collapse

* Resources


UDM 4

* 2018-2019 SOTG


2018-19 Season SoG Tally
Howard11
S Hauser4
John4
Anim3
Chartouny2

'17-18 * '16-17 *
'15-16'14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

Recruiting as of 7/15/19 by MU82
[Today at 01:09:10 AM]


Theo John, less fat, more muscle by wadesworld
[Today at 12:42:21 AM]


Big East Is The Winner In This Round Of Conference Expansion by source?
[July 20, 2019, 11:21:33 PM]


TBT 2019 by #UnleashCain
[July 20, 2019, 11:13:42 PM]


[Paint Touches] MU All-Decade Team by PTM
[July 20, 2019, 08:30:41 PM]


Wojo, Mediocrity and Peer Out Performance - Part Two by Lennys Tap
[July 20, 2019, 08:03:09 PM]


NM by 4everwarriors
[July 20, 2019, 06:17:54 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: A long offseason

Marquette
Marquette

Madness

Date/Time: Oct 4, 2019
TV: ???
Schedule for 2018-19
24-10

Author Topic: Net Ranking  (Read 7323 times)

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #25 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??
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

MuMark

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3232
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #26 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.

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #27 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.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 19254
  • Alan Bykowski
    • Brew City Ball
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #28 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.

TAMU Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 15723
  • A Reading from Wojo's 1st Slide to the Marquettens
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #29 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
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

~Prayer of the Scooper

MuMark

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3232
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #30 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.



Fluffy Blue Monster

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1207
  • Has your band begun to rust?
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #31 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)


muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #32 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.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

TAMU Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 15723
  • A Reading from Wojo's 1st Slide to the Marquettens
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #33 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!
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

~Prayer of the Scooper

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #34 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.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

Fluffy Blue Monster

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1207
  • Has your band begun to rust?
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #35 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.

Jay Bee

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6656
    • Late Night Hoops
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #36 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

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9430
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #37 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!

Osiris

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #38 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.

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #39 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.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

TAMU Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 15723
  • A Reading from Wojo's 1st Slide to the Marquettens
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #40 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"?
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

~Prayer of the Scooper

TAMU Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 15723
  • A Reading from Wojo's 1st Slide to the Marquettens
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #41 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!
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

~Prayer of the Scooper

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 19254
  • Alan Bykowski
    • Brew City Ball
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #42 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.

TAMU Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 15723
  • A Reading from Wojo's 1st Slide to the Marquettens
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #43 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?
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

~Prayer of the Scooper

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #44 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.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 19254
  • Alan Bykowski
    • Brew City Ball
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #45 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.

MUDPT

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #46 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.

Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #47 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
“More the knowledge, lesser the ego. Lesser the knowledge, more the ego.” Albert Einstein a note for some posters

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2742
  • Merry Christmas to ALL and to ALL a goodnight
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #48 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.
"The tournament is a crapshoot. It shouldn't be everything. It's such a shallow thing to pin everything on."
Gonzaga Head Coach Mark Few

Ellenson Family Reunion

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4470
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #49 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?