.
Thanks Pomeroy
- Thread starter imdevo
- Start date
longtimefan
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 8,947
- Like
- 12,457
Now, if Nova doesn't fall behind us after tonight, you have a point.
orange2win
2nd String
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 920
- Like
- 540
44PRIDE
All Conference
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,817
- Like
- 2,933
jordoo
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 15,381
- Like
- 33,665
Nova and Creighton just switched places. He needs a shirt that says.
Creighton's great shooting made my math look foolish.
BuffOrange
All Conference
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 3,070
- Like
- 2,430
His rankings date back to 2003 so you can check them out.
Historically yes, his #1 team has done about what you'd expect. Although it should be pointed out that they are post-tournament rankings, meaning the #1 team may not have been #1 before the tournament - so that's an inherent bias in his favor.
However I do remember he had Duke #1 in 2010 before the tournament, when no human did.
Kansas & Memphis were 1-2 by a lot in '08 (a lot of people liked UCLA & UNC in those semifinal games...)
Of course you can also Lol @Pitt/Wiscy a bunch of years as his system always seems to love them both.
edit: another checkmark for him is two years ago - Duke & Mizzou's defenses were both ranked way, way lower than every other highly seeded team. They were both bounced by 15 seeds.
Last edited:
Opus
Starter
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2012
- Messages
- 1,806
- Like
- 1,397
Thanks!
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 20,734
- Like
- 36,282
Posted this in another thread.
The "I watch basketball" is good for the top 5 and better in terms of the way people want to frame rankings. I certainly dont look at ranking systems when I am doing a top 5 or top 10. I may consider some of that data afterwards because there becomes more offsetting of good and bad things that is just harder to sort out.
The "I watch basketball" rankings start to sputter by around 7 or 8, has almost failed by #15, and is utterly useless by #20. People may able to assess some / many teams outside of the top 10, but they don't watch enough of every team to sort the teams properly and are unable to avoid pre-concieved biases. They also rely to heavily on one or two results, when teams start to have more of a mix of a good and bad. Note that I include myself in this group as well - its too difficult to accurately sort and I have unintentional biases.
And for teams in that 25-50 range (which is relevant for tracking tourney level teams moving forward)
- We have no AP ranking
- Biases (conference, prior year, a few results) become even more prevalent at this level.
- And teams at this level have an even larger mix of good and bad, that is impossible to sort.
So if you want to try to measure those teams you need to use an unbiased ranking system. What the are you going to do.
The "I watch basketball" is good for the top 5 and better in terms of the way people want to frame rankings. I certainly dont look at ranking systems when I am doing a top 5 or top 10. I may consider some of that data afterwards because there becomes more offsetting of good and bad things that is just harder to sort out.
The "I watch basketball" rankings start to sputter by around 7 or 8, has almost failed by #15, and is utterly useless by #20. People may able to assess some / many teams outside of the top 10, but they don't watch enough of every team to sort the teams properly and are unable to avoid pre-concieved biases. They also rely to heavily on one or two results, when teams start to have more of a mix of a good and bad. Note that I include myself in this group as well - its too difficult to accurately sort and I have unintentional biases.
And for teams in that 25-50 range (which is relevant for tracking tourney level teams moving forward)
- We have no AP ranking
- Biases (conference, prior year, a few results) become even more prevalent at this level.
- And teams at this level have an even larger mix of good and bad, that is impossible to sort.
So if you want to try to measure those teams you need to use an unbiased ranking system. What the are you going to do.
If all these Stat Guru's were so smart, you wouldn't need the tournament, they don't account for the most important variable's. They don't account for coaches, players, officials who all need to be taken into account. Scoop's over, and back, where the officials blew the call is an example.
Cusefannotindc
2nd String
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2011
- Messages
- 661
- Like
- 1,068
Of course they account for players and coaches, they don't necessarily need to account for them on an individual level. SU's performance is the sum of their players and coach, and their past performance should be predictive of their future performance. Refs will make bad calls, but on average they will even themselves out. The tournament is of course played because predictions aren't 100%. But also the winner of the tournament might not be the best team.
