2019-20 National Rankings

[Shocker_Power]

We would be Vegas favorites over multiple teams that he put ahead of us ... so He's just trying to justify an incorrect position.

As all pollsters do!

[wichshock65]

Ok, just to better understand all this, if KU loses tonight at OU, how many spots should Newell increase his ballot for KU based on known metrics?

Asking for a friend. I'll hang up and listen.

[ShockingButTrue]

Anybody remember that Chicken fan that we all knew, and still do, who recited "It's great for the state when WSU and k-state are good..."

[bleednblackngold]

Ok, just to better understand all this, if KU loses tonight at OU, how many spots should Newell increase his ballot for KU based on known metrics?

Asking for a friend. I'll hang up and listen.

Winner!

[ShockingButTrue]

Ok, just to better understand all this, if KU loses tonight at OU, how many spots should Newell increase his ballot for KU based on known metrics?

Asking for a friend. I'll hang up and listen.

This is the most rational take of any so far... It fits the context. No?

[Stickboy46]

Lots of talk about metrics being excuses for losers. Boy were we losers in 2016 then. It's fascinating.

I don't think you understand what is being said.

Metrics are great for trying to understand which team is better than another IF THEY HAVEN"T PLAYED each other. Using metrics to justify a losing team as better than the winning team when the metrics are super close is using metrics as an excuse for losers.

In 2016, we weren't getting the opportunity to play the games. KU/Baylor happened this year. Baylor won, Baylor is the better team ... period.

[Stickboy46]

Ok, just to better understand all this, if KU loses tonight at OU, how many spots should Newell increase his ballot for KU based on known metrics?

Asking for a friend. I'll hang up and listen.

Hold on .. need to consult KenPom

[Jhook89]

Lots of talk about metrics being excuses for losers. Boy were we losers in 2016 then. It's fascinating.

Exactly. I find it a ridiculous that the same people that were yelling to look at the metrics when we were in the valley and our resume was essentially us beating up on terrible teams are now arguing the opposite because that argument doesn’t benefit the team any more.

[Topshock]

Disagree. Coaching and strategies exist for some reason. Is it to win, or to improve metrics? I believe they are linked. I guarantee you Marshall wanted to do what would most help his ranking last week. He has talked about it for a couple of weeks.

GM does not always do this. Rankings are helped by margin of victory and GM is very careful to not run the score up on people even if it hurts our metric rating.

[ShockerFever]

Again, it depends. If you're talking about rating teams' quality, it could mean the team that has more losses is the better team. They would not have a better resume, though.

Would I rather lose than win? Heck no. But I'm not talking about what I would rather do. I'm talking about how we evaluate teams, a completely different aspect. That keeps getting lost in this discussion.

Not sure I’d want any metrics out there rewarding pretty losing over ugly winning.

[ShockerFever]

Exactly. I find it a ridiculous that the same people that were yelling to look at the metrics when we were in the valley and our resume was essentially us beating up on terrible teams are now arguing the opposite because that argument doesn’t benefit the team any more.

I’ve never stated it’s all about metrics. In fact, I was quite the opposite. Injuries and eye test were my main factors and I thought we passed them.

And besides, we’re talking about poll rankings, not NCAA selection criteria.

Stop assuming ****.

[Cdizzle]

For those hating on my take on metric use, I would point out that I also called Palm an idiot and terrible at his job for having WSU a 2 seed a week ago, when the NCAA Selection Committee's own metric supported his position. It's OK to have nuance. Metrics can be really useful for comparing unknowns over significant gaps, and for evaluating HOW a team is doing things.

Since 2016 keeps being brought up, that's a good example where we're not talking about flip-flopping #2 and #3 in a poll. We're talking about a team rated as roughly the 10th best being treated as roughly the 45th best. That kind of disparity is also difficult to reconcile.

I find it interesting that some folks are against a FAN of a team wanting to have it both ways, but are for supposedly impartial evaluators having it both ways. Fans are irrational. It's in the name. When 'impartial' people are also irrational, don't hate the fan for calling them on it.

[Jhook89]

Not sure I’d want any metrics out there rewarding pretty losing over ugly winning.

How narrow-minded of you, but then again that is your MO. I think most would agree that a 1 point loss at a team such as Duke would be more indicative of that team being a quality basketball team over a 1 point win against Prairie View A&M.

[Cdizzle]

How narrow-minded of you, but then again that is your MO. I think most would agree that a 1 point loss at a team such as Duke would be more indicative of that team being a quality basketball team over a 1 point win against Prairie View A&M.

How about a 1 point win over Duke and a 1 point loss to TAMCC? Asking for a friend.

https://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Stephen+F.+Austin

[Kel Varnsen]

Not sure I’d want any metrics out there rewarding pretty losing over ugly winning.

But wouldn't A) losing to the #10 team in the country on the road by two points be a better indication of a team being good than B) beating the #200 team in the country at home by 10 points? If I'm trying to choose the better team between the team that did A and the team that did B (assuming those are the only data points we have), I'd go with team A every day of the week.