Someone Please Explain This

[AdamaNation]

Not saying they aren’t good but look at how close some of their wins against the dregs of our league were. They barely squeaked by and then we pretty much dominated them quite recently. Yes, we were at home for that but I just don’t see them as #6 in the country. I‘ve been wrong before plenty but that’s my take.

If we aren’t 6 I prefer Marquette to be.

 

[HuskyHawk]

a win is a win

Sure. But what it tells you about the winner isn't captured by the W. Not all Ws are created equal, nor all Ls.

 

[UCLJ0211]

Marquette is a good team that just doesn’t match up well with UConn. If (when) we face them on a neutral court (MSG), we should be heavily favored.

 

[businesslawyer]

I agree. But this goes to the point I tried to make in the seeding thread. The difference between a W and an L in a close game is overstated. UConn loses by 3 @ Creighton. That's a wash. That's a tie. Given Creighton's above average crowd, maybe even better than that.

As a predictive measure, you are correct. As an achievement measure, you are off by 180 degrees. I want the Committee to reward winning, not predictive metrics.

Most simple example. Team A and B each play Team C at home and Team D on the road. Team A beats C by 1 and D by 3. Team B beats C by 27 and loses to D by 1. Based only on those two games, the Committee absolutely needs to seed A above B, because with identical schedules A went 2-0 and B went 1-1. Vegas may favor B when they play, because performance metrics take Husky Hawk's position of it doesn't really matter if you win or lose. NO ONE WHO HAS EVER PLAYED A GAME OF ANYTHING WILL TELL YOU THAT IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF YOU WIN OR LOSE, AND NO ATHLETE ALIVE WOULD BE HAPPIER TO HAVE BEEN TEAM B IN THIS EXAMPLE THAN TEAM A. (I apologize for using block caps, which I almost never do on the internet, but that people are still having this debate strikes me as absurd.)

 

[shizzle787]

SOR is a really good results metric. KenPom is predictive so it doesn't mean much on Selection Sunday.

 

[HuskyHawk]

As a predictive measure, you are correct. As an achievement measure, you are off by 180 degrees. I want the Committee to reward winning, not predictive metrics.

Most simple example. Team A and B each play Team C at home and Team D on the road. Team A beats C by 1 and D by 3. Team B beats C by 27 and loses to D by 1. Based only on those two games, the Committee absolutely needs to seed A above B, because with identical schedules A went 2-0 and B went 1-1. Vegas may favor B when they play, because performance metrics take Husky Hawk's position of it doesn't really matter if you win or lose. NO ONE WHO HAS EVER PLAYED A GAME OF ANYTHING WILL TELL YOU THAT IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF YOU WIN OR LOSE, AND NO ATHLETE ALIVE WOULD BE HAPPIER TO HAVE BEEN TEAM B IN THIS EXAMPLE THAN TEAM A. (I apologize for using block caps, which I almost never do on the internet, but that people are still having this debate strikes me as absurd.)

I think it's a mix of both, and the reports we've seen suggest they do exactly that. Seeding should incorporate predictive measures, they do tell you a lot about the quality of wins and losses. I think we you get to the last 4 in last 4 out, that needs to be almost all based on actual winning.

Yes, winning matters. But many close wins and losses are just flukes. They are chance and not much more than that.

 

[businesslawyer]

Yes, winning matters. But many close wins and losses are just flukes. They are chance and not much more than that.

So pro leagues screw everything up by only looking at wins and losses, and not adjusting them for margin of victory?

 

[jibsey]

All of this will become academic as we enter the one and done part of our season. In 2011 and 2014 our teams flew under the radar and were not well respected going into post season, but this year is different based on our start, high early ranking and now strong finish. This thing is somewhat of a crapshoot but quality usually wins out. The BE has some recognized quality, we’ll see if it carry’s into the Sweet Sixteen or Final 8.

 

[gtcam]

Marquette is still up there for one very good reason- Shaka Smart
He has the credibility and track record that the pollsters appreciate.
BTW - his Texas years were not as bad as many of you think plus left to Marquette with $7.1 million buyout to make room for the alumni desired Beard.

 

[JohnFSilver]

Marquette barely beats Xavier, Creighton, DePaul and St. John’s as of late and we THRASH them. They are still 6 and we are at 11? This system for ranking and seeding (and there really isn’t one) is a total joke

Got no problem with Marquette ranking. Win thrusday. We’ll settle all family business on Friday night.

 

[JohnFSilver]

Winning trumps metrics. If you go 17-3, but your metrics are closer to 13-7, that doesn’t really matter.

Results matter.

 

[gsmooth]

Got no problem with Marquette ranking. Win thrusday. We’ll settle all family business on Friday night.

This right here. I had the same message, but different text, in my post #24. I just want a win against Providence-let's start with that.

 

[HuskyHawk]

So pro leagues screw everything up by only looking at wins and losses, and not adjusting them for margin of victory?

It's not really the same is it? Conference tournaments work the same way as pro leagues. NCAA seeding involves so few teams that have played each other that it isn't a fair basis for comparison. Otherwise Charleston and Florida Atlantic would be #1 seeds.

The process is complicated, and every year somebody is upset because it has to combine wins and losses, plus adjustments for strength of schedule (but how that is measured isn't straight wins and losses) plus some element of how you won or lost and an "eye test". People can reasonably disagree on how to weight all those factors.

 

[businesslawyer]

It's not really the same is it? Conference tournaments work the same way as pro leagues. NCAA seeding involves so few teams that have played each other that it isn't a fair basis for comparison. Otherwise Charleston and Florida Atlantic would be #1 seeds.

The process is complicated, and every year somebody is upset because it has to combine wins and losses, plus adjustments for strength of schedule (but how that is measured isn't straight wins and losses) plus some element of how you won or lost and an "eye test". People can reasonably disagree on how to weight all those factors.

No, with all due respect your analysis isn't right as a matter of logic. Yes, college sports is different than pro sports because of the wild variances in the strength of the opponents you play. That is why we need rankings (like RPI, although I know that is flawed) that take your win -- loss record and adjust it to reflect who you played and where (or, if you prefer, your strength of schedule). I'm all for results based metrics. And ranking college teams that way makes it equivalent to just using major leagues records. But you want to adjust not for strength of schedule but margin of victory, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. So I repeat -- why doesn't MLB declare a team that goes 95-67, and is plus 200 runs for the year, a pennant winner over a team that goes 100-62 but is only plus 40 runs?

So I'll repeat my question, phrased differently so you don't take a wrong turn. Why don't pro sports not just base standings on wins and losses, but also consider margins of victory?

 

[MuchoDogYears]

Seriously, you have to be kidding. We beat them at home and they beat us at home. Why should anyone care whose home game was earlier in the season? We played identical conference schedule and they beat us over a 20 game season easily. Why should anyone care that they didn’t blow as many teams away — the goal was to win games and they did significantly better than us.

People are way too hung up on predictive and performance metrics. Reward teams for winning == punish them for losing. Marquette should absolutely be seeded and ranked ahead of us, even if one thinks (as I do) that we should be favored if we’re playing in the semis on a “neutral” court on Friday night.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the jury, the court is adjourned for the day.

 

[HuskyHawk]

No, with all due respect your analysis isn't right as a matter of logic. Yes, college sports is different than pro sports because of the wild variances in the strength of the opponents you play. That is why we need rankings (like RPI, although I know that is flawed) that take your win -- loss record and adjust it to reflect who you played and where (or, if you prefer, your strength of schedule). I'm all for results based metrics. And ranking college teams that way makes it equivalent to just using major leagues records. But you want to adjust not for strength of schedule but margin of victory, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. So I repeat -- why doesn't MLB declare a team that goes 95-67, and is plus 200 runs for the year, a pennant winner over a team that goes 100-62 but is only plus 40 runs?

So I'll repeat my question, phrased differently so you don't take a wrong turn. Why don't pro sports not just base standings on wins and losses, but also consider margins of victory?

The NCAA doesn't do it either. That's my point. Standings don't take that into account. But choosing and seeding the tournament is a subjective exercise because it can't rely just on standings. Pro leagues don't account for strength of schedule or who you played, even when it is unbalanced either (like NCAA must for RPI). Nor do they put bad teams in the playoffs out of a sense of fairness. It's just a completely different kettle of fish. I think metrics can add some value to seeding.

 

[UCTitleTown]

We lost to Marquette, Seton Hall and Xavier close, but had a couple bad ones in with those and we fell off a cliff rankings wise. Their close wins against mediocrity had no negative effect.

Our home loss to St. John's killed us. The Seton Hall game was a travesty. We gave the game away.

 

[Matt1010]

Marquette is still up there for one very good reason- Shaka Smart
He has the credibility and track record that the pollsters appreciate.
BTW - his Texas years were not as bad as many of you think plus left to Marquette with $7.1 million buyout to make room for the alumni desired Beard.

Shaka Smart is a good coach but he hasn't won a tournament game in over 10 years and consistently underperformed at Texas with annual top 10 recruiting classes.

Only making the tournament in 3/6 years and not winning a single game is borderline criminal given the level of talent he was working with.

 

[Fishy]

Marquette barely beats Xavier, Creighton, DePaul and St. John’s as of late and we THRASH them. They are still 6 and we are at 11? This system for ranking and seeding (and there really isn’t one) is a total joke.

Here you go…

 

[uconnfan68]

Marquette is still up there for one very good reason- Shaka Smart
He has the credibility and track record that the pollsters appreciate.
BTW - his Texas years were not as bad as many of you think plus left to Marquette with $7.1 million buyout to make room for the alumni desired Beard.

Smart guy.

 

[polycom]

How do some of you get through the day? No wonder so many people have issues with communication, basic logic, persuasion. This isn't hard stuff we lost more therefore a ranking based on wins and losses ranked us lower 7>3.