Toggle sidebar

PSU MLAX 2026 thread

J

JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws

Senior
Jun 26, 2025
947
975
93
Tom McAndrew said:
calling PSU the regular season champ doesn't indicate that you understand things all that well.

There was a 4-way tie for the regular season championship. If you don't indicate that, then your argument is based on falsehoods.

As for PSU getting screwed in their seed, I think that's looking at things with blue/white glasses. Most of the analysis heading into the NCAA Selection Show had PSU as an 8 seed or a 9 seed.

RPI:
1. Princeton
2. Notre Dame
3. Richmond
4. UNC
5. Cornell
6. Syrcasue
7. UVA
8. John Hopkins
9. PSU
10. Duke

Strength of Schedule:
1. UNC
2. UVA
3. Syracuse
4. Princeton
5. Maryland
6. Cornell
7. PSU
8. Notre Dame
9. John Hopkins

Wins Against Teams that made NCAA/Losses Against Teams Outside the Top 20:

1. Princeton
Wins: UNC, Cornell, Syracuse, Yale
Losses: None

2. Notre Dame
Wins: UNC, Richmond, Syracuse, Duke, Georgetown
Losses: None

3. Richmond
Wins: Cornell, UVA, Georgetown
Losses: None

4. UNC:
Wins: Syracuse, Hopkins, UVA, PSU, Army
Losses: None

5. Cornell:
Wins: Princeton, Duke
Losses: None

6. Syracuse:
Wins: Hopkins, UVA, Duke, Georgetown
Losses: None

7. UVA:
Wins: Notre Dame (2X), UNC, Duke
Losses: None

8. PSU:
Wins: Princeton, Cornell, Hopkins, Yale
Losses: Villanova, Navy, Michigan

9. Hopkins:
Wins: UVA, PSU
Losses: Rutgers

Based on the RPI, SOS, and elite wins/bad losses, I'd say that PSU is seeded about where they deserved to be.
Click to expand...

Again, you're relying on the "RPI" as being a proven legitimate predictor of strength - just because a silly algorithm is created and they label it a "Relative Power Index" doesn't make it so.... there is zero chance that this has statistically proven predictive power of the teams proper seeding as proven by the RPI of PSU and Johns Hopkins (the RPI algorithm used puts JHU in front of PSU). This algorithm clearly puts way to much weight on the quality of a teams loss - absurdly too much weight - and NOT ENOUGH WEIGHT (not remotely enough weight) on the quality of the specific team's wins.

PSU's "Quaity Wins" against other teams that made the Tournament are far better than JMU's in both quantity & quality - yet the specious RPI algorithm used says JHU is the better team. Ridiculous.
 
J

JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws

Senior
Jun 26, 2025
947
975
93
JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws said:
Again, you're relying on the "RPI" as being a proven legitimate predictor of strength - just because a silly algorithm is created and they label it a "Relative Power Index" doesn't make it so.... there is zero chance that this has statistically proven predictive power of the teams proper seeding as proven by the RPI of PSU and Johns Hopkins (the RPI algorithm used puts JHU in front of PSU). This algorithm clearly puts way to much weight on the quality of a teams loss - absurdly too much weight - and NOT ENOUGH WEIGHT (not remotely enough weight) on the quality of the specific team's wins.

PSU's "Quaity Wins" against other teams that made the Tournament are far better than JMU's in both quantity & quality - yet the specious RPI algorithm used says JHU is the better team. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

In addition, if the NCAA "Selection Committee" is using both the RPI and number of losses outside top 20 of RPI, then the amount of weight being placed on the quality of a team's losses is wildly over-weighted as the single most important factor of a team's seeding. This is beyond absurd as the #1, and most important predictor of a team's relative strength to the field (i.e., "Seed"), is without question the Winning % of the team vs. The Championship Field and the total # of wins against the FIELD. This is clearly not the most important factor used - not only is it not the most heavily weighted factor by a significant factor; it is a secondary factor to overall "Quality of a team's losses" as well as # of losses outside the Top 20 in RPI (an RPI that is already over-weighting the overall quality of a team's losses).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom