D1 Men NCAA Tournament

[ABV 8.3%]

And you have been wrong for 20 years.

SOS is a reality check on pretty records built against weak teams.

Sorry mate, QW does that all by itself. It completely ignores weak wins.

QW looks at Hopkins' wins over Michigan and Delaware and says "I don't care".

Precisely as you want. Ignore weak wins.

SOS makes no sense, and rewards losing. It serves no other purpose other than to count "good" losses. You know it. I know it. The fans know it.


None of this is Hopkins' fault. Or yours. They're not the idiots who designed this system. It's the fault of AD's at places like High Point who don't correct the system. Surely they have a math program at High Point? Guess not. Oh well.

So I have no complaints, and wish you luck.

Ask Penn State and Maryland what they think of 8-7 Johns Hopkins.

Sure. But you're forgetting, naturally, that Cornell and High Point can make a longer list like this, of better teams they have actually beaten.

Well that and, Hop is 0-2 against Penn State. You want this to be a badge that give them a bid. I respectfully disagree.

Or perhaps we should use your SOS in the tournament, if it makes so much sense? I'd sign on for that. Would you? Decide who goes to the Final Four not based on who wins the games...but on who played the tougher teams and "lost" better?

Again, you’re wrong.

Is it as hard to beat top twenty teams when you play only a few a year?

Or is it harder when you play them nearly every week?

Quality Wins doesn’t take into account the hard grind of playing top teams every week. SOS does.

SOS is in the selection criteria for a good reason.

DocBarrister

Harder when you play only a few a year. In order to be playing to the level where you are able to win in those games, you need to be playing against that type of competition to the point where your game is refined enough to win. Playing cupcakes breeds bad habits that will be exploited by better teams. In addition, it's a statistical issue. Larger sample size will lead to more outliers -- better chance of a good team having a down day, etc.

Can you explain the cupcake playoff system that states like Maryland has for public HS's. Everyone gets invited, I understand?? Must make for a couple of bad habit forming first couple of games. Churchill and Severna Park seem to like it though!

[rolldodge]

And you have been wrong for 20 years.

SOS is a reality check on pretty records built against weak teams.

Sorry mate, QW does that all by itself. It completely ignores weak wins.

QW looks at Hopkins' wins over Michigan and Delaware and says "I don't care".

Precisely as you want. Ignore weak wins.

SOS makes no sense, and rewards losing. It serves no other purpose other than to count "good" losses. You know it. I know it. The fans know it.


None of this is Hopkins' fault. Or yours. They're not the idiots who designed this system. It's the fault of AD's at places like High Point who don't correct the system. Surely they have a math program at High Point? Guess not. Oh well.

So I have no complaints, and wish you luck.

Ask Penn State and Maryland what they think of 8-7 Johns Hopkins.

Sure. But you're forgetting, naturally, that Cornell and High Point can make a longer list like this, of better teams they have actually beaten.

Well that and, Hop is 0-2 against Penn State. You want this to be a badge that give them a bid. I respectfully disagree.

Or perhaps we should use your SOS in the tournament, if it makes so much sense? I'd sign on for that. Would you? Decide who goes to the Final Four not based on who wins the games...but on who played the tougher teams and "lost" better?

Again, you’re wrong.

Is it as hard to beat top twenty teams when you play only a few a year?

Or is it harder when you play them nearly every week?

Quality Wins doesn’t take into account the hard grind of playing top teams every week. SOS does.

SOS is in the selection criteria for a good reason.

DocBarrister

Harder when you play only a few a year. In order to be playing to the level where you are able to win in those games, you need to be playing against that type of competition to the point where your game is refined enough to win. Playing cupcakes breeds bad habits that will be exploited by better teams. In addition, it's a statistical issue. Larger sample size will lead to more outliers -- better chance of a good team having a down day, etc.

Can you explain the cupcake playoff system that states like Maryland has for public HS's. Everyone gets invited, I understand?? Must make for a couple of bad habit forming first couple of games.

