Friday, January 13, 2017

If the NCAA really wants to replace RPI, it should go with something like WAB

The NCAA announced today that it has invited several folks—most notably Jeff Sagarin and Ken Pomeroy—to Indianapolis next Friday (Jan. 20th) for a meeting "designed to speed the inclusion of more metrics in the selection process for the basketball tournament." Specifically, at the behest of the coaches, the NCAA is looking into using "advanced metrics" to help with the selection process: "an even more powerful microscope to go with the time-honored RPI."

Leaving aside the hilarious image of the RPI as a "powerful microscope," this is a potentially positive development. I certainly trust Ken Pomeroy to advocate effectively for a reasonable replacement for the deeply flawed RPI. But skepticism is warranted. The RPI persists for a few main reasons: (1) massive institutional inertia; (2) it's the devil they (the coaches) know; (3) it can be gamed, but only consistently by teams with scheduling power—i.e., the teams with money and power within college basketball. None of these things are going away or even fading in importance.

Based on the comments of Dan Gavitt, NCAA vice president for basketball, the push for something to at least augment the RPI seems at least partly about PR:
[Advanced metrics are] the way so many people engage with following sports these days, and in particular in this case, college basketball. In some ways, maybe young people are right at the top of that list. 
You need to stay relevant in the age that you’re operating in. Certainly relevant today is embracing analytics and technology to the appropriate level.
So I'm a little worried that the result of this will be essentially a sop to the college basketball nerds—just enough to keep the wolves at bay. But it's mean to assume bad faith, and I won't do it. It's more like home-court officiating: there are understandable biases at play here, and that will make meaningful change difficult.

But assuming that can be overcome, what kind of replacement should we be advocating for? It's clear that the NCAA will not endorse anything that significantly emphasizes margin of victory at the expense of pure wins, losses, and strength of schedule. (Wins, losses, and strength of schedule is what the RPI tries to do, but it does it in a poor way.) They primarily want to reward good resum├ęs over good teams, and that is fine.

Given that, I'd propose using a composite power rating, say a straight average of Kenpom, BPI, and Sagarin—or perhaps a new but similar separate power rating that has a hard cap on MOV—as the seed for creating a strength of record ranking. Strength of record basically boils down to measuring how impressive it is for a team to amass a given record against its schedule; all you need to do it is some underlying measure of team quality. ESPN already does this with BPI as the seed (at least when the website is working) with its "Strength of Record." I do it in realtime at T-Rank with the "Wins Above Bubble" or "WAB" ranking. Seth Burn does WAB periodically at his website using Kenpom as the source.

The great thing about this way of doing things is that wins and losses are ultimately king and debatable differences in underlying power rating mostly come out in the wash. Kenpom, T-Rank, and BPI are obviously pretty similar rating systems, but they do have their differences. If you look at a strength of record or WAB using each of them, though, they end up extremely similar. So all you need is a power rating that passes the smell test, and you can create a credible—and useful—resume rating that will pretty closely track the general perception of which teams really deserve to be in the tournament.

So: Death to the RPI, long live WAB or SOR or whatever you want to call it.

2 comments:

  1. Can't see how this could possibly work since WAB doesn't take into account your coach having back surgery, and losses that they couldn't possibly avoid during this difficult emotional time for the team.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is certainly practically a full week March Madness of action before the NCAA tournament

    announces their field on Selection Saturday. But even though that

    won't happen until Mar 12, March Madness

    Live
    it's easier than you think to project the four Little.

    1 seeds in Walk Madness.

    The four top seeds should be March Madness Live Stream

    protecting national champion Villanova, North Carolina, Kansas and

    Gonzaga. Those four have recently been at the top of the rankings and possess also been the selections of bracketologists March Madness Bracket like ESPN's Later on

    Lunardi and March Madness 2017 s Jerry Palm, and it will be a surprise if they didn't emerge at the conclusion of the

    seminar tournaments that will be held at throughout the week.

    Villanova (28-3, 15-3 Big East) has put together a sensational season after beating New you are

    able to in last year's March Madness 2017 Live

    countrywide title game. Head trainer Jay Wright has stored his foot on the gas pedal, and the Wildcats have continued to produce on a regular most basic. NCAA March Madness

    Villanova is the Zero. 1 seed in the Big East tournament 2017 March Madness , and while that league has regularly

    produced upsets in the conference tournament, it would be somewhat of a shocker if the Wildcats

    didn't make it to it game. If perhaps they face second-seeded

    Retainer, it could be a good game that will go down to the line

    because Butler has recently outdone Villanova twice. Whether it is any other Big East team, the Wildcats would be a significant

    favorite.

    ReplyDelete