SOS - What it does and doesn't tell us
This conversation was started in the games of interest thread, but I felt that it would be better to move it into its own thread instead.
Original question:
Team A is 2-0. Beat a team ranked in the top 10 and a terrible 300+ team.
Team B is 2-0. Beat Vermont and Louisiana Lafayette, who are a couple of mediocre teams each ranked in the mid 100s and each with 11-10 records.
You know nothing else about either team. Based on admittedly very limited information, which team do you rank higher?
I've already seen some complaints that the premise isn't valid. I think the premise is very valid. If I take the next step in my logical progression and you feel my logic doesn't hold, then call me out on it. However, for now, I think this is a very valid starting point.
Original question:
Team A is 2-0. Beat a team ranked in the top 10 and a terrible 300+ team.
Team B is 2-0. Beat Vermont and Louisiana Lafayette, who are a couple of mediocre teams each ranked in the mid 100s and each with 11-10 records.
You know nothing else about either team. Based on admittedly very limited information, which team do you rank higher?
I've already seen some complaints that the premise isn't valid. I think the premise is very valid. If I take the next step in my logical progression and you feel my logic doesn't hold, then call me out on it. However, for now, I think this is a very valid starting point.
Ok, I'll play. I would rank Team A higher in this scenario and think most pollsters would too. Why? Because Team A has shown the ability to beat a highly ranked team. Since you have no more information (i.e., name of school, scores, home/away, injuries, etc.), one would then assume that Team A also has the ability to beat all teams below that level. The 300 level team is immaterial.
Team B may very well have the ability to beat a Top 10 team, but they haven't been given a chance to prove that on the court. Therefore humans would tend to rank them lower despite what the computers might say.
Comment