Page 2 of 52 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 1038
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    ACC teams with a Quad 1 win...

    Duke - 3 (neutral Ky, neutral Gonz, @Wake)
    Miami - 1 (@Duke)
    Wake - 1 (@Va Tech)
    Notre Dame - 1 (home vs. Ky)
    Virginia - 1 (neutral Providence)
    Louisville - 1 (neutral Miss. St)
    Syracuse - 1 (@Florida St)
    NC St - 1 (@Va Tech)

    Notice someone missing from that list?
    are they really "missing" if they correctly ought not be there
    1200. DDMF.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by scottdude8 View Post
    I figured it would be useful to have a designated thread for the NET rankings, keeping track of "team sheet" resumes, etc., for in-between my longer form posts on the subject on the front page. here. Discuss!
    I'm highly supportive of discussion of all things bracketology (and dork ratings-related), but it does seem worth pumping the brakes a bit on attributing too much importance for selection/seeding purposes of the NET rankings qua rankings.

    At least per this explainer from Jerry Palm last year, the NET rankings are mostly used simply for determining the quads into which wins and losses are grouped -- i.e., your opponents' NET rankings are very important to what the Committee looks at, but your own NET ranking is much less so.

    https://www.cbssports.com/college-ba...ament-resumes/

    His key statement on this point is: "For example, a team's individual NET ranking is not nearly as important as those of its opponents. The NET is designed to define the quadrants, not to choose or seed teams. It's not a tiebreaker or anything like that. Teams are not compared by NET or other computer rankings."

    I've heard Parrish/Norlander say much the same thing on their pod.

    If true, I wouldn't get too wrapped up in whether we can or can't pass Villanova in the NET.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    We argued that the ACC was coming around last year, as well. Then the league mostly performed exactly as mediocre-ly as everyone thought it would come the postseason. While it is the case that a league might turn it around, I would venture in more cases than not, they are who we thought they were.

    The ACC is not good. Miami is not as good as we made them look. It's not my job to hold the rope for ACC basketball teams who aren't pulling their weight, were it to make a difference anyway.
    The ACC stinks and there's no way for the conference to "turn it around" or "come around" now since, by definition, teams will only be playing league games from here on out. The ACC stinking is baked in the cake at this point.

    The most we can hope for is to avoid cannibalization in the middle of the conference -- we'd be a lot better off from the "Quad 1/2" perspective if Carolina, Va. Tech, Wake, Florida St., and Miami (and, of course, us) separate by not losing any more to Clemson, Virginia, Syracuse, Louisville and NC St. (let alone Pitt, BC or Georgia Tech).

  4. #24
    Getting annoyed that every year the zags get a top seed (and #1 - #2 ranking) by virtue of playing in one of the weakest conferences in America.

    Every other conference out there is beating each other to death with the level of competition amassed (admittedly the ACC is having a down year but the holes and canes are borderline top 25).

    Then you look at the west coast conference and with all due respect, its an absolute joke.

    But with the way the system works, even if the zags lose one game against their inferior league competition, it still might be enough to get them the top spot by virtue of everyone else beating each other. It seems "not losing" is worth more than say beating a ranked opponent?

    I think to be taken seriously they need to move to the Pac-10 immediately. They've been given cakewalk after cakewalk in the big dance and have proved many times they didn't deserve the lofty seeding.

    Just a random rant.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Dukehk View Post
    Getting annoyed that every year the zags get a top seed (and #1 - #2 ranking) by virtue of playing in one of the weakest conferences in America.

    Every other conference out there is beating each other to death with the level of competition amassed (admittedly the ACC is having a down year but the holes and canes are borderline top 25).

    Then you look at the west coast conference and with all due respect, its an absolute joke.

    But with the way the system works, even if the zags lose one game against their inferior league competition, it still might be enough to get them the top spot by virtue of everyone else beating each other. It seems "not losing" is worth more than say beating a ranked opponent?

    I think to be taken seriously they need to move to the Pac-10 immediately. They've been given cakewalk after cakewalk in the big dance and have proved many times they didn't deserve the lofty seeding.

    Just a random rant.
    they've gone to the title game twice in the past three years or whatever.

    I'm not sure you have a particularly good argument that they're overrated...

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    they've gone to the title game twice in the past three years or whatever.

    I'm not sure you have a particularly good argument that they're overrated...
    It's a chicken-and-egg argument. Would they have gone to the title game if they'd been a #3 seed?

