hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 25, 2017 12:24:30 GMT -5
As Patrick has said in multiple interviews, "Laying the foundation..."
|
|
bigskyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by bigskyhoya on Oct 25, 2017 12:27:41 GMT -5
Our team this year could be anywhere from really bad to pretty good. Presumably Coach knows more than we do but he won't really know until he has a few games (possibly more) under his belt. Since he had to make the schedule with little feel for this year's team, I am giving him a lot of leeway. As others have said, next year's schedule is a different story.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Oct 25, 2017 13:33:49 GMT -5
79 9th in the BE predicted record of 15-14 Have to admit I am pretty shocked kenpom has us at 79. Norlander ranked all 351 teams for CBS and he has us at 120, which sounds closer to being right. I suppose Pomeroy doesnt look at schedule as much, dont know? But, if we are the 9/10th best team in a major conference, it's still hard to see us in the 70s. You would assume there are far many teams better than a 9th place Big East team.
|
|
iowa80
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,402
|
Post by iowa80 on Oct 25, 2017 13:48:13 GMT -5
If your argument is that we should play the RPI 340 teams because they are a guaranteed win, I understand where you are coming from. I don't agree with the approach but I also acknowledge that if your goal is to just get wins (even if they are meaningless), then the SWAC/MEAC approach is one way to go. But, it's noteworthy basically no other team in the last decade has taken this approach. To me, it is worthwhile to run a bigger chance of a loss to someone ranked 270 than to just rack up the meaningless wins against the worst teams in all of Division I. You're still going to win almost all of them (if not all), and the upside is there too. Here's an interesting stat: From 2002 to present, Georgetown played 52 opponents ranked 200-300 on KenPom, and won 50 games. Yes, that includes some very good teams (2007, for example), but it also includes some really bad teams like Esherick's 2004 team. And the two losses were at the top of the range: Northeastern (ranked 203), and the double OT loss to Radford (222). So is there some risk in playing a bit tougher opponents? Yes, but as long as we field even a marginally competent team, we'd still win almost every game anyway. Lastly, I would add that in the very unlikely event that we did lose to a 340-type team, it would be absolutely devastating. Like I said earlier, I agree with all of your points and I don't necessarily agree with the approach either. But under the assumption that Georgetown's main goal this season (not talking about future seasons) is simply to have a winning record, I don't understand what upside you're talking about. Your upside only matters when considering RPI and Kenpom rankings, which do not have an impact on overall record. If the team ends up 16-14, I don't see where the upside is of replacing even all of the 300-350 teams with 250-300 teams, since that still probably wouldn't help the RPI and Kenpom numbers enough to make the postseason without more 50-200 level opponents. I know no other team has taken this approach recently, but maybe the team is ahead of the times. Keep in mind what Kenpom stated: Rebuilding the team and re-energizing fan base were my top hopes for this season, and a winning record would certainly help with the fan aspect. I would love if the team over-performs this season. But if the team over-performs and misses the NCAA/NIT tournaments, most typical fans will blame the selection committees, not the schedule. Sure, us fans on Hoyatalk will be super upset about the schedule at that point, but ultimately it's pretty clear that making the postseason is not the top priority for the program this season. Regarding the KenPom tweet, I suppose that I'll have to beat this deceased equine once more. There are "W's" and there are "W's." Ken's thinking seems to suggest that an (informed) fanbase will fail to recognize that a "W" over a mediocre to bad team is worth more than a "W" over some of the college basketball detritus that dots our schedule. I doubt anyone here has any problem at all with a start of 10-2, 11-1, or even 12-0. But there are some, including me, who think that can be achieved with some marginal upgrades that still amount to a guaranteed "W." As a disclaimer, and to fend of the inevitable accusation of not being a "fan," PE gets the benefit of the doubt here, but, if this is the level of opposition that he feels is necessary to bring home a winning team, this team has less talent than it appears to have to me.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Oct 25, 2017 14:15:31 GMT -5
Let's also not forget that we are all assuming we are going to WIN all of these games. That is absolutely a part of this, too. Who says that we will definitely win 10 of these games? And what happens if we lose a couple?
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,670
|
Post by seaweed on Oct 25, 2017 14:40:28 GMT -5
Tonight, here in CT, I will be watching as UConn plays Provy in a non-counting exhibition game, broadcast from the local casino. There are about 7 things to hate in that sentence, but playing an exhibition that raises money for hurricane relief is far better than not playing one, regardless of how inexperienced we are. Sorry, I will give Big Pat a lot more latitude on the pre-season schedule than I will if he passes up the opportunity to do a little something for his fellow Caribbean islanders.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Oct 25, 2017 21:18:53 GMT -5
Like I said earlier, I agree with all of your points and I don't necessarily agree with the approach either. But under the assumption that Georgetown's main goal this season (not talking about future seasons) is simply to have a winning record, I don't understand what upside you're talking about. Your upside only matters when considering RPI and Kenpom rankings, which do not have an impact on overall record. If the team ends up 16-14, I don't see where the upside is of replacing even all of the 300-350 teams with 250-300 teams, since that still probably wouldn't help the RPI and Kenpom numbers enough to make the postseason without more 50-200 level opponents. I know no other team has taken this approach recently, but maybe the team is ahead of the times. Keep in mind what Kenpom stated: Rebuilding the team and re-energizing fan base were my top hopes for this season, and a winning record would certainly help with the fan aspect. I would love if the team over-performs this season. But if the team over-performs and misses the NCAA/NIT tournaments, most typical fans will blame the selection committees, not the schedule. Sure, us fans on Hoyatalk will be super upset about the schedule at that point, but ultimately it's pretty clear that making the postseason is not the top priority for the program this season. Regarding the KenPom tweet, I suppose that I'll have to beat this deceased equine once more. There are "W's" and there are "W's." Ken's thinking seems to suggest that an (informed) fanbase will fail to recognize that a "W" over a mediocre to bad team is worth more than a "W" over some of the college basketball detritus that dots our schedule. I doubt anyone here has any problem at all with a start of 10-2, 11-1, or even 12-0. But there are some, including me, who think that can be achieved with some marginal upgrades that still amount to a guaranteed "W." As a disclaimer, and to fend of the inevitable accusation of not being a "fan," PE gets the benefit of the doubt here, but, if this is the level of opposition that he feels is necessary to bring home a winning team, this team has less talent than it appears to have to me. Right, but my point is what is the benefit of the marginal upgrades you mention, especially in a rebuilding year? If Ewing was concerned about SOS and making the postseason, then I would be right there with you. But if Ewing's goal is a winning record, what is the difference between a team ranked 340 vs a team ranked 275?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 26, 2017 9:57:03 GMT -5
Let's also not forget that we are all assuming we are going to WIN all of these games. That is absolutely a part of this, too. Who says that we will definitely win 10 of these games? And what happens if we lose a couple? If we lose any of these games, they will easily be the worst losses of the modern Georgetown era. Granted, I really think the 340ish type teams are so terrible that the odds of losing are very, very small. A good example is our game against 343rd ranked Coppin State last year - we won 96-44, and that was last year's team which was not good. It wasn't even competitive. You raise a good point though. We shouldn't be playing multiple games a season where losing, even if it's highly unlikely, would be a huge embarrassment.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 26, 2017 10:09:25 GMT -5
Have to admit I am pretty shocked kenpom has us at 79. Norlander ranked all 351 teams for CBS and he has us at 120, which sounds closer to being right. I suppose Pomeroy doesnt look at schedule as much, dont know? But, if we are the 9/10th best team in a major conference, it's still hard to see us in the 70s. You would assume there are far many teams better than a 9th place Big East team. I had the same thought. I am pretty sure KenPom generally downgrades a team whenever there is a coaching change (since most of the time a coaching change means a short-term decline in performance as the new coach gets on their feet). But, if you look at it, last year we were ranked 69. On top of that, we were 345/351 in the "Luck" factor (defined by KenPom as the deviation in winning percentage between a team’s actual record and their expected record using the correlated gaussian