NCAA Selection Committee Criteria Changing Next Season

[Drew]

NCAA committee to highlight quality road wins

The men's basketball selection committee will put a greater emphasis on quality road wins beginning next season, the NCAA announced on Friday.

Next year, teams aiming for the NCAA tournament will be evaluated according to quality home wins (top 30 in the RPI), neutral site wins (top 50) and road wins (top 75). The tiers expand from there with the same criteria.

A team that beats an opponent rated 50th on the road will get more credit for that victory than it would for a home win over a squad ranked 40th in the eyes of the committee. The change will also ensure teams will not suffer the same penalties for road losses as they do for home wins in the selection process.

"We consulted with experts within the coaching and analytics fields who looked at historical data, based on winning percentages by game location, to come up with these dividing lines within each of the columns," Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis, the current chair of the committee, said in the release. "The emphasis of performing well on the road is important, as was the need for teams not to be penalized as much for road losses. Beating elite competition, regardless of the game location, will still be rewarded, but the committee wanted the team sheets to reflect that a road game against a team ranked 60th is mathematically more difficult and of higher quality than a home game versus a team ranked 35th. We feel this change accomplishes that."

Translation: It's harder to win on the road and it's time to accurately acknowledge that within the evaluation process.

The move also signals an ongoing move away from the RPI, largely a raw strength-of-schedule metric that values quality wins and minimizes the impact of location, as a significant factor in the committee's decisions. Per the NCAA release, the committee expects to employ a new composite metric by the 2018-19 season after meeting with various experts in recent months.

 

[awfuldan]

You can't argue with our away and neutral court OOC schedule for next year. Just gotta win.

Any move that gets the selection committee further from the RPI is good by me.

 

[jrazz12]

Syracuse may never make another tournament

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Top 25 and Top 50 wins is a ridiculous metric.

From the article "a road game against a team ranked 60th is mathematically more difficult and of higher quality than a home game versus a team ranked 35th."

Yet a win Team 25 and Team 26, which is mathematically negligible, is viewed as two completely different measures.

Say what you want about the BCS (yes I know the AP / Coaches were each 1/3 of the equation), but it at least was a somewhat objective measure of who got into the championship game.

College basketball and college football should just adopt computer models, but then we'd miss out on 12 months of bracketology and playoff standing "reveal" specials.

It's a testament to how fantastic college athletics can be that people still enjoy it, even when the NCAA and the schools do everything in their power to turn people off to it.

 

[cohenzone]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and I'm not arguing good or bad, but doesn't that rule heavily favor teams in "power" conferences and force teams in the other conferences to have difficult OOC games, especially on the road? Top 50 gets to Beverly subjective.

The only way to have a non subjective system would be to treat all D-1 programs as D-1, make the qualification be a winning % of say 60% in D-1 games, which is like CTs high school method, get rid of the totally subjective bubble, which this rule doesn't do, and add the one extra round that it would take to accommodste. Could still let conference tourney champs to qualify so a .500 or less team, a rarity, can get in and do a playing game. The bottom line is a totally "fair" system is hard to do and the power conference teams have an edge.

I'm not so sure Syracuse would necessarily be hurt with 3 or 4 "cupcakes" provided they win them all, have a few diffucult OOC teams and finish a little over .500 in league.

 

[kyleslamb]

Top 25 and Top 50 wins is a ridiculous metric.

From the article "a road game against a team ranked 60th is mathematically more difficult and of higher quality than a home game versus a team ranked 35th."

Yet a win Team 25 and Team 26, which is mathematically negligible, is viewed as two completely different measures.

Say what you want about the BCS (yes I know the AP / Coaches were each 1/3 of the equation), but it at least was a somewhat objective measure of who got into the championship game.

College basketball and college football should just adopt computer models, but then we'd miss out on 12 months of bracketology and playoff standing "reveal" specials.

It's a testament to how fantastic college athletics can be that people still enjoy it, even when the NCAA and the schools do everything in their power to turn people off to it.

