https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...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.

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.

RPI will remain in use for all other sports.

will be really interesting to see how this impacts things. I do like the 10 point cap- think it could have been a bit higher but still good that there is a limit.

Interesting to see the impact on the schedule plan of CUSA and Sun Belt.

(08-22-2018 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Interesting to see the impact on the schedule plan of CUSA and Sun Belt.

A lot of the same factors apply in the RPI so pitting your better teams against each other more often is probably still in your favor but until we know how the factors are weighted it's hard to tell.

Great news. Didn't realize they were even considering such a move. Really like the 10-point cap to discourage unsportsmanlike behavior from some teams.

(08-22-2018 10:50 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Of key importance, game date and order were omitted to give equal importance to both early and late-season games.

I'm not sure I like that. The tournament isn't played at a random time, it is played at the end of the season, so it stands to reason that performance at the end of the season is more indicative of likely success in the tournament.

Also, in most sports with playoffs, there is the concept of "getting better". Yes, teams practice in October to get ready, but nobody can necessarily be fully ready for game play until games actually start being played. I like the idea of rewarding teams that make adjustments, learn from their early mistakes, and get better.

Sure, sometimes teams have better results the last part of the season because of luck - maybe their SOS was front loaded, maybe they luck out and tough teams have injuries when they play them late. But still.

(08-22-2018 11:00 AM)stever20 Wrote:  will be really interesting to see how this impacts things. I do like the 10 point cap- think it could have been a bit higher but still good that there is a limit.

I don't like the point cap. Its an elementary school type limit. There's a lot of difference between a 30 point win and a 9 point win. A lot of 9 point wins were 2-3 point games with 1 minute to go. Then they start hacking.

I think what's driving it is that a lot of non power conferences have figured it out and are getting good RPIs. They are having to justify ignoring their own tool to put in a bottom half P5 school (who has no business being in the tourney anyway).

They wouldn't continue to use the RPI elsewhere if they thought it was flawed. They are simply trying to disadvantage the less influential conferences. Note that it benefits P5 schools who finish off with a bunch of conference losses.

(08-22-2018 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 10:50 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Of key importance, game date and order were omitted to give equal importance to both early and late-season games.

I'm not sure I like that. The tournament isn't played at a random time, it is played at the end of the season, so it stands to reason that performance at the end of the season is more indicative of likely success in the tournament.

Also, in most sports with playoffs, there is the concept of "getting better". Yes, teams practice in October to get ready, but nobody can necessarily be fully ready for game play until games actually start being played. I like the idea of rewarding teams that make adjustments, learn from their early mistakes, and get better.

Sure, sometimes teams have better results the last part of the season because of luck - maybe their SOS was front loaded, maybe they luck out and tough teams have injuries when they play them late. But still.

How can you make an objective, unbiased computer ranking factoring in game dates? And, are the dates same for everyone?

Just like the RPI, this will just be a tool that the committee uses. There will still be the subjective eye test from committee members that will take things such as when the game was played and use that to make their decisions.

I applaud the NCAA for doing something. IMO, it's a step in the right direction, not perfect, but a good start.

it could make a huge difference with some teams....

I mean look at Big East.. Butler and Providence.....

last year both were 10 seeds....
Providence 32, Butler 41 in RPI

in the composite rating- which is close to what the new metric will be I'm assuming-
Providence 46.17, Butler 32.17

Butler probably would be a bit higher than Providence with this now.

meanwhile a team like Penn St- who was 77 in RPI- but 49.67 in the composite rating- would be a whole lot closer to Providence.

(08-22-2018 11:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:00 AM)stever20 Wrote:  will be really interesting to see how this impacts things. I do like the 10 point cap- think it could have been a bit higher but still good that there is a limit.

I don't like the point cap. Its an elementary school type limit. There's a lot of difference between a 30 point win and a 9 point win. A lot of 9 point wins were 2-3 point games with 1 minute to go. Then they start hacking.

I think what's driving it is that a lot of non power conferences have figured it out and are getting good RPIs. They are having to justify ignoring their own tool to put in a bottom half P5 school (who has no business being in the tourney anyway).

They wouldn't continue to use the RPI elsewhere if they thought it was flawed. They are simply trying to disadvantage the less influential conferences. Note that it benefits P5 schools who finish off with a bunch of conference losses.

I like the point cap, but think that it should have been higher for the reasons you stated. I think the cap should have been 15, because there are a lot more "close" 10 point games than there are "close" 15 point games.

(08-22-2018 11:09 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Interesting to see the impact on the schedule plan of CUSA and Sun Belt.

A lot of the same factors apply in the RPI so pitting your better teams against each other more often is probably still in your favor but until we know how the factors are weighted it's hard to tell.

I'm more curious about the nonconference scheduling. UCSB is playing at Rice this year, and last year we were a borderline top-100 team until late.

(08-22-2018 11:46 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it could make a huge difference with some teams....

I mean look at Big East.. Butler and Providence.....

last year both were 10 seeds....
Providence 32, Butler 41 in RPI

in the composite rating- which is close to what the new metric will be I'm assuming-
Providence 46.17, Butler 32.17

Butler probably would be a bit higher than Providence with this now.

meanwhile a team like Penn St- who was 77 in RPI- but 49.67 in the composite rating- would be a whole lot closer to Providence.

