So long RPI, the NET is here.

[lurkeraspect84]

Division I Men’s Basketball Committee adopts new ranking system

The NCAA has developed a new ranking system to replace the RPI as the primary sorting tool for evaluating teams during the Division I men’s basketball season. The new ranking system was approved in late July after months of consultation with the Division I Men’s Basketball Committee, the National Association of Basketball Coaches, top basketball analytics experts and Google Cloud Professional Services.

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.

Further reading.

 

[boilerzz]

Thank God. I'm sure we will critique the hell out of this metric but it has to be an improvement on RPI.

 

[schoonerwest]

Damn. That was the one thing that Kansas finished #1 in more than anybody else.

 

[Global Havok]

Not a fan of BPI being included, but whatever

 

[lurkeraspect84]

Thank God. I'm sure we will critique the hell out of this metric but it has to be an improvement on RPI.

Scoring margin will factor but only up to 10. Running up the score past 10 won't count for anything....unless you're betting.

 

[Hank_]

 

[lurkeraspect84]

"Win by 10" is going to be every team's motto.

Also for those that didn't click the link.

The NET will be updated on a weekly basis throughout the season.

 

[jhmossy]

View embedded media

I mean I chuckled but UVA finished 7th last season in scoring margin at 13.1 ppg.

 

[Hank_]

I mean I chuckled but UVA finished 7th last season in scoring margin at 13.1 ppg.

Stereotypes are fun though.

Makes sense though, honestly. Not scoring many points is gravy when you hold teams to season lows.

 

[boilerzz]

 

[xWVU2010x]

Better than RPI but the 10 point rule is a little shady. Also curious how much a 10 point win is worth in comparison to a 9 point win. I wonder if it will now be encouraged for a team up 9 that has the ball with 10 seconds to play to call a timeout and run a play to get to the elusive magic arbitrary number for a double win.

 

[brooky03]

Margin of victory is a bad idea, but the rest seems fine.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Thank God. I'm sure we will critique the hell out of this metric but it has to be an improvement on RPI.

Anything is better than RPI!

 

[xWVU2010x]

Margin of victory is a bad idea, but the rest seems fine.

Its not terrible, but if you're doing it, go all the way with it. A 10 point win can happen in the final minute of a tight game if a team is drilling foul shots while the losing team comes up empty on a few rushed possessions. A 30 point win is far less likely to happen unless the winning team is truly dominant that day and those teams should be rewarded for body bagging a team.

 

[boilerzz]

Better than RPI but the 10 point rule is a little shady. Also curious how much a 10 point win is worth in comparison to a 9 point win. I wonder if it will now be encouraged for a team up 9 that has the ball with 10 seconds to play to call a timeout and run a play to get to the elusive magic arbitrary number for a double win.

I doubt if they'd put any more emphasis on a 10 point win vs a 9 point win than a 9 point win vs an 8 point win. They are just making an 11 point win (or 38 point win) equal to a 10 point win. That's a pretty easy exercise.

 

[xWVU2010x]

I doubt if they'd put any more emphasis on a 10 point win vs a 9 point win than a 9 point win vs an 8 point win. They are just making an 11 point win (or 38 point win) equal to a 10 point win. That's a pretty easy exercise.

We don't know that for sure, and after the RPI rule that basically game teams an extra half win on their resume if they had the balls to travel to mighty Canisius and escape the gauntlet with a W, I doubt that this isn't going to go into effect lightly. A buzzer beating 3 in an under 10 point game could mean a noticeable shift in a team's committee ranking with such a small scale.

 

[boilerzz]

We don't know that for sure, and after the RPI rule that basically game teams an extra half win on their resume if they had the balls to travel to mighty Canisius and escape the gauntlet with a W, I doubt that this isn't going to go into effect lightly. A buzzer beating 3 in an under 10 point game could mean a noticeable shift in a team's committee ranking with such a small scale.

Well, rather than speculating a worst case scenario, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that those creating the metric have common sense. I guess you'd rather not.

