|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 11, 2018 20:31:26 GMT -5
Can someone explain to me why ranking Non-Conf AdjEM would be "dubious at best and awful at worst"? It's not - there are just some people who refuse to accept stats they don't like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 11:02:19 GMT -5
Haven’t we beaten this dead horse enough? I want to hear about the upcoming schedule. Are you new here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2018 11:57:18 GMT -5
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on May 14, 2018 12:21:07 GMT -5
If above reports are true, UCONN really misses the BIG EAST. I know that's not "breaking news". Could be the opening salvo of trying to officially return when the conferences current TV deal expires to enhance negotiating position? I don't think the conference needs UCONN but if it brings more money to conference...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2018 0:45:56 GMT -5
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on May 15, 2018 8:22:30 GMT -5
Appears that Rothestein is a little late to the party ... I hadn't been paying attention, but maybe the full matchups were just announced as opposed to just Georgetown's matchup. — Michigan at Villanova — Wisconsin at Xavier — Georgetown at Illinois — Ohio State at Creighton — St. John’s at Rutgers — Seton Hall at Nebraska — Marquette at Indiana — Penn State at DePaul Butler and Providence have the year off, which is interesting because Butler will have only participated 2 of the 4 years. Creighton, DePaul, and St. John's have participated all 4 years, while all of the other teams (besides Butler) have participated in 3 of the 4 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2018 9:35:08 GMT -5
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,305
|
Post by tashoya on May 15, 2018 9:39:00 GMT -5
Rot with it, UConn.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on May 15, 2018 14:29:32 GMT -5
Appears that Rothestein is a little late to the party ... I hadn't been paying attention, but maybe the full matchups were just announced as opposed to just Georgetown's matchup. — Michigan at Villanova — Wisconsin at Xavier — Georgetown at Illinois — Ohio State at Creighton — St. John’s at Rutgers — Seton Hall at Nebraska — Marquette at Indiana — Penn State at DePaul Butler and Providence have the year off, which is interesting because Butler will have only participated 2 of the 4 years. Creighton, DePaul, and St. John's have participated all 4 years, while all of the other teams (besides Butler) have participated in 3 of the 4 years. Georgetown-Illinois on Tuesday November 13 Also interesting is that Michigan State hasn't participated yet, so they must be locked into the last 4 years of the 8 year agreement.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,308
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on May 15, 2018 15:05:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on May 15, 2018 15:14:01 GMT -5
We are 1-4 against Illinois all time? Now is as good of a time to get that record back in our favor.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on May 16, 2018 6:41:53 GMT -5
You are equating "least competitive" with "worst" and also doing so based upon statistics that are dubious at best and awful at worst. Obviously it was not a competitive schedule and was not designed to be so, but that does not mean it was one of the worst ever- far from it. Show me a team with an awful OOC record, and I will show you a team whose OOC schedule, for all practical purposes, likely was worse than ours last year. I want to see each Hoya team play the games that are good for that team, and I will always defer to the coach on that. Can someone explain to me why ranking Non-Conf AdjEM would be "dubious at best and awful at worst"? The stats saying our 2017-2018 was historically bad weren't cherrypicked. They were direct from Pomeroy. Georgetown finished 351 / 351 in NCSOS AdjEM this year with a -17.81. 2005/2006 Baylor were the only worse teams in Pomeroy's dataset which goes back to 2002, and that was due to the Patrick Dennehy murder. All of these statistics are absurd and inherently flawed because they assume that you can make meaningful distinctions between totally non-competitive teams. In reality, from the standpoint of a competitive team, there is no difference- zero- in playing a team supposedly ranked 250 and another ranked 350. If you win, there is no real upside from a rankings standpoint, other than a simple "W." If you lose, it is a horrible loss- period. These stats try to nitpick in that range and therefore are very misleading. Who the heck cares whether your cupcake games (which every decent team should have) are against bad teams or bad bad bad teams? Each team has a handful of meaningful OOC games each year. The rest are fluff. These stats would largely negate, say, a meaningful win against Syracuse because two of our cupcake wins versus Roanoke State and Southeast Toledo A&T were against horrible teams. The numbers would have been sooo much better if we had beaten Northeast Nebraska Tech, which had a rating of 209 (which still means they were awful). But what really matters is, did we beat Syracuse? Thus, these stats are not meaningful to me.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,713
