Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The team value index sounds like the “newer RPI” which rewarded for road wins. Sounds like mid-majors who don’t play tough non-conference schedules might be hurt by this change. Purdue had a lousy winning percentage last year but was a team capable of taking out anyone in an NCAA tourney-neutral court one and done setting.Time to beat OOC opponents by 40 and leave starters in for longer in lopsided games on either end.
prediction.....in 5 years we will go full circle and go back to RPI
Is this a case of "the more things change, the more they remain the same?"Time to beat OOC opponents by 40 and leave starters in for longer in lopsided games on either end.
prediction.....in 5 years we will go full circle and go back to RPI
Yeah, the old “new RPI” was a very oversimplified model where you simply got the same reward or penalty for each win based on home/away. I’m sure the new one is better than that.It sounds like it has made the common sense adjustment of not measuring every road game in the same manner. The mention in the difficulty portion of each team, each team's performance at home vs overall, will strengthen the leagues with real home court advantages. So a road win in the B1G likely exceed the same road win value, in another league.
"It's like deja vu all over again."Is this a case of "the more things change, the more they remain the same?"
Or is it, history has a way of repeating itself?
Obvious question - is anyone running the 2019-20 season through the new algorithm? If so, what is the difference?
That might explain why Rutgers upped the schedule this year with harder games away from the RAC. They knew this was coming.While I like the changes, I think RU's NET would be worse for 2019-20 than it was under the old rules. RU benefited greatly from the scoring margin metric, as we had a ton of wins by 10+ points. That goes away under the new rules. And the new system seems to even more heavily weight neutral and road wins. As has been well chronicled, we didn't have a lot of those.
I think scoring margin is silly except for maybe getting a tiny reward for getting to OT. Purdue was 0-3 in OT (against 3 good teams) this season and wound up 16-15. Had they made the NCAA tourney, I doubt anyone would have been excited to play them. They had wins over VCU and Virginia while going 9-11 in the BIG. Not sure if the results on the team sheets the committee uses show if the game went to OT or not.Why take out scoring margin?
Scoring margins can be impacted by a lot of things unrelated to being a good or bad team...like pace of play, number of 3’s taken per game, game situations ....Scoring margin isn't completely silly. But maybe add some tweaks. Seems like beating PSU, SHU, Maryland and Illinois by double digits should be worth more than beating them by 8 points combined.
NET never let you under the hoodObvious question - is anyone running the 2019-20 season through the new algorithm? If so, what is the difference?
Where else is scoring margin part of any results?Why take out scoring margin?
You win a game or lose it. That should be only thing that matters to a coach and team.
You're right about its value, imo.Scoring margin over the course of a season may in fact be the most accurate indicator and should always be considered. You can't just look at won/loss records when there are 350 + teams.
The paradox is that it encourages teams to run it up which they don't want and I suppose how teams play the last two minutes in garbage time blow outs but again that should average out over the course of a season.
Any system that doesn't take into account scoring margin heavily is seriously flawed.
No. You evaluate wins and losses relative to strength of schedule.Is your suggestion to rank the entire country and tourney invite by wins and losses only? So it would make no difference who you play?
You think Baylor was a 5 seed? That’s crazy.Just looked at scoring margin last year:
1. Gonzaga
2. Dayton
3. San Diego State
5.Duke
6. Kansas
16. MSU: Highest rated B1G team
18. Baylor
25.Louisville
Also nailed the good bubble teams or non Power conference teams: Utah State, SFA, ETSU, Yale, Vermont, BYU, etc.
Seems exceedingly accurate. The only weird anomaly was #17 Arizona who confounded most of the bracketologists last year.
They tossed out the metric because Baylor was a one or two seed...so other teams are misplaced by 15 spots or more.I dont think at all that Baylor was a five seed. I do think Baylor was the second best Big 12 team. Scoring Margin confirms. i think its odd de-emphasizing or caping margin at 10.
They tossed out the metric because Baylor was a one or two seed...so other teams are misplaced by 15 spots or more.
Maryland is 50th in scoring margin. That’s a misplacement by at least 30 spots.
Michigan is 62. I hope you’re not drinking bleach...
Iowa is 86. I guess they’re an NIT team...
Wisconsin is 96. Hahaha
RU was 51 btw. So I guess scoring margin proves that there are no easy games in the BIG.
Villanova, Seton Hall and Marquette were 60+.
It obviously is a flawed metric if Wisconsin is 96 and Arizona St. is 135. That’s why they reduced the weighting of it to zero now.Baylor was still a 1 or 2 seed with strength of schedule and scoring margin. Not that difficult a concept. Scoring margin nailed first 6 easily.
Actually based on the chart above it was raw margin with 10 pt cap. I notice in the fine print it says OT games were considered 1point victories.They weren’t using RAW scoring margin in the NET before I’m pretty sure.