I'm not familiar with Marylands public hs playoff system. My proposition is a fairly straight forward one applied to a full season (feel free to disagree, but state your reasons)... playing against better competition makes you a better team. Playing against lesser competition lets you get away with things you won't be able to get away with versus the top teams. Playing against a greater number of better teams gives you more chances to get better and to get quality wins. So, it's "easier" to earn quality wins when you play a lot of top teams vs playing only a few.

[ABV 8.3%]

I agree, playing "better" teams can be beneficial. Unless you are High Point.

Rhetorical question regarding MD playoff system, sorry. Yes, Maryland invites EVERY single team. I realize it's High School, but last year Churchill and Severna Park had, according to the scores, a weight gaining, cream puff fest until the finals. Heck, Churchills closest game was in the semi's, winning by ten goals. SP had one close game against a nice neighborly rival (Arundal), but nothing else close Churchill certainly ate more cupcakes. Were they worse for the ware in the overtime championship game? Was it a sloppy game?

[rolldodge]

I agree, playing "better" teams can be beneficial. Unless you are High Point.

Rhetorical question regarding MD playoff system, sorry. Yes, Maryland invites EVERY single team. I realize it's High School, but last year Churchill and Severna Park had, according to the scores, a weight gaining, cream puff fest until the finals. Heck, Churchills closest game was in the semi's, winning by ten goals. SP had one close game against a nice neighborly rival (Arundal), but nothing else close Churchill certainly ate more cupcakes. Were they worse for the ware in the overtime championship game? Was it a sloppy game?

It's an interesting question when applied to playoff vs regular season. By the time the playoffs come around, you should have enough games under your belt to have developed good habits, team chemistry, and learned how to win close games. In the case of the playoffs, it is less of a statistical calculation ( because one loss and you are out) - I think an easier path would be preferred.

[Big Dog]

I agree, playing "better" teams can be beneficial. Unless you are High Point.

Playing a cupcake or two is fine, as it allows underclassmen to get some minutes. However, you have to beat the lesser team, or you take a big hit; bad losses are just bad. HP lost to two bottom ~20 teams. Just no excuse.

Alabama fb is not gonna be in the national playoff picture if they loose to both Directional SW and Directional SE.

Cornell was more deserving than HP.

[CU77]

Going by Massey ratings (which IMO are the most reliable of the available ranking systems; Massey rates literally hundreds of sports at all levels, and has been fine-tuning his methodology for decades), the brackets are pretty imbalanced.

For each bracket, the first line below is the Massey rating of seeded teams (in order of seed), 2nd line is the Massey rating of the opponent:

PSU bracket:
1,2,3,8
49,13,14,6

Duke bracket:
5,4,10,12
23,32,7,11

EDIT: conspicuously absent is Massey #9 ...

[runrussellrun]

Going by Massey ratings (which IMO are the most reliable of the available ranking systems; Massey rates literally hundreds of sports at all levels, and has been fine-tuning his methodology for decades), the brackets are pretty imbalanced.

For each bracket, the first line below is the Massey rating of seeded teams (in order of seed), 2nd line is the Massey rating of the opponent:

PSU bracket:
1,2,3,8
49,13,14,6

Duke bracket:
5,4,10,12
23,32,7,11

Massey includes Hampton. A conspiracy against the South.

[Hawkeye]

Going by Massey ratings (which IMO are the most reliable of the available ranking systems; Massey rates literally hundreds of sports at all levels, and has been fine-tuning his methodology for decades), the brackets are pretty imbalanced.

For each bracket, the first line below is the Massey rating of seeded teams (in order of seed), 2nd line is the Massey rating of the opponent:

PSU bracket:
1,2,3,8
49,13,14,6

Duke bracket:
5,4,10,12
23,32,7,11

EDIT: conspicuously absent is Massey #9 ...

This is why I mentioned in the Hopkins thread that Hop had a pretty favorable path to championship weekend/the finals.

Not saying that they are the favorite on that side at all, but not as big of a longshot as it would seem that an unseeded team should be

[GSP]

Hopkins getting in at 8-7 is a joke!

Hopkins wins besides Maryland ranked #11:

Princeton #25
Delaware #29
Mount St Marys Not Ranked
Michigan Not Ranked
Rutgers #28 and
North Carolina #19, in a mud bowl downpour.

