North v. South (Kinda Powertardish)

[ksutwisted]

 , but interesting.

North is 13-10 vs the South through 2/23.  They're also 7-5 in road games against the South.  The North's top4 (ku, MU, KSU, NU) are a combined 13-4 vs the South (7-1 on the road  ).  The South's top4 (OU, TX, OSU, aTm) are batting .500 against the North with an 8-8 record (4-3 in road games). 

North is dominating the South thus far...

[ksu_FAN]

This is all true, but I guarantee the fact that the north has 2 really bad teams vs the south only having 1 will come into the discussion. 

[michigancat]

I don't hear any "north is easier than the south" talk this year.

[sys]

go isu.

[mcmwcat]

go isu.

[catzacker]

I don't hear any "north is easier than the south" talk this year.

no, but you hear "the big 12 sucks this year" a lot, which is in direct correlation to, well, texas sucking it up in the big 12. 

[michigancat]

I don't hear any "north is easier than the south" talk this year.

no, but you hear "the big 12 sucks this year" a lot, which is in direct correlation to, well, texas sucking it up in the big 12. 

I don't really hear that, either. 

[ksu_FAN]

I don't hear any "north is easier than the south" talk this year.

no, but you hear "the big 12 sucks this year" a lot, which is in direct correlation to, well, texas sucking it up in the big 12. 

DREW!    Teach some defense!  Way to fall apart after playing your super bowl against us! 

[doom]

It's also the perception that the teams who are not doing so well (OSU, UT, Baylor, A&M) are amazing because they play in the south and or did well last season even when they are doing terrible.  College basketball has a long memory.

I don't hear any "north is easier than the south" talk this year.

no, but you hear "the big 12 sucks this year" a lot, which is in direct correlation to, well, texas sucking it up in the big 12. 

I don't really hear that, either. 

Sure you do.  Everytime you see the big 12 getting 3 bids. 

[ksu_FAN]

It's also the perception that the teams who are not doing so well (OSU, UT, Baylor, A&M) are amazing because they play in the south and or did well last season even when they are doing terrible.  College basketball has a long memory.

I don't hear any "north is easier than the south" talk this year.

no, but you hear "the big 12 sucks this year" a lot, which is in direct correlation to, well, texas sucking it up in the big 12. 

I don't really hear that, either. 

Sure you do.  Everytime you see the big 12 getting 3 bids. 

No longer the case really.  UT's win over OU pretty much has their bid sealed up.  They are in all 55 brackets on the matrix.  Then we are on 20 and OSU is on 16.

[catzacker]

JFC.  Can we re-play OU...at home... w/out Griffin?

[sys]

JFC.  Can we re-play OU...at home... w/out Griffin?

it's more or less retarded, because teams basically receive full credit for a discounted win.  but the team with the injured player doesn't receive the full negative of the loss.  for the conference as a whole, there's almost nothing better than an injury to the a star player of a top team.

i could write an entire treatise on how retarded the selection criteria and process is (at least as explained to the general public) are.  it's ridiculous that teams, purporting to represent institutions of higher learning, aren't judged in a more intelligent manner.  that sheet that rustyksu posted is a &@#%ing joke.

[ksu_FAN]

JFC.  Can we re-play OU...at home... w/out Griffin?

it's more or less retarded, because teams basically receive full credit for a discounted win.  but the team with the injured player doesn't receive the full negative of the loss.  for the conference as a whole, there's almost nothing better than an injury to the a star player of a top team.

i could write an entire treatise on how retarded the selection criteria and process is (at least as explained to the general public) are.  it's ridiculous that teams, purporting to represent institutions of higher learning, aren't judged in a more intelligent manner.  that sheet that rustyksu posted is a franking joke.

True, but this goes back to the point that the selection criteria are applied inconsistently across the board.  However, we are talking about picking the #34 team in the country (out of roughtly 350) based on a variety of 28 (or so) game schedules; so you aren't going to be able to just pick a set of criteria and make it work every year.  This is just life on the bubble, the key is to put yourself into possition that you are haggling over your seed, not if you are in or not.

 

[michigancat]

However, we are talking about picking the #34 team in the country (out of roughtly 350) based on a variety of 28 (or so) game schedules; so you aren't going to be able to just pick a set of criteria and make it work every year. 

Don't be ridiculous.  It would be easy to do that.

