Sagarin Ratings

[gw67]

Although the Sagarin ratings won't mean much until all teams are connected in December, they show UNC as #1, Duke #2, Clemson #8 and the ACC as the top conference.

http://www.kiva.net/~jsagarin/sports/cbsend.htm

gw67

[gw67]

The Pomeroy Ratings are also out. They rely on various technical aspects of the play so the ratings at this time of the year can be pretty wild. Duke is #52. That is not what Devils' fans are accustomed to but the Heels are #83 so there is a silver lining. One of the reasons that George Mason is highly ranked is that they played very well against Brown, the team that Rhode Island barely defeated by two points at home. I note that Pomeroy no longer provides the RPI ratings.

http://kenpom.com/rate.php

gw67

[hurleyfor3]

Wow, we've underperformed (in NCAA Tournament terms) our year-end Pomeroy rating in nine of the past 10 years. (And those ratings consider everyone's full season up to the championship game.) That might say more about Ken's computer than about us.

[COYS]

Wow, we've underperformed (in NCAA Tournament terms) our year-end Pomeroy rating in nine of the past 10 years. (And those ratings consider everyone's full season up to the championship game.) That might say more about Ken's computer than about us.

Although he does a pretty good job predicting the final four. I think it might speak more about how hard it is to win a national title. It's jut really hard, even if you're the top or close to the top team in the land every year.

[juise]

I note that Pomeroy no longer provides the RPI ratings.

I thought his explanation for the decision to remove the RPI was interesting as well. Apparently, he was getting e-mail from major conference coaches asking how they could improve their RPI number.

[4decadedukie]

. . . and the ACC as the top conference.
gw67

An EPPN pundit suggested last weekend that the Big East would place nine or ten teams in the NCAA Tournament.

[Lulu]

Wow, we've underperformed (in NCAA Tournament terms) our year-end Pomeroy rating in nine of the past 10 years. (And those ratings consider everyone's full season up to the championship game.) That might say more about Ken's computer than about us.

Despite everything that IS accounted for, I doubt factors such as the pressure of playing for Duke and all the accompanying expectations are accounted for in the rankings - same for things like tired legs... that's if we're looking for just one reason we might have underperformed 9 of 10 years. Who's to say the methods are bad?... though I guess the point could be made they're not perfect if they don't account for absolutely everything, including the above, but who said they're supposed to predict tourney performance anyway. Then again, while I used to think 9 of 10 might be statistically significant, I just watched Duke football lose every opening coin flip of the year. So I certainly believe in bad luck.

[DukeUsul]

An EPPN pundit suggested last weekend that the Big East would place nine or ten teams in the NCAA Tournament.

What's that, like 25% of the league?

[Edouble]

What's that, like 25% of the league?

Ha ha ha, good one.

Nice to see that at #83, Carolina will not be in the NCAA tournament.