Bracketology
- Thread starter marleyboy4945
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2012
- Messages
- 41,016
Obviously, the Virginia game swings everything. The two teams will essentially swap places if Duke wins.
physicsfactor
Legend
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 16,607
Like 2017!!
StopThePumpFakesShav
All American
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2013
- Messages
- 9,103
They would only get to choose if they are the overall #1, right?
physicsfactor
Legend
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 16,607
TS9
All American
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2016
- Messages
- 2,509
And 2015.
torontoduke
Legend
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2012
- Messages
- 13,084
In your eye, @physicsfactor
physicsfactor
Legend
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 16,607
You’re right. Based on Duke’s recent tournament history, I should be more optimistic.
StopThePumpFakesShav
All American
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2013
- Messages
- 9,103
From an ESPN article last week:
The coming months could be a test run for a new tool that eventually replaces the RPI in the NCAA tournament selection committee's evaluation of potential at-large teams.
RPI is the traditional and polarizing barometer used in the analysis process leading into Selection Sunday. For the first time, committee members will see rankings from ESPN's BPI and Strength of Record, KPI, Jeff Sagarin Ratings and KenPom.com next to the RPI on the official team sheets used to assess each program.
They'll also see the average score of the six advanced metrics for each team, which could be repackaged as a new, official tool that replaces the RPI next season, said David Worlock, media coordinator for the NCAA tournament.
He said the catalyst for the change was a request from the National Association of Basketball Coaches to include advanced metrics in the evaluation process.
"The composite metric replacing the RPI is a possibility and we are looking at other options too," Worlock told ESPN.com on Thursday. "Either way, the other metrics that have been introduced to the team sheets will still be used as a resource moving forward."
Worlock said committee members have always had access to the five additional advanced metrics, with each member having the power to use those tools at their discretion.
"Again, this isn't anything new that's being provided to the committee," Worlock said. "It's just being presented in a different, more convenient and more efficient format. As with any resource that the committee has at its disposal, a committee member can use it as they see fit."
But the RPI, long criticized by modern analysts as an outdated measuring stick because it fails to consider margin of victory or location, had been the only official metric endorsed by the NCAA to date.
That's why this move matters.
The tools all vary in how they assess a team. The RPI, KPI and ESPN's Strength of Record aim to capture the quality of a team based on its current résumé. And ESPN's BPI, Sagarin and KenPom.com ratings attempt to predict how a team will perform in the future.
It's important to understand how these tools differ.
Entering Thursday's rivalry game at Gonzaga, Saint Mary's was ranked 46th by RPI, 17th by ESPN's BPI, 41st by ESPN's Strength of Record, 23rd by Sagarin, 19th by KenPom.com and 51st by KPI.
The selection committee will now see those differences on the same official team sheets.
Kevin Pauga, creator of the KPI, and other analytics experts met with the NCAA last season and stressed the value of using advanced metrics leading into Selection Sunday.
He said adding new information will enhance the selection process.
"It is beneficial for the committee to have as much relevant information appear in the most accessible way possible," he said Thursday. "Having additional information -- including the additional metrics and factoring road, home and neutral-site games into categories -- is helpful so they can access the information efficiently and quickly when needed."
Last month, the NCAA announced a new system that emphasizes the value of road and neutral-site games.
This season, as a part of a new four-tier system, wins against teams ranked 1-30 at home, 1-50 on a neutral court and 1-75 on the road will all qualify as quality wins and possess the same value. In past years, only top-50 wins in the RPI -- which does not consider location -- earned that billing.
The new emphasis on location, for wins and losses, and the addition of the advanced metrics to the official team sheets signal a change in the committee's philosophy. The "eye test" seems like an ancient concept now with the changes this season and the embracing of modern tools.
"You need to stay relevant in the age that you're operating in," Dan Gavitt, the NCAA's senior vice president of basketball, said last year, per NCAA.com. "Certainly relevant today is embracing analytics and technology to the appropriate level.
"In an imperfect process, I think what the committee strives to get as perfect as possible is to have justification and rationale for their decisions. And the more that can be rooted in fact and in data, the more comfortable they can be with those decisions and the more justifiable they can be in explaining them."
The coming months could be a test run for a new tool that eventually replaces the RPI in the NCAA tournament selection committee's evaluation of potential at-large teams.
RPI is the traditional and polarizing barometer used in the analysis process leading into Selection Sunday. For the first time, committee members will see rankings from ESPN's BPI and Strength of Record, KPI, Jeff Sagarin Ratings and KenPom.com next to the RPI on the official team sheets used to assess each program.
They'll also see the average score of the six advanced metrics for each team, which could be repackaged as a new, official tool that replaces the RPI next season, said David Worlock, media coordinator for the NCAA tournament.
He said the catalyst for the change was a request from the National Association of Basketball Coaches to include advanced metrics in the evaluation process.
