This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This page is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a
copyright violation of that source. The citation is in:
|
The SOS calculation -- at least for basketball -- is 100% your opponent's record. There is no 2/3 and 1/3. That's a common misconception that was confirmed to me by NCAA Selection Committee admins during an NCAA Mock Selection invitation in Indianapolis a few years ago. I calculate the SOS 100% on opponent's record and it is congruent with the NCAA's official numbers. I can only speak to mens basketball. As of this writing, the SOS was carried over from the old RPI and has not changed, even though MBB now uses the NET team rankings. Here is a current RPI/SOS ranking with accurate calculations for SOS based on my notes here: http://udpride.com/images/rpi.htm I can re-write the Wiki page, but would rather someone else take the initiative. -- 70.60.14.146 ( talk) 22:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I have removed realtimerpi from the external links section *repeatedly* because it is unnecessary with the official NCAA RPI above it.
The RPI calculation is so simple (I can almost do it in my head) that there are many sites on the Internet that have the RPI available in realtime: this in itself is non-notable. You may know of some media outlets that quote their data, but I have seen articles that quote the RPI of each of kenpom.com, warrennolan.com, boydsworld.com, collegerpi.com, espn.com, rpiratings.com and teamrankings.com. As such, being quoted by the media is also non-notable.
You may have an affection for this site (or a commision from it), but if wikipedia needs a link to realtimerpi, then it should have links to all the rest of the sites that provide this commodity service, and that would be over the top for a 2 1/2 paragraph article.
Thanks, 208.127.59.165 07:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
look forward to seeing the applicaion in other fields —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.52.66.10 ( talk) 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
But, but is it a validated method?....I mean if it is validated by sets of training and validation data, or by another relevant method?
If the article can not provide any scientific references on the method validation, please indicate it somewhere in the article. Otherwise, it is misleading the public. I have seen an article abstract at
http://www.bepress.com/jqas/vol2/iss3/3/
However, I'm not sure what the ranking results are using RPI and OLRE. If the ranking results are consistent with each other by these two methods, then RPI is a validated method. Any people who is able to access to the journal article, please add some relevant info to the front article
Are the standings prior or after the game? -- Howard the Duck 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is the copyvio according to Wayback. The other article dates back to '04. Listing for speedy. -- MWOAP ( talk) 21:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This shouldn't be deleted, and that's not why I tagged it. This topic is clearly notable and shouldn't be speedied. It should be overhauled with new and original language that cites reliable sources. Unless I am just misunderstanding what you all are talking about ... Daniel J Simanek ( talk) 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I beleive that while the initial formula is straight forward and you seem to have the details of that base formula. .25(WP) + .5(OWP) + .25(OOWP) 1.4's and .6's yada yada.
However, I'm fairly sure that there is als an adjustment when the NCAA uses theirs (bonus points if you will as well as penalties) for teams that play different percentages of Non-conf. games against teams ranked in the top half of the rpi. I'm working on finding a source for this, again. I used to know the specifics, but was trying to find them again this year. Again I'm fairly sure that the NCAA uses these fairly quantifiable adjustments, but I'll have to find the source again to verify.
Will watch your entry to see who finds those details first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.61.248 ( talk) 22:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Reading through the short example that describes the WP, I think it states that a home loss counts as 1.4 Games, an away loss as .6 games if a team loses to Syracuse at home, beats them away, and then loses to Cincinnati away, their record would be 1-2. Considering the weighted aspect of the WP, their winning percentage is 1.4 / (1.4 + 1.4 + 0.6) If that is a correct reading, then the extended example shows Minnesota: (0 + 0 + 0) / (0.6 + 1.4 + 0.6) which would mean 1 home loss and 2 away losses however the table shows they lost at home twice and away once ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldrix ( talk • contribs) 04:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
(correcting my correction...OOWP is not agnostic of games against original team...so changed text below and removed example)
I have some issues with the example...some already pointed out. But my main beef is the calculation of the OWP should be "agnostic" of the Team for which the RPI is being calculated. So to list only four OWP numbers is incorrect...Our sample has four teams...so you would have an OWP for each team "with respect to" each of the other teams...so 4x3 = 12 different OWP calculations are needed to figure the RPI of all four teams. In the same way you would calculate 12 OOWP values using the 12 OWP values calculated.
I am wondering if the WP calculations are correct for the 4 teams listed in the Extended Example. The current calculation for UConn shows: (0.6 + 0.6 + 1.4 + 0) / (0.6 + 0.6 + 1.4 + 1.4) = 0.6500. I believe it should be UConn: (0.6 + 0.6 + 1.4 + 0) / (0.6 + 0.6 + 1.4 + 0.6) = 0.8125 if the denominator for Away losses is 0.6 instead of 1.4. If all games were weighted 1, the WP = 3/4 = 0.75. It would seem intuitive that if only loss is an Away game weighted at 0.6, then the WP would be higher than 0.75 not less. Maybe another way to summarize the 4 possibilities are 1) Home win: numerator = denominator = 0.6 2) Home loss: num = 0, den = 1.4 3) Away win: num = den = 1.4 4) Away loss: num = 0, den = 0.6 Nateman88 ( talk) 19:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This page is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a
copyright violation of that source. The citation is in:
|
The SOS calculation -- at least for basketball -- is 100% your opponent's record. There is no 2/3 and 1/3. That's a common misconception that was confirmed to me by NCAA Selection Committee admins during an NCAA Mock Selection invitation in Indianapolis a few years ago. I calculate the SOS 100% on opponent's record and it is congruent with the NCAA's official numbers. I can only speak to mens basketball. As of this writing, the SOS was carried over from the old RPI and has not changed, even though MBB now uses the NET team rankings. Here is a current RPI/SOS ranking with accurate calculations for SOS based on my notes here: http://udpride.com/images/rpi.htm I can re-write the Wiki page, but would rather someone else take the initiative. -- 70.60.14.146 ( talk) 22:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I have removed realtimerpi from the external links section *repeatedly* because it is unnecessary with the official NCAA RPI above it.
