MUScoop

MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 12:09:29 PM

Title: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 12:09:29 PM
Okay the NET really makes no sense to me...UW loses @ Michigan and actually goes up a spot?? MU beats Nova, and doesn't move. Nova loses and doesn't move. Makes no sense to me.

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings (https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings)
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MuMark on February 10, 2019, 12:24:04 PM
That's because you are looking at it like it is the RPI.......it's not.....it's a season long metric that is not just wins and losses. UW moved up basically because VT continued its recent drop. Losing a competitive game at Michigan isn't going to hurt you.......we also have no idea how close or far the gap is between teams ranked let's say 10 and 11 is......it coy.d be razor slim or it coukd d be pretty wide.

Nova was supposed to lose to us by 2.....they lost by 1....that's not going to move the needle much either way. If we lose a close one at Nova it will likely have similar results......i.e. It won't hurt us unless teams ranked around us have excellent results in that same time frame.

Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Nukem2 on February 10, 2019, 12:56:21 PM
Yes, it’s just a system of algorithmic metrics designed by an NCAA contractor that really does not measure head to head competition.  Just a measurement used by the NCAA to sort potential tourney participants.  Even at 21 yesterday, MU was determined to be a 3 seed at this point.  The commmittee still has the final say.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 10, 2019, 03:00:02 PM
Assuming NET's margins are similar to KenPoms, then Marquette was "supposed" to win by 2. Since we won by 1, there will likely be no movement and if there was it would be negative. Im not sure what the expected margin of the UW game was, but it was probably around the 9 points it ended up being, so again litttle to no change. As Mark pointed out, Uw moved up because VT lost at Clemson. Its not so much that UW moved up, its that VT moved down.

Margins matter more than W/L.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: We R Final Four on February 10, 2019, 03:05:23 PM
Assuming NET's margins are similar to KenPoms, then Marquette was "supposed" to win by 2. Since we won by 1, there will likely be no movement and if there was it would be negative. Im not sure what the expected margin of the UW game was, but it was probably around the 9 points it ended up being, so again litttle to no change. As Mark pointed out, Uw moved up because VT lost at Clemson. Its not so much that UW moved up, its that VT moved down.

Margins matter more than W/L.
So if we are supposed to win by one, but lose by one.........in NET, it doesn’t have that much bearing because the game was close, as predicted? Am I understanding that correctly?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MuMark on February 10, 2019, 03:19:57 PM
So if we are supposed to win by one, but lose by one.........in NET, it doesn’t have that much bearing because the game was close, as predicted? Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes.....although there is a win/loss element in the rankings.....it's just that nobody knows what it is because the formula isn't known.

If we get blown out at Nova it will hurt our ranking much more then if we lose a close game which may not hurt at all......but you are always subject to the results of teams that are close to you in the rankings.....they can pass you even if you win or in Wisconsin's case this week you can move up because somebody else moves down.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 03:35:55 PM
See, numbers are fine and all, but I have a real problem with models that use "efficiency" and margins of winning and losing as a part of it. Who cares how efficient you were in a game if you won it?? Or by how much, or hell even where it is. In reality, all that SHOULD matter is whether you won or lost the game. That's the bottom line. To me, a win is a win and a loss is a loss. Win=Good, Loss=Bad. All this is doing is trying to make some losses not as bad as others...well, there is no such thing as a "pretty" loss. A loss by one or a loss by 10, they are all the same, in the end it goes on the right side of the column. And they all suck. To me, all this does is allow for more of the manta we hear now of "that wasn't a bad loss". Bullcrap! EVERY loss is bad...that is after all why they play the game. Maybe I'm too old school, I don't know. I'd much rather win ugly, then lose "pretty" any day of the weak. These models now say some losses aren't so bad...it is NEVER good to lose. Ever. Or it shouldn't be anyway, no matter if it's basketball, football, or in general.

It's too much "well you tried hard and came up a little short" mentality that prevails in society now.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Bocephys on February 10, 2019, 03:45:55 PM
See, numbers are fine and all, but I have a real problem with models that use "efficiency" and margins of winning and losing as a part of it. Who cares how efficient you were in a game if you won it?? Or by how much, or hell even where it is. In reality, all that SHOULD matter is whether you won or lost the game. That's the bottom line. To me, a win is a win and a loss is a loss. Win=Good, Loss=Bad. All this is doing is trying to make some losses not as bad as others...well, there is no such thing as a "pretty" loss. A loss by one or a loss by 10, they are all the same, in the end it goes on the right side of the column. And they all suck. To me, all this does is allow for more of the manta we hear now of "that wasn't a bad loss". Bullcrap! EVERY loss is bad...that is after all why they play the game. Maybe I'm too old school, I don't know. I'd much rather win ugly, then lose "pretty" any day of the weak. These models now say some losses aren't so bad...it is NEVER good to lose. Ever. Or it shouldn't be anyway, no matter if it's basketball, football, or in general.

It's too much "well you tried hard and came up a little short" mentality that prevails in society now.

It's a predictive model, that's why they care.  Not to diminish a past win or enhance a previous loss, but to attempt to predict a future result. 
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: IrwinFletcher on February 10, 2019, 03:48:01 PM
See, numbers are fine and all, but I have a real problem with models that use "efficiency" and margins of winning and losing as a part of it. Who cares how efficient you were in a game if you won it?? Or by how much, or hell even where it is. In reality, all that SHOULD matter is whether you won or lost the game. That's the bottom line. To me, a win is a win and a loss is a loss. Win=Good, Loss=Bad. All this is doing is trying to make some losses not as bad as others...well, there is no such thing as a "pretty" loss. A loss by one or a loss by 10, they are all the same, in the end it goes on the right side of the column. And they all suck. To me, all this does is allow for more of the manta we hear now of "that wasn't a bad loss". Bullcrap! EVERY loss is bad...that is after all why they play the game. Maybe I'm too old school, I don't know. I'd much rather win ugly, then lose "pretty" any day of the weak. These models now say some losses aren't so bad...it is NEVER good to lose. Ever. Or it shouldn't be anyway, no matter if it's basketball, football, or in general.

It's too much "well you tried hard and came up a little short" mentality that prevails in society now.

And it is about that. That is what the committee put us at 12 even though NET has us at 21. Committee is looking at who you beat and where just like they have done in the past
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 04:31:58 PM
It's a predictive model, that's why they care.  Not to diminish a past win or enhance a previous loss, but to attempt to predict a future result.

But to predict a future result is futile..We can all make predictions about anything, but it doesn't mean that is what will happen. Numbers don't always tell the story about what "might" happen. Like using Kenpom as an example..his model a lot of times "predicts" the home team will win..Because the #'s say they SHOULD. But the problem I have with that is...what if that home team just isn't as good as the road team?? I will take the better team 99% of the time, (regardless of where it's played and what the #'s might say). and be right, more often than not, I'd bet.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 10, 2019, 04:35:55 PM
Who cares how efficient you were in a game if you won it?? Or by how much, or hell even where it is. In reality, all that SHOULD matter is whether you won or lost the game. That's the bottom line. To me, a win is a win and a loss is a loss.

And that's why you're posting on a message board and people like Ken Pomeroy are making money off their algorithms. The reason margin matters is because statistically it is one of the best indicators of future results. Teams that tend to blow their opponents out tend to perform better than teams that beat similar competition by narrow margins. There's a reason everyone that gets paid to do this, from Pomeroy to the Selection Committee have Michigan State ahead of us despite MU having the better record.

Efficiency matters because statistics show efficiency matters. It is valued because time and time again the best teams in the metrics generally prove to be the best in March as well.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 04:36:20 PM
And it is about that. That is what the committee put us at 12 even though NET has us at 21. Committee is looking at who you beat and where just like they have done in the past

But...this is where the NET is flawed and the seed is right I think(and I guess in the end that's all that matters), MU's NET is ONLY as low as it is because of two losses by 20pts and a home win closer than the computers expected it to be. You know what?? That's still two losses, and it's still one win.

Purdue's seed is extremely flawed imo. If the main criteria is who you beat and where...Purdue beat literally NO ONE in the non conference. Yet, they are the highest #3 seed because of their wins in a conference that is overrated(regardless of what the #'s say)?? That doesn't add up to me..That's saying in some cases it matters who you beat in non conference, and it other cases it's well "we can overlook no good wins in the non conference because you beat this team IN conference". Shouldn't be that way.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 10, 2019, 04:50:15 PM
The Big 10 is like the Big East was the past couple of years.  A couple strong teams, maybe a 4-5 seed, and a bunch of above average ones that will fall in the 7-10 seeding range.  So at the end of the tournament they may not have a great record as a conference, but they haven't been terrible this year.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 04:51:03 PM
And that's why you're posting on a message board and people like Ken Pomeroy are making money off their algorithms. The reason margin matters is because statistically it is one of the best indicators of future results. Teams that tend to blow their opponents out tend to perform better than teams that beat similar competition by narrow margins. There's a reason everyone that gets paid to do this, from Pomeroy to the Selection Committee have Michigan State ahead of us despite MU having the better record.

Efficiency matters because statistics show efficiency matters. It is valued because time and time again the best teams in the metrics generally prove to be the best in March as well.

Okay, but if you look at Kenpom's model..almost every B10 team is top 100..because of how efficient they are. That's fine, but most of those teams just aren't any good. Look at some of their kenpom rankings...

Nebraska(13-11)-36
Indiana(13-11)-45
Minnesota(16-8)-55
Penn St(8-15)-61
Northwestern(12-10)-66
Illinois(9-15)-71

Those teams are a combined 71-60 and none of them are very good basketball teams...yet, none are lower then top 75 in the country(using kenpom's model).  What they all have in common(like most of the B10 teams do), is they all play REALLY slow...it seems to me, that these "models" like slow playing teams as far as efficiency goes. So when a Purdue or a Michigan State loses to one of these teams it doesn't "look" that bad based strictly in the numbers...yet in reality these are BAD to TERRIBLE losses. Anyone that watches basketball should know that. The system isn't perfect by any stretch, the B10 proves that out yearly I think..it's not that they are that good, it's because they play so slow, and thus, that helps their efficiency #'s, whether they actually win games or not. It's flawed...they can take their numbers and predict games, and I will use my eye test of who I think is the better team(more talented) and I'd be willing to bet over the course of a season the results would not be SIGNIFICANTLY different.

You know what they say about statistics right?? "There are lies, damn lies and then there's statistics".
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MuMark on February 10, 2019, 05:15:56 PM
If you use your eye test and bet money against Pomeroy you will be poor in a hurry.

There is a reason vegas uses Pomeroy and similar predictive models when making betting lines....

The reason those teams have poor records is because they are in the toughest conference this season......top to bottom. When you play against more teams that can beat you you lose more games......and sometimes teams get worse as a season goes on......which has happened with teams like Indiana and Oklahoma.....but they still get credit for how they did earlier in the season.

its easy to say somebody else is wrong......make up the guru list of the top 100 teams .....publish them ....justify them...since your eye test is so on target I'm sure you could make lots of money.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 10, 2019, 05:22:47 PM
If you judge any model by its worst example, the model will look bad. All of those teams have proven capable of beating quality teams.

And frankly, if your eye test tells you Minnesota is bad, I think you may need to have your vision checked.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MU82 on February 10, 2019, 05:32:20 PM
I was a little "worried" (for lack of better word) about the NET and how it would affect us, but those concerns have been allayed by this first seeding release. Even though the NET says we should be a 5 or 6 seed, the committee put us at a 3. That means the NET is just one of many factors the committee is considering, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 06:02:16 PM
I was a little "worried" (for lack of better word) about the NET and how it would affect us, but those concerns have been allayed by this first seeding release. Even though the NET says we should be a 5 or 6 seed, the committee put us at a 3. That means the NET is just one of many factors the committee is considering, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I agree with this, I was pleasantly surprised to see them as a #3 seed(I NEVER trust the committee). However, I am a little concerned judging by who they had as the last #2(MSU), and the top #3(Purdue)(both surprised me), that MU can't go up much more other then to maybe move up the three line a spot or two. To me, if MU somehow managed to win out(including the Big east tournament), that there is still no way MU can get to a #2 seed. Oh well, it is what it is I suppose.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MU82 on February 10, 2019, 06:05:44 PM
I agree with this, I was pleasantly surprised to see them as a #3 seed(I NEVER trust the committee). However, I am a little concerned judging by who they had as the last #2(MSU), and the top #3(Purdue)(both surprised me), that MU can't go up much more other then to maybe move up the three line a spot or two. To me, if MU somehow managed to win out(including the Big east tournament), that there is still no way MU can get to a #2 seed.

You don't know that's true at all.

I hope we get to find out.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 06:08:49 PM
If you judge any model by its worst example, the model will look bad. All of those teams have proven capable of beating quality teams.

And frankly, if your eye test tells you Minnesota is bad, I think you may need to have your vision checked.

Minnesota is the best of that group no question, but if anyone thinks Penn State, Northwestern, Nebraska, Illinois are good teams(and not as good as their Kenpom #'s say) , then they haven't watched nearly enough basketball. They aren't.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 06:15:01 PM
If you use your eye test and bet money against Pomeroy you will be poor in a hurry.

There is a reason vegas uses Pomeroy and similar predictive models when making betting lines....

The reason those teams have poor records is because they are in the toughest conference this season......top to bottom. When you play against more teams that can beat you you lose more games......and sometimes teams get worse as a season goes on......which has happened with teams like Indiana and Oklahoma.....but they still get credit for how they did earlier in the season.

its easy to say somebody else is wrong......make up the guru list of the top 100 teams .....publish them ....justify them...since your eye test is so on target I'm sure you could make lots of money.

Kenpom had Indiana beating OSU today 67-65. This is a perfect example...I would ask why?? Ohio State is a better team. IDC where Indiana is playing them. Is OSU much better?? Probably not, but still better and for me, if it's close like that I will always go wit hthe better team.  Tomorrow night he has TCU beating Kansas 75-74 @ TCU. Kansas wins that game..period. Anyone think Kansas isn't better then TCU even with all their issues right now?? That's two examples of why I have issues with "predictive" models.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: YoungMUFan4 on February 10, 2019, 06:21:37 PM
If it's so easy you should be making bank betting on the games...
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MuMark on February 10, 2019, 07:21:16 PM
TCU is at home.......home court advantage is an actual thing.......it helps to play at home.

