Cusefannotindc
2nd String
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2011
- Messages
- 642
- Like
- 1,007
Pomeroy:
1. Arizona
2. Creighton
3. Pitt
4. SU
1. Arizona
2. Creighton
3. Pitt
4. SU
Pomeroy:
1. Arizona
2. Creighton
3. Pitt
4. SU
Thank you.again I dont get the infatuation with Ken Pom. This helps us wins games how?
see, this is the goofy part. Creighton's head to head win over nova moved them up dramatically, but our head to heads with pitt and nova left us behind each of them. what a goofy model.The Creighton win over Villanova totally wrecked his system. It's ridiculous t0 think that because Creighton had the game of their lives that they should jump so high and Villanova drop so low.
again I dont get the infatuation with Ken Pom. This helps us wins games how?
I prefer the more subtle use of long range groin radiation.Dude should be stabbed in his piece to protect future generations.
Whatever works. Nuke it.I prefer the more subtle use of long range groin radiation.
The biggest problem with his system is that he undervalues winning in general and over values winning margin IMO. I love the offensive and defensive efficiency stats but these have a lot to do with the opponent and the styles of play and how they mix.
Nova is good because they beat teams by a lot and had victories over KU and Iowa plus they played SU I(and lost badly).
Creighton is a pretty efficient offensive team and beats the lessor teams by a big margin then they put on a shooting clinic over Nova. They basically switched places with Nova a couple days after losing to Providence and collecting their 3rd loss of the season.
Pitt has a weak strength of schedule but very good efficiency numbers and margin of victory numbers. They finally play a strong team and lose in a close one on the road. Then they pound a bad team at home and jump us.
All these teams benefit from losing to us or beating a team that lost to us. Yet we don't really benefit from beating them. The system is horribly faulted since it fails to properly value the most important part of basketball . . .. . . . . . you know its called winning.