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on May 16, 2018 7:45:37 GMT -5
Can someone explain to me why ranking Non-Conf AdjEM would be "dubious at best and awful at worst"? The stats saying our 2017-2018 was historically bad weren't cherrypicked. They were direct from Pomeroy. Georgetown finished 351 / 351 in NCSOS AdjEM this year with a -17.81. 2005/2006 Baylor were the only worse teams in Pomeroy's dataset which goes back to 2002, and that was due to the Patrick Dennehy murder. All of these statistics are absurd and inherently flawed because they assume that you can make meaningful distinctions between totally non-competitive teams. In reality, from the standpoint of a competitive team, there is no difference- zero- in playing a team supposedly ranked 250 and another ranked 350. If you win, there is no real upside from a rankings standpoint, other than a simple "W." If you lose, it is a horrible loss- period. These stats try to nitpick in that range and therefore are very misleading. Who the heck cares whether your cupcake games (which every decent team should have) are against bad teams or bad bad bad teams? Each team has a handful of meaningful OOC games each year. The rest are fluff. These stats would largely negate, say, a meaningful win against Syracuse because two of our cupcake wins versus Roanoke State and Southeast Toledo A&T were against horrible teams. The numbers would have been sooo much better if we had beaten Northeast Nebraska Tech, which had a rating of 209 (which still means they were awful). But what really matters is, did we beat Syracuse? Thus, these stats are not meaningful to me. But they are meaningful to the selection committee..
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on May 16, 2018 8:02:22 GMT -5
Which is insane as well, and a large part of why the NCAA is going in the wrong direction. I have been saying for well over a decade that RPI and similar stats are garbage...perhaps since the Hoyas were screwed in 2002.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 16, 2018 11:30:19 GMT -5
All of these statistics are absurd and inherently flawed because they assume that you can make meaningful distinctions between totally non-competitive teams. In reality, from the standpoint of a competitive team, there is no difference- zero- in playing a team supposedly ranked 250 and another ranked 350. If you win, there is no real upside from a rankings standpoint, other than a simple "W." If you lose, it is a horrible loss- period. These stats try to nitpick in that range and therefore are very misleading. Who the heck cares whether your cupcake games (which every decent team should have) are against bad teams or bad bad bad teams? Each team has a handful of meaningful OOC games each year. The rest are fluff. These stats would largely negate, say, a meaningful win against Syracuse because two of our cupcake wins versus Roanoke State and Southeast Toledo A&T were against horrible teams. The numbers would have been sooo much better if we had beaten Northeast Nebraska Tech, which had a rating of 209 (which still means they were awful). But what really matters is, did we beat Syracuse? Thus, these stats are not meaningful to me. I disagree that there is zero difference in playing a team ranked, let's say 250, versus 350. Why? The quality of a 250 team is actually way higher than the 100 spots would make it appear. There is a huge drop down in quality at the very bottom of barrel. You don't need stats to see that. Even under JT3, we played teams in the 175-250ish range pretty frequently, and just using an eyeball test (no stats), those types of teams are significantly better than most of the OOC teams we played last year. The games were totally noncompetitive, the players frequently took their foot off the pedal, and the games weren't fun to watch. I cannot imagine those games are much fun to play in, either. So even from a non-stat perspective, I don't want those games. It is often said that one of Ewing's best qualities is that he's competitive, he wants to recruit guys with high motors, etc. Which is great. But does anybody seriously think that athletes with that type of mentality just want to beat up on other bad teams? Shouldn't we be seeking opponents who can at least put up some mediocre level of competition? As EtomicB said, the NCAA selection committee cares. And most of the best high-major teams schedule with these things in mind because their goal is to make the NCAA tournament (which should be our goal, too). Whether you like the system or not, these things matter, and as a fan, I want Ewing and the staff to take full advantage of the system. In this case, that means not scheduling the very worst teams. Given that there are 351 NCAA teams, any selection committee trying to condense that down into a smaller set of at-large bids needs to rely on statistics of some sort. There's simply no other way to compare so many teams. So even if you didn't use RPI and Strength of Schedule, you'd have to use something else beyond eye-balling it. EDIT: I didn't see it before I posted, but Larry made a lot of the same points above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2018 11:39:33 GMT -5
It was only his first year.... But it never ended...
