• 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!

WFU Hoops: '24-'25 Roster Construction Thread: +Spillers/Biliew/Cosby/Johnson/Abass

big 12 won the last two national championships before UConn went back-to-back

seems kinda silly to use that conference as your springboard for ACC neglect in the NCAA tournament
 
BarcaDeac said:
At this point I totally buy the media collusion narrative to bring down the ACC.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about collusion to bring down the ACC. I'm sure ESPN is trying to bring down the ACC and most of the sports media landscape is lazy and just parrots ESPN talking points.
 
I do not think that there is some sort of conspiracy between Kenpom/Torvik and ESPN to bias against the ACC. I do think that ESPN has capitalized on the weak KP ratings of the ACC to further fit their narrative of a weak ACC, but that's not really collusion.
 
We need a lot more talent. As of now, we are not a deep team. I would love for us to actually have a deep team.

Last year we had 160 minutes of worthy tournament run time (32/32/30/30/26 from starters, 10 would've been ideal from PF). The problem was we needed to cover 200 and that sank us.

This year, I'd love to have 250 -- and then figure out how to get the best 200 out of that.
 
deacon14 said:
I do not think that there is some sort of conspiracy between Kenpom/Torvik and ESPN to bias against the ACC. I do think that ESPN has capitalized on the weak KP ratings of the ACC to further fit their narrative of a weak ACC, but that's not really collusion.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about Kenpom/Torvik. I'm talking about the NET, the double reliance upon it (ranking + quad system) for choosing tournament teams, and the fact that they won't publish the algorithm.
 
NET tracked KP and Torvik FWIW.

There may be some media bias, but objectively the same computer models that rightly saw the ACC as a top 3 conference in 85% of years between 1999-2019 have seen the ACC on the whole slip a bit relative to the Big12/Big10/SEC/BE basically since COVID.

Watching the portal this year -- it would appear the ACC programs on average have less NIL to throw around than those other conferences. There's a wide range within each conference of course, but the ACC bell curve would be to the left of the others if that makes sense. Hopefully we can avoid having any terrible teams and that the ability to bring in new talent doesn't show up in continued struggles in the non-conference in upcoming years.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
big 12 won the last two national championships before UConn went back-to-back

seems kinda silly to use that conference as your springboard for ACC neglect in the NCAA tournament
Click to expand...
I would start with the Mountain West. Outside of one run by San Diego State two years ago, they have been absolutely abysmal yet they get 6(!) teams in. I would then quickly pivot to the B10, who often gets the most or second most teams in the tournament, yet they haven't won it all in over 2 decades. And then I would discuss the B12 last year - the "hands-down best conference in the country" - who can't even get 1 team into the elite 8.
 
deacon14 said:
I do not think that there is some sort of conspiracy between Kenpom/Torvik and ESPN to bias against the ACC. I do think that ESPN has capitalized on the weak KP ratings of the ACC to further fit their narrative of a weak ACC, but that's not really collusion.
Click to expand...
What are KP rankings at the beginning of a season based on?
 
Haros said:
NET tracked KP and Torvik FWIW.

There may be some media bias, but objectively the same computer models that rightly saw the ACC as a top 3 conference in 85% of years between 1999-2019 have seen the ACC on the whole slip a bit relative to the Big12/Big10/SEC/BE basically since COVID.

Watching the portal this year -- it would appear the ACC programs on average have less NIL to throw around than those other conferences. There's a wide range within each conference of course, but the ACC bell curve would be to the left of the others if that makes sense. Hopefully we can avoid having any terrible teams and that the ability to bring in new talent doesn't show up in continued struggles in the non-conference in upcoming years.
Click to expand...
The NET tracks OK (though it doesn't predict as well as the other two), but by doubling the weight of the NET (through the ridiculous quad system), you can make arguments to prioritize or exclude teams. Wake was #28 in kenpom this year (one spot below Kansas, a 4 seed), ahead of about 15 at large teams, but we didn't have all those sexy quad 1 wins so it was easy to quickly exclude us from the conversation. When they are using the NET (an inferior model), employing an arbitrary quad system, and not publishing the algorithm, a lot of odd choices can be made.
 
Previous year ranking adjusted by roster additions and subtractions. By game 10, it’s purely based on results
 
Rafi said:
The NET tracks OK (though it doesn't predict as well as the other two), but by doubling the weight of the NET (through the ridiculous quad system), you can make arguments to prioritize or exclude teams. Wake was #28 in kenpom this year (one spot below Kansas, a 4 seed), ahead of about 15 at large teams, but we didn't have all those sexy quad 1 wins so it was easy to quickly exclude us from the conversation. When they are using the NET (an inferior model), employing an arbitrary quad system, and not publishing the algorithm, a lot of odd choices can be made.
Click to expand...
WF scheduled poorly and played poorly OOC games. WF’s KP rating was pumped up by several blow out ACC wins. WF didn’t get screwed by the NCAAT committee. Pitt and even more so, Seton Hall did
 
Rafi said:
The NET tracks OK (though it doesn't predict as well as the other two), but by doubling the weight of the NET (through the ridiculous quad system), you can make arguments to prioritize or exclude teams. Wake was #28 in kenpom this year (one spot below Kansas, a 4 seed), ahead of about 15 at large teams, but we didn't have all those sexy quad 1 wins so it was easy to quickly exclude us from the conversation. When they are using the NET (an inferior model), employing an arbitrary quad system, and not publishing the algorithm, a lot of odd choices can be made.
Click to expand...
Well this comes back to the classic debate of whether we should be using predictive ratings or resume analysis to make the NCAAT field. While there's lots of problems with the quad system, I think it's important that teams that actually win big games are rewarded for doing so and teams that lose them should be punished.
 
nobody aside from a few twitter dorks talked and/or cared about the metrics when pre-2019 when the ACC was dominate.

but now that the ACC has had a couple "down" regular seasons, it's ubiquitous and apparently better than the bible
 
atldeac23 said:
nobody aside from a few twitter dorks talked and/or cared about the metrics when pre-2019 when the ACC was dominate.

but now that the ACC has had a couple "down" regular seasons, it's ubiquitous and apparently better than the bible
Click to expand...
Or maybe, instead of a conspiracy, people who are smart realized that "eye test" was a terrible way to figure out how good every single team is, and therefore a rating system (which has some flaws sure!) is a much fairer way to rank teams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top