What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

NCAA Basketball Drops RPI for Tournament Selection

Re: NCAA Basketball Drops RPI for Tournament Selection

Too bad for the Engineers! I really thought they had a shot this year!
 
Re: NCAA Basketball Drops RPI for Tournament Selection

Still Eeyore said:
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...4445390/ncaa-announces-new-ranking-system-rpi

I have no idea what the math of the new system looks like, though the NCAA's history doesn't make me very confident that it will be very good. Still, will be interesting to see whether this is a start of moving on from an RPI based system (which PWR is) in all sports.
Click to expand...

The short explanation (maybe too short) of the rankings they are going to use - Ken Pomeroy - is a calculation of offensive and defensive efficiency.

A Basketball game is a series of alternating ball possessions; team A has the ball, then team B gets the ball, then team A, etc etc. In an average game, each team might get 70 possessions over the course of the game. If team A averages one point per possession, and team B averages only 0.9 points per possession, team A wins 70-63.

Some teams like to play 'fastbreak' basketball, that over the course of a season might end up raising their possessions per game to 80 or 90 or 100. Other teams like to play slow, deliberate 'half court' offense that gets them to 50 possessions per game. If each averages one point per possession, the fastbreak team is averaging 90 points a game, while the slow team is averaging only 50 points a game.

But what if the slow 'half court team' is more efficient, averaging 1.1 points per possession, 55 points a game. And what if the fast team played the slower team? At a glance, one team is averaging 90 points a game, and the other only 55 points a game. Fast team is gonna win, no?

No, probably not. Because the game is going to be maybe a 70 possession game, faster than 'slow' would like, but slower than 'fast' would like. And assuming their point per possession efficiency stays the same, slow is going to score 77 with their 70 possessions, while fast is only going to score 70.

Same idea for defense: points per possession given up.

The Pomeroy ranking 'normalizes' each team's offensive and defensive 'per possession' efficiency, and then uses those numbers in a predictive calculation to rank the teams overall.

There are a bunch of other 'fudge factors, including home/away/neutral site, conference, others I forget. But the basic idea is this per possession efficiency.

I can't imagine that it would be applicable to hockey in any usable way.
 
robertearle said:
The short explanation (maybe too short) of the rankings they are going to use - Ken Pomeroy - is a calculation of offensive and defensive efficiency.

A Basketball game is a series of alternating ball possessions; team A has the ball, then team B gets the ball, then team A, etc etc. In an average game, each team might get 70 possessions over the course of the game. If team A averages one point per possession, and team B averages only 0.9 points per possession, team A wins 70-63.

Some teams like to play 'fastbreak' basketball, that over the course of a season might end up raising their possessions per game to 80 or 90 or 100. Other teams like to play slow, deliberate 'half court' offense that gets them to 50 possessions per game. If each averages one point per possession, the fastbreak team is averaging 90 points a game, while the slow team is averaging only 50 points a game.

But what if the slow 'half court team' is more efficient, averaging 1.1 points per possession, 55 points a game. And what if the fast team played the slower team? At a glance, one team is averaging 90 points a game, and the other only 55 points a game. Fast team is gonna win, no?

No, probably not. Because the game is going to be maybe a 70 possession game, faster than 'slow' would like, but slower than 'fast' would like. And assuming their point per possession efficiency stays the same, slow is going to score 77 with their 70 possessions, while fast is only going to score 70.

Same idea for defense: points per possession given up.

The Pomeroy ranking 'normalizes' each team's offensive and defensive 'per possession' efficiency, and then uses those numbers in a predictive calculation to rank the teams overall.

There are a bunch of other 'fudge factors, including home/away/neutral site, conference, others I forget. But the basic idea is this per possession efficiency.

I can't imagine that it would be applicable to hockey in any usable way.
Click to expand...

Agreed, unusable for hockey especially given all the turnovers. I can only guess that there are many more changes of possession in hockey than in basketball. It would be nearly impossible to track that stat consistently or accurately enough in one game let alone for an entire season across every conference and at both the D1 and D3 levels.
 
Re: NCAA Basketball Drops RPI for Tournament Selection

I'm less interested in the question of whether they would try to switch hockey to this specific ratings method than I am whether it indicates that the NCAA is recognizing that they went down a mathematically nonsensical path and might start trying to figure out a more sensible approach for each sport. As I said, I'm skeptical that this is what it means, but it at least seems more likely than it did 24 hours ago.
 
Re: NCAA Basketball Drops RPI for Tournament Selection

Still Eeyore said:
I'm less interested in the question of whether they would try to switch hockey to this specific ratings method than I am whether it indicates that the NCAA is recognizing that they went down a mathematically nonsensical path and might start trying to figure out a more sensible approach for each sport. As I said, I'm skeptical that this is what it means, but it at least seems more likely than it did 24 hours ago.
Click to expand...

Them going to a committee in FB was probably the first step away from math. The first step in women's hockey will be the ncaa using the USCHO poster's poll to count for half of the seeding weight for the ncaa tourney.
 
Re: NCAA Basketball Drops RPI for Tournament Selection

Timothy A said:
The first step in women's hockey will be the ncaa using the USCHO poster's poll to count for half of the seeding weight for the ncaa tourney.
Click to expand...
If that should come to be I might have to make a few adjustments as to how I go about rating my favorite team. ;) And other contending teams as well. :)
 
Re: NCAA Basketball Drops RPI for Tournament Selection

Wow if they're using Kenpom maybe they'd actually consider KRACH in the future. A man can dream!
 
Re: NCAA Basketball Drops RPI for Tournament Selection

D2D said:
If that should come to be I might have to make a few adjustments as to how I go about rating my favorite team. ;) And other contending teams as well. :)
Click to expand...

So you are saying your current rating system is WAY too nonobjective...I will remember that when the polls come out.
 
Re: NCAA Basketball Drops RPI for Tournament Selection

FiveHoleFrenzy said:
That's just your subconscious telling you, you've got enough health risk with the enlarged liver that you don't need the cancer risk...:)
Click to expand...

Wow, I honestly think that all these cell signals are going to kill us all prematurely, you have the power supreme to read a complex mind like mine. I did notice however that the liver has shrunk since I got my new phone. I think UW women averaging 7 goals a game and allowing less than 1 over the course of the year will cancel out the UW men's probably struggles and thusly help with the liver as well.
 
Timothy A said:
Wow, I honestly think that all these cell signals are going to kill us all prematurely, you have the power supreme to read a complex mind like mine. I did notice however that the liver has shrunk since I got my new phone. I think UW women averaging 7 goals a game and allowing less than 1 over the course of the year will cancel out the UW men's probably struggles and thusly help with the liver as well.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if this forum actually discussed women’s hockey
 
Re: NCAA Basketball Drops RPI for Tournament Selection

In the blue said:
It would be nice if this forum actually discussed women’s hockey
Click to expand...
Thanks for your feedback. My quick assessment of your posting history shows that 25% of your posts are not about women's hockey. That is about average for this forum, I would think.

Come back during the actual season, when hockey is being played, and you will find more interesting topics. But you will also find a lot of filler.
 
In the blue said:
It would be nice if this forum actually discussed women’s hockey
Click to expand...

Are there women’s college hockey forums that are better than this one? I think this is an awesome forum, including the silly filler. It’s August! Not much hockey yet, but soon enough. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top