NCAA was announced NCAA Tournament. Gone are the factors for winning percentage, weighted winning percentage and restricted winning margin. The secret “Team Value Index” remains unchanged. The Net Efficiency component is now called Adjusted Net Efficiency and is now a factor in opponent strength and game location. TVI has those components too, but they may have different effects on each of the two components.used to help the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Committee select and seed
Here’s what you need to know about the new NET and its impact on the selection process.
The NCAA keeps a secret formula that is heavily guarded
The secret formula is even more secret now. In fact, almost no part of the formula can be calculated or reverse-engineered. Only the basic net efficiency can still be calculated.
My old readers know that I’m not a fan of secret formulas. It’s not fair for the team not to know exactly how they are judged. When ranking out intuitively makes no sense, no one can explain why this is so, and that might include the committee itself. They tell you that you are not smart enough to understand the system in detail, or that you are not worthy of understanding. Maybe both.
There are no plans to make more parts of this formula publicly available.
Caps on Margin of Victory are officially gone
There is no longer any pretense that the Margin of Victory is limited, or even unimportant. Margin of Victory has never been restricted before because net efficiency is an analytic term for uncovered winning margins and that is the second weighted factor in the previous NET version. The difference is that the net efficiency calculates the MOV based on points per ownership, not points per game. And because assets must be estimated, they may not be exactly the same.
However, this is now the most weighty part of the formula. In fact, NCAA Director for Media Coordination and Statistics David Worlock said that this section was “heavier” than TVI. During the first two years of NET, TVI was the most weighted part of the formula, reflecting the committee’s desire to deliver results above the winning margin. Now, it’s reversed. The strength of the schedule is still important and in some ways part of both factors, but running the score cannot be underestimated.
Schedule strength will be changed
The strength of the ranking schedule will remain, both as a whole and non-conference, but the formulas have also changed. That might be good, because they still use the formula from the old RPI, and it’s not very sophisticated. They will also remain important.
However, like everything else, the formula for this is also a secret. Thus explained as follows:
“The strength of the schedule is based on the ranking of each match on the team schedule for how difficult it is for the NCAA Tournament caliber team to win. This considers the strength of the opponent and the site of each match, assigning each match a score of difficulty. Aggregating this in all matches results in an overall expected percentage of victory versus a team schedule, which can be ranked to get a better measure of schedule strength. ”
I suspect we all have different definitions of “NCAA tournament caliber teams.” We will not see the NCAA’s definition of it.
Win percentage, adjusted win percentage, and the MOV limit of the old formula never make sense, so good.
The quadrant system remains the same
This is a new ranking system for placing teams into quadrants on team sheets. The sheets also did not change. No matter how sophisticated the rating system is, it is not designed to select and plant teams for committees. There will still be teams that are left with good rankings and teams that enter with relatively poor ranking. The committee still doesn’t want the computer to do all their thinking for them.
Last thought. This tends to be more inclined to the strength team. It is only educated guesses, but the more important the margin of victory, the more it will benefit strong schools. That means they can still play some bad teams, but reduce the impact of SOS by increasing the score as high as possible.
Also, it will be difficult to judge how the committee treats this ranking vs. the old NET version because we only have one year of selection based on that. That’s not a good statistical sample.