http://www.uscho.com/news/2003/09/28_006885.php
[Q]According to the committee, "if the points awarded in the RPI for a win in a postseason conference tournament game are less than the average regular-season RPI point value per game, then points awarded for the postseason conference tournament game will be deleted. The committee feels that an institution should not be penalized for a win by having its RPI decrease, especially since that institution has no control over who it plays in the conference tournament."[/Q]
Two problems.
(1) In effect, a tournament game now means less than a regular season game, since there is no such deletion in the case of an RS game.
(2) The "points awarded" (I read this as: the correction to RPI after a given game) for one game changes in retrospect when additional PS games are played. So, what happens to previous games that initially created "points awarded in the RPI for a win in a postseason conference tournament game ... less than the average regular-season RPI point value per game" but after another PS game do not (or vice-versa)? Do games pop in and out of consideration dependant on later match-ups?
Post Edited (09-28-03 22:40)
Isn't the NCAA falling victim to what we, the fans, often do, which is to treat the Pairwise and RPI as having meaning at all times and not using them how they are intended: at the end of the season after all games played. The changes/fluctuations before that are noise that isn't designed to have meaning.
Also, it can be said that a team has no say over its reagular season conference opponents, unless the NCAA considers conference hopping a choice.
But I do sort of see what is the concern; a first place team is penalized by having additional games against its conference's weakest team(s), whereas middle seeds are not so burdened.
Also,
[Q]In other news, the Division I Championships and Competition Cabinet has recommended the approval of a video replay system independent of the television networks broadcasting the men's Division I NCAA tournament games. The decision was made at its regular meeting last week in Indianapolis. It still faces approval from the Budget Committee and Management Council.
NCAA rules dictate that all goals in tournament games are reviewed, but the goals are reviewed using the actual on-air feed, meaning the referees are at the mercy of the television director. The men's ice hockey committee believed that the reliance upon the network televising the game made for unnecessary delays, because video replay was not a top priority for them.[/Q]
Could that explain a certain 8 minute delay while looking for a high stick call? This also makes the quote that said that the replay judges saw an angle that wasn't on the espn broadcast highly questionable.
Post Edited (09-29-03 00:40)
QuoteRich H '96 wrote:
Could that explain a certain 8 minute delay while looking for a high stick call? This also makes the quote that said that the replay judges saw an angle that wasn't on the espn broadcast highly questionable.
Highly questionable? Try "inconceivable". They clearly weren't listening to the audio also, because the guys in the booth were certain that the call would stand.
What does the NCAA have to do with Public Radio International? :-P
QuoteGreg Berge '85 wrote:
Two problems.
(1) In effect, a tournament game now means less than a regular season game, since there is no such deletion in the case of an RS game.
(2) The "points awarded" (I read this as: the correction to RPI after a given game) for one game changes in retrospect when additional PS games are played. So, what happens to previous games that initially created "points awarded in the RPI for a win in a postseason conference tournament game ... less than the average regular-season RPI point value per game" but after another PS game do not (or vice-versa)? Do games pop in and out of consideration dependant on later match-ups?
I don't agree with (1), Greg, for two reasons.
First, a *loss* to a weak team in a conference tournament will still penalize a team. It won't be any less important than a regular season win. Second, all this does is set the end of the regular season as the minimum SOS. If a team rolls through the tournament they will be no worse off than if they hadn't played the tournament at all. As the committee states, winning shouldn't be a penalty. I think that solution is fair - especially to a decent team (should one exist) coming out of CHA or MAAC.
And to Greg and Jason N, I don't see any evidence that the RPI isn't being used as intended. If a first round win would be discounted until a second round loss drops a team's RPI far enough that the first round win is "above average", I don't see why the formula wouldn't include the game. (Though it would be strange for websites that calculate RPI on a rolling basis, that doesn't mean that the rolling calculation should be considered the official one.)
No, Ithacans know that PRI is the Paleontological Research Institute over on West Hill. BTW, totally OT, but they are opening a fantastic new museum there this month. Visitors to Ithaca who have some time (and kids, especially) will want to stop in to see it. It's called "The Museum of the Earth" and is filled with all sorts of interesting stuff.
PRI = Partido Revolucionario Institucional
i.e. The dominant party in mexican politics in the 20th century ::banana::
JH
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/PRI.html
:-D
http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?p=dict&String=exact&Acronym=PRI
;-)