|
![Reply](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/buttons/reply.gif) |
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-22-2018, 02:35 PM
|
![Chris R's Avatar](image.php?s=5ca13181bc48c2d884bc155c2082355c&u=5535&dateline=1521002541) |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 13,613
Thanks: 1,854
Thanked 17,162 Times in 5,119 Posts
|
|
The RPI is Dead. But is the NET a Slam Dunk?
New Article: http://www.udpride.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32296
Some of my thoughts on the death of the RPI and creation of the NET. I have a lot of fear that we're getting into dark areas where those being evaluated by more and more complicated arithmetic have no means to fully audit and fact-check the tools they are being scrutinized with.
Let's see if the NCAA has more to say. Because more needs to be said.
__________________
Hot shooting hides a multitude of sins.
"Yeah....220, 221, whatever it takes." - Jack Butler (Mr. Mom)
|
11 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Chris R For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
Bat'71 (08-23-2018), CE80 (08-22-2018), CvilleFlyer (08-22-2018), flyerfanatic86 (08-22-2018), Justin (08-22-2018), Lifelong Flyer Fan (08-22-2018), Runnin' Rebel (08-22-2018), The Fly (08-22-2018), UDGutter2 (08-22-2018), wes (08-25-2018), Whacker (08-24-2018) |
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-22-2018, 03:02 PM
|
![Alberto Strasse's Avatar](images/avatars/sesame17.gif) |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Miamisburg OH
Posts: 3,711
Thanks: 2,162
Thanked 2,118 Times in 1,054 Posts
|
|
Does the NCAA have a Financial Interest in Favoring
the power 5 football schools in the NCAA basketball tournament?
|
Mad Props to Alberto Strasse For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-22-2018, 03:16 PM
|
General of the Air Force
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,778
Thanks: 5,498
Thanked 6,255 Times in 3,097 Posts
|
|
To me the biggest flaw with picking the at large, and seeding the NCAAT teams is the how the disparity of opportunities for "good" wins between teams is handled. More opportunities should yield more wins and the bar should be higher than a team with less opportunities for "good" wins. Will NET change that? I doubt it and therefore the more things change the more they will stay the same.
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-22-2018, 04:48 PM
|
Brigadier General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 2,365
Thanks: 4
Thanked 1,538 Times in 783 Posts
|
|
"Does the NCAA have a financial interest in favoring"
Originally Posted by Alberto Strasse
the power 5 football schools in the NCAA basketball tournament?
|
Probably not as much as the networks who are paying for the broadcasting rights. I'll bet they "influence" the NCAA to have as many marquee names as possible in the tournament. They also hope for 1-2 "Chicago-Loyola" teams to build intrigue. They certainly don't want a lot of Bowling Green's - Weber State's - Eastern Kentucky's - Richmond's clogging up prime time matchups.
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-22-2018, 09:06 PM
|
![NJFlyr71's Avatar](images/avatars/zcartoons15.gif) |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ Beach Livin'
Posts: 3,238
Thanks: 1,491
Thanked 1,918 Times in 1,088 Posts
|
|
So far I haven't seen any evidence of Russian tabulated point adjustments to be included into the NET. However, any conservative leaning schools (don't worry UD an't one of them) will be unceremoniously discarded from consideration.
Now back to shoe contracts and the ESPN power poll.
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-22-2018, 09:09 PM
|
![NJFlyr71's Avatar](images/avatars/zcartoons15.gif) |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ Beach Livin'
Posts: 3,238
Thanks: 1,491
Thanked 1,918 Times in 1,088 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by N2663R
"Does the NCAA have a financial interest in favoring"
|
anything that brings in over $1B like in BILLION dollars? Hell Yea!!!
And twice on Sunday! Except during NFL FB games.
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-22-2018, 09:54 PM
|
![Brad S.'s Avatar](images/avatars/ud.gif) |
(Formerly O'Side Flyer)
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,074
Thanks: 504
Thanked 572 Times in 325 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by CE80
To me the biggest flaw with picking the at large, and seeding the NCAAT teams is the how the disparity of opportunities for "good" wins between teams is handled. More opportunities should yield more wins and the bar should be higher than a team with less opportunities for "good" wins. Will NET change that? I doubt it and therefore the more things change the more they will stay the same.
|
Unless they do away with the selection committee, any ranking tool developed is more of the same.
Either seed the tournament by your tool, or develop a better one.
Every sport, every tournament...
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-22-2018, 11:20 PM
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,946
Thanks: 100
Thanked 616 Times in 371 Posts
|
|
Gets rid of those pesky sites like DanceCard pointing out the glaring inconsistences in their selections. Secret Skynet computer model. Lol
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-22-2018, 11:40 PM
|
![Chris R's Avatar](image.php?s=5ca13181bc48c2d884bc155c2082355c&u=5535&dateline=1521002541) |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 13,613
Thanks: 1,854
Thanked 17,162 Times in 5,119 Posts
|
|
The money at stake -- millions and literally billions -- is what drives my insistence on transparency in this entire redux of the RPI to the NET. Im not sure I have ever seen ESPN's Power Index formula but it might be out there. I know I have never see Sagarin's. He has all kinds of variations including Elo Chess, etc. Ken Pomeroy may publish his offensive and defensive efficiency formulas somewhere in the corners of his web site, but I have not scoured for them. If all of these third-party tools now being used OFFICIALLY in conjunction or as an insertion into the NET, all of them must come clean on arithmetic if they have not already done so.
There is too much money involved for there to be any secrets among the number crunchers that ask all member NCAA schools to take their fairness and objectivity at face value. The Power-5 schools, the conference TV networks, and CBS Sports are in this to control the chess pieces as much as possible and make profits hand over fist. Profit motive oftentimes makes otherwise good people consciously or subconsciously slant the playing field of fair play in ways that are hard to detect above the waterline.
And since all those participating in the NCAA tourney are NCAA members -- many of them funded by public taxpayers -- they have a right to act as auditors of the auditors of objectivity. Without that check-and-balance, the speculation of corruption will collapse the confidence the system is attempting to provide.
We already know the NCAA makes occasional calculation mistakes because we've had to correct them on it several times over the years. I presume the other third party metrics are not infallible and make occasional mistakes too. If nothing else, openness ensures we can correct the obvious oversights like these. But it also guarantees there's no deep-state collusion or favoritism or bias baked into the cake. With the kind of money schools are capable of making with deep NCAA tourney runs, brand awareness, and merchandising, there's no room for speculation of any kind. If the NCAA more or less stays hush on all of these metrics, its like admitting facts not in evidence into the courtroom.
We want to see the arithmetic formulas. All of them. You told us what you're doing, now tell us how you're doing it.
__________________
Hot shooting hides a multitude of sins.
"Yeah....220, 221, whatever it takes." - Jack Butler (Mr. Mom)
|
11 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Chris R For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
Alberto Strasse (08-23-2018), cj (08-23-2018), CvilleFlyer (08-23-2018), flyerfanatic86 (08-23-2018), FlyingArrow (08-24-2018), frisco flyer (08-23-2018), rollo (08-23-2018), Runnin' Rebel (08-23-2018), Sea Bass (08-23-2018), TA111 (08-23-2018), The Fly (08-23-2018) |
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-23-2018, 09:34 AM
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Naples, Florida
Posts: 3,221
Thanks: 2,629
Thanked 2,248 Times in 1,129 Posts
|
|
IMHO, the NCAA knows it has a "perception of fairness" problem and hence this attempt to provide some added hocus-pocus to their calculations to justify the inclusion of up to nine teams from Power 5 Conferences. This fig leaf is not the answer, however. Given that all the Conferences now have their own tournaments at the end of each season that also rake in millions of greenbacks, the NCAA should eliminate all but the top three to five teams from consideration for the Big Dance from any and all Conferences. This is the only way, IMHO, to keep the Big Boyz honest...or as honest as they could be given the amount of money involved. Three Card Monte shysters have nothing on the NCAA and it's "Committee". So we know it ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes.
Last edited by Bat'71; 08-23-2018 at 09:37 AM..
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-23-2018, 01:35 PM
|
General of the Air Force
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,025
Thanks: 3,726
Thanked 5,165 Times in 2,722 Posts
|
|
It would be nice to compare the NET with the old RPI over the next few years to see where they differ and which one is the most "accurate" predictor.
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-23-2018, 03:27 PM
|
![MrFlyerFanatic's Avatar](image.php?s=5ca13181bc48c2d884bc155c2082355c&u=5720&dateline=1706723068) |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oregon District
Posts: 2,665
Thanks: 1,935
Thanked 2,211 Times in 976 Posts
|
|
I find it strange that the NCAA claims to have no intention of populating last year's results into their new toy.
