CreamyGoodness
Thanks Creamy!
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 16,051
- Reaction score
- 6,225
And yeah, definitely the creepiest fucking guy I've seen since watching the Dahmer tapes
2023-24 Wake Forest Basketball Season - 21-14 (11-9) - KP#29 / NET#43
- Thread starter DeacsATS
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
deacfan78
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,459
- Reaction score
- 2,635
I don't engage with anyone anymore on Twitter.
Complacent Deac
Well-known member
Preston Willabee does not look like he every played organized basketball. So, his opinion on Cam or anything basketball is irrelevant.
Also, Forbes says if you hate on Cam (or any of our players), you are NOT one of our fans. So, Preston is not considered to be a Deac.
Also, Forbes says if you hate on Cam (or any of our players), you are NOT one of our fans. So, Preston is not considered to be a Deac.
That's amazing. I'll add a little more:
Wake has played 5 games at a game score of 98 or higher that indicated we played like the #1 in the country (GT, Pitt, Virginia, VT, Cuse). Another 3 that would make us top 8 in the country (Rutgers, Florida, and Louisville).
On the other end, 7 games like a team outside the top 100 (Charleston Southern, Elon, LSU, Florida St, UNC, Presbyterian, Georgia). 4 of those pre-Efton.
We are good. The last piece is showing we can win close games against good teams, because we should be in every game.
Deacsfan27
Well-known member
Think it was posted, but since Efton got back we're 13th in Torvik, since Damari got back, we are 9th in Torvik.
We're a top 15 team with a full roster.
We're a top 15 team with a full roster.
The Athletic has an interesting, but maybe not encouraging, article (prior to last night's game) trying to make sense out of last Saturday's top 16 bracket reveal. Makes me think close losses to Duke and VT would doom Wake's chances even if their NET stays strong. And I guess I need to start paying more attention to Strength of Record.
"One thing that jumps out: Don’t get too caught up in the predictive metrics such as NET and KenPom. Granted, they remain good indicators — all of the top 16 teams are highly ranked in those categories, and all are locks to make the tournament, even if they drop below a No. 4 seed. But it’s not as if the committee leans on the exact order of those rankings while doing its own. Houston has been No. 1 in NET and KenPom for weeks before UConn waxed Marquette on Saturday and Purdue lost to Ohio State on Sunday. Yet the Boilermakers and UConn were both ahead of the Cougars in the top 16.
What the committee does seem to value are Quad 1 records and results-based metrics, notably ESPN’s Strength Of Record (SOR). Entering Saturday, Purdue led the sport with a 9-2 Q1 record and ranked No. 1 in SOR, with UConn at 8-2 in Q1 and No. 2 in SOR. Houston, at 8-3 in Q1 and No. 3 in SOR, ranked just behind them. This helps explain why North Carolina and Kansas were ranked ahead of Alabama and why Duke and Iowa State were ahead of Auburn.
Those aren’t the only factors. Strength of schedule probably played a role in Kansas and Baylor being ahead of fellow Big 12 foe Iowa State (which has as many Q4 victories as those two combined) and why San Diego State, which reached the national title game last season and has really strong SOS numbers in and out of conference, was bumped ahead of Illinois. Eye test matters, too, subjective as it might be. These are humans on the committee.
...
Saturday’s preview should put bubble teams such as Gonzaga, Indiana State, Wake Forest and Colorado on notice. All were top 45 in NET and top 50 in KenPom as of Monday, yet each only has one Q1 win. (Add the ever-enigmatic SMU to this list as well, which was 34th in NET and 39th in KenPom on Monday, yet still has zero Q1 wins.)
On the other hand, teams such as Ole Miss, Texas A&M, Cincinnati, Nebraska, Northwestern, Seton Hall and Nevada might be encouraged considering they have more Q1 wins and better or comparable SOR than those listed above. The Big East, in particular, continues to be a fascinating experiment, with teams such as Villanova, St. John’s and Xavier ahead in the predictive metrics but behind Butler, Providence and Seton Hall in Q1 wins and SOR."
theathletic.com
"One thing that jumps out: Don’t get too caught up in the predictive metrics such as NET and KenPom. Granted, they remain good indicators — all of the top 16 teams are highly ranked in those categories, and all are locks to make the tournament, even if they drop below a No. 4 seed. But it’s not as if the committee leans on the exact order of those rankings while doing its own. Houston has been No. 1 in NET and KenPom for weeks before UConn waxed Marquette on Saturday and Purdue lost to Ohio State on Sunday. Yet the Boilermakers and UConn were both ahead of the Cougars in the top 16.
