http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...new-metric
So the NCAA wants to come up with a new metric to select the at-large NCAA Tournament teams and for top seeding ... fine.
Let's hope it starts with a more just formula than one that equates to .500 in major conference league play gets you into the NCAA field.
If the NEW metric equals close to the same thing ... why bother.
Must find a metric that somehow protects regular-season conference champs in Top 15 leagues. That's a start.
Whatever screws over the mid-major teams the most. That's what we'll get.
I've long been in favor of using a transparent formula to determine college football and basketball rankings, like college hockey with the Pairwise. But that assumes they aren't egregiously tilted in favor of the major conferences, which probably won't happen in all likelihood.
Quote:"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.
Power conferences are getting in 50-60% of their teams into the NCAA because of quality wins. If this metric is eliminated it changes the selection in favor of the mid majors.
Results based....list all of the NCAA teams ranked by W's. If they exceed their predictive which is the Sagarin rating they are an over performer and belong in the tournament. If they under perform they don't.
(01-14-2017 03:25 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:"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.
Power conferences are getting in 50-60% of their teams into the NCAA because of quality wins. If this metric is eliminated it changes the selection in favor of the mid majors.
Results based....list all of the NCAA teams ranked by W's. If they exceed their predictive which is the Sagarin rating they are an over performer and belong in the tournament. If they under perform they don't.
Sagarins will keep every midmajor out by pure rank number because of SOS. Whether it's right or wrong... No MAC teams have even a decent SOS.
Pairwise rankings in hockey totally eliminate the powers of the committee. It is a standard which is clearly laid out and 100% selects the at large teams. That is what is needed for baketball, football too.
The last tournaments seeding have been anti-mid major. The squeeze has begun.