• 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!

Wake Ken Pom Thread: 2014-15 Preaseason = 104, Currently = 125 Season Over

Wakeforest22890

Snowpom
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
67,530
Reaction score
14,834
Location
Boston
Wake is 201st. Projected to go 9-19 (not counting two tournament games), 4-14 in the conference.

That's considerably worse than I thought.

Last in the conference by 66 spots. Maryland is 11th, BC is one spot ahead of them in 10th

These are the least accurate of KenPom's rankings and will shift rather dramatically early in the season.
 
Is your foreskin still intact or did you rip it right off in one stroke?
 
Six teams on the schedule ranked worse than us. Can anyone refresh me on how he includes freshmen in these projections?
 
Six teams on the schedule ranked worse than us. Can anyone refresh me on how he includes freshmen in these projections?

Freshmen outside the top 100 in the composite rankings are typically not considered to help the team. I can't recall the exact way he factors them in. CMM is something like the second-worst offensive player output-wise in the top 100.
 
Six teams on the schedule ranked worse than us. Can anyone refresh me on how he includes freshmen in these projections?

I think he only differentiates between impact freshmen and non-impact freshmen, and IIRC his threshold for impact is based on the RSCI and higher than where any of our players are ranked.
 
I think this is probably slightly skewed because of how many freshmen we have. I expected us to be around 145-150 and BC to be around 180-200 to be honest.
 
Anyone know BC's initial ranking last year with almost no returning players? Also our initial ranking in 2011 and 2010?
 
Freshmen outside the top 100 in the composite rankings are typically not considered to help the team. I can't recall the exact way he factors them in. CMM is something like the second-worst offensive player output-wise in the top 100.

That is what I was remembering. Are the individual offensive and defensive predictions for RSCI top 100 subjective?
 
I think this is probably slightly skewed because of how many freshmen we have. I expected us to be around 145-150 and BC to be around 180-200 to be honest.

I think it's probably too low, but I think it should be low with only 2 returning impact players and class of lowly regarded players. I think we can all agree that we need our freshmen to greatly out play their low rankings.
 
Freshmen outside the top 100 in the composite rankings are typically not considered to help the team. I can't recall the exact way he factors them in. CMM is something like the second-worst offensive player output-wise in the top 100.

Exactly how in the fuck can anyone make such an assessment?

That's just plain stupid.
 
For context on CMM's 90 offensive rating projection... that was TC's offensive rating last year.
 
there's a reason not much credit is given to freshmen outside of the top 100
 
There's NO WAY he can present a legitimate rating for freshmen he's likely never seen play and have never played a single possession in college.

He might as well get drunk, hit the bong and take some LSD. He'd have just as good a chance at being accurate.

It's one thing to play with numbers for existing players. It's quite another to do so picking numbers out of your ass.
 
There's NO WAY he can present a legitimate rating for freshmen he's likely never seen play and has never played a single possession.

He might as well get drunk, hit the bong and take some LSD. He'd have just as good a chance at being accurate.

It's one thing to play with numbers for existing players. It's quite another to do so picking numbers out of your ass.

He has to do something to come up with an initial rating. They eventually have no impact once enough games are played.
 
Back
Top