A recent commentary by Tim Martinez in the Vancouver Columbian whined about the Prairie girls being ripped off by the RPI rating the third week into the season. I agree that Prairie is a lot better than the RPI rank. However the column wandered from there into ‘fixing’ RPI by including factors for classification. So is this a problem? Are crappy teams in a higher division gaming the system (intentionally or not) by beating up on even crappier teams in lower divisions? When a 4A team plays a 1A team should the 4A team be penalized?
Looking at last season here are the cross-classification W-L record for girls.
| v 4A | v 3A | v 2A | v 1A | v 2B | v 1B | |
| 4A | 115-100 | 26-24 | 1-6 | 1-0 | 1-0 | |
| 3A | 100-115 | 81-60 | 11-21 | 2-3 | 0-0 | |
| 2A | 26-24 | 60-81 | 73-77 | 8-10 | 3-2 | |
| 1A | 6-1 | 21-11 | 77-73 | 56-38 | 25-17 | |
| 2B | 0-1 | 3-2 | 10-8 | 38-56 | 73-55 | |
| 1B | 0-1 | 0-0 | 2-3 | 17-25 | 55-73 |
Let’s look at those 1A v 4A games. Only seven, but non-league games are not scheduled according to randomized experimental design anyway. La Center had two wins over bad Heritage and Battle Ground teams. I guess those crappy 4A teams in Clark county should look for an real 1A pushover instead of La Center. Or Zillah beat Davis. Seattle Christian beat Auburn and Mount Rainier. Good 1A teams beating not good 4A teams. Cascade Christian beat Federal Way: a mediocre 1A team over a bad 4A team. And then Sunnyside beat Zillah. A good non-league matchup between two good teams, one is 4A and the other 1A, but both good.
How about this year? Here’s the table for games so far:
| v 4A | v 3A | v 2A | v 1A | v 2B | v 1B | |
| 4A | 69-62 | 27-22 | 4-4 | 0-0 | 0-0 | |
| 3A | 62-69 | 65-47 | 14-13 | 1-1 | 0-0 | |
| 2A | 22-27 | 47-65 | 42-45 | 9-3 | 1-2 | |
| 1A | 4-4 | 13-14 | 45-42 | 62-25 | 16-12 | |
| 2B | 0-0 | 1-1 | 3-9 | 25-62 | 33-42 | |
| 1B | 0-0 | 0-0 | 2-1 | 12-16 | 42-33 |
Best game I’ve seen so far was Sunnyside Christian (1B) at Lynden (2A). Sunnyside Christian won, not an upset. Not a black mark against Lynden for losing. Tim Martinez would put the ‘scarlet RPI’ on Lynden’s warmups for even scheduling that game. Maybe Hudson’s Bay has played several lower classification teams. But they look to be teams roughly well matched to Hudson’s Bay. You want to schedule some games that are likely wins where you can successfully exercise your skills against a live opponent. You want some games that will be challenges. And other games where you’re well matched. Regardless of classification.
Should a ranking method specifically include classification as a factor? There is a wide spread between good and bad teams within a classification, and a great deal of overlap between capabilities of teams in differing classifications. RPI is already a Rube Goldberg ranking. Hammering in a classification factor that doesn’t reflect reality would just make it worse.