Total Board Meltdown O'Clock | Syracusefan.com

Total Board Meltdown O'Clock

what-me-worry-715605.jpg
 
Pomeroy:

1. Arizona
2. Creighton
3. Pitt
4. SU

I gave you a like for the use of the word meltdown. I plan to do so for any post I see with the word meltdown in it. (That reminds me of when I was a partner in a fledgling business and we planned to give out t-shirts to the panhandlers and pay them each day we saw them in our t-shirts. It was for a credit repair business, by the way, and you can think of some of the creative lines we had in store considering our product and our advertisers).

It's hard to determine what constitutes a meltdown on here these days. It seems to happen when the threat of taking away semi-pxrn is inferred, or when a bunch of likes are lost, which usually has something to do with the semi-pxrn(man, why cant it space that word out like it does for sex?). There doesn't seem to be much approaching meltdown that is Syracuse basketball related, however I think you're on the right track because the closest thing does seem to be rankings and rating systems. I just think it's become SO common that as a unit we're becoming desensitized to it. However, I predict that if JLH gets the HIV, there may be a board meltdown. Unlike this, I would have empathy and would not mock any of the mourners.
 
kenpom. He hates the zone and the style of play affects his ratings.
He always underrates us. He got mad at me a few years ago when I pointed out to him that he called a Syracuse V St johns at the Garden a Neutral court for us, meanwhile he called Pitt playing Duquesne in downtown Pittsburgh an away game.
He is truly EVIL.
 
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.
 
Dude should be stabbed in his piece to protect future generations.
 
again I dont get the infatuation with Ken Pom. This helps us wins games how?
Thank you.

Hard to get outraged at math. Critique the theory and assumptions behind it? Sure. But it's his system. Don't like it? Ignore it or create something better.
 
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.
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 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.
 
Last edited:
again I dont get the infatuation with Ken Pom. This helps us wins games how?

Its just annoying that his formula winds up having some ridiculousness every season and its fun to point them out.
 
Kenpom's great i guess for finding the overall strengths and weaknesses of a particular team, and i know people like to complain about the RPI, but the fact KENPOM isn't used by the selection committee tells it all.
 
One day you guys are citing kenpom and calling it the best ranking tool out there, today, it's crap and insane. You guys are like a bunch of teenage girls :p
 
Last edited:
Kenpom's formula awards extra points for the number of white kids you have in the lineup - that explains Creighton!! Math is never wrong!
 
All I know is, after seeing them against Nova, I have zero desire to face Creighton come March.
 
I think a lot of people are mis- remembering the nova game based off the final score.
 
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.

Horrible faulted because. ...

We're "only" ranked forth and...

A team we beat by two possessions at home is above us.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
170,192
Messages
4,876,502
Members
5,989
Latest member
OttosShoes

Online statistics

Members online
34
Guests online
933
Total visitors
967


...
Top Bottom