New metrics for tourney selection process

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,287]

Interesting. If I read this correctly, it would officially give analytics a place at the table, minus the RPI.

Story

[ellitor 33,062]

 

Quote

 

NCAA officials to consider new metric in tourney selection process

1:32 PM CT

 

Myron MedcalfESPN Staff Writer

The NCAA tournament selection committee's reliance on the RPI as a significant metric could end soon, with officials set to consult analytics experts on Jan. 20 in Indianapolis and discuss the creation of a new standard of analysis.

According to an article posted on NCAA.com on Friday, Dan Gavitt, the NCAA's senior vice president of basketball, and Jim Schaus, Ohio's athletic director and a member of the NCAA tournament selection committee, will meet with Jeff Sagarin (Sagarin), Kevin Pauga (KPI), Ken Pomeroy (KenPom.com) and Ben Alamar (ESPN's BPI) to discuss the selection process and consider a new measuring stick.

The new metric could be implemented into the official selection process as early as the 2017-18 season.

Selection committee members have maintained the RPI is just one tool used in the selection process each year. While other metrics are likely considered by individual members, this would be the first time that advanced metrics became an official component of the process.

"You need to stay relevant in the age that you're operating in," Gavitt said on 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."

Gavitt said the National Association of Basketball Coaches wants advanced metrics -- an "even more powerful microscope" -- to play a bigger role in the selection process. That prompted next week's meeting.

The selection committee's use of the RPI, which assesses each team according to its résumé and strength of schedule, has long been criticized as an outdated barometer. It does not consider margin of victory, and the bulk of its value is determined by strength of schedule factors.

Pauga, who will participate in next week's meeting in Indianapolis, said the group hopes to enhance the selection process and the NCAA tournament.

"The selection process could benefit greatly from a composite metric, especially if it includes both results-based and predictive elements," Pauga told ESPN. "Having a few metrics together minimizes the effect of a single outlier. It also can provide context where if a team's results-based metrics are way better than the predictive, their résumé may be better than their team -- and vice versa."

Pauga also said "top-50 and top-100" wins, according to the RPI, can offer an inaccurate portrait of a team's potential and skew their seed line because the location of those victories matters.

Gavitt said current advanced metrics feature their own flaws. The analytics experts he'll meet next week have similar goals but different theories about the minutiae of a new metric, he said.

Still, the pros outweigh the cons in this effort, he said.

"Not one of them's perfect," Gavitt said. "And even a composite of all of them will still be imperfect. Hopefully it will be closer to perfect than what we currently have, and I think that's where the group feels it can be, and that's why we think it's so important to do this."

 

 

[ellitor 33,062]

Funny. College football went away from computers/advanced metrics & college basketball is going towards it.

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

On 1/14/2017 at 10:20 AM, ellitor said:

Funny. College football went away from computers/advanced metrics & college basketball is going towards it.

There are few team in College Football who need to be observed for the eye test, in determining who is in significant bowl games and who is out. In basketball there are so many more teams to be familiar with, it is nearly impossible to have a quality test of who deserves to be in without some metric based scale. RPI has been it, I'm all for them improving it as long as the human component is removed all together. 

[ellitor 33,062]

20 minutes ago, JwgreDeux said:

There are few team in College Football who need to be observed for the eye test, in determining who is in significant bowl games and who is out. In basketball there are so many more teams to be familiar with, it is nearly impossible to have a quality test of who deserves to be in without some metric based scale. RPI has been it, I'm all for them improving it as long as the human component is removed all together. 

They will never remove the human component from NCAA basketball tourney selection.

[jared52 4,354]

I didn't think the process was broken. There 64 teams (or 68 now). If you can't be solidly in the top 35 or so (because of automatic bids) gen you should run the risk of not making the tournament. 

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,287]

On 1/16/2017 at 7:32 PM, jared52 said:

I didn't think the process was broken. There 64 teams (or 68 now). If you can't be solidly in the top 35 or so (because of automatic bids) gen you should run the risk of not making the tournament. 

My thoughts exactly. If they give any more bids out, everyone gets a trophy.

[ellitor 33,062]

4 minutes ago, WDE_OxPx_2010 said:

My thoughts exactly. If they give any more bids out, everyone gets a trophy.

No it's not. Only 20% of the eligible teams actually make the dance.

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,287]

Just now, ellitor said:

No it's not. Only 20% of the eligible teams actually make the dance.

Compared to football and baseball that seems awfully high

[ellitor 33,062]

30 minutes ago, WDE_OxPx_2010 said:

Compared to football and baseball that seems awfully high

There are 49 less D1 baseball teams than basketball. Baseball has a 64 team national title tournament  so basketball is actually lower than baseball. 19.6% to 21.5%. FBS football is the toughest of any sport at any level at 3.1%.

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,287]

2 hours ago, ellitor said:

There are 49 less D1 baseball teams than basketball. Baseball has a 64 team national title tournament  so basketball is actually lower than baseball. 19.6% to 21.5%. FBS football is the toughest of any sport at any level at 3.1%.

Anything you DON'T know?  

[lionheartkc 6,150]

2 hours ago, ellitor said:

There are 49 less D1 baseball teams than basketball. Baseball has a 64 team national title tournament  so basketball is actually lower than baseball. 19.6% to 21.5%. FBS football is the toughest of any sport at any level at 3.1%.

At the same time, if you can't bowl games for FBS, a whopping 64% get in.... which is REALLY sad.

[ellitor 33,062]

7 hours ago, lionheartkc said:

At the same time, if you can't bowl games for FBS, a whopping 64% get in.... which is REALLY sad.

Bowl games don't count for a playoff which is how I interpretted the discussion. If you count smaller post season tourneys then about 160 basketball teams have post season play.

[ellitor 33,062]

7 hours ago, WDE_OxPx_2010 said:

Anything you DON'T know?  

All it took was googling number of D1 teams for each sport & a calculator. I will toot my horn a bit though. I am really good with numbers & guessed the 20% for basketball just looking at the numbers before using the calculator to see I was only 0.4% off.

[AU64 10,122]

There are never too many games...heading back to the days of open tournaments where you start with everyone and the analytics is used for seeding purposes....would only add 2 games at most to the process in basketball.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

9 hours ago, ellitor said:

Bowl games don't count for a playoff which is how I interpretted the discussion. If you count smaller post season tourneys then about 160 basketball teams have post season play.

touche