I'd be willing to bet that it's already been done during the development process. I wonder why they don't want that information disseminated?
__________________
Be the reason that someone SMILES today.
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-23-2018, 05:16 PM
|
![Chris R's Avatar](image.php?s=5ca13181bc48c2d884bc155c2082355c&u=5535&dateline=1521002541) |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 13,613
Thanks: 1,854
Thanked 17,162 Times in 5,119 Posts
|
|
In rummaging the Internet today to try and find more information on the NET, I found a few sources that indicated the following. Did not verify if these are true:
1. The NET will be its own calculation and will not roll into its calculation any third party calculations provided by others, though third party metrics will still be used as supplements to the NET in the War Room.
2. There are about five different metrics (Levels) that will be used in the calculation. A couple are obvious holdovers like W/L Record, and SOS. But there are no specifics on how anything beyond W/L record is to be calculated.
3. The other metrics like offensive and defensive efficiency et al will also be calculated internally by the NCAA and in some fashion with the help of Google. Again however, no specifics on what the darn calculation is. Without the arithmetic we have no idea what the numbers will mean.
4. No word on what the weight of each "Level" will carry either. The RPI was 25% W/L, 50% Opponents' Record, and 25% Opponents' Opponents' Record. But how much will W/L carry in the future? Or offensive efficiency? Or SOS? Or home/neutral/away factors? No one has any idea.
It's like commanding the Theory of Relativity from the mountaintop without coughing up E=MC2. These are not small details.
__________________
Hot shooting hides a multitude of sins.
"Yeah....220, 221, whatever it takes." - Jack Butler (Mr. Mom)
|
3 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Chris R For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-23-2018, 05:39 PM
|
![The Fly's Avatar](images/avatars/zcartoons09.gif) |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,743
Thanks: 2,232
Thanked 2,428 Times in 829 Posts
|
|
If the NCAA thinks this will eliminate the debate and controversies that come now with nearly every at-large bid, they’re nuts. Transparency is everything. If they think this represents a fair and improved method of selecting and seeding teams, than share the calculation details. Otherwise, it just reinforces the perception that the Selection Committee is a cabal, driven by money and the P5 ... which, of course, it is. But at least until now we could see and understand the various formulas they used (or ignored, as the case may be).
Last edited by The Fly; 08-23-2018 at 08:50 PM..
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-23-2018, 05:41 PM
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,130
Thanks: 1,962
Thanked 2,464 Times in 1,288 Posts
|
|
I wonder of this new metric will be posted and updated as the RPI is/was. Whatever is used, it should be available to the general public on an ongoing basis.
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-23-2018, 07:44 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,410
Thanks: 870
Thanked 6,302 Times in 3,005 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by cj
It would be nice to compare the NET with the old RPI over the next few years to see where they differ and which one is the most "accurate" predictor.
|
they could easily show the past few years. They have chosen not to do that for whatever reason but I am skeptical.
|
Mad Props to Sea Bass For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-23-2018, 08:08 PM
|
![OSU Flyer's Avatar](images/avatars/hannabarbara12.gif) |
General
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,270
Thanks: 2,337
Thanked 3,923 Times in 2,155 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Chris R
In rummaging the Internet today to try and find more information on the NET, I found a few sources that indicated the following. Did not verify if these are true:
1. The NET will be its own calculation and will not roll into its calculation any third party calculations provided by others, though third party metrics will still be used as supplements to the NET in the War Room.
2. There are about five different metrics (Levels) that will be used in the calculation. A couple are obvious holdovers like W/L Record, and SOS. But there are no specifics on how anything beyond W/L record is to be calculated.
3. The other metrics like offensive and defensive efficiency et al will also be calculated internally by the NCAA and in some fashion with the help of Google. Again however, no specifics on what the darn calculation is. Without the arithmetic we have no idea what the numbers will mean.
4. No word on what the weight of each "Level" will carry either. The RPI was 25% W/L, 50% Opponents' Record, and 25% Opponents' Opponents' Record. But how much will W/L carry in the future? Or offensive efficiency? Or SOS? Or home/neutral/away factors? No one has any idea.
