Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:59:05 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7BIT |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Organization: |
University of Maine System -- CAPS |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> Of course the argument is not statistically perfect --- because with two
> more weak teams to feed on -- the higher teams get more wins than they
> would otherwise have. ...
And with a perfect RPI formula (the NCAA formula is flawed), those wins
are balanced by the low "opponents" and "opponents-opponents"
contributions. I'm unconvinced that having weak sisters in a
conference helps a team RPI ranking. Likewise, having everyone in a
conference very good probably isn't measured well.
Also, as Erik suggested, RPI may be a poor method for measuring poor
teams. A poor team rating will be more influenced by their competition
than than the rating of a very good or good team. RPI correctly
discounts all games played by poor teams, so that the occasional upset
of a very good team by a poor team means little in the RPI for the
very good team, but a lot for the poor team.
cheers,
wayne
Wayne Smith -- [log in to unmask] -- Old Town Landing
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
|
|