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 16, 2018 11:45:11 GMT -5
The very worst teams in D1 are considerably worse than the next level of bad teams. To amplify this fact, in all of MEAC last year, one team had a single top 200 win. No top 100 wins. In all of SWAC, there were only three top 200 wins (beating #101, #119, #199). No top 100 wins. There are 32 conferences. KenPom ranked SWAC and MEAC as the two worst (31st and 32nd). But, if you go up slightly, to the Big South Conference (26 of 32, so still really bad), you have multiple teams with top 100 wins. It underscores how much worse the very bottom is, even compared to other bad conferences. And yes, it looks Ewing isn't going to schedule this way next year (at least to the same extent), and that's a good thing. The Illinois game, especially given that it's an away game, is a nice Gavitt draw. A winnable game on the road helps a lot.
|
|
TrueHoyaBlue
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,855
Member is Online
|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on May 16, 2018 14:50:31 GMT -5
Looking forward to
- Slight improvement at the top of the schedule: @cuse/@illinois/Richmond versus Cuse/@richmond/North Texas - Significant improvement in the middle of the schedule: 3 tbd games in the Jamaica Classic should be better than NC A&T/MSM/Maine - Slight to significant improvement at the bottom of the schedule: maybe more games against Ivy/Patriot-level teams vs. all MEAC/SWAC. (Or if we play MEAC/SWAC, more teams near the top of those conferences)
Just based on those changes, and pending how things turn out, we could go from #351 in OOC strength to around the #200-250 range, which would be plenty to keep us in good shape for postseason play, if we performed well enough. By comparison, Florida State ranked #330 in NCSOS according to KenPom, Kansas State was #324, Loyola Chicago was #315 (though it's not entirely clear if they'd have made it in as an at-large), Texas Tech was #309.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on May 16, 2018 15:09:20 GMT -5
The very worst teams in D1 are considerably worse than the next level of bad teams. To amplify this fact, in all of MEAC last year, one team had a single top 200 win. No top 100 wins. In all of SWAC, there were only three top 200 wins (beating #101, #119, #199). No top 100 wins. There are 32 conferences. KenPom ranked SWAC and MEAC as the two worst (31st and 32nd). But, if you go up slightly, to the Big South Conference (26 of 32, so still really bad), you have multiple teams with top 100 wins. It underscores how much worse the very bottom is, even compared to other bad conferences. And yes, it looks Ewing isn't going to schedule this way next year (at least to the same extent), and that's a good thing. The Illinois game, especially given that it's an away game, is a nice Gavitt draw. A winnable game on the road helps a lot. I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with this sentiment. In regard to tournament selection, who cares if you beat a team that has teams in their conference, that once in a while, on their best day, knock off a top 100 team or (GASP) a lower/ middle level tournament team? That win STILL is a win versus a markedly non-competitive team. In terms of tie-breakers, this is the asterisk on the asterisk. Unless teams are otherwise dead even, which is a rarity, ANY other factor should be weighed above the totality of all games versus non-competitive teams, taken together. For example: was your best win against a top fifteen team, or a top thirty team? That should matter waaaaay more than seven wins versus teams with an average ranking of 198 or 332. All of those non-competitive games should be a complete wash. The lesson should be: schedule games against NCAA-level teams, or teams within shouting distance thereof, or those games will either be a plain and simple "W" or an AWFUL loss.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2018 15:13:51 GMT -5
To amplify this fact, in all of MEAC last year, one team had a single top 200 win. No top 100 wins. In all of SWAC, there were only three top 200 wins (beating #101, #119, #199). No top 100 wins. There are 32 conferences. KenPom ranked SWAC and MEAC as the two worst (31st and 32nd). But, if you go up slightly, to the Big South Conference (26 of 32, so still really bad), you have multiple teams with top 100 wins. It underscores how much worse the very bottom is, even compared to other bad conferences. And yes, it looks Ewing isn't going to schedule this way next year (at least to the same extent), and that's a good thing. The Illinois game, especially given that it's an away game, is a nice Gavitt draw. A winnable game on the road helps a lot. In regard to tournament selection, who cares if you beat a team that has teams in their conference, that once in a while, on their best day, knock off a top 100 team or (GASP) a lower/ middle level tournament team? The tournament selection committee cares.
|
|