NCAA Tournament to include two new metrics beginning in 2025; committee delays decision on expansion

Donate To GopherHole
MisterGopher

MisterGopher

Active member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
342
Reaction score
186
Points
43
The NCAA men's basketball committee wrapped its annual summer meetings on Wednesday and didn't move closer to a decision on whether to expand the NCAA Tournament, sources told CBS Sports. The topic was discussed at length Tuesday and remains up for debate for many reasons, arguably the biggest being the significant financial commitment (with millions more in expenses) that would come with expanding — not just the men's tournament but the women's as well. The NCAA is deliberating whether to stay at 68 teams or increase to 72 or 76. There's no timeline on a decision, sources told CBS Sports.

Committee members also discussed the consequence that would come with expanding the field, sources said, namely that going to 72 or 76 teams would require teams that would be in a 68-team field to be pulled out of the Thursday/Friday matchups to play on Tuesday/Wednesday in the First Four-type of event. Some of those teams would likely be No. 10 seeds, which does have impacts of competitive balance of the bracket.

Two new metrics coming to selection process
On Thursday morning, the NCAA announced the changes that were approved during the committee's meetings in Park City, Utah. Most notably, the ever-valuable team sheets (which committee members constantly reference as they deliberate how to select and seed teams for March Madness) are getting a facelift. Two metrics — one résumé-based, one predictive — will be implemented starting next year. This will bring six metrics to team sheets, rounding out a process that will have more data — three predictive metrics, three résumé-based — than ever before.

BartTorvik.com, a predictive metric similar to KenPom.com, was approved as an official team sheet metric, per the NCAA's release. Torvik's T-Rank system has ascended in popularity in college basketball circles over the past half-decade. The other big add is a metric referred to as "Wins Above Bubble," which is résumé-based and in essence shows how many more (or fewer) wins a team has earned against its schedule vs. what an average bubble team would do against that same schedule. For the hardcore analytic community in basketball, Wins Above Bubble (WAB) has been regarded as the most objective of all metrics when it comes to evaluating résumé performance.

www.cbssports.com

NCAA Tournament to include two new metrics beginning in 2025; committee delays decision on expansion

Additionally: In 2026, Indianapolis will become the first city to host the D-I, D-II, D-III and men's NIT tournaments in the same year
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com
 

MisterGopher said:
The NCAA men's basketball committee wrapped its annual summer meetings on Wednesday and didn't move closer to a decision on whether to expand the NCAA Tournament, sources told CBS Sports. The topic was discussed at length Tuesday and remains up for debate for many reasons, arguably the biggest being the significant financial commitment (with millions more in expenses) that would come with expanding — not just the men's tournament but the women's as well. The NCAA is deliberating whether to stay at 68 teams or increase to 72 or 76. There's no timeline on a decision, sources told CBS Sports.

Committee members also discussed the consequence that would come with expanding the field, sources said, namely that going to 72 or 76 teams would require teams that would be in a 68-team field to be pulled out of the Thursday/Friday matchups to play on Tuesday/Wednesday in the First Four-type of event. Some of those teams would likely be No. 10 seeds, which does have impacts of competitive balance of the bracket.

Two new metrics coming to selection process
On Thursday morning, the NCAA announced the changes that were approved during the committee's meetings in Park City, Utah. Most notably, the ever-valuable team sheets (which committee members constantly reference as they deliberate how to select and seed teams for March Madness) are getting a facelift. Two metrics — one résumé-based, one predictive — will be implemented starting next year. This will bring six metrics to team sheets, rounding out a process that will have more data — three predictive metrics, three résumé-based — than ever before.

BartTorvik.com, a predictive metric similar to KenPom.com, was approved as an official team sheet metric, per the NCAA's release. Torvik's T-Rank system has ascended in popularity in college basketball circles over the past half-decade. The other big add is a metric referred to as "Wins Above Bubble," which is résumé-based and in essence shows how many more (or fewer) wins a team has earned against its schedule vs. what an average bubble team would do against that same schedule. For the hardcore analytic community in basketball, Wins Above Bubble (WAB) has been regarded as the most objective of all metrics when it comes to evaluating résumé performance.

www.cbssports.com

NCAA Tournament to include two new metrics beginning in 2025; committee delays decision on expansion

Additionally: In 2026, Indianapolis will become the first city to host the D-I, D-II, D-III and men's NIT tournaments in the same year
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com
Click to expand...

I'm waiting on Hodger to break down the two new metrics and how it impacts us.

Go Gophers!!
 

MisterGopher said:
The NCAA men's basketball committee wrapped its annual summer meetings on Wednesday and didn't move closer to a decision on whether to expand the NCAA Tournament, sources told CBS Sports. The topic was discussed at length Tuesday and remains up for debate for many reasons, arguably the biggest being the significant financial commitment (with millions more in expenses) that would come with expanding — not just the men's tournament but the women's as well. The NCAA is deliberating whether to stay at 68 teams or increase to 72 or 76. There's no timeline on a decision, sources told CBS Sports.

Committee members also discussed the consequence that would come with expanding the field, sources said, namely that going to 72 or 76 teams would require teams that would be in a 68-team field to be pulled out of the Thursday/Friday matchups to play on Tuesday/Wednesday in the First Four-type of event. Some of those teams would likely be No. 10 seeds, which does have impacts of competitive balance of the bracket.

Two new metrics coming to selection process
On Thursday morning, the NCAA announced the changes that were approved during the committee's meetings in Park City, Utah. Most notably, the ever-valuable team sheets (which committee members constantly reference as they deliberate how to select and seed teams for March Madness) are getting a facelift. Two metrics — one résumé-based, one predictive — will be implemented starting next year. This will bring six metrics to team sheets, rounding out a process that will have more data — three predictive metrics, three résumé-based — than ever before.

BartTorvik.com, a predictive metric similar to KenPom.com, was approved as an official team sheet metric, per the NCAA's release. Torvik's T-Rank system has ascended in popularity in college basketball circles over the past half-decade. The other big add is a metric referred to as "Wins Above Bubble," which is résumé-based and in essence shows how many more (or fewer) wins a team has earned against its schedule vs. what an average bubble team would do against that same schedule. For the hardcore analytic community in basketball, Wins Above Bubble (WAB) has been regarded as the most objective of all metrics when it comes to evaluating résumé performance.

www.cbssports.com

NCAA Tournament to include two new metrics beginning in 2025; committee delays decision on expansion

Additionally: In 2026, Indianapolis will become the first city to host the D-I, D-II, D-III and men's NIT tournaments in the same year
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com
Click to expand...
If you’re above the bubble won’t you pop it?

I’m no stats geek but the fewer games the big guys play against the lower ones, the less valuable they appear to me. Less likely to get anything close to apples to apples comparisons.
 




As a big devotee of t-rank, I'm thrilled to see Torvik get this sort of validation.

Adding WAB is interesting. MSU was actually negative in this stat (-0.19) last year and 56th in the final rankings. There were 8 schools that were left out of the NCAAs that were ranked higher than MSU in WAB. The highest rated of those was Indiana St. at 28th and +1.9 Wins over Bubble.

Where MSU gets some credit is having the 5th toughest schedule (ISU wasn't bad for a mid major at 108th). Still, the way the metrics go, WAB takes SOS into account. You actually have to win games, not just play them. MSU should have been squarely on the bubble and ISU should not have (even though they lost head-to-head to MSU @ Breslin). MSU was a 9 seed, so they were kind of in safely, too.
 



Only resume based metrics should be used for setting the field, no predictive ones. This is competitive sports, you're supposed to get what you earned with your performance up towards this point, not what a spreadsheet thinks you might do tomorrow.

It's like minority report, where Tom cruise arrested people for crimes they might commit.
 



bleedsmaroonandgold said:
Only resume based metrics should be used for setting the field, no predictive ones. This is competitive sports, you're supposed to get what you earned with your performance up towards this point, not what a spreadsheet thinks you might do tomorrow.

It's like minority report, where Tom cruise arrested people for crimes they might commit.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I like having a mix of both. Resume first, though. The predictive stuff can help "break ties" when there aren't obvious differences in resumes. However, this stance does end up favoring high major schools.
 

Ski-U-Ham said:
This is a Venn diagram situation (NCAA fans = geeks = Gopher fans)
Click to expand...
We have some people - well, maybe one person - on the forum whose main Venn diagram intersection with "Gopher fan" is "I know everything, everyone else is stupid/a geek, and it's a conspiracy".
 

formerlybis said:
We have some people - well, maybe one person - on the forum whose main Venn diagram intersection with "Gopher fan" is "I know everything, everyone else is stupid/a geek, and it's a conspiracy".
Click to expand...
Me?

Because I don't think winning 2 NCAA games in 27 years at Minnesota comes without an effort to hold us back?

You think Coyle was hired as a bulldog to find the problems and fix them?

Yeah I also think I'm right and others are wrong for wanting schools to pay the students. As for enjoying the NCAA Tournament without the Gophers in it...it's just my opinion that it stinks.
 

EasyThere Pilgrim said:
Me?

Because I don't think winning 2 NCAA games in 27 years at Minnesota comes without an effort to hold us back?

You think Coyle was hired as a bulldog to find the problems and fix them?

Yeah I also think I'm right and others are wrong for wanting schools to pay the students. As for enjoying the NCAA Tournament without the Gophers in it...it's just my opinion that it stinks.
Click to expand...
You're so vain, you think that post was about you, dont you, dont you?
 
Last edited:




I wish they went back to more heavily weighing late season wins. I understand the rationale of treating all games the same, whether they're in December or late February/March. A lot of young teams, or now teams with a bunch of transfers are much different and better teams by the end of the season. More established teams sometimes stay the same or even decline relative to the teams around them.
At the end of the day, it's the teams as they exist in March competing in the tournament.
 

BartTorvik.com...evidently somebody told them about it after the tournament.
St Johns is #16 and New Mexico is # 29 and they were not picking either one.
Conspiracy?
 

UMwolverine said:
I wish they went back to more heavily weighing late season wins. I understand the rationale of treating all games the same, whether they're in December or late February/March. A lot of young teams, or now teams with a bunch of transfers are much different and better teams by the end of the season. More established teams sometimes stay the same or even decline relative to the teams around them.
At the end of the day, it's the teams as they exist in March competing in the tournament.
Click to expand...
They ignore conference tournament season ending games unless you win it all.
 

Torvik Big Ten Teams Rank
Purdue 3
Ill 13
Mich St 18
Wisc 25
Neb 26
NW 37
Ohio St 41
Iowa 54
Maryland 68
Penn St 75
Minnesota 77
Indiana 83
Rutgers 105
Michigan 118

other notable: St Thomas 144
 

Hard to believe Gophers were only ten slots away from a tournament spot. Sure did not feel like it.
 

HitMeAgainIAmStillMoving said:
Hard to believe Gophers were only ten slots away from a tournament spot. Sure did not feel like it.
Click to expand...
This is mansplaining, but you know the tourney isn't just the top 68 teams. The auto-qualifiers from mid majors are often well outside that ranking. You usually have to at least be in the top 50 and have some quality wins to get an at-large berth.

I would also recommend looking at Wins Above Bubble (WAB). Gophers were 84th at -2.9.

Now look at Indiana. They were lower ranked than the Gophers overall, but were much closer to the bubble at -0.41 WAB. They had wins over MSU and Wisconsin and played a noncon that had UConn, Auburn, and Kansas. Had Indiana gotten even one of those wins in the noncon, they'd have been in the tourney.

MN played no one in the noncon - they could have gone undefeated and still be at 0 WAB (all bubble teams would be expected to go through that pathetic slate with somewhere between zero and one losses). Therefore, the way to read the Gophers' WAB stat is that they would've needed 3 more conference wins just to get on the bubble.

They were not close.
 

I’d really like to see them revise the NET a bit. Brad Brownell was very vocal last year about the Big 12 gaming the NET in the non-conference, which leads to more Quad 1 conference opportunities. I wish there was a metric within the NET that would punish a team for doing this. It’s happening a lot these days.
 

It's fine if you guys love college basketball. All the dozens of metrics. Pouring over all the details.

It's just so boring to me though. It seems like something a Gophers fan would have zero interest in.
 

EasyThere Pilgrim said:
It's fine if you guys love college basketball. All the dozens of metrics. Pouring over all the details.

It's just so boring to me though. It seems like something a Gophers fan would have zero interest in.
Click to expand...
If you find it boring, maybe sit this thread out.

The gophers are a college basketball team. Seems like understanding how college basketball works is pretty relevant. Also provides evidence of why pussyish scheduling dooms you.
 

formerlybis said:
If you find it boring, maybe sit this thread out.

The gophers are a college basketball team. Seems like understanding how college basketball works is pretty relevant. Also provides evidence of why pussyish scheduling dooms you.
Click to expand...
Only 2 NCAA wins in 27 years isn't a scheduling issue.

But if it's something to talk about and pass the time, that's fine.
 

The BartTorvik.com is very similar to Ken Pom which is also a strong efficiency ranking.
I think Bart also developed the Wins Above Bubble.
Gophers spent much of this last season -1 at the best in this (after the loss to Missouri.

Using KenPom / Efficiency and BartTorvik.com are almost just doubling or tripling down on efficiency metrics.

To have a strong efficiency rankings, you want to blow out a lot of teams. Scoring margin matters.
The NET has a portion in it's formula where margin of victory is considered than stopped around 10-12 points (I forget which), but the underlying efficiency rankings (KenPom, Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Efficiency (and now Bart) are all strongly valuing the ability to score points and prevent points from being scored (Margin of Victory)).

TLDR, this change is good for teams who win games by large margins.
 

Dano564 said:
TLDR, this change is good for teams who win games by large margins.
Click to expand...
This is mostly true, I think. But playing the scrubs in garbage time isn't going to materially affect your overall efficiency because they're probably only playing around 10% of that games' possessions. The risk of losing a rotation guy to injury in a blowout is not statistically worth the minimal gain, IMO.

The WAB isn't affected by margin of victory, though (well, very indirectly and insignificantly, but I won't go there).
 

I'd like basketball to go to the same pairwise hockey uses. I've always been philosophically opposed to humans making who is in and who is out decisions, but after what the CFP did to FSU last year, I am convinced human committee can't be trusted.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom