RPI & Michigan

[BenEClone]

Jerry Palm states that: "I'm sorry to report that I do not expect to be able to offer women's RPI information this season." So, I'm using Realtime. Is there a better rpi comparison available?

We are #118, largely on account of a SOS 226. With all the frosh and Anna out, we probably needed that. Realtime projects us losing at rpi #16 Michigan and winning over rpi # 34 Iowa. I was encouraged that despite reports of not playing our best, we were competitive with Penn State. And, it seems, we have multiple 3 point threats, though not necessarily at the same time. BF has a week to get ready and Michigan is likely thinking about Maryland. Their attendance for Utah was 682. UM has 3 gals at 6-4, only one of which, Thompson, is a threat to score. It would be nice to have Anna. Am I unduly optimistic to think we can win this one?

 

[CRAZYGREG]

We should have crushed Penn State. That loss was totally on us and not really a product of how Penn State played.

I will be traveling to Michigan for the Men's and Women's games this weekend. When I looked up tickets for Sunday I could get row 3 center court for $8. It is really sad when attendence is THAT low for a BCS conference team.

 

[acoustimac]

Jerry Palm states that: "I'm sorry to report that I do not expect to be able to offer women's RPI information this season." So, I'm using Realtime. Is there a better rpi comparison available?

We are #118, largely on account of a SOS 226. With all the frosh and Anna out, we probably needed that. Realtime projects us losing at rpi #16 Michigan and winning over rpi # 34 Iowa. I was encouraged that despite reports of not playing our best, we were competitive with Penn State. And, it seems, we have multiple 3 point threats, though not necessarily at the same time. BF has a week to get ready and Michigan is likely thinking about Maryland. Their attendance for Utah was 682. UM has 3 gals at 6-4, only one of which, Thompson, is a threat to score. It would be nice to have Anna. Am I unduly optimistic to think we can win this one?

I think we are more likely to win at Michigan than Iowa at home. Iowa is due to explode and when they do (or if they do) they will be as dangerous as anyone we play. Fortunately, this hasn't happened yet. Michigan is a team very much like ISU with a group of frosh they are depending on.

 

[cydney]

It's probably too early in the season to trust any RPI data.

Michigan has played decent teams, but some of them have not started the season well, and UM has barely squeaked by in some games. Just very hard to say. The Maryland game will shed some light.

This site will start its women's ratings next week:
RPIRatings.com

It reports a change in the calculation of RPI this year.

"Women's RPI calculation will be the same as men's beginning with 2011-12 season
There are several teams changing conferences this season, which happens every year, but that does not grab the headlines in women's Division I hoops this season. The big news, which was announced in September of 2010, is that the women's RPI will be calculated using the same formula that has been used in figuring the men's RPI since the 2004-05 season.

The change affects the first factor of the RPI, which is Division I winning percentage. Through last season, it was simply a straight winning percentage calculated on wins and losses. It also eliminates the bonus and penalty points that were given depending on if a team had good wins or bad losses, and how schools scheduled their non-conference games. Factor I will now be calculated using different weights depending on the location of the game. Factor I counts 25% of the RPI.

Teams will get 0.6 wins for a home win and 1.4 losses for a home loss, and road (away) teams will get 1.4 wins for a road win and 0.6 losses for a road loss. Games played on neutral courts will continue to have 1.0 values for both wins and losses.

These differences can have a substantial impact on the rankings when compared to the "adjusted" RPI, which was the way the women's RPI was calculated from 1993-94 through last season. For teams in contention for some of the last few NCAA tournament at-large bids, differences in rankings between the old and new RPI calculations can be 10 places and even greater.

The idea behind the change is to give schools an incentive to play games on the road, especially those that load up on home non-conference games on a regular basis."

 

[cydney]

Here is another women's RPI site.
The Jeff Sagarin/CBN Women's College Basketball Ratings | RPIRatings.com

It sounds like it may not continue to be free this year.

 

[StClone]

Here is another women's RPI site.
The Jeff Sagarin/CBN Women's College Basketball Ratings | RPIRatings.com

It sounds like it may not continue to be free this year.

It is TOO early for RPI ratings to rank the teams. Green Bay for example is good but is not going to be a top ten team and maybe not even top 20.

 

[BenEClone]

It is TOO early for RPI ratings to rank the teams. Green Bay for example is good but is not going to be a top ten team and maybe not even top 20.

Agreed, until the first of the year, true rpi produces some distorted results. We historically play a weaker non-con and despite a good record, our rpi heading into conference play suffers. It climbs steadily as we slug through conference play. Sagarin isn't strictly rpi. The challenge is to find a source which gives meaningful information for making a projection. Last year, realtime game predicitions did well against the spread, at least in the early going. I need for the Betting Board to start carrying WBB.