripping the RPI up is that Colorado State was the one team to beat the system in 5 years, and they got what, an 11 seed? I also suspect that Colorado State's RPI SOS vs. KenPom SOS gap was 90% the result of dumb luck, and not an evil plot the Rams' basketball coach hatched because he had perfect knowledge that Denver would be a Top 100 team that season.

Including MOV rewards teams for scheduling weaker opponents and blowing them out. Beating a NEC team by 40 is not the equivalent of beating an MVC team by 5, because the NEC team was never a threat to win that game, while the MVC team was. John Thompson Sr. would have approved of the NET formula.

 

[pepband99]

In that article, the argument for ripping the RPI up is that Colorado State was the one team to beat the system in 5 years, and they got what, an 11 seed? I also suspect that Colorado State's RPI SOS vs. KenPom SOS gap was 90% the result of dumb luck, and not an evil plot the Rams' basketball coach hatched because he had perfect knowledge that Denver would be a Top 100 team that season.

Including MOV rewards teams for scheduling weaker opponents and blowing them out. Beating a NEC team by 40 is not the equivalent of beating an MVC team by 5, because the NEC team was never a threat to win that game, while the MVC team was. John Thompson Sr. would have approved of the NET formula.

No, it compares like-for-like. There is no way the average NEC team is rated as highly as the average MVC team.

The point is comparing two games with similar ratings, not the scenario you suggest. If they weight it right, it works.

 

[willie99]

You're right in that the sample sizes are too small and variance in the game too large to be perfect.

But the Eye test is much more flawed than something like KenPom (or hopefully NET), just due to the inputs. Are you going to watch every possession of every team in the entire country? Even just the bubble is probably 80 teams * 34 games * 2 hours = 225 days worth of footage without sleeping. Further, are you going to be able to apply context of relative opponent strength in real time? Are you further able to prevent confirmation and other biases?

There's a reason successful gamblers have had "systems" without relying on the eye test.

Use Ken Pom to bet games (or just predict ATS results), let me know how that works out for you

And can you name a gambler that's designed a successful system? Something that works for some extended period of time? year after year?

I mean the best system I know of is to bet on the Patriots every week, always a winning season




School presidents and AD's have no idea what's happening on the court, and neither the RPI nor it's replacement is going to fix that

But their presence does improve the chances of their school and their conferences 10 fold

Coach K mastered beating the RPI
1) beat up on schools ranked 150, teams you're only favored to beat by 20 points
2) don't play schools ranked 250, teams you'd be favored to beat by 30 points
3) schedule in-state schools at some large arena near them and call it a neutral court or road game. A secondary benefit is earned if it's an ACC Tournament or NCAA Tournament site.

baddaf'nbing you just owned the RPI

 

[willie99]

The trick to beating the RPI (or any mathematical calculation) is to schedule stronger cupcakes

Team A plays # 1 and # 291
Team B plays two cupcakes, teams 130 and 140

Mathematics will tell us Team B played the tougher schedule, when Team A was the only team to play somebody that could actually beat you at home

It's a simplification of the process for presentation purposes, but that's very much how it works

 

[willie99]

Coach K mastered beating the RPI
1) beat up on schools ranked 150, teams you're only favored to beat by 20 points
2) don't play schools ranked 250, teams you'd be favored to beat by 30 points
3) schedule in-state schools at some large arena near them and call it a neutral court or road game. A secondary benefit is earned if it's an ACC Tournament or NCAA Tournament site.

baddaf'nbing you just owned the RPI

and then it gets even better, because K owned the RPI, every team he plays has a stronger RPI. Then the whole conferences RPI gets stronger, then K's RPI gets stronger still because his opponents' RPI and his conference's RPI are stronger

That's called a self fulfilling prophecy

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The trick to beating the RPI (or any mathematical calculation) is to schedule stronger cupcakes

Team A plays # 1 and # 291
Team B plays two cupcakes, teams 130 and 140

Mathematics will tell us Team B played the tougher schedule, when Team A was the only team to play somebody that could actually beat you at home

It's a simplification of the process for presentation purposes, but that's very much how it works

The best thing to do is not play #291. The RPI encouraged bubble teams to play 1-2 quality midmajors on the road. The result was just enough upsets to keep November and December interesting, and a system that weeded mediocre major conference teams out. The system worked.

I hope this isn't just another tool to get more 18-14 Big 10 and ACC teams in the tournament.

 

[Excalibur]

What is the goal of selecting the teams for the tournament? Is it to reward the "best teams", or the teams that had the best seasons? I think, for the in/out question, it should be based on the latter. The new index seems to concentrate on the former, which I don't like and which will lead to more P5 teams in the tournament.

 

[CTBasketball]

I just think about how many undeserved bids Syracuse will get now...

 

[auror]

What is the goal of selecting the teams for the tournament? Is it to reward the "best teams", or the teams that had the best seasons? I think, for the in/out question, it should be based on the latter. The new index seems to concentrate on the former, which I don't like and which will lead to more P5 teams in the tournament.

The new system is clearly an attempt to have the cake and eat it too. There is MOV included, but of the 5 or so sections a couple are focused entirely on W/L without MOV. It will depend on the weight of each category how it plays out.

 

[auror]

Use Ken Pom to bet games (or just predict ATS results), let me know how that works out for you

Vegas lines now very closely reflect KenPom spreads with some injury and other additional info baked in pre-movement. Years ago you could have (and many did) use it lucratively.

 

[willie99]

Vegas lines now very closely reflect KenPom spreads with some injury and other additional info baked in pre-movement. Years ago you could have (and many did) use it lucratively.

I have no idea if that's true or not, actually lean NO because Vegas has to be much sharper, especially to start the season. But if it is true, I'm going to suggest Ken Pom mirrors Vegas, and not the other way around

They have a hand in the game

 

[auror]

I have no idea if that's true or not, actually lean NO because Vegas has to be much sharper, especially to start the season. But if it is true, I'm going to suggest Ken Pom mirrors Vegas, and not the other way around

They have a hand in the game

Here's a source for you:
KenPom's 'profound' influence on the CBB betting market

 

[willie99]

Here's a source for you:
KenPom's 'profound' influence on the CBB betting market

Great article, except one substantial thing was missing, a a substantive record, or any record at all, about using his ratings to predict games. It cites two (maybe three) games since 2010. Ken Pom is good and I like his stuff, he used to rank Calhoun teams better than the RPI ever did. But it's really not going to give you an edge against the books, the article eventually arrives at that conclusion, albeit reluctantly

 

[auror]

Great article, except one substantial thing was missing, a a substantive record, or any record at all, about using his ratings to predict games. It cites two (maybe three) games since 2010. Ken Pom is good and I like his stuff, he used to rank Calhoun teams better than the RPI ever did. But it's really not going to give you an edge against the books, the article eventually arrives at that conclusion, albeit reluctantly

Why do you keep using present tense? I've said multiple times now that it used to give you an edge, but now is baked in. The bookmakers quoted admitted that. The anecdote about KenPom having a glitch and Vegas copying that glitched number show you the level it is baked in (or really copied and then adjusted, at least back then). There's also anecdotes from people who used it as the basis of their system and won.