actually, the problem was that CC ended up playing a WEAK team 7 times
4 times during the season and thrice more in the first round.  That
meant that 1/4 (or thereabouts) of the opponents winning percentage
was that of 1 team.


> Date:         Sat, 1 Mar 2003 13:31:52 -0600
> From: Craig Powers <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: A serious flaw in RPI
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Peterson" <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > On 28 Feb 2003 at 23:25, John T Whelan wrote:
> >
> > > Maine loses to BU and their RPI drops from .5949 to .5911
> > > Cornell beats Princeton and their RPI drops from .5947 to .5895
>
>
>
> > This is probably at the heart of the problem with Colorado many years
> > back.  They won the conference in the regular season but took an
> > early exit in the conference tournament to a much weaker team, which
> > also prevented them from playing and beating the stronger teams.
> > Combine that with playing Air Force, I believe, four times during the
> > year resulted in a sufficiently low RPI that they did not get a bid.
>
> It was actually more interesting than that.  In a preview to later
> problems with the MAAC (only in reverse), CC was penalized for a
> deceptively strong schedule.  I believe the WCHA that year did well
> out-of-conference and then beat each other up in conference games, with
> the result that their RPI SofS was deceptively low.  Despite the fact
> that the CC incident spawned several changes in tournament selection,
> had those changes been in place that year, CC would -still- have gotten
> in based only on "the CC rule".
>



charlie shub   University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
[log in to unmask]               http://cs.uccs.edu/~cdash
(719) 262-3492                  (fax) 262-3369