• 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!

Possible Wake Forest Coaching Candidates Analysis

Saying PSU had the most difficult schedule in the country is total bullshit. Since every position you take starts with this insanity, your stance is based in quicksand.

You bring up insane comparisons. We aren't talking about comparing a P6 losing schedule to a Metro Atlantic team.

BTW, Chambers has had eight years at PSU. He has one .500 year, one .389 and six years at or below .350 in conference. That sucks...

I already gave you the opportunity to point out as many teams as you wanted that have played more difficult schedules than Penn State, you named three and then a couple other people pointed out the break down of top 50/100/200/300 teams that those teams faced (none were favorable to your argument).

You've come forward with absolutely zero arguments addressing the process and substance of the metrics you dislike, you simply point out that since the results don't agree with your own opinion that they must be wrong. I'm sorry if I'm not going to kowtow to that kind of posturing.
 
Ummm, I think you proved my point. Using any of these to compare across leagues, is flawed. Apples to oranges.

KP and other similar ranking systems are literally highly researched and developed best attempts at Apples to Apples comparison. There's nothing more Apples to Oranges than your attempt to seperate wins from the level of competition.
 
KP rankings...Each of those teams played more top teams than Penn State. The Top 5 of the ACC is much, much stronger than the Top 5 of the Big Ten.

No matter what I say, you'll say,"KP says no".

Losing close games is not a positive metric. It's still many losses. It's proof that your team isn't that good. You don't get participation trophies in the real world.

EDIT: Even using KP ratings, the ACC has 5 Top 15 (1,3,5,11,15) vs. B10 4 (4,6,10,12). 16-35 of KP has 3 ACC vs. 1 B10.
 
Last edited:
KP rankings...Each of those teams played more top teams than Penn State. The Top 5 of the ACC is much, much stronger than the Top 5 of the Big Ten.

No matter what I say, you'll say,"KP says no".

Losing close games is not a positive metric. It's still many losses. It's proof that your team isn't that good. You don't get participation trophies in the real world.

The top five teams in each are actually pretty close overall:

ACC: UVA (1); Duke (3 - includes games without Zion obviously); UNC (5); VPI (11); FSU (15)
Big 10: MSU (4); Michigan (6); Purdue (10); Wisconsin (12); Maryland (20)

We've discussed the last paragraph plenty of times before. Metrics disagree with you for the same reason that run differential is a useful tool for how a team will perform moving forward. If it were a skill to win close games (rather than essentially a coin flip - weighted slightly more than 50/50 for the actual difference between the two teams over a small number of possessions down the stretch) then all-time great coaches would have much better records in games decided by one possession than *insert random P6 coach here* and this isn't the case.

Good teams aren't good because they win a lot of close games, they're good because they don't play a lot of close games.
 
Honestly the major reason that the Big 10 is slightly better than the ACC in KP is because Wake is so bad. Nobody else in either conference is remotely in the ball park of how bad Wake is.
 
The ACC has 8 teams in KP's Top 35 vs. 6 for B10. The B10 has ZERO Top 5 vs. 3 for the ACC.

Either you use KP's ratings or you don't. It's dishonest pick and choose what you like and come up with excuses for why not to use it all.
 
I don’t know what you’re arguing about. KP has conference ratings and the Big 10 is the top rated conference (ACC third - it’s very close). I am using KP.

The metrics consider the entire conference not just the top five or seven teams.
 
Honestly the major reason Penn State has such a difficult schedule is for the same line of reasoning that the Big 10 is slightly better than the ACC - they just didn't play any really bad teams. The worst KP team they played is...UMBC. Penn State won that game by 22 btw.

They didn't play any other teams ranked worse than 173.
 
I don’t know what you’re arguing about. KP has conference ratings and the Big 10 is the top rated conference (ACC third - it’s very close). I am using KP.

The metrics consider the entire conference not just the top five or seven teams.

Thanks Danny!
 
KP and other similar ranking systems are literally highly researched and developed best attempts at Apples to Apples comparison. There's nothing more Apples to Oranges than your attempt to seperate wins from the level of competition.

2 things...

1. Why does KenPom exist? Because there was an attempt to be better than previously flawed computer systems. So they're attempts at achieving what you contend here, but I suspect a new one will come down the road soon earning new worshippers.

2. The point is these computer rankings are ok at comparing teams but bad at comparing coaches. Sure objectively, apples to apples, Penn State is likely a better team straight-up than Northern Kentucky, for example. I do not think, however, that KenPom tells anything about who's a better coach.

In all seriousness, who do you think is better...Pat Chambers or John Brannen?
 
The buyout is supposedly not good, but I don't think anyone has come out and said he will be back because we can't afford the buyout.
 
They have lost SEVENTEEN games and haven't played any Top 5 teams....They have played less Top 35 games than many ACC teams. Their entire pseudo-ranking is based on a bogus SOS.

BTW, how does a team (Northern FL) have ZERO decent wins, plays in a terrible conference only one loss against a P6 of less than (9) and multiple big losses to P6 teams get rated within ten spots of Wake?