Total joke.

[Hawkeye]

Hopkins getting in at 8-7 is a joke!

Total joke.

I love a good joke! I’ve been laughing all day.

[HooDat]

SOS is the dumbest metric ever. The ENTIRE point to it is to give teams credit for losing. What genius thought that SOS tells you anything? You can go 0-12 or 12-0, and have the exact same SOS. With that in mind, what value does it have? Zero. Been pointing this out for 20 years.

12-0 and 0-12 are meaningless. Similarly, the #1 SOS in the league is also meaningless. But, together, it is meaningful. especially if you breakdown the Ws and Ls and the individual opponents by how they contributed to the SOS.

the solution (outside the ACC) is simple - win your conference

[FL-GO]

I find the penny pinching NCAA seems to be looking to save / cut costs by having what's basically a NE bracket and a MD-VA / Mid-Atlantic one. Sure Loyola and ND are the exceptions in their respective brackets, but otherwise this looks like something the D3 committee would have pulled together to save on travel costs.

[a fan]

12-0 and 0-12 are meaningless. Similarly, the #1 SOS in the league is also meaningless. But, together, it is meaningful. especially if you breakdown the Ws and Ls and the individual opponents by how they contributed to the SOS.

You're forgetting that QW takes care of that. QW's asks: which top 20 teams did you beat? SOS is implied, is it not? You can't get a QW if they're not on your schedule, correct? So there you go. QW takes care of that.

QW also completely ignores wins over weak teams, which is what you and others think the purpose of SOS is. Nope. QW takes care of that. So when Hopkins beats Delaware, a non-top 20 team? What does QW say? It says: nothing. You don't get credit for that win.

Boom. Done.

Understand what I'm saying. If you're okay with teams getting credit and therefore bids for losing to good teams, that's fine.

My issue is: it's clear to me that posters and lax fans---and D1 coaches, for that matter----don't understand that that is precisely what SOS does. If you like giving credit for tough losses, as DocB is, I'm cool with that.

I think it's a stupid way of handing out bids. Cornell beat more top 20 teams than Hopkins did. But Hopkins got in because they have a litany of losses to good teams, and that's why they got a bid. If you're ok with that, and that's how you think bids should be handed out, I'm fine with your view. Everyone has an opinion.

My point is: lax fans simply don't understand that the current system is handing out bids for losing to top teams.

[Homer]

Cornell beat more top 20 teams than Hopkins did.

Er, no, that's not what happened....

You're forgetting that QW takes care of that. QW's asks: which top 20 teams did you beat? SOS is implied, is it not? You can't get a QW if they're not on your schedule, correct? So there you go. QW takes care of that.

The problem with this reasoning is that QW caps out at 20, so you still need something else if you want to distinguish the value of wins across the whole spectrum from #21 to #73. Unless you think a win over BU or Air Force or UMass should be regarded as the same degree of difficulty as beating the teams ranked in the 50s and 60s.

[a fan]

So then extend the QW math to include wins over 20-30 and 40-50. Problem solved.

[Hawkeye]

So then extend the QW math to include wins over 20-30 and 40-50. Problem solved.

Those are still arbitrary cutoffs.

1 =/= 5
6 =/= 10
11 =/= 20
*21 =/= 30
etc

So this solution remains imperfect.

[a fan]

That's true of any system you can come up with, though. Not much of a criticism.

But to our context: SOS doesn't fix that problem. It exacerbates it. SOS is just as arbitrary.

[Hawkeye]

To say a system that treats teams that are 9 positions apart as equals and teams that are 1 position apart as unequal is as arbitrary as a continuous scale is hilarious.

[a fan]

Sure. I have no quibble with your point. Particularly when we're discussing RPI, which also rewards losing to good teams.

How are you on my point: that SOS rewards losing games to good teams. And you can---plainly---lose your way to a bid? You're ok with that?

Asking for a friend.

[a fan]

Cr*p. Just realized this is the NCAA Tournament thread, not the Bracketology thread.

Apologies for the thread hijack..... enjoy the Tournament.