Coaches Rankings II and RPI I have been released
- Thread starter ccdiver
- Start date
At first blush, Nevills below Hemida is the only one I have a problem with. But, I'm glad Nick is rebounding nicely from his Scuffle Slump. Could help his seed bigly on Saturday with a W.
Not knowing the ins and outs--why is Nato ranked at all? He doesn't have enough bouts, does he?
Not knowing the ins and outs--why is Nato ranked at all? He doesn't have enough bouts, does he?
According to the text of the release, a wrestler only needs 5 matches to get a coaches ranking for this round.
The RPI is a ridiculous indicator of performance. Does anyone seriously think that Zain is the 5th best 149 pounder? I am sure his RPI will go up after he beats Sorenson but wtf!!
Caesar instead of Rasheed in both rankings. An indication of who the coaching staff considers the starter?
OK then, why is Nato 14th then? That also seems nutty. I guess other than Lizak, he's lacking elite wins this year?
Not only that but unless I'm blind, I didn't see Joseph listed at all under 165.
Sorry, but what does being 14th have to do with wrestling at least one bout in the past 30 days? You quoted my post...maybe you didn't mean to?
Sorry, it was more just a continuation of the initial thought, but not directed at you. Unless you want to chime in on Nato's rank....
I think most coaches will justify Zahid's ranking based on strength of schedule, though admittedly that doesn't work as fully in Cruz's favor either.
Just guessing, though it's an educated guess... it's "body of work" related. He's only got 6 matches, and previous years don't matter.
Remember, this is the Coaches Ranking, and is a composite of 8 coaches around the country, 1 from each conference. I can look up EXACTLY which team voted if anyone is interested.
Also, there's no relationship between the Coaches Ranking, and seeding at NCAA's. Everything will be fine.
My first thought was, "This guy must be trolling Roar."
Shorter annual discussion:
"I don't understand RPI, it's not like the rankings in my head."
"Right, let me explain, because that's not what RPI is. It's basically a strength of schedule gauge to help decide tiebrea--"
"But it's not like the rankings in my head."
"I don't understand RPI, it's not like the rankings in my head."
"Right, let me explain, because that's not what RPI is. It's basically a strength of schedule gauge to help decide tiebrea--"
"But it's not like the rankings in my head."
Perhaps there should be an "annual discussion thread," much like the "inside jokes" thread.
1. When does the schedule come out?
If I happen to run into Greg at Nationals, I think I'm going to discuss letting me have a crack at similar questions for Wrestlestat. I think that's its own category.
Okay, Roar must be busy, so I'll chime in.
RPI stands for Rating Percentage Index. Nowhere does anything from the NCAA say that these are rankings, and the word "ranking" is not in the name. The important word is "Index." This indicator is an Index, meaning it is strictly mathematical, and it is meant to show strength of schedule. A wrestler's index is calculated by the following:
Wrestler's Win Percentage X Wrestlers' Opponents Win Percentage X Wrestlers' Opponents' Opponents' Win Percentage.
So, if a wrestler is undefeated, as Zain is, but his opponents' win percentages are low, or if his opponents' opponents win percentages are low, it hurts his strength of schedule. After determining the above math for all of the wrestlers, they are ordered from highest to lowest. I would have said ranked, but I know how you feel about that.
So, the only portion of RPI that a wrestler can control is his win percentage. He wrestles who is in front of him, does well, and it helps his RPI.
So, it is neither an indicator of performance, nor faulty.
I think it would be better for Mark to be the 2 seed as I think the 3rd best wrestler in the weight class is BoJo and he will likely end up the 4 seed behind Lewis. I think it is better to see Lewis in the semi's rather than the winner of BoJo and Jordan Kutler.
Really, really, really good, pa...yes, I was busy.Okay, Roar must be busy, so I'll chime in.
RPI stands for Rating Percentage Index. Nowhere does anything from the NCAA say that these are rankings, and the word "ranking" is not in the name. The important word is "Index." This indicator is an Index, meaning it is strictly mathematical, and it is meant to show strength of schedule. A wrestler's index is calculated by the following:
Wrestler's Win Percentage X Wrestlers' Opponents Win Percentage X Wrestlers' Opponents' Opponents' Win Percentage.