What the committee does seem to value are Quad 1 records and results-based metrics, notably ESPN’s Strength Of Record (SOR). Entering Saturday, Purdue led the sport with a 9-2 Q1 record and ranked No. 1 in SOR, with UConn at 8-2 in Q1 and No. 2 in SOR. Houston, at 8-3 in Q1 and No. 3 in SOR, ranked just behind them. This helps explain why North Carolina and Kansas were ranked ahead of Alabama and why Duke and Iowa State were ahead of Auburn.
Those aren’t the only factors. Strength of schedule probably played a role in Kansas and Baylor being ahead of fellow Big 12 foe Iowa State (which has as many Q4 victories as those two combined) and why San Diego State, which reached the national title game last season and has really strong SOS numbers in and out of conference, was bumped ahead of Illinois. Eye test matters, too, subjective as it might be. These are humans on the committee.
...
Saturday’s preview should put bubble teams such as Gonzaga, Indiana State, Wake Forest and Colorado on notice. All were top 45 in NET and top 50 in KenPom as of Monday, yet each only has one Q1 win. (Add the ever-enigmatic SMU to this list as well, which was 34th in NET and 39th in KenPom on Monday, yet still has zero Q1 wins.)
On the other hand, teams such as Ole Miss, Texas A&M, Cincinnati, Nebraska, Northwestern, Seton Hall and Nevada might be encouraged considering they have more Q1 wins and better or comparable SOR than those listed above. The Big East, in particular, continues to be a fascinating experiment, with teams such as Villanova, St. John’s and Xavier ahead in the predictive metrics but behind Butler, Providence and Seton Hall in Q1 wins and SOR."
Bubble Watch: What the bracket reveal tells us about the bubble
San Diego State, Dayton and Clemson join the locks this week.
theathletic.com
BeachBumDeac
Cheap Date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 27,816
- Reaction score
- 15,534
man remember that Elon game where we were down by 20 and ended up winning by more than 20?
w84it
Well-known member
Your numbers don't make sense - I only use Steiner Math
deacfan78
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,459
- Reaction score
- 2,635
So is the top 16 already set then? If so, that is some fucking bullshit.The Athletic has an interesting, but maybe not encouraging, article (prior to last night's game) trying to make sense out of last Saturday's top 16 bracket reveal. Makes me think close losses to Duke and VT would doom Wake's chances even if their NET stays strong. And I guess I need to start paying more attention to Strength of Record.
"One thing that jumps out: Don’t get too caught up in the predictive metrics such as NET and KenPom. Granted, they remain good indicators — all of the top 16 teams are highly ranked in those categories, and all are locks to make the tournament, even if they drop below a No. 4 seed. But it’s not as if the committee leans on the exact order of those rankings while doing its own. Houston has been No. 1 in NET and KenPom for weeks before UConn waxed Marquette on Saturday and Purdue lost to Ohio State on Sunday. Yet the Boilermakers and UConn were both ahead of the Cougars in the top 16.
What the committee does seem to value are Quad 1 records and results-based metrics, notably ESPN’s Strength Of Record (SOR). Entering Saturday, Purdue led the sport with a 9-2 Q1 record and ranked No. 1 in SOR, with UConn at 8-2 in Q1 and No. 2 in SOR. Houston, at 8-3 in Q1 and No. 3 in SOR, ranked just behind them. This helps explain why North Carolina and Kansas were ranked ahead of Alabama and why Duke and Iowa State were ahead of Auburn.
Those aren’t the only factors. Strength of schedule probably played a role in Kansas and Baylor being ahead of fellow Big 12 foe Iowa State (which has as many Q4 victories as those two combined) and why San Diego State, which reached the national title game last season and has really strong SOS numbers in and out of conference, was bumped ahead of Illinois. Eye test matters, too, subjective as it might be. These are humans on the committee.
...
Saturday’s preview should put bubble teams such as Gonzaga, Indiana State, Wake Forest and Colorado on notice. All were top 45 in NET and top 50 in KenPom as of Monday, yet each only has one Q1 win. (Add the ever-enigmatic SMU to this list as well, which was 34th in NET and 39th in KenPom on Monday, yet still has zero Q1 wins.)
On the other hand, teams such as Ole Miss, Texas A&M, Cincinnati, Nebraska, Northwestern, Seton Hall and Nevada might be encouraged considering they have more Q1 wins and better or comparable SOR than those listed above. The Big East, in particular, continues to be a fascinating experiment, with teams such as Villanova, St. John’s and Xavier ahead in the predictive metrics but behind Butler, Providence and Seton Hall in Q1 wins and SOR."
Bubble Watch: What the bracket reveal tells us about the bubble
San Diego State, Dayton and Clemson join the locks this week.
