|
03-13-2007, 06:47 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
Even More RPI and Seeding Talk
I took Indy's RPI results and augmented them by doing the same thing with the Massey rating (see his post for methodology: http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...ml?id=2545050:)
Code:
rpi NCAA rpi mass mass mass team rpi seed seed diff rank seed diff Kentucky 12 3 8 -5 22 6 -2 Villanova 15 4 9 -5 28 7 -2 Creighton 20 5 10 -5 47 10 0 UNLV 10 3 7 -4 16 4 -3 Arizona 14 4 8 -4 12 3 -5 Illinois 30 8 12 -4 36 9 -3 Brigham Young 19 5 8 -3 39 9 1 Michigan St 24 6 9 -3 27 7 -2 Arkansas 35 9 12 -3 43 10 -2 Old Dominion 37 9 12 -3 71 12 0 S Illinois 7 2 4 -2 14 4 0 Duke 16 4 6 -2 17 5 -1 Marquette 22 6 8 -2 25 6 -2 Davidson 49 11 13 -2 52 11 -2 UCLA 2 1 2 -1 3 1 -1 Wisconsin 4 1 2 -1 2 1 -1 Pittsburgh 5 2 3 -1 9 3 0 Tennessee 13 4 5 -1 18 5 0 Nevada 23 6 7 -1 20 5 -2 Xavier 32 8 9 -1 61 12 3 VA Commonwealth 42 10 11 -1 62 12 1 Holy Cross 61 12 13 -1 102 14 1 New Mexico St 69 12 13 -1 69 12 -1 Wright St 73 13 14 -1 97 13 -1 TAM C. Christi 82 14 15 -1 93 13 -2 E Kentucky 128 15 16 -1 181 16 0 Ohio St 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 North Carolina 3 1 1 0 6 2 1 Memphis 8 2 2 0 8 2 0 Indiana 28 7 7 0 31 8 1 Penn 81 14 14 0 109 14 0 Oral Roberts 89 14 14 0 106 14 0 Belmont 112 15 15 0 155 15 0 North Texas 126 15 15 0 156 15 0 Central Conn 150 16 16 0 184 16 0 Jackson St 166 16 16 0 228 16 0 Florida A&M 164 16 16 0 223 16 0 Niagara 134 16 16 0 161 16 0 Florida 6 2 1 1 4 1 0 Georgetown 9 3 2 1 7 2 0 Maryland 17 5 4 1 15 4 0 Boston College 33 8 7 1 37 9 2 Purdue 44 10 9 1 38 9 0 Georgia Tech 52 11 10 1 30 8 -2 Texas Tech 53 11 10 1 53 11 1 Stanford 67 12 11 1 33 8 -3 Long Beach St 80 13 12 1 89 13 1 Albany NY 83 14 13 1 132 15 2 Miami OH 90 15 14 1 114 14 0 Weber St 143 16 15 1 158 15 0 Kansas 11 3 1 2 5 2 1 Texas A&M 18 5 3 2 13 4 1 Butler 27 7 5 2 49 11 6 Notre Dame 31 8 6 2 24 6 0 Gonzaga 60 12 10 2 58 11 1 Winthrop 70 13 11 2 29 7 -4 G Washington 72 13 11 2 72 13 2 Oregon 21 6 3 3 10 3 0 Texas 25 7 4 3 21 5 1 Louisville 38 9 6 3 26 7 1 Washington St 26 7 3 4 11 3 0 Virginia Tech 34 9 5 4 40 10 5 Vanderbilt 47 10 6 4 41 10 4 USC 40 10 5 5 23 6 1 Virginia 55 11 4 7 35 8 4 Code:
Mean absolute deviation for Massey = 1.262 Mean absolute deviation for RPI = 1.815 Last edited by pelagius; 03-13-2007 at 06:54 PM. |
03-13-2007, 06:54 PM | #2 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
I want to see a comparison of the regression between RPI and seeding for mid-major vs power-conference, with a statistical test at alpha = .05.
|
03-13-2007, 07:05 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
Quote:
You might get something if you limited to seed 12 or better. |
|
03-13-2007, 07:07 PM | #4 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
just do it for all at-larges.
|
03-13-2007, 07:17 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
For seed <= 12 (it works for the whole sample as well):
Code:
. reg seed rpiseed power; Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 48 -------------+------------------------------ F( 2, 45) = 26.26 Model | 308.031875 2 154.015938 Prob > F = 0.0000 Residual | 263.968125 45 5.86595833 R-squared = 0.5385 -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.5180 Total | 572 47 12.1702128 Root MSE = 2.422 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ seed | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- rpiseed | .6217125 .09951 6.25 0.000 .421289 .822136 power | -1.830879 .7853461 -2.33 0.024 -3.412648 -.2491109 _cons | 3.703932 1.004132 3.69 0.001 1.681506 5.726359 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note: my power variable might have some errors in it. I added it by hand very quickly. |
03-13-2007, 07:18 PM | #6 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
exactly as I thought. Of course, you will never get the bigwigs to talk about this.
You should forward this to one of the espn writers like Andy Katz. |
03-13-2007, 07:24 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
Quote:
Look at what happens if we do the same thing with the massey rankings: Code:
. reg seed mseed power; Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 48 -------------+------------------------------ F( 2, 45) = 43.96 Model | 378.358437 2 189.179219 Prob > F = 0.0000 Residual | 193.641563 45 4.30314583 R-squared = 0.6615 -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.6464 Total | 572 47 12.1702128 Root MSE = 2.0744 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ seed | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- mseed | .777461 .093222 8.34 0.000 .5897022 .9652198 power | -.2265484 .7286263 -0.31 0.757 -1.694077 1.24098 _cons | 1.558384 1.000078 1.56 0.126 -.4558772 3.572645 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
03-13-2007, 07:30 PM | #8 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
however your chances of winning a road game are much less. the power conferences don't play any road games against mid-majors.
|
03-13-2007, 07:36 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
I don't disagree with that. You are absolutely right about that. I think there should be an adjustment; I just think that the 1.4/0.6 split is too big. The split was created based on how often historically the home team beats the road team but it didn't take into account that on average the home team is better than the road team in NCAA basketball because really good teams don't have to play as many road games.
|
03-13-2007, 08:03 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
Home teams win roughly 70% of the time in college basketball which correlates nicely with the 1.4/0.6 road-home weighting in the new RPI formula.
The top 8 seeds in this year's NCAA tournament went a combined 495-55 (0.900) at home this year. The revision in the formula was ostensibly to reward teams that won on the road and also to incentivize bigger schools to play a higher ratio of road games, but there is no sign that the bigger schools have altered their scheduling strategy. |
Bookmarks |
|
|