It's like commanding the Theory of Relativity from the mountaintop without coughing up E=MC2. These are not small details.
|
So you have no way of replicating NET like you do for the RPI?
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-24-2018, 10:56 AM
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,254
Thanks: 1,238
Thanked 1,510 Times in 825 Posts
|
|
I very strongly believe that margin of victory should not be used at all to decide who is chosen. A berth to the NCAA tournament should be a reward based on performance: who you beat and who beat you. "A win is a win" is no longer true if margin of victory plays *any* role in a metric that is used for selection.
Margin of victory does in fact help you better predict future performance, but that's not the point. NCAA selection should be a reward for past performance (measured only in wins and losses), not based on the prediction of future performance. An undefeated team that won every single game by 1 or 2 points absolutely deserves to be ranked above a team that has 3 1-point losses and 27 30-point blowouts.
Last edited by FlyingArrow; 08-24-2018 at 10:58 AM..
|
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to FlyingArrow For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-24-2018, 11:48 AM
|
![hawkoooo's Avatar](images/avatars/hannabarbara13.gif) |
Brigadier General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 2,991
Thanks: 1,012
Thanked 1,773 Times in 936 Posts
|
|
The real question is, will the RPI still be updated daily by this site? I hope so, because I visit it religiously.
|
Mad Props to hawkoooo For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-24-2018, 02:10 PM
|
![jack72's Avatar](images/avatars/noavatar.gif) |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bluffton, SC
Posts: 22,266
Thanks: 17,648
Thanked 10,177 Times in 5,904 Posts
|
|
You can be sure that they will tie it into some big revelation show on ESPN.
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
08-24-2018, 11:06 PM
|
![Chris R's Avatar](image.php?s=5ca13181bc48c2d884bc155c2082355c&u=5535&dateline=1521002541) |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 13,613
Thanks: 1,854
Thanked 17,162 Times in 5,119 Posts
|
|
May keep the RPI around just to track against the NET. But can't calculate the NET until the formula is published.
__________________
Hot shooting hides a multitude of sins.
"Yeah....220, 221, whatever it takes." - Jack Butler (Mr. Mom)
|
3 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Chris R For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
09-04-2018, 04:16 PM
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,486
Thanks: 8,461
Thanked 6,619 Times in 2,468 Posts
|
|
https://www.mydaytondailynews.com/sp...tYHB2BoakgciN/
Neil quotes
“In general, I fully support modernizing the evaluation tools to use all the best available resources we have,” Sullivan said. “You think how far data and analytics have come since the RPI was introduced, I think, in the early 80s. It’s probably the right direction to head. I would say it’s a little bit challenging in that it’s the second year in a row the sorting mechanism has kind of changed after the schedules are complete.”
The fact that is true under any metric and what we understand is we have to win games against NCAA tournament caliber teams and compete for an A-10 championship,” Sullivan said. “No matter what the metric is, we know that’s true, and that fact will always remain. We accept that challenge and acknowledge that. I just want to make sure we have the opportunity to meet that challenge because when you look at the data, clearly the committee believes that all conferences are not created equal.”
|
Mad Props to Lifelong Flyer Fan For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
09-04-2018, 04:28 PM
|
General of the Air Force
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,778
Thanks: 5,498
Thanked 6,255 Times in 3,097 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Lifelong Flyer Fan
clearly the committee believes that all conferences are not created equal
|
Isn't his what it's all about? Too much of the data is the result of incestuous conference competition and with 20 game conference schedules, it is getting worse.
|
Mad Props to CE80 For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
09-05-2018, 03:26 PM
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,254
Thanks: 1,238
Thanked 1,510 Times in 825 Posts
|
|
If they used something that is close to being statistically valid scheduling difficulties really wouldn't matter that much. But when they do a raw count of "good wins" without counting how many chances a team gets to obtain those good wins, it's ridiculously biased.
|
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to FlyingArrow For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
09-05-2018, 03:40 PM
|
General of the Air Force
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,076
Thanks: 3,446
Thanked 4,695 Times in 2,512 Posts
|
|
[QUOTE=FlyingArrow;557620]If they used something that is close to being statistically valid scheduling difficulties really wouldn't matter that much. But when they do a raw count of "good wins" without counting how many chances a team gets to obtain those good wins, it's ridiculously biased.[/QUO
Agreed, you really need to look at the winning percentage of “good wins”. IMO a 3-1 record in games against “good teams” should be rewarded before a 5-9 record.
|
Mad Props to TA111 For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
10-29-2018, 01:16 PM
|
Brigadier General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 2,365
Thanks: 4
Thanked 1,538 Times in 783 Posts
|
|
Chris -
Are you able to post both the RPI link as you have in the past along with the new NET formula rankings so we can follow along and see how it affects the ranking for us and all teams??