So, if a wrestler is undefeated, as Zain is, but his opponents' win percentages are low, or if his opponents' opponents win percentages are low, it hurts his strength of schedule. After determining the above math for all of the wrestlers, they are ordered from highest to lowest. I would have said ranked, but I know how you feel about that.
So, the only portion of RPI that a wrestler can control is his win percentage. He wrestles who is in front of him, does well, and it helps his RPI.
So, it is neither an indicator of performance, nor faulty.
The NCAA did us and itself a disservice by stating "RPI Ranking" in it's article. Doesn't change your message at all.
To understand RPI, one must have some understanding of the principle behind it, i.e. the math. Anyone that says it's wrong, just because it is...and hasn't spent a nanosecond trying to understand it, won't understand it.
Here's the RPI killers for Zain, as an example...
#213 Nash, Austin (6 - 16)
#102 Britton, Jwan (8 - 10)
#180 Leynaud, Brandon (5 - 15)
#85 Mele, Jonathan (3 - 6)
#24 Schuyler, Cortlandt (6 - 8)
#154 DeLuise, Evan (4 - 10)
#187 Smith, Stevan (5 - 6)
#178 Hogue, Seth (8 - 17)
Last edited:
If we can somehow combine the annual obligatory whining over RPI with P4P, we might crash the BWI server.
Roll WrestleStat rankings into that and we could crash all servers on the eastern seaboard.
Just curious, but where did the seemingly completely arbitrary number of 17 come from?
Are people really that confused over what these measures are used for? They are used ONLY for determining the allocation of NCAA spots to each weight at each conference tournament and for NOTHING else. Where an individual is on either of these measures relative to others is meaningless.
I sent a note to the NCAA this morning, and this is what I received back...
Doug,
The main points surrounding 17 matches as the minimum to earn an RPI ranking:
Hope that helps clear some things up.
Matt Holmes
Assistant Director, Championships and Alliancesw: 317-917-6385 | c: 317-372-0668 | ncaa.org
P.O. Box 6222, Indianapolis, IN 46206-6222
Doug,
The main points surrounding 17 matches as the minimum to earn an RPI ranking:
- The national committee constantly reviews the average number of matches wrestlers have in a season and 17 regularly coincides with the number of dates a wrestler would have in a full season
- The more matches a wrestler has the more statistically significant the ranking.
- The national committee wanted to see wrestlers being active and competing
Hope that helps clear some things up.
Matt Holmes
Assistant Director, Championships and Alliancesw: 317-917-6385 | c: 317-372-0668 | ncaa.org
P.O. Box 6222, Indianapolis, IN 46206-6222
Yeah, but NaTo at 14 is preposterous, IMO. On what planet does he fail to make the podium his final year?
Apologize for the formatting. Here's the list of coaches that submit rankings for 125;
Dan Wirnsberger EIWA Bucknell
Joe McFarland Big Ten Michigan
Joel Greenlee MAC Ohio
Steve Garland ACC Virginia
Daniel Elliott SoCon Gardner‐Webb
Greg Williams Big 12 Utah Valley
Jon Sioredas Pac‐12 Cal Poly
Marcus Gordon EWL Bloomsburg University
Someone tell me again how RPI is calculated for NCAA wrestling (the formula is tweaked for some sports to account for home versus road wins). Because I seem to recall the calculation was messed up.
Correct, one of the major flaws of RPI. Beating someone with a low RPI can degrade your RPI, and losing to someone with a good RPI can improve your RPI.
Also, the standard formula (RPI = [0.25*WP] + [0.50*OWP] + [0.25*OOWP]) is completely arbitrary and has no theoretical or statistical justification.
Last edited:
That’s not the formula for wrestling...it is the one for basketball and a few other sports. You must have grabbed it off wiki. Pawrestlerintn did get a response about the justification for 17 bouts. I personally like the metric...having delved into it more than most...it does make sense.
So what is the formula used for NCAA wresting? Do you know?
Also, a couple other things:
- I believe the formula in my previous post is the "standard" RPI formula.
- I never indicated the standard RPI formula is the one used for wrestling; I don't know exactly what formula is used.
- As noted, the standard formula is tweaked for NCAA basketball to account for home wins versus road wins.
- RPI places a strong emphasis on strength of schedule.
- The RPI formula must be weighted to make any sense.
- RPI is a tool, but is not the be all-end all. It does have shortcomings.
Last edited:
