Tired of Valley bashers

[COUTEAU]

SHOX & The Valley, still getting no love from the pollsters.
The GATORS, leap frogged SHOX?
Two losses, one to UCONN (unranked) the other to The BADGERS.
SHOX dropped SLU, by 5, in Saint Louis?

go aces

[Snaggletooth]

SHOX & The Valley, still getting no love from the pollsters.

go aces

No love?

Shox are ranked 4th in AP and 5th in Coaches - how is that not love. WSU is now being tossed around as potential #1 seed.

[shocktheheart]

SHOX & The Valley, still getting no love from the pollsters.
The GATORS, leap frogged SHOX?
Two losses, one to UCONN (unranked) the other to The BADGERS.
SHOX dropped SLU, by 5, in Saint Louis?

go aces

Granted Florida won at Alabama last week and won at home against Tennessee. If WSU had those wins they would leap frog people as well....oh wait

[rlh04d]

RPI has SLU at 26 and Iowa at 28. That's before SLU won tonight and Iowa lost.

One can throw out the numbers they want to favor their point. The truth is that they are probably pretty close.

You don't actually think RPI is a better measure than KenPom rankings, do you?

It's not.

[rlh04d]

This SLU v Iowa discussion reminds me of the phrase "it's why they play the game" but of course we all know that some don't want to play the game. It is also what makes March Madness so great.

Go Valley!

Go Shocks!!

If they don't play the game, stats are the only basis for comparison.

[Cdizzle]

RPI has SLU at 26 and Iowa at 28. That's before SLU won tonight and Iowa lost.

One can throw out the numbers they want to favor their point. The truth is that they are probably pretty close.

You don't actually think RPI is a better measure than KenPom rankings, do you?

It's not.

I think you missed my point.

I also think that all the different numbers give you a different look at a team. There are pros and cons to any of the metrics.

My favorite numbers are the ones in the W and L columns.

[COUTEAU]

SHOX & The Valley, still getting no love from the pollsters.

go aces

No love?

Shox are ranked 4th in AP and 5th in Coaches - how is that not love. WSU is now being tossed around as potential #1 seed.

SHOX, is actually ranked 3erd and 4th, rather than 4th and 5th.
However, my original comment was about how The GATORS were behind them (SHOX) last week, in the AP poll at 5th and 6th respectfully, to only leap frog over SHOX to third.
There was no disrespect meant, to SHOX or their fan base.
My dig is at The AP pollsters for not rewarding SHOX.
Joe Lunardi has SHOX nemesis JAYHAWKS as a #1 seed.
SHOX, in same bracket as a 2 seed.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology


go aces

[rlh04d]

RPI has SLU at 26 and Iowa at 28. That's before SLU won tonight and Iowa lost.

One can throw out the numbers they want to favor their point. The truth is that they are probably pretty close.

You don't actually think RPI is a better measure than KenPom rankings, do you?

It's not.

I think you missed my point.

I also think that all the different numbers give you a different look at a team. There are pros and cons to any of the metrics.

My favorite numbers are the ones in the W and L columns.

I've got your point. But saying that you can use different numbers to make countering points is ignoring the fact that some numbers are clearly better. Using RPI to counter better metrics isn't a good argument -- it's pretty apparent advanced metrics are a better measure of a team than RPI. All "numbers" aren't created equal.

Wins and losses are great stats, but don't come close to telling the whole story, either.

[m-v-c]

Using RPI to counter better metrics isn't a good argument -- it's pretty apparent advanced metrics are a better measure of a team than RPI.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Every formula has its outliers. Last year Ken Pomeroy's ratings claimed Pittsburgh was the 11th-best team in the country. Denver was in the top 40-45 teams before the NCAA Tournament. Pretty sure no one would reasonably group either of those teams in those categories last year.

Every metric formula has its own biases, Pomeroy, Sagarin, the BPI-all of them. The RPI is the simplest and most neutral of them all. It measures 1) are you winning games, 2) who did you beat and 3) how good are they. And then it gives a bonus for winning on the road, which makes perfect sense in college basketball since home teams win 70% of the time. Don't need anything more than that. Margin of victory should not matter, there is too much that happens at the end of a CBB game to influence it (a 1-point game with a minute to play can become a 10-point loss because of free throws, while a 40-point lead can become 20-point win because a team puts all its reserves in).

[Wufan]

Using RPI to counter better metrics isn't a good argument -- it's pretty apparent advanced metrics are a better measure of a team than RPI.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Every formula has its outliers. Last year Ken Pomeroy's ratings claimed Pittsburgh was the 11th-best team in the country. Denver was in the top 40-45 teams before the NCAA Tournament. Pretty sure no one would reasonably group either of those teams in those categories last year.

Every metric formula has its own biases, Pomeroy, Sagarin, the BPI-all of them. The RPI is the simplest and most neutral of them all. It measures 1) are you winning games, 2) who did you beat and 3) how good are they. And then it gives a bonus for winning on the road, which makes perfect sense in college basketball since home teams win 70% of the time. Don't need anything more than that. Margin of victory should not matter, there is too much that happens at the end of a CBB game to influence it (a 1-point game with a minute to play can become a 10-point loss because of free throws, while a 40-point lead can become 20-point win because a team puts all its reserves in).

Agreed. Stats are a good starting point to discuss merits of teams from an unbiased perspective ONLY when both parties agree that the stats are measuring the right thing. If you don't get that agreement up front, then you might as well use the eye test.