NCAA announces changes to 'simplify' formula for college basketball's NET ratings: Changes are coming to a key college basketball metric after two seasons

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...t-ratings/


Winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin will no longer be components in the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) used to judge Division I basketball teams, the NCAA announced Monday. The changes will "increase accuracy and simplify" the NET system, according to the NCAA announcement.

The NET will now use just two factors in its evaluation: team value index (TVI) and adjusted net efficiency rating. Team value index is "a result-based feature that rewards teams for beating quality opponents, particularly away from home," while adjusted net efficiency rating accounts for "strength of opponent and location across all games played."

NET rankings and the location of games (home/road/neutral) determine the "quadrant" in which a team's games fall. Quadrant 1 games are considered the top tier of the sport and Quadrant 4 games are considered the least prestigious. A team's performance within the four quadrants are a key point of reference for the NCAA Tournament selection committee.

NCAA Senior Vice President of Basketball Dan Gavitt said the NCAA has been "very satisfied" with the performance of the NET since its implementation in 2018 but added that it "became evident" after two seasons with the NET that the changes announced Monday "would be an improvement."

============================================

Question: How will the quadrants and team value index be computed?

Comment: While the final NET formula would be simplified to two main factors, there is also the potential to make the underlying evaluative procedures (used to determine quadrants and SOS) somewhat less transparent than they are now.

Bad news for our conference, and great news for the ones up top. The conferences will feed off each other instead of eating each other. That’s the way of the world though - Money talks bullsh*t walks

(05-11-2020 08:44 PM)IamYourDad Wrote:  Bad news for our conference, and great news for the ones up top. The conferences will feed off each other instead of eating each other. That’s the way of the world though - Money talks bullsh*t walks

This is a surprising development, considering that the NET has only been around for a couple of seasons.

It would be very interesting to know precisely what it is that the NCAA objected to about the existing NET formula.

Generally, the P5 and Big East were getting >80% of the at-large bids, as it was. Might they trying to boost that % to over 90%?

Is it possible that the NCAA might be trying to let more non-P5/BE teams into the tournament?

(05-11-2020 08:55 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 08:44 PM)IamYourDad Wrote:  Bad news for our conference, and great news for the ones up top. The conferences will feed off each other instead of eating each other. That’s the way of the world though - Money talks bullsh*t walks

This is a surprising development, considering that the NET has only been around for a couple of seasons.

It would be very interesting to know precisely what it is that the NCAA objected to about the existing NET formula.

Generally, the P5 and Big East were getting >80% of the at-large bids, as it was. Might they trying to boost that % to over 90%?

Is it possible that the NCAA might be trying to let more non-P5/BE teams into the tournament?

I think the agenda is to give those conferences better bids to lower the chance of being knocked out of the first round, and punish conferences who aren't the likes of the SEC, etc. Even a conference like us with a team like Memphis, they will likely be penalized for having to play our lower conference foes significantly, leading to a lower bid than deserved. We'll have to wait and see in real time but it doesn't sound good

Pesik made the comment it appears they are trying to punish teams who stack up on wins against easy teams, and I agree with him. I don't think this is a bad thing for the conference as a whole, especially not the top half. If it is true they want to punish teams with weak schedules, Cincy would have definitely benefitted from this new formula this past season with their tough SoS. I think teams like Memphis and WSU, who played well OOC against solid schedules would have benefitted as well. Perhaps even Tulsa, who had many quality wins in conference, would have benefitted. Hell, UConn would have benefitted lol.

Edit: This may unfortunately make it more difficult for quality teams from lesser conferences to get into the tournament. But I think it will improve the quality of the tournament field as a whole

(05-11-2020 09:00 PM)IamYourDad Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 08:55 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 08:44 PM)IamYourDad Wrote:  Bad news for our conference, and great news for the ones up top. The conferences will feed off each other instead of eating each other. That’s the way of the world though - Money talks bullsh*t walks

This is a surprising development, considering that the NET has only been around for a couple of seasons.

It would be very interesting to know precisely what it is that the NCAA objected to about the existing NET formula.

Generally, the P5 and Big East were getting >80% of the at-large bids, as it was. Might they trying to boost that % to over 90%?

Is it possible that the NCAA might be trying to let more non-P5/BE teams into the tournament?

I think the agenda is to give those conferences better bids to lower the chance of being knocked out of the first round, and punish conferences who aren't the likes of the SEC, etc. Even a conference like us with a team like Memphis, they will likely be penalized for having to play our lower conference foes significantly, leading to a lower bid than deserved. We'll have to wait and see in real time but it doesn't sound good

Reflecting on the changes, it does seem that the changes are intended to benefit the P5 and Big East disproportionately, insofar as the way to rise in the NET rankings will be to beat the upper quadrant teams, especially on the road. The only way to get a lot of those kinds of wins will be to play in conferences that have a high proportion of upper quadrant teams.

However, stacking the deck even further in favor of the P5 and Big East conferences might encounter resistance and might backfire, if it results in making it even harder than it already was for non P5/BE teams to make the NCAA tournament.

One positive about the revision might be de-emphasizing scoring margin, however. De-emphasizing winning % will probably cause more programs to schedule tougher OOC opponents and penalize programs that don't do so.

It would be helpful to know what the effects of the changes would result in using existing data from past seasons, but running the numbers with the newer formula. This should be possible to do.