Kansas has already lost at West Virginia this season..now there is a bad team......you might be right......Kansas might win.....wouldn't surprise me.......but before you bet on it.....might want to check out Kansas's  record in true road games this season........it ain't good......and that was with Vick.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 07:29:56 PM
TCU is at home.......home court advantage is an actual thing.......it helps to play at home.

Kansas has already lost at West Virginia this season..now there is a bad team......you might be right......Kansas might win.....wouldn't surprise me.......but before you bet on it.....might want to check out Kansas's  record in true road games this season........it ain't good......and that was with Vick.

I know they have stunk on the road..But I think they beat TCU tomm night.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 10, 2019, 07:34:29 PM
Minnesota is the best of that group no question, but if anyone thinks Penn State, Northwestern, Nebraska, Illinois are good teams(and not as good as their Kenpom #'s say) , then they haven't watched nearly enough basketball. They aren't.

Nebraska was good and has been in freefall since losing one of their best players. Their numbers are boosted by what they did with a full roster. The rest you list are 60 or below, which is typically teams at best on the bubble. Being ranked 60-75 isn't an indication of being good, certainly not for a high major.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 07:56:45 PM
Nebraska was good and has been in freefall since losing one of their best players. Their numbers are boosted by what they did with a full roster. The rest you list are 60 or below, which is typically teams at best on the bubble. Being ranked 60-75 isn't an indication of being good, certainly not for a high major.

My point is more that losing to those teams certainly doesn't seem to hurt the teams that do lose to them very much...MSU. And yes I know it's full body of work but still..To me, the later you get in the season, bad losses should hurt you more.

Brew...with MSU at #8 and Purdue at #9 and it not seem to matter who they may lose to the rest of the way, I don't see them moving much obviously..ANY chance MU can still get a #2 seed??
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MuMark on February 10, 2019, 08:02:46 PM
You are worrying too much about the NET.

If MSU or Purdue loses a bunch of games they won't be a 2.......somebody else on the 3 or 4 line will get hot and pass them.

Our chances of winning out are so minute it isn't worth thinking about........let's just hope we beat Depaul on Tuesday and go from there.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 08:04:44 PM
You are worrying too much about the NET.

If MSU or Purdue loses a bunch of games they won't be a 2.......somebody else on the 3 or 4 line will get hot and pass them.

Our chances of winning out are so minute it isn't worth thinking about........let's just hope we beat Depaul on Tuesday and go from there.

Not when you consider MU is better then everyone they will play the rest of the way. Will they win out?? Probably not, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 10, 2019, 08:06:27 PM
Brew...with MSU at #8 and Purdue at #9 and it not seem to matter who they may lose to the rest of the way, I don't see them moving much obviously..ANY chance MU can still get a #2 seed??

Absolutely. I think they can only afford one more loss, but the teams ahead of us will take losses. They have to play each other. The one positive of this Big East is the teams are good enough that winning helps us, but not good enough that we shouldn't be able to expect to win.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 10, 2019, 08:31:39 PM
See, numbers are fine and all, but I have a real problem with models that use "efficiency" and margins of winning and losing as a part of it. Who cares how efficient you were in a game if you won it?? Or by how much, or hell even where it is. In reality, all that SHOULD matter is whether you won or lost the game. That's the bottom line. To me, a win is a win and a loss is a loss. Win=Good, Loss=Bad. All this is doing is trying to make some losses not as bad as others...well, there is no such thing as a "pretty" loss. A loss by one or a loss by 10, they are all the same, in the end it goes on the right side of the column. And they all suck. To me, all this does is allow for more of the manta we hear now of "that wasn't a bad loss". Bullcrap! EVERY loss is bad...that is after all why they play the game. Maybe I'm too old school, I don't know. I'd much rather win ugly, then lose "pretty" any day of the weak. These models now say some losses aren't so bad...it is NEVER good to lose. Ever. Or it shouldn't be anyway, no matter if it's basketball, football, or in general.

It's too much "well you tried hard and came up a little short" mentality that prevails in society now.

So if Team A and Team B both played Maryland Eastern Shore (worst team per KenPom). Team A wins by 40 on the road. Team B wins by 1 at home. You really are telling me that you should reward Team A and Team B equally because a "win is a win"?

And if Team A and Team B both play Duke (best team per KenPom) and Team A loses on the road by 1 and Team B loses by 40 at home you should punish both equally because a "loss is a loss"?

That doesn't make sense to me. You can tell a lot about how good a team is based on how efficiently they play which usually impacts how big the margins of victory are. Every system has flaws but I think just focusing on W/L record will get you some pretty screwy results. That's essentially what RPI did and if you look at RPI for this season, there are some pretty screwy results:

Kansas as #1
Houston as #3 (they're good but not that good)
VCU as #28
Temple as #32
Yale as #35
Toledo as #36
New Mexico State as #42
San Diego as #59
Tulsa as #63
Georgia Southern as #68

Those were just the first few I noticed. Oh and RPI still has Purdue as a top 10 team  ;D
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MuMark on February 10, 2019, 08:39:49 PM
Not when you consider MU is better then everyone they will play the rest of the way. Will they win out?? Probably not, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't.

No they shouldn't.... ...and at Nova they aren't better.. . . .Duke was better then everybody they've  played this season......does that mean they should have gone undefeated through the tournament? Nova was the best team last season.....they lost 4 games to teams that were worse then they were. Everybody loses games.......we arent some juggernaut and if you took off the blue and gold glasses you could see that.

We are a good team......good teams lose all the time to teams that are of similar skill level.....teams that are better and teams that are worse.

it is to normal and to expect otherwise is just setting yourself up to be disappointed.


Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 10, 2019, 08:49:58 PM
It also is against probabilities that MU win out.  Even if it was judged a 90% chance that they win each game on the rest of their regular season schedule, that would still mean a less than 50% chance that they win all seven.  (.9 to the seventh power)

Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 08:50:36 PM
No they shouldn't.... ...and at Nova they aren't better.. . . .Duke was better then everybody they've  played this season......does that mean they should have gone undefeated through the tournament? Nova was the best team last season.....they lost 4 games to teams that were worse then they were. Everybody loses games.......we arent some juggernaut and if you took off the blue and gold glasses you could see that.

We are a good team......good teams lose all the time to teams that are of similar skill level.....teams that are better and teams that are worse.

it is to normal and to expect otherwise is just setting yourself up to be disappointed.

Never said MU is a juggernaut, but what I do know for a FACT is MU has DePaul, Georgetown, Nova, Creighton, Seton Hall & providence left on the schedule. What else I know for a FACT is MU is more talented than everyone of those teams. based on that and THAT alone, MU SHOULD win every game they have left. Will they?? That is to be determined, but to think they SHOULDN'T or WON'T is wrong...When you are more talented, you have an advantage every time you step on the floor, thus, your chances of winning are better. That's where MU finds themselves. that's just the way it is.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 10, 2019, 09:05:02 PM
Never said MU is a juggernaut, but what I do know for a FACT is MU has DePaul, Georgetown, Nova, Creighton, Seton Hall & providence left on the schedule. What else I know for a FACT is MU is more talented than everyone of those teams. based on that and THAT alone, MU SHOULD win every game they have left. Will they?? That is to be determined, but to think they SHOULDN'T or WON'T is wrong...When you are more talented, you have an advantage every time you step on the floor, thus, your chances of winning are better. That's where MU finds themselves. that's just the way it is.
Guru, this isn't how probabilities work. Even if Marquette is a favorite in every game left on the schedule, doesn't mean they should win every game. Like Fluffy said, you have to take probabilities into account.

If you flip a coin 5 times, the odds aren't 50% that you will get heads every time. The odds are 3.125% that you will get heads every time (.5 to the 5th power). So if Marquette is a 75% favorite in every game left (which they're not, but let's say they are) the odds are not 75% that they will win every game. The odds are 13.35% that they will win every game (.75 to the 7th power).

Anyone a gambler? Someone want to take Guru's prediction of 7-0 finish for Marquette on? Look at this way either you win money or Marquette goes undefeated the rest of the regular season!
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 09:07:00 PM
So if Team A and Team B both played Maryland Eastern Shore (worst team per KenPom). Team A wins by 40 on the road. Team B wins by 1 at home. You really are telling me that you should reward Team A and Team B equally because a "win is a win"?

And if Team A and Team B both play Duke (best team per KenPom) and Team A loses on the road by 1 and Team B loses by 40 at home you should punish both equally because a "loss is a loss"?

That doesn't make sense to me. You can tell a lot about how good a team is based on how efficiently they play which usually impacts how big the margins of victory are. Every system has flaws but I think just focusing on W/L record will get you some pretty screwy results. That's essentially what RPI did and if you look at RPI for this season, there are some pretty screwy results:

Kansas as #1
Houston as #3 (they're good but not that good)
VCU as #28
Temple as #32
Yale as #35
Toledo as #36
New Mexico State as #42
San Diego as #59
Tulsa as #63
Georgia Southern as #68

Those were just the first few I noticed. Oh and RPI still has Purdue as a top 10 team  ;D

Let me use MU as an example...earlier this year they only beat UTEP at home by 7. The computers didn't like that, felt they should have won by more. Are they right?? 100% yes. That being said, all i cared about when that game was over was that it went in the "W" column, and not the "L" column. At the end of the day a win by 7 points or a win by 25 ponts all counts for 1 win. It's not like you get credit for 2 wins in the standings if you win by a certain amount.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 10, 2019, 09:12:40 PM
Let me use MU as an example...earlier this year they only beat UTEP at home by 7. The computers didn't like that, felt they should have won by more. Are they right?? 100% yes. That being said, all i cared about when that game was over was that it went in the "W" column, and not the "L" column. At the end of the day a win by 7 points or a win by 25 ponts all counts for 1 win. It's not like you get credit for 2 wins in the standings if you win by a certain amount.


But "standings" aren't relevant to who is selected for the tournament and how they are seeded.  That's the point of these metrics.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Jay Bee on February 10, 2019, 09:14:47 PM
Nebraska was good and has been in freefall since losing one of their best players. Their numbers are boosted by what they did with a full roster. The rest you list are 60 or below, which is typically teams at best on the bubble. Being ranked 60-75 isn't an indication of being good, certainly not for a high major.

FALSE!

Nebraska's free fall started before losing Copeland...they were a rare, fraudulent super old team but the bright minds saw it coming...

"Overall, the Big Ten’s composition is such that a couple of teams that look to be bottom-half teams could sneak up and snag a top half (and tournament) spot, especially with some consensus top-half teams we have concerns about, such as Nebraska."

http://latenighthoops.com/two-keys-for-minnesota-in-2018-19/#.XGDoX1VKjIU
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Lennys Tap on February 10, 2019, 09:21:58 PM
Guru, this isn't how probabilities work. Even if Marquette is a favorite in every game left on the schedule, doesn't mean they should win every game. Like Fluffy said, you have to take probabilities into account.

If you flip a coin 5 times, the odds aren't 50% that you will get heads every time. The odds are 3.125% that you will get heads every time (.5 to the 5th power). So if Marquette is a 75% favorite in every game left (which they're not, but let's say they are) the odds are not 75% that they will win every game. The odds are 13.35% that they will win every game (.75 to the 7th power).

Anyone a gambler? Someone want to take Guru's prediction of 7-0 finish for Marquette on? Look at this way either you win money or Marquette goes undefeated the rest of the regular season!

Congrats, Brother TAMU - you have learned well!
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Osiris on February 10, 2019, 09:22:33 PM
MU’s initial seeding should allay any fears that NET is being taken too seriously.  It’s a tool at their disposal.  They’re clearly not letting it steer the committee.  They’re also probably not crumpling it up and tossing it in the trash. In the end it may prove to be slightly more accurate than previous models but that’s a bit like being the tallest midget.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 09:54:57 PM
Guru, this isn't how probabilities work. Even if Marquette is a favorite in every game left on the schedule, doesn't mean they should win every game. Like Fluffy said, you have to take probabilities into account.

If you flip a coin 5 times, the odds aren't 50% that you will get heads every time. The odds are 3.125% that you will get heads every time (.5 to the 5th power). So if Marquette is a 75% favorite in every game left (which they're not, but let's say they are) the odds are not 75% that they will win every game. The odds are 13.35% that they will win every game (.75 to the 7th power).

Anyone a gambler? Someone want to take Guru's prediction of 7-0 finish for Marquette on? Look at this way either you win money or Marquette goes undefeated the rest of the regular season!

Probabilities, schmobabilties. What were the odds when the season started that the Brewers were going to win the NL Central or come 1 game from being in the WS?? Here's my point...I will ask you this question..If you have one team that is more talented than another, from a practical stand point(with all things being equal), wouldn't it be MOST LIKELY/Probable that the team with more talent will win??

Here's where I take the biggest issue with the "predicative" numbers they use and efficiency..MU did NOT shoot the ball at their normal level against SJU, thus resulting in a loss. Had they shot it at a normal %(ie their average), they win the game easily. So because there was ONE game that they didn't shoot it well(which is not the norm), their efficiency numbers get dinged. The problem comes in, the numbers have no way of "correcting for that. realizing it was not a normal performance, and thus adjusting accordingly for that.

The numbers can't/don't account for anomalies. What if three of 5 of a teams starters were sick and didn't play well because of it?? What if like the other night a normally good shooting team, just doesn't get their shots to fall?? What if someone turns an ankle or something in warmups and it affects their play?? There are so many things that can effect the outcome of a game that the #'s simply can't account for. That's my issue with it and why the knowledge of the team, the game etc matters so much more to me.

At the end of the day what do you think is most important to Wojo?? I can promise you that even if they don't play particularly well(which obviously he prefer they do), all he and the team care about is they get the "W". Because at the end of the day that's what truly matters.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 10, 2019, 10:22:14 PM
Let me use MU as an example...earlier this year they only beat UTEP at home by 7. The computers didn't like that, felt they should have won by more. Are they right?? 100% yes. That being said, all i cared about when that game was over was that it went in the "W" column, and not the "L" column. At the end of the day a win by 7 points or a win by 25 ponts all counts for 1 win. It's not like you get credit for 2 wins in the standings if you win by a certain amount.

You dodged my question. I'll repost it for you.

So if Team A and Team B both played Maryland Eastern Shore (worst team per KenPom). Team A wins by 40 on the road. Team B wins by 1 at home. You really are telling me that you should reward Team A and Team B equally because a "win is a win"?

And if Team A and Team B both play Duke (best team per KenPom) and Team A loses on the road by 1 and Team B loses by 40 at home you should punish both equally because a "loss is a loss"?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 10, 2019, 10:23:43 PM
Congrats, Brother TAMU - you have learned well!

I don't think I qualify as an old dog yet so I can learn new tricks!
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 10, 2019, 10:33:17 PM
FALSE!

Nebraska's free fall started before losing Copeland...they were a rare, fraudulent super old team but the bright minds saw it coming...

"Overall, the Big Ten’s composition is such that a couple of teams that look to be bottom-half teams could sneak up and snag a top half (and tournament) spot, especially with some consensus top-half teams we have concerns about, such as Nebraska."

http://latenighthoops.com/two-keys-for-minnesota-in-2018-19/#.XGDoX1VKjIU

5/7 losses in their streak ended post-injury. The others were Michigan State and at Rutgers, which has been tough on a few decent teams. They certainly performed like a tourney team in non-con and have been in freefall since the 5 losses since Copeland's career ended. So no, not false.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 10, 2019, 10:45:14 PM
Probabilities, schmobabilties. What were the odds when the season started that the Brewers were going to win the NL Central or come 1 game from being in the WS??

Probably not very good, but by the middle of the season the baseball versions of KenPom and NET gave them pretty good odds.

I will ask you this question..If you have one team that is more talented than another, from a practical stand point(with all things being equal), wouldn't it be MOST LIKELY/Probable that the team with more talent will win??

All other things being equal? Does that mean a neutral floor? Then yes, it is more probable that the more talented team will win. On the road? Not necessarily.

Here's where I take the biggest issue with the "predicative" numbers they use and efficiency..MU did NOT shoot the ball at their normal level against SJU, thus resulting in a loss. Had they shot it at a normal %(ie their average), they win the game easily. So because there was ONE game that they didn't shoot it well(which is not the norm), their efficiency numbers get dinged. The problem comes in, the numbers have no way of "correcting for that. realizing it was not a normal performance, and thus adjusting accordingly for that.

But there is a way that Marquette can "correct" it. They can shoot above their normal % the next game. Each game is a single data point. Services like KenPom seek to make sense of the thousands of data points in a given NCAA season.

The numbers can't/don't account for anomalies. What if three of 5 of a teams starters were sick and didn't play well because of it?? What if like the other night a normally good shooting team, just doesn't get their shots to fall?? What if someone turns an ankle or something in warmups and it affects their play?? There are so many things that can effect the outcome of a game that the #'s simply can't account for. That's my issue with it and why the knowledge of the team, the game etc matters so much more to me.

No one is saying that #s are the only thing that matters. You need humans to account for those anomalies. But that doesn't mean you throw out all the numbers.  That's why Marquette got seeded #12 despite being lower in all the computer numbers. Also, those anomolies tend to self-correct. While not perfect, most teams will face anomalies that work to both their advantage and disadvantage.

At the end of the day what do you think is most important to Wojo?? I can promise you that even if they don't play particularly well(which obviously he prefer they do), all he and the team care about is they get the "W". Because at the end of the day that's what truly matters.

Yes, winning is the most important thing. But again, if two teams play Duke and one loses by 1 and the other loses by 40, wouldn't you say its more probable that the team that lost by 1 is better than the team that lost by 40?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 10, 2019, 11:00:28 PM
Probably not very good, but by the middle of the season the baseball versions of KenPom and NET gave them pretty good odds.

All other things being equal? Does that mean a neutral floor? Then yes, it is more probable that the more talented team will win. On the road? Not necessarily.

But there is a way that Marquette can "correct" it. They can shoot above their normal % the next game. Each game is a single data point. Services like KenPom seek to make sense of the thousands of data points in a given NCAA season.

No one is saying that #s are the only thing that matters. You need humans to account for those anomalies. But that doesn't mean you throw out all the numbers.  That's why Marquette got seeded #12 despite being lower in all the computer numbers. Also, those anomolies tend to self-correct. While not perfect, most teams will face anomalies that work to both their advantage and disadvantage.

Yes, winning is the most important thing. But again, if two teams play Duke and one loses by 1 and the other loses by 40, wouldn't you say its more probable that the team that lost by 1 is better than the team that lost by 40?

Maybe..but not necessarily because of the anomolies i spoke of..what if the tean that lost by 40 was down 3 starters for whatever reason and had to play walk ons significant minutes? As I said there are so many things that can affect an outcome..I just hate "rewarding" a team for only losing by 1 as opposed to 40..because thats basically saying "good job you tried your best". But that kind of fits the world we live in now, whereas we reward teams/individuals for their great effort(a participation trophy/ribbon) even if they lost. Different world then I grew up in..i know that much..at the end of the day..a loss is a loss(or should be) and an ugly win should always be worth more than a "pretty" loss.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 11, 2019, 05:45:33 AM
Maybe..but not necessarily because of the anomolies i spoke of..what if the tean that lost by 40 was down 3 starters for whatever reason and had to play walk ons significant minutes? As I said there are so many things that can affect an outcome..I just hate "rewarding" a team for only losing by 1 as opposed to 40..because thats basically saying "good job you tried your best". But that kind of fits the world we live in now, whereas we reward teams/individuals for their great effort(a participation trophy/ribbon) even if they lost. Different world then I grew up in..i know that much..at the end of the day..a loss is a loss(or should be) and an ugly win should always be worth more than a "pretty" loss.

It was a straightforward question that only needed a straightforward answer. The latter portion, to me, is why you can't ever be happy. Because when we win, we were always supposed to win. If we're top-10, it's because the voters are missing a flaw in the teams ahead of us. And if they corrected that and moved us up to 7, it wouldn't be good enough. So then we move up to the top-5 and it wouldn't be good enough.

On all these boards, I think you're about the only person that could continually find things to complain about when we are 20-4 and ranked in the top-10. This is a good season. These are good times. For your own sake, try to enjoy them. If it never amounts to a Final Four or National Championship, better to have enjoyed the good than always lament why even the good wasn't good enough.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MUDPT on February 11, 2019, 05:59:16 AM
Guru, you need to check out the Wins Above Bubble rankings. Rewards team for actually winning games off of their schedule.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Galway Eagle on February 11, 2019, 06:23:12 AM
It was a straightforward question that only needed a straightforward answer. The latter portion, to me, is why you can't ever be happy. Because when we win, we were always supposed to win. If we're top-10, it's because the voters are missing a flaw in the teams ahead of us. And if they corrected that and moved us up to 7, it wouldn't be good enough. So then we move up to the top-5 and it wouldn't be good enough.

On all these boards, I think you're about the only person that could continually find things to complain about when we are 20-4 and ranked in the top-10. This is a good season. These are good times. For your own sake, try to enjoy them. If it never amounts to a Final Four or National Championship, better to have enjoyed the good than always lament why even the good wasn't good enough.

Willie Warrior could give him a run for his money on the bolded
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Cheeks on February 11, 2019, 07:02:44 AM
Probabilities, schmobabilties.

Well, if that is your position then you will ultimately be disappointed, especially in a college game with one bad game you are out.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Ellenson Family Reunion on February 11, 2019, 07:05:44 AM
Kenpom had Indiana beating OSU today 67-65. This is a perfect example...I would ask why?? Ohio State is a better team. IDC where Indiana is playing them. Is OSU much better?? Probably not, but still better and for me, if it's close like that I will always go wit hthe better team.  Tomorrow night he has TCU beating Kansas 75-74 @ TCU. Kansas wins that game..period. Anyone think Kansas isn't better then TCU even with all their issues right now?? That's two examples of why I have issues with "predictive" models.

Dude it was tied with under a minute to play are you expecting it to be 100% accurate to the point every game?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: HowardsWorld on February 11, 2019, 07:28:12 AM
Kenpom had Indiana beating OSU today 67-65. This is a perfect example...I would ask why?? Ohio State is a better team. IDC where Indiana is playing them. Is OSU much better?? Probably not, but still better and for me, if it's close like that I will always go wit hthe better team.  Tomorrow night he has TCU beating Kansas 75-74 @ TCU. Kansas wins that game..period. Anyone think Kansas isn't better then TCU even with all their issues right now?? That's two examples of why I have issues with "predictive" models.

You mean that TCU team that just annialted Iowa state at their home court? That Iowa state team that came out as the # 13 overall in the top 4 seed selection?  I mean no chance TCU could ever win this game tonight.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 11, 2019, 07:52:40 AM
Maybe..but not necessarily because of the anomolies i spoke of..what if the tean that lost by 40 was down 3 starters for whatever reason and had to play walk ons significant minutes? As I said there are so many things that can affect an outcome..I just hate "rewarding" a team for only losing by 1 as opposed to 40..because thats basically saying "good job you tried your best". But that kind of fits the world we live in now, whereas we reward teams/individuals for their great effort(a participation trophy/ribbon) even if they lost. Different world then I grew up in..i know that much..at the end of the day..a loss is a loss(or should be) and an ugly win should always be worth more than a "pretty" loss.

Maybe? Wouldn't it just be easier (and more accurate) to say that it is probable that if Team A loses to Duke by 1 and Team B loses to Duke by 40 that Team A is the better team? Now it is just one game, so that is why systems take all the games into account, so if the team that lost by 40 was an anomaly game that will only be one data point in a season of 30-40 data points. Also, aren't you the guy who says that injuries are excuses and teams should still win in spite of them?

As to the bolded, an ugly win is always worth more than a pretty loss. There is never a situation where it is better to lose than it is to win a game.  These systems just reward "pretty" wins more than "ugly" wins and punish "ugly" losses more than "pretty" losses.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MU82 on February 11, 2019, 10:12:17 AM
Maybe? Wouldn't it just be easier (and more accurate) to say that it is probable that if Team A loses to Duke by 1 and Team B loses to Duke by 40 that Team A is the better team? Now it is just one game, so that is why systems take all the games into account, so if the team that lost by 40 was an anomaly game that will only be one data point in a season of 30-40 data points. Also, aren't you the guy who says that injuries are excuses and teams should still win in spite of them?

As to the bolded, an ugly win is always worth more than a pretty loss. There is never a situation where it is better to lose than it is to win a game.  These systems just reward "pretty" wins more than "ugly" wins and punish "ugly" losses more than "pretty" losses.

Careful, TAMU, this is dangerously logical.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Cheeks on February 11, 2019, 10:08:34 PM
Kenpom had Indiana beating OSU today 67-65. This is a perfect example...I would ask why?? Ohio State is a better team. IDC where Indiana is playing them. Is OSU much better?? Probably not, but still better and for me, if it's close like that I will always go wit hthe better team.  Tomorrow night he has TCU beating Kansas 75-74 @ TCU. Kansas wins that game..period. Anyone think Kansas isn't better then TCU even with all their issues right now?? That's two examples of why I have issues with "predictive" models.

Predictive model was damn close.  Said TCU by 1.  Game just went to OT, in which case anything can happen, but predictive model was essentially off by 1 point.

Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 11, 2019, 10:28:03 PM
So...someone was emphatic that KU would beat TCU even though the god Pomeroy(that everyone here worships) said TCU would win. Hmmm...maybe Guru is a little smarter than most of you think. Folks, watch enough basketball, and if you go with the better team, I can assure you you will be right much more than you will be wrong. That one was like taking candy from a baby...as an added bonus, i give you the next flaw pomeroy has..UW beating MSU. Michigan State wins that game. Period. You're welcome.  :)
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 11, 2019, 10:30:13 PM
Predictive model was damn close.  Said TCU by 1.  Game just went to OT, in which case anything can happen, but predictive model was essentially off by 1 point.

Close enough isn't good enough...I said emphatically without a doubt KU would win..soooo...yup. It's easy...go with them ore talented team, and you will always be right more often then you are wrong. Not sure why any of you fall all over Pomeroy?? His "model" doesn't account for the eyeball test, which as I said, I trust my eyes.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: fjm on February 11, 2019, 10:41:28 PM
Close enough isn't good enough...I said emphatically without a doubt KU would win..soooo...yup. It's easy...go with them ore talented team, and you will always be right more often then you are wrong. Not sure why any of you fall all over Pomeroy?? His "model" doesn't account for the eyeball test, which as I said, I trust my eyes.

I would take pomeroy over your eye test about 100% of the time if I was betting. Just saying.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 11, 2019, 10:51:44 PM
I would take pomeroy over your eye test about 100% of the time if I was betting. Just saying.

That's your prerogative..I'm trying to point out to alot of you that worship Pomeroy..his model isnt the be all end all. I can predict or use #'s for almost anything..but you can make #'s say anything you want them to say.

Earlier this year in the Georgetown game thread everyone figured mu was doomed because Markus was out.. I emphatically stated that this was a game they should still win because they were simply still more talented than Georgetown. And that Sam would take the game over. Well, how'd that end up? People seem to think #'s and model's outweigh talent. They don't and never will. If you are able to judge talent(which I have a unique ability to do), then you will be further ahead of any predictive model there is.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Cheeks on February 11, 2019, 11:08:08 PM
So...someone was emphatic that KU would beat TCU even though the god Pomeroy(that everyone here worships) said TCU would win. Hmmm...maybe Guru is a little smarter than most of you think. Folks, watch enough basketball, and if you go with the better team, I can assure you you will be right much more than you will be wrong. That one was like taking candy from a baby...as an added bonus, i give you the next flaw pomeroy has..UW beating MSU. Michigan State wins that game. Period. You're welcome.  :)

Your eye test had them needing OT to win a game you said they would win....period?