  7. #27
    Not really sure how anyone can look at Gonzaga's tournament results relative to their seed and conclude that they get consistently overrated or overseeded. As far as I can tell, they are actually extremely consistent in neither overpeforming nor underperforming in the tournament very much in the past 15 years or so.

    I say this as someone who thinks they're currently overrated in the polls right now (Auburn should definitely be 1).

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    It's a chicken-and-egg argument. Would they have gone to the title game if they'd been a #3 seed?
    Exactly my point.

    They've wilted numerous times as a #1 seed to supposedly inferior teams. Even as the "betting" favorites. They've been exposed every year when they play tougher competition in the tournament.

    In some way they have gamed the system and given themselves a surefire easy path to the final four each and every year, without necessarily deserving it.

    Not saying they aren't a great team, but would like to see what their record would look like if they played in a conference like the Pac-10. Im almost certain they wouldn't be getting a top seed each and every year.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    Not really sure how anyone can look at Gonzaga's tournament results relative to their seed and conclude that they get consistently overrated or overseeded. As far as I can tell, they are actually extremely consistent in neither overpeforming nor underperforming in the tournament very much in the past 15 years or so.

    I say this as someone who thinks they're currently overrated in the polls right now (Auburn should definitely be 1).
    Thats the issue. Auburn may NEVER be no.1

    Because gonzaga won't lose another game in their weak conference (if all goes to plan for them).

    Even if Auburn somehow ends up running the table for the rest of the season in the SEC, if Gonzaga don't lose then do they move out of the #1 spot? Doubtful.

    Its more likely Auburn would eventually lose to another ranked team at some point. Yet they will get punished for it come selection sunday by virtue of playing in a tougher conference?

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    Not really sure how anyone can look at Gonzaga's tournament results relative to their seed and conclude that they get consistently overrated or overseeded. As far as I can tell, they are actually extremely consistent in neither overpeforming nor underperforming in the tournament very much in the past 15 years or so.

    I say this as someone who thinks they're currently overrated in the polls right now (Auburn should definitely be 1).
    While you're right that Gonzaga has advanced about the same as you'd expect from their seed, I think the argument is they've gotten lucky with their draw (as high seeds often do). In the last ten tournaments, Gonzaga's tournament record against top three seeds (i.e., #1, #2, or #3) when Gonzaga has been a #1 or #2 is 0-4 (1-7 overall). They've made four Elite Eights in the past six tournaments, but in those Elite Eight games they lost the two games they played against decent seeds and won against #6 and #11 seeds. Similarly, they got to their two championship games by beating a #11 and a #7 in the semifinal.

    Here are the seeds Gonzaga has played against in the past 10 tournaments:

    2021 (Gonzaga was a #1): 16-8-5-6-11-1 (loss)
    2019 (#1): 16-9-4-3 (loss)
    2018 (#4): 13-5-9 (loss)
    2017 (#1): 16-8-4-11-7-1 (loss)
    2016 (#11): 6-3-10 (loss)
    2015 (#2): 15-7-11-1 (loss)
    2014 (#8): 9-1 (loss)
    2013 (#1): 16-9 (loss)
    2012 (#7): 10-2 (loss)
    2011 (#11): 6-3 (loss)

    Obviously you can only play the team in front of you and it's not their fault that the other top seeds in their region often fell to lower seeds. But because the first two rounds for #1s are a lot easier than other seeds, it's not an unreasonable argument that they may have been undeserving of a top seed and still advanced as a #1 in sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Considering that their KenPom ranking in the seasons when they got a #1 seed were #1 (2021), #2 (2019), #1 (2017), and #4 (2013), I'm not sure I buy the argument, but I don't think it's unreasonable to take the position.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    It's a chicken-and-egg argument. Would they have gone to the title game if they'd been a #3 seed?
    Quote Originally Posted by Dukehk View Post
    Exactly my point.

    They've wilted numerous times as a #1 seed to supposedly inferior teams. Even as the "betting" favorites. They've been exposed every year when they play tougher competition in the tournament.

    In some way they have gamed the system and given themselves a surefire easy path to the final four each and every year, without necessarily deserving it.

    Not saying they aren't a great team, but would like to see what their record would look like if they played in a conference like the Pac-10. Im almost certain they wouldn't be getting a top seed each and every year.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dukehk View Post
    Thats the issue. Auburn may NEVER be no.1

    Because gonzaga won't lose another game in their weak conference (if all goes to plan for them).

