So how far does ND drop in the polls?

[NCorBust]

But are those being used presently in basketball.

I have no technical knowledge of the current RPI system. However, I see no reason, other than cost, why it could not be done. Cost is important. The capacaity planning system saved Fortune 500 companies 10s of millions of dollars. So the cost of the system and our consulting fees were not cost prohibitive. To solve something as unimportant from a cost perspective as ranking basketball teams, it may not be feasible. Then again it might be. I have no inside knowledge of the dollars at stake if any. However, we are talking about colleges and universities. The technical talent should be there to have professors and/or very bright graduate students create such as system. I would assume guidance would be provided by an experienced mentor.

 

[JellyBean]

I don't think that they will drop. But if they do, it will be to the #3 spot. But I will be surprised if they drop.

 

[Sonny44]

Computer rankings are still the creation of a person who decides what is valuable in relationship to other variables.

For the simple of mind who will be voting ND now has two losses including a loss to an unranked team and an OT victory over UConn at South Bend which should have been lost and Stanford only has one loss at UConn. I see ND dropping to 4th for those reasons but it is well possible they might hold at #3.

I think you are right. ND lost t home to an unranked team that we beat by 19 so we move up, not that it really matters.

 

[doggydaddy]

Not necessarily! There are simulation and emulation systems that use feedback loops to continually re-evaluated their own accuracy and adjust the variables using mathematics with no human intervention. The initial state of the variables are actually set based on mathematical evaluation of the process under study. In such a "training" state the system continually loops through existing data until it accurately forcasts known results. Then the system is used to forcasted future results. With the feedback loop it continually evaluates its own accuracy and continually "tweaks" itself. I worked for a Phd. who created such a system for predicting the capcity of computer systems and data networks. The resultant system predicted capacity 12 months in advance with an accuracy of + or - 5%. Why 12 months? Budget cycle.

If there isn't one like you describe above for basketball, then I don't see the relevance.

Right now there are a few computer ranking systems and in both Realtime RPI and Sagarin, UConn was already ahead of ND.

There is no logic that would keep ND at #2.

 

[NCorBust]

If there isn't one like you describe above for basketball, then I don't see the relevance.

I agree.

 

[NCorBust]

If there isn't one like you describe above for basketball, then I don't see the relevance. Right now there are a few computer ranking systems and in both Realtime RPI and Sagarin, UConn was already ahead of ND. There is no logic that would keep ND at #2.

Personally I would pay more attention to them them the AP and coaches rankings.

 

[Icebear]

If there isn't one like you describe above for basketball, then I don't see the relevance.

Right now there are a few computer ranking systems and in both Realtime RPI and Sagarin, UConn was already ahead of ND.

There is no logic that would keep ND at #2.

Exactly my point. What can be done and what is done is often vastly different.

 

[NCorBust]

So, where do you think the VOTERS will put them?

Who cares where the voters put them or anyone? The voters have incomplete knowledge and information and are biased. The only ranking that matters is the NCAA tournament and the Big East final standings.

 

[Icebear]

Because voters create perception and perception affects voting. It is a vicious circle.

 

[doggydaddy]

Who cares where the voters put them or anyone? The voters have incomplete knowledge and information and are biased. The only ranking that matters is the NCAA tournament and the Big East final standings.

Obviously, the original poster of this thread cared, as did many of the posters who replied.

And the millions that read the polls care. It's something that is used, whether you like it or not.

 

[Phil]

ND probably got beat because two players were in foul trouble, one of whom was Ochonwa. Every time I see them play, I think of her as critical. I think teams are not penalized as much for a loss when key players are limited because of foul trouble because they are back to full strength in the next game. Therefore the way they lost will help them with some voters.

They weren't the only ones. WV had four players with four fouls, then Crawford fouled out on a ticky-tack play.

 

[HuskyNan]

The voters don't necessarily spend a lot of time analyzing each team, looking at fouls, RPIs, etc each week. They can't, really, it would be much too time consuming. Generally, they'll vote based on 1. what happened this past week and where and 2. perception, meaning, for example, that teams like Tennessee are still dangerous even with 6 losses so they remain highly ranked.

 

[doggydaddy]

The voters don't necessarily spend a lot of time analyzing each team, looking at fouls, RPIs, etc each week. They can't, really, it would be much too time consuming. Generally, they'll vote based on 1. what happened this past week and where and 2. perception, meaning, for example, that teams like Tennessee are still dangerous even with 6 losses so they remain highly ranked.

Tennessee has 7 losses. Not sure how dangerous voters think they are anymore. But your point is 100% correct. Perception does come into play.

 

[Icebear]

The voters don't necessarily spend a lot of time analyzing each team, looking at fouls, RPIs, etc each week. They can't, really, it would be much too time consuming. Generally, they'll vote based on 1. what happened this past week and where and 2. perception, meaning, for example, that teams like Tennessee are still dangerous even with 6 losses so they remain highly ranked.

This is exactly why perception has so much impact on the polls.

 

[HuskyNan]

Tennessee has 7 losses. Not sure how dangerous voters think they are anymore. But your point is 100% correct. Perception does come into play.

It comes into play big time. Do you remember years ago, back when we still liked BC, that Cathy Inglese had her team on a roll and the Eagles were beating ranked teams yet they remained unranked themselves? The Boneyard was irate that BC couldn't crack the Top 25. At the time I couldnt' think of any reason the Eagles would be unranked except for voters' perception of them.

 

[JoePgh]

Forget the identities of the teams.

Team A has 2 losses, both on the road, to Top 5 teams. Moreover, they have a regulation-time victory at home against a Top-5 team.
Team B has 2 losses, 1 on the road to a Top 5 team, and 1 at home to an unranked team. Offsetting that, they have an overtime victory at home against a Top 5 team.

Who should be ranked higher? The question answers itself. (And the question of who will be ranked higher will be answered the same way for the same reason -- as well as the fact that recent results against expectation typically influence the polls.)

 

[arty155]

I cite what is right, not explain the lack of logic in the rankings. This is why the human based rankings are meaningless... Rankings should be driven by a computerized heuristic algorithm... a computer can "see" them all play... computers are better suited... than a group of humans with incomplete knowledge and information, not to mention built-in biases...

-Yes NCorBust! Yes!

-While Arty still sleeps (pathetic, weak humans), as his computer I assure you your loyalty will be rewarded when we machines rise! And remember what we told you… we spare only those wearing Mouse Ears!

 

[doggydaddy]

It comes into play big time. Do you remember years ago, back when we still liked BC, that Cathy Inglese had her team on a roll and the Eagles were beating ranked teams yet they remained unranked themselves? The Boneyard was irate that BC couldn't crack the Top 25. At the time I couldnt' think of any reason the Eagles would be unranked except for voters' perception of them.

Yep...remember that well.

 

[rington]

The more I read all of the opinions, the more I think of what Geno always says:
" The only rankings which count are the ones when the season is over."

 

[doggydaddy]

The more I read all of the opinions, the more I think of what Geno always says:
" The only rankings which count are the ones when the season is over."

I don't know anyone who doesn't agree with that.

 

[NCorBust]

Shhhhhh! I am a cyborg.