rolldodge wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 8:39 pm
wgdsr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 8:17 pm
rolldodge wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 8:00 pm
wgdsr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 7:37 pm
sweet, just what i've been looking for. just give one of them when a team won 1 or 2 of the criteria and lost on all the rest, yet still was put in? and what was the tally?
Are you serious? In the above scenario, not one but TWO teams lost on ALL the criteria but were included over GT. I suppose you can argue that Loyola got in based on their head-to-head win, but Hofstra?
rolldodge... laf's formula is not the criteria. at all. the criteria is listed in the nc$$ rulebook. and tourney manual. he could answer better, but his formula is a predictor on what things the committee may value based on past picks and then finding what may be predictive ways of computing. an educated guess. that's all.
Its a proxy for the criteria. It is close enough that you can see in this case (2010) that the situation fits and exceeds your search for examples.
respectfully, it's not. the 2022 data is even post nc$$s, dunno about the other.
but it doesn't matter. there are a half dozen or so hard core guys that do their own calculations and share a group chat, etc., don't know if laf is in that crew. i like cu77's input and other ratings. but i'm speaking directly to the "criteria", not a proxy or anyone's formula for guessing/predicting the outcome.
but i do like all the work they put out.
anyway, i love that system that you've thrown up on fanlax. more than once i've thrown up a similar one.... struggled with number assigning but i never liked the breaks at 5, 10, 20 etc. so tried working numbers...
160 pts for a w over #1 then down 6 points for first 5 (to 130 pts), down 5 for each from 6-10 (giving a win to #10 as 105 points)then down 4 for the next 10 (to 65 pts vs #20) down 2 for next 20 to 25 pts for #40. then down 1/2 point for last 35 so win over #75 gives like 7.5 points.
then reverse it for losses, but lost points start @ 10 or 20 and maybe go up a bit slower. a number cruncher would have to map it out/back test to get what looks like a proper fit.
but yeah, the risk/reward on games when done in that type of system is the way it should be, and gives teams an idea of exactly what they have to do as a season rolls along. and weighing the opportunity costs on games... good stuff.