Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

It would be a pretty poor ranking system (and I realize that's what RPI is) that wouldn't improve the rating of a team that went .500 in five games against a top-four team like Wisconsin.

So don't you think it's a little misguided of people to be complaining that in their fantasy world, playing them "hurt" North Dakota's rating, when in reality it did the opposite?

 

[ARM]

So don't you think it's a little misguided of people to be complaining that in their fantasy world, playing them "hurt" North Dakota's rating, when in reality it did the opposite?

It did hurt in a category like TUC, because TUC doesn't know if you're playing Minnesota or Minnesota-Duluth. The problem with RPI isn't where it penalizes, but rather where it is incapable of rewarding. All wins and losses look the same as far as RPI knows.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

It would be a pretty poor ranking system (and I realize that's what RPI is) that wouldn't improve the rating of a team that went .500 in five games against a top-four team like Wisconsin.

I'm willing to bet that you could take out just the losses to Minnesota and UND's RPI would go down. It's the flip side of the wins that hurt your RPI.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

The problem with RPI isn't where it penalizes, but rather where it is incapable of rewarding. All wins and losses look the same as far as RPI knows.

I am assuming you made a typo and mean TUC here -- and will correct as such before responding.

It did hurt in a category like TUC, because TUC doesn't know if you're playing Minnesota or Minnesota-Duluth. The problem with TUC isn't where it penalizes, but rather where it is incapable of rewarding. All wins and losses look the same as far as TUC knows.

That is correct. And TUC blows. But given that not a single one of the comparisons that North Dakota lost would have been flipped by removing the Wisconsin and Minnesota games... I ask again, doesn't it seem a little misguided to suggest that playing those games hurt North Dakota, when in fact it didn't?

The only comparison that would have come close to flipping was the one with Quinnipiac. Removing the Minnesota and Wisconsin games would have tied the TUC comparison with QU, but QU still would have won because they win RPI.

But then if we're playing in this silly fantasy world of what-if's trying to build a sob story for North Dakota, we would need to remove all those the games that Quinnipiac played against the #2, #3, #5, and #6 teams in the country, wouldn't we?

 

[ARM]

I'm willing to bet that you could take out just the losses to Minnesota and UND's RPI would go down. It's the flip side of the wins that hurt your RPI.

You are incorrect on both. UND's RPI decreased after losing to UM in Grand Forks. Wins that decrease RPI are removed by the process, so no win can hurt the ultimate RPI value (except for the fact that you've wasted a game in your schedule where you could have been playing and perhaps beating a better team.)

 

[ARM]

I am assuming you made a typo and mean TUC here -- and will correct as such before responding.

No I meant RPI. Unlike some rating systems, RPI only knows a net winning percentage, and percentages of opponents and opponents opponents. It has no idea of which games were wins and which were losses, other than those wins that were tossed.

But then if we're playing in this silly fantasy world of what-if's trying to build a sob story for North Dakota, we would need to remove all those the games that Quinnipiac played against the #2, #3, #5, and #6 teams in the country, wouldn't we?

I'm only attacking the PWR and RPI. I've stated that I'm glad I don't have to watch UND again Saturday as I did last week. The problem from my Gopher-centric view of the world is that in the years where UND does get up to #6-#8 in the PairWise, they are undervalued by this system and so we get a tougher first-round matchup than we otherwise might in a more discerning system. That feeds into your "probability of an outcome" argument from another thread. But in this context, I'm not sobbing.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

[RPI] has no idea of which games were wins and which were losses, other than those wins that were tossed.

What? I mean it doesn't "know" in the sense that beating St. Cloud and losing to Minnesota will give you the same RPI as beating Minnesota and losing to St. Cloud, but why should it? If you beat a team you are 'supposed to' and lose to a team you are 'supposed to', why shouldn't that have the same net effect as having an upset win and a wtf loss?

Should the good win count for more than the bad loss? You still had the bad loss, why shouldn't you get penalized for it?

Not trying to put words in your mouth here; just trying to deduce where you're coming from.

The problem from my Gopher-centric view of the world is that in the years where UND does get up to #6-#8 in the PairWise, they are undervalued by this system and so we get a tougher first-round matchup than we otherwise might in a more discerning system. That feeds into your "probability of an outcome" argument from another thread.

So you were upset about having a tougher matchup than you should have had?? So you DO understand what I was talking about!!

 

[ARM]

Should the good win count for more than the bad loss? You still had the bad loss, why shouldn't you get penalized for it?

Some rating systems do know and care. Rather than St. Cloud, think Minnesota and UMD. Some systems may think that a team that goes 3-1 versus UMD and 1-3 versus Minnesota has more potential than a team that is 4-0 versus UMD and 0-4 versus Minnesota. NCAA Hoops has always given credit for quality wins.

Not trying to put words in your mouth here; just trying to deduce where you're coming from.

A dark and scary place with much confusion.

So you were upset about having a tougher matchup than you should have had?? So you DO understand what I was talking about!!

As a fan, yes, I knew all along. The players care far less. When the bracket comes out, they look and think, "We like beating North Dakota." There were some members of the 2005 Gophers who were disappointed that UMD was upset in the quarterfinals because they were hoping to finish their careers vs the Bulldogs in the final. There are reasons why these kids are all champions and you and I spend our time typing at each other. They're competitors.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Women's DI Rankings/Polls 2012-2013

Some rating systems do know and care. Rather than St. Cloud, think Minnesota and UMD. Some systems may think that a team that goes 3-1 versus UMD and 1-3 versus Minnesota has more potential than a team that is 4-0 versus UMD and 0-4 versus Minnesota.

There's a pretty reasonable argument to be had either way on this one I think. Among the topics for debate is 'is the NCAA looking for the team with the most potential or the best team?' Because I would qualify consistency as one of the many factors included in a discussion for who is 'better' as opposed to who has more potential.

NCAA Hoops has always given credit for quality wins.

Oof, never compare hockey with basketball. haha

NCAA hoops also gives credit to how many cigarettes you can contribute to the committee's smoke filled room, probably.

As a fan, yes, I knew all along. The players care far less. When the bracket comes out, they look and think, "We like beating North Dakota." There were some members of the 2005 Gophers who were disappointed that UMD was upset in the quarterfinals because they were hoping to finish their careers vs the Bulldogs in the final. There are reasons why these kids are all champions and you and I spend our time typing at each other. They're competitors.

Hey, I never disagreed with this. No argument from me here.