oy Virginia

[pearl31]

getting shellacked by mighty Tennessee. (along with their other poor showings already)
and Virginia is supposed to be the 3rd or 4the best ACC team.
We're not in the Big East anymore, kids.

 

[zeekay]

One BCS bowl gets the conference as much money as 5 final four runs by Syracuse. So yeah thanks FSU and Clemson, we'll be cashing those checks shortly while repping the conference in bball the best we can.

 

[No Hoyas]

One BCS bowl gets the conference as much money as 5 final four runs by Syracuse. So yeah thanks FSU and Clemson, we'll be cashing those checks shortly while repping the conference in bball the best we can.

Just remember, its not about the money,...its about the kids

 

[jncuse]

Old Big East vs Current ACC (Ken Pom Rankings comparison - b)

1. Louisville (#1) / Syracuse (#5)
2. Syracuse (#5) / Pitt (#10)
3. Villanova (#8) / Duke (#15)
4. Pitt (#10) / UNC (#19)

Numbers wise the Old BE is better, but I think Louisville/Nova vs Duke/UNC is pretty much a draw in terms of competitive level. And perception wise the advantage is the ACC.

5. UConn (#28) / Virginia (#22 - before tonight)
6. Georgetown (#29) / Florida St (#24)
7. Cincinnati (#36) / Clemson (#39)
8. Marquette (#43) / Notre Dame (#55)
9. St. John's (#54) / Maryland (#69)
10. Notre Dame (#55) / NC St (#74)
11. Providence (#67) / Wake Forest (#86)

Numbers wise the middle class of the OLD BE is better as we move down. I would also give the clear advantage to the old BE in terms of perception of the teams as well.

12. Setoh Hall (#121) / Miami (#92)
13. Depaul (#135) / Georgia Tech (#93)
14. USF (#149) Virginia Tech (#130)
15. Rutgers (#208) Boston College (#155)

The bottom feeders of the Big East are awful. Nothing new. ACC has better bottom feeders - but fairly irrelevant we should beat them all without any trouble.

 

[PoppyHart]

 

[Jasoncuse]

1. Louisville (#1) / Syracuse (#5)

How is this possible? Louisville has done nothing this year...

 

[pearl31]

How is this possible? Louisville has done nothing this year...

Don't question the numbers and the analytics, man

 

[jordoo]

Virginia looks like they can't score in every game I have watched them in this year. Weren't they picked by some (not here) to finish ahead of us in the ACC.

 

[Orangezoo]

Uva is one player and he has not been good at all so far.

 

[Trueblue25]

UNC is horribly overrated. I don't care about their "quality wins" they lose quality every week.

 

[jncuse]

How is this possible? Louisville has done nothing this year...

Good question. I suspect its because of 3 large margin wins against moderate level teams.

Southern Miss (a team at the level of Cal/St. John's) who they beat by 31.
Louisiana Lafayette and Missouri St (teams around 100) who they beat by 39 and 31.
Its one of the limitations of KP especially early - it value blowouts too much at times. Its the opposite of the AP rank. Poll rankings at this point are often heavily impacted with one or two close results against the right team, and a close W or close L can dramatically alter your ranking. Although, I think its still the right way to do the polls. You need to reward good wins.

The KP rating will not necessarily punish you for playing moderate level or bad teams or for close results - its how you do against those teams in terms of efficiency. Its an offensive/defensive efficiency based system adjusted to strength of opponent.

I'm not attempting to say that Louisville is #1, or close to that. Analytical systems are good but they have to be combined/diminished with typical ways of looking at things as well to form an opinion.

I also like to use KP to measure an entire conference, because the strange anomalies we see with Louisville will tend to even out over a larger sample.

 

[jncuse]

Don't question the numbers and the analytics, man

1) I actually questioned Louisville at #1 right in my analysis, so I am not sure what you mean when I don't question the numbers. I put them at par with schools with KP ranking below them.

2) I would have used the AP but
a) They would rank about 3-4 teams and conferences are much bigger than that.
b) How could we show how bad Rutgirls really was with the AP?

Also the AP would not really support your argument that the Old Big East would be much better than the ACC this year.

3) The KP ranking will have individual anomalies where teams are off a bit. But when you make it a sample of 15 teams, those things tend to even out and help out with an analysis

But lets take out those "analytics". You certainly don't believe in Louisville. So how do you support your statement that the Old Big East would be such better than the ACC this year? It certainly is not at the top.

I laid the teams in the middle of the pack and gave the Old Big East an edge overall because of this. I decided to give little value to the ACC having better bottom feeders - irrelevant to a team of our capability.

The grouping of three tiers is not "number analysis". Its simply a way to simplify the comparison of the two conferences. I was interested myself in the answer and decided to lay it out better.

 

[Gonzo]

I have never bothered to look at the methodolgy behind Ken Pom's formula or even paid much attention to it, but his ranking of Louisville doesnt give his system much credibility. Louisville's record is 11-2, registers in at 109 on strength of schedule and has an RPI ranking of 45. By contrast, SU is undefeated, is currently no. 2 in RPI, and has the 18th toughest strength of schedule.

 

[jncuse]

I have never bothered to look at the methodolgy behind Ken Pom's formula or even paid much attention to it, but his ranking of Louisville doesnt give his system much credibility. Louisville's record is 11-2, registers in at 109 on strength of schedule and has an RPI ranking of 45. By contrast, SU is undefeated, is currently no. 2 in RPI, and has the 18th toughest strength of schedule.

Are you really using the RPI as a basis for assessing the validity of another ranking system? The RPI is a really flawed ranking system. UMass is #1 in RPI. Kansas is #2. UC Santa Barbara is #24. What does that tell you about the credibility of the RPI?

The KP ranking is much more valid than the RPI. Let's take the next 100 games where one team has a better RPI and the other team has a better KP rating. The teams with the better KP rating will fare much better

Anyway, the KP system should be used as a guide only after 12 games, and not the be all end all.

I can understand comparing ranking vs the AP Poll. (although we know the AP poll has some bias as well and nobody in America can possibly watch every game except Marsh)

 

[pearl31]

1) I actually questioned Louisville at #1 right in my analysis, so I am not sure what you mean when I don't question the numbers. I put them at par with schools with KP ranking below them.

2) I would have used the AP but
a) They would rank about 3-4 teams and conferences are much bigger than that.
b) How could we show how bad Rutgirls really was with the AP?

Also the AP would not really support your argument that the Old Big East would be much better than the ACC this year.

3) The KP ranking will have individual anomalies where teams are off a bit. But when you make it a sample of 15 teams, those things tend to even out and help out with an analysis

But lets take out those "analytics". You certainly don't believe in Louisville. So how do you support your statement that the Old Big East would be such better than the ACC this year? It certainly is not at the top.

I laid the teams in the middle of the pack and gave the Old Big East an edge overall because of this. I decided to give little value to the ACC having better bottom feeders - irrelevant to a team of our capability.

The grouping of three tiers is not "number analysis". Its simply a way to simplify the comparison of the two conferences. I was interested myself in the answer and decided to lay it out better.