NCAA Tournament to include two new metrics beginning in 2025; committee delays decision on expansion

[HooperScooper]

No expansion of the NCAA Tournament yet.

2 new metrics added to the selection committee's selection process. For those not familiar with Bart Torvik, I guess they will become more familiar with it now.

BartTorvik.com, a predictive metric similar to KenPom.com, was approved as an official team sheet metric, per the NCAA's release. Torvik's T-Rank system has ascended in popularity in college basketball circles over the past half-decade. The other big add is a metric referred to as "Wins Above Bubble," which is résumé-based and in essence shows how many more (or fewer) wins a team has earned against its schedule vs. what an average bubble team would do against that same schedule. For the hardcore analytic community in basketball, Wins Above Bubble (WAB) has been regarded as the most objective of all metrics when it comes to evaluating résumé performance.

NCAA Tournament to include two new metrics beginning in 2025; committee delays decision on expansion

Additionally: In 2026, Indianapolis will become the first city to host the D-I, D-II, D-III and men's NIT tournaments in the same year

www.cbssports.com

 

[ctbro1999]

Torvik was very friendly to UConn last year. And the year before too (even during that 2-6 stretch when the world was ending ).

 

[JustbrewitMan]

At some point, they will probably formally add “Avg Vegas Sportsbetting handle ROI” as another metric

Which will be problematic for us as you could have (should have, hopefully did) ridiculously pad your retirement account by just blindly betting UConn relentlessly the last 2 years

 

[FfldCntyFan]

While I don't doubt that Torvik's analytics are basically unbiased, my gut tells me that this will be used to claim a 17-15 school from the B1G or SEC would have ended up with a better record playing the schedule that a 22-10 A-10 school that did not win its conference tournament, allowing them to reduce at-large bids to non P level conferences at the expense of quality mid-majors.

 

[auror]

While I don't doubt that Torvik's analytics are basically unbiased, my gut tells me that this will be used to claim a 17-15 school from the B1G or SEC would have ended up with a better record playing the schedule that a 22-10 A-10 school that did not win its conference tournament, allowing them to reduce at-large bids to non P level conferences at the expense of quality mid-majors.

If these metrics were in pace last year, Indiana St would have made the tourny.

These metrics, WAB in particular, actually do a good job valuing strong records against good but not elite competition. It's very hard to go 28-2 or whatever in a mid major league, but people assume most power conference teams could just do it. WAB is the math that says, "no this is actually difficult and impressive despite the lack of impressive wins."

 

[FfldCntyFan]

If these metrics were in pace last year, Indiana St would have made the tourny.

These metrics, WAB in particular, actually do a good job valuing strong records against good but not elite competition. It's very hard to go 28-2 or whatever in a mid major league, but people assume most power conference teams could just do it. WAB is the math that says, "no this is actually difficult and impressive despite the lack of impressive wins."

If you can guarantee that the algorithms will be reasonably in line with Torvik's I will agree with you. I'm pretty confident however that they will find a means to adding additional weight to in conference opponents where the P-whatever will have a huge advantage over mid and low majors.

I've seen how the NCAA operates for decades. They've made many moves that they've claimed benefitted the little guy but in reality hurt them. I still need someone to explain why half of the first four games are played by conference championships. The last eight at large should be playing those games.

 

[auror]

If you can guarantee that the algorithms will be reasonably in line with Torvik's I will agree with you. I'm pretty confident however that they will find a means to adding additional weight to in conference opponents where the P-whatever will have a huge advantage over mid and low majors.

I've seen how the NCAA operates for decades. They've made many moves that they've claimed benefitted the little guy but in reality hurt them. I still need someone to explain why half of the first four games are played by conference championships. The last eight at large should be playing those games.

I don't think NCAA is creating any algorithms here. They're just putting the ones that already exist on the sheets like they do KenPom, bpi, etc.

 

[bendm]

I’m all for expanding up to 72 teams by adding another 4 play-in games. First, Make the other two 16 seeds play-ins (by bumping all the midmajor auto bids down a seed). Second, make all four of the 10 seeds or 11 seeds play-in games. This would depend on whichever seed line contains the last four at large teams, it varies by year.

This way we add 4 more bubble teams and 2 or 3 of them will usually be from the P5. I hope this made sense harder to articulate than I realized.

 

[ec33]

Hopefully this will help schools ease up on the B-12 cupcake schedules.

The Indiana schedule is a complete embarrassment, but nearly everyone is indulging their sweet tooth except on December 14th apparently:

 

[UConnSwag11]

Do they take into account the Eye Test?

 

[awy]

idk what goes behind the decisions putting these models in. it's one thing to understand the limitations and characteristics of particular models and then using them for valuable info, another to just go with them without human judgement at a higher level.

this is particularly relevant if teams begin to game the models.

 

[navery12]

If you can guarantee that the algorithms will be reasonably in line with Torvik's I will agree with you. I'm pretty confident however that they will find a means to adding additional weight to in conference opponents where the P-whatever will have a huge advantage over mid and low majors.

I've seen how the NCAA operates for decades. They've made many moves that they've claimed benefitted the little guy but in reality hurt them. I still need someone to explain why half of the first four games are played by conference championships. The last eight at large should be playing those games.

From a viewer standpoint I agree, I'd rather have the first four be all at large teams. But the biggest pushback you'll get is from the low major teams involved, they want the tourney credits from winning those games

 

[willie99]

Still no eye test, shame

Their metrics concluded Purdue was better than us last year, the eye test said otherwise

"it's the body of work" dontchaknow, LOL. yet another self fulfilling prophecy

 

[navery12]

Still no eye test, shame

Their metrics concluded Purdue was better than us last year, the eye test said otherwise

"it's the body of work" dontchaknow, LOL. yet another self fulfilling prophecy

No they didn't. UConn got the #1 overall seed over Purdue

 

[willie99]

No they didn't. UConn got the #1 overall seed over Purdue

Purdue lost in the conference tournament, I suppose that saved the committee, because that wasn't their position for months