We suck, but we've had a tougher schedule, lost by one to a Top 3 team and a couple of decent wins. My bad, that makes sense in KP world.
 
2 things...

1. Why does KenPom exist? Because there was an attempt to be better than previously flawed computer systems. So they're attempts at achieving what you contend here, but I suspect a new one will come down the road soon earning new worshippers.

2. The point is these computer rankings are ok at comparing teams but bad at comparing coaches. Sure objectively, apples to apples, Penn State is likely a better team straight-up than Northern Kentucky, for example. I do not think, however, that KenPom tells anything about who's a better coach.

In all seriousness, who do you think is better...Pat Chambers or John Brannen?

"The first thing you should know about this system is that it is designed to be purely predictive. If you’re looking for a system that rates teams on how “good” their season has been, you’ve come to the wrong place. There are enough systems out there that rank teams based on what is “good” by just about any definition you can think of. So I’d encourage you to google college basketball ratings or even try the opinion polls for something that is more your style.

The purpose of this system is to show how strong a team would be if it played tonight, independent of injuries or emotional factors. Since nobody can see every team play all (or even most) of their games, this system is designed to give you a snapshot of a team’s current level of play.

I would describe the philosophy of the system as this: it looks at who a team has beaten and how they have beaten them. Same thing on the losses, also. Yes, it values a 20 point win more than a 5 point win. It likes a team that loses a lot of close games against strong opposition more than one that wins a lot of close games against weak opposition.

The core of the system is the pythagorean calculation for expected winning percentage. In previous experiments, I found the best exponent for college basketball was between 8 and 9. But for whatever reason, when using adjusted efficiencies, the best exponent is between 11 and 12, probably because previous experiments only included conference games."

From KP himself.

I don't know what you would do to improve his system, he's tweaked it several times over the years. The major issue is the weight to give preseason projections versus starting everyone at scratch (the latter of which makes no sense as we know Duke is better than UMES, it's just a matter of how much to weight this).
 
They have lost SEVENTEEN games and haven't played any Top 5 teams....They have played less Top 35 games than many ACC teams. Their entire pseudo-ranking is based on a bogus SOS.

BTW, how does a team (Northern FL) have ZERO decent wins, plays in a terrible conference only one loss against a P6 of less than (9) and multiple big losses to P6 teams get rated within ten spots of Wake?

We suck, but we've had a tougher schedule, lost by one to a Top 3 team and a couple of decent wins. My bad, that makes sense in KP world.

But North Florida has five more wins than us so they must be better right?
 
"The first thing you should know about this system is that it is designed to be purely predictive. If you’re looking for a system that rates teams on how “good” their season has been, you’ve come to the wrong place. There are enough systems out there that rank teams based on what is “good” by just about any definition you can think of. So I’d encourage you to google college basketball ratings or even try the opinion polls for something that is more your style.

The purpose of this system is to show how strong a team would be if it played tonight, independent of injuries or emotional factors. Since nobody can see every team play all (or even most) of their games, this system is designed to give you a snapshot of a team’s current level of play.

I would describe the philosophy of the system as this: it looks at who a team has beaten and how they have beaten them. Same thing on the losses, also. Yes, it values a 20 point win more than a 5 point win. It likes a team that loses a lot of close games against strong opposition more than one that wins a lot of close games against weak opposition.

The core of the system is the pythagorean calculation for expected winning percentage. In previous experiments, I found the best exponent for college basketball was between 8 and 9. But for whatever reason, when using adjusted efficiencies, the best exponent is between 11 and 12, probably because previous experiments only included conference games."

From KP himself.

I don't know what you would do to improve his system, he's tweaked it several times over the years. The major issue is the weight to give preseason projections versus starting everyone at scratch (the latter of which makes no sense as we know Duke is better than UMES, it's just a matter of how much to weight this).

I just spent time reviewing your debate over the merits of Penn State and KP. So I'm figuring you think Pat Chambers is doing a good job. Is that true?
 
I don't think you can say that someone is doing a "good" job if they haven't made the tournament in 8 years at a P6 school but I would say that he's got Penn State as good as they've been in 20 years. He'll be fired and he'll be hired somewhere else. And Penn State will probably be worse than they currently are.
 
Would Wake fans revolt in similar Tennessee fashion (hopefully in a more eloquent fashion) if Manning stays? Would Currie just say he didn't have a say in it since he wasn't fully installed yet? I mean that would be the obvious defense, although I think it's clear he has input right now.

I can't imagine Wake having many fans at games next year if they keep Danny again - although I do expect the team to take a couple steps forward with the current pieces (not tourney caliber).
 
I don't think you can say that someone is doing a "good" job if they haven't made the tournament in 8 years at a P6 school but I would say that he's got Penn State as good as they've been in 20 years. He'll be fired and he'll be hired somewhere else. And Penn State will probably be worse than they currently are.

Gotcha. But you do realize he was hired straight out of the America East conference with 133 as his previous high KP? Meaning, you've spent time defending Penn State and KP for a guy that was hired out of a league you dismissed earlier when evaluating Odom.
 
Back
Top