BPI, KPI, NET, Pom, Sag, SOR ... WTH?

[ISU86]

Took a look at the NCAA Team Sheets through 2/3. It listed the following six rantings per school:

BPI (Basketball Power Index)
KPI (Key Performance Indicator)
NET (NCAA Evaluation Tool)
Pom (Pomeroy)
Sag (Sagarin)
SOR (Strength Of Record, although each school's listed value is 0)

The RPI (Rating Percentage Index) is nowhere to be found.

The difference in the results among them were as follows:

| MVC | DI | | | | | | |
| W- L | W- L | BPI | KPI | NET | Pom | Sag | SOR | AVG
==== | ===== | ===== | === | === | === | === | === | === | =======
LU | 7- 3 | 13- 9 | 103 | 138 | 134 | 136 | 103 | 0 | 122.800
IlSU | 7- 3 | 13- 9 | 193 | 134 | 168 | 165 | 142 | 0 | 160.400
DU | 6- 4 | 15- 6 | 135 | 83 | 137 | 114 | 122 | 0 | 118.200
SIU | 5- 5 | 12-11 | 156 | 158 | 155 | 162 | 143 | 0 | 154.800
MSU | 5- 5 | 10-12 | 160 | 193 | 164 | 163 | 166 | 0 | 169.200
UNI | 5- 5 | 8-13 | 211 | 159 | 191 | 203 | 182 | 0 | 189.200
VU | 5- 5 | 10-11 | 189 | 190 | 193 | 217 | 184 | 0 | 194.600
UE | 4- 6 | 8-13 | 222 | 189 | 181 | 181 | 187 | 0 | 192.000
InSU | 3- 7 | 9-11 | 224 | 157 | 189 | 201 | 167 | 0 | 187.600
BU | 3- 7 | 10-12 | 209 | 207 | 206 | 216 | 186 | 0 | 204.800
==== | ===== | ===== | === | === | === | === | === | === | =======
Avg | 5- 5 | 11-11 | 180 | 161 | 172 | 176 | 158 | 0 | 169.360

I meant to pull RPI as of that date, just to see the variance from the old ("easy to be manipulated" by the non-Power Six) standard to the new (modern) ones.

I am curious as to everyone's opinion, especially those who tend to analyze the numbers more critically, as to the pros and cons of each one, and whether the NET is indeed a better evaluator?

NOTE: I also find it interesting the NET is the NCAA's gold standard although no one independently has stated that the calculations are indeed accurate (just Google (who helped develop) and NCAA saying yes, they are correct, trust us).

Finally, here is a link to the Team Sheets if you have never seen them before - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats%20Library/NET%20Team%20Sheets%20-%20Games%20through%20Feb.%203,%202019.pdf

 

[ricohill]

I don't have a ton of research on it, but Mark Adams (former TV voice of the MVC) had some tweets showing that the NET hurts non power 5 schools.

The one thing I think the NET rewards is beating bad teams by a lot. They cap "margin of victory at 10". However, the predictive analytics like offensive/defensive efficiency bump up by winning by large margin.

 

[Trey_Guidry4three]

I don't understand why you guys care to waste so much time researching and talking about these types of things. History has proven it means nothing for small conference schools!!!

 

[Metamoron]

I have only one question on NET. What did it show Loyola as prior to arch madness Sunday last year.

Or in other words, was this final four team going to be selected based on NET. The answer has to be out there somewhere.

I even emailed Josh Tolentino about the question hoping it would spark an article in The Athletic

You know NCAA has to have last year’s team with NET. I have yet to hear what it shows.

 

[Tpguy]

TP index by school

1. ISU - 2 ply closest to Charmin
2. Loyola -paper soaked and dried in holy water
3. SIU - right hand
4. Ind St.- seconds purchased from Scott Paper
5. UE - 1 ply on weekdays, 2 ply on week ends
6 DU - Duck feathers
7. MSU - Old Sears catalogs
8. UNI - nothing, usually just full of shit
9. VU - bunny pelts
10. Bradley - poison ivy or mama's hankies

 

[bb fan]

Better than any of the crap the NCAA makes up to favor the P5's, TP.

 

[TIMMY]

TP index by school

1. ISU - 2 ply closest to Charmin
2. Loyola -paper soaked and dried in holy water
3. SIU - right hand
4. Ind St.- seconds purchased from Scott Paper
5. UE - 1 ply on weekdays, 2 ply on week ends
6 DU - Duck feathers
7. MSU - Old Sears catalogs
8. UNI - nothing, usually just full of shit
9. VU - bunny pelts
10. Bradley - poison ivy or mama's hankies

 

[ChiRedbirdfan]

I don't understand why you guys care to waste so much time researching and talking about these types of things. History has proven it means nothing for small conference schools!!!

Power basketball conferences typically get the best players, can buy the best coaches, have the best athletic trainers, have the best facilities, have bigger fan support, have SIGNIFICANT more money to spend on anything and everything that helps winning not already mentioned....so do you really think it is a conspiracy that a majority of teams in those conferences are going to rate out higher than the lessers regardless of metric utilized? The problem is the separation between the good and the bad has been gradually increasing over time and the trend has not slowed up. The MVC may be the biggest loser over time in terms of lost relevance. That MVC has become a true one big league by nature of the auto bid otherwise the MVC would not have one team in the 2019 ncaa tourney. I hope ISU has a strategy to get itself to a more relevant conference.

 

[V Boy]

Probably best to look at these numbers when our scores are about 100 points better. Pretty irrelevant right now.

 

[ISU86]

I don't understand why you guys care to waste so much time researching and talking about these types of things. History has proven it means nothing for small conference schools!!!

Maybe we should just schedule as light as possible, as close in proximity as possible, as cheap as possible. Chicago St, EIU, SIUE, WIU, IPFW, UMKC, SeMo. Save money and wear and tear, as it just doesn't matter.

Some need to remember the MVC has been down before. The '91-'92 season had over half of the teams finish below .500, and that was when the Valley included Creighton, Tulsa and Wichita State (the Bluejays and Shockers were two of those six in the bottom). I am sure things were not rosy then either.

 

[bombay]

Took a look at the NCAA Team Sheets through 2/3. It listed the following six rantings per school:

BPI (Basketball Power Index)
KPI (Key Performance Indicator)
NET (NCAA Evaluation Tool)
Pom (Pomeroy)
Sag (Sagarin)
SOR (Strength Of Record, although each school's listed value is 0)

The RPI (Rating Percentage Index) is nowhere to be found.

The difference in the results among them were as follows:

| MVC | DI | | | | | | |
| W- L | W- L | BPI | KPI | NET | Pom | Sag | SOR | AVG
==== | ===== | ===== | === | === | === | === | === | === | =======
LU | 7- 3 | 13- 9 | 103 | 138 | 134 | 136 | 103 | 0 | 122.800
IlSU | 7- 3 | 13- 9 | 193 | 134 | 168 | 165 | 142 | 0 | 160.400
DU | 6- 4 | 15- 6 | 135 | 83 | 137 | 114 | 122 | 0 | 118.200
SIU | 5- 5 | 12-11 | 156 | 158 | 155 | 162 | 143 | 0 | 154.800
MSU | 5- 5 | 10-12 | 160 | 193 | 164 | 163 | 166 | 0 | 169.200
UNI | 5- 5 | 8-13 | 211 | 159 | 191 | 203 | 182 | 0 | 189.200
VU | 5- 5 | 10-11 | 189 | 190 | 193 | 217 | 184 | 0 | 194.600
UE | 4- 6 | 8-13 | 222 | 189 | 181 | 181 | 187 | 0 | 192.000
InSU | 3- 7 | 9-11 | 224 | 157 | 189 | 201 | 167 | 0 | 187.600
BU | 3- 7 | 10-12 | 209 | 207 | 206 | 216 | 186 | 0 | 204.800
==== | ===== | ===== | === | === | === | === | === | === | =======
Avg | 5- 5 | 11-11 | 180 | 161 | 172 | 176 | 158 | 0 | 169.360

I meant to pull RPI as of that date, just to see the variance from the old ("easy to be manipulated" by the non-Power Six) standard to the new (modern) ones.

I am curious as to everyone's opinion, especially those who tend to analyze the numbers more critically, as to the pros and cons of each one, and whether the NET is indeed a better evaluator?

NOTE: I also find it interesting the NET is the NCAA's gold standard although no one independently has stated that the calculations are indeed accurate (just Google (who helped develop) and NCAA saying yes, they are correct, trust us).

Finally, here is a link to the Team Sheets if you have never seen them before - https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats%20Library/NET%20Team%20Sheets%20-%20Games%20through%20Feb.%203,%202019.pdf

Fine research. Thanks.

 

[Trey_Guidry4three]

I don't understand why you guys care to waste so much time researching and talking about these types of things. History has proven it means nothing for small conference schools!!!

Power basketball conferences typically get the best players, can buy the best coaches, have the best athletic trainers, have the best facilities, have bigger fan support, have SIGNIFICANT more money to spend on anything and everything that helps winning not already mentioned....so do you really think it is a conspiracy that a majority of teams in those conferences are going to rate out higher than the lessers regardless of metric utilized? The problem is the separation between the good and the bad has been gradually increasing over time and the trend has not slowed up. The MVC may be the biggest loser over time in terms of lost relevance. That MVC has become a true one big league by nature of the auto bid otherwise the MVC would not have one team in the 2019 ncaa tourney. I hope ISU has a strategy to get itself to a more relevant conference.

Yep, thanks for clarifying my point.