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
10-29-2018, 02:43 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,410
Thanks: 870
Thanked 6,302 Times in 3,005 Posts
|
|
It won't mean anything unless they release the code. They are saying trust us its good but they don't deserve the trust. The RPI wasn't perfect but it was in the open. This .NET thing is behind closed doors.
I'm highly skeptical.
|
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Sea Bass For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
10-29-2018, 03:55 PM
|
![NJFlyr71's Avatar](images/avatars/zcartoons15.gif) |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ Beach Livin'
Posts: 3,238
Thanks: 1,491
Thanked 1,918 Times in 1,088 Posts
|
|
I cracked the code just a short time ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually it was fairly easy and not much to it. Here's how it works:
NCAA Tournament:
Conference Champion Winners - One each
At Large - 36 men's slot available are doled out in sequence
non-P5 one for you
P5 schools - 11 for you
non-P5 one for you
P5 schools - 11 for you
non--P5 one for you
P5 schools 11 for you
non-P5 one for ... Oh! Wait .. sorry there aren't any more ... so sorry, come back next year!
|
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to NJFlyr71 For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
10-29-2018, 05:10 PM
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 324
Thanks: 0
Thanked 221 Times in 106 Posts
|
|
Comparison
Originally Posted by cj
It would be nice to compare the NET with the old RPI over the next few years to see where they differ and which one is the most "accurate" predictor.
|
I have been tabulating, for the past 4-5 years, whether the RPI rank or the seed numbers are a more accurate predictor of NCAA tournament success. The RPI rank is an objective and understood calculation. The tournament seeding is a subjective "gut feeling" of the selection committee. I have found that it's a tossup between which method is the better predictor. Some years the RPI is more accurate at predicting winners, some years less accurate. They are NEVER very far apart.
What I have noticed however, is that the P5 teams are consistently over-seeded and the non-P5 teams are consistently under-seeded. What this does is bias the results by more frequently pitting a non-P5 team against a higher seed (tougher opponent) while the P5 higher seeded but lower RPI-ranked teams get easier first round opponents. If this bias were eliminated, my guess is that the RPI would be a consistently better predictor of results.
I think the selection committee could be entirely done away with at no loss to tournament integrity and a definite gain in fairness.
|
3 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Don For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
10-29-2018, 09:51 PM
|
![Chris R's Avatar](image.php?s=5ca13181bc48c2d884bc155c2082355c&u=5535&dateline=1521002541) |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 13,613
Thanks: 1,854
Thanked 17,162 Times in 5,119 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by N2663R
Chris -
Are you able to post both the RPI link as you have in the past along with the new NET formula rankings so we can follow along and see how it affects the ranking for us and all teams??
|
Right now we dont know when and where the new NET will be posted to interrogate, nor the formula to replicate it if we wanted to take on the task ourselves.
I did hear from a pretty reliable source that David Worlock(?) of the NCAA was anticipating disseminating the general parameters of the formula at some point, but no ETA when nor how specific those details might be.
__________________
Hot shooting hides a multitude of sins.
"Yeah....220, 221, whatever it takes." - Jack Butler (Mr. Mom)
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
10-30-2018, 08:49 AM
|
![flyerfanatic86's Avatar](images/avatars/looneytunes33.gif) |
Brigadier General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,971
Thanks: 4,494
Thanked 1,433 Times in 682 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Don
I have been tabulating, for the past 4-5 years, whether the RPI rank or the seed numbers are a more accurate predictor of NCAA tournament success. The RPI rank is an objective and understood calculation. The tournament seeding is a subjective "gut feeling" of the selection committee. I have found that it's a tossup between which method is the better predictor. Some years the RPI is more accurate at predicting winners, some years less accurate. They are NEVER very far apart.
