Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

How RPI is calculated

Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
I don't think this was posted this season.

For the curious:

What is the RPI algorithm?

A team's RPI is a sum of three values: 25% of the team's winning percentage, 50% of its opponents' average winning percentage (strength of schedule), and 25% of its opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (opponents' strength of schedule). Only results against teams which are in NCAA Division I are counted in all of these winning percentages.

Since December 2004, the 25-50-25 ratio was adjusted so that all road wins are treated as 1.4 wins, all road losses are treated as 0.6 losses, all home wins are worth 0.6 wins and all home losses are valued at 1.4 losses. Games in neutral sites still counts as 1.

*********************

Basically, you can't lose at home (why Tad scheduled 2 of the 3 toughest non-conference opponents at neutral sites), 1 road win is worth more than 2 road losses, and since the opponents of opponents matter it's good to schedule mediocre teams from good conferences. In short: after the 2011 tourney snub, Tad figured this **** out.
 
Thanks for posting the refresher nik.

As you mentioned, that's another reason why it's not worth it to schedule a home and home with a good mid-major (Gonzaga, Creighton, etc. - who might beat you at least one of the games), rather than against a crappy team from a good conference (Nebraska, Penn State, Texas A&M, etc.).
 
GoonieBuff said:
Thanks for posting the refresher nik.

As you mentioned, that's another reason why it's not worth it to schedule a home and home with a good mid-major (Gonzaga, Creighton, etc. - who might beat you at least one of the games), rather than against a crappy team from a good conference (Nebraska, Penn State, Texas A&M, etc.).
Click to expand...
That, then, is a flaw they should fix.
 
Buffnik said:
Basically, you can't lose at home (why Tad scheduled 2 of the 3 toughest non-conference opponents at neutral sites), 1 road win is worth more than 2 road losses, and since the opponents of opponents matter it's good to schedule mediocre teams from good conferences. In short: after the 2011 tourney snub, Tad figured this **** out.
Click to expand...

No doubt, the non-conference schedule has been improved a few notches since the days of Ricardo and Tad's first year. Nice to see and it also gets us onto the national landscape, not to mention the obvious RPI benefit.
 
DBT said:
That, then, is a flaw they should fix.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. I want teams incentivized to schedule home and home series with top teams. College hoops fans as a general rule don't travel well (compared with football fans) yet the current system encourages big games at neutral sites. It'll complicate the formula (but that's why we have computers), but some system where the home weighting was a sliding scale based on the RPI of the opponent -- so when CU beats KU the game is weighted by 0.9 but when CU plays UT-Martin the win is weighted 0.6.

Valid points that Boyle understands how to work the RPI and schedules accordingly. No reason to think he wouldn't make the right adjustments should the system change.
 
hokiehead said:
Agree 100%. I want teams incentivized to schedule home and home series with top teams. College hoops fans as a general rule don't travel well (compared with football fans) yet the current system encourages big games at neutral sites. It'll complicate the formula (but that's why we have computers), but some system where the home weighting was a sliding scale based on the RPI of the opponent -- so when CU beats KU the game is weighted by 0.9 but when CU plays UT-Martin the win is weighted 0.6.

Valid points that Boyle understands how to work the RPI and schedules accordingly. No reason to think he wouldn't make the right adjustments should the system change.
Click to expand...

That is how it works now. The KU win is worth more because of KUs opponents.
 
tante said:
That is how it works now. The KU win is worth more because of KUs opponents.
Click to expand...

Close, but not exactly. There's three components in RPI that determines how much a given win (or loss) "is worth": (1) the opponent's SoS measured by their opponents W-L, (2) the opponent's W-L record (3) game location. You're correct that the KU win counts more than the UT-Martin win.

The difference is that under the current formula, the impacts of #1 and #2 are linear where the impact of (3) is constant. I'm advocating that the impact of #3 also be a linear function of #1 and #2.

The net result would be that the KU win would count even more than it does currently and the UCLA home loss would count even less. Conversely, the UT-M win would help CU less and the @ Arizona loss would hurt CU less than it does now. I believe this subtle change would result in more big match-ups on campus, and less at neutral sites in front of empty seats.
 
hokiehead said:
Close, but not exactly. There's three components in RPI that determines how much a given win (or loss) "is worth": (1) the opponent's SoS measured by their opponents W-L, (2) the opponent's W-L record (3) game location. You're correct that the KU win counts more than the UT-Martin win.

The difference is that under the current formula, the impacts of #1 and #2 are linear where the impact of (3) is constant. I'm advocating that the impact of #3 also be a linear function of #1 and #2.

The net result would be that the KU win would count even more than it does currently and the UCLA home loss would count even less. Conversely, the UT-M win would help CU less and the @ Arizona loss would hurt CU less than it does now. I believe this subtle change would result in more big match-ups on campus, and less at neutral sites in front of empty seats.
Click to expand...
Those neutral site matchups are eyesores even UK/Baylor in Jerry's World would've only filled about 2/3 of the arena the Mavs play at.
 
Yeah. I think they went overboard in '94 with the 0.6 / 1.4 algorithm. If they pushed it to 0.8 / 1.2 we'd see a lot better home/home scheduling of quality teams imo.
 
hokiehead said:
Close, but not exactly. There's three components in RPI that determines how much a given win (or loss) "is worth": (1) the opponent's SoS measured by their opponents W-L, (2) the opponent's W-L record (3) game location. You're correct that the KU win counts more than the UT-Martin win.

The difference is that under the current formula, the impacts of #1 and #2 are linear where the impact of (3) is constant. I'm advocating that the impact of #3 also be a linear function of #1 and #2.

The net result would be that the KU win would count even more than it does currently and the UCLA home loss would count even less. Conversely, the UT-M win would help CU less and the @ Arizona loss would hurt CU less than it does now. I believe this subtle change would result in more big match-ups on campus, and less at neutral sites in front of empty seats.
Click to expand...

remember you don't want to make a home win of UT-Martin worth so little that nobody plays them.
 
Probably a stupid question: is it just regular season RPI the committee uses for their reference? Or do they continue the calculation thru conf tourney games?
 
Slurpeee said:
Probably a stupid question: is it just regular season RPI the committee uses for their reference? Or do they continue the calculation thru conf tourney games?
Click to expand...

Continues through conference tourney, but the suspicion is that they don't make a lot of changes to the field based on those games.*

*It's the only way to adequately explain CU not getting in in 2011 with the TTU and KSU wins (and a KU "neutral" loss in Kansas City) not securing a bid.
 
Buffnik said:
Continues through conference tourney, but the suspicion is that they don't make a lot of changes to the field based on those games.*

*It's the only way to adequately explain CU not getting in in 2011 with the TTU and KSU wins (and a KU "neutral" loss in Kansas City) not securing a bid.
Click to expand...
I don't think they make a lot of changes either at that point. For the games that happen on the Selection Sunday, the committee has every scenario mapped out, so only the W's/L's that day matter and margin of victory,OT,etc don't really matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top