Who cares. They played a lot of good teams and lost to almost all of them. That doesn't impress me. At the end of the day you have to win more than you lose against those teams to get my respect. If you're under .500 against quad 1-2, you aren't that good.
Ohio State is an even more interesting case. 6 Q1 wins (3 Q1A), no "bad" losses (worst lost to NET #62 Pitt), 11 Q1 L's (7 Q1A). But they are only 17-15, and no team finishing only 2 games over .500 has ever gained an at-large berth. Also 9-11 in conference FWIW.
Florida & St Johns wins, not so shabby.
I'm a contrarian in some ways. I don't care about bad losses vs good losses. There are just losses. If I did a deep dive, I do care about the margin of those losses. If you lose by double digits on too many occasions, you stink. Winning percentage in challenging games and margin in those games. That's what I care about.
Be around The same. Talent wins out. UConn has better talent than those sec teams imo. I think they are 5th, 6th in sec this year.
Georgia lost to 1 unranked team….Arkansas
"Ranked" is irrelevant. Many "ranked" teams are later not ranked. Utterly unimportant. They got blown out 7 times. There's too much weight on OOC that carries forward far too long. Once your league does well, then all your losses and wins are "good". If your league (the ACC) craps the bed in OOC then all your losses and wins are "bad". The reality is that teams evolve a lot and OOC is a measuring stick that happens way to early. I'm pretty confident that SMU is better than Georgia.
So a loss to St John’s is equal to a loss to seton hall??? In what world?
I think the bad loss thing is splitting hairs. Like, if you are on bubble and a team doesn’t have any horrible losses, and you do, and they have a better schedule, and the eye test says about even. I give it to the team with better schedule.
Absolutely true that OOC results in November don’t necessarily correlate to how good teams are in February. But as there is no objective way to measure whether conferences as a whole have been improving more or less than the average, the question becomes how much you want to empower subjective eye tests of the committee rather than data.
If you just have one, yes that matters. But a team with lots of losses to good teams isn't showing me anything. You don't get a pass for that. Especially when the measure of how "good" those teams are (in the case of the SEC this year) is inflated by some strong OOC play.
You've spent years claiming Samson could/should be shooting 3s. One time last year you even said you thought Hurley was holding him back from shooting 3s, and was going to unleash him on teams later in the season. We should just probably go with the metrics over your brain. And that goes for the rest of the morons here who believe their "eye test" is better.
Which is why picking a bracket totally based on Ken Pom, or some other metric that weighs games in November and March equally, is not as good as picking in a manner that has a recency bias. But I don’t want the Committee to be selecting teams and seeding based on purely “what they think.” I want them to be largely objective, because madness lies in letting them act totally subjectively.
So are any of the numbers geeks here able to explain why the BPI differs so greatly from other metrics? Not asking if it’s better or worse, just how the recipe differs.
What will be crazy is that if they get 14 teams in, they would effectively be owning 22% of the field.
Supposedly BPI builds in more preseason prior than other metrics and it lasts the whole year (though does diminish over time, just not to 0), so that benefits us (and teams like Kansas).
BPI doesn't account for injuries anymore in college
If we never saw the KenPom and Net ratings, does UConn look like an 8 seed?
Flip side. If everyone felt a team like UConn was a top 20 program on eye test, like no one disputes that, but metrics say 8 because of weak conference schedule…why would you put a 5 seed caliber team playing well and sandbag the 1 seed?
The strength of those leagues was built in the early season OOC games - important as a league to go out and win as many of those games as you can. What kills us is that our very best team had a pretty poor OOC showing, losing to a lower tier SEC team and a lower tier B12 team on a neutral court, with their only win against the field being in the Pitino-festival at MSG (UNM). The bottom of our league being so bad doesn't help as they really don't pull any wins to help the cause.
5-8 seeds this year are MUCH better than they've been in the recent past. Last year the 7 seeds were all around 10-10 (around .500) in Q1+2. This year most of them are like 12-8.
They won't be. The top 4 are very good. Beyond that? None of them would be rated so highly in a different conference. Put Xavier in the SEC and they do just as well as A&M, Miss State or Missouri. They are better than Arkansas, UGA or Vandy. Ole Miss might be pretty good. Butler beat Miss State on a neutral court. Kentucky is Jeckyl and Hyde, good wins and bad losses.
Well that figures
