Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Townie72, post: 878408, member: 780"] The problem with your analysis is that you are imbuing "ranking" in early January with far too much validity as a measure of relative strength. "Rankings" are their own terribly-flawed system. Does anyone really believe that we have enough data to judge SU as the second best team? (although some on here might as they are already using the term "great team".) The polls have their own logic. Using it, SU is #2. But at the end of the tournament, we will have a better picture based on a lot more data. Before the beginning of the year, "experts" pick the best teams based on the previous year's performance with a little windage for the losses and additions to the roster and historical strength or reputation. These initial rankings are essentially wild-assed guesses because these are different teams with different rosters, especially with the early departure of impact-players. But they have a tremendous impact on ranking from that point on since all you have to do is cruise through the cupcake part of the schedule (with a few good teams sometimes) to stay at the top of the polls. Then the "experts" iterate off of that initial list moving teams up, down or out based upon early "good" and "bad" losses. Because the starting point is so flawed, all of this is built upon a bad foundation. When we get to the Conference season, we have more data and more good teams as opponents. When we get through the conference tournament then rankings begin to make some sense although the tourney is the best "ranking" device we have. Six losses is worse case. Three or four might be considered an "expected" level. We'll need luck to lose two or fewer. And "luck" doesn't always break our way. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?