[sys]

However, we are talking about picking the #34 team in the country (out of roughtly 350) based on a variety of 28 (or so) game schedules; so you aren't going to be able to just pick a set of criteria and make it work every year.

i agree with m'cat that you could use consistent criteria.  but, i also agree (more strongly) w. your implicit point that, w. the last bubble teams, you will always be choosing from a group of very similar teams, only a small subset of which can be allowed in.  regardless of what criteria you choose, you will be open to retard complaints about which teams are chosen.

nonetheless, they could devise much simpler and sophisticated ways to evaluate the the teams.

[ksu_FAN]

However, we are talking about picking the #34 team in the country (out of roughtly 350) based on a variety of 28 (or so) game schedules; so you aren't going to be able to just pick a set of criteria and make it work every year. 

Don't be ridiculous.  It would be easy to do that.

What would your criteria be?

but, i also agree (more strongly) w. your implicit point that, w. the last bubble teams, you will always be choosing from a group of very similar teams, only a small subset of which can be allowed in.  regardless of what criteria you choose, you will be open to retard complaints about which teams are chosen.

This is THE key point in the discussion.  We are arguing over who is #34.  We are passionate about it b/c it involves us, but a little ridiculous when you step back and look at it.  We aren't talking about leaving out a possible national champion here.

[michigancat]

However, we are talking about picking the #34 team in the country (out of roughtly 350) based on a variety of 28 (or so) game schedules; so you aren't going to be able to just pick a set of criteria and make it work every year. 

Don't be ridiculous.  It would be easy to do that.

What would your criteria be?

Pomeroy rankings.  /end

[ksu_FAN]

However, we are talking about picking the #34 team in the country (out of roughtly 350) based on a variety of 28 (or so) game schedules; so you aren't going to be able to just pick a set of criteria and make it work every year. 

Don't be ridiculous.  It would be easy to do that.

What would your criteria be?

Pomeroy rankings.  /end

Just take #1-34 non-automatic qualifiers based on their ranking?

[sys]

Pomeroy rankings.  /end

don't agree.  fantastic tool, not perfect for this function.  the p rating evaluates a team's quality.  imo, selection for the tournament should be based on a team's achievements, not quality.


to illustrate, theoretically, the nation's 33rd best team could be 0-32 having only played the top 32 teams, and lost to each.  that team, imo should not receive a bid.

[michigancat]

However, we are talking about picking the #34 team in the country (out of roughtly 350) based on a variety of 28 (or so) game schedules; so you aren't going to be able to just pick a set of criteria and make it work every year. 

Don't be ridiculous.  It would be easy to do that.

What would your criteria be?

Pomeroy rankings.  /end

Just take #1-34 non-automatic qualifiers based on their ranking?

Yes.

Pomeroy rankings.  /end

don't agree.  fantastic tool, not perfect for this function.  the p rating evaluates a team's quality.  imo, selection for the tournament should be based on a team's achievements, not quality.


to illustrate, theoretically, the nation's 33rd best team could be 0-32 having only played the top 32 teams, and lost to each.  that team, imo should not receive a bid.

That won't ever happen, though, and it's a sh*tload better than the current system.

Keep in mind I put like 2 minutes of thought into this.

[ksu_FAN]

Pomeroy rankings.  /end

don't agree.  fantastic tool, not perfect for this function.  the p rating evaluates a team's quality.  imo, selection for the tournament should be based on a team's achievements, not quality.


to illustrate, theoretically, the nation's 33rd best team could be 0-32 having only played the top 32 teams, and lost to each.  that team, imo should not receive a bid.

Agree with sys.  

You'd have to look at SOS, OOC SOS, and quality wins with it just like they do now with the RPI.  

But I agree that having kenpom as the tool rather than rpi makes some sense to me.  The RPI is too limited IMO in what they base their rankings on.

[mirakulous]

To be fair - with Griffin playing, the North is only 12-11 versus the South.

[michigancat]

Pomeroy rankings.  /end

don't agree.  fantastic tool, not perfect for this function.  the p rating evaluates a team's quality.  imo, selection for the tournament should be based on a team's achievements, not quality.


to illustrate, theoretically, the nation's 33rd best team could be 0-32 having only played the top 32 teams, and lost to each.  that team, imo should not receive a bid.

Agree with sys.  

You'd have to look at SOS, OOC SOS, and quality wins with it just like they do now with the RPI.  

Pomeroy takes all of that into consideration.

[Pike]

Nothing  about this post at all

I asked the question "I wonder what the North vs South record is" after the uk vs ou game

Good post

[sys]

You'd have to look at SOS, OOC SOS, and quality wins with it just like they do now with the RPI.  

But I agree that having kenpom as the tool rather than rpi makes some sense to me.  The RPI is too limited IMO in what they base their rankings on.

swapping out rpis for pomeroys would be a good start.  (you might need to come up w. a modified p rating that puts a cap on mov, as i think the ncaa is very reluctant to incentivize running up the score).

a few other very basic, very necessary fixes, 1) use the actual scores, not the rank of the scores, 2) stop the idiot categorization, display the wins/losses graphically using each &@#%ing game, 3) end the overemphasis on "quality wins", which inherently rewards schizo teams rather than consistent, lower-ceiling teams, and also reduces the evaluative environment from a 30+ game schedule to a much lower-game environment.

[ksu_FAN]

Pomeroy rankings.  /end

don't agree.  fantastic tool, not perfect for this function.  the p rating evaluates a team's quality.  imo, selection for the tournament should be based on a team's achievements, not quality.


to illustrate, theoretically, the nation's 33rd best team could be 0-32 having only played the top 32 teams, and lost to each.  that team, imo should not receive a bid.

Agree with sys.  

You'd have to look at SOS, OOC SOS, and quality wins with it just like they do now with the RPI.  

Pomeroy takes all of that into consideration.

Yeah, but I think just like we say the RPI not using stats over or under inflates their ranking, I think its fair to say that at times taking stats into account can over or under inflate a ranking.  

This is where I agree with the NCAA using a ranking system as an indirect measure of a team's strength.  The RPI is the system that tells the committee the quality of a schedule and the quality of wins (or lack thereof) that the teams have, the actually ranking is overplayed.  I think that's a fair way to pick and seed the at large teams.  I just think the RPI is flawed and would rather have a ranking like kenpom in place to be the indirect measure that is used to find a team's quality of schedule and quality wins (or lack thereof).  

[ksu_FAN]

a few other very basic, very necessary fixes, 1) use the actual scores, not the rank of the scores, 2) stop the idiot categorization, display the wins/losses graphically using each franking game, 3) end the overemphasis on "quality wins", which inherently rewards schizo teams rather than consistent, lower-ceiling teams, and also reduces the evaluative environment from a 30+ game schedule to a much lower-game environment.

When you are looking at the #30-34 teams or whatever I think you have to at least factor in quality wins.  Most of those teams are pretty schizo in some capacity; its the reason they are bubble teams in the first place.  And I think you have to throw out all those wins vs 200+ ranked teams, in nearly the same way you throw out D2 wins. 

[sys]

When you are looking at the #30-34 teams or whatever I think you have to at least factor in quality wins.  Most of those teams are pretty schizo in some capacity; its the reason they are bubble teams in the first place.  And I think you have to throw out all those wins vs 200+ ranked teams, in nearly the same way you throw out D2 wins. 

no.  you never discard any data, unless those data are flawed.  in the same vein, there is no justification for post hoc inflation of the value of any one (any 2, any 3, etc) data point at the expense of the other data.


that's basic stats.

[michigancat]

Pomeroy rankings.  /end

don't agree.  fantastic tool, not perfect for this function.  the p rating evaluates a team's quality.  imo, selection for the tournament should be based on a team's achievements, not quality.


to illustrate, theoretically, the nation's 33rd best team could be 0-32 having only played the top 32 teams, and lost to each.  that team, imo should not receive a bid.

Agree with sys.  

You'd have to look at SOS, OOC SOS, and quality wins with it just like they do now with the RPI.  

Pomeroy takes all of that into consideration.

Yeah, but I think just like we say the RPI not using stats over or under inflates their ranking, I think its fair to say that at times taking stats into account can over or under inflate a ranking.  

I don't deny that.  I'm mainly saying any set criteria/formula is better than the bullsh*t out there now.  Simply scrapping the current system and seeding and selecting teams based on Pomeroy rankings would be an immediate, and drastic improvement.

[ksu_FAN]

When you are looking at the #30-34 teams or whatever I think you have to at least factor in quality wins.  Most of those teams are pretty schizo in some capacity; its the reason they are bubble teams in the first place.  And I think you have to throw out all those wins vs 200+ ranked teams, in nearly the same way you throw out D2 wins. 

no.  you never discard any data, unless those data are flawed.  in the same vein, there is no justification for post hoc inflation of the value of any one (any 2, any 3, etc) data point at the expense of the other data.


that's basic stats.

I suppose I'm saying that those data are flawed them. 

If everyone played the same number of teams that are ranked 200+, 100+, 50+, etc. then it may make sense, but they don't. 

Have to agree to disagree here I suppose.