Official NCAA Tournament discussion thread (NWT or WT?)

P

PhDeac

PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
166,624
Reaction score
36,747
[h=3]ESPN: NCAA to consider new metric in tourney selection[/h]NCAA: http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...ll-ncaa-tournament-selection-process-involves

From Jeff Sagarin and his golden mean, to Ken Pomeroy and his adjusted offensive efficiency, to Kevin Pauga and his KPI to Ben Alamar with ESPN’s BPI, they’ll all be there. A math geek’s dream team. “It’ll be absolutely fascinating. I can’t imagine they’ve been together very much, if ever. There’ll be a lot of brain power in the room,” said Dan Gavitt, the NCAA senior vice president of basketball.
“I’m going to have to strap on in the meetings to stay up with all the calculus that’s going to be discussed, but I’m excited about it,” said Jim Schaus, the Ohio University athletic director who will be representing the Division I Men’s Basketball Committee.
Click to expand...

No word on if the NCAA has instituted added security measures to keep Doofus from crashing the meeting.
 
Should be pretty interesting to see what they can come up with since they all have different ideas of what is important to measure statistically.
 
Wish they would also do a few updates during the month of February like the CFP committee starts doing in November. That would make it all the more interesting.
 
One of the reasons that those metrics weren't used in the past is because they take into account margin of victory (RPI does not), as the NCAA did want to give credit for pounding weaker teams by huge margins. Margin of victory (or margin of loss) does help separate teams (particularly over a season), and Vegas has always taken margin of victory into account when calculating Power Rankings. With this change when teams are playing for top seeds, there is now an extra incentive to keep pouring it on.
 
Last edited:
It's overly simplistic, but MOV and point differential has always been a very good indicator of comparing teams with similar records and schedules. Same notion that "if you don't play close games you don't lose close games" entails.
 
I looked at the RPI. We are 28 and basically a lock to make the NCAAT yet we are 0-7 against top 50 teams. Every other team ahead of us has at least one win.
 
PhDeac said:
I looked at the RPI. We are 28 and basically a lock to make the NCAAT yet we are 0-7 against top 50 teams. Every other team ahead of us has at least one win.
Click to expand...

RPI has always been a very flawed method to evaluate teams. WF has wins against a lot of teams with winning records (Charleston 14-4, Bucknell 12-6. Richmond 10-6, UNCG 13-5) which helps fuel a good RPI. Also, WF has really no games against the worst of college basketball UTEP at 3-13 is the only team that WF has played with a crappy record.
 
Pilchard said:
RPI has always been a very flawed method to evaluate teams. WF has wins against a lot of teams with winning records (Charleston 14-4, Bucknell 12-6. Richmond 10-6, UNCG 13-5) which helps fuel a good RPI. Also, WF has really no games against the worst of college basketball UTEP at 3-13 is the only team that WF has played with a crappy record.
Click to expand...

Right, Wake has played as many top 15 teams as they have sub-200 teams (4).

We have also yet to lose a team worse than 37th in KP, and by site, Clemson is probably our worst loss (adjusted probably puts them at around 35th in the nation).
 
Definitely. Which is why it's good the committee is investigating other options. But that's bad for Wake.
 
PhDeac said:
Definitely. Which is why it's good the committee is investigating other options. But that's bad for Wake.
Click to expand...

In the sense that more mid-majors will get in that wouldn't have gotten a look otherwise?

It's good for the NCAA Tournament for sure, as there will be better rankings and seedings/better teams overall filling the at-large bids.
 
If they promise not to use the term "body of work" ever again, I'm good regardless of the method they use.
 
They should give extra consideration to any team that has had to deal with the stench of [Redacted].
 
Kenpom has been considered the last couple of years. UCLA getting a bid two years ago was a clear case of them getting in b/c of good metrics, IMO. They didn't really have the resume otherwise. Maybe same for Wichita and Vandy last year too.

Still it isn't a guarantee you need good Kenpom to get in. I thought Temple wasn't gonna get a bid ly b/c they were in the 80s, but they still made it and didn't even have to play a play-in game (unlike top 15 Wichita or top 25 Vandy)
 
Last edited:
wsc8521s said:
Kenpom has been considered the last couple of years. UCLA getting a bid two years ago was a clear case of them getting in b/c of good metrics, IMO. They didn't really have the resume otherwise. Maybe same for Wichita and Vandy last year too.

Still it isn't a guarantee you need good Kenpom to get in. I thought Temple wasn't gonna get a bid ly b/c they were in the 80s, but they still made it and didn't even have to play a play-in game (unlike top 15 Wichita or top 25 Vandy)
Click to expand...

I think it should help with the seeding of the S-Curve the most.

If you want to just arbitrarily pick a team that's ranked low statistically then at least make them play a play-in game. Having Wichita finish as the 13th ranked team in KP, but be an 11 seed was comical.
 
Agreed. Some really imbalanced regions last year. Wichita maybe could've won the West, instead they got bounced by Miami in the second round playing their third game in approx 84 hours and (likely as a result) having to dig out of a 27-6 early hole (which they nearly did).

Hopefully they'll get better with this stuff as we move forward
 
I saw the CBS bracketology & that guy currently has both Pitt & NC St in the tournament. NC St's current resume is pathetic with Pitt not being too far behind. If Wake starts beating the teams they should, it won't take much to hop in the bubble talk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top