DI Men's Basketball Committee redefines quality win

[cfsivert]

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...ns-basketball-committee-redefines-quality-win

(All ranks RPI)
vs top 50
vs 51-100
101-200
201 or lower.

New:
home vs 1-30 + neutral vs top 50 + road vs top 75
home vs 31-75 + neutral vs 51-100 + road vs 76-135
home vs 76-160 + neutral vs 101-200 + road vs 136-240
home vs 161-351 + neutral vs 201-351 + road vs 241-351.

Interesting - wondering what ISU fans think about this. It would be interesting to go through a couple examples and see how it changes the look.

 

[mywayorcyway]

It may be better to view it that way as home court is definitely a noteworthy advantage, but it sure is more complicated than it used to be.

 

[Doc]

I like it, but it may hurt us this year because young teams seem to struggle on the road.

 

[cfsivert]

The first thing that struck me is that RPI already accounts for h/n/a.

 

[TurbulentEddie]

The first thing that struck me is that RPI already accounts for h/n/a.

But this isn't about the RPI itself, it's about the resume ("quality wins") derived from it. Regardless of how the RPI of the 50th team is derived, it's still much harder to beat them on the road than at home. "Beating the 90th-ranked team on the road is about as difficult as beating the 50th-best team on a neutral floor, which is roughly as difficult as beating the 20th-best team on one’s home floor." These tiers much better reflect this difficulty.

 

[harimad]

So this is fairly meaningless to me without some concrete examples of how it would have affected previous tourney fields if it had been in effect back then.

I'm curious-- are there teams whose resumes would be so altered by this that they would have been cut out of a tournament field that they made?

Are there any examples of a team with a good seed that lost early, but under the re-weighting of quality win criteria, wouldn't have been seeded so highly?

 

[TurbulentEddie]

So this is fairly meaningless to me without some concrete examples of how it would have affected previous tourney fields if it had been in effect back then.

I'm curious-- are there teams whose resumes would be so altered by this that they would have been cut out of a tournament field that they made?

Are there any examples of a team with a good seed that lost early, but under the re-weighting of quality win criteria, wouldn't have been seeded so highly?

I don't know if this really changes the outcomes of the selection committee that much, just makes the resumes clearer whereas before you would have to parse out each teams' home, neutral, and away records for each tier. It would be interesting to see whose "raw" top 50/top 100 resumes over the last few years would look the most different under this system, and I'm actually surprised that no one's done that yet. (Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if someone does have it somewhere, just hasn't come across my feed yet...)

 

[Cynonymous]

I like it. It adds another level of clarity when they bracket wins and losses at the end of the season. Take Syracuse last season where logic left them out of the tournament, but had the committee used this they would have had a stronger and clearer argument for why they were left out. It does seem to emphasize balanced schedules even more than before which may cause some unbalanced league teams to seek more high level competition in the non-conference.

 

[NorthCyd]

Hey look, there's Monte!

 

[bosco]

So is the selection committee then admitting there is a officiating advantage to the home team with this?

 

[MuskieCy]

So is the selection committee then admitting there is a officiating advantage to the home team with this?

As a high school official who does appx 150 games a year, around 50 this past summer, I always am interested the "home court advantage".

Since I State always plays more home games, as does everybody else, does the advantage impact "your favorite" more or less than all the others?

 

[cfsivert]

...
Since I State always plays more home games, as does everybody else, ...

Wait... the average % of home games played by each team must be less than 50%. (If there were no neutral games, it would be precisely 50%.)

 

[DesMoinesCy]

The first thing that struck me is that RPI already accounts for h/n/a.

I heard the NCAA Selection Committee is moving away from using the RPI rating as a primary criterion. Are they going to factor in other ratings: Sagarin or KenPom as examples?