03-13-2007, 07:36 PM | #11 |
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 | #12 |
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. |
03-13-2007, 08:09 PM | #13 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
there is no incentive to do so when RPI is completely ignored.
|
03-13-2007, 08:10 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
Quote:
|
|
03-13-2007, 08:18 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
Quote:
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. |
|
03-13-2007, 08:18 PM | #16 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Maybe BYU should start a lawsuit, allege racketeering, seek an injuction. That would show them.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
03-13-2007, 08:20 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
sounds like a good pro bono project for you.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
03-13-2007, 08:22 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
I don't think his Cougarguard resume is impressive enough for someone to take him even on a pro bono basis.
|
03-13-2007, 08:36 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
Yes, that is true. I understand where the 1.4/0.6 comes from. I just think it is the wrong weighting because on average the home team is better than the road team. I mean that the home team has a greater than 50% of beating the road team if they played on a neutral court. This fact isn't going to be true for conference schedules, but it is going to be true for non-conference schedule (and thus true at least to some degree overall) where power teams schedule patsies which inflates the home team winning percentage to 70% and the 1.4/0.6 ratio. I think the ratio should be smaller and based on how often the home team beats the road team when both teams have similar ranks. I think that would push the ratio down to 1.3/0.7 or maybe 1.2/0.8.
Last edited by pelagius; 03-13-2007 at 08:40 PM. |
03-14-2007, 04:57 AM | #20 | |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 283
|
Quote:
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|