2019-20 Games of Interest

[Stickboy46]

I guess I didn't read all the discussions, just saw some of the posts. To me, a lot of it comes down to how you define 'one of the best.' Top 5? Top 25? Top 36?

Definitely not in the first. Definitely in the other two.

The OU/OSU thing is an example. Replace with whatever conference bottom-dwellars you like. Beating teams like that is how leagues like B10/B12/ACC get 8 teams in the tourney.

Top 20-25 is what I was quoting. That's top 5-6% of college basketball... Which qualifies as one of the best to me.

[ShockerFever]

I guess I didn't read all the discussions, just saw some of the posts. To me, a lot of it comes down to how you define 'one of the best.' Top 5? Top 25? Top 36?

Definitely not in the first. Definitely in the other two.

I'd say Top 25 is fair.

Definitely in the Top 25? Definitely? How the hell do you come to that conclusion? Are you evaluating the entire resume or just the 4 Q2 wins? We played 1 freaking road game. I thought everybody gutted Syracuse for pulling that kinda stuff. Our non con SOS is 96. Sure we performed well in it but 93% of our games were at home against teams that are closer to being NIT teams than NCAA teams.

I'm sure the next response will be "then why don't you pull up 25 resumes that are better." In which I guess I'll respond with "then why don't you pull up the 325 resumes we can beat."

[Cdizzle]

I'd say Top 25 is fair.

I'd say it's easier to just agree to agree.

I had looked at the data very closely back at the turn of the year. Our resume was Top 10 at that point. It has admittedly lost some of its luster since then, though that could also go back the other way.

Anyway. Silly argument. I think we're all pretty closely in agreement. I think we could all also agree that it's frustrating to watch our non-con take a downturn late in the year when we thought it was gonna be great. Counter-point, it looks like that a lot more when WSU is a loss for those teams and not a win.

[Shockm]

We played 1 freaking road game. I thought everybody gutted Syracuse for pulling that kinda stuff."

Actually, Syracuse never went away from home and even refused to enter neutral site tournaments.

[JVShocker]

12 teams in the top 50 of the NET Rankings. 5 in the top 25 NET Rankings. That's not overrated my friend.

Looking at current NET rankings these are all top 25?
Michigan State
Rutgers
Creighton
Iowa
Ohio State
Maryland
Colorado
Stanford
And Arizona is #10???? WTF??
Wisconsin #31?????

[ShockerFever]

Looking at current NET rankings these are all top 25?
Michigan State
Rutgers
Creighton
Iowa
Ohio State
Maryland
Colorado
Stanford
And Arizona is #10???? WTF??
Wisconsin #31?????

But the NET is the end all - be all.


lol

[ShauXTyme]

Anybody ever come across that little, annoying rat terrier who grabs onto your pant leg, and as many times as you shake or kick it off, it just won’t let go????

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

I am not trying to be a part of this little d!ck measuring contest. I am just saying that the Big Ten is not necessarily overrated. It is a strong conference. Carry on...

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

Oh and Fev, I gave up on trying to figure out who was "best" a long time ago.

[molly jabali]

I am not trying to be a part of this little d!ck measuring contest. I am just saying that the Big Ten is not necessarily overrated. It is a strong conference. Carry on...

Agreed

[ABC]

The Big Ten is far and away the best conference overall. Very deep.

[WstateU]

I am not trying to be a part of this little d!ck measuring contest. I am just saying that the Big Ten is not necessarily overrated. It is a strong conference. Carry on...

[ShockerFever]

Anybody ever come across that little, annoying rat terrier who grabs onto your pant leg, and as many times as you shake or kick it off, it just won’t let go????

And then it pissed all over you and you had to run around with your pants off all day?

[ShockerFever]

I am not trying to be a part of this little d!ck measuring contest. I am just saying that the Big Ten is not necessarily overrated. It is a strong conference. Carry on...

I’m not saying it’s chopped liver but it also ain’t worth 75% of its 16 teams dancing either.

You’re falling right into the hands of 16-team mega conferences who want 75% of their schedule comprised of playing themselves and then calling everybody good when everybody beats everybody in it.

[Kel Varnsen]

I’m not saying it’s chopped liver but it also ain’t worth 75% of its 16 teams dancing either.

You’re falling right into the hands of 16-team mega conferences who want 75% of their schedule comprised of playing themselves and then calling everybody good when everybody beats everybody in it.

I agree with the bold part of this post. Unfortunately, I see a lot of this NET stuff starting to go the way of the RPI. It's now not enough to measure teams based on their NET ranking, but we have to parse through every Q1-4 opportunity as if playing the #1 and #49 teams are equal, and as if playing the #51 and #99 teams are equal. It allows anyone to make almost any case they want.

I do like the Wins Above Bubble metric because it removes the biases that come into play with situations like I mentioned above. It measures the expected amount of wins (xW) of a bubble team against the schedule a team plays, then subtracts that from the actual wins (aW) to get the Wins Above the Bubble (WAB). If a team plays a tougher schedule, they will have fewer expected wins, and the inverse goes for an easier schedule.

aW - xW = WAB

This method minimizes bias, and is much better than putting it in the hands of humans who can literally make a case for whatever team they would like. Unfortunately, every person on the committee (and every human ever) has a bias. I'm fine with taking that out of play as much as possible. If that means 11 of 14 Big Ten teams get in, so be it.

I don't think the selection process should punish teams one way or the other for playing in a good or bad conference. The "eliminating teams with a conference record below .500" can only hurt teams in power conferences.