Regional Rankings - Part III

[Fishman'81]

Re: Regional Rankings - Part III

Do we know if vs. Ranked is "Ranked at the time they played" or "Ranked at the end of the season"?

If it's Rank at the time they played, then Babson:

W v. Hobart #12 (1-0)
W v. Norwich #7 (2-0)
W v. Amherst #11 (3-0)
W v. UMB #5 (4-0)
L v. UMB #5 (4-1)
W v. Norwich #14 (5-1)

But that would be like an .833, so that can't be right. Personally, I think this is how "vs. Ranked" should be measured.

If it's ranked at end of season, I'm see .500 as well.

Either way it feels like something is not right.

RNK is truly a dumb excuse for a metric, and ought to be canned. Legitimate stats deal with continuums, not arbitrary cliffs.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Regional Rankings - Part III

And again, while having an 11 team tournament with no autobids would be cute and all, there are just too many teams who can maneuver their schedule to beat the math system with out going into really big detailed fair math solutions. (How everyone is up in arms about Top FBS schools playing cupcakes and padding their win totals)

I'm sure it looks a lot more "cute" to you now to rank the teams objectively, and irrespectively of redundant post-season tournaments... If Platty stays home while Salem and Salve go dancing... What more needs be said about the process? it's a joke to do it this way when selecting a field of a mere 11 teams.

And Champs, please, "padding" your schedule is NOT helpful in any rational analysis...( Remember SOS?) Being a decent team playing in a cupcake conference only works if there are gift AQ's to be had as a result.