Uhm, ok. 
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: LoudMouth on February 11, 2019, 11:11:13 PM
Weren’t you the one that said St Johns stinks. What happened to your eye test when we lost to them twice?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 11, 2019, 11:21:17 PM
So let me get this straight. The model predicted that at the end of 40 minutes, the margin of victory would be 1. At the end of the game it was 0. So it was off by 1. And that's an example of why the model doesn't work?

That's your prerogative..I'm trying to point out to alot of you that worship Pomeroy..his model isnt the be all end all. I can predict or use #'s for almost anything..but you can make #'s say anything you want them to say.

No one has said KenPom is the end all, be all. It is one system with flaws. And no you can't make #s say anything you want to. KenPom has published his methodology for all to see. He doesn't manipulate the numbers to say certain things. The numbers cannot lie, they can only tell you what they are programmed to tell you. You just have to be able to understand what they are telling you.

People seem to think #'s and model's outweigh talent. They don't and never will. 

Numbers don't outweigh talent. Talent is measured by numbers.

If you are able to judge talent(which I have a unique ability to do), then you will be further ahead of any predictive model there is.

Prove it. Make your own predictions and compare them to other predictive models. If your unique ability is as good as you say it is, you will make a lot of money. I'd guess that a lot of MLB managers thought the same thing before all that moneyball nonsense.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 11, 2019, 11:23:28 PM
Weren’t you the one that said St Johns stinks. What happened to your eye test when we lost to them twice?

They do stink and why those losses still piss me off..look.. even the most talented teams don't win every single time but I can tell you this much if you're able to judge talent and you always assume regardless of anything else that the more talented team will win you will be way ahead of any predictive model there is out there.. that's why I don't like them they don't factor in Talent.

An easy way to look at this is like this.. and it really couldn't be any easier and should be the basis for why people shouldn't fall all over these predictive models and think they're the be-all end-all..but..the general consensus is Duke is the favorite to win it all..and thats NOT because some #'s say they should..it's simply because they are the most talented team in the country..period. Talent trumps everything else..period. To think otherwise is foolish and naive
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 11, 2019, 11:28:45 PM
So let me get this straight. The model predicted that at the end of 40 minutes, the margin of victory would be 1. ample of why the model doesn't work?[/b]

His model said TCU would win..his model was wrong. I said Kansas would win(which btw many ppl scoffed at because of how bad Kansas was on the road..yadda yadda yadda). Talent rises to the top. Kansas is a more talented team than TCU..I will take the more talented team every time regardless of where its played

No one has said KenPom is the end all, be all. It is one system with flaws. And no you can't make #s say anything you want to. KenPom has published his methodology for all to see. He doesn't manipulate the numbers to say certain things. The numbers cannot lie, they can only tell you what they are programmed to tell you. You just have to be able to understand what they are telling you.

Numbers don't outweigh talent. Talent is measured by numbers.

Prove it. Make your own predictions and compare them to other predictive models. If your unique ability is as good as you say it is, you will make a lot of money. I'd guess that a lot of MLB managers thought the same thing before all that moneyball nonsense.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 11, 2019, 11:30:38 PM
the general consensus is Duke is the favorite to win it all..and thats NOT because some #'s say they should..it's simply because they are the most talented team in the country..period. Talent trumps everything else..period. To think otherwise is foolish and naive

And the numbers say the should because they are the most talented team in the country. These numbers that you keep going on about are just one way of measuring talent.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 11, 2019, 11:34:55 PM
His model said TCU would win..his model was wrong.

Sigh. No it didn't. The model said TCU had a 51% of winning. Which is basically a coin flip. KenPom doesn't pick winners of games, it gives probabilities on game.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 11, 2019, 11:35:53 PM
What mystifies me more than anything is almost no one(I did) even thought this MU team would be this good.. I honestly think that's because people have a hard time judging Talent that's not a knock on anyone it's definitely a unique skill I saw how talented this team was..so it doesnt surprise me at all they are a top 10 team. It took almost the entire fanbase..over half a season to finally see it..and a lot still don't believe it. I told many people privately long before the season started that they were going to be talented enough to be a top-10 team at some point..lo and behold..here we are.

So while it's fun and trendy for all of you to be excited because this team is "exceeding" expectations.. that's simply because you didn't realize how talented they were before the season started so for me I'm not the least bit surprised this is where I thought they would be at some point this year.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 11, 2019, 11:39:16 PM
Your eye test had them needing OT to win a game you said they would win....period?

Uhm, ok.

Who won the game? I emphatically said KU would win the game..and they did. Yet you want to credit Pomeroy because his predictive model was one point off whoop-dee-doo he didn't pick the right team to win and that's what matters.

Like last week Creighton took Nova to overtime.. did anyone honestly believe that  Nova wasn't going to win that game of course they were going to they are better than Creighton.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 11, 2019, 11:47:11 PM
Sigh. No it didn't. The model said TCU had a 51% of winning. Which is basically a coin flip. KenPom doesn't pick winners of games, it gives probabilities on game.

K whatever..his MODEL gave TCU a better chance of winning that game than Kansas..his model was WRONG. There should never be a model that gives the Lesser talented team regardless of venue a better chance of winning then the more talented team ever that's what I'm saying. Numbers don't judge talent..case in point..Houston..there #'s are all pretty good..now maybe some of you are guillable enough to believe that "well the #'s say they are the 10th most talented team in the country..so they must be". All you have to do is watch them play and you will see that yes they are a good basketball team are they as talented as their numbers make them out to be hell no!

Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: LoudMouth on February 11, 2019, 11:47:52 PM
Who won the game? I emphatically said KU would win the game..and they did. Yet you want to credit Pomeroy because his predictive model was one point off whoop-dee-doo he didn't pick the right team to win and that's what matters.

Like last week Creighton took Nova to overtime.. did anyone honestly believe that  Nova wasn't going to win that game of course they were going to they are better than Creighton.

You must be very very rich from betting all of these games. KenPom numbers often come very close, if not identical to Vegas numbers. What do you do with all of your winnings? Only assuming you bet the farm on every game you know is a lock like tonight
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: JakeBarnes on February 11, 2019, 11:52:00 PM
Maybe? Wouldn't it just be easier (and more accurate) to say that it is probable that if Team A loses to Duke by 1 and Team B loses to Duke by 40 that Team A is the better team? Now it is just one game, so that is why systems take all the games into account, so if the team that lost by 40 was an anomaly game that will only be one data point in a season of 30-40 data points. Also, aren't you the guy who says that injuries are excuses and teams should still win in spite of them?

As to the bolded, an ugly win is always worth more than a pretty loss. There is never a situation where it is better to lose than it is to win a game.  These systems just reward "pretty" wins more than "ugly" wins and punish "ugly" losses more than "pretty" losses.

This is far too cohesive for this board. No mentions of Crean, ND sucking, 5 year plans, nor any personal attacks. If anything this belongs in "NM" for being off-topic.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: LoudMouth on February 11, 2019, 11:53:26 PM
K whatever..his MODEL gave TCU a better chance of winning that game than Kansas..his model was WRONG. There should never be a model that gives the Lesser talented team regardless of venue a better chance of winning then the more talented team ever that's what I'm saying. Numbers don't judge talent..case in point..Houston..there #'s are all pretty good..now maybe some of you are guillable enough to believe that "well the #'s say they are the 10th most talented team in the country..so they must be". All you have to do is watch them play and you will see that yes they are a good basketball team are they as talented as their numbers make them out to be hell no!

Who do you think is more talented, Marquette or Villanova?

If Villanova then what happened on Saturday?

If Marquette then I am assuming you will be taking a loan out from the bank to bet on us when we play in Philly since location doesn’t matter.  Please confirm. You will get a great return as we will undoubtably be underdogs
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 12:07:40 AM
And the numbers say the should because they are the most talented team in the country. These numbers that you keep going on about are just one way of measuring talent.

I think you are confusing being talented..and simply being a good TEAM. His model as well as others may tell you who the best teams are..but NOT necessarily who the most TALENTED teams are..there's a distinct difference. You can be a really good team and be efficient(which is what most of these #'s are based on) but that does NOT necessarily make you a TALENTED team. You just have a system and 5 players that are good enough to overcome their talent shortcomings, to play really well as a team.

We hear it all the time..teams playing above their talent level etc. You can be really talented..and not be a great team because of many different reasons.. conversely you can also be a really good team and not be particularly talented. Models tell us who the good teams are..they do NOT tell us who the most talented teams are necessarily.

Here's a great example..Virginia..they are typically really good because of the system they run..not because they have incredibly talented players. It works for them. However as we see..once you get into the tournament..that only takes you so far..last year notwithstanding..they have typically lost sooner than a lot thought they would..simply because they run into a team that has more talent then they do. At the end of the day.. if my five players have more Talent than your five players do a vast majority of the time if you say roll the ball out and go play I will beat you far more than I will lose to you.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 12:13:55 AM
Who do you think is more talented, Marquette or Villanova?

If Villanova then what happened on Saturday?

If Marquette then I am assuming you will be taking a loan out from the bank to bet on us when we play in Philly since location doesn’t matter.  Please confirm. You will get a great return as we will undoubtably be underdogs

MU is more talented..but I dont bet on games..its just not my thing..although i will tell you..i did bet on one two years ago..because it was simply the easiest money i(or anyone) could have ever made. That was last year's Marquette Wisconsin game for whatever reason the betting sites had Wisconsin as a fairly handy favorite I took Marquette and the money line at + 225. I had absolutely ZERO doubt I was going to win that one. Honestly to this day i still feel a little guilty..like i stole $$..but then if they are going to make it that easy..im not going to say no either.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 12, 2019, 04:49:48 AM
Who won the game? I emphatically said KU would win the game..and they did.

They certainly didn't win emphatically. When you make a case as strongly as you did and the game is decided in overtime, you come out looking really bad. Like it or not, Pomeroy's model was far more accurate than your own prediction.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: lawdog77 on February 12, 2019, 06:16:08 AM
https://www.eatliver.com/pigeon-chess/ (https://www.eatliver.com/pigeon-chess/)
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: mu03eng on February 12, 2019, 06:55:57 AM
What mystifies me more than anything is almost no one(I did) even thought this MU team would be this good.. I honestly think that's because people have a hard time judging Talent that's not a knock on anyone it's definitely a unique skill I saw how talented this team was..so it doesnt surprise me at all they are a top 10 team. It took almost the entire fanbase..over half a season to finally see it..and a lot still don't believe it. I told many people privately long before the season started that they were going to be talented enough to be a top-10 team at some point..lo and behold..here we are.

So while it's fun and trendy for all of you to be excited because this team is "exceeding" expectations.. that's simply because you didn't realize how talented they were before the season started so for me I'm not the least bit surprised this is where I thought they would be at some point this year.

I think this is patently false, lots of people had them winning a lot this season. Not pimping the podcast but I'm recorded saying I think MU would lose only 5 games in the regular season and my pod partner said 6 losses. Lots of folks had high expectations that the team is meeting
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Bocephys on February 12, 2019, 07:07:23 AM
I think this is patently false

A good summary for every Guru post
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 12, 2019, 07:14:14 AM
I think this is patently false, lots of people had them winning a lot this season.

It is patently false. This is where Jay Bee would scream "LIAR" or something similar.

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=56683.0

It looks like most predictions had 24-26 wins. Even the most pessimistic had us in the 22-23 range. guru is trying again to prop himself up as the "best" fan when pretty much everyone had them as one of the top teams in the country (I said 26-5 in the regular season and earning a 2-seed, which still seems realistic).
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 07:19:00 AM
It is patently false. This is where Jay Bee would scream "LIAR" or something similar.

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=56683.0

It looks like most predictions had 24-26 wins. Even the most pessimistic had us in the 22-23 range. guru is trying again to prop himself up as the "best" fan when pretty much everyone had them as one of the top teams in the country (I said 26-5 in the regular season and earning a 2-seed, which still seems realistic).

Have you read some of the posts here?? A lot of people are shocked that they are in the top 10, and saying how they are "overachieving". They aren't. I am NOT propping myself up to be the best fan. My whole point of this argument is..there are DISTINCT differences between being a good team and having talent. If people don't understand that, I don't know what to tell them. I 100% agree, the models DO tell you who the good TEAMS are. They do NOT tell us who the most talented teams are however. That's just reality.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: tower912 on February 12, 2019, 07:22:44 AM
My prediction was always 22-24 wins, top 3 in the big east.   5 seed.     If I am low by a game or two, yippee!
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 07:26:44 AM
They certainly didn't win emphatically. When you make a case as strongly as you did and the game is decided in overtime, you come out looking really bad. Like it or not, Pomeroy's model was far more accurate than your own prediction.

I never said KU would win emphatically(ie a blowout). I was simply emphatic that KU would win they game. At the end of the day...they did. I come out looking bad?? I stated unequivocally that KU would win the game. Pomeroy's model was more accurate?? Boy you really drink the f'n kool aid don't you?? Pomeroy's model had the probability that TCU would win the game...they didn't. I said that was wrong, and it was proven out. So if you want to slobber all over a "model" that says the probabilities of a lessor talented team beats a more talented team, be my guest. Any predicative model that more often then not, has a lessor talented team beating a more talented team simply because the lessor talented team is on their home floor, is absolutely flawed.

The perfect example as I cited previously was last years MU@UW game. UW was like a 3 or 4 point favorite if I remember right. Who in the F made that line?? Pomeroy's "wonderful" model had UW winning that game as well. His model is broken. there was ZERO possibility a That UW team was going to beat MU. Especially after both Guards were declared out. Simply the easiest $$ I have ever made in my life.

Now, Pomeroy is also wrong tonight...MSU WILL beat UW. Why? Because MSU has more talent. It's that simple. Period.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 12, 2019, 07:39:50 AM
His model isn't "broken."  It's a model, and like any objective model, it's going to be wrong sometimes when you are predicting a subjective performance like a basketball game.

But why don't we start a "guru v. KenPom" topic.  Someone can pick out ten games, you post your predictions, and we will see how you perform v. Pomeroy.  Deal?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: The Thing on February 12, 2019, 07:43:17 AM
I just still am in shock that you are basing your entire defense of your “talent” argument over one game that resulted in an overtime win.

