Breaking Down WSU's Resume

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I've had lots of side conversations in other threads about WSU's resume, so I figured I would start a new thread. I'm going to attempt to show the reasoning behind my current ranking of WSU. (See my blog for full seeding projections of the atlarge field)

WSU's resume:
RPI - 11
Pomeroy - 8
Sagarin - 10

Using RPI rankings
vs 001-025: 2-2
vs 026-050: 0-1
vs 051-100: 5-0
vs 101-200: 13-1
vs 201-345: 5-0

Finished #1 in 8th Best Conference
Last 10 games Performance - Excellent
Overall Road/Neutral Performance - Excellent

Comments:
Obviously, my rating of "excellent" is not a scientific measure of anything. It is simply meant to be a summary of what someone would conclude if they studied that category. My intention is to provide a concise description to allow for comparison with other teams.

I'm going to make some follow up posts comparing WSU's resume with other top teams around the country. At the moment, I believe there are 11 teams noticably ahead of WSU: Kentucky, Syracuse, Kansas, Michigan State, Duke, North Carolina, Missouri, Ohio State, Georgetown, Marquette, and Baylor. I'm going to skip these teams unless someone has a specific disagreement about one of them. For now, I'll assume that we can all agree they are ahead of WSU right now.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

#12 Overall - Michigan

After the 11 teams I mentioned in my previous post, next up in my rankings is Michigan. Here is their resume:

RPI - 15
Pomeroy - 25
Sagarin - 24
vs 001-025: 4-4
vs 026-050: 5-2
vs 051-100: 2-1
vs 101-200: 5-1
vs 201-345: 4-0
Currently T#2 in 1st Ranked Conference
Last 10 games Performance - Very Good
Overall Road/Neutral Performance - Poor

As you can see, Michigan's computer rankings aren't quite as good as WSU's, and their last 10 and road/neutral performances aren't quite as good either. However, 9-6 against the top 50 is very, very good. Those 9 wins include wins over Wisconsin, Michigan State, Indiana, and Ohio State, all more impressive than any wins WSU has. With only 1 loss outside the top 100, Michigan, like WSU, has very little in the negative category. I think categories such as road/neutral performance help WSU make up some of the gap, but I find it hard to draw any conclusion other than one with Michigan ahead of the Shox as of right now.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

#13 Overall - Wisconsin

RPI - 27
Pomeroy - 5
Sagarin - 8
vs 001-025: 3-6
vs 026-050: 3-0
vs 051-100: 2-0
vs 101-200: 9-2
vs 201-345: 4-0
Currently #5 in 1st Ranked Conference
Last 10 games Performance - Very Good
Overall Road/Neutral Performance - Very Good

The RPI doesn't love Wisconsin, but both Pomeroy and Sagarin have them in the top 10. There are very few teams in the country that have only 2 losses outside the RPI top 25, and Wisconsin is one of them. With a solid last 10 games and a solid road/neutral resume (wins @Ohio State & @Purdue), it is hard for me to find many categories where WSU has an edge. Wisconsin could easily lose a couple games and let the Shockers pass them by, but for now, I have Wisconsin in front.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

#14 Overall - Louisville

RPI - 20
Pomeroy - 27
Sagarin - 19
vs 001-025: 2-4
vs 026-050: 4-1
vs 051-100: 3-1
vs 101-200: 6-1
vs 201-345: 7-0
Currently T#6 in 2nd Ranked Conference
Last 10 games Performance - Excellent
Overall Road/Neutral Performance - Very Good

The computer numbers aren't super impressive for Louisville, but most everything else compares well with WSU. Louisville doesn't have any major black marks on their resume, and although I know they have played more games against the top 50 than WSU, it is just hard to imagine their 6-5 vs the top 50 not putting them ahead of WSU's 2-3. At this point, we are getting down to small differences, and WSU could easily pass Louisville in the next 2 weeks, but for now, I give Louisville the slight edge.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

#15 Overall - Indiana

RPI - 17
Pomeroy - 12
Sagarin - 11
vs 001-025: 3-3
vs 026-050: 3-1
vs 051-100: 3-1
vs 101-200: 7-2
vs 201-345: 6-0
Currently T#5 in 1st Ranked Conference
Last 10 games Performance - Excellent
Overall Road/Neutral Performance - Fair

Indiana actually has a similar profile to WSU. The main differences are that while WSU has a better road/neutral resume, Indiana has a really impressive 6-4 record against the top 50. Once again, what would WSU have done with Indiana's schedule? It is hard to say what WSU would have done, but all we can do is look at what has actually happened. With wins over Ohio State, Michigan, and especially a win over Kentucky (the Wildcats only loss so far this year), I give Indiana a slight edge over Wichita State.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I'm going to take a break now. Florida and Florida State are the other teams I listed ahead of WSU in my blog update today, although I admitted earlier in another thread that I'll have to re-examine those 2 in comparison to WSU. Leaving the 2 Florida schools aside, does anyone disagree with my comparisons so far up to #15 Indiana?

Update: Indiana is a couple minutes away from beating Michigan State. That will bump them up even further in my rankings and I have a really hard time seeing WSU catch them at this point.

