College Basketball 2013-2014

[Derwood]

LOL at PSU sweeping OSU this year.

[bcl412]

Neither Iowa or Indiana wants to play defense.

[bcl412]

Iowa's a real fun program to follow.

[SouthSideRyan]

Illinois's 5 seed dream lives!

[Guest]

Holy crap, the Wear twins.

[abuck1220]

i know everyone loves kenpom, but i'm starting to think iowa and ohio st aren't among the best teams in the country.

[UMFan83]

OK so starting to worry about Iowa making it.

 

19-9 (8-7)

RPI 41

SOS 53

vs. RPI top 25: 2-7

vs. RPI top 50: 5-8

Best wins: H vs. Michigan (11), A vs. Ohio St (20), H vs. Minnesota (44)

Worst losses: A vs. Indiana (83), A vs. Minnesota, H vs. Ohio St (20)

Last 10: 4-6

 

Remaining schedule: vs. Purdue, @ MSU, vs. Illinois

 

The best thing they have going for them is lack of bad losses, although their worst 2 losses were the last 2 games. They are still not really on the bubble, but if they lose to MSU and one of Illinois/Purdue and get bounced out early in the BTT, they might be in trouble.

[bcl412]

OK so starting to worry about Iowa making it.

 

19-9 (8-7)

RPI 41

SOS 53

vs. RPI top 25: 2-7

vs. RPI top 50: 5-8

Best wins: H vs. Michigan (11), A vs. Ohio St (20), H vs. Minnesota (44)

Worst losses: A vs. Indiana (83), A vs. Minnesota, H vs. Ohio St (20)

Last 10: 4-6

 

Remaining schedule: vs. Purdue, @ MSU, vs. Illinois

 

The best thing they have going for them is lack of bad losses, although their worst 2 losses were the last 2 games. They are still not really on the bubble, but if they lose to MSU and one of Illinois/Purdue and get bounced out early in the BTT, they might be in trouble.

 

You're worried...

 

Missing the tournament somehow would be worse then anything Alford ever did.

[bukie]

Iowa and Ohio State have an amazing knack of not being able to win close games.

[abuck1220]

they have 5 top 50 wins and no bad losses. if you look at the bottom of the bubble, the teams there have 2-3 top 50 wins plus multiple bad losses. missouri has ONE top 50 win. byu has three, but they also have four 100+ losses. also, i see Iowa's rpi at 36?

 

they'd be sweating it if they lost out, but i think there is a pretty slim chance they lose to purdue AND illinois at home.

 

they do have quite the knack for losing close games. my concern about iowa st is they have miraculously won ALL of their close/lucky games. they could have easily lost to byu, iowa, uni and okie st. all games that came down to a final possession that iowa st won.

[Exile on Waveland]

i know everyone loves kenpom, but i'm starting to think iowa and ohio st aren't among the best teams in the country.

 

Nah, I'm pretty sure Wisconsin will still win the 2012 National Championship and Florida the 2013 National Championship.

[rawaction]

I feel like the whole Big Ten has lost close games this year. Not just games that are close down the stretch, but I feel like there have been several losses this year where teams have had either double digit 2nd half leads or 3 possession leads in the final 60-120 seconds and have lost this year.

 

Iowa, Ohio St, IU, Illinois....hell, Penn St would be a bubble team if they could have held on to close games late.

[bukie]

i know everyone loves kenpom, but i'm starting to think iowa and ohio st aren't among the best teams in the country.

 

Nah, I'm pretty sure Wisconsin will still win the 2012 National Championship and Florida the 2013 National Championship.

Kind of an odd thing to try to point out, since Kentucky and Louisville were #1 on KP the past two years.

[XZero771679666304]

Iowa and Ohio State have an amazing knack of not being able to win close games.

 

Iowa's struggles surprise me, but I've been thoroughly unimpressed with what I've seen from OSU all year. I think they're fortunate to have won as many as they have.

[Exile on Waveland]

i know everyone loves kenpom, but i'm starting to think iowa and ohio st aren't among the best teams in the country.

 

Nah, I'm pretty sure Wisconsin will still win the 2012 National Championship and Florida the 2013 National Championship.

Kind of an odd thing to try to point out, since Kentucky and Louisville were #1 on KP the past two years.

 

First of all, you know exactly what I'm saying (and it was a joking troll anyway).

 

Second, neither Kentucky in 2012 nor Louisville in 2013 were No. 1 in Pomeroy entering the tournament. If you want to give Pomeroy special credit for such retrospective analysis, go right ahead, but it's not exactly surprising that the National Champion will end the season No. 1 in rankings.

