[ad_1]
The Ohio State Buckeyes are the first team to rank first in the history of the NCAA Assessment Tool (NET).
The new NCAA metric, which completely replaces the RPI, debuted on Monday. The NET will constitute more than just a very high-profile ranking and debated the 353 male teams D-I; it will also be the sorting tool used on the official team sheets to illustrate the strength of the calendar, the quality of victories and defeats, and will bring together the quadrant system in training. The team sheets are constantly referenced and weighted against each other by the selection committee members who discuss with the selection and ranking teams in the field of the 68 tournaments of the NCAA tournament.
The Buckeyes 6-0 are leading the pack on Monday, followed by Virginia, Texas Tech, Michigan and Gonzaga.
The top 25 looks like this:
1. State of Ohio (6-0)
2. Virginia (6-0)
3. Texas Tech (6-0)
4. Michigan (6-0)
5. Gonzaga (6-0)
6. Duc (5-1)
7. State of Michigan (5-1)
8. Wisconsin (5-1)
9. Virginia Tech (5-0)
10. Loyola Marymount (7-0)
11. Kansas (5-0)
12. Belmont (5-0)
13. Nevada (6-0)
14. Nebraska (5-1)
15. Iowa (5-0)
16. Auburn (5-1)
17. Maryland (6-0)
18. Houston (4-0)
19. Our Lady (5-1)
20. Purdue (5-1)
21. North Carolina (6-1)
22. Radford (4-1)
23. Pittsburgh (6-0)
24. State of Kansas (6-0)
25. San Francisco (6-0)
The publication of the NET ranking comes 20 days after the start of the season and at the edge of many important games this week. Rankings from now on will be made available to the public and will be updated daily. While the NET will certainly spark the most discussion of analytical rankings (since it is officially linked to the NCAA), it is also important to remember that this is not the absolute purpose of rankings / metrics. This is only a system. This is an important question, and now the most important one, but the NCAA will continue to publish many of the most common and most cited advanced measures on team sheets (KenPom, Sagarin Ratings, KPIs and the pair of analyzes: BPI and Record Strength).
And in case you're wondering: what's the NET?
In short, it is a mixture of results-based statistics and predictive algorithms. In the end, this means that the NET is predictive in nature; the introduction of any forecast element inherently renders a predictive model. This is a good thing for college basketball and the selection committee. (To learn more about the NET, its evolution and its objectives, you will want to read this:).
"This is a complete replacement (of the RPI)," said CBS Sports Dan Gavitt, senior vice president of NCAA Men's Basketball, during the summer. "This measure, we are very confident in achieving our intent and the recommendation of the NABC.It is a composite ranking from the point of view of its very strong, results-oriented, because is so important We believe in the committee and the coaches in the selection and seeding process, and there is a certain degree of predictability since the RPI has never done it. "
This is a modification in the evaluation process of the team and the CV. The NCAA has released this chart to show how the NET rankings are constructed.
"There was no purpose or intent, in any way whatsoever in the game, to benefit or not to the team populations," Gavitt said. "It goes both ways, we try to create something that is as good as possible at every level of the game." First, the game results [matter most]. There was no intention, one way or the other. We are comfortable and convinced that it is a fair and equitable measure for the whole game. "
But the NET has some potential weaknesses. First, the effectiveness component does not seem to take into account the quality of the opponent in the schedule of a team. So, inside that, a team's efficiency figures could theoretically save or toggle its ranking in the NET. This is a potential loophole for the 10-point cap on the scoring margin.
Another persistent problem is the adjusted gain percentage, which seems to overlap in the overall formula. Teams get double credit for wins and losses and take some of the accumulated data in the team's value index criteria. There is also the question of weighted values 1.4 / 1.0 / 0.6 and how they can not represent a difficulty depending on specific sites (especially on the road). The fact that the quality of the opponent is not taken into account is a factor of additional concern.
So, for example, if a team is 1-1 with a win on the road and a home defeat, the NCAA calculation says that they played 2.8 "adjusted" games. However, if a 1-1 team has turned around, with a home win and a loss on the road, 1.2 "adjusted" game is played. In reality, these teams have played two games but are not evaluated as if they had done so. If you are a team above .500, combining winning on the road and losing at home can actually be detrimental, which runs counter to the committee's new philosophy of rewarding performance on the road.
This type of inconsistencies in the general algorithm will be what critics point out when some teams inevitably end up being above or below most expectations.
But overall, it's a step forward. And it is essential to be patient because the rankings evolve daily, weekly, monthly. What we see now will be radically different from what the NET looks like in March.
[ad_2]
Source link
