AP Poll Week #13 | Page 12 | The Boneyard
.

AP Poll Week #13

RuffRuff said:
My hunch is Houston grabs a bunch. They also beat an 8 seed UCF by 22 earlier in the week. Their NET and KP are higher. We’ve wiped out a couple of bad teams.
Expand ...
Our WAB is higher, and we have better wins than them.
 
BFieldHusky said:
Our WAB is higher, and we have better wins than them.
Expand ...
They just grabbed two convincing quality wins, we beat up on a sub 100 KP and lost by 9 on the road. They have recency momentum, we don’t. I’m guessing Houston moves on in.
 
Now 3, 4, 5, 6 all lost this week. Likely a small shuffle since all played decent foes most away.
 
RuffRuff said:
That 4th one right now is very much touch and go between Uconn, ISU, Houston, Illinois. I'd say Houston after the BYU win is in the drivers seat. We need to win out to have a chance there.
Expand ...
Doubt it. Committee stresses the non-con of which UConn did better in. We have a smaller margin for error, but UH has more realistic opportunities for a loss
 
FightOnCT said:
Doubt it. Committee stresses the non-con of which UConn did better in. We have a smaller margin for error, but UH has more realistic opportunities for a loss
Expand ...
Still plenty to play out obviously.
 
.-.
With all this arguement over NET, Kenpom, WAB, OOC schedule and what the selection committee uses, I said it before and I'll say it again. The Selction Committee cares about their own agendas and uses whatever metrics they can to justify what they want, not the other way around.
 
uconn_jack said:
With all this arguement over NET, Kenpom, WAB, OOC schedule and what the selection committee uses, I said it before and I'll say it again. The Selction Committee cares about their own agendas and uses whatever metrics they can to justify what they want, not the other way around.
Expand ...
Yup - in 2024 they gave us easily the hardest region. We were just so good it didn’t matter.

I’m sure they’ll have a bias to a P4 team if it’s even close.
 
RuffRuff said:
They just grabbed two convincing quality wins, we beat up on a sub 100 KP and lost by 9 on the road. They have recency momentum, we don’t. I’m guessing Houston moves on in.
Expand ...
You're missing the point. Despite the fact they just picked up 2 quality wins, we still have a sizeable advantage over them in WAB and a better record vs Q1+2. That's why they won't jump us once everyone updates their brackets
 
Nameless said:
You're missing the point. Despite the fact they just picked up 2 quality wins, we still have a sizeable advantage over them in WAB and a better record vs Q1+2. That's why they won't jump us once everyone updates their brackets
Expand ...
You don’t think they weigh how teams are playing more recently?
 
UConnTrumbull said:
I don’t really care either way but it would be weird for Duke to leapfrog UConn when both lost on the road to a top 20 team
Expand ...
Like when Michigan jumped us despite not losing?
 
RuffRuff said:
You don’t think they weigh how teams are playing more recently?
Expand ...
When did I say that? Stop putting words in people's mouths just to play the contrarian.

They definitely weigh how teams have played recently. It seems like you don't though, like how you're ignoring the fact BYU just lost its 4th straight game when talking about how impressive UH's win over them was. Or the fact that before the loss we had won 18 straight. For as bad as the Big East has been, that 18 game stretch included a combined 10 Q1+2 wins. Some of them convincingly.

The point I, and everyone else has been making, is it is a season long resume and our resume metrics are better than theirs.
 
.-.
Nameless said:
When did I say that? Stop putting words in people's mouths just to play the contrarian.

They definitely weigh how teams have played recently. It seems like you don't though, like how you're ignoring the fact BYU just lost its 4th straight game when talking about how impressive UH's win over them was. Or the fact that before the loss we had won 18 straight. For as bad as the Big East has been, that 18 game stretch included a combined 10 Q1+2 wins. Some of them convincingly.

The point I, and everyone else has been making, is it is a season long resume and our resume metrics are better than theirs.
Expand ...
They have a higher NET and KP?
 
RuffRuff said:
They have a higher NET and KP?
Expand ...
And less wins against Q1+2, as well as a substantially lower WAB. Which as noted multiple times in this thread and elsewhere on this board, are more important metrics in regards to seeding.
 
bazz&boujee said:
Imagine the BY if we beat two top 10 teams and didn’t move up
Expand ...
Sure it was justifiable. So is Duke jumping us even after an L. I imagine the Duke fans are expecting it given we both have 2 Ls and they’re crushing us in the metrics
 
Let's be honest, folks. We'd like to believe that the committee reviews the tiniest piece of data regarding each team - probably up to the top 100 in the country - then uses that data in putting together a justified vote for the rankings. They dont justify anything. The committee, more than likely, looks at the Top 25 list as it was last week, looks at who lost during the week, then knocks them up or down an arbitrary number of spots. They don't have the time nor inclination to study anything. What's amazing to me is that, by following this process, by the end of the year the ranking is somewhat correct.
 
Last edited:
.-.
upstater said:
If this is how it's going to go, then it's really pointless to have a strong OOC.

It can only hurt you.

You should play a couple P4 teams you can handle, then only schedule top minnows who are projected to be on top of their conference. Game it, game the whole thing.

Shamelessly.
Expand ...
How does that game it? And what is it.
 
auror said:
How does that game it? And what is it.
Expand ...
Isn't strength of schedule a factor?

So if you play teams like Binghamton, their record (2-20) fits into SOS whereas if you play teams like Vermont (13-10) you have a stronger SOS.

Vermont has a 220 NET while Binghamton has a 362.

Our game against UM-Lowell was against a team with a 328 NET. There are teams with much better NETs in that weak conference. Bryant at 348! ET A&M 292!

Those 3 teams are killing us.

In the AAC, UTSA is 351! But they have teams at 46, 65, 88, etc.
 
Last edited:
upstater said:
Isn't strength of schedule a factor?

So if you play teams like Binghamton, their record (2-20) fits into SOS whereas if you play teams like Vermont (13-10) you have a stronger SOS.

Vermont has a 220 NET while Binghamton has a 362.

Our game against UM-Lowell was against a team with a 328 NET. There are teams with much better NETs in that weak conference. Bryant at 348! ET A&M 292!

Those 3 teams are killing us.

In the AAC, UTSA is 351! But they have teams at 46, 65, 88, etc.
Expand ...
SoS is a pretty minor factor these days with the advent of all the more advanced metrics that incorporate and adjust for schedule as part of their calculations.
 
1770580632781.png

If you'r a believer, these may be the best odds you get. Bruce just said AZ/UM have separated themselves, which is true. Florida creeping mildly ahead of us is surprising. Vegas knows though.
 
auror said:
SoS is a pretty minor factor these days with the advent of all the more advanced metrics that incorporate and adjust for schedule as part of their calculations.
Expand ...
I guess it's the QUAD system as well for me. When I look at Q1 and Q2 it just seems it's full of schools that don't seem to fit in with the rest. You can have a weakk OOC schedule and still get just as many Q1 wins than we did this year.

What if we scheduled Tulsa instead of Arizona?
 
RuffRuff said:
They just grabbed two convincing quality wins, we beat up on a sub 100 KP and lost by 9 on the road. They have recency momentum, we don’t. I’m guessing Houston moves on in.
Expand ...
We just lost A game on the road to a top 25 squad after winning18 straight, I think we have/had recency momentum.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,334
Messages
4,518,794
Members
10,398
Latest member
southcampus


Top Bottom