 

Louisville only became the No. 1 team in Pomeroy once they made the Final Four. They were never No. 1 prior to that. Florida, on the other hand, was No. 1 from January 12 through March 31 (and Florida--a team that never beat anyone higher than No. 24, and the only time they played an elite team got taken to the woodshed--was so obviously never the best team). As for Wisconsin in 2012, they were only No. 1 for a month in December/January, but that was patently absurd. Kentucky, on the other hand, was one of the best teams in recent memory and was not ranked No. 1 from December 10 (WATFORD) through February 11. Moreover, Kentucky was not--I repeat, not--No. 1 entering the NCAA Tournament (Ohio State was).

 

Now, as I've said many times, this doesn't mean Pomeroy isn't a great tool. It is. In fact, it's the best. The problem is when people start taking its numbers as bond. It's not infallible. Again, you had people thinking 2012 Wisconsin was a credible No. 1 team in 2012 because Pomeroy said so. That was risible.

[bukie]

Second, Louisville only became the No. 1 team in Pomeroy once they made the Final Four. They were never No. 1 prior to that. Florida, on the other hand, was No. 1 from January 12 through March 31 (and Florida--a team that never beat anyone higher than No. 24, and the only time they played an elite team got taken to the woodshed--was so obviously never the best team). So, yippee for Pomeroy for managing to pick the best team when the season was basically over! As for Wisconsin in 2012, they were only No. 1 for a month in December/January, but that was patently absurd. Kentucky, on the other hand, was one of the best teams in recent memory and was not ranked No. 1 from December 10 (WATFORD) through February 11. Moreover, Kentucky was not--I repeat, not--No. 1 entering the NCAA Tournament (Ohio State was). It's not exactly surprising that the National Champion will end the season No. 1 in rankings. If you want to give Pomeroy special credit for such retrospective analysis, go right ahead.

 

Now, as I've said many times, this doesn't mean Pomeroy isn't a great tool. It is. In fact, it's the best. The problem is when people start taking its numbers as bond. It's not infallible. Again, you had people thinking 2012 Wisconsin was a credible No. 1 team in 2012 because Pomeroy said so. That was risible.

Still, it's not like Ken sits down on his computer at the end of the season and tweaks his #s in a way to make the national champion the best team. 10 of the past 11 years, the national champion has ended up #1 on the list (crazy 2011 Butler/VCU tourney being the exception). Sure, it's possible for a team to "break" the rankings if they run up the score on patsies and play close games against all the better teams, but he's constantly adjusting the effect those have.

 

All the numbers are, really, is an adjusted efficiency margin, used to predict future outcomes in games. They're really successful on the whole, but even if a team has, say, a 90% chance of victory, they'll lose out 10% of the time.

[bukie]

Also, if you noticed the blind tier analysis of KP's top 12 I posted a couple pages back, Iowa sticks out like a sore thumb there almost as much as Wichita State.

[Guest]

Still, it's not like Ken sits down on his computer at the end of the season and tweaks his #s in a way to make the national champion the best team. 10 of the past 11 years, the national champion has ended up #1 on the list (crazy 2011 Butler/VCU tourney being the exception). Sure, it's possible for a team to "break" the rankings if they run up the score on patsies and play close games against all the better teams, but he's constantly adjusting the effect those have.

 

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy though. Pretty much any tournament caliber-team that wins 6 straight games against that caliber of opponent(while everyone else loses once and plays fewer games) is going to jump to the top of the list. It's tantamount to saying wins are the end-all for MLB teams because the Red Sox ended the season with 108 wins. Sure it's a very good indicator, but that after the fact counting misses the point.

[SouthSideRyan]

Now, as I've said many times, this doesn't mean Pomeroy isn't a great tool. It is. In fact, it's the best. The problem is when people start taking its numbers as bond. It's not infallible. Again, you had people thinking 2012 Wisconsin was a credible No. 1 team in 2012 because Pomeroy said so. That was risible.

 

Who ever said it was infallible? Pomeroy himself had said Wisconsin was overrated in the system in years past.