    Even if Auburn somehow ends up running the table for the rest of the season in the SEC, if Gonzaga don't lose then do they move out of the #1 spot? Doubtful.

    Its more likely Auburn would eventually lose to another ranked team at some point. Yet they will get punished for it come selection sunday by virtue of playing in a tougher conference?
    Several things:

    I don't think we get much right to talk about tournament underperformances of late. They've been to the title game twice since we made the final four last, and that includes our 1 seed with a team that SHOULD have been dominant (but also lost to the zags in the regular season. shrug). Maybe we went out on close games and deserved to go one of those years. Gonzaga beat teams tougher than the kansas in both of their final four runs...and nobody would argue we only got to the final four (had we) that year because we had an easy path.

    Y'all talk like gonzaga never wins games over highly ranked teams.

    Staring with their tournament runs, with KP rank:
    2021: #22 creighton, #6 USC, #13 UCLA
    2019: #14 florida state...by 14. (you know, the same florida state team we needed a prayer to beat, and "only" beat by 10 in the tournament. But I guess those only count as good wins when we play them
    2017: #7 west virginia

    It becomes clearer that they are well capable of beating highly ranked teams when you look at their regular season wins:
    2022: #16 texas...by 21, #13 UCLA, by 20, #15 texas tech by 14.
    2021: #7 Iowa, #19 virginia, #20 BYU...3x
    2019: #4 duke (but oh right, they always wilt)
    3015: #4 florida, #18 Iowa state, #15 st mary's...3x

    I'm sure we can go like for like, but I would guess Gonzaga's win percentage against top 25 teams compares favorably to Duke's.

    Then the argument that the WCC is weak. It is not a world beater, but it's not like they never get games. This year, there is #21 BYU, #35 st Mary's and #36 san francisco...and yes there are gaudy records.

    How about their supposed chokes? Last year to #2 baylor? 2019 to #5 texas tech (a team with an almost identical adjE to the MSU team we lost to...but I guess ours wasn't a "choke" for some reason?). 2017 to #3 UNC?

    Gonzaga's performance has been right in line with their seedings, and they do play and beat top teams. Those in glass houses should not cast stones, and there are at least two names they can lob back at duke when we talk about tournament "chokes."

    But our losses were excused by circumstance...the team was misranked or we were tired or whatever, or it wasn't the right phase of the moon, but Gonzaga's are because they aren't a good team. This is know as the fundamental attribution error.

    I'm not going to talk as if gonzaga hasn't had some good luck, or the fact that they are out west gives them a decided advantage as location is taken to account, and the west coast is weaker (meaning their 2 seed will stink, more often than not)...but I'm also not going to trash them when they're getting it done in the tournament and we're not.
    Last edited by uh_no; 01-18-2022 at 12:11 AM.
    1200. DDMF.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    While you're right that Gonzaga has advanced about the same as you'd expect from their seed, I think the argument is they've gotten lucky with their draw (as high seeds often do). In the last ten tournaments, Gonzaga's tournament record against top three seeds (i.e., #1, #2, or #3) when Gonzaga has been a #1 or #2 is 0-4 (1-7 overall). They've made four Elite Eights in the past six tournaments, but in those Elite Eight games they lost the two games they played against decent seeds and won against #6 and #11 seeds. Similarly, they got to their two championship games by beating a #11 and a #7 in the semifinal.


    I'd argue looking at the seed is a bit dubious, as we know the committee is stellar at accurately seeding teams. When viewed against less errorful metrics, their performances look a bit better.

    I'm not against thinking gonzaga is overrated, by any means, only that this mantra that they "are consistently overrated and choke" doesn't follow from the data we have, even if it is somewhat more limited than we would like, so if one wants to take the stance that they only get lucky in the tournament, and that's why they've performed well, they're welcome to...but I think it is far from the most likely explanation to the data we do have. And it's sour grapes to so vehemently complain about teams who have had more success than we, regardless of reason.
    1200. DDMF.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Gonzaga beat teams tougher than the kansas in both of their final four runs...and nobody would argue we only got to the final four (had we) that year because we had an easy path.
    Well, first of all, they might have argued that since we won by 4 points against an 11-seed in the Sweet 16 that year.