 

[xWVU2010x]

Well, rather than speculating a worst case scenario, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that those creating the metric have common sense. I guess you'd rather not.

Its the NCAA, why do they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

 

[BasketBallJunkie-UK]

Can someone explain this to me? I never dug into quadrants this past year.

The quadrant system, which had some critics in its first year of use, will remain in place with the same lines of delineation in the NET and on the team sheets going forward. Here's how that breaks down:

• 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 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353

 

[KisteK]

I actually like the quadrant system, in that it attempts to reward teams who play tougher schedules. No more solely leaning on "conference play" to pad the resume.

 

[boilerzz]

Its the NCAA, why do they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Because they finally realized the RPI is shit.

 

[TheDude1]

View embedded media

Oh, look at that last bit. That's some shady BS right there. Oh, and a lie, because at least in-house they are TOTALLY applying it to previous seasons.

 

[Global Havok]

Oh, look at that last bit. That's some shady BS right there. Oh, and a lie, because at least in-house they are TOTALLY applying it to previous seasons.

Yeah, thats total crap. Neural nets (which I assume they are talking about when they say AI) are black magic and not statistics (IMO). They simply try to optimize weights on different metrics to meet past results, regardless of actual causality.

 

[boilerzz]

Oh, look at that last bit. That's some shady BS right there. Oh, and a lie, because at least in-house they are TOTALLY applying it to previous seasons.

Looks like they admitted as such:

To arrive at the proper formula, the NCAA worked with Google Cloud professional services and ran data for Division I seasons dating back to 2003 through a machine learning algorithm.

It's probably smart of them to not make it public and subject it to criticism before it's even revealed.

http://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa...npom-march-madness/1syel3n1ixx0c1dg2mutxx0ua1

 

[Boilermaker03]

Division I Men’s Basketball Committee adopts new ranking system

The NCAA has developed a new ranking system to replace the RPI as the primary sorting tool for evaluating teams during the Division I men’s basketball season. The new ranking system was approved in late July after months of consultation with the Division I Men’s Basketball Committee, the National Association of Basketball Coaches, top basketball analytics experts and Google Cloud Professional Services.

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.

Further reading.

I'm late to this thread but it's about time!

 

[bignish]

Nice, down with the RPI!

 

[Big_Blue79]

Thank God. I'm sure we will critique the hell out of this metric but it has to be an improvement on RPI.

This. RPI was worth less than nothing. This seems like it has potential, and it's a step in the right direct. Great news.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Better than RPI but the 10 point rule is a little shady. Also curious how much a 10 point win is worth in comparison to a 9 point win. I wonder if it will now be encouraged for a team up 9 that has the ball with 10 seconds to play to call a timeout and run a play to get to the elusive magic arbitrary number for a double win.

Its not terrible, but if you're doing it, go all the way with it. A 10 point win can happen in the final minute of a tight game if a team is drilling foul shots while the losing team comes up empty on a few rushed possessions. A 30 point win is far less likely to happen unless the winning team is truly dominant that day and those teams should be rewarded for body bagging a team.

Margin of victory likely has severe diminishing returns, such that the delta between a 2 point win and a 1 point win is worth much more than the delta between a 9 point win and 10 point win. I would have run it out without a stop but include harsh diminishing returns to discourage running up the score. Announcing a cap on margin of victory achieves that result (discouraging running up the score) more cleanly, but at a (very small) cost in predictive power.

Can someone explain this to me? I never dug into quadrants this past year.

The quadrant system, which had some critics in its first year of use, will remain in place with the same lines of delineation in the NET and on the team sheets going forward. Here's how that breaks down:

• 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 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353

I actually like the quadrant system, in that it attempts to reward teams who play tougher schedules. No more solely leaning on "conference play" to pad the resume.

The quadrant issue is pretty dumb because it creates arbitrary cutoffs. But it's easily digestible (for media, coaches, committee members, and fans), so I guess that's... something. At least these are issues on the margins, unlike RPI which was just hot garbage all around.

 

[FFWhite]

Not perfect but better than RPI