Latest Bracketology
- Thread starter goody2012
- Start date
Well I would say anyone with a worse resume should be lower than us. That much is obvious. Iowa, currently has a worse resume than us.
should metrics matter in seeding?
seems like lunardi is projecting the rest of the schedule rather than seeding based on current record
We have the 24th best resume:
That puts us at the last 6 seed. Various factors can result in that last 6 seed falling to a 7 seed, and none of those factors need to get us in a mood on a Friday.
Iowa, and to a lesser extent Texas are pretty much the clear outliers, and national writers are starting to catch on. The problem is the blind KP and efficiency followers that look at it on its surface.
Those paying attention know that Iowa's metrics are based on three things:
1. Leaving starters in while piss-pounding SWAC and MAC teams to pump up efficiencies
2. Leaving starters in losses while the game is out of reach to pump up efficiencies. The mad scramble and press with the Murrays and JBo jacking up threes against Wisconsin's walk-ons was a nice touch
3. Flailing their 12 year old girl arms into a defender without attempting to make a basketball play to get to the line, as FT attempts factor in big in OE
Iowa isn't a good team. Anybody digging into the records for 10 seconds knows it. Anybody who watches them knows it. They are purely being propped up by dorks that think a handful of the ingredients that go into a game are more important than the totality of the game.
The season is 2/3 over. There are thousands of college basketball games in the books. The real data is there.
They've lost every game to every good team they have played, and often have not been competitive. The best thing they've done is pour it on at the end to make it closer and get the analytics dorks excited. Analytics are great, but like any predictive model, you will accept reality when it's presented to you. Let's hope the committee does the same and treats all of the outliers appropriately.
There's no perfect ranking system but the NET has more flaws than RPI did, IMO. Houston is at 3 with no Q1 wins. Yes, that's right...none. Iowa is at 20 with the same thing. Miami is 15-5, 7-2 in the ACC with a win at Duke and no truly bad losses, yet is 66 in NET. Tons of lower level conference leaders with no Q1 wins are in the top 50 as well.
You all realize quad wins are based on NET ratings, right? NET can't take into account quad wins or it would be circular.
The problem with your theory is there isn't much of a line between Iowa's starters and their bench. Fran thinks he has to play all 12 players and one could argue Kris Murray, and Perkins are better than the 2 McCaffrey's and JorBlo who have been starting all year.
Those quad wins are indeed part of the NET ratings. No, they are not duplicated as another factor of the ranking, that's correct.
I actually liked RPI. People would hate on it because until the last 8-10 games or so it churned out some goofy stuff, but by the end of the season it was pretty damn good. The only thing that I think is a legit criticism of RPI is that it was SO incredibly SOS weighted. A team might take care of business and hammer a bottom team in the conference and still take a big hit. The other legit criticism is something that was never addressed by the other systems used - which is the "gaming" idea, which really meant trying to schedule teams that still suck, but just don't suck as bad. Beating the 180th ranked team looked way better than beating the 340th ranked team, when in reality both should be pretty easy wins.
Mainly what I liked about RPI is that it helped push more teams to schedule big opponents in the non-con and conferences to do some of these cross-conference challenges to boost SOS.
I like analytics and all but some of this metrics **** is too sporadic. Look at the teams, with your eyes, and how you play and who you beat. We have a pretty dang good resume and a head to head win against Iowa. We shouldn’t be seeded the same right now with a better record in a more difficult conference. Is that too hard for you to grasp or what?
The Athletic has us as a 5 Seed today getting a play-in team and then prob Michigan State in Milwaukee.
theathletic.com
Bracket Watch: Kansas, UCLA or Wisconsin for the fourth No. 1 seed? And have the computers betrayed us?
Boise State and Arkansas are among the big movers in our new projected Field of 68.
Why argue about current resume really? Right now, I'm just hoping we don't keep slipping as we have been. A lot of work to do to keep the 24th best (or whatever) resume through the next month and a half. Need to stack up well in march, not January.
Of course we have a good resume, of course the eye test matters, of course we ****-pounded Iowa when we played. If a bracketologist had the job of saying "who is a higher seed, Iowa or Iowa State?" in a two team tournament between us every single one would put Iowa State better than Iowa.
But there are more factors than just those two teams, way more teams to try to seed, and more factors for those two teams than just our head to head match up.
We should be a better seed than Iowa - it's also irrational to look at the broader picture of the sport and not bucket Iowa State and Iowa into the "somewhere between a 6 and 10 seed" area, which can cause a few bracketologists to put Iowa State and Iowa on the same line.
What’s irrational about looking at resumes and undoubtably seeing that ours is better and we shouldn’t be seeded the same? We are at least 2 seed lines above them, if not more. It’s irrational to have efficiency as a main piece of the puzzle when the end result of games are what truly matter. It’s not even an Iowa thing, as many have said before, it’s just how oddly they are loved by analytics. At some point you have to actually win the games against harder competition, not just look good using funky metrics.
From digging into the metrics much more, we should be a top 4 seed right now. I know that sounds crazy and we certainly haven't looked like it, but resumes are very thin outside of a small number of teams and we're currently 6-4 in Q1 which is insanely good. Our resume is far and away better than any other team in our area of the NET rankings and matches up pretty closely with Texas Tech who is 15. Our offensive efficiency ratings in NET must really be pulling us down.
