https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ew-ranking
The new system willy rely on game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses.
How does everyone feel about this? A little concerned about the SOS and the "quality" of wins and losses categories. The AAC will be at a disadvantage in those categories right out of the gate. The defensive efficiency category will obviously more often than not favor UC.
(08-22-2018 10:06 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ew-ranking
The new system willy rely on game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses.
How does everyone feel about this? A little concerned about the SOS and the "quality" of wins and losses categories. The AAC will be at a disadvantage in those categories right out of the gate. The defensive efficiency category will obviously more often than not favor UC.
I have no doubt it will be a significantly better grouping mechanism than rpi. Interested to see how it compares to other metrics used to measure results like bpi strength of record. Ditching rpi is a great thing.
Yes time will tell how they implement it, but no RPI = good.
I thought the NCAA was using the Quadrant system on the Team Sheets anyway and RPI was already "devalued" last season? I don't think this is a big deal for UC or any team for that matter.
But what will we have to complain about after we beat East Carolina?
(08-22-2018 10:06 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ew-ranking
The new system willy rely on game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses.
How does everyone feel about this? A little concerned about the SOS and the "quality" of wins and losses categories. The AAC will be at a disadvantage in those categories right out of the gate. The defensive efficiency category will obviously more often than not favor UC.
When the RPI was first added as a factor, it was to try to improve the selection process. Like all rating systems, it is imperfect. Replacing it with something "better" makes sense.
I do have some fond RPI memories. Back in its early days, before most people knew of it, I used RPI to help with my brackets - especially those games where I knew nothing about the teams. I was able to pick a number of "upsets" and took home some bracket win pocket change. Now I am just one of the chumps again who's bracket blows up with regularity.
(08-22-2018 11:26 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote: [ -> ]I thought the NCAA was using the Quadrant system on the Team Sheets anyway and RPI was already "devalued" last season? I don't think this is a big deal for UC or any team for that matter.
RPI wasn't really devalued. It was still the grouping measure. The quadrants really just gave weighted for home/road/neutral so instead of RPI top 50, top 100...etc it would be top 30 home, top 50 neutral, top 75 road. Not using the RPI to group is a step in the right direction. I'd still prefer predictive metrics used for grouping. Committee is still going to weight your wins by looking at how you did against each group, but predictive metrics are better for telling how good those teams are than these accomplishment metrics.