• 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!

Consolidated Bracketology Thread 3/12/23 updates

Can Wake theoretically expect a 5-6 point climb with each consecutive win these next few? Or is it still too fluid? Because if Wake somehow won all of these ranked games I think it would be deserved
 
I’d imagine most of us haven’t watched more than a couple minutes of Boise State or any of those teams they’ve lost to. We have no handle on how good any of them are.
 
WakeFanAdam said:
Can Wake theoretically expect a 5-6 point climb with each consecutive win these next few? Or is it still too fluid? Because if Wake somehow won all of these ranked games I think it would be deserved
Click to expand...
If we won our next four games then we would be ranked in the AP and would also probably be 40-50th in the NET/advanced rankings.

Here are our odds to win each of the next four (1.47 expected wins):

UVA - 39%
Pitt - 34%
State - 49%
Duke - 25%
 
Deacsfan27 said:
If we won our next four games then we would be ranked in the AP and would also probably be 40-50th in the NET/advanced rankings.

Here are our odds to win each of the next four (1.47 expected wins):

UVA - 39%
Pitt - 34%
State - 49%
Duke - 25%
Click to expand...
more like 4.0 expected wins

so you're saying only then we'd be ranked? not after beating UVA?
 
I guess we would be ranked after the Pitt and State games based on when they're played. I think we would be really close if we beat UVA and could sneak in though.
 
DeacsATS said:
We made our biggest move last year (from 57 to 31) over the 4 games between January 15-24...

We won:
@UVA 63-55
@GT 80-64
UNC 98-76
BC 87-57

Combo of beating good teams and big margins of victory.

We promptly shit the bed in the next game, losing @Syracuse and falling from 31 to 44.

Point being, if we want to make a similar move this year, we'll need to win our next few games (while putting some stank on the final score).
Click to expand...

Reposting because I still think this is important/noteworthy given the talk of us not being ranked highly enough for the NCAAs by KP, Torvik, & NET.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
If we won our next four games then we would be ranked in the AP and would also probably be 40-50th in the NET/advanced rankings.

Here are our odds to win each of the next four (1.47 expected wins):

UVA - 39%
Pitt - 34%
State - 49%
Duke - 25%
Click to expand...
I can't even claim that I know what NET/advanced rankings is, but if we're top 25 AP, how would be we so low in NET/advanced?
 
bym051d said:
I can't even claim that I know what NET/advanced rankings is, but if we're top 25 AP, how would be we so low in NET/advanced?
Click to expand...
Clemson is ranked 19th and was 49th in the NET before last night. Charleston is 78th in KP and top 20. They are 43rd in NET.

The AP rewards games you have won, where as KP and TORVIK are more predictive metrics. The NET should be better than KP/TORVIK for some of these teams since they (in theory) reward wins.

The AP voters are also more prone to look at a team like Charleston and FAU and say "wow they have a lot of wins and very few losses" and reward them, instead of looking at who they've played and how it compares.

It's pretty hard to even compare a team like Charleston, who is 18-1, but is 0-1 vs Q1, 3-0 vs Q2, and 15-0 vs. Q3/4. to Wake, who is 2-3 Q1, 2-1 Q2, and 10-1 vs. Q3/4.

All that to say, they are just very different rankings.
 
bym051d said:
I can't even claim that I know what NET/advanced rankings is, but if we're top 25 AP, how would be we so low in NET/advanced?
Click to expand...


Polls (AP) are humans making decisions and fully influenced by emotion, recency bias, program perception, accessibility (have they seen a team play because they were on national tv, or do they get a lot of air time on Sportscenter), the eye test, and any number of other things. Some of those may have value given our experience with such things. Many others are ways of fooling ourselves or maintaining inertia.

Computer models eliminate these biases, but come with their own set of issues: chief among them nuance (not picking up a player being injured or walk ons in at garbage time). Unless pre-season rankings are included, they also won’t pick up on a team that has played like garbage but has a ton of talent and is more likely to turn things around until after they’ve actually played better (how that’s handled varies by model and is a fair debate).

Wake was -4 last night (-2.5 even before Hunter was out) even though Clemson was the ranked team. When push came to shove and real money was on the line, Vegas rankings (which are largely driven by computer rankings similar to those quoted here) will almost always trump AP style rankings, which are generally the least predictive type beyond the top couple teams in my view.
 
