UWGB

[The Lens]

While I still have a hard time believing how we lost to UWGB, they have really turned their season around.  When we lost they were 230-ish in the RPI and now they sit at 136 and a respectable 9-5 in conference.  It's good to see Wardle progressing and it's good that they are not a complete drain on our resume.

[77ncaachamps]

We are all UWGB fans.

[MU82]

Marquette to UWGB:

"You're welcome."

[bradley center bat]

Green Bay played many games away from home early on in the season. Strong at home and so-so on the road. I guess you can say that about 200 D1 schools.

[MerrittsMustache]

Green Bay played many games away from home early on in the season. Strong at home and so-so on the road. I guess you can say that about 200 D1 schools.

And the other 150 are just bad, regardless of location.

[bradley center bat]

Teams grow and get better. Life is different at home, than playing road games.

[mu_hilltopper]

Since Wardle is our next coach, yes, I hope UWGB does well.

[Goose]

Very funny, Topper!

[Niv Berkowitz]

Haa. I keep forgetting about the Wardle-to-Diener-to Novak torch passing plan in place.

[keefe]

Strong at home and so-so on the road.

Describes the Big east

[TheTulsaWarrior]

With injuries and suspensions the Nix had continuity issues.  Even now they are down to 9 available scholarship players.  They are a darkhorse NCAA Tournament team.  Next season should be special for Green Bay.  Wardle has some growing to do before he could be considered a high D1 coaching candidate.

[Golden Avalanche]

Describes the Big east

Says the man after Notre Dame just walked into the Pete, proceeded to not score a FG for 10 minutes, then pulled away fairly easily in the second half for a win.

[tower912]

Road losses happen, so on one level the GB loss can be chalked up to 'one of those things'.   But it will end up costing us a seed line. 

[mu_hilltopper]

Very funny, Topper!

Ha, ha, yes, funny like a sad clown is funny.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Road losses happen, so on one level the GB loss can be chalked up to 'one of those things'.   But it will end up costing us a seed line. 

Can you imagine what it would have cost us seeding-wise if it was a closed door scrimmage?  The rumor and innuendo surrounding it would surely have been at the forefront of the selection committe's mind on March 17th, especially if a guy like Alec Brown had "dominated" us.

I agree with you though, without that loss, our resume looks much better.  C'est la vie.  We'll just have to make up for it by winning the conference outright!

[tower912]

Yup, at least it wasn't a closed scrimmage.   All of our losses other than that one are good (acceptable) losses.   GB?   Not so much.  

[PBRme]

What would there RPI be if they had lost to the Warriors?

[mu_hilltopper]

Strangely .. if you look here:

http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Wisconsin%20Green%20Bay.html

Then scroll down to see the contributions .. MU's contribution to UWGB's RPI is about 20 down. 

Can't say I understand that .. I mean, like, they LOST to Valpo, and Valpo is contributing more to their RPI than MU their win over us.   

Quite literally, nearly every game UWGB has played appears to be more important to their RPI than their win over us.  WTF?

[MUMountin]

Let me see if I can explain this...

First, the default sorting for that table on RPI Forecast is by Future Weight, which basically measures, at the end of the season, the multiplier that you would use for each team's winning percentage to determine how much they contribute to an individual team's RPI.  This is solely based on how many times the team "shows up" in that team's RPI, based on being an opponent to that team or an opponent's opponent.  The "Weight" does not actually take into account at all the actual results of games (that is determined by the "Impact" measure). 

In this case, Valpo has a much higher future weight for UWGB than MU because (1) UWGB will play Valpo twice this season, and (2) as a conference opponent, they will appear much more frequently in the category of UWGB's opponent's opponents.  Conversely, Marquette only played UWGB once, and probably played most of UWGB's opponent's (the greatest concentration of which resides in the Horizon league) much less frequently. 

Now, if you want to look at the "current impact" column, that will give you a better sense of how much we actually contribute to UWGB's current RPI (through games that have actually been played to date).  In this case, MU is the #4 contributor to UWGB's RPI, behind UWGB itself (for their adjusted winning %), Detroit, and Valpo again.

The reason Valpo appears ahead of MU on this list is because, even though UWGB has played both teams only once at this point, Valpo still has a much higher current weight than MU for UWGB based on having played many more common opponents (mostly via Horizon league play).  That, and the fact that Valpo's overall winning percentage is not that much lower winning percentage (72%) than MU (78.26%).

Keep in mind that winning or losing to any particular team only impacts your RPI in that it changes your overall adjusted winning percentage.  This is one of my big beefs with almost everyone in the media that talks about the RPI--the impact against a top team has two entirely distinct impacts on your RPI: (1) the adjustment to your team's winning percentage (adjusted for home v. road) and (2) the overall impact on adding that team's WP and its opponents' WP to your RPI. 

#2 happens regardless of whether you win or lose against that team.  #1 is the same for every team that you play regardless of how good or bad that particular team is--a home win against the worst team in the country is worth the same amount of your winning percentage as a home win against the best team in the country, in terms of its effect on #1.   

I hope that makes sense!

[MUMountin]

What would there RPI be if they had lost to the Warriors?

It is impossible to exactly predict without recalculating every single team's RPI, but roughly:

By substituting a home loss (1.4) for a home win (.6), UWGB's adjusted winning percentage goes from 56.6% to 51.8%.  This would mean that their RPI would be .012 lower than it currently is (0.5198), giving them an RPI of .5078.  Based on current ranks, they would fall to #158.

Goes to show how damaging a home loss can be--regardless of whom it is to. 

[MarquetteDano]

Let me see if I can explain this...

First, the default sorting for that table on RPI Forecast is by Future Weight, which basically measures, at the end of the season, the multiplier that you would use for each team's winning percentage to determine how much they contribute to an individual team's RPI.  This is solely based on how many times the team "shows up" in that team's RPI, based on being an opponent to that team or an opponent's opponent.  The "Weight" does not actually take into account at all the actual results of games (that is determined by the "Impact" measure). 

In this case, Valpo has a much higher future weight for UWGB than MU because (1) UWGB will play Valpo twice this season, and (2) as a conference opponent, they will appear much more frequently in the category of UWGB's opponent's opponents.  Conversely, Marquette only played UWGB once, and probably played most of UWGB's opponent's (the greatest concentration of which resides in the Horizon league) much less frequently. 

Now, if you want to look at the "current impact" column, that will give you a better sense of how much we actually contribute to UWGB's current RPI (through games that have actually been played to date).  In this case, MU is the #4 contributor to UWGB's RPI, behind UWGB itself (for their adjusted winning %), Detroit, and Valpo again.

The reason Valpo appears ahead of MU on this list is because, even though UWGB has played both teams only once at this point, Valpo still has a much higher current weight than MU for UWGB based on having played many more common opponents (mostly via Horizon league play).  That, and the fact that Valpo's overall winning percentage is not that much lower winning percentage (72%) than MU (78.26%).

Keep in mind that winning or losing to any particular team only impacts your RPI in that it changes your overall adjusted winning percentage.  This is one of my big beefs with almost everyone in the media that talks about the RPI--the impact against a top team has two entirely distinct impacts on your RPI: (1) the adjustment to your team's winning percentage (adjusted for home v. road) and (2) the overall impact on adding that team's WP and its opponents' WP to your RPI. 

#2 happens regardless of whether you win or lose against that team.  #1 is the same for every team that you play regardless of how good or bad that particular team is--a home win against the worst team in the country is worth the same amount of your winning percentage as a home win against the best team in the country, in terms of its effect on #1.   

I hope that makes sense!

As a bit of a math geek this did help.  Thanks.  Also shows how critical your conference is to your RPI no matter how tough of a non-con you schedule.

[MUMountin]

It is impossible to exactly predict without recalculating every single team's RPI, but roughly:

By substituting a home loss (1.4) for a home win (.6), UWGB's adjusted winning percentage goes from 56.6% to 51.8%.  This would mean that their RPI would be .012 lower than it currently is (0.5198), giving them an RPI of .5078.  Based on current ranks, they would fall to #158.

Goes to show how damaging a home loss can be--regardless of whom it is to. 

Also, FWIW, it looks like changing MU's road loss to a road win would mean that our RPI would rise approximately .0109 to roughly around .6468, good for eeking just ahead of Gonzaga at #11.  Not as much room for improvement at the top.