coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:56 pm
rolldodge wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:10 pm
coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:04 pm
Chousnake wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:53 pm
Gobigred wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:47 pm
OCanada wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:00 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:35 pm
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:17 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:47 am
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 8:15 pm
coda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:48 pm
I can say my model hates Army. I think it is due to the weak schedule. I think you have Cornell a bit high, but you are a fan. I still have them around 10, hard to get them inside the top 5 until that defense improves
Maybe, but they just beat the #1 RPI team, and are currently #6 RPI, and #2 SOS. Pretty good resume, so far.
I agree that #5 seems a bit high, but not egregious. Though it is hard for me to take the RPI argument seriously when I find RPI to be such a laughable metric.
Icgrad,
I absolutely agree about RPI as the all worldly metric, BUT it seems to drive the selection committee. As long as Cornell stays high in that metric, I have less of a feeling that the committee can screw us over again.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Excellent point. Laughable metric, but not one that can be ignored...and one to embrace passionately when it favours your (our) team!
I will be mildly surprised if RPI has not been replaced by a multifactor formula that will encourage teams to play ss difficult schedule as possible with winning a game not as important as other aspects of the game. A version is already being used to determine tournament participation and seeding for HS tourneys in some states .
What are "the other aspects of the game" that are more important than winning?
I guess some people want to go back to the halcyon days of "good losses" being the most important criterion for getting a bid and seeding.
I just can not understand this logic. There is a huge difference between losing to ND by 1 and beating BU by 1. Rankings are all about relative performance. Ignoring that is just wrong
Yeah, the "huge difference" is that one is a win and one is a loss.
Simple view. Try answering this scenario.
Team A loses to ND in OT
Team B beats BU in OT..
Team A plays Team B next week. what’s your line?
Do you really think Team A is worse than Team B?
First, I would need to know, which team is the HOME team, or is it a neutral site, as I always give weight to the home team, especially in a scenario where it's a "warm" weather team venturing into our northern tundra.
Second, I would need to know how healthy teams came out of their last game. Ex. Cornell lost its top Fogo, so that needed to be factored into their next game.
Third, Scheme is important to me as some schemes give certain teams fits, but not to other teams.
Just saying team A lost to a great team in OT, and Team B beat an average team in OT, and simply make a line from those results seems very simplistic, when many other factors need to be weighed.
And for complete transparency, remember I am in the school of their is NO SUCH THING AS A "GOOD" LOSS. I know many on this list disagree with me on this but that's my old and stubborn nature showing through.
Gobigred
Joewillie78