Last edited:
Deacsfan27 said:
If we won our next four games then we would be ranked in the AP and would also probably be 40-50th in the NET/advanced rankings.

Here are our odds to win each of the next four (1.47 expected wins):

UVA - 39%
Pitt - 34%
State - 49%
Duke - 25%
Click to expand...
If we won all four of those games we'd be above 50th and likely above 40th in the NET rankings. For fuck's sake we'd be 18-5. Also, I give us almost no chance of winning all of those games.
 
All of these math nerd rankings are straight fucking incel virgin pocket protector dry humping trash.

www.ncaa.com

DI Men's Basketball Rankings - NCAA Men's Basketball NET Rankings | NCAA.com

Get NCAA college basketball rankings from the Associated Press, USA Today Coaches poll and the NCAA NET Rankings.
www.ncaa.com www.ncaa.com

Look at Dayton -- they are somehow 62 in the NET, 7 spots ahead of Wake. They have ZERO wins against ranked teams, ZERO Q1 wins, ZERO Q2 wins, one less win than Wake and one more loss. Also we played a common opponent, Wisconsin, to whom they lost at home and we beat on the road.

Fucking trash. It is indefensible. One of you nerds untuck your ween and please defend.
 
That Lunardi stuff is maddening at this point, but thankfully it doesn't mean a fucking thing.

Broken record, but the next 4 games are all huge in terms of perception.

I think the NCSU game, because it is at home, is one we need to win. Might be battling with them on the bubble later on in the season.
I think beating Pitt on the road would also be helpful in bubble conversations.

So if I'm ranking the games in order of which I think we'd benefit from winning: NCSU, @PITT, UVA, @DUKE
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
All of these math nerd rankings are straight fucking incel virgin pocket protector dry humping trash.

www.ncaa.com

DI Men's Basketball Rankings - NCAA Men's Basketball NET Rankings | NCAA.com

Get NCAA college basketball rankings from the Associated Press, USA Today Coaches poll and the NCAA NET Rankings.
www.ncaa.com www.ncaa.com

Look at Dayton -- they are somehow 62 in the NET, 7 spots ahead of Wake. They have ZERO wins against ranked teams, ZERO Q1 wins, ZERO Q2 wins, one less win than Wake and one more loss. Also we played a common opponent, Wisconsin, to whom they lost at home and we beat on the road.

Fucking trash. It is indefensible. One of you nerds untuck your ween and please defend.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do with my ween, tucked or untucked, to defend this.

My only explanation is that they started the year #24 in KP and have been destroying teams lately in conference play.

But yeah, they are not impressive.
 
Winning margin matters. Every time you see a team and think "man this team sucks look at that record, they didn't beat anybody" you can almost guarantee their resume includes some combination of:

1. Tough games
2. Mostly close losses
3. Blowout wins

Dayton got worked by Virginia Tech, no doubt. They dropped 20 spots in Torvik in one game after that. They've lost their five other games, all away from home except for VCU, by a combined 26 points (so roughly 2 possessions a game). The teams they've lost to are all Q1 or Q2 games.

FWIW and the major caveat here is that Dayton has the type of resume that isn't likely to be rewarded as Wake saw last year. Decent metrics and bad record against Q1 teams. This is why the committee also uses other factors beyond NET ranking to select the field.

And we can copy and paste "Dayton" with plenty of other teams this year, next year, five years ago, etc. because the answer is the same every season regardless of which team we pick and play this game with.
 
DeacsATS said:
That Lunardi stuff is maddening at this point, but thankfully it doesn't mean a fucking thing.

Broken record, but the next 4 games are all huge in terms of perception.

I think the NCSU game, because it is at home, is one we need to win. Might be battling with them on the bubble later on in the season.
I think beating Pitt on the road would also be helpful in bubble conversations.

So if I'm ranking the games in order of which I think we'd benefit from winning: NCSU, @PITT, UVA, @DUKE
Click to expand...
Yeah it's a good proxy for where things stand but what Lunardi says today doesn't matter at all.

For that matter the only reason the NET matters today is to show where things stand if the tournament were to start right now and the NET's intended use is for selecting teams at the end of the season once the sample size has kept growing to around 30 games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top