Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
NCAA selection process
Author Message
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,256
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 244
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #31
RE: NCAA selection process
(07-15-2017 08:45 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  
(07-14-2017 01:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Just saw this....
There still will be four separate columns, with the first column consisting of home games against teams ranked 1-30, neutral-site games against teams ranked in the top 50 and road games against opponents ranked in the top 75. The second column will include home games against teams ranked 31-75, neutral-site games versus teams ranked 51-100 and road games against teams ranked 76-135.

The third column will consist of home games played against competition ranked 76-160, games played on a neutral court versus teams ranked 101-200 and games on the road against teams ranked 136-240. The fourth column will include home games against teams ranked 161-351, neutral-site games played against teams ranked 201-351 and road games versus opponents ranked 241-351.


So for instance- last year a team like #1 Villanova(by RPI going into tourney)

old way-
12-2 vs top 50
5-1 vs 51-100
9-0 vs 101-200
5-0 vs 201-351

new way-
11-2 vs tier 1(2-1 home top 30, 4-0 neutral top 50, 5-2 vs away top 75)
7-1 vs tier 2(5-1 vs h 31-75, 1-0 vs N 51-100, 1-0 a 76-135)
9-0 vs tier 3(3-0 vs h 76-160, 1-0 vs N 101-200, 5-0 vs a 136-240)
4-0 vs tier 4(4-0 vs h 161+)

Seems pretty reasonable.

Stever curious as to your analysis of the mid tier Big East teams. My perception is they got a lot of quality wins against top 50 teams at home. How does it affect a Illinois State versus a Marquette?

looking more at Providence- as they were the last Big East team in...

tier 1- old 6-8 new 3-8
tier 2- old 2-1 new 6-1
tier 3- old 6-1 new 4-3
tier 4- old 6-2 new 7-0

records thru-
tier 2- old 8-9 new 9-9
tier 3- old 14-10 new 13-12

I think it's going to really impact OOC games big time.
07-15-2017 12:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,256
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 244
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #32
RE: NCAA selection process
(07-15-2017 09:39 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(07-15-2017 02:24 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Emphasizing and rewarding quality wins is good, and obviously an improvement over nonsense arguments like "Any win is a good win and any team with 25 wins is deserving no matter who they beat."

But the elephant in the room here is that the selection committee will continue to use the bogus RPI as a metric for this upcoming season and won't stop looking at RPI until the 2018-19 season at the earliest. See the last paragraph of this article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/col...story.html

It would be far better if the committee junked RPI altogether. This tweak isn't a bad thing but it's not nearly enough. It just amounts to putting lipstick on the RPI pig.

And the issue remains: Top 50 according to whom? Or Top Anything, for that matter.

To me, a better approach is to evaluate conferences' performance in recent NCAAT's, and award a specified # of bids to each conference based on that. Then, let the conferences pick their representatives, after which a seeding committee will decide where they go. I think you could bet that conferences would make their picks based on their conference standings, and not on some metric like RPI.

conferences can change yearly.

Your has ZERO chance of ever happening. It's not going to get allocated like World Cup Soccer bids.
07-15-2017 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,311
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 240
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #33
RE: NCAA selection process
(07-15-2017 12:37 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(07-15-2017 09:39 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(07-15-2017 02:24 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Emphasizing and rewarding quality wins is good, and obviously an improvement over nonsense arguments like "Any win is a good win and any team with 25 wins is deserving no matter who they beat."

But the elephant in the room here is that the selection committee will continue to use the bogus RPI as a metric for this upcoming season and won't stop looking at RPI until the 2018-19 season at the earliest. See the last paragraph of this article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/col...story.html

It would be far better if the committee junked RPI altogether. This tweak isn't a bad thing but it's not nearly enough. It just amounts to putting lipstick on the RPI pig.

And the issue remains: Top 50 according to whom? Or Top Anything, for that matter.

To me, a better approach is to evaluate conferences' performance in recent NCAAT's, and award a specified # of bids to each conference based on that. Then, let the conferences pick their representatives, after which a seeding committee will decide where they go. I think you could bet that conferences would make their picks based on their conference standings, and not on some metric like RPI.

conferences can change yearly.

Your has ZERO chance of ever happening. It's not going to get allocated like World Cup Soccer bids.

I didn't say it had any chance of happening. Another thing that has no chance of happening is for the selection process to get better.
07-15-2017 12:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,256
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 244
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #34
RE: NCAA selection process
looking at it- I think the AAC gets really helped by this...

