Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Mister2, post: 2628243, member: 8504"] After some 50+ posts, I'm surprised that not a single poster has challenged/commented on the methodology 835 used to arrive at its conclusion. The unique aspect of the 538 site is that it doesn't just advance an opinion (everyone has an opinion); it arrives at its conclusions about everything based on some specific quantitative modeling. To disagree with 538's conclusions, one needs to challenge its underlying methodology. In this particular case, however, 538 is not using its own modeling, but rather relying on the results of another rating site [URL="https://herhoopstats.com/team/164#team_ratings"]Her Hoop Stats[/URL]. Rating sites are a dime a dozen, just how credible is Herhoopstats? Out of curiosity, I dug up how UCONN has been rated over the last 20 years by Massey--certainly a reputable and widely cited rating site. Here is its rank order: 2002 3.86 2014 3.55 2016 3.51 2000 3.49 2010 3.47 2009 3.33 2015 3.24 2018 3.04 (will change depending on the NCAA tournament matches) 2013 3.04 2011 2.93 2017 2.91 2012 2.90 2003 2.81 2008 2.79 2001 2.77 2004 2.66 2006 2.54 2007 2.53 2005 2.33 1998 2.33 1999 2.07 Massey's rank order is certainly more in line with one's intuition of the relative "greatness" of UCONN teams over the years. I think Herhoopstats's methodology (schedule-adjusted offense and defense efficiencies) is much too narrow to produce a credible rank order. [/QUOTE]