- Joined
- Jun 3, 2013
- Messages
- 1,361
- Reaction Score
- 2,630
Well obviously, but looking at the data, they all seem to put a lot more weight into wins against teams ranked 100-150 than sub-150 wins. To me there is no difference when discussing bid worthiness. Most bubble teams don't have more than 1 or 2 sub 150 losses, so what's the point other than tie breakers.
I have the same problem with NASCAR, the parse points between the guys who finishes 40th and 43rd, as if that makes any difference. IMV, if you outside the top 30 you are competing. I'd love to see anyone not on the lead lap at the finish get nothing.
Same for the NCAA, UConn's ranking was killed by the fact they played zero, that's zero, teams ranked between 101-150.
I'd much rather see a system where wins against the top 25, 50, 100 and losses against the sub 150 are over weighted and losses against the top 25, 50 are under weighted. Wins against the 101+ are neutral or valueless and losses are neutral.
I think we are in agreement. A team's record against the top 100 should be weighted more when determining bid worthy teams. These results better represent head-to-head competition against peer teams that are below, at, or near the bubble. In my opinion, there are diminishing returns with regards to the value of a team's victory over an RPI 184 versus an RPI 212. On paper the 184 looks better, when in fact they have equal value in suggesting which team is more worthy of bid.
As for UConn, Houston aside, the worst RPI loss was against 86 Memphis. They are a better team than their RPI suggests, especially when you consider RPI views a 20 point loss the same as 1 point loss at the buzzer. Raw RPI taken at face value is a bad metric. Unfortunately, it can be used as a means to an end when convenient and discounted when not convenient.