I get the impression this derivative version of something like KPom strips that metric of one its key components, and in the kind of way that further hurts mid/non majors. A problem (of many) with RPI was SOS and how you could have a dog crap P5 team (Oregon State of two or three years ago comes to mind) with one of the lowest D1 win totals, isn’t among the bottom of the RPI because the Pac’s overall conference RPI inflated OSU’s.

This sucks if you’re Gonzaga or SMC and bludeoning opposition with no effect while a major can slip by a door mat in their conference at a lower margin...the cap makes them equal. It’s back to the name on the jersey.

The only benefit here is the front-end weighting. But the committee has to honor that and look past conference play and other related stats.

(08-22-2018 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Interesting to see the impact on the schedule plan of CUSA and Sun Belt.

Exactly what I was thinking. With the RPI, 75% of your score was literally out of your hands and was reflective of who you played rather than how you played. So, there was a huge advantage to getting strong teams on your schedule and a huge penalty for having poor teams on your schedule. The new scheduling agreements CUSA and the Sunbelt worked was an attempt to recognize that methodology use it to boost the RPI of their best squads. Im wondering if it will be as effective with the new system?

EDIT--I would think it should still help with some of the other "quartile" win metrics the committee was using and it might be helpful in taking advanatage of the new system supposedly weighting late season wins.

RPI doesn’t discriminate. Pure wins/losses with a H/A adjustment. How it should be.

They failed to mention the most important factors. How much money your school has, how many television eyeballs you may bring, and what conference you play in.

(08-22-2018 12:45 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  RPI doesn’t discriminate. Pure wins/losses with a H/A adjustment. How it should be.

SOS is a problem.

(08-22-2018 11:47 AM)leofrog Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:00 AM)stever20 Wrote:  will be really interesting to see how this impacts things. I do like the 10 point cap- think it could have been a bit higher but still good that there is a limit.

I don't like the point cap. Its an elementary school type limit. There's a lot of difference between a 30 point win and a 9 point win. A lot of 9 point wins were 2-3 point games with 1 minute to go. Then they start hacking.

I think what's driving it is that a lot of non power conferences have figured it out and are getting good RPIs. They are having to justify ignoring their own tool to put in a bottom half P5 school (who has no business being in the tourney anyway).

They wouldn't continue to use the RPI elsewhere if they thought it was flawed. They are simply trying to disadvantage the less influential conferences. Note that it benefits P5 schools who finish off with a bunch of conference losses.

I like the point cap, but think that it should have been higher for the reasons you stated. I think the cap should have been 15, because there are a lot more "close" 10 point games than there are "close" 15 point games.

I agree - the point cap makes sense, but a close game can definitely turn into a 10-point game easily with fouling at the end (whereas a 15-point game generally indicates that the winner was dominant).

If the committee uses their new "NET" metric the same way they used RPI, then it will be the driving factor in seeding, and one of the factors when they are arguing about which teams should be the last few at-large teams in the field.

If that's the case, then the teams most concerned about the new NCAA metric should be the "non-power" teams that are comfortably in the field but didn't necessarily rate as well on RPI as on other metrics.

Nevada was a good example of a team in that category last season, and they are expected to have an even better team this season. Last year they were given a #7 seed and sent to Nashville. (They won both games there, but they had to beat a #2 seed to advance to the sweet 16.) If "NET" is the primary tool used for seeding, and if it is more favorable to teams like Nevada this season, maybe they get a #4 seed and play the first two rounds in San Jose, much closer to home. Or on the other hand, if "NET" is less favorable to the top non-power teams, then maybe Nevada gets a #10 seed with a resume similar to last season's.

By the start of the season, some of the computer guys will probably have figured out how to simulate "NET" and will have those rankings available for everyone to follow.

I do wonder. The playoff committee said you get more bump in your SoS if you play a school like NDSU than a Kansas in football. Now, I know D2 games do not count, but what about D2 schools that are much stronger than several bottom rung D1 schools? Ferris State won the D2 2018 men's championship. They are like in the top 200 RPi ranking over all for strength. So have been West Texas A&M and Lincoln Memorial. Chicago State is below 500 overall from all divisions. I do think if you do schedule them even if you are only playing exhibition? They should count towards your SoS than playing Chicago State. I do not see D1 teams could play blow outs with the very strong D2 schools. You usually get some good players who could not get into D1 schools because of their GPA, SATs and all that to the best colleges, but could easily get into D2 schools with their weaker GPas.

This is the second major change.

In 2004, they adjusted the RPI to account for the location of the game. They did it because they noticed that before 2004, the RPI heavily favored big schools. Home wins are now worth 0.6 wins, home losses are worth 1.4 losses, road wins are worth 1.4 wins, and road losses are worth 0.6 losses.

But in my opinion they adjusted it too far. Almost every year there's a wacky small school that has a top-30 RPI despite never beating any top-100 teams. Then somehow the Big 10 only had 4 top-50 RPI teams last year. (I'm not a Big Ten fan, but that was a bit ridiculous).