How about those Net Rankings by the way?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Lennys Tap on February 12, 2019, 08:09:29 AM
I never said KU would win emphatically(ie a blowout). I was simply emphatic that KU would win they game. At the end of the day...they did. I come out looking bad?? I stated unequivocally that KU would win the game. Pomeroy's model was more accurate?? Boy you really drink the f'n kool aid don't you?? Pomeroy's model had the probability that TCU would win the game...they didn't. I said that was wrong, and it was proven out. So if you want to slobber all over a "model" that says the probabilities of a lessor talented team beats a more talented team, be my guest. Any predicative model that more often then not, has a lessor talented team beating a more talented team simply because the lessor talented team is on their home floor, is absolutely flawed.

The perfect example as I cited previously was last years MU@UW game. UW was like a 3 or 4 point favorite if I remember right. Who in the F made that line?? Pomeroy's "wonderful" model had UW winning that game as well. His model is broken. there was ZERO possibility a That UW team was going to beat MU. Especially after both Guards were declared out. Simply the easiest $$ I have ever made in my life.

Now, Pomeroy is also wrong tonight...MSU WILL beat UW. Why? Because MSU has more talent. It's that simple. Period.

You called "heads" on a coin flip. It came up "heads". Congratulations, you're a genius. If your "eye test" is really better than the computers that set the Vegas line why don't you withdraw all your money from your bank, drive to Vegas, set up residence and proceed to bust all the sport's books out there? My prediction? You'll arrive in a $40,000 car and leave in an $800,000 bus. Good luck.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 08:46:09 AM
You called "heads" on a coin flip. It came up "heads". Congratulations, you're a genius. If your "eye test" is really better than the computers that set the Vegas line why don't you withdraw all your money from your bank, drive to Vegas, set up residence and proceed to bust all the sport's books out there? My prediction? You'll arrive in a $40,000 car and leave in an $800,000 bus. Good luck.

I don't bet on games..I don't care about $$, that's not what motivates me. never has been, never will be. I guess I'm baffled that people don't seem to think "the eye test" is a real thing. It is..if it wasn't, there wouldn't be scouting departments in pro sports etc.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 08:51:23 AM
I just still am in shock that you are basing your entire defense of your “talent” argument over one game that resulted in an overtime win.

How about those Net Rankings by the way?

I'm not basing it on one game...I just want people to understand that computer models cannot see sometimes what the human eyes see. That's a fact. Can people seriously watch a basketball game(or any game) and NOT be able to tell who the more talented team is?? Honestly, I'm thinking not.

Great example...Ron Wolf traded a first round pick for a QB that most had never heard of..Brett Favre. Not a single # he could have looked at would have told him to do that, none of them. Not even close. Yet, he did it, because...wait for it...he SAW the talent in him that many others didn't. Your eyes tell you things...or at least they should. The key is not being tricked into thinking your eyes see something they don't really see.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Bocephys on February 12, 2019, 08:55:24 AM
I'm not basing it on one game...I just want people to understand that computer models cannot see sometimes what the human eyes see. That's a fact. Can people seriously watch a basketball game(or any game) and NOT be able to tell who the more talented team is?? Honestly, I'm thinking not.

What about a computer that has a camera?  Surely it can see.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: HowardsWorld on February 12, 2019, 08:59:03 AM
I never said KU would win emphatically(ie a blowout). I was simply emphatic that KU would win they game. At the end of the day...they did. I come out looking bad?? I stated unequivocally that KU would win the game. Pomeroy's model was more accurate?? Boy you really drink the f'n kool aid don't you?? Pomeroy's model had the probability that TCU would win the game...they didn't. I said that was wrong, and it was proven out. So if you want to slobber all over a "model" that says the probabilities of a lessor talented team beats a more talented team, be my guest. Any predicative model that more often then not, has a lessor talented team beating a more talented team simply because the lessor talented team is on their home floor, is absolutely flawed.

The perfect example as I cited previously was last years MU@UW game. UW was like a 3 or 4 point favorite if I remember right. Who in the F made that line?? Pomeroy's "wonderful" model had UW winning that game as well. His model is broken. there was ZERO possibility a That UW team was going to beat MU. Especially after both Guards were declared out. Simply the easiest $$ I have ever made in my life.

Now, Pomeroy is also wrong tonight...MSU WILL beat UW. Why? Because MSU has more talent. It's that simple. Period.

I would like to wager something if you want to put your money where your mouth is.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: WarriorDad on February 12, 2019, 09:08:30 AM
K whatever..his MODEL gave TCU a better chance of winning that game than Kansas..his model was WRONG. There should never be a model that gives the Lesser talented team regardless of venue a better chance of winning then the more talented team ever that's what I'm saying. Numbers don't judge talent..case in point..Houston..there #'s are all pretty good..now maybe some of you are guillable enough to believe that "well the #'s say they are the 10th most talented team in the country..so they must be". All you have to do is watch them play and you will see that yes they are a good basketball team are they as talented as their numbers make them out to be hell no!

You don't seem to understand probabilities vs predictions, that is your fundamental flaw.  Pomeroy didn't predict Kansas would lose, it gave the probability of it happening at 51%, but you ignore the 49% that said it would win.  Fundamental. 

If  Pomeroy says Marquette will win tonight 77% probability, it still means 23% of the time we will lose. Do you not understand this?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Its DJOver on February 12, 2019, 09:10:13 AM
I'm not basing it on one game...I just want people to understand that computer models cannot see sometimes what the human eyes see. That's a fact. Can people seriously watch a basketball game(or any game) and NOT be able to tell who the more talented team is?? Honestly, I'm thinking not.

Great example...Ron Wolf traded a first round pick for a QB that most had never heard of..Brett Favre. Not a single # he could have looked at would have told him to do that, none of them. Not even close. Yet, he did it, because...wait for it...he SAW the talent in him that many others didn't. Your eyes tell you things...or at least they should. The key is not being tricked into thinking your eyes see something they don't really see.

Yea sure, there will always be stories of someone seeing something in someone else and giving them a chance, which turned out to be a good move in hindsight, but there are so many more stories where the "eye test" didn't pan out.  Sam Bowie, Greg Oden, Kwame Brown, and my personal favorite, Darko who was labeled "the next Dirk" based on many scouts eye test.

There are times where the eye test is valuable, there are times where strictly looking at numbers is valuable.  You think MSU beating Bucky is a #donedeal because your eye test that MSU has more talent.  However, my eye test tells me that MSU is on a bad run (losing 3 of 4), and Bucky is on a good run (winning 7 of 8).  There is no "talent meter" that tells us how much better MSU should be, the same way there is no "momentum meter" that tells us how much better Bucky is playing lately.  Both depend on the eye test, so the eye test can give varying results, which makes it easy to flip from one side to another, whereas metrics like kenpom have to give a definitive prediction.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 09:13:13 AM
I would like to wager something if you want to put your money where your mouth is.

Let me ask you a question, and answer it honestly...does MSU have more talented players than UW??
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: fjm on February 12, 2019, 09:14:24 AM
I remember when you only used to post if MU loses.

I also remember me saying “you should post more often! How about posting after an MU win for once guru!”

Now I am starting to question myself. ;)


I just feel like maybe your eye test isn’t as good as a predictive model. I would be interested to see a you vs KenPom of the final 2 weeks of the season top 25 this year.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: WarriorDad on February 12, 2019, 09:15:10 AM
Let me ask you a question, and answer it honestly...does MSU have more talented players than UW??

Did Michigan have better talent than App State?  Marquette vs Miami (OH)?  Virginia vs Chaminade? 
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: DoctorV on February 12, 2019, 09:17:04 AM
I don't bet on games..I don't care about $$, that's not what motivates me. never has been, never will be. I guess I'm baffled that people don't seem to think "the eye test" is a real thing. It is..if it wasn't, there wouldn't be scouting departments in pro sports etc.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here and attempt to better explain your point with an example.

Before I do that though, I completely understand your argument of “the eye test” but I think it would benefit you to give the computers a bit more credit and try to meet in the middle.

These computers these days are pretty darn impressive in the masses of data they collect and put together, and they are correct much more often than they are wrong. As another poster said, you could spend every hour of your day for months studying sports and game lines and still not be able to break Vegas for precisely that reason.

As for eye test, that is developed by watching many hours of the team or teams in question. A good example is this current Nevada squad. That team is loaded with talent, there’s no way around it. They’ve become my second favorite team because I just enjoy watching them play- there is something about a large collection of talented transfers/castaways all joining at the same smaller program to show that they can play that appeals to me (a la MU under buzz?)

Now, the computers aren’t high on that team, they are projected as a 4 seed. Knowing what I know after seeing them play many times I would argue that they will be one of the best 4 seeds in history if they stay on that line. That is a nightmare matchup for a 1 seed any way you slice it. They’ve got multiple talented players (upperclassmen) and 3 that are borderline NBAers and a seasoned head coach that shouldn’t get rattled, he showed that last yr.

They play in a crapty conference, their OOC games ended up being worse than expected and the computer numbers reflect it. Some argued that they shouldn’t have even been on the 4 line because of the numbers. Here lies the rub- you have to take the computer numbers with a caveat and know what they are telling you first and foremost and why they are telling you what they are. That’s where the eye test comes in and it is indeed important, but you can’t completely dismiss the data either.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 09:19:19 AM
You don't seem to understand probabilities vs predictions, that is your fundamental flaw.  Pomeroy didn't predict Kansas would lose, it gave the probability of it happening at 51%, but you ignore the 49% that said it would win.  Fundamental. 

If  Pomeroy says Marquette will win tonight 77% probability, it still means 23% of the time we will lose. Do you not understand this?

Of course I understand this..100% I understand..What most of you don't seem to understand is...his computer models can say what they want...and the sad thing is, a lot of you fawn all over them. The point is...you all believe that if Kansas and TCU played 100 times that because Pomeroy's model said it was basically 50/50, that TCU would beat Kansas half the time, if the game was "roll the ball out and go play"?? I seriously beg to differ.

You can say "we aren't talking 100 times though, we are talking 1 game". Yes, we are talking one game...and that's fine..but if you play that 1 game, 10 different times, TCU ain't winning 5 of them.

If Kenpom isn't making predictions, then why on his site under Fanmatch does he specifically have a column that says "prediction"??
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 09:23:16 AM
Did Michigan have better talent than App State?  Marquette vs Miami (OH)?  Virginia vs Chaminade?


Yes to all of those and I have stated many many many times, even the eye test isn't right 100% of the time. Talent does NOT(I repeat) does NOT always win..but what I will tell you is if all those games listed above were played 100 times, the other team would win 99% of those, because they have MORE talent. They happened to play bad enough for one day, that the under dog beat them. It happens. What do you think the "probabilities" were on those above results happening??
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 12, 2019, 09:24:10 AM
Guru, I'm going to try to find some common ground here.

So you say there is a difference between talented teams and good teams. Tell me if I'm wrong, but how I'm reading this is that in your mind a "talented" team is one that has a really high ceiling. If they are playing near what they are capable of, only another talented team will be able to beat them. A "good" team on the other hand has a really high floor. They are very rarely going to have a bad game and their average is going to beat most teams....but when faced with a "talented" team that is playing near their ceiling, they are going to lose.

I'll use two teams that you've already mentioned as examples. Duke strikes me as a "talented" team. When they are playing at their ceiling, they are unbeatable because they are the most talented team in basketball. But they are a little more volatile and more susceptible to an "anomaly" (I think that's the word you used) performance and that's how they every once in awhile they put up a stinker like their loss at home to Syracuse. Virginia on the other hand is a "good" team. Their floor is so high that even if they play poorly they are still going to beat most teams, even talented teams if they are having an average or bad night. But when they ran into Duke playing at a high level, they couldn't win.

Is this an accurate summary of what you are trying to say?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 09:32:34 AM
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here and attempt to better explain your point with an example.

Before I do that though, I completely understand your argument of “the eye test” but I think it would benefit you to give the computers a bit more credit and try to meet in the middle.

These computers these days are pretty darn impressive in the masses of data they collect and put together, and they are correct much more often than they are wrong. As another poster said, you could spend every hour of your day for months studying sports and game lines and still not be able to break Vegas for precisely that reason.

As for eye test, that is developed by watching many hours of the team or teams in question. A good example is this current Nevada squad. That team is loaded with talent, there’s no way around it. They’ve become my second favorite team because I just enjoy watching them play- there is something about a large collection of talented transfers/castaways all joining at the same smaller program to show that they can play that appeals to me (a la MU under buzz?)

Now, the computers aren’t high on that team, they are projected as a 4 seed. Knowing what I know after seeing them play many times I would argue that they will be one of the best 4 seeds in history if they stay on that line. That is a nightmare matchup for a 1 seed any way you slice it. They’ve got multiple talented players (upperclassmen) and 3 that are borderline NBAers and a seasoned head coach that shouldn’t get rattled, he showed that last yr.

They play in a crapty conference, their OOC games ended up being worse than expected and the computer numbers reflect it. Some argued that they shouldn’t have even been on the 4 line because of the numbers. Here lies the rub- you have to take the computer numbers with a caveat and know what they are telling you first and foremost and why they are telling you what they are. That’s where the eye test comes in and it is indeed important, but you can’t completely dismiss the data either.

Doctor, you are 100% correct, Nevada is incredibly talented. Zero question about that. having seen them play as often as I have, I echo your sentiments. Yes, the data is useful in some instances..but Nevada is a great example...the computers aren't high on them because who they have played. Well, I am telling you, it doesn't matter who they play...they would beat almost anyone.

In regards to the NCAA tournament...this is where I have an issue with "#'s". Almost every decision they make is numbers driven...who's in, who's out, where is a team seeded etc. That's fine except, #'s don't always tell the whole story. That's why I would like to see the committee made up of basketball people. Former players, Coaches, commentators etc. people that see these teams on a regular basis, or can watch a game or two or whatever and KNOW that team is more or less talented then their computer #'s say they are.

