|
Post by hoyalove4ever on May 16, 2018 16:05:34 GMT -5
True- which is sad and illogical.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,853
|
Post by EtomicB on May 16, 2018 18:25:05 GMT -5
True- which is sad and illogical. So explain to us how you would go about choosing tourney teams with very similar records? What specific criteria would you use?
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,197
|
Post by hoyarooter on May 16, 2018 19:18:23 GMT -5
True- which is sad and illogical. So explain to us how you would go about choosing tourney teams with very similar records? What specific criteria would you use? Coin flips? Rock-paper-scissors?
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,852
|
Post by CTHoya08 on May 17, 2018 6:59:00 GMT -5
Maybe it is a dumb way to differentiate between teams. But as long as it's the system in place, we need to position ourselves to benefit from it. Your argument seems to be "the rules are dumb, so we should ignore them and play by the rules that we like better." Really worked for JTIII's defensive schemes in the last few years, right?
The NCAA committee is not going to wake up one day and say: "Look at Georgetown. That's a really great team with a terrible SOS and computer rankings. I know that we told everyone that SOS and computer rankings matter, but damned if the Hoyas aren't a team that we want in the tournament. Let's change the rules that every other team has taken into account while planning its season, because this one team was 'brave' enough to schedule a bunch of MEAC teams to prove us wrong."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 7:17:47 GMT -5
Should we change the title to 2017-2018 schedule?
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on May 17, 2018 10:02:53 GMT -5
True- which is sad and illogical. So explain to us how you would go about choosing tourney teams with very similar records? What specific criteria would you use? Very easy- I look at the quality of the meaningful wins first, then make some adjustment for bad loss. It is a simple formula that was used for decades before everything became computer-driven. So for example, I do not really care if your RPI is 29 or 47. If the team with RPI 47 had more meaningful wins, and was roughly even on bad loss, they get in easily over a team whose RPI was inflated by the caliber of its wins in games that do not really matter. I have * ZERO * sympathy from teams that say, in our conference it is too hard to get those wins. Go play Nova or Kentucky, etc., and WIN. If your conference is not very good- newsflash- you need to beat some people to change that perception, and until then, you may not get the games you want. Or, go 15-1 in your crappy conference and win the conference tournament.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on May 17, 2018 10:04:20 GMT -5
Maybe it is a dumb way to differentiate between teams. But as long as it's the system in place, we need to position ourselves to benefit from it. Your argument seems to be "the rules are dumb, so we should ignore them and play by the rules that we like better." Really worked for JTIII's defensive schemes in the last few years, right? The NCAA committee is not going to wake up one day and say: "Look at Georgetown. That's a really great team with a terrible SOS and computer rankings. I know that we told everyone that SOS and computer rankings matter, but damned if the Hoyas aren't a team that we want in the tournament. Let's change the rules that every other team has taken into account while planning its season, because this one team was 'brave' enough to schedule a bunch of MEAC teams to prove us wrong." I say that Coach Ewing should do things his way, and as a fan I will back him up on that, regardless of how it affects NCAA selection (or lack thereof).
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,853
|
Post by EtomicB on May 17, 2018 10:26:19 GMT -5
So explain to us how you would go about choosing tourney teams with very similar records? What specific criteria would you use? Very easy- I look at the quality of the meaningful wins first, then make some adjustment for bad loss. It is a simple formula that was used for decades before everything became computer-driven. So for example, I do not really care if your RPI is 29 or 47. If the team with RPI 47 had more meaningful wins, and was roughly even on bad loss, they get in easily over a team whose RPI was inflated by the caliber of its wins in games that do not really matter. I have * ZERO * sympathy from teams that say, in our conference it is too hard to get those wins. Go play Nova or Kentucky, etc., and WIN. If your conference is not very good- newsflash- you need to beat some people to change that perception, and until then, you may not get the games you want. Or, go 15-1 in your crappy conference and win the conference tournament. What specifically are a "meaningful" win and a bad loss? Also, how are you determining what games matter during the season?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 11:38:27 GMT -5
Very easy- I look at the quality of the meaningful wins first, then make some adjustment for bad loss. It is a simple formula that was used for decades before everything became computer-driven. So for example, I do not really care if your RPI is 29 or 47. If the team with RPI 47 had more meaningful wins, and was roughly even on bad loss, they get in easily over a team whose RPI was inflated by the caliber of its wins in games that do not really matter. I have * ZERO * sympathy from teams that say, in our conference it is too hard to get those wins. Go play Nova or Kentucky, etc., and WIN. If your conference is not very good- newsflash- you need to beat some people to change that perception, and until then, you may not get the games you want. Or, go 15-1 in your crappy conference and win the conference tournament. What specifically are a "meaningful" win and a bad loss? Also, how are you determining what games matter during the season? If only there were some data or metrics to help clarify this...
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,852
|
Post by CTHoya08 on May 17, 2018 12:01:08 GMT -5
Maybe it is a dumb way to differentiate between teams. But as long as it's the system in place, we need to position ourselves to benefit from it. Your argument seems to be "the rules are dumb, so we should ignore them and play by the rules that we like better." Really worked for JTIII's defensive schemes in the last few years, right? The NCAA committee is not going to wake up one day and say: "Look at Georgetown. That's a really great team with a terrible SOS and computer rankings. I know that we told everyone that SOS and computer rankings matter, but damned if the Hoyas aren't a team that we want in the tournament. Let's change the rules that every other team has taken into account while planning its season, because this one team was 'brave' enough to schedule a bunch of MEAC teams to prove us wrong." I say that Coach Ewing should do things his way, and as a fan I will back him up on that, regardless of how it affects NCAA selection (or lack thereof). It's great that you support Coach Ewing. I think most of us also support the Georgetown Hoyas. Coach Ewing should do what is best for the latter.
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on May 17, 2018 12:20:41 GMT -5
I say that Coach Ewing should do things his way, and as a fan I will back him up on that, regardless of how it affects NCAA selection (or lack thereof). It's great that you support Coach Ewing. I think most of us also support the Georgetown Hoyas. Coach Ewing should do what is best for the latter. So far so good, on that count!
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on May 17, 2018 12:43:54 GMT -5
I say that Coach Ewing should do things his way, and as a fan I will back him up on that, regardless of how it affects NCAA selection (or lack thereof). It's great that you support Coach Ewing. I think most of us also support the Georgetown Hoyas. Coach Ewing should do what is best for the latter. I suspect he is in a better position to determine that than we are. Although obviously many here think not.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on May 17, 2018 13:10:55 GMT -5
A "meaningful" win is a win against a team that is in the NCAAs or in close contention for the NCAAs.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on May 17, 2018 13:15:40 GMT -5
So, what, sixty-eight teams are in the tournament? And some of those teams are not exactly world-beaters. For a team ranked around 175, there are over 100 teams between the tournament and that team. That is not a competitive team. Who cares whether you beat a team like that, or a team ranked 275 (or worse)?
What I want to know is did they beat anyone good. For all of their other games, it is just either bad losses or simple, and relatively unimportant, wins, whether against Maine, UC Santa Barbara, or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 17, 2018 13:52:59 GMT -5
hoyalove4ever, I think some of the disconnect may be that you're looking at it as an either/or type situation.
For example, if you're in a good conference, and you win 12 games, you'll likely be an NCAA team regardless of your schedule - it will affect your seeding, for sure, but a team with a lot of "good wins" is going to make it. Similarly, teams without any good wins or with a ton of bad losses aren't going to make it. And if you have a losing record, and a ton of losses and/or bad losses, you won't make it. That's clear.
The top 20 teams, or so, are going to be pretty obvious by the end of the season. But, it gets tougher when you get closer to the bubble. At that point, you have a lot of teams with: (a) few, if any, very good wins, and (b) a fair amount of losses, maybe even a bad loss. At that point, it's not just a matter of comparing very good wins, and punishing bad losses. There's a big fuzzy ground in the middle - at that point, it absolutely should matter whether you beat teams in the 100-200 range (or even low top 100), versus beating teams ranked 300-350.
I also support Coach Ewing, and I want him and the team to succeed as quickly as possible. Following your strategy doesn't achieve either of those goals.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 17, 2018 13:55:57 GMT -5
A "meaningful" win is a win against a team that is in the NCAAs or in close contention for the NCAAs. This is circular. You were asked how to determine what teams are NCAA-worthy, and your answer is that a meaningful win is a win against teams in the tournament (or in close contention). Without using wins, losses, and other meaningful stats, there's simply no fair way to determine what teams should or should not be in the NCAA tournament.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on May 17, 2018 14:23:40 GMT -5
Funny...it seems that there was a NCAA tournament before any of these computer rankings?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 14:25:31 GMT -5
I can't get enough of this. I hope we play 7 300+ ranked teams out of conference again this year.
1-2-3 scheduleballs
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on May 17, 2018 14:25:36 GMT -5
Also, I never have pushed for scheduling bad teams- what I have said is if the coaches choose to do so, there must be a reason, and it is okay with me. The level of adherence to these inane computer rankings is shocking to me.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,853
|
Post by EtomicB on May 17, 2018 14:56:10 GMT -5
Also, I never have pushed for scheduling bad teams- what I have said is if the coaches choose to do so, there must be a reason, and it is okay with me. The level of adherence to these inane computer rankings is shocking to me. A little history on the selection process.. These inane stats have been used for decades now in one form or another.. fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ncaa-is-modernizing-the-way-it-picks-march-madness-teams/For 40 years, the selection process relied way too much on strength of schedule. Now the league is ready to rethink that system.
|
|