Metrics (3/5) | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Metrics (3/5)

auror said:
Marquette game could be more important because they are also in the 3 line mix. If we beat them, especially if the margin is significant, not only are we adding a Q1A win, but also potentially jumping them (won 2/3 against them). Basically, I think we beat them we get a 3 seed, if we lose to Providence or them, I think we get a 4. I'm still team "probably can't get a 2 without a lot of help."

The conference thing is overblown. Plenty of B12 schools, for example, were in position to make the tournament before conference season and now are not. Oklahoma, OK st, Texas Tech were all top 35 in KenPom before conference season, now they're not making the tournament. It wasn't self-fulfilling for them.
Expand ...
Overblown yes but wouldn't it still be a factor? How much was the OOC play of Creighton and Nova an impact on our SOR?
 
Something else to look at:
ESPN's computer model, the Basketball Power Index, has ranked the country's top 25 teams as we head into the final day of the regular season.

Here's the top 25:

  1. Houston
  2. Tennessee
  3. Alabama
  4. UCLA
  5. UConn
  6. Texas
  7. Purdue
  8. Gonzaga
  9. Creighton
  10. Kansas
  11. Baylor
  12. Arizona
  13. Kentucky
  14. Arkansas
  15. Saint Mary's
  16. Marquette
  17. Maryland
  18. Indiana
  19. Texas A&M
  20. Xavier
  21. West Virginia
  22. Iowa State
  23. Rutgers
  24. San Diego State
  25. Duke
 
AzHusky said:
Something else to look at:
ESPN's computer model, the Basketball Power Index, has ranked the country's top 25 teams as we head into the final day of the regular season.

Here's the top 25:

  1. Houston
  2. Tennessee
  3. Alabama
  4. UCLA
  5. UConn
  6. Texas
  7. Purdue
  8. Gonzaga
  9. Creighton
  10. Kansas
  11. Baylor
  12. Arizona
  13. Kentucky
  14. Arkansas
  15. Saint Mary's
  16. Marquette
  17. Maryland
  18. Indiana
  19. Texas A&M
  20. Xavier
  21. West Virginia
  22. Iowa State
  23. Rutgers
  24. San Diego State
  25. Duke
Expand ...
It really hates Marquette
 
Sportsman5 said:
It's because the algorithms for these ranking systems take into account margin of victory and margin of loss, but the selection committee doesn't take these things into account very much. UConn has won every game by at least 6 points and 23/24 games by at least 8. UConn also has 3 losses by 3 points or less.
Expand ...
This really shouldn’t be hard to understand. If you judge us by how Vegas would view our chances to win a game on a neutral court against an opponent, which is what all the metrics you’re using take into account, we’re a two seed. If, on the other hand, you only look at who we beat, who we lost to and where, we don’t deserve any better than a 4 seed. It is not unreasonable to not care a lot about how much you are winning and losing by, since we tell athletes that the goal is to win, not to win by as many points as possible.
 
.-.
Tenspro2002 said:
The Big XII was incredible in the OOC, which means that when they beat each other up in conference it "launders" everyone's resume and they end up with 4-5 teams on the top 3 seed lines. Whether they deserve it remains to be seen.
Expand ...
There were years where that was the old Big East. Most of the conference would win their holiday tournaments, and whatever your record was the committee viewed the losses as good losses.
 
Tennessee lost to Colorado and Vanderbilt, so I’m not sure where this “no bad losses” thing is coming from. Those are on par (probably worse) than our losses to Seton Hall and St Johns. We also have 2 fewer losses than them. I don’t see an argument for having them seeded higher than us at all

And Tenn has lost 6 of their last 10 games. They are trending in the wrong direction.
 
There's a ton of parity this year, but still blows my mind that Houston and UConn are the only two teams in the nation that rank in the top-12 in both KenPom offense and defensive efficiency.

The next closest teams to that level of efficiency: Texas (16th in O, 18th in D).
 
auror said:
Yep 2 important things here:
1) Conference tourneys are less important than we think, ESPECIALLY games on Saturday/Sunday. Every committee is different, but last year really didn't care about them.

Marquette on Friday would hopefully be early enough to still be fully factored in, but the committee begins its work on Wednesday(!)

2) I know we love the predictive metrics because we look awesome there (and they're better for gambling), but the committee has shown over and over that the resume metrics are more telling. Unfortunately, KPI hates us a bit and we're #18 in that, #12 in SOR. #13 in WAB. Ranking of the average puts us in the 11-13 range. On border of 3/4 like most bracketologists have us.
Expand ...
Appreciate this. I get that a loss in the conference tournament shouldn’t really hurt a team, especially if it’s against a good opponent.

But wild that they would not put much (or at least, equal) value on a few very good wins the weekend before the actual event.
 
.-.
McLovin said:
Appreciate this. I get that a loss in the conference tournament shouldn’t really hurt a team, especially if it’s against a good opponent.

But wild that they would not put much (or at least, equal) value on a few very good wins the weekend before the actual event.
Expand ...
Yep, I don’t get it. Reeks of laziness to me. They want to get it done as soon as possible and don’t feel like revising or adjusting later in the week.

If it’s a time issue, then have all the conference title games finish up on Sat. so they then have all day Sunday to look at the whole national picture and finalize the bracket.
 
aburks41 said:
Tennessee lost to Colorado and Vanderbilt, so I’m not sure where this “no bad losses” thing is coming from. Those are on par (probably worse) than our losses to Seton Hall and St Johns. We also have 2 fewer losses than them. I don’t see an argument for having them seeded higher than us at all

And Tenn has lost 6 of their last 10 games. They are trending in the wrong direction.
Expand ...
Colorado: 56 in Kenpom. 72 in NET. It was a Neutral game.
Vanderbilt: 82 in NET. 81 in KenPom. It was an away game. They lost by 1

Each of these has a chance of being Q1 by the time of the tournament! Colorado is 6 away from making it that, Vanderbilt 7.

