08-22-2018, 11:11 AM | #1 |
Epic Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mason area
Posts: 3,086
|
new metric
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-replaces-rpi-new-ncaa-tournament-selection-metric-154236270.html
NCAA replaces RPI with new March Madness selection metric Just saw this. Very interesting and applies to about half our in season arguments. Curious to see this play out this year and in the future. Welcome to the term NET in all future rants on this board |
08-22-2018, 12:23 PM | #2 |
Epic Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,329
|
sounds worlds better than rpi. 10 point cap for win margin might be too low though.
|
08-22-2018, 03:53 PM | #3 |
Senior Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 2,395
|
This is a nice surprise. Looks like they're keeping the quadrant and team sheet system that was introduced last year. So we'll still have some basis for comparing resumes and projecting seeds.
|
08-22-2018, 04:05 PM | #4 |
Epic Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mason area
Posts: 3,086
|
Yeah the 10 point cap seems low to me as well, but I do like the idea of it being capped. Not sure what a better cap would be. Maybe 20?
Wish they had more info on everything it factors in |
08-22-2018, 04:14 PM | #5 |
Epic Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mason area
Posts: 3,086
|
I will say if any team will be advantaged by a ten point cap it could be UC cause we don't seem to blow a lot of teams out we should. We'll beat a team by 13 that we coulda, shoulda, woulda beat by 30 more often than not it seems
|
08-22-2018, 05:38 PM | #6 |
Epic Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 1,725
|
I wonder how this will affect the game itself. I mean a team has a ball up 8 and the other team decides not to foul since there’s only 5 seconds remaining. Does the team with the ball try to score?
|
11-27-2018, 10:43 AM | #7 | |
Senior Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 2,395
|
Quote:
The RPI is dead. The quadrant system remains, but NET will be used instead of RPI. The main improvements are the inclusion of tempo and scoring margin. The main drawback is the 10 pt margin cap, which seems too low to me. I think 15 would be better. The algorithm components are different, but efficiency is still adjusted for opponents in the final result. So .98ppp vs AK-PB is the same as .98ppp vs Duke in terms of efficiency, but it is adjusted separately to account for schedule strength (opponent and location). Kenpom does the same thing. His rankings are based on adjusted efficiency, which start with raw efficiency. RPI didn't account for efficiency at all. Overall I think it's a huge improvement. The biggest challenge this season will be in predicting what will happen to the NET rankings as the season progresses. Last year, we were able to use a variety of RPI forecasting tools that ran monte carlo simulations based on the simple RPI formula. Now we are sort of flying blind, and will be limited to analyzing the rankings in the present. Cincinnati is currently ranked #46. It's way too early to be very meaningful. Unlike Kenpom, NET does not include any pre-season projections. RPI did not either. In another month we'll have a better idea of how good teams, and especially conferences, are. |
|
11-27-2018, 10:54 AM | #8 | |
Epic Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,329
|
Quote:
right but doesn't NET use 5 components to get your overall rating. so your game results factored in from strength of opponent is just 1 of the components. Then your raw efficiency, winning percentage, adjusted win percentage (adjusted for home, neutral, road), and scoring margin (capped at 10). im not sure if each component is weighted the same or not. if they are all the same, that seems to benefit teams that beat up bad opponents. |
|
11-27-2018, 11:01 AM | #9 | |
Senior Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 2,395
|
Quote:
Last edited by sedziobs; 11-27-2018 at 11:03 AM. |
|
11-27-2018, 11:04 AM | #10 | |
Epic Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,329
|
Quote:
well then that sounds much better than the ranting nate silver has been doing on twitter. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|