The RPI calculation is so simple (I can almost do it in my head) that there are many sites on the Internet that have the RPI available in realtime: this in itself is non-notable. You may know of some media outlets that quote their data, but I have seen articles that quote the RPI of each of kenpom.com, warrennolan.com, boydsworld.com, collegerpi.com, espn.com, rpiratings.com and teamrankings.com. As such, being quoted by the media is also non-notable.
You may have an affection for this site (or a commision from it), but if wikipedia needs a link to realtimerpi, then it should have links to all the rest of the sites that provide this commodity service, and that would be over the top for a 2 1/2 paragraph article.
Thanks, 208.127.59.165 07:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
look forward to seeing the applicaion in other fields —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.52.66.10 ( talk) 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
But, but is it a validated method?....I mean if it is validated by sets of training and validation data, or by another relevant method?
If the article can not provide any scientific references on the method validation, please indicate it somewhere in the article. Otherwise, it is misleading the public. I have seen an article abstract at
http://www.bepress.com/jqas/vol2/iss3/3/
However, I'm not sure what the ranking results are using RPI and OLRE. If the ranking results are consistent with each other by these two methods, then RPI is a validated method. Any people who is able to access to the journal article, please add some relevant info to the front article
Are the standings prior or after the game? -- Howard the Duck 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is the copyvio according to Wayback. The other article dates back to '04. Listing for speedy. -- MWOAP ( talk) 21:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This shouldn't be deleted, and that's not why I tagged it. This topic is clearly notable and shouldn't be speedied. It should be overhauled with new and original language that cites reliable sources. Unless I am just misunderstanding what you all are talking about ... Daniel J Simanek ( talk) 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I beleive that while the initial formula is straight forward and you seem to have the details of that base formula. .25(WP) + .5(OWP) + .25(OOWP) 1.4's and .6's yada yada.
However, I'm fairly sure that there is als an adjustment when the NCAA uses theirs (bonus points if you will as well as penalties) for teams that play different percentages of Non-conf. games against teams ranked in the top half of the rpi. I'm working on finding a source for this, again. I used to know the specifics, but was trying to find them again this year. Again I'm fairly sure that the NCAA uses these fairly quantifiable adjustments, but I'll have to find the source again to verify.
Will watch your entry to see who finds those details first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.61.248 ( talk) 22:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Reading through the short example that describes the WP, I think it states that a home loss counts as 1.4 Games, an away loss as .6 games if a team loses to Syracuse at home, beats them away, and then loses to Cincinnati away, their record would be 1-2. Considering the weighted aspect of the WP, their winning percentage is 1.4 / (1.4 + 1.4 + 0.6) If that is a correct reading, then the extended example shows Minnesota: (0 + 0 + 0) / (0.6 + 1.4 + 0.6) which would mean 1 home loss and 2 away losses however the table shows they lost at home twice and away once ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldrix ( talk • contribs) 04:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
(correcting my correction...OOWP is not agnostic of games against original team...so changed text below and removed example)
I have some issues with the example...some already pointed out. But my main beef is the calculation of the OWP should be "agnostic" of the Team for which the RPI is being calculated. So to list only four OWP numbers is incorrect...Our sample has four teams...so you would have an OWP for each team "with respect to" each of the other teams...so 4x3 = 12 different OWP calculations are needed to figure the RPI of all four teams. In the same way you would calculate 12 OOWP values using the 12 OWP values calculated.
I am wondering if the WP calculations are correct for the 4 teams listed in the Extended Example. The current calculation for UConn shows: (0.6 + 0.6 + 1.4 + 0) / (0.6 + 0.6 + 1.4 + 1.4) = 0.6500. I believe it should be UConn: (0.6 + 0.6 + 1.4 + 0) / (0.6 + 0.6 + 1.4 + 0.6) = 0.8125 if the denominator for Away losses is 0.6 instead of 1.4. If all games were weighted 1, the WP = 3/4 = 0.75. It would seem intuitive that if only loss is an Away game weighted at 0.6, then the WP would be higher than 0.75 not less. Maybe another way to summarize the 4 possibilities are 1) Home win: numerator = denominator = 0.6 2) Home loss: num = 0, den = 1.4 3) Away win: num = den = 1.4 4) Away loss: num = 0, den = 0.6 Nateman88 ( talk) 19:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)