Post by Admin on Apr 10, 2018 13:36:39 GMT
We received word that in a surprise move, the basketball committee in an executive session, voted to change the basketball power ratings formula yesterday. Below is the formula plus the explanation and more!
Result of Contest
Class 1A – 5A
Win (25 Points)+ 2pts. Playing up each class + Opponents win/Oppt. games played x 34
Your total # of games played
Lose (0 Points) + 2pts. Playing up each class + Opponents win/Oppt. games played x 34
Your total # of games played
Result of Contest
Class B & C
Win (30 Points)+ 2pts. Playing up each class + Opponents win/Oppt. games played x 44
Your total # of games played
Lose (0 Points)+ 2pts. Playing up each class + Opponents win/Oppt. games played x 44
Your total # of games played
Proposed Amendment:
(Note: This is the football power raking system with a different number for games played.)
A team’s power ranking shall be the result of the contest, plus 2pts. for playing up, plus the opponent’s wins divided by the opponent’s games played, multiplied by 34 or 44 to get the total power points of each game which is then divided by the total number of games played during the season.
Explanation:
In the current power ranking system, opponent wins are grossly over weighted. In fact, a losing team has the possibility of receiving more points than the winning team. In order to balance the scales, a win should be worth an average of the number of games a team will play. Since the number of games played by basketball teams generally varies, 25 and 30 points were calculated as the average number of games played by taking the median between 15 and 34 or 44. This adjustment brings into account opponents winning percentage rather than simply opponent’s wins as the variable in the equation. This proposed formula would put all teams on a level playing field as though they all played the same number of games (34 or 44). It also allows a team to receive 100% of an opponents wins instead of only 50%.
Pros:
1. This proposed power-ranking system would balance the weight of winning and the strength of schedule (opponents wins). It would put all teams on a level playing field despite the number of games that they played. (A team must play a minimum of 15 games and a maximum of 34 or 44)
Cons:
1. No seeding system is perfect and their will always be discrepancy in the power raking system.
Result of Contest
Class 1A – 5A
Win (25 Points)+ 2pts. Playing up each class + Opponents win/Oppt. games played x 34
Your total # of games played
Lose (0 Points) + 2pts. Playing up each class + Opponents win/Oppt. games played x 34
Your total # of games played
Result of Contest
Class B & C
Win (30 Points)+ 2pts. Playing up each class + Opponents win/Oppt. games played x 44
Your total # of games played
Lose (0 Points)+ 2pts. Playing up each class + Opponents win/Oppt. games played x 44
Your total # of games played
Proposed Amendment:
(Note: This is the football power raking system with a different number for games played.)
A team’s power ranking shall be the result of the contest, plus 2pts. for playing up, plus the opponent’s wins divided by the opponent’s games played, multiplied by 34 or 44 to get the total power points of each game which is then divided by the total number of games played during the season.
Explanation:
In the current power ranking system, opponent wins are grossly over weighted. In fact, a losing team has the possibility of receiving more points than the winning team. In order to balance the scales, a win should be worth an average of the number of games a team will play. Since the number of games played by basketball teams generally varies, 25 and 30 points were calculated as the average number of games played by taking the median between 15 and 34 or 44. This adjustment brings into account opponents winning percentage rather than simply opponent’s wins as the variable in the equation. This proposed formula would put all teams on a level playing field as though they all played the same number of games (34 or 44). It also allows a team to receive 100% of an opponents wins instead of only 50%.
Pros:
1. This proposed power-ranking system would balance the weight of winning and the strength of schedule (opponents wins). It would put all teams on a level playing field despite the number of games that they played. (A team must play a minimum of 15 games and a maximum of 34 or 44)
Cons:
1. No seeding system is perfect and their will always be discrepancy in the power raking system.
