A look at the Gophers' current Selection Committee team sheet


His predicted has us losing our last 10 games...ouch
 


Last edited:



According to his predicted RPI sheet, we're going to win 5 of our next 6 to get to 17-4, then finish on a 10 game losing streak. Oy.

That would be horrendous. I think there is little to no chance we only win 5 the rest of the way.
 

That would be rough! I suppose anything is possible, but I think he might need to tweak his model a little.

Ken Pom has us doing the same thing, losing our last ten. We will be underdogs in all ten of those contests probably.

As stated in other threads, the magic number is NINE more wins (I don't think it matters what buckets they come from). EIGHT puts us in good position that we might likely sneak in.

Bottom line, to get to NINE wins somehow, they better make hay in the next six-game stretch. Then, will probably need to pull off 2-4 upsets.

The models don't like us because we don't play very efficient on either end of the floor. But, every year, there are teams who aren't all that efficient who win games. That's why I'm not a huge fan of the NCAA adding the "efficiency" models into their calculations.

A highly efficient team that is supposed to win 21 games based on the model, but wins only 17 games instead will rank much higher than a lesser efficient team that is supposed to win 17 based on the model, but wins 21 - just because they are more efficient (almost rendering the actual most important thing meaningless - the WIN). It drives me nuts that the NCAA has now included "predictive" formulas into a decision that should be completely results oriented.
 





That would be horrendous. I think there is little to no chance we only win 5 the rest of the way.

with an offense as bad as it is....and a defense which is horribly inconsistent each contest....the reality is that there is a much better chance of this happening than any of us what to believe
 

His predicted has us losing our last 10 games...ouch

We are underdogs for at Rutgers, at Northwestern, and home with Purdue? Of course, we'll need to play well, but these 3 games certainly seem winnable.
 

Ken Pom has us doing the same thing, losing our last ten. We will be underdogs in all ten of those contests probably.

As stated in other threads, the magic number is NINE more wins (I don't think it matters what buckets they come from). EIGHT puts us in good position that we might likely sneak in.

Bottom line, to get to NINE wins somehow, they better make hay in the next six-game stretch. Then, will probably need to pull off 2-4 upsets.

The models don't like us because we don't play very efficient on either end of the floor. But, every year, there are teams who aren't all that efficient who win games. That's why I'm not a huge fan of the NCAA adding the "efficiency" models into their calculations.

A highly efficient team that is supposed to win 21 games based on the model, but wins only 17 games instead will rank much higher than a lesser efficient team that is supposed to win 17 based on the model, but wins 21 - just because they are more efficient (almost rendering the actual most important thing meaningless - the WIN). It drives me nuts that the NCAA has now included "predictive" formulas into a decision that should be completely results oriented.


Perfectly stated. I think many of us share your frustration with this as well.
 

Perfectly stated. I think many of us share your frustration with this as well.

At seasons end the efficiency will be in lock step with victories and will account for exactly who you did it again. Tracking it over two decades reveals that RPI was deeply flawed and that Kenpom is fantastic. Look at ending Kenpom rankings and the best teams have boatloads of wins. It also covers teams that are 20-11 or so but have 3-4 wins over The top 20 teams.
 



At seasons end the efficiency will be in lock step with victories and will account for exactly who you did it again. Tracking it over two decades reveals that RPI was deeply flawed and that Kenpom is fantastic. Look at ending Kenpom rankings and the best teams have boatloads of wins. It also covers teams that are 20-11 or so but have 3-4 wins over The top 20 teams.

Agreed. If non-efficiency-included rankings match efficiency-included rankings, then there is no problem.
 

And there is no problem. Having Kenpom included is way over due and what the coaches wanted.
 




Top Bottom