2019-20 National Rankings

[Kel Varnsen]

Maybe one of you know the answer, but I simply don't know. Does the NCAA selection committee rely upon KP or the net for purpose of selection and seeding?

NET, but there’s a difference between predictive and descriptive metrics.

Which means we can have reasonably differing opinions on how to rank teams, and it’s not entirely based on one or the other.

[WuShock Reaper]

Have you looked at the industry standard metrics I just mentioned?

So is Jesse Newell's ballot a metric or an opinion?

[Kel Varnsen]

lol .. so now just trying to pick and choose your metrics to fit your point. Gotcha. You can admit defeat. He's a homer and its a homer vote. 64 of the 65 AP voters (and the majority of metrics) agree with my view point

Nope, just saying that the rating system (KP) which rated us so high during the Valley years can also have value here and not be unreasonable to use as a source for rankings.

[Stickboy46]

Nope, just saying that the rating system (KP) which rated us so high during the Valley years can also have value here and not be unreasonable to use as a source for rankings.

It's unreasonable to use the one outlier while ignoring the other 5-6 data points that go the other way. And extremely convenient that it's a KU that chooses to do that.

[Kel Varnsen]

So is Jesse Newell's ballot a metric or an opinion?

Probably a combination of both, but neither of which (with respect to WSU, which is the only thing I care about) seems to be far outside the realm of being reasonable.

[Stickboy46]

Main one is NET. That drives the team sheets (i.e. its how they are sorted for Quandrants). It's far and away the most important one. There is a small section dedicated to other rankings, KP, Sagarin, KPI and a couple other (i think 6 total) are listed.

Looked it up the 6 on the team sheets are:

NET - 9
KPI - 11
SOR - 10
BPI - 36
KP - 25
SAG - 17

BPI has always been an outlier, but even if you include KP and BPI, the average ranking of those 6 is .... 18 ... So no not fringe Top 25. It falls in line with the view points of 64 of the 65 voters. Just not the KU fanboy that happens to have an AP vote

[Kel Varnsen]

It's unreasonable to use the one outlier while ignoring the other 5-6 data points that go the other way. And extremely convenient that it's a KU that chooses to do that.

And yet he’s using an industry standard metric that we would flaunt if we were rated highly in it compared to other metrics.

My whole point is that it’s not unreasonable at all to have us in the position he did given what we have done so far.

[Stickboy46]

And yet he’s using an industry standard metric that we would flaunt if we were rated highly in it compared to other metrics.

My whole point is that it’s not unreasonable at all to have us in the position he did given what we have done so far.

Well your point is wrong. That's my point. I provided the data to back it up.

[Cdizzle]

And yet he’s using an industry standard metric that we would flaunt if we were rated highly in it compared to other metrics.

My whole point is that it’s not unreasonable at all to have us in the position he did given what we have done so far.

Careful now. You started defending him because:

“I base my AP poll vote on best teams, not best résumés.”

Then you switched to try to defend him based on resume.

Each is wrong. Both is way wrong.

[AZ Shocker]

So is Jesse Newell's ballot a metric or an opinion?

I would venture to suggest that if he is the only voter that did NOT have us at #19 or higher AND is an obvious homer...then there (he) is your true outliner.

[Kel Varnsen]

Looked it up the 6 on the team sheets are:

NET - 9
KPI - 11
SOR - 10
BPI - 36
KP - 25
SAG - 17

BPI has always been an outlier, but even if you include KP and BPI, the average ranking of those 6 is .... 18 ... So no not fringe Top 25. It falls in line with the view points of 64 of the 65 voters. Just not the KU fanboy that happens to have an AP vote

Your bottom three you use in this post are all predictive metrics. NET and SOR are undoubtedly descriptive metrics.

Again, I think it’s fine to use predictive metrics, descriptive metrics, or a hybrid method to determine rankings.

I just don’t get how it’s insane or biased to have us listed HIGHER than KenPom has us.

[Kel Varnsen]

Careful now. You started defending him because:

“I base my AP poll vote on best teams, not best résumés.”

Then you switched to try to defend him based on resume.

Each is wrong. Both is way wrong.

I’ll modify that to say “given our efficiency so far.” Happy?

Even then, our resume is better than our efficiency. Which seems to be his basis.

[Stickboy46]

Your bottom three you use in this post are all predictive metrics. NET and SOR are undoubtedly descriptive metrics.

Again, I think it’s fine to use predictive metrics, descriptive metrics, or a hybrid method to determine rankings.

I just don’t get how it’s insane or biased to have us listed HIGHER than KenPom has us.

Why just KenPom though? Why are you cherry picking that? You mention industry standard... you can't get much more industry standard than the 6 that are listed on the official NCAA team sheets that are used to sort and rank teams for the tournament.

[WuShock Reaper]

Probably a combination of both, but neither of which (with respect to WSU, which is the only thing I care about) seems to be far outside the realm of being reasonable.

But as a descriptive metric his opinion sucks. Had the ballot been released prior to, let us say the Baylor at Kansas game, and to say Kansas was the better team that is fine and a lot people would agree whether using a predictive or descriptive metric model. However, to imply after watching the game that Baylor is the inferior team fails to acknowledge what just happened on Saturday. plus you have the metric of:

67 - 55.

[Kel Varnsen]

Why just KenPom though? Why are you cherry picking that? You mention industry standard... you can't get much more industry standard than the 6 that are listed on the official NCAA team sheets that are used to sort and rank teams for the tournament.

Just because the NCAA uses them doesn’t mean they are good.