Now granted, we can't just hand out invitations to teams that don't have winning records because someone thinks they are talented enough to be a tournament team. That's not the way the process works. However, if it is close between two teams for the last spot, or a seeding or something, instead of looking at the #'s and saying "okay team X here has one more Q1 one win than team Y, so I give them the nod". How about we look at them and say "I know what the numbers are telling us here, but..this team is more talented than that team, and based on that(because the numbers are all pretty close), they should be in". That's all I'm saying.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 12, 2019, 09:35:02 AM
So talent should trump performance when it comes to NCAA selection and seeding?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 09:38:31 AM
Guru, I'm going to try to find some common ground here.

So you say there is a difference between talented teams and good teams. Tell me if I'm wrong, but how I'm reading this is that in your mind a "talented" team is one that has a really high ceiling. If they are playing near what they are capable of, only another talented team will be able to beat them. A "good" team on the other hand has a really high floor. They are very rarely going to have a bad game and their average is going to beat most teams....but when faced with a "talented" team that is playing near their ceiling, they are going to lose.

I'll use two teams that you've already mentioned as examples. Duke strikes me as a "talented" team. When they are playing at their ceiling, they are unbeatable because they are the most talented team in basketball. But they are a little more volatile and more susceptible to an "anomaly" (I think that's the word you used) performance and that's how they every once in awhile they put up a stinker like their loss at home to Syracuse. Virginia on the other hand is a "good" team. Their floor is so high that even if they play poorly they are still going to beat most teams, even talented teams if they are having an average or bad night. But when they ran into Duke playing at a high level, they couldn't win.

Is this an accurate summary of what you are trying to say?

Yes, that is very accurate...basically as I like to put it...under all equal circumstances, let's roll the ball out and go play, mano e mano, no sets no nothing...just play. Under these circumstances the more talented team will win 99.9% of the time.

That's what I like to judge teams on...their talent level. I understand and accept the computer models for what they are..but when I watch a game before the game starts, using my knowledge of the teams/players involved I think "okay, they SHOULD win this game, based on the talent level I know they have". Doesn't mean they will, but they absolutely should.

Every year when I get into an NCAA bracket pool, my pick for National Champion is never based on matchups(like the tourney really is), it's based on who I perceive to have the most talent in the field, because all things being equal, I will take that talent over everything else.

ETA: It also means that to me, the more talented team can get away with not playing their best every single time and still win games more often then not, simply because they have so much more talent then their opponent. Then there are times when one team is so much more talented then the other team, that as long as nothing happens prior to the game that devastates the entire team, no matter how well the other team plays, they are going to lose, even if they play their very best game, and the far more talented team plays their worst, they may still lose by 15-20.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 09:39:43 AM
So talent should trump performance when it comes to NCAA selection and seeding?


When two teams are VERY VERY close by the #'s, and there really isn't a determiner that separates one from the over using the #'s, yes, talent absolutely should win out.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: HowardsWorld on February 12, 2019, 09:40:02 AM
Yes, that is very accurate...basically as I like to put it...under all equal circumstances, let's roll the ball out and go play, mano e mano, no sets no nothing...just play. Under these circumstances the more talented team will win 99.9% of the time.

That's what I like to judge teams on...their talent level. I understand and accept the computer models for what they are..but when I watch a game before the game starts, using my knowledge of the teams/players involved I think "okay, they SHOULD win this game, based on the talent level I know they have". Doesn't mean they will, but they absolutely should.

Every year when I get into an NCAA bracket pool, my pick for National Champion is never based on matchups(like the tourney really is), it's based on who I perceive to have the most talent in the field, because all things being equal, I will take that talent over everything else.

Guessing you haven't had much luck with that theory.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: jsglow on February 12, 2019, 09:49:48 AM
When the world runs out of Cloud space because you guys are still arguing I'm going to be pissed.  ::)
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 12, 2019, 09:51:11 AM

When two teams are VERY VERY close by the #'s, and there really isn't a determiner that separates one from the over using the #'s, yes, talent absolutely should win out.


But in your example, there was such a determiner.  One more Q1 win.  So you are saying that this performance should be overlooked, for the sake of a team that is more talented. All other things being equal of course.

BTW, I'm not being critical.  I'm enjoying the debate!
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 09:51:55 AM
Guessing you haven't had much luck with that theory.

Wanna bet?? I haven't hit on them all, but more often than not I have. You have to remember, not everyone sees the same teams as the most talented.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: THRILLHO on February 12, 2019, 09:57:23 AM
I understand that some people find this an interesting and valuable discussion. To everyone else, I'll just remind you:

Profile->Buddies/Ignore List->Edit Ignore List->'muguru' Add
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Cheeks on February 12, 2019, 10:01:06 AM
Did Michigan have better talent than App State?  Marquette vs Miami (OH)?  Virginia vs Chaminade?

Why go that far back, UMBC vs Virginia last year perfect example.  Michigan has better talent than Wisconsin and Uw-Madison beat them at the Kohl hole a few weeks ago.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 10:25:27 AM
Why go that far back, UMBC vs Virginia last year perfect example.  Michigan has better talent than Wisconsin and Uw-Madison beat them at the Kohl hole a few weeks ago.

Yes...and your point is?? I have stated numerous times that the more talented team doesn't always win. The more talented team however SHOULD always win, all things being equal.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 12, 2019, 10:34:13 AM
Yes, that is very accurate...basically as I like to put it...under all equal circumstances, let's roll the ball out and go play, mano e mano, no sets no nothing...just play. Under these circumstances the more talented team will win 99.9% of the time.

So help me understand the bolded. What does under all equal circumstances mean? Do you just mean if both teams are at 100%? Or do you mean that if both teams play to the best of their abilities?

With the first option I would say you are wrong about the 99.9% number. Just look at Marquette. I would guess that you would say that Marquette has been more talented than every team they have played this season except for Kansas. In non Kansas games, Marquette is 19-3. That is 86.3%. In games against non-cupcakes that would be 12-3 or 80% Even though Marquette was more talented than St. John's and Indiana they lost three times (and badly two of those games). Just because a team is more talented, doesn't mean that they will play to their talent level every game.

With the second option, I would say duh. Of course the team with the higher ceiling would win every game if they played to the best of their abilities every game. But they don't. Sometime an inferior team plays close to their ceiling and the superior team plays close to their floor and the inferior team wins. You can't just dismiss that game an anomaly.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 12, 2019, 10:40:32 AM
Yes...and your point is?? I have stated numerous times that the more talented team doesn't always win. The more talented team however SHOULD always win, all things being equal.

What I'm sensing here is that you think teams should always play to their ceiling. These aren't robots, they aren't going to be at their best every night.

Every team has a ceiling. Every team has a floor. Most nights, teams play somewhere between those two extremes. So if an inferior team is playing close to their ceiling and the superior team is playing close to their floor, the inferior team may when. Or if the inferior team plays their average and the superior team plays near their floor the inferior team could win. Or the inferior team plays near their ceiling and the superior team plays near their average the inferior team could win. Or the inferior team could play near their floor but the superior team plays even closer to their floor....and on and on and on. This is why probabilities matter, because teams don't put up the same performances every night. How well they play varies from game to game.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 12, 2019, 10:48:43 AM
In regards to the NCAA tournament...this is where I have an issue with "#'s". Almost every decision they make is numbers driven...who's in, who's out, where is a team seeded etc. That's fine except, #'s don't always tell the whole story. That's why I would like to see the committee made up of basketball people. Former players, Coaches, commentators etc. people that see these teams on a regular basis, or can watch a game or two or whatever and KNOW that team is more or less talented then their computer #'s say they are.

Now granted, we can't just hand out invitations to teams that don't have winning records because someone thinks they are talented enough to be a tournament team. That's not the way the process works. However, if it is close between two teams for the last spot, or a seeding or something, instead of looking at the #'s and saying "okay team X here has one more Q1 one win than team Y, so I give them the nod". How about we look at them and say "I know what the numbers are telling us here, but..this team is more talented than that team, and based on that(because the numbers are all pretty close), they should be in". That's all I'm saying.

Here's where I think we disagree most. I don't think the best teams should go to the NCAA tournament. I think the teams that have earned it should go to the NCAA tournament.

My personal example is Texas. My personal eye test says there is a lot of talent on that team. I watched them beat North Carolina earlier this year and handle Kansas a few weeks ago and I see a very talented roster. I think when they are on they can beat almost anyone in the country. But I can't ignore the fact that they also lost to Radford, VCU, and Providence all at home! Their resume makes them a tournament team but only just barely, even though I think they have a lot of talent.

I also think you over worry about the numbers and selection. The committee uses a lot of different numbers to judge a team's resume. If they went strictly by NET, we would be 6 seed. Kenpom would have us as an 8 seed. But the committee just told us that we are a 3 seed. The NET, KenPom, Sagarin, etc are all just different tools for evaluating teams. No one is saying we should use just them for selection/seeding.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Lazar's Headband on February 12, 2019, 10:49:32 AM
For the record,  the computers all have Nevada ranked between 12-17.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Pops Sims on February 12, 2019, 10:58:09 AM
I never said KU would win emphatically(ie a blowout). I was simply emphatic that KU would win they game. At the end of the day...they did. I come out looking bad?? I stated unequivocally that KU would win the game. Pomeroy's model was more accurate?? Boy you really drink the f'n kool aid don't you?? Pomeroy's model had the probability that TCU would win the game...they didn't. I said that was wrong, and it was proven out. So if you want to slobber all over a "model" that says the probabilities of a lessor talented team beats a more talented team, be my guest. Any predicative model that more often then not, has a lessor talented team beating a more talented team simply because the lessor talented team is on their home floor, is absolutely flawed.

The perfect example as I cited previously was last years MU@UW game. UW was like a 3 or 4 point favorite if I remember right. Who in the F made that line?? Pomeroy's "wonderful" model had UW winning that game as well. His model is broken. there was ZERO possibility a That UW team was going to beat MU. Especially after both Guards were declared out. Simply the easiest $$ I have ever made in my life.

Now, Pomeroy is also wrong tonight...MSU WILL beat UW. Why? Because MSU has more talent. It's that simple. Period.

Maybe make another bet, win more $$$...
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Lennys Tap on February 12, 2019, 11:29:22 AM
You don't seem to understand probabilities vs predictions, that is your fundamental flaw.  Pomeroy didn't predict Kansas would lose, it gave the probability of it happening at 51%, but you ignore the 49% that said it would win.  Fundamental. 



Exactly. For all intents and purposes Pomeroy called the game a coin flip. The game was tied at the end of regulation. So, basically dead on.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 11:40:46 AM
So help me understand the bolded. What does under all equal circumstances mean? Do you just mean if both teams are at 100%? Or do you mean that if both teams play to the best of their abilities?

With the first option I would say you are wrong about the 99.9% number. Just look at Marquette. I would guess that you would say that Marquette has been more talented than every team they have played this season except for Kansas. In non Kansas games, Marquette is 19-3. That is 86.3%. In games against non-cupcakes that would be 12-3 or 80% Even though Marquette was more talented than St. John's and Indiana they lost three times (and badly two of those games). Just because a team is more talented, doesn't mean that they will play to their talent level every game.

With the second option, I would say duh. Of course the team with the higher ceiling would win every game if they played to the best of their abilities every game. But they don't. Sometime an inferior team plays close to their ceiling and the superior team plays close to their floor and the inferior team wins. You can't just dismiss that game an anomaly.

To me, all equal circumstances means everything is equal...the game is played on a neutral floor, both teams at full strength etc. Now you might say "but that's not the way it works, games are played in away teams arenas". That is correct. But that's where, at least for me, being able to tell who's talented(and by how much), matters. Can that teams superior talent make up for home court advantage etc. Can their pure talent overcome all obstacles even if they don't play their best??

I understand why probabilities hold some clout. But for me, I trust my eyes and my evaluations of teams. Let's use an example...when MU played Georgetown, many in the game thread that night figured MU was done as soon as Markus went out. I, however stated it was a game MU still should/would win. I even said Sam would take over the game. He did. You might think I just got lucky or whatever. That's fine, I understand why you'd think that. But that wasn't it...my eyes/ability to judge talent, told me even without Markus(I promise you the computer model probabilities at that point would have been sky high against MU), MU still had more talent than Georgetown even at full strength. And I also felt the talent discrepancy was enough to make up for the game being AT Georgetown.

How I judge a game as to who should win or lose is by relying on my eyes, and what I have seen with both teams to that point. Am I always right?? Absolutely 100% definitely not. That being said, based off MY(and only my) evaluations, there are times when I think the % probabilities of kenpom etc are off by a significant margin. Last night's Kansas-TCU game is a good example. Kenpom had it as a virtual coin flip(ie 50% probability TCU wins based on his model). Judging by what I have seen from both teams this year, my eyes told me that that probability was too high. I would have had it at more 25% chance TCU wins. When I see #'s like that, is when I confidently(at least to me) proclaim that I think the team that he doesn't have projected to win will win. I never assumed it wouldn't be a close game. But even if it was, I told myself that I felt Kansas's talent level was superior enough to TCU's that they would win the game.

Tonight...he has UW beating Michigan State 66-65 with a 50% probability. So a coin flip. For me, it's not as close as his model says it will be. First of all, I think MSU wins that game, and secondly I think the probability is closer to 65% MSU. That's just the way I see it. Others may not, and that's fine. I will say something like 72-64 MSU.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 11:43:08 AM
Exactly. For all intents and purposes Pomeroy called the game a coin flip. The game was tied at the end of regulation. So, basically dead on.

No, I wasn't ignoring it..I just felt that his probability %'s were off by a significant margin in this one. I felt it was closer to 60% chance Kansas would win, based on what I know about both teams etc..That's why I felt confident Kansas would win, I trusted my eyes and my evaluations of those two teams.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Its DJOver on February 12, 2019, 11:46:41 AM
Judging by what I have seen from both teams this year, my eyes told me that that probability was too high. I would have had it at more 25% chance TCU wins.

No, I wasn't ignoring it..I just felt that his probability %'s were off by a significant margin in this one. I felt it was closer to 60% chance Kansas would win, based on what I know about both teams etc..That's why I felt confident Kansas would win, I trusted my eyes and my evaluations of those two teams.