method). This basically means that last year we performed under the level one might otherwise expect. To put it in perspective, though, despite all the histrionics about how horrible we were last year, we really weren't THAT bad in the overall scheme of things, especially when you consider we were on the losing end of a lot of close games: Maryland (lost by 1), Xavier (by 5), Butler (OT loss), Seton Hall (OT loss), DePaul (lost by 2 at home), Seton Hall (lost by 3 away), and the BET (lost to St. John's by 1). Yes, we were bad, but if we had been marginally better our record could have looked drastically different. In light of that, you can see where KenPom might land at the 79 number. My biggest hang-up on the rating is that we lose our two best players in Pryor and Peak, we do not replace them with anybody equivalent, we are starting with a new coach, and much of our roster is new and untested. I probably think we're more realistically in the 80-90 level at this point, but who knows.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Oct 26, 2017 10:27:28 GMT -5
Let's also not forget that we are all assuming we are going to WIN all of these games. That is absolutely a part of this, too. Who says that we will definitely win 10 of these games? And what happens if we lose a couple? If we lose a couple of those games, we would have lost even more if we scheduled in the 150-250 range.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 26, 2017 11:32:40 GMT -5
Regarding the KenPom tweet, I suppose that I'll have to beat this deceased equine once more. There are "W's" and there are "W's." Ken's thinking seems to suggest that an (informed) fanbase will fail to recognize that a "W" over a mediocre to bad team is worth more than a "W" over some of the college basketball detritus that dots our schedule. I doubt anyone here has any problem at all with a start of 10-2, 11-1, or even 12-0. But there are some, including me, who think that can be achieved with some marginal upgrades that still amount to a guaranteed "W." As a disclaimer, and to fend of the inevitable accusation of not being a "fan," PE gets the benefit of the doubt here, but, if this is the level of opposition that he feels is necessary to bring home a winning team, this team has less talent than it appears to have to me. Right, but my point is what is the benefit of the marginal upgrades you mention, especially in a rebuilding year? If Ewing was concerned about SOS and making the postseason, then I would be right there with you. But if Ewing's goal is a winning record, what is the difference between a team ranked 340 vs a team ranked 275? A winning record doesn't guarantee that the team/program improved during the season.. 10-1 in the ooc & 5-13 in conference is a winning season.. Will you really be satisfied with that?
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,670
|
Post by seaweed on Oct 26, 2017 11:37:30 GMT -5
On top of that, we were 345/351 in the "Luck" factor (defined by KenPom as the deviation in winning percentage between a team’s actual record and their expected record using the correlated gaussian method). This basically means that last year we performed under the level one might otherwise expect. If that's the definition, he should call it the "Suck" factor, which tells how much you suck compared to expectations. Having been at MSG for the BET, it sure felt more like suck than luck. 1 2 3 Fireballs
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Oct 26, 2017 11:45:00 GMT -5
Right, but my point is what is the benefit of the marginal upgrades you mention, especially in a rebuilding year? If Ewing was concerned about SOS and making the postseason, then I would be right there with you. But if Ewing's goal is a winning record, what is the difference between a team ranked 340 vs a team ranked 275? A winning record doesn't guarantee that the team/program improved during the season.. 10-1 in the ooc & 5-13 in conference us a winning season.. Will you really be satisfied with that? I never said that a winning record guarantees that the team/program improved. But, I do believe that outside of the HoyaTalk bubble a lot of general fans of Georgetown would be very happy with a winning record, which is why I assume that Ewing's goal is a winning record this season.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 26, 2017 12:40:45 GMT -5
A winning record doesn't guarantee that the team/program improved during the season.. 10-1 in the ooc & 5-13 in conference us a winning season.. Will you really be satisfied with that? I never said that a winning record guarantees that the team/program improved. But, I do believe that outside of the HoyaTalk bubble a lot of general fans of Georgetown would be very happy with a winning record, which is why I assume that Ewing's goal is a winning record this season. Fair enough.. However you didn't answer the question at the end of my previous post?
