Thanks to Lehigh’s win over Wagner last night.

Since St Joe’s has a loss on their record, this position will be short lived. No matter the outcome of the game tonight, we will drop out of the #1 spot.

Thanks to Lehigh’s win over Wagner last night.

Since St Joe’s has a loss on their record, this position will be short lived. No matter the outcome of the game tonight, we will drop out of the #1 spot.

forgive me for bringing this up…but why are we number one…i know it helps to beat decent or good teams (beating bad teams is not helpful) and winning on the road is supposedly important as well. so, why are we number one when we beat an average (or maybe slightly below average) Lehigh team at home? I know part of it also has to do w/ who your opponents beat…well, Lehigh beat Wagner which isn’t impressive. Help!

Also, RealTimeRPI has us at #5 (isn’t there a standard formula? Why would different sites have different calculations?)

Shoudl we be hearing about ED’s contract extention soon??

Talk about timing, how about McNabb’s contract last night? Nothing like proving your worth than having your team get blown out in historic proportions. I know, not all his fault, but the timing couldn’t be worse (or better, I guess depending on how you look at it)

[quote=“Finding Forrester, post:4, topic:1506”]forgive me for bringing this up…but why are we number one…i know it helps to beat decent or good teams (beating bad teams is not helpful) and winning on the road is supposedly important as well. so, why are we number one when we beat an average (or maybe slightly below average) Lehigh team at home? I know part of it also has to do w/ who your opponents beat…well, Lehigh beat Wagner which isn’t impressive. Help!

Also, RealTimeRPI has us at #5 (isn’t there a standard formula? Why would different sites have different calculations?)[/quote]

RPI is a three part formula.

One part (weighted 25%) is your winning percentage. We are 1-0 or 1.000 on a percentage basis. Can’t get higher than than - even Georgetown at 2-0 is still a 1.000 percentage. (note: I’m ignoring the weighed home vs away vs neutral site factor because when you are undefeated the weights don’t change the 1.000 percentage)

Part two (weighted 50%) is the average winning of your opponents (not counting your game). We have one opponent who has played one school other than us. Lehigh played Wagner and beat them, so they are 1-0 according to this calculation. Hence the average of our opponent winning percentage is 1.000.

Part three (weighted 25%) is opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage. Again, we have one opponent, i.e. Lehigh. They have one opponent, Wagner. Wagner’s record is 1-1 or .500. Any team with a 1.000 winning percentage who has an opponent with a 1.000 winning percentage will have a least one loss in the opp-opp winning percentage. The only way that this number could be better than .500 for us would be if our opponents opponent, i.e. Wagner, had played at least one more game and won it. But this early in the season it’s highly unusual to find someone with three games under their belt.

[quote=“UncleLar, post:9, topic:1506”]RPI is a three part formula.

One part (weighted 25%) is your winning percentage. We are 1-0 or 1.000 on a percentage basis. Can’t get higher than than - even Georgetown at 2-0 is still a 1.000 percentage. (note: I’m ignoring the weighed home vs away vs neutral site factor because when you are undefeated the weights don’t change the 1.000 percentage)

Part two (weighted 50%) is the average winning of your opponents (not counting your game). We have one opponent who has played one school other than us. Lehigh played Wagner and beat them, so they are 1-0 according to this calculation. Hence the average of our opponent winning percentage is 1.000.

Part three (weighted 25%) is opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage. Again, we have one opponent, i.e. Lehigh. They have one opponent, Wagner. Wagner’s record is 1-1 or .500. Any team with a 1.000 winning percentage who has an opponent with a 1.000 winning percentage will have a least one loss in the opp-opp winning percentage. The only way that this number could be better than .500 for us would be if our opponents opponent, i.e. Wagner, had played at least one more game and won it. But this early in the season it’s highly unusual to find someone with three games under their belt. [/quote]

Of course, this means that we’re going to take a dive by playing St. Joe’s, even with beating them, since their record is 0-1 already.

Yes there is a standard formula which means all sites should IN THEORY have the same ranking

I can’t speak for why RealTimeRPI has us at #5 without seeing what teams are ranked ahead of us. The ranking that I’ve posted is from Jerry Palm’s CollegeRPI.com and Jerry is normally considered the best independent authority on RPI rankings.

RPIForecast has us at #4 in their RPI rankings but I can explain that. I quick scan of RPIForecasts rankings shows the following.

- Duke
- Georgetown
- Pacific
- Penn State
- West Virginia

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this is the same order that Palm has the schools listed on his site, which is alphabetical among ties. My guess is that RPIForecast doesn’t handle ties correctly.

As far as RealTimeRPI goes, I could hazard a guess that alphabetical errors might be part of the problem. Another possibility is the timing of their updates. Palm does a batch update at the end of every day. If RealTimeRPI is true to its name, it will do an update at the end of every game. I suppose it’s possible that some of the post midnight games that are being played as part of ESPN’s hoops marathon today have affected the RPI rankings enough to move someone ahead of us (I’d be curious who that is though - if you have their top four I’d like to see them).

Never mind. I found RealTimeRPI rankings.

They have a similar problem as RPIForecast does. They don’t handle ties correctly.

Here’s ReakTimeRPI’s rankings

Notice that all five teams have the same raw RPI score .8750 (the same number that RPIForecast and that Jerry Palm have).

