Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bracketville, MN
    Posts
    20,879
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default A look at the Gophers' current Selection Committee team sheet

    Via Warren Nolan.

    Note, Nolan still tracks RPI even though it no longer will be used. Nolan lists NET and RPI ranks on each team sheet.

    http://warrennolan.com/basketball/20...team=Minnesota


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fargo
    Posts
    807

    Default

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

  3. #3

    Default

    those last 10 games is a tough stretch...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    29,937
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SelectionSunday View Post
    Via Warren Nolan.

    Note, Nolan still tracks RPI even though it no longer will be used. Nolan lists NET and RPI ranks on each team sheet.

    http://warrennolan.com/basketball/20...team=Minnesota
    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.
    Last edited by howeda7; 01-10-2019 at 05:04 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SelectionSunday View Post
    Via Warren Nolan.

    Note, Nolan still tracks RPI even though it no longer will be used. Nolan lists NET and RPI ranks on each team sheet.

    http://warrennolan.com/basketball/20...team=Minnesota
    That would be rough! I suppose anything is possible, but I think he might need to tweak his model a little.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    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.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gopherlife View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    29,937
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleedsmaroonandgold View Post
    That would be horrendous. I think there is little to no chance we only win 5 the rest of the way.
    But it would be the most Gopher thing ever.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    But it would be the most Gopher thing ever.
    Please do not bring back the nightmares of Tubby ball.
    Attention: If the above comment sounds puzzling, adjust your sarcasm setting and try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by God View Post
    For you are one of the chosen ones, my son. Please carry my other messages forward and spread them across the land.

    Thou shall not root for the Badgers under any circumstances, whatsoever. Doing so will bring upon my wrath and you suffer from the same plague of obesity, stupidity, and ugliness of the one who leads the razorbacks.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleedsmaroonandgold View Post
    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

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tmvander View Post
    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.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tjgopher View Post
    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.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ltf View Post
    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.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by builtbadgers View Post
    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.

  15. #15

    Default

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

Posting Permissions

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