Houston-
tier 1- old 2-5 new 1-6
tier 2- old 1-1 new 5-1
tier 3- old 9-4 new 6-3
tier 4- old 9-0 new 9-0
tier 1-2 old 3-6 new 6-7
tier 1-3 old 12-10 new 12-10

part of it is that they had like last year- Houston and UCF at 54 and 69 respectively(so now away games vs them tier 1 games), and more importantly UConn, Memphis, Tulsa, and Temple at 119,121,132,135 respectively(so now away games vs them tier 2 games). And hell, even ECU at 214 is now a tier 3 game away.

So I think the tweener conferences get helped- AAC, maybe A10 some, maybe MWC. But the true mid-majors, I don't think this helps at all....
07-15-2017 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,256
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 244
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #35
RE: NCAA selection process
looking as well- I think based on the
30/50/75 for tier 1
and
75/100/135 for tier 2-
the 2 really huge marks will be 30 and 75. Especially 75....
#75 team counts as a tier 1 game away and a tier 2 game at home.
#76 team counts as a tier 2 game away and a tier 3 game at home.

For those teams in that 51-75 range- they become so much more valuable.
07-15-2017 03:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CougarRed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,219
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 259
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #36
RE: NCAA selection process
(07-15-2017 03:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  looking as well- I think based on the
30/50/75 for tier 1
and
75/100/135 for tier 2-
the 2 really huge marks will be 30 and 75. Especially 75....
#75 team counts as a tier 1 game away and a tier 2 game at home.
#76 team counts as a tier 2 game away and a tier 3 game at home.

For those teams in that 51-75 range- they become so much more valuable.

Which is why I said:

Clearly, the new rules mean Top 30, Top 75 and Top 135 become huge lines of demarcation. Sucks to play teams ranked 31, 76 or 136. A conference needs as many teams in those groupings as possible to maximize their quality wins/games.
(This post was last modified: 07-15-2017 04:05 PM by CougarRed.)
07-15-2017 04:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,256
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 244
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #37
RE: NCAA selection process
(07-15-2017 04:04 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  
(07-15-2017 03:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  looking as well- I think based on the
30/50/75 for tier 1
and
75/100/135 for tier 2-
the 2 really huge marks will be 30 and 75. Especially 75....
#75 team counts as a tier 1 game away and a tier 2 game at home.
#76 team counts as a tier 2 game away and a tier 3 game at home.

For those teams in that 51-75 range- they become so much more valuable.

Which is why I said:

Clearly, the new rules mean Top 30, Top 75 and Top 135 become huge lines of demarcation. Sucks to play teams ranked 31, 76 or 136. A conference needs as many teams in those groupings as possible to maximize their quality wins/games.

I think 75 is the really big one. Because I think getting more tier 1 games is gigantic.
07-15-2017 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 11,972
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 339
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #38
RE: NCAA selection process
(07-15-2017 09:39 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(07-15-2017 02:24 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Emphasizing and rewarding quality wins is good, and obviously an improvement over nonsense arguments like "Any win is a good win and any team with 25 wins is deserving no matter who they beat."

But the elephant in the room here is that the selection committee will continue to use the bogus RPI as a metric for this upcoming season and won't stop looking at RPI until the 2018-19 season at the earliest. See the last paragraph of this article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/col...story.html

It would be far better if the committee junked RPI altogether. This tweak isn't a bad thing but it's not nearly enough. It just amounts to putting lipstick on the RPI pig.

And the issue remains: Top 50 according to whom? Or Top Anything, for that matter.

To me, a better approach is to evaluate conferences' performance in recent NCAAT's, and award a specified # of bids to each conference based on that. Then, let the conferences pick their representatives, after which a seeding committee will decide where they go. I think you could bet that conferences would make their picks based on their conference standings, and not on some metric like RPI.

Quotas are a terrible idea. Conferences shouldn't mean a dam thing to the committee. Each individual team should be evaluated on who they beat, first and foremost, and secondarily on overall difficulty of schedule taking home-road-neutral aspect of games into account. That's it.
07-15-2017 08:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,256
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 244
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #39
RE: NCAA selection process
I think a real thing that's going to happen- this is huge for the not really mid-major conferences- but more so the tweener conferences....

look at SMU for instance-
tier 1- old 2-3 new 4-4
tier 2- old 8-1 new 9-0
tier 3- old 11-0 new 7-0
tier 4- old 9-0 new 10-0
tier 1/2- old 10-4 new 13-4

So getting 2 more quality wins and a 3rd quality win in tier 2.
07-16-2017 06:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.