But RealTimeRPI, as I suggested they might, doesn’t handle ties correctly. For some reason, they have the tied teams ranked by their SOS ranking. To compound matters, their SOS rankings have the same problem with handling ties. There are a bunch of teams with a SOS of .8333 but RealTimeRPI doesn’t correctly treat them as equals. Somehow they incorrectly rank within SOS (and I’m not going to try to figure out how they actually ranked them - however, they did, it’s wrong - they should all be the same ranking). RPIForecast incorrectly broke ties alphabetically, RealTimeRPI incorrectly broke ties by an SOS ranking that also incorrectly broke ties. CollegeRPI.com got it right.

I have found Jerry Palm’s CollegeRPI.com to be the best at getting this right (just as he did here). He keeps in touch with the people at the NCAA who actually publish the RPI numbers that are used by the selection committee. Occasionally, Palm’s numbers will differ from the NCAA’s (usually as a result of a decision about whether a particular venue should be considered home for a team or not). More often than not Jerry has it right and the NCAA winds up changing their numbers.

[quote="UncleLar, post:9, topic:1506"]RPI is a three part formula.One part (weighted 25%) is your winning percentage. We are 1-0 or 1.000 on a percentage basis. Can’t get higher than than - even Georgetown at 2-0 is still a 1.000 percentage. (note: I’m ignoring the weighed home vs away vs neutral site factor because when you are undefeated the weights don’t change the 1.000 percentage)

Part two (weighted 50%) is the average winning of your opponents (not counting your game). We have one opponent who has played one school other than us. Lehigh played Wagner and beat them, so they are 1-0 according to this calculation. Hence the average of our opponent winning percentage is 1.000.

Part three (weighted 25%) is opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage. Again, we have one opponent, i.e. Lehigh. They have one opponent, Wagner. Wagner’s record is 1-1 or .500. Any team with a 1.000 winning percentage who has an opponent with a 1.000 winning percentage will have a least one loss in the opp-opp winning percentage. The only way that this number could be better than .500 for us would be if our opponents opponent, i.e. Wagner, had played at least one more game and won it. But this early in the season it’s highly unusual to find someone with three games under their belt.[/quote]

Of course, this means that we’re going to take a dive by playing St. Joe’s, even with beating them, since their record is 0-1 already.

Correct - our stay at #1 will be a one dayer (but who knows, maybe it will be reachieved later in the season ;D ).

[quote="UncleLar, post:9, topic:1506"]RPI is a three part formula.Part three (weighted 25%) is opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage. Again, we have one opponent, i.e. Lehigh. They have one opponent, Wagner. Wagner’s record is 1-1 or .500. Any team with a 1.000 winning percentage who has an opponent with a 1.000 winning percentage will have a least one loss in the opp-opp winning percentage. The only way that this number could be better than .500 for us would be if our opponents opponent, i.e. Wagner, had played at least one more game and won it. But this early in the season it’s highly unusual to find someone with three games under their belt.[/quote]

Of course, this means that we’re going to take a dive by playing St. Joe’s, even with beating them, since their record is 0-1 already.

Correct - our stay at #1 will be a one dayer (but who knows, maybe it will be reachieved later in the season ;D ).

FTR - we slipped to #8.

[quote="UncleLar, post:9, topic:1506"]RPI is a three part formula.Part three (weighted 25%) is opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage. Again, we have one opponent, i.e. Lehigh. They have one opponent, Wagner. Wagner’s record is 1-1 or .500. Any team with a 1.000 winning percentage who has an opponent with a 1.000 winning percentage will have a least one loss in the opp-opp winning percentage. The only way that this number could be better than .500 for us would be if our opponents opponent, i.e. Wagner, had played at least one more game and won it. But this early in the season it’s highly unusual to find someone with three games under their belt.[/quote]

Correct - our stay at #1 will be a one dayer (but who knows, maybe it will be reachieved later in the season ;D ).

FTR - we slipped to #8.

Lar, it may be fun to follow this with a graph, showing our RPI each day.

What are we at now? Will the CCSU game help?

FTR - we slipped to #8.

Lar, it may be fun to follow this with a graph, showing our RPI each day.

What are we at now? Will the CCSU game help?

#49.

Assuming we win,

A. Our winning percentage will stay the same - 1.000

B. Our opponents’ winning percentage will go up somewhat.

C. Our opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage will go down more.

Without actually cranking the numbers, I would guess that because part B counts twice as much as part C, it will be enough to compensate for the larger change in C, so I think we will get a little help from the game. But that’s only the raw number. What happens to the teams around us can have a major effect also.

When I actually used to do something with HappyValleyHoops.com, I would plot it after every game. Daily plots were just too much work.

“When I actually used to do something with HappyValleyHoops.com, I would plot it after every game. Daily plots were just too much work.”

The question is, will you ever do anything with it again? I still venture over there every once in a while to see if there’s been an update.

[quote=“Pezlion, post:18, topic:1506”]“When I actually used to do something with HappyValleyHoops.com, I would plot it after every game. Daily plots were just too much work.”

The question is, will you ever do anything with it again? I still venture over there every once in a while to see if there’s been an update.[/quote]

Not sure. I’m kind of taking a sabbatical from any blogging for a while. I don’t know what it would take to re-energize me again. I’ll probably hang onto my domain names but not sure if I’ll actually do anything with them.