Quote:

---

The NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Committee is altering its definition of a quality win, placing greater emphasis on winning road games by changing the team sheets that include the results of every team being evaluated for selection and seeding for the men's basketball championship. The group also committed to continue studying various metrics the committee has at its disposal to evaluate teams, with the likelihood of a new metric being in place for the 2018-19 season.

---

Old style of ranking W/Ls
Tier 1: All games (home, away neutral) vs Teams ranked 1-50 in RPI
Tier 2: 51-100
Tier 3: 101-200
Tier 4: 201-351

New style of ranking W/Ls
Tier 1: home vs 1-30; neutral site vs 1-50; away vs 1-75
Tier 2: home vs 31-75; neutral vs 51-100; away vs 76-135
Tier 3: home vs 76-160; neutral vs 101-200; road vs 136-240
Tier 4: home vs 161-351; neutral vs 201-351; raod vs 241-351

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2017-07-14/di-mens-basketball-committee-redefines-quality-win

wacarnolds said:

---

Quote:

---

The NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Committee is altering its definition of a quality win, placing greater emphasis on winning road games by changing the team sheets that include the results of every team being evaluated for selection and seeding for the men's basketball championship. The group also committed to continue studying various metrics the committee has at its disposal to evaluate teams, with the likelihood of a new metric being in place for the 2018-19 season.

---

Old style of ranking W/Ls
Tier 1: All games (home, away neutral) vs Teams ranked 1-50 in RPI
Tier 2: 51-100
Tier 3: 101-200
Tier 4: 201-351

New style of ranking W/Ls
Tier 1: home vs 1-30; neutral site vs 1-50; away vs 1-75
Tier 2: home vs 31-75; neutral vs 51-100; away vs 76-135
Tier 3: home vs 76-160; neutral vs 101-200; road vs 136-240
Tier 4: home vs 161-351; neutral vs 201-351; raod vs 241-351

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2017-07-14/di-mens-basketball-committee-redefines-quality-win

---

We are going to have a bunch of Tier 1 win opportunities next season. Hopefully they cash in on multiple of those.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

wacarnolds said:

---

Quote:

---

The NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Committee is altering its definition of a quality win, placing greater emphasis on winning road games by changing the team sheets that include the results of every team being evaluated for selection and seeding for the men's basketball championship. The group also committed to continue studying various metrics the committee has at its disposal to evaluate teams, with the likelihood of a new metric being in place for the 2018-19 season.

---

Old style of ranking W/Ls
Tier 1: All games (home, away neutral) vs Teams ranked 1-50 in RPI
Tier 2: 51-100
Tier 3: 101-200
Tier 4: 201-351

New style of ranking W/Ls
Tier 1: home vs 1-30; neutral site vs 1-50; away vs 1-75
Tier 2: home vs 31-75; neutral vs 51-100; away vs 76-135
Tier 3: home vs 76-160; neutral vs 101-200; road vs 136-240
Tier 4: home vs 161-351; neutral vs 201-351; raod vs 241-351

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2017-07-14/di-mens-basketball-committee-redefines-quality-win

---

We are going to have a bunch of Tier 1 win opportunities next season. Hopefully they cash in on multiple of those.

---

Agree, although the article mentions it would not be incorporated into NCAAT evaluation until the following year. But with the slow intrusion of advanced metrics into the NCAA committee's worldview, we should still reap some benefits.

That's a start. Throw RPI in the trash and we're getting somewhere.

It's not even really a good start though because the whole team sheet is still based on RPI.

bobinator said:

---

It's not even really a good start though because the whole team sheet is still based on RPI.

---

something something don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

I guess it's "better" but it's still bad.

Like, everyone agrees that RPI is a bad metric, but the entire team sheet that the committee looks at it is based on it.

It doesn't matter how you change up the team sheet if the underlying metric is trash.

bobinator said:

---

I guess it's "better" but it's still bad.

Like, everyone agrees that RPI is a bad metric, but the entire team sheet that the committee looks at it is based on it.

It doesn't matter how you change up the team sheet if the underlying metric is trash.

---

Certainly lipstick on a pig...but I take this as a sign the committee finally realizes their metrics are whack...

bobinator said:

---

I guess it's "better" but it's still bad.

Like, everyone agrees that RPI is a bad metric, but the entire team sheet that the committee looks at it is based on it.

It doesn't matter how you change up the team sheet if the underlying metric is trash.

---

I think as you look at larger subsets of teams, the problems with RPI go away, or at least get mitigated somewhat. In general, the best 25 teams in the nation will be very-well represented in the top 25 rpi rankings. So if you look at how teams did against the top 25 rpi, you'll have a good indication of a team's ability.

They need to somehow take into account the difference between beating a 1-50 team in November and beating a 1-50 team in February. HUGE difference. The win in November matters for the team's development over the course of the season, but if you're trying to get the best teams playing as March rolls around, who cares if you beat the #34 team in a neutral site game back in early November?

I think you have to be careful about weighing games late in the season more or teams/conferences might game their schedules. There's already a late season bias with the committee, I'm not sure you need to actually put it in the metrics.

Hickory High said:

---

They need to somehow take into account the difference between beating a 1-50 team in November and beating a 1-50 team in February. HUGE difference.

---

are there any studies supporting this claim?

bobinator said:

---

I think you have to be careful about weighing games late in the season more or teams/conferences might game their schedules. There's already a late season bias with the committee, I'm not sure you need to actually put it in the metrics.

---

Fine, they can do it carefully then. Still do it.

wacarnolds said:

---

Hickory High said:

---

They need to somehow take into account the difference between beating a 1-50 team in November and beating a 1-50 team in February. HUGE difference.

---

are there any studies supporting this claim?

---

It's a qualitative measurement. There's not gonna be a reliable study for or against it. To me, it's pretty clear. There's always a team that starts the season ranked way higher than they should and ride that high ranking to something like a bubble team in the end.

Weighing late season games more in the metrics is going to put small conference schools at an even bigger disadvantage, that's a 100% certainty.

And though I do agree that a late season win over someone is more indicative of the current quality of your team, I'm not sure that on a fundamental level I agree that it should mean more. This goes back to the question of what exactly it is the committee should be doing. Finding the 38 best teams at that moment, or finding the 38 most deserving teams based on their entire season.

I sort of go back and forth on this a lot on how much I think your non-conference accomplishments should matter.

I confess: I dislike RPI enough to ALMOST fill a room with cigar smoke and let a bunch of conference show runners fill up the tournament. Almost...