Did they chance the way percentages work in the 3 minutes between these posts?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MU82 on February 12, 2019, 12:08:46 PM
Have you read some of the posts here?? A lot of people are shocked that they are in the top 10, and saying how they are "overachieving"

Nice goalpost shifting!

In your earlier post, you didn't say "a lot of people are shocked." You said, "ALMOST NO ONE even thought this MU team would be this good."

You said that despite an entire thread of evidence that a lot of Scoopers thought the team would be this good (as opposed to almost no one). You make it sound like the majority of us are absolutely stunned that we are contending for the BEast title and a high seed when many of us said publicly that's exactly what we expected.

Of course, you interjected that you -- who has forgotten more basketball than any of us will ever know -- absolutely did think MU would be this good:

"I told many people privately long before the season started that they were going to be talented enough to be a top-10 team at some point..lo and behold..here we are."

How convenient! While others made their predictions publicly, you made yours privately.

What you have done here is set yourself up for your two favorite things in the world:

1. Rooting for the Warriors.

2. Beyotching that the Warriors aren't good enough to meet your standards -- which you think are higher than anybody else's because you're the "most competitive" fan in the world.

Not necessarily in that order, because it sure seems that you get more jollies beyotching than you actually do watching us win games.

guru, this thread has really been something to behold. It has added just about zero to the discussion about NET rankings, but it has given us yet more insight into your psyche, my friend.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 12, 2019, 12:16:19 PM
I come out looking bad??

Yes. I'm glad you get that.

Pomeroy's model was accurate within one point of the score after 40 minutes. On the same measure, you were wrong. Kansas did not win by that measure. So try again, you were wrong.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 12, 2019, 12:17:07 PM
Until you incorporate margins to your predictions, they are useless.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: HowardsWorld on February 12, 2019, 12:18:02 PM
Pomeroy should have nailed this 100% but TCU had a mental meltdown. They had the lead 69-65 with 1 minute on the clock and turned it over twice. Cost them the game.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 12:19:43 PM
Nice goalpost shifting!

In your earlier post, you didn't say "a lot of people are shocked." You said, "ALMOST NO ONE even thought this MU team would be this good."

You said that despite an entire thread of evidence that a lot of Scoopers thought the team would be this good (as opposed to almost no one). You make it sound like the majority of us are absolutely stunned that we are contending for the BEast title and a high seed when many of us said publicly that's exactly what we expected.

Of course, you interjected that you -- who has forgotten more basketball than any of us will ever know -- absolutely did think MU would be this good:

"I told many people privately long before the season started that they were going to be talented enough to be a top-10 team at some point..lo and behold..here we are."

How convenient! While others made their predictions publicly, you made yours privately.

What you have done here is set yourself up for your two favorite things in the world:

1. Rooting for the Warriors.

2. Beyotching that the Warriors aren't good enough to meet your standards -- which you think are higher than anybody else's because you're the "most competitive" fan in the world.

Not necessarily in that order, because it sure seems that you get more jollies beyotching than you actually do watching us win games.

guru, this thread has really been something to behold. It has added just about zero to the discussion about NET rankings, but it has given us yet more insight into your psyche, my friend.

“Non-Competitive people will never understand what goes on in the mind, body, and spirit of a true warrior.”

I think we just ended this conversation..in a grand fashion MU82. Greatest quote ever.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 12, 2019, 12:21:38 PM
“Non-Competitive people will never understand what goes on in the mind, body, and spirit of a true warrior.”

I think we just ended this conversation..in a grand fashion MU82. Greatest quote ever.

When it comes to Marquette basketball, guru, you are NOT competitive. Until you take the court, you are just an observer. That is not a competitive role. You may be so in pickup basketball, Monopoly, or Fortnite, but you are not competitive in regards to Marquette basketball. Period.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: 79Warrior on February 12, 2019, 12:24:52 PM
When it comes to Marquette basketball, guru, you are NOT competitive. Until you take the court, you are just an observer. That is not a competitive role. You may be so in pickup basketball, Monopoly, or Fortnite, but you are not competitive in regards to Marquette basketball. Period.

THIS
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 12:27:22 PM
Until you incorporate margins to your predictions, they are useless.

Have you not read ANYTHING I posted in this thread..I clearly stated, the way I evaluate a game(and decided who will win or lose) is most likely decidedly different than most people's. If they want to use Pomeroy that's totally okay. For MY(get that...me) evaluations, his #'s are sometimes significantly different than what I think. Is that okay with you Mr Brew?? Yet, you kneel under the table and perform for Mr Pomeroy. Many do. That's fine. Different strokes for different folks. I personally trust my eyes, and my ability to "see" things his model doesn't always see. Just the way It is. Why do I need margins?? Just like FTNOMATTA, scores no matta. It only matters who wins and loses. At least to me it does.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 12:29:35 PM
When it comes to Marquette basketball, guru, you are NOT competitive. Until you take the court, you are just an observer. That is not a competitive role. You may be so in pickup basketball, Monopoly, or Fortnite, but you are not competitive in regards to Marquette basketball. Period.

Alright, you see it however you want it. Tell you what then, let's make a deal..I will stop posting here altogether if one simple thing occurs : PEOPLE STOP SAYING "WE" when it comes to MU BB. Please, as much as I am not part of the team(according to you), then nor is anyone else here, so DO NOT say WE. Huge pet peeve of mine. WE implies you play on the team.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 12:56:37 PM
When it comes to Marquette basketball, guru, you are NOT competitive. Until you take the court, you are just an observer. That is not a competitive role. You may be so in pickup basketball, Monopoly, or Fortnite, but you are not competitive in regards to Marquette basketball. Period.

You are speculating. You do not know a thing about what goes on or why I consider myself "competitive" as a "fan". If you don't deal with Badger fans on a regular basis then you wouldn't understand...but that is only part of it. I will leave it at that.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 12, 2019, 12:58:39 PM
PEOPLE STOP SAYING "WE" when it comes to MU BB. Please, as much as I am not part of the team(according to you), then nor is anyone else here, so DO NOT say WE. Huge pet peeve of mine. WE implies you play on the team.

Disagree. "We" refers to members of the Marquette community. It includes the alums, boosters, students, and season ticket holders.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 12, 2019, 12:59:48 PM
My only pet peeve with we is when people say "we" when the team wins and "them" when the team loses.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TSmith34 on February 12, 2019, 01:10:12 PM
You are speculating. You do not know a thing about what goes on or why I consider myself "competitive" as a "fan". If you don't deal with Badger fans on a regular basis then you wouldn't understand...but that is only part of it. I will leave it at that.
Nor exactly true.  When I asked you this, you stated that you were "competing" by being in the stands cheering.  I would hazard that no one, other than you, would define sitting in the stands as "competing".
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MUBigDance on February 12, 2019, 01:12:32 PM
My only pet peeve with we is when people say "we" when the team wins and "them" when the team loses.

This is a funny thought.
I can relate. "They" need to get their act together  :(
  ...  "We" are a 3-seed!  :)
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MU82 on February 12, 2019, 01:33:31 PM
Alright, you see it however you want it. Tell you what then, let's make a deal..I will stop posting here altogether if one simple thing occurs : PEOPLE STOP SAYING "WE" when it comes to MU BB. Please, as much as I am not part of the team(according to you), then nor is anyone else here, so DO NOT say WE. Huge pet peeve of mine. WE implies you play on the team.

First, I don't want you to stop posting on Scoop. When you're not acting crazy and/or boasting about your superiority, you add value to the board.

Second, what do you chant? "They are (clap, clap) Mar-quette!"?

I attended Marquette. I am a part of Marquette and it is a part of me. I still say "we" when I talk about the school, period, not even just the basketball team.

And even those who didn't go to Marquette, they can feel a part of the overall community or the basketball community. I didn't play for the Carolina Panthers, but I still often say "we" ... and it's a pet peeve of mine that some yahoos are so easily outraged that they have that as a pet peeve of theirs.

It's what fans do. Except, I guess, superior ones such as yourself. Don't take it out on us that you don't feel like you are part of the community.

So I won't stop calling MU "we." But from now on, though, I do promise to chant:

"We are (clap, clap) Mar-quette! Except guru! We are (clap, clap) Mar-quette! Except guru!"

OK? Feel better?

Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Cheeks on February 12, 2019, 01:51:17 PM
Alright, you see it however you want it. Tell you what then, let's make a deal..I will stop posting here altogether if one simple thing occurs : PEOPLE STOP SAYING "WE" when it comes to MU BB. Please, as much as I am not part of the team(according to you), then nor is anyone else here, so DO NOT say WE. Huge pet peeve of mine. WE implies you play on the team.

We are all part of the environment, we cheer, we buy tickets, we help create a winning atmosphere.

WE ARE MARQUETTE
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 02:20:18 PM
First, I don't want you to stop posting on Scoop. When you're not acting crazy and/or boasting about your superiority, you add value to the board.

Second, what do you chant? "They are (clap, clap) Mar-quette!"?

I attended Marquette. I am a part of Marquette and it is a part of me. I still say "we" when I talk about the school, period, not even just the basketball team.

And even those who didn't go to Marquette, they can feel a part of the overall community or the basketball community. I didn't play for the Carolina Panthers, but I still often say "we" ... and it's a pet peeve of mine that some yahoos are so easily outraged that they have that as a pet peeve of theirs.

It's what fans do. Except, I guess, superior ones such as yourself. Don't take it out on us that you don't feel like you are part of the community.

So I won't stop calling MU "we." But from now on, though, I do promise to chant:

"We are (clap, clap) Mar-quette! Except guru! We are (clap, clap) Mar-quette! Except guru!"

OK? Feel better?

From having ties to the University..I get that, saying "we"..you attended school there..in saying "we" in reference to the basketball team..unless you play on the team, or..wait for it somehow affect the outcome(which can't be possible as so many here say) then I don't like the word "we". Maybe if I was an alum i'd understand it more..but that doesn't excuse the one's that do it for pro sports.

I mean if the term "we" is acceptable..that implies we are part of the team in some way..but I have been told repeatedly..I'm not. I'm a season ticket holder..does that count? Im so confused.  8-)
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TSmith34 on February 12, 2019, 02:22:16 PM
I mean if the term "we" is acceptable..that implies we are part of the team in some way..but I have been told repeatedly..I'm not. I'm a season ticket holder..does that count? Im so confused.  8-)
No, it implies we are part of the university.

There, hopefully you are no longer confused.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 02:38:02 PM
No, it implies we are part of the university.

There, hopefully you are no longer confused.

And so the thinking goes, the basketball team is part of the University, therefore "we" is acceptable in reference to the basketball team?? Just trying to understand.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: shoothoops on February 12, 2019, 03:03:53 PM
My only pet peeve with we is when people say "we" when the team wins and "them" when the team loses.

Very random, but, ...few coaches do a better job of saying we and our than Jay Wright. It is always our team with him and not my team. It’s a small thing that I wish more coaches did.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: jesmu84 on February 12, 2019, 03:53:18 PM
From having ties to the University..I get that, saying "we"..you attended school there..in saying "we" in reference to the basketball team..unless you play on the team, or..wait for it somehow affect the outcome(which can't be possible as so many here say) then I don't like the word "we". Maybe if I was an alum i'd understand it more..but that doesn't excuse the one's that do it for pro sports.

I mean if the term "we" is acceptable..that implies we are part of the team in some way..but I have been told repeatedly..I'm not. I'm a season ticket holder..does that count? Im so confused.  8-)

You didn't even go to Marquette??
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TinyTimsLittleBrother on February 12, 2019, 03:57:39 PM
You didn't even go to Marquette??


That’s just fine. Plenty of room for him.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 12, 2019, 05:19:35 PM

That’s just fine. Plenty of room for him.

Amen. Always more room on the bandwagon. As long as you don't pull the Bucky special and claim you're an alum when you went to UW Directional School
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: We R Final Four on February 12, 2019, 05:28:22 PM
My only pet peeve with we is when people say "we" when the team wins and "them" when the team loses.
+1.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MUeagle1090 on February 12, 2019, 05:33:19 PM
Amen. Always more room on the bandwagon. As long as you don't pull the Bucky special and claim you're an alum when you went to UW Directional School

Absolutely. I have been a Marquette fan since childhood but did not attend Marquette until graduate school.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 05:40:34 PM
You didn't even go to Marquette??

Nope, been a HUGE fan since i was a kid.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Herman Cain on February 12, 2019, 06:10:38 PM
Nope, been a HUGE fan since i was a kid.
Mr. Guru:
Please always continue to refer to MU as We. You are a huge fan and love the team. That is " We Worthy" in my book.   
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TSmith34 on February 12, 2019, 06:18:08 PM
And so the thinking goes, the basketball team is part of the University, therefore "we" is acceptable in reference to the basketball team?? Just trying to understand.
Eh, I don't necessarily disagree with your basic point that "we" aren't in the basketball program.  I tend to shy away from using "we" but do admittedly sometimes use it, as it just flows easier than always saying "MU" or "Marquette"

"We need to get a stop here" is a little easier than "Marquette needs to get a stop here."

YMMV, but doesn't seem like something to get your knickers in a twist about.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 08:12:00 PM
BTT

Let's review shall we?? Pomeroy had it 66-65 UW. A 1 point WISCONSIN win. Guru Had it...72-64 MSU. An 8 point MSU win. The ACTUAL score was...67-59 MSU WIN. Huh, Imagine that. DEAD on. I think we are now done here...I  won this thread, yes?? My point has been made..game, set, match...Guru.

 I will say something like 72-64 MSU.

Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: jesmu84 on February 12, 2019, 08:19:05 PM
BTT

Let's review shall we?? Pomeroy had it 66-65 UW. A 1 point WISCONSIN win. Guru Had it...72-64 MSU. An 8 point MSU win. The ACTUAL score was...67-59 MSU WIN. Huh, Imagine that. DEAD on. I think we are now done here...I  won this thread, yes?? My point has been made..game, set, match...Guru.

 I will say something like 72-64 MSU.

Did you expect LSU to beat Kentucky?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: jesmu84 on February 12, 2019, 09:24:16 PM
BTT

Let's review shall we?? Pomeroy had it 66-65 UW. A 1 point WISCONSIN win. Guru Had it...72-64 MSU. An 8 point MSU win. The ACTUAL score was...67-59 MSU WIN. Huh, Imagine that. DEAD on. I think we are now done here...I  won this thread, yes?? My point has been made..game, set, match...Guru.

