Home Tags Posts tagged with "2017-18"
Tag:

2017-18

Education

No fees for EU students starting 2017/18 courses in Scotland

by Rajdeep
written by Rajdeep

Scotland’s Education Secretary John Swinney has told the SNP conference that students from EU countries starting in 2017/18 would pay no fees.

In July the minister said there would be no change to funding in 2016/17.

Guarantees were being sought by students after the UK voted to leave the European Union.

Mr Swinney also urged the UK government to “guarantee their [students] right to stay here during their studies and work here after their studies”.

He announced the funding pledge during his keynote address to the Glasgow conference, attended by 3,000 delegates.

  • Follow the BBC’s Philip Sim who will be covering conference news
  • BBC Scotland’s political editor on the SNP’s “best and worst of time”

The MSP said: “We have already confirmed tuition fee funding to support EU students studying here, or preparing to start this year.

“Now, we will extend that guarantee to those starting next year in 2017/18.

“And, unlike Labour and the Tories, that’s tuition-free education we are guaranteeing – not the massive fees they impose on students wherever they come from.”

Classroom of childrenImage copyrightPA
Image captionMr Swinney said he wanted to “substantially eliminate” the attainment gap within a decade

He added: “We will guarantee their funding. But what I demand is that the Tory-Brexit government guarantee their right to stay here during the studies and work here after their studies.

“They are not cards to be played. They are human beings.”

Education was a strong theme in Mr Swinney’s speech.

He said his task to “close the attainment gap for our poorest pupils” was simple.

Mr Swinney added: “And our ambition is equally straightforward: we will make significant progress in closing the gap within the next parliament and substantially eliminate it within a decade.

“It may be a simple objective. It may be a straightforward aim. But it will not be easy. We do not underestimate the scale of our ambition.”

‘Democratic landscape’

He also spoke about the desire to “re-invigorate local government” by “reconnecting it with communities”.

A review is already under way on the role of councils in the delivery of education.

Mr Swinney will now review the relationships between local authorities and health boards.

He said: “We aim to achieve nothing less than to transform our democratic landscape, protect and renew public services and refresh the relationship between citizens, communities and councils.”

“We do this not because it is radical – and it is – but because we believe it is right.

“We do it not because it is easy – it’s not – but because it is in the national interest.

“We believe that national interest lies in placing power in the people of this country’s hands. It is why I believe in independence.”

[Source:- BBC]

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
News Update

2017-18 Non-Conference Schedule Ratings: Methodology

by Loknath Das
written by Loknath Das

Joe’s Bruins receive a positive shout out in my introductory methodology post. 
Kyle Terada-USA TODAY Sports

For all of the posts in this series, visit the 2017-18 Non-Conference Scheduling Hub.

The 2017-18 men’s Division I college basketball season will tip off in just a bit more than two weeks. Unfortunately, it took almost the entire offseason to learn everyone’s non-conference schedule. Just last week, the FIU Panthers and Maryland Eastern Shore Fighting Hawksreleased their slates, while the Arkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions just posted theirs on their website on Monday, October 23rd! If you remember the 2016-17 version of this series, I had to make several late updates to the rankings, thanks to some games added in early October. And I limited that version to the teams I considered part of the at-large pool.

However, I’ve expanded my coverage for 2017-18 to all 32 Division I conferences. So, that’s going to make rankings updates far more difficult. Therefore, all data in this series reflects games scheduled as of Monday, October 23rd.

Speaking of data, here are the explanations of the various terms you’ll find in these posts.

Team Scores

To calculate the relative strength of each of Division I’s 351 men’s college basketball teams, I used the same basic four-year formula from the last two seasons. As usual, more recent seasons are rated more highly, but last year is not fully weighted due to roster changes. This is the Team Score.

There’s one significant change from last season that’s affected this whole exercise. Ken Pomeroy switched his ratings from the Pythagorean Winning Percentage (pwp) to an Adjusted Efficiency Margin (AdjEM). Since these margins can be positive and negative (or zero, if we want to get even more technical), this change impacts my later calculations more than the Team Score rating itself. To better reflect the scale of differences between teams, my data consists of KenPom.com’s pre-NCAA Tournament AdjEM numbers, not the rankings, for 2013-14 through 2016-17.

I’ve factored these AdjEM numbers into the formula like so:

2014AdjEM*0.2 + 2015AdjEM*0.4 + 2016AdjEM*0.6 + 2017AdjEM*0.8 = Opponent Score

Even with the change from pwp to AdjEM, the rankings still feature teams that are placed where you’d expect to find them.