My understanding is it’s a if the tournament ended today type deal
I expect us to win every game. This team is that good. The issues are understood and clearly coaching is sinking in... Cam was great last night. The one open 3 he took - he really had to he was so open. His injury absolutely is shit luck, but now it looks as if it has been accepted. Maybe a bit more reserved Cam is the sweet spot not the Tazmanian Devil Cam. Big E Reid hasn't even begun to reach his potential. He is such a great nice kid....Lets see if some of the nastiness rubs off from Cam.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
I did see that @fanaticdeac posted that on Twitter. I personally find their content better than Riley's or DeaconSports
Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
Quads are so dumb. It’s inevitable they will be scrapped and look even dumber in hindsight.The Athletic has an interesting, but maybe not encouraging, article (prior to last night's game) trying to make sense out of last Saturday's top 16 bracket reveal. Makes me think close losses to Duke and VT would doom Wake's chances even if their NET stays strong. And I guess I need to start paying more attention to Strength of Record.
"One thing that jumps out: Don’t get too caught up in the predictive metrics such as NET and KenPom. Granted, they remain good indicators — all of the top 16 teams are highly ranked in those categories, and all are locks to make the tournament, even if they drop below a No. 4 seed. But it’s not as if the committee leans on the exact order of those rankings while doing its own. Houston has been No. 1 in NET and KenPom for weeks before UConn waxed Marquette on Saturday and Purdue lost to Ohio State on Sunday. Yet the Boilermakers and UConn were both ahead of the Cougars in the top 16.
What the committee does seem to value are Quad 1 records and results-based metrics, notably ESPN’s Strength Of Record (SOR). Entering Saturday, Purdue led the sport with a 9-2 Q1 record and ranked No. 1 in SOR, with UConn at 8-2 in Q1 and No. 2 in SOR. Houston, at 8-3 in Q1 and No. 3 in SOR, ranked just behind them. This helps explain why North Carolina and Kansas were ranked ahead of Alabama and why Duke and Iowa State were ahead of Auburn.
Those aren’t the only factors. Strength of schedule probably played a role in Kansas and Baylor being ahead of fellow Big 12 foe Iowa State (which has as many Q4 victories as those two combined) and why San Diego State, which reached the national title game last season and has really strong SOS numbers in and out of conference, was bumped ahead of Illinois. Eye test matters, too, subjective as it might be. These are humans on the committee.
...
Saturday’s preview should put bubble teams such as Gonzaga, Indiana State, Wake Forest and Colorado on notice. All were top 45 in NET and top 50 in KenPom as of Monday, yet each only has one Q1 win. (Add the ever-enigmatic SMU to this list as well, which was 34th in NET and 39th in KenPom on Monday, yet still has zero Q1 wins.)
On the other hand, teams such as Ole Miss, Texas A&M, Cincinnati, Nebraska, Northwestern, Seton Hall and Nevada might be encouraged considering they have more Q1 wins and better or comparable SOR than those listed above. The Big East, in particular, continues to be a fascinating experiment, with teams such as Villanova, St. John’s and Xavier ahead in the predictive metrics but behind Butler, Providence and Seton Hall in Q1 wins and SOR."
Bubble Watch: What the bracket reveal tells us about the bubble
San Diego State, Dayton and Clemson join the locks this week.
JuiceCrewAllStar
Whole Milk Drinker
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 37,682
- Reaction score
- 10,468
i've got greg paulus and lee melchioni pretty high on my list
I don't understand why we need stark quads? If you want to consider the quality of teams that you played then simply plug in the Net number of the opponents - an opponent at #25 is better than an opponent at #35 - but not to the stark extent of quad 1 versus quad 2. There are plenty of ways to gauge the quality of a schedule; teams played, location played, etc. without drawing a line in the sand and saying, for example, even though you beat teams #32, #34, and #36 at home and #76 and #78 away, you suck because you have no quad 1 wins.
I also don't see much discussion of who some of these teams lost to - it seems like if you sprinkle in a few quad 1 wins, losses hardly matter.
Deacsfan27
Well-known member
Once again - if you rely heavily on quads then you are double-counting what the NET already takes into place.
If you want to use the NET, then do it like the Pairwise system in college hockey, and just go 100% off of that for "at-large" teams. After all conference tournaments are over, simply pick the teams down a list until you're out of spots.
Should be pretty straight forward.
That would require transparency though in how the NET is determined so teams aren't in a fog of war when making their schedule.
For something that generates a shit ton of money for conferences, it shouldn't be up to a committee in a room who hasn't watched a bit of college basketball all year to make these choices when there are biases in play.
If you want to use the NET, then do it like the Pairwise system in college hockey, and just go 100% off of that for "at-large" teams. After all conference tournaments are over, simply pick the teams down a list until you're out of spots.
Should be pretty straight forward.
That would require transparency though in how the NET is determined so teams aren't in a fog of war when making their schedule.
For something that generates a shit ton of money for conferences, it shouldn't be up to a committee in a room who hasn't watched a bit of college basketball all year to make these choices when there are biases in play.
Makes total sense and is indicative of a very rational system to evaluate teams.