[Rlh04d]

I agree with Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana. I strongly disagree with Florida and FSU. I'd put WSU ahead of Louisville as well, but the selection committee won't.

I have a feeling the Florida issue will work itself out, though, as I see them likely losing to Vandy tonight and Kentucky to close out the regular season, and a mediocre SEC tournament showing.

[The Mad Hatter]

I'm still and advocate of using the Massey Comparison Site as the first gauge of team rankings. By averaging 52 different ranking systems, it gives you the result of a lot of different approaches to measuring team strength while avoiding outliers of any particular system. The reality is that comparing different teams in different conferences is not easy and the more data and approaches utilized, the better.

http://masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

I'm not saying that the committee has to seed directly from this composite ranking (although I wouldn't mind that), but that it is a more statistically objective starting point for seeding than most other methods.

[ShockerFever]

I'm still and advocate of using the Massey Comparison Site as the first gauge of team rankings. By averaging 52 different ranking systems, it gives you the result of a lot of different approaches to measuring team strength while avoiding outliers of any particular system. The reality is that comparing different teams in different conferences is not easy and the more data and approaches utilized, the better.

http://masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

I'm not saying that the committee has to seed directly from this composite ranking (although I wouldn't mind that), but that it is a more statistically objective starting point for seeding than most other methods.

Kinda funny that statistically WSU is consistently ranked in the Top 10 in nearly every poll and category, but yet the expert bracketologists have them pegged as a weak 4 or strong 5 seed in the NCAA's, good enough for about 20th. It's all about freaking perception and what is stated on your jerseys, not your actual body of work.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Kinda funny that statistically WSU is consistently ranked in the Top 10 in nearly every poll and category, but yet the expert bracketologists have them pegged as a weak 4 or strong 5 seed in the NCAA's, good enough for about 20th. It's all about freaking perception and what is stated on your jerseys, not your actual body of work.

Just to be nitpicky...
You say Top 10 in nearly every poll... reality = 14 in coaches, 15 in AP
You say weak 4 or strong 5 seed is about 20th overall... reality = weak 4 or strong seed is 15-18 overall

Now a question... which one of my above comparisons did you disagree with?

[Good News]

JH4P -

Love the way you logically break down these multifaceted comparisons. I'm not sure you're explicitly saying that recent performance counts as a separate criteria, but since I just saw it for the first time and it's somewhat related, I'll post it here.

I don't have an original source, but Eamonn Brennan should be pretty reputable.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bubblewatch

Apparently they removed recent performance as an explicit criteria.

Keep up the great work.

[ShockerFever]

Just to be nitpicky...
You say Top 10 in nearly every poll... reality = 14 in coaches, 15 in AP
You say weak 4 or strong 5 seed is about 20th overall... reality = weak 4 or strong seed is 15-18 overall

Yeah, that was pretty nitpicky. I'm not talking about the freaking human biased voters; I'm talking about the numbers TMH provided with his Massey Ratings. Give me the reality there.

Ok, you win. 15-18, still well below the 10 line. My point stands.

[shockerfan]

Yeah, that was pretty nitpicky. I'm not talking about the freaking human biased voters; I'm talking about the numbers TMH provided with his Massey Ratings. Give me the reality there.

Ok, you win. 15-18, still well below the 10 line. My point stands.

Yeah most of the computer based (many different ones out there) have us somewhere around 11+. The coaches poll and AP poll goes solely with "gut" feelings. I guess JH4P missed the fact that you were mentioning how human biases play a roll in the final say. Hence the

It's all about freaking perception and what is stated on your jerseys, not your actual body of work.

part of your post.

I get what you are saying and agree with you completely.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Alabama is #27 in the composite ranking by Massey. Many bracketologists have them as a 10 seed. 10's should be #s 37-40. That's 10-13 spots off.
Texas is #40 in the composite rankings. Many bracketologists have them as a 12 seed. 12's should be #s 45-48. That's 5-8 spots off.

WSU's 5-8 spots off isn't that big of a deal.

[The Mad Hatter]

I'm disputing your entire notion that looking at RPI breakdowns of wins is a better way to evaluate resumes than the Massey Consensus ranking. Yes, there are a number of teams that have more top 50 RPI wins, but the differences in scheduling alone (much less the validity of RPI wins as a tool; the real difference between beating the #50 RPI team and the #51 RPI team; how to weigh good wins vs. bad losses; margin of victory/loss; etc.) make the entire approach suspect. Not only do I believe that the consensus score is a better evaluation tool, it has a better track record at predicting outcomes of NCAA games than the RPI, the AP and Coaches Polls, actual NCAA seeding, and Vegas Favorites.

You may be right about how the committee will look at the resumes (although they have the right to use the rankings in the Massey Consensus), but I am personally more interested in the discussion of how teams ought to be seeded than how they might actually be seeded. I know that your job is much more to evaluate what you think the committee will actually do, but I want to reinforce that there are other evaluation approaches possible than the ones you present. Therefore I can disagree with your assessment that any particular team has a better or worse resume than WSU without disagreeing on the likelihood that they will be seeded higher than WSU by the committee.