By any standard those are both better losses than:

St. John's: 97 NET, 88 KenPom. Home. We lost by 11.

It is solidly Q3.

And the Seton Hall game is maybe better than the two above but it's in the same ballpark of the Vanderbilt one.

Seton Hall: 74 NET, 63 KenPom. At least this could become a Q1 loss if they win a game (or two!) in the BET.
 
UConNick said:
Yep, I don’t get it. Reeks of laziness to me. They want to get it done as soon as possible and don’t feel like revising or adjusting later in the week.

If it’s a time issue, then have all the conference title games finish up on Sat. so they then have all day Sunday to look at the whole national picture and finalize the bracket.
Expand ...
Agreed. Or do the job they are contracted to do and work 16 hours a day for 4 days a year. No one is putting a gun to their head to be on the committee…
 
shizzle787 said:
Again, if we play 7/11 OOC games against high-major programs instead of 5/11, one of the two additional P5 programs would probably be top 50-75 NET at least. Gives us more room for error. Playing Syracuse, Pitt, or BC home and home is a lot better than Stonehill and Delaware State at home, and we can still get 16 home games for contractual purposes. I'm not saying we need to play a murderer's row of 7 P5 opponents but if 3 are top-20 and the rest are filtered throughout the top-150, we will be fine. Also, we should be playing more of the top half of the Ivy league. Recognizable opponents that we should beat at home from a middle of the pack Division 1 league.
Expand ...
I'm remembering your recent, "I've been screaming this all year" post about the OOC, and a comment that pushed back by criticizing your repetitiveness.

I was tempted to add that sometimes people are turned off by "screaming," in addition to repetitiveness. I had a couple of other snarky things to add, but decided that it wouldn't really add to the overall discussion. I'm glad I held off.

Your comment that I've quoted above lines up well with what I wanted to convey. Why? Because it has substance and particulars.

A home & home with a former Big East rival and/or an Ivy opponent actually sound like attractive games for hosting or visiting. I have some similar thoughts about other CT D-1 schools, one-time Yankee Conference foes. I sense that they could be good draws and, judiciously-chose, improve the SOS, and leave room for an HBCU and a game or two during which there'd still be room to try stuff out.

I don't know if my ideas are plausible or why they wouldn't be if not. That's not my main point. I'm more interested in conveying that up until now, I read your comments as a combination of incessant whining without helpful information and after-the-fact "told you so" boasting. Those would be reason enough for many to tune you out. If you're smart enough to know how things could be better scheduled, you ought to be smart enough to give this constructive criticism a fair reading and consideration.
 
auror said:
Marquette game could be more important because they are also in the 3 line mix. If we beat them, especially if the margin is significant, not only are we adding a Q1A win, but also potentially jumping them (won 2/3 against them). Basically, I think we beat them we get a 3 seed, if we lose to Providence or them, I think we get a 4. I'm still team "probably can't get a 2 without a lot of help."
Expand ...
1. beat marquette on friday
2. tenn loses on thursday or friday

those 2 results will increase our shot at a 3 seed more than any other
 
.-.
Lunardi has us as a #4 seed with Houston. wtf

In MSG, sure. But that's a pretty unfavorable Sweet 16 draw.
 
Tenspro2002 said:
Lunardi has us as a #4 seed with Houston. wtf

In MSG, sure. But that's a pretty unfavorable Sweet 16 draw.
Expand ...
Lunardi is a moron. Not many people worse at this than he is. He is going to push the ESPN properties. He has ACC with 5 SEC with 8. There's no way those two conferences deserve that many bids.
 
Jerry Palm has an updated bracket with UConn as a 3 seed. He has Marquette as the #2 seed. Pretty clear that it UConn or Marquette win the BE that team has a good opportunity for 2 seed with Marquette being a lock for a 2 seed. Too bad UConn/Marquette will meet in the semis instead of the final. The way I see it:

Lose to PC - low 4 seed
Lose to Marquette in semis - low 3 seed
Lose in finals - high 3 seed
Win BE - 2 seed.
 
.-.
UConnRock said:
Jerry Palm has an updated bracket with UConn as a 3 seed. He has Marquette as the #2 seed. Pretty clear that it UConn or Marquette win the BE that team has a good opportunity for 2 seed with Marquette being a lock for a 2 seed. Too bad UConn/Marquette will meet in the semis instead of the final. The way I see it:

Lose to PC - low 4 seed
Lose to Marquette in semis - low 3 seed
Lose in finals - high 3 seed
Win BE - 2 seed.
Expand ...

I think the at large teams and field will be set way before Saturday. We are probably locked into a 3-seed regardless is my prediction.
 
Every bracket in the Bracket Matrix has us as a 3 or a 4... with one 2 from a more mathematical model. The older entries pretty much all have 4s, whereas the newer ones are much more split, closer to 50/50.
 
We lost to the Big East officials, how does that impact our seeding?
 
UofCT said:
I think the at large teams and field will be set way before Saturday. We are probably locked into a 3-seed regardless is my prediction.
Expand ...
I’d be perfectly fine with that!
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they overhaul the whole selection process 3-4 years ago? That's why I'm skeptical that any of the bracket forecasters are accurate. Due to the pandemic this is essentially only the second season under the new rules, meaning whatever models people are using to project this stuff are based on the committee's interpretation of exactly one season's worth of data.

And if you do base your projection on last year, UConn would be a 2-seed.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,207
Messages
4,556,885
Members
10,442
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom