Jump to content

RIP RPI

AuroranHusker

By AuroranHusker
in The Haymarket Hardwood

 Share

Recommended Posts

Chuck Taylor

Chuck Taylor

Posted
Posted

No system is perfect. For the record, last year we were 56 in RPI, 55 in KenPom, 63 in Sagarin, 41 in Massey, 65 in TeamRankings. Easy to point out imperfections in any of them.

 

Maybe the bigger news is that the NCAA is retaining the quadrant system.

hhcmatt

hhcmatt

Posted
Posted
Quote

The NCAA Evaluation Tool, which will be known as the NET, relies on game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses.

 

Quote

Of key importance, game date and order were omitted to give equal importance to both early and late-season games. In addition, a cap of 10 points was applied to the winning margin to prevent rankings from encouraging unsportsmanlike play, such as needlessly running up the score in a game where the outcome was certain.

 

I think this benefits a team more geared towards offense than defense as teams are going to be rewarded for winning by margin moreso than in the past. This might be a good time to re-think our defense first philosophy if we haven't already. We also tend to take our foot off the gas in some games. If beating Long Beach St by 5 wasn't satisfying before it's going to feel a bit like a loss this year.

 

If I had to guess using these metrics instead of RPI we are still on the outside looking in for the NCAA tourney, probably more so.

hskr4life

hskr4life

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, nustudent said:

If you’re going to have a margin of victory factor, don’t limit it to ten points.   

It could be neck and neck with one minute left and crawl to ten after free throws.  

 

Agree.  10 seems like way to low of a number.  Basically the win over Rutgers at home and the win over Michigan at home last year would both count the same in that aspect.

Donkey

Donkey

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Cazzie22 said:

I don’t like the quadrant system.

 

Let's be fair.  The quadrant system sets the standard with how wins are categorized based off of the ratings systems (now NET, formerly RPI).  In previous years, valuing wins was subjective.  Emphasis each year was placed on different arguments such as non-conference record, perceived conference strength, record over the last ten games, conference finish.  Every year the litmus test would change.  Last year things were more standardized (which screwed Nebraska).  Schools like Oklahoma, whether intentional or not, took advantage of the new system for their benefit even though their final record was problematic.  The smartest thing the SEC and Big 12 did last year was schedule a number of match ups in February.  Their respective conference RPIs increased and it really helped their schools overall.

 

The BIG should schedule a number of marquee match ups Super Bowl weekend at neutral locations (e.g. dome football stadiums) for the same reason.  Win or lose, the feature neutral court games will not hurt either school.  I would also schedule marquee mid-major games on neutral courts as well (Nevada at Vegas, Gonzaga or St. Mary's in Portland, San Diego St in LA, etc.).  That way if you lose, the hit won't be as bad.  

 

I agree this new system will screw over mid-majors and small schools.  If I were the AAC, Mountain West, A-10, or CUSA, I would fill my entire schedule with road games at P5/Big East schools.  If they were smart, I would take the top 2-3 schools from each mid-major conference and host a tournament around Christmas.  Get in around 3-4 games with good mid-major schools, and they might see their chances for 1-2 at large bids go up.    

royalfan

royalfan

Posted
Posted

Lost in the discussion is the key point here.  RPI is gone.  That thing was so damn stupid it was mind boggling.  No more watching Marist and Delaware St. games on my computer in hopes they don't set our RPI back 8 more spots.  While the quadrant system was horrific last year, the reason it was so horrific was because it was based off the dumbest metric possible, RPI.  

nustudent

nustudent

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, hskr4life said:

 

Agree.  10 seems like way to low of a number.  Basically the win over Rutgers at home and the win over Michigan at home last year would both count the same in that aspect. 

And lets be honest....the teams that are truly able to consistently blow teams out that would go against unsportsmanlike conduct, aren't likely to need this.   They are going to be your uber talented top 5 teams anyways.

HuskerActuary

HuskerActuary

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, jayschool said:

I just wish we could hear from an actual actuary about this here NET thing. @HuskerActuary

Ha! I just read the article. Overall, this is "decent" news. Here are my thoughts ranked from best news to worst news.

 

- As everyone has stated, RPI was terrible and to kill it is truly amazing

 

- Looks like they will continue to use the quadrant system with the NET being the metric driving the tier. This is completely fine to me. The quadrant system isn't nearly as bad as what Husker fans give it credit (give it another chance), and part of the reason it wasn't good last year is because it used the blasted RPI to determine the tier - which really hurt the Big Ten and really helped the Big 12. It was very skewed. The quadrant system using NET should be pretty good

 

- I find it interesting that they back-tested the NET to make it most accurate as possible. This tells me that this will be much more of a metric to rank the "best" teams (think KenPom) rather than "most worthy" teams (think RPI or strength of record). 

 

- Worst news is that it doesn't appear this will be transparent at all. This sucks.

----- No data on prior years (I'm guessing Nebraska would have a pretty decent ranking in 2017-2018)

----- More of a black-box calculation - does this make people question it more when their team has an unfavorable ranking? And did they say how often new rankings will be released?

----- How will websites like Bart Torvik, Warren Nolan, etc that try to project NCAA Tournament team sheets and tournament chances incorporate this? Just wait until the NCAA releases new numbers every time? That blows.

 

I'm pretty sure @Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty is an actuary too, but it doesn't look like he's visited since April.

Edited by HuskerActuary
NUtball

NUtball

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Huskerpapa said:

I noticed that today's LJS had three Husker basketball stories on the front page of the sports section.  And this occurred with the first football game in ten days.

A sure sign of the coming apocalypse.....?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...