[Exile on Waveland]

Second, Louisville only became the No. 1 team in Pomeroy once they made the Final Four. They were never No. 1 prior to that. Florida, on the other hand, was No. 1 from January 12 through March 31 (and Florida--a team that never beat anyone higher than No. 24, and the only time they played an elite team got taken to the woodshed--was so obviously never the best team). So, yippee for Pomeroy for managing to pick the best team when the season was basically over! As for Wisconsin in 2012, they were only No. 1 for a month in December/January, but that was patently absurd. Kentucky, on the other hand, was one of the best teams in recent memory and was not ranked No. 1 from December 10 (WATFORD) through February 11. Moreover, Kentucky was not--I repeat, not--No. 1 entering the NCAA Tournament (Ohio State was). It's not exactly surprising that the National Champion will end the season No. 1 in rankings. If you want to give Pomeroy special credit for such retrospective analysis, go right ahead.

 

Now, as I've said many times, this doesn't mean Pomeroy isn't a great tool. It is. In fact, it's the best. The problem is when people start taking its numbers as bond. It's not infallible. Again, you had people thinking 2012 Wisconsin was a credible No. 1 team in 2012 because Pomeroy said so. That was risible.

Still, it's not like Ken sits down on his computer at the end of the season and tweaks his #s in a way to make the national champion the best team. 10 of the past 11 years, the national champion has ended up #1 on the list (crazy 2011 Butler/VCU tourney being the exception). Sure, it's possible for a team to "break" the rankings if they run up the score on patsies and play close games against all the better teams, but he's constantly adjusting the effect those have.

 

All the numbers are, really, is an adjusted efficiency margin, used to predict future outcomes in games. They're really successful on the whole, but even if a team has, say, a 90% chance of victory, they'll lose out 10% of the time.

 

Well, yeah, the National Champion will not always be the best team/team that should be ranked No. 1. A great example of that is 2011; so the National Champion should not inherently be No. 1 in Pomeroy at the end of the season. But using 2012 Kentucky and 2013 Louisville to boost Pomeroy--when neither was No. 1 entering the tournament--is less than useful. Especially in the case of 2012 Kentucky, a team that everyone with eyes knew was the best team by a decent margin.

 

And, again, my intent is not to criticize Pomeroy as a tool (I wouldn't be paying for a yearly subscription if I thought it wasn't a great one). My intent is, and has been, to criticize anything approaching slavish adherence to Pomeroy's numbers. Basketball is not baseball.

[Exile on Waveland]

Now, as I've said many times, this doesn't mean Pomeroy isn't a great tool. It is. In fact, it's the best. The problem is when people start taking its numbers as bond. It's not infallible. Again, you had people thinking 2012 Wisconsin was a credible No. 1 team in 2012 because Pomeroy said so. That was risible.

 

Who ever said it was infallible? Pomeroy himself had said Wisconsin was overrated in the system in years past.

 

"Infallible" was my word; but see my last sentence from the post you quoted. People contended that 2012 Wisconsin as No. 1 was credible because Pomeroy said so. Anyone arguing that had to believe Pomeroy was close to infallible because, otherwise, 2012 Wisconsin as No. 1 was risible.

 

Edit: And Ken Pomeroy, the person, admitting that makes him even more credible in my book. A lot of people are loathe to admit mistakes; especially in something that they have worked hard on. So, to whatever extent you're claiming I'm knocking down a strawman, it was not aimed at Ken Pomeroy (and, see above, as to why I don't think it's a strawman anyway).

Edited February 28, 2014 by Exile on Waveland

[bukie]

Also, if you noticed the blind tier analysis of KP's top 12 I posted a couple pages back, Iowa sticks out like a sore thumb there almost as much as Wichita State.

 

This is what I was referring to:

 

Team     T1W T1L  T2W T2L  T3W T3L
Team A     7  2     4  0    14  0
Team B     6  4     9  0     8  0
Team C     6  5     5  1    11  0
Team D     5  2     6  0    14  0
Team E     3  7     6  0    10  0
Team F     5  5     9  1     8  0
Team G     2  2     4  2    17  0
Team H    10  1     4  0    12  1
Team I     8  3     5  0    11  0
Team J     5  4     5  1    13  0
Team K     2  0     8  0    19  0
Team L     9  4     6  0     7  1

 

Can you guess which one was Iowa?

[bukie]

If I can get a script working, I want to do that for all the realistic at-large teams, because I like the way that shows quality wins and bad losses better than just games vs top 25/50/100, since location matters.

[bukie]

Also, at this point I'm kind of rooting for an NCAA tournament where both Creighton and Wichita State are 1 seeds.

[bukie]

One last thing before I get accused of spamming, another tool I enjoy looking at is John Gasaway's EM: http://johngasaway.com/2014/02/25/tuesday-truths-this-boeheims-on-fire-edition/