RIP RPI

[IWokeUpLikeThis]

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-me ... ew-ranking

The NCAA Evaluation Tool, which will be known as the NET, relies on game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses. To make sense of team performance data, late-season games (including from the NCAA tournament) were used as test sets to develop a ranking model leveraging machine learning techniques. The model, which used team performance data to predict the outcome of games in test sets, was optimized until it was as accurate as possible. The resulting model is the one that will be used as the NET going forward.

The NET was built to create a ranking system that was as accurate as possible while also evaluating team performance fairly. To ensure fairness, certain types of data were omitted from the model. Of key importance, game date and order were omitted to give equal importance to both early and late-season games. In addition, a cap of 10 points was applied to the winning margin to prevent rankings from encouraging unsportsmanlike play, such as needlessly running up the score in a game where the outcome was certain.

“What has been developed is a contemporary method of looking at teams analytically, using results-based and predictive metrics that will assist the Men’s Basketball Committee as it reviews games throughout the season,” said Dan Gavitt, senior vice president of basketball for the NCAA. “While no perfect rankings exist, using the results of past tournaments will help ensure that the rankings are built on an objective source of truth.”

This marks the second consecutive year the committee has made a significant change. Before last season, a quadrant system was adopted to place greater emphasis on success in games played away from home on the team sheets, which offer a snapshot of each team’s schedule and results. The existing quadrant system still will be used on team sheets, with the NET replacing the Rating Percentage Index to sort games based on the opponent’s ranking:

Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240
Quadrant 4: Home 161-351, Neutral 201-351, Away 241-353

While the quadrant system was widely deemed an improvement to the selection process, the NET is another significant step in addressing the recommendations the NCAA received from the NABC’s ad hoc committee, whose purpose was to make recommendations regarding the selection, seeding and bracketing of teams.

Another change made last year to the team sheets was the inclusion of other metrics. These include the Kevin Pauga Index and ESPN’s results-oriented metric, the Strength of Record. The team sheets also included three predictive metrics: those managed by renowned basketball analytics experts Ken Pomeroy and Jeff Sagarin, as well as ESPN’s Basketball Power Index.

“The NCAA Men’s Basketball Committee has had helpful metrics it has used over the years, and will continue to use the team sheets, but those will now be sorted by the NCAA Evaluation Tool,” Gavitt said. “As has always been the case, the committee won’t solely focus on metrics to select at-large teams and seed the field. There will always be a subjective element to the tournament selection process, too.”

The RPI was first used in 1981 and was developed by the NCAA to provide supplemental data to the Men’s Basketball Committee, which is responsible for selecting at-large teams and seeding and bracketing teams in the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship each year. The RPI still will be used by other Division I sports committees, including the Women’s Basketball Committee for the 2018-19 season.

[jsaluki080]

How does this new system affect us? Positive, negative, no significant change?

[BEARZ77]

How does this new system affect us? Positive, negative, no significant change?

It should benefit as it makes criteria more visible and tangible and objective. It does have a factor that values actual record so that being 26-5 does not just get discounted , it values road wins and penalizes home losses. it is much more "metric centric" so things like margin of victory up to 10 + points are factored as are offensive/defensive efficiency stats. You still will have to schedule and beat quality opponents, but I think especially when it comes to tournament seeding you will see some impact. I saw a WSU article which showed how if a system like this had been used the last 5 years or so, WSU would have been seeded much higher 3-4 of the years than they were. Lets be honest, it's not gonna magically get significantly more MM in the tournament, but anything that is more visible and objective in process helps. I think it's funny how they act like it's replacing the rpi because they haven't really used the rpi except to assign a ranking # for quality wins for years. In this system when an MVC wins on the road or at a neutral site in Nov/Dec against a top 100 opponent,or goes to ISUr or LOC and gets a win, it will have a tangible value above a home win for P-5 teams in their conference season which has been the bread and butter for their getting exaggerated credit for quality wins. You won't get crazy credit for beating bad teams by 30, but you will get value for beating a quality team by 10, especially on the road. i like the fact an overtime win regardless of final margin is only a +1 and -1 factor as to margin for the winning and losing teams.

