NCAA selection tools

[HFCS]

Which of these makes the most sense as an NCAA selection tool. Keep in mind Nebraska is 13-7 with few if any impressive wins and a few bad losses.

A:
21. Nebraska
23. Iowa State
24. Iowa

B:
12. ISU
18. Nebraska
29. Iowa

C:
23. Iowa State
34. Iowa
64. Nebraska

On what planet has Nebraska played as well or better than ISU and Iowa? On what planet does 13-7 with no good wins and some bad losses say 5 seed? They should be a bubble team at best if the selection were today. 64 is a drastically better indication of their achievements than 18 or 21.

Legend:
A is what we're using now
B is what fans mistakenly thought was a resume ranking tool and demanded we use it to rank resumes
C is what we used before that actually ranks a resume of wins and losses against schedule quality

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I don’t understand why the Net rankings have the bug eaters so high. With that being said we knew how the committee used RPI but we have no clue how they will use Net.

 

[I-stateTheTruth]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought you were calling members of the selection committee "tools".

 

[Gunnerclone]

I never had a problem with the RPI.

 

[HFCS]

When first saw the title of this thread, I thought you were calling members of the selection committee "tools".

They might be depending on how they use this.

Looking at B and C together knowing that B was only about how you play, not really your achievements and resume makes perfect sense but people weren't having that and had to make it a selection tool. Net ranking as a straight ranking/selection/seeding tool is pretty bad. If we keep Net ranking to select/seed teams it's going to have to get closer to what RPI does.

 

[Doc]

Which of these makes the most sense as an NCAA selection tool. Keep in mind Nebraska is 13-7 with few if any impressive wins and a few bad losses.

A:
21. Nebraska
23. Iowa State
24. Iowa

B:
12. ISU
18. Nebraska
29. Iowa

C:
23. Iowa State
34. Iowa
64. Nebraska

On what planet has Nebraska played as well or better than ISU and Iowa? On what planet does 13-7 with no good wins and some bad losses say 5 seed? They should be a bubble team at best if the selection were today. 64 is a drastically better indication of their achievements than 18 or 21.

Legend:
A is what we're using now
B is what fans mistakenly thought was a resume ranking tool and demanded we use it to rank resumes
C is what we used before that actually ranks a resume of wins and losses against schedule quality

We’re kind of in this place where analytics are the end point. It just feels to me like we’re overusing the data. Winning games should matter more than it does.

 

[HFCS]

I never had a problem with the RPI.

By the end of the year it was always a pretty good tool of who achieved what.

The combination of how bad it is early and that it's not designed to laser accurate predict a score of a game doomed it and fans demanded something that took priority away from winning.

 

[Die4Cy]

RPI was great except the observation was that it hurt conferences where the conferences were thought to be weaker, as the season went on. Which led to more .500 type Power 5 teams making it in over 1-AA league teams with good records.

It wasn't a bug. It was a feature.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I never had a problem with the RPI.

IMO RPI has a solid balance of weighing quality wins and accounting for strength of schedule. People who disliked RPI (Iowa fans and media) wanted way too much credit for wins against a weak schedule.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

RPI was great except the observation was that it hurt conferences where the conferences were weaker as the season went on. Which led to more .500 type Power 5 teams making it in over 1-AA league teams with good records.

It wasn't a bug. It was a feature.

. Mid majors that knew how to schedule benefited from RPI.

 

[Die4Cy]

The irony is, if you develop a metric to reward mid major teams who get a good record despite playing a soft schedule, what you will get is Power 5 schools scheduling like a mid major school, and less clarity about which teams actually belong in the tournament, not more.

This is what we are seeing already.

The only positive result of this is likely to be that teams that are willing to go on the road and lose games to help fund their athletics departments will probably see more demand for their services and get more cash as a result.

RPI is not perfect but it is easily the best thing out there for weighing quality of record.

 

[cloneteach]

Can we wait until all of the games are played before determining whether the NET is a good thing?

For the record ISU is now up to 13th in the NET rankings, Nebraska is 24th and Iowa is 25th.

 

[cyclones500]

Can we wait until all of the games are played before determining whether the NET is a good thing?

For the record ISU is now up to 13th in the NET rankings, Nebraska is 24th and Iowa is 25th.

It will take several years to assess if NET works any better than RPI, that's true.

If anything bugs me in grand scheme, apparently the committee has access to all kinds of data involving multiple computer models (along with injury reports and stuff like that). But there seems to be a need to have a "primary" system -- was RPI for decades, now NET is the new RPI.

They should have developed a system that incorporates all of the elements available into one place. From what I call tell, NET is only a "better" version of RPI.

 

[bosco]

I'm confused, i thought we hated the RPI. Now that the RPI favors us it's great? Let's get it straight so I know who to charge with my pitchfork lynch mob.

 

[Cynonymous]

Only some hated the RPI. Analysts didn't like it because they couldn't use it to create drama about games until very late in the season. Coaches didn't like it because they wanted more home games + easy schedule. The majority just didn't understand it. I've said it before but advanced statistics has no natural way to weigh schedule.

 

[alarson]

I'm confused, i thought we hated the RPI. Now that the RPI favors us it's great? Let's get it straight so I know who to charge with my pitchfork lynch mob.

I had no problem with the RPI

 

[dualthreat]

I never had a problem with the RPI.

RPI and gut instinct: the only tools I need to pick a winning bracket

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I'm confused, i thought we hated the RPI. Now that the RPI favors us it's great? Let's get it straight so I know who to charge with my pitchfork lynch mob.

I don't recall many people on here hating on RPI. If anything RPI has always been really generous to Iowa State and the Big 12.

 

[cycloneG]

I'm confused, i thought we hated the RPI. Now that the RPI favors us it's great? Let's get it straight so I know who to charge with my pitchfork lynch mob.

The RPI has been good to Iowa State over the last eight years. I'm not sure where you were seeing the RPI hate. Iowa fans, however, hated the RPI.

 

[Halincandenza]

No one hates the RPI, but there are flaws with it and people simply wanted the committee to use other data at their disposal to augment their analysis. There was absolutely no reason to come up with an entirely new system.