Author Topic: kenpom 30, no tourney (Read 41390 times)

kim carnes · « **Reply #75 on:** January 03, 2017, 10:11:38 PM »

Everything is going to plan

sys · « **Reply #76 on:** January 03, 2017, 10:17:40 PM »

these are the kind of games you hope to look back on at the end of the season when you're trying to figure out how it happened.

sys · « **Reply #77 on:** January 03, 2017, 10:22:12 PM »

tech, what are you doing?

mocat · « **Reply #78 on:** January 03, 2017, 10:23:22 PM »

Quote from: sys on January 03, 2017, 10:22:12 PM

tech, what are you doing?

Sad to watch a team throw in the towel in early january

sys · « **Reply #79 on:** January 03, 2017, 10:32:58 PM »

given a 2nd chance.

sys · « **Reply #80 on:** January 03, 2017, 10:56:20 PM »

well eff.

Trim · « **Reply #81 on:** January 03, 2017, 11:24:58 PM »

T-Y for all of this, sys. Tonight was exhilarating.

sys · « **Reply #82 on:** January 03, 2017, 11:27:05 PM »

tech up to 26th, but shoots themselves in foot with an overtime win. kstate up to 31st after the loss. both teams hold kenpom predictions of 9-9. i'll be ceasing to update tcu for the foreseeable future as they barely scraped past ou, falling to 38th.

sys · « **Reply #83 on:** January 03, 2017, 11:27:40 PM »

Quote from: Trim on January 03, 2017, 11:24:58 PM

T-Y for all of this, sys. Tonight was exhilarating.

if only tech could have threaded the needle.

mocat · « **Reply #84 on:** January 04, 2017, 08:38:44 AM »

if i'm reading this right, ksu was 31 going into the texas game, after the close win dropped to 33. now after close loss @ ku, back up to 31. i guess blowing out the bad teams is just as important as losing close to good teams if we're going to kp30nt

michigancat · « **Reply #85 on:** January 04, 2017, 08:41:16 AM »

Quote from: mocat on January 04, 2017, 08:38:44 AM

if i'm reading this right, ksu was 31 going into the texas game, after the close win dropped to 33. now after close loss @ ku, back up to 31. i guess blowing out the bad teams is just as important as losing close to good teams if we're going to kp30nt

Math

Trim · « **Reply #86 on:** January 04, 2017, 08:55:50 AM »

Is it kp30nt or k30nt? I'd been using the latter.

chum1 · « **Reply #87 on:** January 04, 2017, 08:57:17 AM »

It's either 30NT or buttfingering.

Tobias · « **Reply #88 on:** January 04, 2017, 08:57:50 AM »

i prefer kp30nt

sys · « **Reply #89 on:** January 04, 2017, 12:14:50 PM »

Quote from: mocat on January 04, 2017, 08:38:44 AM

if i'm reading this right, ksu was 31 going into the texas game, after the close win dropped to 33. now after close loss @ ku, back up to 31.

no one said it would be easy, there's a reason why only one team has been able to accomplish kp30nt in the last ten years (stat has not been fact checked). it's a credit to the team that they've set their sights on such a challenging goal.

Mixed-Nutz · « **Reply #90 on:** January 04, 2017, 12:51:31 PM »

Quote from: sys on January 04, 2017, 12:14:50 PM

Quote from: mocat on January 04, 2017, 08:38:44 AM
if i'm reading this right, ksu was 31 going into the texas game, after the close win dropped to 33. now after close loss @ ku, back up to 31.

no one said it would be easy, there's a reason why only one team has been able to accomplish kp30nt in the last ten years (stat has not been fact checked). it's a credit to the team that they've set their sights on such a challenging goal.

I think it has happened twice, but i don't want to go back over the data.

kso_FAN · « **Reply #91 on:** January 04, 2017, 01:08:06 PM »

It was common in the early to mid 00s, but only 2 since 07.

P5 kp30nts:
02 South Carolina #20
04 FSU #27
06 South Carolina #20
06 Michigan #26
06 Notre Dame #29
07 Miss State #26
07 Clemson #29
13 Baylor #28
13 Iowa #29

mocat · « **Reply #92 on:** January 04, 2017, 02:18:15 PM »

Quote from: royals&ksu_FAN on January 04, 2017, 01:08:06 PM

It was common in the early to mid 00s, but only 2 since 07.

P5 kp30nts:
02 South Carolina #20
04 FSU #27
06 South Carolina #20
06 Michigan #26
06 Notre Dame #29
07 Miss State #26
07 Clemson #29
13 Baylor #28
13 Iowa #29

you have to look at pre-tourney rankings, not final ones.
for example in 2013, baylor was #38 and Iowa was #34 going into the tournament

kso_FAN · « **Reply #93 on:** January 04, 2017, 02:19:56 PM »

Quote from: mocat on January 04, 2017, 02:18:15 PM

Quote from: royals&ksu_FAN on January 04, 2017, 01:08:06 PM
It was common in the early to mid 00s, but only 2 since 07.

P5 kp30nts:
02 South Carolina #20
04 FSU #27
06 South Carolina #20
06 Michigan #26
06 Notre Dame #29
07 Miss State #26
07 Clemson #29
13 Baylor #28
13 Iowa #29

you have to look at pre-tourney rankings, not final ones.
for example in 2013, baylor was #38 and Iowa was #34 going into the tournament

Makes sense. I don't care about it that much to do that.

mocat · « **Reply #94 on:** January 04, 2017, 02:20:39 PM »

yeah it's a lot of work

kso_FAN · « **Reply #95 on:** January 04, 2017, 02:23:04 PM »

Quote from: mocat on January 04, 2017, 02:20:39 PM

yeah it's a lot of work

Plus the weekly rank doesn't start until 2011, so you can't even find it for seasons before then.

Trim · « **Reply #96 on:** January 04, 2017, 02:24:45 PM »

I'm gonna assume the huge hole mocat just blew into the 2013 contenders applies to the others and call this potential 'cat accomplishment unprecedented.

CNS · « **Reply #97 on:** January 04, 2017, 02:29:03 PM »

will this be the anti-TitleTown?

Mixed-Nutz · « **Reply #98 on:** January 04, 2017, 02:32:25 PM »

Quote from: royals&ksu_FAN on January 04, 2017, 01:08:06 PM

It was common in the early to mid 00s, but only 2 since 07.

P5 kp30nts:
02 South Carolina #20
04 FSU #27
06 South Carolina #20
06 Michigan #26
06 Notre Dame #29
07 Miss State #26
07 Clemson #29
13 Baylor #28
13 Iowa #29

I think a lot of it has to do with conference strength. The big 12 appears to big strong enough to allow this to happen.

Trim · « **Reply #99 on:** January 04, 2017, 03:36:17 PM »

Quote from: CNS on January 04, 2017, 02:29:03 PM

will this be the anti-TitleTown?

Accomplishments is accomplishments.