What I have noticed however, is that the P5 teams are consistently over-seeded and the non-P5 teams are consistently under-seeded. What this does is bias the results by more frequently pitting a non-P5 team against a higher seed (tougher opponent) while the P5 higher seeded but lower RPI-ranked teams get easier first round opponents. If this bias were eliminated, my guess is that the RPI would be a consistently better predictor of results.
I think the selection committee could be entirely done away with at no loss to tournament integrity and a definite gain in fairness.
|
I think the committee has been transitioning away from which teams "earned" a bid to which teams are the "best." This gives them latitude to include P5 schools with a lot of "talent" that may not have won enough to really earn a spot in the tournament. It's also why you will see discussion of a lot of metrics that have nothing to do with W/L and who you beat/where you played. Stuff like offensive/defensive efficiency shouldn't matter if you aren't winning enough, but the committee can use that to justify a team's inclusion or exclusion.
|
Mad Props to flyerfanatic86 For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
10-30-2018, 09:15 AM
|
![Alberto Strasse's Avatar](images/avatars/sesame17.gif) |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Miamisburg OH
Posts: 3,711
Thanks: 2,162
Thanked 2,118 Times in 1,054 Posts
|
|
The NCAA
is protecting their business interests. Their business is football and the money invested by colleges in that sport. Those who invest more money get more favorable treatment on Selection Sunday.
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
10-30-2018, 10:41 AM
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 4,068
Thanks: 5,605
Thanked 2,346 Times in 1,341 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by flyerfanatic86
I think the committee has been transitioning away from which teams "earned" a bid to which teams are the "best." This gives them latitude to include P5 schools with a lot of "talent" that may not have won enough to really earn a spot in the tournament. It's also why you will see discussion of a lot of metrics that have nothing to do with W/L and who you beat/where you played. Stuff like offensive/defensive efficiency shouldn't matter if you aren't winning enough, but the committee can use that to justify a team's inclusion or exclusion.
|
I've been saying this for a long time now that it won't be long before a P5 team makes it with a sub 500 record because "they are a good team but played a tough schedule". Winning games should still matter!!!
|
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to CT Flyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
10-30-2018, 12:03 PM
|
![Figgie123's Avatar](images/avatars/ducks07.gif) |
I Am A Statistical God
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Riverside, Ohio
Posts: 5,512
Thanks: 4,692
Thanked 6,172 Times in 2,321 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by CT Flyer
I've been saying this for a long time now that it won't be long before a P5 team makes it with a sub 500 record because "they are a good team but played a tough schedule". Winning games should still matter!!!
|
You can only get into the tournament with a sub-.500 record if you win a conference tournament. Rules are already in place that state you cannot get an at-large bid with lower than a .500 record.
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
10-30-2018, 12:49 PM
|
![Gazoo's Avatar](images/avatars/farside02.gif) |
General
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 6,602
Thanks: 5,193
Thanked 5,460 Times in 2,387 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Figgie123
You can only get into the tournament with a sub-.500 record if you win a conference tournament. Rules are already in place that state you cannot get an at-large bid with lower than a .500 record.
|
All the animals are equal. But some are more equal than others.
|
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Gazoo For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
10-30-2018, 01:33 PM
|
![Figgie123's Avatar](images/avatars/ducks07.gif) |
I Am A Statistical God
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Riverside, Ohio
Posts: 5,512
Thanks: 4,692
Thanked 6,172 Times in 2,321 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Gazoo
All the animals are equal. But some are more equal than others.
|
I never argued this wasn't the case, just refuting the sub-.500 comment.
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
10-30-2018, 01:44 PM
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 4,068
Thanks: 5,605
Thanked 2,346 Times in 1,341 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Figgie123
You can only get into the tournament with a sub-.500 record if you win a conference tournament. Rules are already in place that state you cannot get an at-large bid with lower than a .500 record.
|
OK .500 record then....and I was being a little facetious anyway.
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
10-30-2018, 04:15 PM
|
![Gazoo's Avatar](images/avatars/farside02.gif) |
General
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 6,602
Thanks: 5,193
Thanked 5,460 Times in 2,387 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Figgie123
I never argued this wasn't the case, just refuting the sub-.500 comment.
|
Uh-huh. Based on today's rules.
It's not like it takes a supermajority of state senates to ratify a change. Remember when athletes who got paid were a major infraction?
Then the P5 said (in their Office Space voice): yeah, if we could just change that rule so we could start paying players, that would be great.