    Also, it may be worth noting that the teams you say were better than 2018 Kansas (KenPom rank #9 that year) had KenPom rankings going into the tournament of #14 (USC) and #44 (UCLA). Both their ratings shot up during the tournament, in part because they played Gonzaga (and thus bolstered their SOS). KenPom weights recent games pretty heavily, so it's unclear if those teams were "better" than Kansas or were merely hot during the tournament.

    Finally, I'm not sure how pointing out that Duke hasn't done well in recent tournaments has any bearing on whether Gonzaga deserved their #1 seeds (and again, I'm neither saying they deserved nor saying they did not deserve their seed, I was just laying out a potential argument).

    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    I'd argue looking at the seed is a bit dubious, as we know the committee is stellar at accurately seeding teams. When viewed against less errorful metrics, their performances look a bit better.
    I don't know. The argument is about whether Gonzaga's seeds have been accurate. If you don't think the seeds of the teams they played were accurate, and don't have faith in the committee's ability to seed teams, then how can you be so sure about Gonzaga's seed?
    Last edited by Kedsy; 01-18-2022 at 12:31 AM.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Finally, I'm not sure how arguing that Duke hasn't done well in recent tournaments has any bearing on whether Gonzaga deserved their #1 seeds (and again, I'm neither saying they deserved nor saying they did not deserve their seed, I was just laying out a potential argument).
    One might think that gonzaga is overrated. Using their tournament performance as a metric of that doesn't follow. Gonzaga's average performance per seed compares about as you would expect to the average team at the same seed line. Most 1 seeds don't make the final four (42%), let alone the finals. Gonzaga is 50%. You can argue gonzaga is overrated, but not based on their tournament performance.
    1200. DDMF.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post

    I don't know. The argument is about whether Gonzaga's seeds have been accurate. If you don't think the seeds of the teams they played were accurate, and don't have faith in the committee's ability to seed teams, then how can you be so sure about Gonzaga's seed?
    I'm not. Only that on average their performances reflect a really good basketball team when the committee also seems to think they are really good...at least as compared to other teams the committee thinks are really good.

    Gonzaga is overrated and they only get good seeds because they don't play anybody is a bit of a trope around here...much like "you need to be top 10 KP in O and D to win a title" and "uva's system will never win in the postseason"
    1200. DDMF.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    One might think that gonzaga is overrated. Using their tournament performance as a metric of that doesn't follow. Gonzaga's average performance per seed compares about as you would expect to the average team at the same seed line. Most 1 seeds don't make the final four (42%), let alone the finals. Gonzaga is 50%. You can argue gonzaga is overrated, but not based on their tournament performance.
    As I've said, I'm agnostic about whether they've been overrated or not. But I also don't think it's as simple as saying "they won games so they must have deserved the high seed." The vast majority of Final Four teams get there by beating lower seeds that pulled upsets in the earlier rounds. But the better your seed, the less chance you have of being upset in the first two rounds which gives you a huge advantage whether you were accurately seeded or not. Looking at their paths in recent years, Gonzaga could have "deserved" a #4 seed and still have been favored to win the games that they did. That's why I said it was a chicken-and-egg issue.

    And while I understand the desire to use KenPom or similar metrics to rate the teams rather than seed, the use of post-tournament numbers seems somewhat circular or self-fulfilling to me. It may be that there simply isn't a satisfactory answer to this question.

    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    I'm not. Only that on average their performances reflect a really good basketball team when the committee also seems to think they are really good...at least as compared to other teams the committee thinks are really good.
    I agree it's very difficult to have watched Gonzaga play in recent years and argue they aren't a really good basketball team. They clearly are. Whether they've been a top four team in three of the last four years in which tournaments were held is harder to say definitively.

    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Gonzaga is overrated and they only get good seeds because they don't play anybody is a bit of a trope around here...much like "you need to be top 10 KP in O and D to win a title" and "uva's system will never win in the postseason"
    Yeah, I totally agree that most of the tropes casually tossed around this board are baseless. Especially the top 10 KP in both O & D thing which was definitively debunked years ago but does seem to keep rearing its head.

