Column: Predictive Metrics Should Not Be Used for Tournament Evaluation

Why would we use metrics that are "what if" over metrics that use results to create their ranking

Last week, the NCAA ran a mock selection for March Madness.

One of the revelations that came of it was the WAB is used as one of the most important metrics used in the selection process.

The WAB is a results based metric.

Results based metrics measure the final outcome of a game, while predictive metrics measure the behavior or activities that are likely to lead to a desired outcome.

A case for a bubble team should be based on what they did instead of what they could potentially do.

The percentage that a team does exactly what they are predicted to do is nearly impossible, so why even take into consideration predictive metrics, especially when it determines who makes the tournament or not.

We always hear coaches say, “we can only play who is on our schedule,” and that is correct.

A team can be judged for who they play and how they play, but being judged on a what if is ridiculous.

BartTorvik and KenPom should have no place in the selection committee room.

Miami (OH) has an SOR of 22, WAB of 35 and NET of 48. Those three metrics are results based metrics that are accurate depictions of the RedHawks.

KenPom has them 83 and BartTorvik has them at 76.

If results based metrics are based on what happened in the games, then how can you properly evaluate what a team could be based on efficiency against an unnamed opponent.

We over analyze teams when an undefeated team that averages 91.6 points per game should have the chance to play in the tournament over a middling power conference team.