And now players get free tuition plus a stipend.
All the animals are equal.
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
11-24-2018, 01:40 PM
|
![Figgie123's Avatar](images/avatars/ducks07.gif) |
I Am A Statistical God
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Riverside, Ohio
Posts: 5,512
Thanks: 4,692
Thanked 6,172 Times in 2,321 Posts
|
|
Very early on, but if my math is right, using the graphic someone posted for net offensive efficiency, UD is ranked 6th in the A10 in net offensive efficiency at 0.0780.
- Fordham (4-1) RPI 152 = 0.1723
- Rhode Island (2-1) RPI 157 = 0.1307
- Massachusetts (4-3) RPI 279 = 0.1249
- VCU (4-1) RPI 86 = 0.0941
- Saint Louis (4-1) RPI 70 = 0.0839
- Dayton (4-2) RPI 111 = 0.0780
- Saint Josephs (3-2) RPI 172 = 0.0618
- Davidson (4-1) RPI 61 = 0.0365
- Duquesne (3-1) RPI 33 = 0.0132
- Richmond (2-3) RPI 234 = 0.0023
- George Mason (2-4) RPI 266 = -0.0145
- Saint Bonaventure (1-5) RPI 348 (ugh!) = -0.0520
- La Salle (0-6) RPI 309 = -0.1775
- George Washington (0-5) RPI 265 = -0.2555
This is based on stats straight from NCAA.org this morning, and it includes non-Div1 games. For instance, Fordham beat CCNY in their first game, and those stats are included in the team totals that NCAA lists. I'd hope NCAA finds a way to get the non-Div 1 games out of there.
Figgie
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
11-24-2018, 02:22 PM
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 855
Thanks: 540
Thanked 516 Times in 268 Posts
|
|
If they don’t then ud just needs to load the non conf with d2 and d3 teams?
When does the first rankings get released? I googled but couldnt find anything
|
![Old](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/statusicon/post_old.gif)
11-24-2018, 02:55 PM
|
![ruechalgrin's Avatar](image.php?s=5ca13181bc48c2d884bc155c2082355c&u=9836&dateline=1417228416) |
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 3,103
Thanks: 4,298
Thanked 2,862 Times in 1,139 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Figgie123
Very early on, but if my math is right, using the graphic someone posted for net offensive efficiency, UD is ranked 6th in the A10 in net offensive efficiency at 0.0780.
- Fordham (4-1) RPI 152 = 0.1723
- Rhode Island (2-1) RPI 157 = 0.1307
- Massachusetts (4-3) RPI 279 = 0.1249
- VCU (4-1) RPI 86 = 0.0941
- Saint Louis (4-1) RPI 70 = 0.0839
- Dayton (4-2) RPI 111 = 0.0780
- Saint Josephs (3-2) RPI 172 = 0.0618
- Davidson (4-1) RPI 61 = 0.0365
- Duquesne (3-1) RPI 33 = 0.0132
- Richmond (2-3) RPI 234 = 0.0023
- George Mason (2-4) RPI 266 = -0.0145
- Saint Bonaventure (1-5) RPI 348 (ugh!) = -0.0520
- La Salle (0-6) RPI 309 = -0.1775
- George Washington (0-5) RPI 265 = -0.2555
This is based on stats straight from NCAA.org this morning, and it includes non-Div1 games. For instance, Fordham beat CCNY in their first game, and those stats are included in the team totals that NCAA lists. I'd hope NCAA finds a way to get the non-Div 1 games out of there.
Figgie
|
Tied for #2 with Davidson in offensive efficiency behind only St Joe's in kenpom. Please tell me the NCAA adjusts for competition. Kenpom not totally normalized yet (relies on assumptions until normalized). But I bet the issue is with the NCAA. The whole NET thing is an absolute fiasco. Zero transparency on how calculate the 5 factors, zero transparency on weighting of the 5 factors, and then they throw in "machine learning." We have over 100+ artificial intelligence (think machine learning but I am simplifying) engineers and how the NCAA constructs the algorithm, what data they use to learn, etc, etc, etc all matter massively. GuRanteee nobody on the committee has a clue.
Posted via Mobile Device
Last edited by ruechalgrin; 11-24-2018 at 02:58 PM..
|
![Reply](http://www.udpride.com/forums/images/softblue/buttons/reply.gif) |
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|