Coaches Poll is a Joke | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Coaches Poll is a Joke

oldude said:
I disagree. While I will acknowledge that the NET rankings are somewhat complicated, they are also completely data based, objective measures that currently have UConn #2 behind SC.
Expand ...
In what world is ND ranked ahead of Virginia Tech, just to pick one flagrant example.
 
oldude said:
I disagree. While I will acknowledge that the NET rankings are somewhat complicated, they are also completely data based, objective measures that currently have UConn #2 behind SC.
Expand ...
They should just take the top 64 or 68 teams in the NET at the end of the season and round robin the teams across sites/regions and call it a day. No more selection committee, and their judgement, needed, and best of all no more human element at which to direct ire and complaints. Publish whatever algo is behind the NET calcs and everyone knows what they need to do to get into the tourney.
 
Boreifs said:
In what world is ND ranked ahead of Virginia Tech, just to pick one flagrant example.
Expand ...
NET is an objective measure of the entire season. It doesn’t weight recent performances more heavily or take injuries into account.

ND had more quality wins, both OOC & in conference than VA Tech, while winning the ACC regular season championship outright. ND’s seeding for the tournament will be negatively impacted by the loss of their starting backcourt as well as the bad loss to Louisville in the ACC conference tournament.
 
It's a 6 game season. Rinse and repeat how we started out this season. If we have to knock off highly ranked opponents one after the other, it won't be the first time we've done it this year. Line 'em up however the committee decides to because our women play against the game not the jersey, they believe they can beat anybody and have the track record to prover it.

One thing is for sure ESPN doesn't get the rights to the 'Return of the Empire - from Storrs to Dallas'. That will be produced in house by UCTV, narrated by Brianna Mahn. Preorder today!
 
hoopsfan22 said:
They should just take the top 64 or 68 teams in the NET at the end of the season and round robin the teams across sites/regions and call it a day. No more selection committee, and their judgement, needed, and best of all no more human element at which to direct ire and complaints. Publish whatever algo is behind the NET calcs and everyone knows what they need to do to get into the tourney.
Expand ...
Actually, I like that idea with the one caveat that they continue to include conference AQ’s, and just seed those teams by their respective NET rankings.
 
Last edited:
visitingcock said:
And if the season ended right now, we would PROUDLY wave that banner!
Expand ...
Wouldn't be the first time
th-341181945.jpeg
 
.-.
oldude said:
NET is an objective measure of the entire season. It doesn’t weight recent performances more heavily or take injuries into account.

ND had more quality wins, both OOC & in conference than VA Tech, while winning the ACC regular season championship outright. ND’s seeding for the tournament will be negatively impacted by the loss of their starting backcourt as well as the bad loss to Louisville in the ACC conference tournament.
Expand ...
Massey is as well. The Top 10 there, in my view, comes much closer to anyone’s reasonable eye test. It would be fascinating to actually understand why there is such a difference between two objective, data driven models.
 
Boreifs said:
Massey is as well. The Top 10 there, in my view, comes much closer to anyone’s reasonable eye test. It would be fascinating to actually understand why there is such a difference between two objective, data driven models.
Expand ...
That’s a good question. Obviously, there is a difference in methodology. For whatever it’s worth, the NCAA as well as a coaches committee, approved swapping NET rankings over RPI.
 
hoopsfan22 said:
They should just take the top 64 or 68 teams in the NET at the end of the season and round robin the teams across sites/regions and call it a day. No more selection committee, and their judgement, needed, and best of all no more human element at which to direct ire and complaints. Publish whatever algo is behind the NET calcs and everyone knows what they need to do to get into the tourney.
Expand ...
The problem is that the. NET ( I am told) does not include an SOS calculation. That is tacked on by the committee at season’s end and I don’t know how.

LSU questions (that are real) don’t get resolved by the unadjusted NET algorithm until the committee resolved issues.
 
oldude said:
Actually, I like that idea with the one caveat that they continue to include conference AQ’s, and just seed those teams by their respective NET rankings.
Expand ...
Unfortunately it would never work. CFB already tried it with the BCS, and instead of complaining at the humans ranking the teams, they started gaming the systematic part of the equation, or lobbying to reduce the importance of the math until the BCS was basically just back to where they started with human polls largely dictating the standings for post-season.

I am not sold that every conference tournament winner should automatically qualify. First I see conference tournaments as pointless, aside from the money making aspect, and unless you have a systematic way to place the auto-qualifiers since some of them will not be in the top 64/68, you will have humans deciding where they fit in. If you have to have conference tournaments, then I'd rather those 3-4 games just be a "last chance" for teams to improve their NET scores, and if they make the cutoff they are in, and if not, well they still have conference bragging rights.
 
visitingcock said:
The problem is that the. NET ( I am told) does not include an SOS calculation. That is tacked on by the committee at season’s end and I don’t know how.

LSU questions (that are real) don’t get resolved by the unadjusted NET algorithm until the committee resolved issues.
Expand ...
I don’t have a problem with the primary factors taken into consideration by the committee. The challenge comes when the committee has to weight one factor over another, which is purely subjective.

In the past, WBB was pretty cut and dried, at least for the top 20 to 30 teams. This year, more than any season ever, the committee will have a much more difficult challenge to seed 68 teams.

The one thing I would bet on is that there will be a whole lot of complaining from fans, coaches and pundits once the brackets are revealed.
 
.-.
I am anticipating a record number of upsets. The Covid fifth year has completely changed the landscape of the sport; with so many 23 and 24 year old women with five years’ experience competing, we are in for a wild, wild ride. That ride will become even wilder in the next two years as an enormous amount of first year players shut out of the Power Five by the lack of scholarships/playing time gravitate to mid major programs expecting to transfer once the Covid rule has expired.
 
I don't think we want the last #1 seed, do we? Wouldn't that put us squarely in South Carolinas side of the bracket?
 
SLY63 said:
I didn't say that was my opinion, just what I think the selection committee will do. I agree with you. Don't shoot the messenger. :)
Expand ...
just disagreeing with what I think should happen, and what I think the committee will do!
 
Urshurak said:
I don't think we want the last #1 seed, do we? Wouldn't that put us squarely in South Carolinas side of the bracket?
Expand ...
Maybe UConn would be less tired & worn out if they were to play Scar in the semi-final instead of the final.
 
huskeynut said:
Just proves that these polls have become jokes.
Expand ...
My thoughts exactly. I mean, they have always been a joke since I can remember. Now? They are just ridiculously hilarious.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,221
Messages
4,557,899
Members
10,442
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom