RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

NCAA evaluation tool

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5152
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/18 5:51 pm    ::: NCAA evaluation tool Reply Reply with quote

The NCAA men's basketball selection committee has decided to replace the RPI with a new evaluation tool.

www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/24445390/ncaa-announces-new-ranking-system-rpi


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-basketball-ncaa-net-rpi/ncaa-adopts-new-evaluation-tool-to-replace-rpi-idUSKCN1L71S8



https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-08-22/college-basketball


Quote:
NET will take into account game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, offensive and defensive efficiency and the quality of wins and losses.


Quote:
Among the differences, late-season games won’t be given more weight in the rankings and margin of victory will be capped at 10 points to discourage teams from running up scores.


Based on history I suspect the women will follow suit, possibly with a 1 or 2 year lag. As someone who has railed against the RPI for years I would like to think this will be an improvement but I am skeptical. In one sense anything is better than RPI, but this formula introduces several variables that may or may not be improvements. Capping a margin of victory at 10 points may be better than having no margin of victory included, but it may also wind up creating even more problems for mid-major teams. Not giving late-season games more weight seems like a move in the wrong direction.

The worst aspect of this announcement is that it was not accompanied by supporting data. What would the ratings have showed for the past 10 years. Who might have gotten in, or had a better seeding, if this system was in place? Hopefully this will be an opportunity to make real improvements in the selection process.


TheWildJacko



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 301



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/02/18 10:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

10 points isn't a comfortable lead, so expecting teams to put on the brakes with a 10-point margin is unreasonable. In fact expecting teams to put in the brakes after a certain point as a blanket rule is unreasonable. If you have a large lead over the last team in the conference, you might put in your subs. But what if you're playing the game of your life and you have a large lead over UCONN? You have to keep the pressure on.

This rule seems designed to distort the actual game outcomes rather than reflect them. Either take complete margin of victory into account or ignore it completely.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/02/18 11:36 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TheWildJacko wrote:
10 points isn't a comfortable lead, so expecting teams to put on the brakes with a 10-point margin is unreasonable. In fact expecting teams to put in the brakes after a certain point as a blanket rule is unreasonable. If you have a large lead over the last team in the conference, you might put in your subs. But what if you're playing the game of your life and you have a large lead over UCONN? You have to keep the pressure on.

This rule seems designed to distort the actual game outcomes rather than reflect them. Either take complete margin of victory into account or ignore it completely.


The other interesting thing from a statistical note is this: Margin of victory is the best way to find out which teams are better. Winning close games is luck; the good/great teams win games by large margins, and this arbitrary 10-point ceiling cuts off the evaluation tool from using a very valuable piece of information in its rating.

I would be OK with 25 points ... and let's face it, college coaches never take out their starters anyway, so what's the point of 10?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/02/18 11:49 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

A diminishing return on margin of victory seems reasonable. All the serious computer models (Massey, Sagarin, etc.) do that.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
CBiebel



Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 1054
Location: PA


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/02/18 12:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TheWildJacko wrote:
10 points isn't a comfortable lead, so expecting teams to put on the brakes with a 10-point margin is unreasonable. In fact expecting teams to put in the brakes after a certain point as a blanket rule is unreasonable. If you have a large lead over the last team in the conference, you might put in your subs. But what if you're playing the game of your life and you have a large lead over UCONN? You have to keep the pressure on.

This rule seems designed to distort the actual game outcomes rather than reflect them. Either take complete margin of victory into account or ignore it completely.


Yeah, just ask Tennessee about their game vs ND last year. Wink

The 10 point margin is definitely too low. Maybe 20-25 points would be better.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5152
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/02/18 7:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I wouldn't really about this standard impacting coaching. Clearly a 10 point victory can happen as a result of a close game with fouling in the last minute or an 18 point lead whittled down in the final 2 minutes with reserves getting a chance to play. Making the cutoff higher could actually make coaches adjust to run up scores, which is not a good thing.

If you believe that winning matters (as I do) then the difference between a 1 point win and a 1 point loss is orders of magnitude greater than the difference between a 6 and an 8 point win. Even more, if you want to say that you are choosing the best teams based on what would essentially be solely a power rating you throw out the concept of competition.

I realize this isn't the NCAAs position, but I would like to have a rule that you have to have at least a .500 record in conference in order to make the tournament as an at-large team (and perhaps that you must finish in the top half of your conference.) I know this might eliminate from consideration some teams that may be marginally better, but I would rather see a team with 25 wins that hasn't had a chance to play top 50 teams than a team that has consistently shown they can't win.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin