Quote:
Originally Posted by pelagius
If it is really part of a policy directive to get power teams to play more road games, then I am fine with it. However, it is over-compensating.
|
I think the weighting is simply trying to make a home/road game a break-even proposition as far as the RPI goes. If the expectation is that overall teams will win 30% of the time on the road:
20 road games, 10 home games
(20 * 1.4 * 0.3) + (10 * 0.6 * 0.7) = 12.6
10 road games, 20 home games
(10 * 1.4 * 0.3) + (20 * 0.6 * 0.7) = 12.6
The question is how does it hurt/help better teams to play more games on the road. Let's assume top teams (RPI Top 50 or so) have a 90% chance of winning at home and 60% on the road:
20 road games, 10 home games
(20 * 1.4 * 0.6) + (10 * 0.6 * 0.9) = 22.2
10 road games, 20 home games
(10 * 1.4 * 0.6) + (20 * 0.6 * 0.9) = 19.2
Obviously, no one is going to schedule 20 road games and 10 home games, but I'm just trying to illustrate the principle. Apparently, the combination of lost home ticket revenue and the volatility of expected road success offsets the expected gains in RPI by playing more games on the road.