• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2023-24 Wake Forest Basketball Season - 21-14 (11-9) - KP#29 / NET#43

Agree that the quad system has inherent flaws. Even so, WF's best two wins are over #29 Florida and #50 VT, both at home. That's not super impressive. As an example Texas A&M (who I believe WF is better than) has the following wins:

  • @ #39 SMU
  • Nuetral over #8 Iowa State
  • #22 KY
  • #29 Florida (like WF)
  • #7 Tennessee
A&M also lost to Houston by 4 in Houston (they also beat LSU on the road; WF lost to LSU on a nuetral).

WF would be favored over A&M if they played each other on a nuetral court tomorrow, but it's undeniable that A&M has a ton of more impressive wins than WF.

The most impressive thing that WF does is win by large margins over teams that WF is better than (particularly at home). Wasn't that long ago that some here ragged about KP and similar metrics for giving too much credit for blowout wins. Now that it benefits WF to the point that KP has WF as #21 in the country (a 5 seed), we are all cool with that metric, but down on the quad system. Think this team is really good, but WF needs to beat a good team. Great chance on Saturday.
 
That's why WF would be favored over A&M on a nuetral. Not that hard of an ask for WF to show that it can beat a really good team.
 
Pilchard the UVA win is better than VT going by NET

But yeah, Wake is lacking the resume-cementing wins as we’ve discussed all day
 
KP really does not like UVA. They have UVA as #66 and VT as #50. A lot of that is based on VT's absolute beat-down of UVA on Monday. Again, KP underscores the importance of MOV (because it has shown to be a valid predictive metric). That's what Vegas largely bases their lines on because over time it has proven to be the key predictive metric.
 
Last edited:
Gets back to the age-old question - should the at-large teams be the most accomplished teams or the teams most likely to win? I say we should let Vegas decide bids and seedings.
 
BubbaJean said:
Gets back to the age-old question - should the at-large teams be the most accomplished teams or the teams most likely to win? I say we should let Vegas decide bids and seedings.
Click to expand...
Which is which? Wake has good metrics based on winning big at home and losing close on the road. But teams with a resume have beaten teams away from home which is what the NCAA Tournament is.

I think they should take the teams most likely to win NCAA Tournament games. But is that a Wake or an A&M?
 
All these metrics are stupid - just seed the teams by how credible their head coaches are and what tier law school they have.
 
One thing we have been really good at is avoiding truly bad losses. Unfortunately, that has also been something that the committee has totally disregarded the past couple of years. Teams that are high variance in their results are rewarded (like Texas A&M), while more consistent teams are punished.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Watching packer from the beginning. Haven’t gotten to Forbes yet. The boards have been so so about packer traditionally I’ve always enjoyed him. Either way he’s pretty spot on. I’m about as self critical of our team as anybody based on a lifetime of letdowns. But he’s spot on. I’ve been disappointed with our performance at times this year but I can’t figure out all this metrics bs either. I remember watch it the Duke game and we were literally one game apart on conference record. I know there some Q this and that differences but we were leading at half and took them deep into the game. Hard to see us that far apart ranking wise. But what do I know. Win a couple of games we were in position to win or win the games coming up we can win and we are in. Overall the acc seems to not get a lot of love but from my memory acc teams usually do well in the tournament. With the exception of wake of course.
 
I think we've chatted about this before, but I'd be fine with the committee selecting the teams with whatever resume/predictive hybrid approach they want to use and then using predictive metrics to seed the selected teams.
 
DeacLaw05 said:
One thing we have been really good at is avoiding truly bad losses. Unfortunately, that has also been something that the committee has totally disregarded the past couple of years. Teams that are high variance in their results are rewarded (like Texas A&M), while more consistent teams are punished.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
They would matter like hell for us.
 
I opened Facebook and the first post I see is rjkarl bitching about computer rankings. lol

Sent from my SM-S711U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top