 I will say something like 72-64 MSU.

Where'd you have Louisville and Duke?

Purdue Maryland?

Michigan Penn State?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 12, 2019, 09:43:03 PM
Where'd you have Louisville and Duke?

Purdue Maryland?

Michigan Penn State?

+1, +2, +3
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: HowardsWorld on February 12, 2019, 09:44:48 PM
This is so pointless to keep arguing with him. He only picks the game that fits his narrative.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MU82 on February 12, 2019, 09:55:55 PM
Duke is a better team than Louisville so Duke HAD to win. Duh!

But really, who cares. All that matters is ...

WE won!!

We are (clap, clap) Marquette! (except guru)
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 10:22:26 PM
+1, +2, +3

 I pick the EXACT margin of the MSU-UW game and that's STILL not good enough for you?? After you were here boasting about how Pomeroy was more right then me in the TCU-Kansas game?? Don't have much to say now, do you?? GAME OVER Brew. 8 point margin...MSU. EXACTLY as I said it would be. But hey...Guru doesn't know sh*t, right?? Oh well.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 10:25:11 PM
Duke is a better team than Louisville so Duke HAD to win. Duh!

But really, who cares. All that matters is ...

WE won!!

We are (clap, clap) Marquette! (except guru)

That is EXACTLY why Duke won that game. Go Marquette!
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 12, 2019, 10:26:18 PM
I pick the EXACT margin of the MSU-UW game and that's STILL not good enough for you?? After you were here boasting about how Pomeroy was more right then me in the TCU-Kansas game?? Don't have much to say now, do you?? GAME OVER Brew. 8 point margin...MSU. EXACTLY as I said it would be. But hey...Guru doesn't know sh*t, right?? Oh well.

Give me 20 predictions for tomorrow. Then maybe you'll have something. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: MU82 on February 12, 2019, 10:28:06 PM
That is EXACTLY why Duke won that game. Go Marquette!

Yep ... I was guilty of doing what I understand you and others do in the MU game threads do all the time ... assume a result before it happens.

Funny to hear a blind squirrel bragging so much about the nut he found.

In 2003, I predicted the entire Final Four and 7 of the 8 Elite Eight teams, and did so publicly in a forum read by 1 million+ people. So it's fun to brag about that ... but the following year I didn't come close to predicting the outcome. Then again, I don't know more about basketball than most Scoopers have forgotten.

We are Marquette!
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 10:30:48 PM
Give me 20 predictions for tomorrow. Then maybe you'll have something. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.

Nope...You were ALL over me today about how Pomeroy was so f'n right about the TCU-KU game and I was wrong, even though I picked the correct winner and he didn't. Now, I pick the EXACT winner by the EXACT margin and it's not enough for you?? Hypocritical much?? Whatever fits your narrative Brew. You do you. Can't accept that maybe I know some things?? Is that the problem?? How about credit where it's due?? You did it for your boy Pomeroy.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 12, 2019, 10:33:51 PM
Nope...You were ALL over me today about how Pomeroy was so f'n right about the TCU-KU game and I was wrong, even though I picked the correct winner and he didn't. Now, I pick the EXACT winner by the EXACT margin and it's not enough for you?? Hypocritical much?? Whatever fits your narrative Brew. You do you. Can't accept that maybe I know some things?? Is that the problem?? How about credit where it's due?? You did it for your boy Pomeroy.

You flipped a coin twice and act like a genius, even though Pomeroy had a better 40-minute prediction than you in the KU game. If you knew half what you claimed you'd prove it. You know you don't so you cower away. But hey, you do you.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 10:47:42 PM
You flipped a coin twice and act like a genius, even though Pomeroy had a better 40-minute prediction than you in the KU game. If you knew half what you claimed you'd prove it. You know you don't so you cower away. But hey, you do you.

Bullcrap! I didn't flip a coin..I knew..i KNOW college basketball..i can judge talent..i see things a lot of others can't. Pomeroy's model doesn't account for the absolute most important factor there is..TALENT. I don't need a bunch of numbers to tell me what PROBABLY could happen. I told you EXACTLY what WOULD happen and by how much MSU would win by..that ain't luck..it's knowledge and skill. Period. I don't live on probabilities..i live on FACTS. You think i randomly chose the screen name guru for no reason?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: JakeBarnes on February 12, 2019, 10:52:34 PM
Alright, you see it however you want it. Tell you what then, let's make a deal..I will stop posting here altogether if one simple thing occurs : PEOPLE STOP SAYING "WE" when it comes to MU BB. Please, as much as I am not part of the team(according to you), then nor is anyone else here, so DO NOT say WE. Huge pet peeve of mine. WE implies you play on the team.

I dont think you understand. Some people here could dunk in high school
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: LoudMouth on February 12, 2019, 10:54:47 PM
Bullcrap! I didn't flip a coin..I knew..i KNOW college basketball..i can judge talent..i see things a lot of others can't. Pomeroy's model doesn't account for the absolute most important factor there is..TALENT. I don't need a bunch of numbers to tell me what PROBABLY could happen. I told you EXACTLY what WOULD happen and by how much MSU would win by..that ain't luck..it's knowledge and skill. Period. I don't live on probabilities..i live on FACTS. You think i randomly chose the screen name guru for no reason?

Honestly at this point, respect the troll
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 12, 2019, 10:57:09 PM
Bullcrap! I didn't flip a coin..I knew..i KNOW college basketball..i can judge talent..i see things a lot of others can't. Pomeroy's model doesn't account for the absolute most important factor there is..TALENT. I don't need a bunch of numbers to tell me what PROBABLY could happen. I told you EXACTLY what WOULD happen and by how much MSU would win by..that ain't luck..it's knowledge and skill. Period. I don't live on probabilities..i live on FACTS. You think i randomly chose the screen name guru for no reason?

20 games tomorrow or you know nothing. Put up or shut up.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: warriorstrack on February 12, 2019, 10:57:37 PM
NET ranking...
I love scoop  :P

Go Warriors, This team passes my eye test!!!

What’s the o/u on number of posts when a thread goes sideways?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: muguru on February 12, 2019, 11:25:04 PM
20 games tomorrow or you know nothing. Put up or shut up.

Why do I have to do 20? Again you raved about how right Pomeroy was with TCU-Kansas..even though he said TCU would win..which was wrong. That was ONE game and you treated his wrong prediction like the holy grail..now i have 100% confidently and accurately told you who was going to win..twice..I didn't say probably would..I said they WOULD. In the one instance that I gave a score I said "something like 72-64 MSU". Lo and behold MSU won by..8. You really think i just guessed? That ain't guessing..trust me when I tell you..I KNOW things..that's not bragging..it's fact.

If I could expound on that more..I would..I would love to be able to share more of my knowledge with everyone here..sadly I can't.

My whole point of doing this was too hopefully get people to listen some when I talk ball..I really and truly do know what I'm talking about..I'm not always right(no one is), but I have been doing what I do long enough that I fallback on my experience. Oh and I really do love MU basketball..probably too much sometimes..but I'm ok with that  :)
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: LoudMouth on February 12, 2019, 11:27:42 PM
Honestly at this point, respect the troll
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Vander Blue Man Group on February 12, 2019, 11:34:19 PM
Bullcrap! I didn't flip a coin..I knew..i KNOW college basketball..i can judge talent..i see things a lot of others can't. Pomeroy's model doesn't account for the absolute most important factor there is..TALENT. I don't need a bunch of numbers to tell me what PROBABLY could happen. I told you EXACTLY what WOULD happen and by how much MSU would win by..that ain't luck..it's knowledge and skill. Period. I don't live on probabilities..i live on FACTS. You think i randomly chose the screen name guru for no reason?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/KAjzlpbCKyj9S/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: rocky_warrior on February 13, 2019, 12:06:25 AM
Wow, I only ready page 1 and page 7.  Glad I didn't waste any more time.

So...NET is better than RPI huh?
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TAMU Eagle on February 13, 2019, 02:07:11 AM
Congrats Guru on predicting the exact margin of the Wisconsin/MSU game. You put yourself out there and you nailed it.

KenPom also projected the exact margin of three games yesterday. So he beat you 3-1 yesterday.

You were more efficient making your one shot but all that matters is the final score right?  ;D
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: brewcity77 on February 13, 2019, 04:49:42 AM
Why do I have to do 20?

Because Pomeroy's model has predictions for every game, every day. 20 is only about a third of today's games (58) so it's not even that much. You're basically proclaiming yourself king after winning one category in prediction contest. That's just not how it works.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Bocephys on February 13, 2019, 06:28:39 AM
Wow, I only ready page 1 and page 7.  Glad I didn't waste any more time.

So...NET is better than RPI huh?

Guru>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NET>RPI>Crean>ND
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: jesmu84 on February 13, 2019, 06:34:14 AM
Why do I have to do 20? Again you raved about how right Pomeroy was with TCU-Kansas..even though he said TCU would win..which was wrong. That was ONE game and you treated his wrong prediction like the holy grail..now i have 100% confidently and accurately told you who was going to win..twice..I didn't say probably would..I said they WOULD. In the one instance that I gave a score I said "something like 72-64 MSU". Lo and behold MSU won by..8. You really think i just guessed? That ain't guessing..trust me when I tell you..I KNOW things..that's not bragging..it's fact.

If I could expound on that more..I would..I would love to be able to share more of my knowledge with everyone here..sadly I can't.

My whole point of doing this was too hopefully get people to listen some when I talk ball..I really and truly do know what I'm talking about..I'm not always right(no one is), but I have been doing what I do long enough that I fallback on my experience. Oh and I really do love MU basketball..probably too much sometimes..but I'm ok with that  :)

Neither is pomeroy.

But I guarantee he's right more than you would be if you actually made predictions like brew is asking
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: tower912 on February 13, 2019, 07:08:00 AM
I am guessing MU dropped after their 19 pt conference road win and Wisconsin moved up after losing to MSU. 
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TSmith34 on February 13, 2019, 08:30:22 AM
Bullcrap! I didn't flip a coin..I knew..i KNOW college basketball..i can judge talent..i see things a lot of others can't. Pomeroy's model doesn't account for the absolute most important factor there is..TALENT. I don't need a bunch of numbers to tell me what PROBABLY could happen. I told you EXACTLY what WOULD happen and by how much MSU would win by..that ain't luck..it's knowledge and skill. Period. I don't live on probabilities..i live on FACTS. You think i randomly chose the screen name guru for no reason?
This is getting better and better.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: TSmith34 on February 13, 2019, 08:34:42 AM
I KNOW things..that's not bragging..it's fact.

If I could expound on that more..I would..I would love to be able to share more of my knowledge with everyone here..sadly I can't.
(https://i.imgflip.com/e45l4.jpg)
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: UWW2MU on February 13, 2019, 08:51:01 AM
Wow, 7 pages of this discussion when you just need to look at it this way, as was revealed when they released the top 16:


You need the NET, or a standard system of SOME sort, to quantify the resume... However, ultimately you can be a very good team, but if you don't actually win, you won't go anywhere. 

Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: 79Warrior on February 13, 2019, 01:54:36 PM
Bullcrap! I didn't flip a coin..I knew..i KNOW college basketball..i can judge talent..i see things a lot of others can't. Pomeroy's model doesn't account for the absolute most important factor there is..TALENT. I don't need a bunch of numbers to tell me what PROBABLY could happen. I told you EXACTLY what WOULD happen and by how much MSU would win by..that ain't luck..it's knowledge and skill. Period. I don't live on probabilities..i live on FACTS. You think i randomly chose the screen name guru for no reason?

You buddies with Donald because he knows everything too.
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Jay Bee on February 13, 2019, 05:49:11 PM
You buddies with Donald because he knows everything too.

^^^ ban dis guy
Title: Re: Net Ranking
Post by: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 13, 2019, 06:36:50 PM
Through Games FEB. 12, 2019
1   1   Duke   ACC   22-2   6-0   4-1   12-1   0-0
2   2   Gonzaga   WCC   23-2   5-1   3-1   15-0   0-0
3   3   Virginia   ACC   21-2   7-1   3-0   11-1   0-0
4   4   Tennessee   SEC   22-1   6-0   2-1   13-0   1-0
5   6   Houston   AAC   23-1   6-1   0-0   17-0   0-0
6   5   Kentucky   SEC   20-4   6-1   1-2   13-1   0-0
7   8   Michigan St.   Big Ten   20-5   7-3   2-1   11-1   0-0
8   7   Michigan   Big Ten   22-3   5-3   2-0   15-0   0-0
9   9   North Carolina   ACC   19-5   7-1   1-2   11-2   0-0
10   12   Texas Tech   Big 12   19-5   3-3   3-1   13-1   0-0
11   10   Purdue   Big Ten   17-7   3-5   2-2   12-0   0-0
12   13   Nevada   MWC   23-1   7-1   4-0   12-0   0-0
13   14   Virginia Tech   ACC   18-5   3-4   4-0   11-1   0-0
14   17   LSU   SEC   20-4   6-1   2-2   12-1   0-0
15   11   Wisconsin   Big Ten   17-8   6-4   2-1   9-3   0-0
16   15   Louisville   ACC   17-8   5-3   0-2   12-3   0-0
17   16   Iowa St.   Big 12   18-6   4-3   3-1   11-2   0-0
18   18   Kansas   Big 12   19-6   2-6   3-0   14-0   0-0
19   21   Marquette   Big East   21-4   5-2   1-1   15-1   0-0
20   20   Auburn   SEC   16-7   1-5   3-1   11-1   1-0
21   19   Villanova   Big East   19-5   5-3   4-0   10-2   0-0
22   23   Maryland   Big Ten   19-6   5-3   1-1   13-2   0-0
23   24   Cincinnati   AAC   20-4   5-3   2-0   13-1   0-0
24   22   Buffalo   MAC   21-3   9-3   2-0   9-0   1-0
25   27   Kansas St.   Big 12   19-5   5-4   3-0   11-1   0-0