Scheduling

[boardfan]

I was having a conversation on billikens.com about the MVC conference scheduling. You guys play 18 conference games. Most conferences play 16 or less. I contend that it makes sence to play each team twice. Members of billikens.com believe it is a way to cheat the rpi system. Can I get your thought and has it ever een discussed to go to 16 games.

[bcrawf]

It actually hurts our RPI because the conference as a whole gets more losses therefore hurting our winning percentage. If we went to 16 conference games our Conference RPI would probably be 3rd or 4th instead of 5th or 6th...

[boardfan]

I was trying to figure out if it helps or hurts. You get more wins in conference, but you also get more losses. Maybe you and or others can come over to bilikens.com and try and explain this.

[bcrawf]

I could try I suppose...

[BearsCountry]

No use explaining it to SLU fans. They hate us for the most part and beleive the Valley is small time and we cheat the system.

[dawg]

No use explaining it to SLU fans. They hate us for the most part and beleive the Valley is small time and we cheat the system.

You forgot to add that they suck and SIU takes all their prospects ...

Life is good.

[bcrawf]

I posted over there for you, I hope that it helps...

I will keep checking in...

[rjl]

It can't effect the conference RPI one iota. Saying it does means you don't understand the math.

Conference RPI is determined solely by all conference members' non-con schedule, and how the non-con opponents' RPIs pan out by the end of the season.

For example, the Valley could have 0 conference games, just playing our non-con games, and our conference RPI would be the same as it is now.

Since the two additional games are intraconference, the conference gets a total of 10 wins and 10 losses inside itself, and no effect is caused in relation to other conferences. It's like taking a number, adding 10, and then subtracting 10.

The additional games can effect the individual teams' RPIs, but not the conference's.

Don't believe what some sports pundits would lead you to. There is no "secret RPI formula". It's all about playing good non-con games, and playing alot of them on the road.

[bcrawf]

Not true. Conference winning percentage is a part of the formula. Therefore, coming into the conference season our winning % was around 75%.

Everygame is a .500 incident. Therefore the two extra games move us closer to the .500 mark than everybody else playing 16. If your theory were true there would be no change in Conference RPI once the conference season started...

[rjl]

Not true. Conference winning percentage is a part of the formula. Therefore, coming into the conference season our winning % was around 75%. Everygame is a .500 incident. Therefore the two extra games move us closer to the .500 mark than everybody else playing 16.

But since the team that wins is in the Valley, and the team that loses is in the Valley, it balances out.


If your theory were true there would be no change in Conference RPI once the conference season started...

Not true.

Our conference RPI is based on our records vs. individual teams in other conferences. Those teams' RPIs fluctuate as the season goes on and they win or lose the rest of the games in their season. For example, this year, the Valley RPI started to fall in comparison to other conferences as the UW's, LSU's, and SU's of our non-con schedules began to falter. Intraconference Valley play has nothing to do with it, but intraconference play in our non-con opponents' conferences does (LSU beating Florida, UW beating Stanford, SU losing to UConn, etc.)

Just like a teams' RPI is derived by their records vs. other teams, the conference RPI is derived from it's teams' records vs. teams from other conferences.

[OmahaBen]

Not true.

Our conference RPI is based on our records vs. individual teams in other conferences. Those teams' RPIs fluctuate as the season goes on and they win or lose the rest of the games in their season. For example, this year, the Valley RPI started to fall in comparison to other conferences as the UW's, LSU's, and SU's of our non-con schedules began to falter. Intraconference play has nothing to do with it.


A conference's non-conference RPI is based on records vs. other conferences. A conference's total RPI reflects all games played.

The extra two conference games do hurt the Valley RPI-wise in some way, most likely marginally but could have some significance. Not only because the overall winning percentage gets closer to .500 (if you don't believe this, just think about a team that starts 1-0 and then goes .500 the rest of the way. 1-0 is 1.000, 2-1 is .667, 3-2 is .600, etc.) but also because each Valley team forgoes two more non-conference games that could conceivably be two wins (or at least at roughly .700 win percentage based on other non-conference games vs. a guaranteed .500 for any conference games).

Now, I think having a true conference champion is a benefit that outweighs any issues the computer has with the schedule, but to say it has no effect is wrong.

[rjl]

A conference's non-conference RPI is based on records vs. other conferences. A conference's total RPI reflects all games played.

The extra two conference games do hurt the Valley RPI-wise in some way, most likely marginally but could have some significance. Not only because the overall winning percentage gets closer to .500 (if you don't believe this, just think about a team that starts 1-0 and then goes .500 the rest of the way. 1-0 is 1.000, 2-1 is .667, 3-2 is .600, etc.) but also because each Valley team forgoes two more non-conference games that could conceivably be two wins (or at least at roughly .700 win percentage based on other non-conference games vs. a guaranteed .500 for any conference games).

Now, I think having a true conference champion is a benefit that outweighs any issues the computer has with the schedule, but to say it has no effect is wrong.

Yes, if you figure that the two games could have been scheduled as non-con games instead of conference games, there is an effect on RPI. But that's looking at it philosophically.

But mathematically, as I said, the Valley could have just played nothing but our non-con schedule this year, including bracket busters, and our conference RPI would have been the same as it is now.

Our conference RPI changed as the season went on because our non-con opponents' RPI changed. IntraValley play had nothing to do with it.

Any RPI "hit" the additional two games will give for a loss by a Valley team is offset by the RPI "gain" of a win by a Valley team.

In other words, after the Valley's non-conference schedule is calculated, the Valley's RPI is self-contained.

