2019-20 National Rankings

[Dan]

I think BPI adjust strength of schedule for injuries. This year WSU seems to catch teams without a player or two....

how many teams caught us without a player or 2? Jamie missed a bunch of ga,Es, Jamarius missed a couple, and our pre-season all conf player missed several.. These guys aren’t chump change.

[wichshock65]

Sorry Kel. Your argument lost steam for TWO reasons.
First you say that Newell putting all of his eggs in the KenPom basket has merit. The KP is not gospel and any educated statistitian realizes that and looks at more than KP.
Secondly, KU getting beat up (not close) on their own home court in the past several days is as good a head to head current statistical comparison (again at Allen FH) as you can get. Your arguments aren’t good but nice try.

Here it is, straight from the horse's ass..... sorry, mouth.

[Dan]

hmm, wonder how many national titles he doesn't recognize because the winning team wasn't analytically superior

[JVShocker]

Here it is, straight from the horse's ass..... sorry, mouth.

Impractical Jokers. Murr and Joe work in a pawn shop. Woman walks in with a crappy piece of jewelry and Murr IMMEDIATELY offers $4000 cash.

The woman just bust out laughing.

Joe: "No man, you gotta read the manual."

Murr takes a look at it again. Apologizes. No ma'am, you're right. $5000.

Woman looks at Murr and says "You Stoopid."

Joe says "yeah, you stoopid."

[Kel Varnsen]

Here it is, straight from the horse's ass..... sorry, mouth.

He's absolutely correct. If two teams have each played 1100 possessions in a season, and Team A is better than Team B over those 1100 possessions, but loses to Team B in a game that lasted 75 possessions, Team A is still better.

[Kel Varnsen]

hmm, wonder how many national titles he doesn't recognize because winning team one team wasn't analytically superior

This isn't difficult. The tournament exists to determine a champion. It does not exist to find the best team. A team can win the title without being the best team.

[wichshock65]

It's time to quit keeping score. Besides, the loser feels bad.

6853GOM.jpg

[ShockerFever]

This isn't difficult. The tournament exists to determine a champion. It does not exist to find the best team. A team can win the title without being the best team.

We have to determine something in a finite amount of games (roughly 30-40). If head-to-head doesn't matter, then wtf is the freaking point? Where does it end? What if Baylor sweeps KU? What if they win a conference tournament final over them? What if Baylor beats them in the elite 8? What if Baylor goes 4-0 against KU this year but the metrics still say KU "is better"?

I think it's just asinine to vote that way. A lot of the ranking and metric systems have a built-in bias from the beginning anyways and it's only at the end of the season where that basically is gone. This isn't the NBA. These things don't go to 7-game series. This is college basketball. If you wanna prove that you're better, then BEAT the team you need to beat (ESPECIALLY AT HOME WHERE YOU GET AN ASTRONOMICALLY BETTER WHISTLE) in the game that you play. If you're better, win the game. It's that simple.

[WuShock Reaper]

Here it is, straight from the horse's ass..... sorry, mouth.

I hope he shows up in Gary Parrish's "Poll Attacks" this week.

[wichshock65]

IMG_20200114_101718.jpg

[Cdizzle]

Vegas is not a great way to determine who is best either. Dumbass.

I agree that perhaps we should just cancel the seasons. Just let KenPom crown a champ for us.

And I say this as a big kenPom fan.

[ShockCrazy]

Not every person who puts us low is a bad person or making an attack against WSU. There are objective reasons we could be as low as Newell put us. It's a freaking AP ballot it means nothing, in a poll that means nothing. People need to chill.

[Cdizzle]

Polls. Don't. Mean. Nothing.

I mean, it does in the way that it's sports and sports don't really mean anything. But being ranked, and where you are ranked matters.

[Kel Varnsen]

We have to determine something in a finite amount of games (roughly 30-40). If head-to-head doesn't matter, then wtf is the freaking point? Where does it end? What if Baylor sweeps KU? What if they win a conference tournament final over them? What if Baylor beats them in the elite 8? What if Baylor goes 4-0 against KU this year but the metrics still say KU "is better"?

I think it's just asinine to vote that way. A lot of the ranking and metric systems have a built-in bias from the beginning anyways and it's only at the end of the season where that basically is gone. This isn't the NBA. These things don't go to 7-game series. This is college basketball. If you wanna prove that you're better, then BEAT the team you need to beat (ESPECIALLY AT HOME WHERE YOU GET AN ASTRONOMICALLY BETTER WHISTLE) in the game that you play. If you're better, win the game. It's that simple.

I agree with you when we're talking about accomplishment, or descriptive metrics. If we're talking about accomplishment, then yes, Baylor has the best set of wins and losses in the country based on who they've beaten, and we're top ten in that regard. I'm all for having seeding in the NCAA tournament reflect that. But there's a difference between looking at what a team has accomplished (wins and losses) and looking at how good they are (efficiency adjusted for opponent/location). Wins and losses tell part of the story, but they don't have the ability to tell us how a team got to that record. Are they blowing teams out or scraping by with a bunch of single-digit wins? Are they playing good teams, middle-of-the-road teams, or bad teams?

[jdmee]

Well since head to head is the only thing that matters, then we should just have teams stop playing as soon as they lose. I mean Evansville has to be better than Kentucky this year. Why is Kentucky even playing the rest of the season?

When all things are equal, yes, head to head should mean something. But it is not the end all be all that people are making it out to be.