|
|
Post by mrose on Aug 22, 2018 11:41:43 GMT -5
Scoring margin is now one of the metrics used...So, we better beat those non D I programs by 50+ points.....and run-up the score on YSU, UDM, and Milwaukee. Coach, don't call off the dogs until the final buzzer sounds. www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-08-22/division-i-mens-basketball-committee-adopts-new-rankingEdit: This is now basically the "eye test" Bilas and other ESPN talking heads have been begging for. The scoring margin is capped at 10 points to "avoid unsportsmanship conduct" of running up the score. So, if I'm a coach winning by 7 points with 3 seconds remaining in the game and get to inbound the ball under the basket I'm going to have my best 3-point shooters in the game to get to that maximum spread. And in the NCAA's eyes that's still good sportsmanship by their definition. |
|
|
|
Post by keithfromxenia on Aug 22, 2018 22:43:38 GMT -5
m, I have not read much about this new metric but does it actually consider results against non div i competition?? those games were not a factor in rpi, sagarin etc. so I hope they do not factor in to this new measurement.
|
|
|
|
Post by BasketBallJones on Aug 23, 2018 9:28:37 GMT -5
This is just the next iteration of metrics the NCAA will now use to make it nearly impossible for Mid-Major conferences from getting at large bids. Conference USA just announced at the end of this last season that they were implementing a new scheduling model to help raise the RPI's of their top teams in hopes that they could place several more teams into the 68 team field.( link below). Well, it certainly didn't take long for the P5/6 conferences to change the rules and dump ice cold water on to this idea. They should just come clean and admit that any conference not in the P5/NBE will only get 1 team in. Period. At least then we know they are telling the truth. conferenceusa.com/news/2018/5/29/general-mbb-c-usa-rolls-out-innovative-schedule.aspx |
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Aug 23, 2018 10:00:45 GMT -5
Keith, from a quantitative metric non D I games are not included in the rankings. However, they are included in the team sheet. Just like they were last year when the NCAA adopted the quadrant system. What they're trying to do with the new metrics is determine the quality of opponents a team played and where they played. In theory it should narrow down one's quality of opponents. In other words, did you play and beat worthy teams?
The NCAA will use 5 components in their new metrics, but the committee hasn't revealed the weighting of these components:
1) Team value index. This is the most dominant feature, according to the NCAA, and it's based on win-loss results (with strength of schedule also being an important component). Opponent faced will be an emphasis here.
2) Team efficiency. A team's average efficiency (points scored and allowed per 100 possessions) on offense and defense will be taken into account, which introduces predictive elements into the process.
3) Wins. A team's overall D-I winning percentage will play a not-insignificant part.
4) Adjusted winning percentage. This portion will reward teams for winning on the road, dock for losing at home, and balance out neutral-court performance. Opponents faced will not be factored here the way it is in the team value index.
5) Scoring margin. For the first time, teams will be officially evaluated based on how much they win a game by. The scoring margin is capped at 10 points.
As I wrote earlier, I believe this just opens the door for the subjective eye test Bilas and other P-5 proponents have been clamoring for. BBJones, brings up a strong and valid point. Now that the metrics are predictive in nature the Selection committee can easily put a 17-14 (8-10) Syracuse (RPI 62) in the tourney as a #8 seed and leave out a 24-6 (15-3) Middle Tennessee State (RPI 28) due to the 'Cuse having more quality wins in the ACC than MTSU's Quad 3 & 4 wins in C-USA.
|
|