"The composite metric replacing the RPI is a possibility and we are looking at other options too," Worlock told ESPN.com on Thursday. "Either way, the other metrics that have been introduced to the team sheets will still be used as a resource moving forward."
Worlock said committee members have always had access to the five additional advanced metrics, with each member having the power to use those tools at their discretion.
"Again, this isn't anything new that's being provided to the committee," Worlock said. "It's just being presented in a different, more convenient and more efficient format. As with any resource that the committee has at its disposal, a committee member can use it as they see fit."
But the RPI, long criticized by modern analysts as an outdated measuring stick because it fails to consider margin of victory or location, had been the only official metric endorsed by the NCAA to date.
That's why this move matters.
The tools all vary in how they assess a team. The RPI, KPI and ESPN's Strength of Record aim to capture the quality of a team based on its current résumé. And ESPN's BPI, Sagarin and KenPom.com ratings attempt to predict how a team will perform in the future.
It's important to understand how these tools differ.
Entering Thursday's rivalry game at Gonzaga, Saint Mary's was ranked 46th by RPI, 17th by ESPN's BPI, 41st by ESPN's Strength of Record, 23rd by Sagarin, 19th by KenPom.com and 51st by KPI.
The selection committee will now see those differences on the same official team sheets.
Kevin Pauga, creator of the KPI, and other analytics experts met with the NCAA last season and stressed the value of using advanced metrics leading into Selection Sunday.
He said adding new information will enhance the selection process.
"It is beneficial for the committee to have as much relevant information appear in the most accessible way possible," he said Thursday. "Having additional information -- including the additional metrics and factoring road, home and neutral-site games into categories -- is helpful so they can access the information efficiently and quickly when needed."
Last month, the NCAA announced a new system that emphasizes the value of road and neutral-site games.
This season, as a part of a new four-tier system, wins against teams ranked 1-30 at home, 1-50 on a neutral court and 1-75 on the road will all qualify as quality wins and possess the same value. In past years, only top-50 wins in the RPI -- which does not consider location -- earned that billing.
The new emphasis on location, for wins and losses, and the addition of the advanced metrics to the official team sheets signal a change in the committee's philosophy. The "eye test" seems like an ancient concept now with the changes this season and the embracing of modern tools.
"You need to stay relevant in the age that you're operating in," Dan Gavitt, the NCAA's senior vice president of basketball, said last year, per NCAA.com. "Certainly relevant today is embracing analytics and technology to the appropriate level.
"In an imperfect process, I think what the committee strives to get as perfect as possible is to have justification and rationale for their decisions. And the more that can be rooted in fact and in data, the more comfortable they can be with those decisions and the more justifiable they can be in explaining them."
niveklaen
All American
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2016
- Messages
- 1,316
I want to go on record disapproving of abandoning RPI for advanced stats. While I am a big (if incompetent) fan of using advanced stats to evaluate teams/players and to think/talk about the game, RPI punishes teams for loading up on patsies and does not punish teams who find ways to develop their bench and experiment with rotations while avoiding losses. Advanced stats replacing RPI on selection sunday will discourage teams from scheduling tough opponents and encourage coaches to run up the score at the expense of player development. People around here complain about the bench coming in with 5min left when we are up 30 and giving away 10pts of the lead. If K had to worry about advanced stats for seeding we would never see Robinson or Goldwire and we would see less of AOC and Javin than we do now. If you dislike K's short bench now - it will become even shorter under the new approach.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2012
- Messages
- 41,016
I agree that a pure margin of victory metric shouldn't be all that is used. I like Sagarin's blended rankings for seeding purposes. He has pure margin of victory rankings (predictor), pure win/loss rankings (elo), and a blend of both. It comes down to the balance between (a) rewarding wins and losses with traditional incentives and (b) avoiding penalizing high achieving teams with dumb matchups (e.g., a 6-seed being a Vegas underdog in the first round because their 11-seed lost a lot of close games but had a lot of blowout wins).
The margin of victory computers will always be much better predictors of future performance than win/loss computers, though. That's why no one here cares about RPI when analyzing a team.
The margin of victory computers will always be much better predictors of future performance than win/loss computers, though. That's why no one here cares about RPI when analyzing a team.
torontoduke
Legend
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2012
- Messages
- 13,084
Kansas appears to be in a good spot for a 1 seed. Ugh.
physicsfactor
Legend
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 16,607
I think KU and UVA are both upset early. Being placed with KU is ideal. I wish we could get placed with UVA.
physicsfactor
Legend
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 16,607
Of course that’s assuming Purdue is ahead of KU on the S-curve and gets Omaha, pushing KU to LA. Playing KU in Omaha would probably be a disaster for Duke.
Of course it’s pretty silly for any of us to assume Duke will make it to the regionals.
Of course it’s pretty silly for any of us to assume Duke will make it to the regionals.