    But it's worth thinking about whether teams that play poor schedules tend to be overrated by computer ranking systems. I think a decent argument can be made that they are, and if so, Gonzaga may get the advantage of converting that computer anomaly into an undeservedly high seed from time to time. Or they may not. I have no idea.
    Last edited by Kedsy; 01-18-2022 at 12:59 AM.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    But it's worth thinking about whether teams that play poor schedules tend to be overrated by computer ranking systems. I think a decent argument can be made that they are, and if so, Gonzaga may get the advantage of converting that computer anomaly into an undeservedly high seed from time to time.
    Right. that's a much lower bar, and one that I am more apt to agree with, than "they've been exposed every year when they play tougher competition in the tournament."
    1200. DDMF.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    It is also, of course, worth noting in this Gonzaga conversation that the Zags routinely play one of the tougher non-conference schedules around - at least in terms of the quality of some of their top opponents.

    This year - Texas, UCLA, Duke, Alabama, Texas Tech
    2021 - Kansas, Auburn, West Virginia, Iowa, Virginia
    2020 - Oregon, Michigan, Washington, Arizona, UNC
    2019 - Illinois, Arizona, Duke, Creighton, Washington, Tennessee, UNC

    And those non-conference games are more important for Gonzaga than they are for power conference teams. If Duke struggles in their significant non-conference games, there is a chance for the Blue Devils to improve their seeding situation during ACC play. Gonzaga gets no such benefit. Their games in the WCC can do nothing but hurt them in terms of their seeding status.

    Look, I would rather the Zags joined a bigger conference. It is more fun to see them tested on a more regular basis and I think they could develop some really interesting rivalries inside the Pac 12. But the reason they are in line for a #1 seed is because they have spanked Texas, UCLA, Texas Tech, and BYU... not because they are likely to win pretty much all their games in the WCC.
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    It is also, of course, worth noting in this Gonzaga conversation that the Zags routinely play one of the tougher non-conference schedules around - at least in terms of the quality of some of their top opponents.

    This year - Texas, UCLA, Duke, Alabama, Texas Tech
    2021 - Kansas, Auburn, West Virginia, Iowa, Virginia
    2020 - Oregon, Michigan, Washington, Arizona, UNC
    2019 - Illinois, Arizona, Duke, Creighton, Washington, Tennessee, UNC

    And those non-conference games are more important for Gonzaga than they are for power conference teams. If Duke struggles in their significant non-conference games, there is a chance for the Blue Devils to improve their seeding situation during ACC play. Gonzaga gets no such benefit. Their games in the WCC can do nothing but hurt them in terms of their seeding status.

    Look, I would rather the Zags joined a bigger conference. It is more fun to see them tested on a more regular basis and I think they could develop some really interesting rivalries inside the Pac 12. But the reason they are in line for a #1 seed is because they have spanked Texas, UCLA, Texas Tech, and BYU... not because they are likely to win pretty much all their games in the WCC.
    I agree with you normally, but this year, not so much! Man, it stinks that the ACC stinks...Not as many opportunities to augment the resume, but certainly I guess still more opportunities than the Zags get, and typically way more opportunities.

    On another note, good analysis in prior posts, but one thing that I think is critically important is "raw NET rank" is basically worthless in the eyes of the committee. What they care about is W-L records against various quadrant/teams. So, "raw NET rank" gives them a gauge of OPPONENT'S strength but they basically disregard it in relation to an individual team's strength. Of course, there is high correlation between wins/losses against top/bottom teams and a team's "raw rank" but they're not always the same. If a team eeks out a bunch of close wins, they are rewarded. If they lose those, they are punished (like we saw with the Duke team last year unfortunately which was "better" than its win/losses by almost every measure, but nobody had Duke making the tournament).

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    I agree with you normally, but this year, not so much! Man, it stinks that the ACC stinks...Not as many opportunities to augment the resume, but certainly I guess still more opportunities than the Zags get, and typically way more opportunities.
    Let's say this year's Duke had lost close games to Kentucky, Gonzaga, and Ohio St in the preseason but then went, for example, 17-3 in the ACC. Duke would still get a pretty good seed out of that scenario. The same is not true of Gonzaga. If they had dropped 1 or 2 more of those non-conference games (and the others had been close and not blow-outs) then even if they ran the table in their conference, I suspect they would struggle to get higher than about a 4 seed.
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

Similar Threads

  1. Keeping up With The K
    By Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-27-2011, 10:20 AM
  2. Keeping track of Dukies who transferred
    By FireOgilvie in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 03-11-2010, 07:56 PM
  3. Keeping track of the conferences
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 12:58 AM
  4. Keeping snow, ice off the driveway
    By EarlJam in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-05-2008, 01:33 PM
  5. Keeping a lid on it.
    By Ima Facultiwyfe in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-09-2007, 03:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •