More numbers for the wonks

[HuskyNan]

Composite rankings

 

[Bone Dog]

I’m surprised to see Iowa, UNC, USC and Iowa St all clumped together like that around 10-13. A month ago, I’d have expected UNC and USC to be higher and Iowa and Iowa St to be rather lower. But having seen a few games from each of them now, I wonder if the quality of D1 basketball has declined a bit. I’m not sure what exactly to put my finger on, and maybe it’s just an inevitable result of the gradual transfer of talent from the traditional powerhouses, but there seem to be more pretty good teams and fewer great ones.

 

[Boreifs]

Just ridiculous that Texas is below SC and UCLA.

 

[oldhusky]

Thanks for the info. In general I think more info and opinions is better and more accurate than any one source. A combination of some purely quantitative mixed with some subjective and eye test is good too.

More opinions is better for recruit rankings too, where I might temper an opinion from ESPN with some weight to other rankings and comments from evaluators. Both the AP rankings for teams and ESPN's player rankings have become the default authority in the media and I understand why that happens, but there are other options worth paying attention to as well.

 

[HuskyNan]

Just for fun, here are the men’s teams leading the metrics. See any familiar names? 👀👀

 

[my2cents]

13/7 Year.

 

[HuskyNan]

 

[MSGRET]

Nan knows how to keep us WONKS happy, Thank You Nan.

 

[Bone Dog]

I’m surprised by the teams that make the second diagonal cluster in this graphic, especially Kentucky, but also MSU MD and TCU.

 

[fomalhaut]

This is good, but Massey ought to be included too.

 

[SVCBeercats]

Composite rankings

WONKS?!

 

[MSGRET]

noun
informal•North American English
plural noun: wonks

1. a person who takes an enthusiastic or excessive interest in the specialized details of a particular subject or field, especially political policy.
   "budget wonks will tell you that these projections are driven by unreliable economic assumptions"

derogatory
View definition

Origin
1920s (referring to an inexperienced naval cadet): of unknown origin.

Use over time for: wonks
http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...smoothing=7&case_insensitive=on&content=wonks

 

[DefenseBB]

Well, I feel like we have all known who the top 6 were and they are far and away the best teams.

That second cluster is really a bit bizarre. It may be accurate but it also could be a mirage. None of those teams have played more than 2 decent opponents so who really knows that beating up in the “weak sisters” proves or validates you are among the elite. My gut says none of them are near the top 6 but why are they so afar from the rest of the “middle”? Louisville lost to Kentucky (and Texas and UConn) but they seem to be warranting that next tier ground. Kentucky lost to Maryland and Maryland beat Duke and Minnesota as well so I can understand their placement. But Michigan State??? They have played NO ONE and lost to Wisconsin. Texas Tech is another outlier as their undefeated record has best wins over Arkansas and Miss State so…

 

[huskyd]

I’m surprised to see Iowa, UNC, USC and Iowa St all clumped together like that around 10-13. A month ago, I’d have expected UNC and USC to be higher and Iowa and Iowa St to be rather lower. But having seen a few games from each of them now, I wonder if the quality of D1 basketball has declined a bit. I’m not sure what exactly to put my finger on, and maybe it’s just an inevitable result of the gradual transfer of talent from the traditional powerhouses, but there seem to be more pretty good teams and fewer great ones.

OK. Now, here's the question: Is wcbb better off with more pretty good teams than with a few great ones?

 

[FanFromMaine]

Well, I feel like we have all known who the top 6 were and they are far and away the best teams.

That second cluster is really a bit bizarre. It may be accurate but it also could be a mirage. None of those teams have played more than 2 decent opponents so who really knows that beating up in the “weak sisters” proves or validates you are among the elite. My gut says none of them are near the top 6 but why are they so afar from the rest of the “middle”? Louisville lost to Kentucky (and Texas and UConn) but they seem to be warranting that next tier ground. Kentucky lost to Maryland and Maryland beat Duke and Minnesota as well so I can understand their placement. But Michigan State??? They have played NO ONE and lost to Wisconsin. Texas Tech is another outlier as their undefeated record has best wins over Arkansas and Miss State so…

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

The NET modifications and expanded conference sizes have resulted in fewer teams needing to play early inter-conference games to attain high seeds. Where algorithm based assessments used to have significant data 12-15 games into the season, 20+ games may now be needed.

 

[FanFromMaine]

I just saw that draftkings had UConn at -20.5 yesterday while Massey had them at -8.5. I know that the bookies are trying to balance their accounts but it speaks to the lack of data at Massey so far.

When South Carolina came to UConn in Aja’s first season, Doris Burke commented on the betting line (-10 UConn) late in the game. She and many others thought it would never be that high. The bettors knew different. UConn comfortably covered the spread that night.

 

[MSGRET]

I just saw that draftkings had UConn at -20.5 yesterday while Massey had them at -8.5. I know that the bookies are trying to balance their accounts but it speaks to the lack of data at Massey so far.

When South Carolina came to UConn in Aja’s first season, Doris Burke commented on the betting line (-10 UConn) late in the game. She and many others thought it would never be that high. The bettors knew different. UConn comfortably covered the spread that night.

Vegas hasn't been correct yet on the point spreads vs UConn so far this season on the Big 4 games.