It's an arbitrary cutoff, sure, but it doesn't mean the committee can't or won't take that into consideration. It's not like they're going to say "oh this win on the road against No. 75 is in Tier A and this win at home of another team against No. 26 is in Tier B so we have to give the edge to the first team." It's going to be looked at as a body of work rather than specific games. The more games you have in the first tier the better. One arbitrary difference in two similar games isn't going to make or break the system. That's not what they're trying to accomplish.

Also, to be clear, they've ALWAYS had these categories on team sheets for as long as the process has gone on. In the past, the first tier always had 1-50 and then 51 was in the second tier. That's not any different than what they're doing now. Only difference is they're adjusting home and road differences to account for difficulty. If your issue with this is that they have tiers... well they've always had tiers. They just improved the tiers as of today.

 

[UCDaveD]

I'm sure this will some how screw us in the end.

 

[Guapo]

Win a lot of games and make the tournament; it's not rocket science

 

[ConnHuskBask]

It's an arbitrary cutoff, sure, but it doesn't mean the committee can't or won't take that into consideration. It's not like they're going to say "oh this win on the road against No. 75 is in Tier A and this win at home of another team against No. 26 is in Tier B so we have to give the edge to the first team." It's going to be looked at as a body of work rather than specific games. The more games you have in the first tier the better. One arbitrary difference in two similar games isn't going to make or break the system. That's not what they're trying to accomplish.

Also, to be clear, they've ALWAYS had these categories on team sheets for as long as the process has gone on. In the past, the first tier always had 1-50 and then 51 was in the second tier. That's not any different than what they're doing now. Only difference is they're adjusting home and road differences to account for difficulty. If your issue with this is that they have tiers... well they've always had tiers. They just improved the tiers as of today.

The Committee has never released the specific weight that they place on certain metrics, so they have a ton of wiggle room to do whatever they want and don't have to be held accountable any specific point.

My opinion? Just take the Ken Pom ratings 1-34 (or whatever the at large field is these days) and put those teams in the tournament.

It's not rocket science.

 

[auror]

The Committee has never released the specific weight that they place on certain metrics, so they have a ton of wiggle room to do whatever they want and don't have to be held accountable any specific point.

My opinion? Just take the Ken Pom ratings 1-34 (or whatever the at large field is these days) and put those teams in the tournament.

It's not rocket science.

As the article mentions, they will be debuting their own advanced metric for '18-'19. They met with Pomeroy and a bunch of people earlier to get feedback on replacing the RPI. The main holdup right now is the debate over whether to use something predictive (like KenPom) or resume-based (like BPI Strength of Record), which is essentially a continuation of the age-old "do you want the best teams or teams that most earned it" debate.

 

[kyleslamb]

The Committee has never released the specific weight that they place on certain metrics, so they have a ton of wiggle room to do whatever they want and don't have to be held accountable any specific point.

My opinion? Just take the Ken Pom ratings 1-34 (or whatever the at large field is these days) and put those teams in the tournament.

It's not rocket science.

They've never released the specific weight because there's never been a specific weight. Its always been up to each committee and each member to decide how they want to consider the criteria.

I like what they're doing here. Theure moving to a more analytical approach and are going to use more accurate rating systems while still measuring wins and losses and taking into account circumstances like injuries and recent performance. While a hard and fast composite algorithm just flat choosing and ranking teams would provide a great field, there's a danger in letting only the computer do all the work.

 

[EBonz30]

The Committee has never released the specific weight that they place on certain metrics, so they have a ton of wiggle room to do whatever they want and don't have to be held accountable any specific point.

My opinion? Just take the Ken Pom ratings 1-34 (or whatever the at large field is these days) and put those teams in the tournament.

It's not rocket science.

I wouldn't be fully comfortable in going and depending KENPOM 100%, think more like a quarter or a third should be KENPOM.

Too often do I see teams on top of KENPOM who are not as good as it shows.

But I do agree that KENPOM is the most accurate analysis out of all the public rating systems.

 

[kyleslamb]

Technically, in most tests of accuracy retrodictively, Joel Sokol's LRMC ratings fare the best. Pomeroy's ratings do well no doubt, but they arent necessarily the most accurate.

I wouldn't want to depend on any single rating system though. I would want at minimum a composite of several points based systems. I like having merit based systems involved too though. I think it's important to reward and punish wins and losses as well.

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and I'm not arguing good or bad, but doesn't that rule heavily favor teams in "power" conferences and force teams in the other conferences to have difficult OOC games, especially on the road? Top 50 gets to Beverly subjective.

The only way to have a non subjective system would be to treat all D-1 programs as D-1, make the qualification be a winning % of say 60% in D-1 games, which is like CTs high school method, get rid of the totally subjective bubble, which this rule doesn't do, and add the one extra round that it would take to accommodste. Could still let conference tourney champs to qualify so a .500 or less team, a rarity, can get in and do a playing game. The bottom line is a totally "fair" system is hard to do and the power conference teams have an edge.

I'm not so sure Syracuse would necessarily be hurt with 3 or 4 "cupcakes" provided they win them all, have a few diffucult OOC teams and finish a little over .500 in league.

Yes

 

[champs99and04]

None of this addresses the real problem that @ConnHuskBask and @cohenzone touch on. The mere fact that we have these arbitrary cut-offs is ridiculous and only enables the committee to do whatever the hell they want in the end. Until they come up with an algorithm that actually weighs each game equally and spits out a coherent rating for every team, we're all guessing as to what the committee is going to do.

 

[kyleslamb]

None of this addresses the real problem that @ConnHuskBask and @cohenzone touch on. The mere fact that we have these arbitrary cut-offs is ridiculous and only enables the committee to do whatever the hell they want in the end. Until they come up with an algorithm that actually weighs each game equally and spits out a coherent rating for every team, we're all guessing as to what the committee is going to do.

I'm a huge numbers guy. I love algorithms. I love power ratings. I swear by them and I've been begging to have them incorporated into the process for years. However, I do not want a process or algorithm where every game is treated as being exactly the same because they're not.

A game in November shouldn't be given the same weight as a game played in March. A game at full strength should matter more than one played without a key player. A home win against a sub 200 team should not be given quite the same weight as one on the road against a top 50 team.

Not all games are created equal. As much as I love the ability to quantify teams through metrics, we shouldn't take away the ability to recognize there are situations where perhaps we need to account for the exceptions.

I would be fine with a composite rating system. I might be fine with a system that simply picks and seeds the teams based on results. I wouldnt be on board with any scenarios that treats all games the same.

 

[champs99and04]

I'm a huge numbers guy. I love algorithms. I love power ratings. I swear by them and I've been begging to have them incorporated into the process for years. However, I do not want a process or algorithm where every game is treated as being exactly the same because they're not.

A game in November shouldn't be given the same weight as a game played in March. A game at full strength should matter more than one played without a key player. A home win against a sub 200 team should not be given quite the same weight as one on the road against a top 50 team.

Not all games are created equal. As much as I love the ability to quantify teams through metrics, we shouldn't take away the ability to recognize there are situations where perhaps we need to account for the exceptions.

I would be fine with a composite rating system. I might be fine with a system that simply picks and seeds the teams based on results. I wouldnt be on board with any scenarios that treats all games the same.

I think we agree. One of the flaws with KenPom is that they assign garbage time against Arkansas State the same weight that they do a conference road game. That's how you end up with Gonzaga having the best power rating of any team in the last decade or whatever when everybody knows UNC is just as good. In reality, Vegas is probably the most accurate metric out there.

What I'm saying is that we can't draw a distinction between two teams with an identical record and identical strength of schedule on the basis of one having more top 50 wins than the other, because that is counter-intuitive to the whole concept of averages in the first place. In past years, we've seen smaller schools with better RPI's, better SOS, and better records left out in favor of power programs with more marquee wins. I have a problem with that.

 

[kyleslamb]

I think we agree. One of the flaws with KenPom is that they assign garbage time against Arkansas State the same weight that they do a conference road game. That's how you end up with Gonzaga having the best power rating of any team in the last decade or whatever when everybody knows UNC is just as good. In reality, Vegas is probably the most accurate metric out there.

What I'm saying is that we can't draw a distinction between two teams with an identical record and identical strength of schedule on the basis of one having more top 50 wins than the other, because that is counter-intuitive to the whole concept of averages in the first place. In past years, we've seen smaller schools with better RPI's, better SOS, and better records left out in favor of power programs with more marquee wins. I have a problem with that.

Fair enough. Philosophically I agree with you on that and think you raise some good points. I think the committee has been progressively getting better in the past five years breaking old trends and thinking outside the box. I truly believe they've become more stat savvy and I dont think they are thinking narrowly as much as in the past.

I traded emails with David Worlock back in January about this because he requested to see some research I had done on quantifying wins. It was me that suggested to him they modify their tiers based on location. My takeaway is that he's legimately looking for ways to improve the process. I think he's trying to rid of the old cynical stuff and the lazy way out. He has great intentions IMHO

 

[Chief00]

Syracuse may never make another tournament

They will play ranked teams in the ACC.

 

[Chief00]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and I'm not arguing good or bad, but doesn't that rule heavily favor teams in "power" conferences and force teams in the other conferences to have difficult OOC games, especially on the road? Top 50 gets to Beverly subjective.

The only way to have a non subjective system would be to treat all D-1 programs as D-1, make the qualification be a winning % of say 60% in D-1 games, which is like CTs high school method, get rid of the totally subjective bubble, which this rule doesn't do, and add the one extra round that it would take to accommodste. Could still let conference tourney champs to qualify so a .500 or less team, a rarity, can get in and do a playing game. The bottom line is a totally "fair" system is hard to do and the power conference teams have an edge.

I'm not so sure Syracuse would necessarily be hurt with 3 or 4 "cupcakes" provided they win them all, have a few diffucult OOC teams and finish a little over .500 in league.

Exactly, the Power Conferences are setting up the landscape where power and money create more power and money. The new metrics are just a vehicle to get there.

Sometimes there are just really good teams that don't play a good schedule due to conference and historic strength. Realistically, most non power 5 teams can't play elite teams at home - due to economics and P5's willingness to schedule - and it's really hard beating a team on the road unless you are much better.

 

[Chief00]

You can't argue with our away and neutral court OOC schedule for next year. Just gotta win.

Any move that gets the selection committee further from the RPI is good by me.

But where you get the wins is home OOC and we need more of those elite games. Neutral court mostly happen very early in the season - if you get better you are a very different team in March.

 

[willie99]

The NCAA is a bunch of incompetent buffoons, that's not going to change. You have people who know little bout "the game" deciding what bubble teams get in based on some sort of mathematical formula.

Miraculously, that formula tends to favor schools and conferences that have representation on the committee.

Follow the money, you'll have remarkable success predicting what bubble teams get in and who's bubbles burst. And that's really what the selection process is all about, the bubble teams

 

[auror]

The NCAA is a bunch of incompetent buffoons, that's not going to change. You have people who know little bout "the game" deciding what bubble teams get in based on some sort of mathematical formula.

Miraculously, that formula tends to favor schools and conferences that have representation on the committee.

Follow the money, you'll have remarkable success predicting what bubble teams get in and who's bubbles burst. And that's really what the selection process is all about, the bubble teams

This is nonsense. Remember when Tulsa got in?

 

[willie99]

This is nonsense. Remember when Tulsa got in?

Haha, a one or two or even a few exceptions don't override the vast majority of the evidence, and the evidence is overwhelming

As with everything in life, there are always exceptions to the general rule

 

[kyleslamb]

The representation narrative is an old one. At one time I truly believe it had legitimacy but the past several years haven't shown that to be true. I think the NCAA cleaned that stuff up, to be honest.