So how far does ND drop in the polls? | Page 2 | The Boneyard

So how far does ND drop in the polls?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alexmia said:
Nope they will stay where they are #2.
Expand ...
fe957_ORIG-head_shaking_no.gif
 
They'll probably drop to three, but what I really care about is that now UConn has the opportunity to win the Big East outright. Yes!
 
Geno has consistently said that the prize must be the BE regular season title first ( if not foremost). "Hah, hah...I was kidding. I think we can win it all." He was right.
 
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.
 
.-.
FairView said:
They'll probably drop to three, but what I really care about is that now UConn has the opportunity to win the Big East outright. Yes!
Expand ...
Yes. Good motivation. Also a lesson - not to look past the next game.
 
justML said:
The only reason I'm hesitating to believe that they will drop is because they beat US. Their only other loss before today was Baylor. Things might stay status quo.
Expand ...
I agree. It is incumbent upon us to beat ND before moving ahead of them in the polls.
 
rington said:
At this point, it makes no difference. It will after Feb.27th.
Expand ...
Correct- and even then it doesn't really matter as long as both teams end up as #1 seeds, which is the likeliest end result.
 
.-.
Bestiarius said:
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.
Expand ...
It may hurt them with some voters, too. Teams losing with foul trouble do so under the rules not by a freak shot or something else.
 
alexrgct said:
Right- that's why Kentucky is ranked ahead of Duke currently.
Expand ...
I cite what is right, not explain the lack of logic in the rankings. This is why the human based rankings are meaningless to Geno and should be to everyone. Rankings should be driven by a computerized heuristic algorithm. No way the press and the coaches actually see all these teams play. However, a computer can "see" them all play quantitatively and qualitatively. Each team's strength of schedule can be weighed against every other team's. For such things as ranking, computers are better suited to find the optimal ranking than a group of humans with incomplete knowledge and information, not to mention built-in biases.

At several Fortune 500 companies humans tried to predict computer and data networking capacity on an annual basis. They failed miserably. Our manager, a network analysis Phd, created a solution using a combination of network queuing theory and heuristic algorithms. We programmed it and applied it. The system predicted capacity 12 months in advanced within + or - 5%.
 
NCorBust said:
I cite what is right, not explain the lack of logic in the rankings. This is why the human based rankings are meaningless to Geno and should be to everyone. Rankings should be driven by a computerized heuristic algorithm. No way the press and the coaches actually see all these teams play. However, a computer can "see" them all play quantitatively and qualitatively. Each team's strength of schedule can be weighed against every other team's. For such things as ranking computers are better suited to find the optimal ranking than a group of humans with incomplete knowledge and information, not to mention built-in biases.
Expand ...

The questiossn on the OP of this thread was "where will they drop". Not where would you put then.

And the logic is that voters will drop a team that loses to an unranked team. End of story.

We already have computer generated rankings. It's call RPI.

So, where do you think the VOTERS will put them?
 
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.
 
The polls could split this week. AP may only move ND down to #3, having one less day to process the magnitude of the loss to unranked WVU in ND's house. Also, the AP (writers) tend to be more geographically, politically and celebrity (school and player/s) biased.

ESPN/Coaches will likely bump ND down to #4, based on the severity and timing of this home loss to an unranked. Add to that, Stanford is playing well and their sole loss was an early season one...in CT.

1. Baylor
2. UConn
3. Stanford
4. ND
5. Duke
 
Icebear said:
Computer rankings are still the creation of a person who decides what is valuable in relationship to other variables.
Expand ...
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.
 
.-.
But are those being used presently in basketball or are basketball computer models created by persons with biases.
 
As far as computer models go, Sagarin actually had slightly ahead of Notre Dame even before yesterday in his composite rankings. Generally speaking, rankings are about how a team should be ranked against the field of all teams. Head-to-head is considered, but the fact that UConn lost to two very good teams whereas ND has a loss to a relatively pedestrian one (that UConn beat already), would absolutely take precedence over head-to-head in most computer models for sports rankings.
 
Icebear said:
But are those being used presently in basketball.
Expand ...
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.
 
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.
 
Icebear said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
NCorBust said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
.-.
doggydaddy said:
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.
Expand ...
Personally I would pay more attention to them them the AP and coaches rankings.
 
doggydaddy said:
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.
Expand ...

Exactly my point. What can be done and what is done is often vastly different.
 
doggydaddy said:
So, where do you think the VOTERS will put them?
Expand ...
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.
 
Because voters create perception and perception affects voting. It is a vicious circle.
 
NCorBust said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,263
Messages
4,560,432
Members
10,449
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom