Compare these resumes

[jncuse]

I got crap for saying Wisconsin had the best non-conference resume of anybody back in January and when I had them above Syracuse and Arizona until they lost and went on a tumble. They have a legit profile of a 1 seed and if they ran the table thru the rest of the season and won the B1G they would have to be a 1 seed even over Syracuse. That game @Nebraska will determine if they are playing for a 1 seed. Only 1 team this entire season has won in Lincoln, NE and that is Michigan by 2 points. If they beat Nebraska who will be playing for their NCAA lives then they are legit for a 1 seed. Wisconsin has the best profile of any team in the non-conference even more than Kansas because they went undefeated in non-conference play and have those quality wins you listed.

We could potentially have 2 teams this year that are in the #1 seed discussion without winning either conference title (regular season or tourney) in Wisconsin and Syracuse. I could see Wisconsin having a case if they run the regular season and lose in B10 final.

Add in Wichita St, a Kansas team with a ridiculous number of top 50 games, and its an odd mix of #1 seed contenders.

But of course Syracuse will win Saturday, so it will be down to 1 team that could fall into the no title category.

 

[jncuse]

Can someone explain to me the value in separating conference from non conference schedule in looking at resumes?

I don't disagree with the points of Jordoo and Alsacs above. I would add one point.

We can get an impression of a conference team merely from its conference record, but I separate OOC for two reasons
1) its an easy way to differentiate two teams with similar conference records
2) Conference records are typically not "empty" in a major conference, but an OOC record can certainly be that. Hence the need to highlight key OOC wins.

 

[Orangemen]

I don't disagree with the points of Jordoo and Alsacs above. I would add one point.

We can get an impression of a conference team merely from its conference record, but I separate OOC for two reasons
1) its an easy way to differentiate two teams with similar conference records
2) Conference records are typically not "empty" in a major conference, but an OOC record can certainly be that. Hence the need to highlight key OOC wins.

But I don't see why you wouldn't just make a list of wins and losses from best to worst, and compare and contrast those results.

Why should a win over Villanova this year be treated different than a win over them last year?

It's about who you beat. I'm not convinced Conf or non Conf matters.

 

[jncuse]

But I don't see why you wouldn't just make a list of wins and losses from best to worst, and compare and contrast those results.

Why should a win over Villanova this year be treated different than a win over them last year?

It's about who you beat. I'm not convinced Conf or non Conf matters.

Your assigning me with:
1) Claims I never made
2) Viewpoints I don't have.

A game in early March is worth the same as a game in November (I never said it wasn't) Top 25, Top 50, Top 100 record in aggregate. Bad losses in aggregate.

The reason for highlighting OOC performance and wins right now, is that OOC accomplishments are typically very different amongst top conference teams. You see a team in the ACC and you have an idea about its conference schedule is like. But everybody in the ACC plays a vastly different OOC schedule and different results, which is why its good to note. Notice I said important to note, not more important.

 

[Orangemen]

Your assigning me with:
1) Claims I never made
2) Viewpoints I don't have.

A game in early March is worth the same as a game in November (I never said it wasn't) Top 25, Top 50, Top 100 record in aggregate. Bad losses in aggregate.

The reason for highlighting OOC performance and wins right now, is that OOC accomplishments are typically very different amongst top conference teams. You see a team in the ACC and you have an idea about its conference schedule is like. But everybody in the ACC plays a vastly different OOC schedule and different results, which is why its good to note. Notice I said important to note, not more important.

I'm talking about generally, as in not you personally.

 

[jordoo]

Its not a great schedule, but let's not pretend its a Pittsburgh level schedule. One can argue that Wichita St needs to schedule even better OOC because of its poor conference schedule to prove itself as a #1 seed. That I totally agree with. (Although, people need to realize Wichita St is scheduling to prove itself worthy of an at-large not a #1... they are not really cheating the system, this is not a place (i.e top seed lines) they were aiming for in my view)

But to say the Wichita OOC was horrid by major school standards is stretching it

Let's start with the OOC SOS numbers:
KP SOS - 106
RPI - 37

I realize limitations in pure SOS numbers as it sometimes could be impacted by a few extra games against low level competition. But other schools have played worse or similar in or near top 25( Louisville, Iowa, Ohio St, UCLA, Pittsburgh, Cincy, SMU)





No way. Way too high.

Before I get far into this next point, some teams could have 1 loss with the exact same schedule and still be better than Wichita. Certainly luck, and lacking any terrible one-off games, is necessary to go undefeated. It does not mean you are better.


1) Wichita St is expected to be 5-0 vs 51-100, 14-0 vs 100-150 by end of regular season. Nothing that looks outstanding (and it really isn't), but consider other teams in top 25 that have a number of losses vs such teams.


a) Top 25 teams have lost 13 games, 13 GAMES!, against projected Sub 100 Teams - this includes Wisconsin, Duke, Syracuse, Michigan, UCLA, New Mexico, Ohio St, San Diego St, and UNC.

b) Only 8 teams in the country have not had one loss against a projected sub 50 team. And that list includes Wichita and St. Louis. Others are Florida, Villanova, Cincy, Louisville, Iowa and Memphis.

Basically any team is capable of having an off night. Running the table vs sub 50 teams is not easy. Other than Wichita we have 7 teams this year.

And I know some will state those other teams must have many more 51-100 games. Here are top 20 RPI teams teams, with no sub 100 losses, and a 51-100 loss, for the sake of comparison.

Wichita St 5-0
Arizona 5-1
Kansas 6-1
Creighton 7-2
Kentucky 11-2 (many more games, but 2 losses)
Iowa St 3-1
Virginia 7-2
Michigan St 3-2

Let's assume in a given year we have 8 teams that run the table vs 50-200 level teams - whomever those may be. Play the season over, it may be a totally different 8 teams.

An undefeated team will also have more pressure in all the games.


2) So we have 8 survivors vs sub 50 games. And consider the diversity of those teams that did it this year, Those teams now have to run the top 50 teams.

At St. Louis
N BYU

Winning at St. Louis is not easy, and let's remember its not the 8 best teams in the country that survived the sub 50 games in any year. I think its fair to say this is a 50/50 chance.

The more logical range, with data analysis (rather than a half assed assertion), is 3 to 6 teams (including Wichita St) may be undefeated with the Wichita St schedule.

Once again, Wichita St is not better than all the teams that have lost a game to a 51-200 opponent. Luck, and avoiding that off-night, is a big factor in going undefeated.




Gonzaga scheduled a poor OOC last year? Not sure how you can say that.



JORDOO - I would like to see any data that you have that supports "easily 15" teams would go undefeated. At a bare minimum, consider that 10 teams in the top 25 have lost to a sub 100 team this year.


As a final point I am not saying that Wichita St would go undefeated or close to it in a major conference schedule.

Data is in my head. Your talking about winning a couple of tough games plus one good road game and then just showing up the rest of the year. I call it like I see it right or wrong but they only need to avoid there off nights for about 6 games all year and the rest they can win without playing well. I think it actually helps us right now if they stay undefeated and get a 1 seed so its not really orange colored glasses either nor is it how good they actually are its simply looking at the resume. I'm not a strictly numbers guy like you and we have had these disagreements before but I am glad we have you numbers guys around though. Have to have balance.

For 15 take your pick from the tp25 that can beat St. Louis.

 

[jncuse]

Data is in my head. Your talking about winning a couple of tough games plus one good road game and then just showing up the rest of the year. I call it like I see it right or wrong but they only need to avoid there off nights for about 6 games all year and the rest they can win without playing well. I think it actually helps us right now if they stay undefeated and get a 1 seed so its not really orange colored glasses either nor is it how good they actually are its simply looking at the resume. I'm not a strictly numbers guy like you and we have had these disagreements before but I am glad we have you numbers guys around though. Have to have balance.

For 15 take your pick from the tp25 that can beat St. Louis.

This is not numbers- its about pointing out losses that have actually happened. Big difference. This is not power ranking systems, or margins or Ken Pom. Why would teams as a whole now perform markedly better against a different subset of 51-100, 101-200 teams.

10 of the current top 25 teams have lost games to sub 100 teams.

9 of the other 15 top 25 teams have lost games to teams ranked 51-100. They don't have many more wins (in some cases less) than Wichita St in that range, with one exception being Kentucky.

You just can't focus on the top 50 games. You have to acknowledge that teams get beat by sub 50 teams, and it happens all the time.

Even if 15 of the top 25 were able to beat St. Louis on the road (seems way too high to me)... but let's say its 15. Why would 100% of those 15 teams now win all the sub 50 games, when the results this year show that only 21% of the top 25 other than Wichita St (5 of 24) have been able to do it.

As for those other top 25 teams not being able to focus on game day and Wichita St can... rubbish. Opponents are gunning alot harder for that undefeated team.. or so I heard when the Orange was undefeated.

 

[jordoo]

This is not numbers- its about pointing out losses that have actually happened. Big difference. This is not power ranking systems, or margins or Ken Pom. Why would teams as a whole now perform markedly better against a different subset of 51-100, 101-200 teams.

10 of the current top 25 teams have lost games to sub 100 teams.

9 of the other 15 top 25 teams have lost games to teams ranked 51-100. They don't have many more wins (in some cases less) than Wichita St in that range, with one exception being Kentucky.

You just can't focus on the top 50 games. You have to acknowledge that teams get beat by sub 50 teams, and it happens all the time.

Even if 15 of the top 25 were able to beat St. Louis on the road (seems way too high to me)... but let's say its 15. Why would 100% of those 15 teams now win all the sub 50 games, when the results this year show that only 21% of the top 25 other than Wichita St (5 of 24) have been able to do it.

As for those other top 25 teams not being able to focus on game day and Wichita St can... rubbish. Opponents are gunning alot harder for that undefeated team.. or so I heard when the Orange was undefeated.

You are putting words in my mouth and picking and choosing certain parts of my original post in your first response. I said 15 and allow a 3rd of them not doing it so 10 in my original post. We can agree to disagree I don't care about Ken Pom you do we have been here before not sure why you press it. I think WichSt has a weak a$$ 1 seed resume and that plenty of other teams could and should also go undefeated against it. You don't agree I get it but you should have learned by now that while I'll consider your numbers they will never fully persuade me just like my watching 20 games a week and judging mainly by that will never fully persuade you. Its cool I get it you don't agree.

 

[Briancuse]

The problem with these discussions is that analysts always give these teams too much credit for wins that aren't that good. I must have heard 100 times this year someone how good witchita st's wins against byu and ten were, both of those teams might not even make the tournament.

 

[Niastri]

Exactly why they were in my top 3 "least want to play". Wisconsin is chalk full of smart basketball players who do not take bad shots and can make the 3. They play at a very slow pace, and as we've seen repeatedly, we allow our opponents to dictate tempo.

If you wanted to create a team that would be the perfect fit against us, I think it's this team.

They remind me a bit of Virginia in the bad team for Syracuse to play department.

 

[jncuse]

You are putting words in my mouth and picking and choosing certain parts of my original post in your first response. I said 15 and allow a 3rd of them not doing it so 10 in my original post. We can agree to disagree I don't care about Ken Pom you do we have been here before not sure why you press it. I think WichSt has a weak a$$ 1 seed resume and that plenty of other teams could and should also go undefeated against it. You don't agree I get it but you should have learned by now that while I'll consider your numbers they will never fully persuade me just like my watching 20 games a week and judging mainly by that will never fully persuade you. Its cool I get it you don't agree.

That's fine, neither of us is going to convince the other.

And I don't disagree with someone who doesn't think they are a #1 seed. I'm fine with that.

I just want to say that none of my and of my analysis is based on kp.

Weird night though when analyzing Wichita st unbeaten reccord.

St Louis looks a whole bunch weaker, but 3 of the 7 teams who had not loss to sub 50 teams did tonight.