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Oct 26, 2017 13:14:05 GMT -5
I never said that a winning record guarantees that the team/program improved. But, I do believe that outside of the HoyaTalk bubble a lot of general fans of Georgetown would be very happy with a winning record, which is why I assume that Ewing's goal is a winning record this season. Fair enough.. However you didn't answer the question at the end of my previous post? I wouldn't necessarily be happy with that, since a 15-14 regular season record and a first round loss in the BET wouldn't be a winning record. Yesterday I stated "Rebuilding the team and re-energizing fan base were my top hopes for this season, and a winning record would certainly help with the fan aspect". So for this season I care less about the team's record than I do with the on court performance of the team. However, I accept that a winning record would help to re-energize the fan base by showing improvement, so from that perspective I would be satisfied with the winning record you mentioned. For this season, what matters to me is how they win not who they beat. To bring it back to my original argument, is a 15-14 regular season record against a bunch of 300+ ranked teams any different than a 15-14 regular season record against a bunch of 250+ ranked teams?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 26, 2017 14:39:30 GMT -5
To bring it back to my original argument, is a 15-14 regular season record against a bunch of 300+ ranked teams any different than a 15-14 regular season record against a bunch of 250+ ranked teams? Yes, it absolutely is. The 15-14 team that beats 250+ teams is almost certainly better (unquestionably more challenged), and closer to contending for the post-season. In my opinion, even if we have a great OOC, if we then get slaughtered in the Big East, it's not a good season regardless of whether we are over .500. Moreover, these 15-14 projections come from KenPom's projections, which includes a projection of 6-12 in the Big East. Personally, I think there's a very real chance we fall short of 6 Big East wins, in which case we likely aren't above .500 anyway. I also disagree with the notion of the fan-base being "energized" by a 15-14 record because it's a winning season. You do realize that if JT3 had scheduled differently, he might have been over .500 last year, with no other changes? We lost last year to Maryland (46), Arkansas State (124), Wisconsin (21), and Oklahoma (22). We finished 14-18. Substitute MEAC/SWAC for those 4 games. Suddenly, instead of being 14-18, we would have been 18-14. Would that have made last year a "better" season? It feels safe to assume that if JT3 had finished 18-14 by beating up on horrible teams, the fans would not have been energized and people would have been calling for his head anyway.
|
|
bigskyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by bigskyhoya on Oct 26, 2017 14:49:13 GMT -5
This is NOT about JT III, and I wish we could just stop re-litigating that decision in subtle, and not-so-subtle, ways. I sincerely hope there aren't any posters who want PE to fail so that they can argue the program made a bad decision. Let's give the new coach a chance, and that means giving him more than one year to build the team back to national prominence.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Oct 26, 2017 15:10:27 GMT -5
Let's also not forget that we are all assuming we are going to WIN all of these games. That is absolutely a part of this, too. Who says that we will definitely win 10 of these games? And what happens if we lose a couple? If we lose a couple of those games, we would have lost even more if we scheduled in the 150-250 range. True. But, losing to those teams isn't really that horrible. The argument, at least as I understand it, is that we are playing 300+ teams to build confidence against teams we will likely beat. That's probably true, but we at least have to consider how awful it would be to lose to one or two of them. Isn't that pressure, too? We better beat all 8 of these awful teams.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Oct 26, 2017 15:14:29 GMT -5
Let's also not forget that we are all assuming we are going to WIN all of these games. That is absolutely a part of this, too. Who says that we will definitely win 10 of these games? And what happens if we lose a couple? If we lose any of these games, they will easily be the worst losses of the modern Georgetown era. Granted, I really think the 340ish type teams are so terrible that the odds of losing are very, very small. A good example is our game against 343rd ranked Coppin State last year - we won 96-44, and that was last year's team which was not good. It wasn't even competitive. You raise a good point though. We shouldn't be playing multiple games a season where losing, even if it's highly unlikely, would be a huge embarrassment. Fair point. But, then again, didnt we play Howard pretty close last year, too?
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Oct 26, 2017 15:40:01 GMT -5
If we lose a couple of those games, we would have lost even more if we scheduled in the 150-250 range. True. But, losing to those teams isn't really that horrible. The argument, at least as I understand it, is that we are playing 300+ teams to build confidence against teams we will likely beat. That's probably true, but we at least have to consider how awful it would be to lose to one or two of them. Isn't that pressure, too? We better beat all 8 of these awful teams. Agreed.
|
|