Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="jncuse, post: 2063604, member: 1969"]
There is some and good and bad with that website.  They focus on projection rather than "as of now", which I totally agree makes sense.  The "as of now" doesn't focus on the fact that different teams have very different opportunities to improve their resume moving forward.

It's basically 2 steps with:
1) Project the year end data (this is no different than rpiforecast.com which I heavily rely upon).   The projection is based on a reliable system.  So great so fat.

2) Take this data and use a formula to predict seeding.   It's pretty clear looking at the output that their formula is pure garbage... which is not much different than the other sites that have tried to do the same.

#2 is the problem --  the reason is not because they are stupid.   And I love the initiative that people take to extend #1 into #2, and wish I could find something reliable out there.   But it's largely an impossible task to create a good formula.   There are many moving factors in seeding that are hard to accurately weigh.   If you can look at our resume at 18-13 and say we are an 8 seed you are kidding yourself.  The formula they use is probably heavily geared to quality but we are horrible on the road, bad losses, and OOC SOS.   This will drag our seeding down from #8.

I prefer to stop at #1 - give me the projected data (which is based on a sound system) and I will try to seed based on that.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?