Top 10: 1. Villanova Wildcats (14.514); 2. Virginia Cavaliers (14.088); 3. Kentucky Wildcats(13.985); 4. Gonzaga Bulldogs (13.422); 5. Kansas Jayhawks (13.299); 6. North Carolina Tar Heels (13.103); 7. Arizona Wildcats (12.585); 8. Louisville Cardinals (12.556); 9. Duke Blue Devils (12.550); 10. Wichita State Shockers (11.878)

Bottom 10: 342. Chicago State Cougars (-9.589); 343. Maine Black Bears (-9.875); 344. Alabama A&M Bulldogs (-10.648); 345. Arkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions (-10.654); 346. Central Connecticut State Blue Devils (-11.004) 347. Mississippi Valley State Delta Devils(-11. 092); 348. North Carolina A&T Aggies (-11.262); 349. Presbyterian Blue Hose(-11.460); 350. Grambling State Tigers (-11.485); 351. Florida A&M Rattlers (-11.956)

Game Scores

To judge a team’s non-conference schedule strength, I used the same formula from last season that reflects game location, conceptually. However, I had to modify the location weighting to reflect the AdjEM metric’s infinite quality.

Contests against individual opponents receive a Game Score—this the Team Score weighted against one five location classifications:

  • True Home Games
  • Semi-Home Games
  • True Neutral-Site Games
  • Semi-Road Games
  • True Road Games.

When necessary, I will offer my specific reasons for placing games in particular category in each team’s individual capsule.

True Home Games against an opponent always receive a Game Score that equals the Team Score. I applied no weighting to these.

However, I had to adjust the weighting for all other game sites to reflect the positive and negative Team Scores AdjEM creates.

Let’s start with the best team in the rankings, Villanova Wildcats. The Wildcats’ weightings work just like last season’s.

  • Semi-home games against VU are scored at 18.142 (Team Score of 14.514*1.25 weighing factor)
  • True-neutral site games are scored at 21.771 (14.514*1.5 weighting factor)
  • Semi-road games are scored at 25.399 (14.514*1.75)
  • True road games are scored at 29.028 (14.514*2)

But if you attempt to use these same weighting factors with a team with a negative AdjEM, you only end up with larger negative numbers. And since these ratings are designed to reward teams that play games away from home, I had to adjust the weighting as illustrated with the Game Scores for the 351st-ranked team, Florida A&M Rattlers.

  • Home games against FAMU are always scored with the Rattlers’ Team Score of -11.956.
  • Semi-home games against FAMU are scored at -10.462 (Team Score of -11.956*0.875 weighting factor)
  • True neutral-site games are scored at -8.967 (-11.956*0.75 weighting factor)
  • Semi-road games are scored at -7.473 (-11.956*0.625)
  • True road games are scored at -5.978 (-11.956*0.5)

In other words, I multiplied the negative Team Score by a decimal that would provide the same weighting that positive Team Scores receive when they’re multiplied against the holdover positive location factor.

Games against non-Division I opposition always receive a zero, no matter the site. However, looking at some of this year’s results, I am open to suggestions as to how to better punish teams for scheduling these contests within the ratings.

Schedule Strength

To measure an individual team’s Schedule Strength, I’ve used the following formula, since non-conference schedules vary in size:

Game score 1 + Game score 2 + Game score 3 + … Game score N / N …

where N equals the total number of non-conference games a team scheduled. Note that individual Ns range from 10 to 17 games this season.

Teams participating in bracketed tournaments once again receive four schedule strength scores.

  • The Known Schedule Strength accounts for all established games on a team’s schedule, including the first opponent in a bracketed tournament, but does not account for anypending tournament games. In this case, the N is only the number of known games.

For example, the Florida Gators, participating in the Phil Knight Invitational with semifinal and final day opponents to be determined, have a “Known Schedule” N of 11, while their “Complete Schedule” N, which will be used for the next three metrics, totals 13.

  • The Average Schedule Strength accounts for the game score for the first opponent and the average game scores of all possible opponents for the second and third games. This score reflects the general strength of a team’s tournament field.
  • The Maximum Schedule Strength accounts for the game score for the first opponent and the game score for the best possible opponent for the second and third games. In other words, this score projects a trip to the event’s championship contest.
  • The Minimum Schedule Strength accounts for the game score for the first opponent and the game score for the worst possible opponent for the second and third games. In other words, this score projects a trip to the event’s consolation game (in a four-team bracket) or seventh/eighth-place game (in an eight-team bracket).

The average score is the most meaningful one, in my opinion, simply because it’s impossible for all evaluated teams to experience either the best or worst case scenario. Instead, the average score aims to reflect the collective quality of the tournament field. As a result, the overall min and max rankings will wildly vary from the average ranking, as you’ll see in future posts. All teams, even those whose schedules are set in stone, are placed within all four rankings.

For example, here is the Pac-12’s schedule ranking table with all four schedule strength scores and national rankings displayed.