[rjl]

Think of it in a Newtonian physics sort of way.

Every action generates an equal and opposite reaction.

Individual parts of the Valley pushing on individual parts of other conferences propels the Valley up or down.

But the individual parts of the Valley pushing on one another has 0 net effect on the Valley as a whole.

[IH8SIU]

Actually, more games theoretically does help our RPI. While every conference is .500, more games does inch our RIP up (apparently). For example (just throwin out numbers) if we were 90-10 in non-conference games, we have a .900 winning percentage. If we are 90-90 in conference play, that mkes us 180-100 overall, with a .555 win percentage. However, if we were only 80-80, that would put us at 170-90, or a .529 win percentage.

[rjl]

Actually, more games theoretically does help our RPI. While every conference is .500, more games does inch our RIP up (apparently). For example (just throwin out numbers) if we were 90-10 in non-conference games, we have a .900 winning percentage. If we are 90-90 in conference play, that mkes us 180-100 overall, with a .555 win percentage. However, if we were only 80-80, that would put us at 170-90, or a .529 win percentage.

How much does just the winning percentage factor into it?

I thought the wins or losses vs. the other teams' RPI is the bulk of it, and having that win or loss be against another Valley team offsets the change for the MVC as a whole.

[IH8SIU]

1/4 winning percentage, 1/2 opponents winning percentage, 1/4 opponents opponents winning percentage.

I don't know how they do the conference RPI to tell you the truth. i guess they would just average all the numbers of everyone in the conference?

[OmahaBen]

Actually, more games theoretically does help our RPI. While every conference is .500, more games does inch our RIP up (apparently). For example (just throwin out numbers) if we were 90-10 in non-conference games, we have a .900 winning percentage. If we are 90-90 in conference play, that mkes us 180-100 overall, with a .555 win percentage. However, if we were only 80-80, that would put us at 170-90, or a .529 win percentage.

Two issues:

First, how are you figuring win percentage? A record of 180-100 gives a winning percentage of 180/280 (wins/games played), which is .642, not .555. And 170-90=170/260=.653, which is higher than with those 20 extra conference games, as expected.

Secondly, you're assuming those 20 lost games aren't replaced by non-conference games.

With an 80-80 conference schedule, and assuming you continue to go .900 (18-2) in those additional 20 non-conf games, you're looking at an overall record of 188-92, which would be the highest win% yet (.671).

Intuitively, if you have something made up in part of a strong factor (in this case, the 90% winning percentage in non-conference) and a weaker factor (the 50% in conference winning percentage), increasing the weight of the lower factor into the total cannot give you a higher overall number. If you have an A in a three-credit hour course and a C in a two-credit hour course, you'll have a higher GPA than if those grades were reversed.

[MVC 4 Life]

Actually, more games theoretically does help our RPI. While every conference is .500, more games does inch our RIP up (apparently). For example (just throwin out numbers) if we were 90-10 in non-conference games, we have a .900 winning percentage. If we are 90-90 in conference play, that mkes us 180-100 overall, with a .555 win percentage. However, if we were only 80-80, that would put us at 170-90, or a .529 win percentage.


YOUR math is wrong. You take the number of wins divided by the numbers of games played (not by loses).

[MVC 4 Life]

Two issues:

First, how are you figuring win percentage? A record of 180-100 gives a winning percentage of 180/280 (wins/games played), which is .642, not .555. And 170-90=170/260=.653, which is higher than with those 20 extra conference games, as expected.

Secondly, you're assuming those 20 lost games aren't replaced by non-conference games.

With an 80-80 conference schedule, and assuming you continue to go .900 (18-2) in those additional 20 non-conf games, you're looking at an overall record of 188-92, which would be the highest win% yet (.671).

Intuitively, if you have something made up in part of a strong factor (in this case, the 90% winning percentage in non-conference) and a weaker factor (the 50% in conference winning percentage), increasing the weight of the lower factor into the total cannot give you a higher overall number. If you have an A in a three-credit hour course and a C in a two-credit hour course, you'll have a higher GPA than if those grades were reversed.

I thought Cu was a smarty private school :doh: :doh: :doh:


:salukis: :salukis: :salukis: :valley:

[chuckywang]

It hurts the Valley if the non-conference record is above .500. It helps if the non-conference record is below .500.

[BMull10]

It hurts the Valley if the non-conference record is above .500. It helps if the non-conference record is below .500.
That simple. And since our non-conference is well over .500 this year, the extra two games DO hurt the conference rpi.

[cufan]

I can't read all of this, but what it boils down to is the quality of the opponent you replace those two conference games with and whether you win those two games. If the Valley collectively goes 20-0 in those two games, it will help the RPI, unless of course all 20 wins are against teams with high (bad) RPIs. If the Valley collectively goes 0-20 in those games then it hurts.

The reason I, most coaches as well as Mr. Elgin would oppose dropping the complete round robin is that most of our teams already have enough problems scheduling non-conferrence games with quality opponents. Why replace two RPI top 150 teams with a sub 250 or so team? In addition, it seems fundamentally unfair for some teams to only have to play the top team in the conference once, while others play it twice. Hypothetically, lets say CU beats MSU by one game for the championship, with SIU third - but CU only had to play SIU once - a home game no less, and MSU had to play them home and away. And since this is a hypothetical - lets assume CU won its game over SIU and MSU split, amd CU and MSU split - how is that fair to MSU? Or CU played MSU once - at home - and got the win. But MSU didn't get the return game. Sure, it might equal out over the years, but within any one season it is unfair, IMO.