One thing i would like to see them add, is that this system closes down before conference tourney play, so that mediocre teams in the p-5 conferences don't get neutral site bonus for beating teams which have already secured spots in the field. I hate seeing teams who enter conference tourney play with mediocre resumes all of a sudden get two early round wins against disinterested teams already in the field and then get jumped ahead of a conference champion from a MM who loses in their conference tourney. You see it every year and it's just criminal.

[Red]

No one on ESPN will complain about this until Duke or Kansas get under seeded in the NCAA because of it and then it will be declared a failure.

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

No one on ESPN will complain about this until Duke or Kansas get under seeded in the NCAA because of it and then it will be declared a failure.

Maybe not publicly but they employ Jay Bilas and I'm 100% certain he is pounding (literally) on his keyboard typing away with a scowl on his face and steam shooting out of his ears.

[sivert]

I wasn’t sure where to put this:

At 10 teams, we play 18 conf games.

What about:
Expand the MVC to 11 or 12.
Partner with another conference like the MWC (or CUSA OR MAC).
Play each team in MVC once, alternating home/away each year. MWC would do the same.
Move the conf season forward in the schedule in a flexible way that allows our teams to schedule tough teams in pre conf time and ends the conference round robin by mid January.
After the last round robin, the top 5 in the conference standings (or use NET) from each conferences play:
- the other top 4 from their own conf (H/A opposite their first game)
- the top 5 from MWC (H/A random, but equal for each conf.)
That would give 18 ‘conference’ games.
And the top 5 from each conference would get a real chance to build a resume.

[Drakey]

I'm not sure about all of that complication, but I do think that the Valley should partner with one or two other conferences to get a bunch of non-conference games.It is getting to be next to impossible to get decent OOC games.Other conferences have the same problem. Would also prefer expansion just to get a couple more decent games. Power 5s aren't going to play with us anymore, so it would make sense to have a large conference and just fill up the schedule with all conference games.

[E-Villan]

Expansion has been beaten to death on here, so I really don't want to start another marathon on it, but I don't agree that expansion is going to get us more quality games. I say if Murray wants in, we add them today, but outside of them, I am not sure there is any other potential candidate at this point I want a home and home with.

I would rather see Elgin and the current AD's get together, and form some agreements on scheduling, and projecting the image of the conference. Let's be real, bid selection is very subjective, and impressions go a long way. Any additional bids we get will come from other so-called mid-majors, and not P5 schools. Here is what I would like to see come from such an agreement, and I think it will be far more advantageous than just adding schools.

-I agree on the partnership with a peer-like conference, such as the A-10, MAC or MWC. Not sure we can pull that off right now, but I do think something like that would help get quality games on the schedules.

-Agree that no one takes buy games from any program outside the P5. I do not believe top to bottom the A-10 is a better conference than us, but we have schools taking buy games from them. How can we expect to beat them on an eyeball test when we drop our shorts when they place a call? Before you take a buy from a Dayton, pick up the phone and call a Conf-USA or MAC school for a home and home. We're giving them a quality home game with nothing in return.

-Speaking of the A-10, they do not allow participation in the mid-major poll. It may seem insignificant, but again, perception is reality. If we want the perception of a perennial top 10 conference, we need to project that. Our schools compete at the NCAA D-1 level. We all want to be judged accordingly. Being ranked in a meaningless poll from the kiddie table is counter-productive to that.

-Limit the number of low major teams we can schedule. I understand wanting home games, but we Evansville fans know first hand the pitfalls of loading up on SWAC-like schools in the non-con to artificially inflate the record.

Remember, there are several conferences in the same boat we are. If it benefits us to schedule MAC, Conf USA, A-10, MWC teams, it should benefit them as well to schedule us. I think these steps raise the profile of the conference better than just grabbing whoever we can lure in at this point.