Pac-12 Schedule Strengths And National Ranks

Team Average Schedule Strength Natl. Rank Known Schedule Strength Natl. Rank Maximum Schedule Strength Natl. Rank Minimum Schedule Strength Natl. Rank
USC* 5.62410679 18 5.469565573 20 6.158464481 15 5.174309965 18
UCLA* 5.112022823 28 4.122048788 51 5.124328304 44 5.099717342 21
Stanford* 5.095030839 30 3.701206896 67 6.128585065 16 3.77367895 58
Arizona State* 3.649610896 79 3.10096625 94 3.958771771 81 3.340450021 81
Colorado* 2.468786568 134 2.681608788 119 3.410540052 108 1.774738927 162
Arizona* 3.490800178 89 2.096768159 150 4.714069596 55 2.164762183 140
Washington* 2.093394117 155 2.077499145 153 2.439552272 154 1.747235961 165
Utah* 1.540382565 197 1.75029529 173 1.65229048 204 1.42847465 190
California* 2.175467206 150 0.8855256364 223 2.766924827 135 1.424117962 192
Washington State* -0.3122001786 299 -1.606715135 336 0.6447779708 263 -1.300622604 332
Oregon* -0.358218101 302 -1.819551546 338 0.7476092692 258 -1.674296572 338
Oregon State* -1.494194218 337 -2.349537549 343 -0.4288141571 310 -2.313995832 343
Average 2.423749124 151.5 1.675806691 172.25 3.109758328 136.9166667 1.719880913 170
Conference Rank 6 of 32 17 of 32 4 of 32 17 of 32

Bracketed tournament Game Scores can also vary based on site, especially since several of these events feature teams playing true or semi-home games this season (for example, the UCF Knights in the AdvoCare Invitational and the Cal State Fullerton Titans in the Wooden Legacy). Games for a bracketed tournament appear twice if there’s a location-rating difference, with the names of the teams that don’t fall under a particular category placed in parentheses.

Scheduling Gaps

One thing I decided to measure this season is how well a team’s schedule strength matches up with its four-year KenPom ranking. Ideally, you would think teams would schedule to their capability. So, I devised a simple formula to determine how often this happened and how badly teams over- or under-scheduled, using the Average Schedule Strength Ranking to account for the relative strength of the fields of bracketed tournaments.

2014-17 Team Score Ranking – 2017-18 Average Schedule Strength Ranking = Scheduling Gap

Since the Scheduling Gap can be either positive or negative, teams are ranked first by the absolute value the gap, since both over- and under-scheduling are undesirable, but smaller differences are preferable to larger ones. When two teams share the same gap, teams who over-scheduled are ranked higher than those who under-scheduled. If two teams are still tied, the stronger average schedule strength results in a higher rankings.

Since the Pac-12 offers an example of a team that did a perfect job of scheduling to its ranking, UCLA, and one that didn’t, cough Oregon cough, here’s that conference’s breakdown as a sample.

Pac-12 Scheduling Gaps

National Rank Team Team Score Rank Avg. Schedule Strength Rank Scheduling Gap
1 UCLA 28 28 0
16 Arizona St. 85 79 6
108 Stanford 74 30 44
118 USC 65 18 47
128 Washington 103 155 -52
172 Colorado 60 134 -74
187 Arizona 7 89 -82
207 California 49 150 -101
227 Washington St. 183 299 -116
291 Utah 24 197 -173
309 Oregon St. 135 337 -202
340 Oregon 18 302 -284
175.3333333 Average (22/32 conf.) 69.25 151.5 -82.25

Teams Covered

This season, I’ve written a post for all 32 conferences, though my primary focus will remain on the teams likely to find themselves in the at-large pool. That includes all teams in the power conferences (ACC, American, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC) and select mid-majors. Regardless of conference, each post will not only include a capsule about each team’s non-league slate, but also information about game quality, game location, and geographical considerations when scheduling opponents. I’ll be posting about four conferences a day over eight days. To spread the wealth, I’m publishing in the following order based on the conferences’ average team rankings:

  • Thursday, October 26th: Conferences 32 (SWAC), 24 (Patriot), 16 (Sun Belt), 8 (A 10)
  • Friday, October 27th: Conferences 31 (MEAC), 23 (WAC), 15 (Ivy), 7 (American)
  • Monday, October 30th: Conferences 30 (NEC), 22 (OVC), 14 (Summit), 6 (Pac-12)
  • Tuesday, October 31st: Conferences 29 (Southland), 21 (Horizon), 13 (CAA), 5 (SEC)
  • Wednesday, November 1st: Conferences 28 (Big Sky), 20 (Big West), 12 (MAC), 4 (Big Ten)
  • Thursday, November 2nd: Conferences 27 (Big South), 19 (SoCon), 11 (MVC), 3 (Big East)
  • Friday, November 3rd: Conferences 26 (ASUN), 18 (MAAC), 10 (WCC), 2 (ACC)
  • Monday, November 6th: Conferences 25 (AE), 17 (C-USA), 9 (MW), 1 (Big 12)

Before moving to the actual teams, I want to close with a thank you the Twittersphere’s @TheD1Docket for sounding the virtual klaxon any time a team released or changed a schedule during this offseason. That info made this arduous task slightly easier, though I still learned some lessons that will make this task easier in future seasons!

[“Source-bloggingthebracket”]

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
error: Content is protected !!