From what I got out of it (and I could be wrong), is that the scoring will matter more. Meaning, I believe Tulsa will get a bonus for beating Memphis by 40 points, then just getting credit for a win. Does it effect teams like Murray State and Belmont? I don't think so. I believe it can actually benefit those schools. I don't think this is bad news for the AAC, but it seems like the NCAA is telling them, you got play better, and the way you're playing games matter. Can't be a tournament team and beat Southeastern Louisiana by 5 in November. I think that will matter now. You could see more blowouts as well. But I don't think it's a big deal at all.

The TVI implies only wins will be counted there. The efficiency ratings talk about all games.

The NET as it was structured was a complete joke. Designed to help drag bottom feeders from power conferences up to the top 100 or 125 to gift more tier 2 games to the top 3/4 of the conference.

Seems like this could potentially make the addition of another solid basketball program, like VCU for instance, more attractive.

(05-11-2020 10:48 PM)GoDownSwinging Wrote:  From what I got out of it (and I could be wrong), is that the scoring will matter more. Meaning, I believe Tulsa will get a bonus for beating Memphis by 40 points, then just getting credit for a win. Does it effect teams like Murray State and Belmont? I don't think so. I believe it can actually benefit those schools. I don't think this is bad news for the AAC, but it seems like the NCAA is telling them, you got play better, and the way you're playing games matter. Can't be a tournament team and beat Southeastern Louisiana by 5 in November. I think that will matter now. You could see more blowouts as well. But I don't think it's a big deal at all.

You misread it.. scoring margin is removed and overall record will be removed

Tulsa got credit for destroying memphis last season, won't get credit next season directly... They will still get credit indirectly through defense and offense stats which are still incorporated.. but point differential is now meaningless
And inflated records with weak schedules will now not be rewarded

Point differential directly affects efficiency margin, nothing indirect about it. If anything, point differential will matter more next season because there's no longer an input variable arbitrarily capping it at 10.

(05-12-2020 12:47 PM)DeMarioHooper Wrote:  Point differential directly affects efficiency margin, nothing indirect about it. If anything, point differential will matter more next season because there's no longer an input variable arbitrarily capping it at 10.

but those stats are season wide not game..tulsa blew out memphis but then got blown out a few times....in the overall picture with the new net, that memphis game is lost in the fray..
in the old sytem, margin of victory was tied to games..

(05-12-2020 01:03 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-12-2020 12:47 PM)DeMarioHooper Wrote:  Point differential directly affects efficiency margin, nothing indirect about it. If anything, point differential will matter more next season because there's no longer an input variable arbitrarily capping it at 10.

but those stats are season wide not game..tulsa blew out memphis but then got blown out a few times....in the overall picture with the new net, that memphis game is lost in the fray..
in the old sytem, margin of victory was tied to games..

Even so, scheduling weak and blowing everyone out, then losing close in tough conference games will lead to a big reward.

As I said in another thread though none of that really matters. After a lot of consideration the committee decided it liked the blackbox approach that prevents people from questioning their decisions. Especially since no matter how they rigged it some small school would slide in and then steal that sweet P5 tourney credit and its 7-800k. Some of those little ******* would even have the gall to upset so those 9-11 ACC/Big Ten teams. As if they were good and anybody would care or want to watch them play. They even started putting them together in brackets to limit that, but the little bastards are still getting in

Now they have this arbitrary how would an average NCAA caliber team do in that game.

What's an average caliber NCAA team? How do you decide something based on a hypothetical on paper match up? How is that accurate when people use stat analysis before games and we have upsets? How much is Wichita's home court worth versus Duke, USC, Dayton? What if a team plays much better at home and has way more home games?

We can dump all this nonsense, go back to a transparent formula and use actual wins and losses to decide who is a top 100 team and who isn't (hint it isn't some 14-14 big ten team) but then the committee has to answer tough questions and can't do what they want and blame "the formula".

The effect of the changes will be lowering the profile of strong teams in lesser conferences.

The Net Efficiency component still encourages blowouts and the Team Value Index (TVI) algorithm and weight given to TVI and Net Efficiency - in typical NCAA opaqueness - remains unknown.

(05-12-2020 12:47 PM)DeMarioHooper Wrote:  Point differential directly affects efficiency margin, nothing indirect about it. If anything, point differential will matter more next season because there's no longer an input variable arbitrarily capping it at 10.

Can you clarify this point?

Are you stating that the efficiency margin will be the key component to the new NET formula, and that the efficiency margin will be more strongly affected by the point differential (i.e., scoring margin) than it was last season (since the formula is being simplified and won't retain the variable that capped scoring margins at 10 points)?

If so, that would amount to an outrageous manipulation of the formula in favor of the P5/nBE, wouldn't it?

(05-12-2020 02:09 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The effect of the changes will be lowering the profile of strong teams in lesser conferences.

The Net Efficiency component still encourages blowouts and the Team Value Index (TVI) algorithm and weight given to TVI and Net Efficiency - in typical NCAA opaqueness - remains unknown.

I hope this isn't the case, but if it is, it would seem to be designed in particular to reduce the number of AAC, A-10, and WCC teams that can make the NCAA Tournament.

If this is what the new NET formula results in, it will probably cause a great deal of controversy, and might put some pressure on the selection committee.