View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Conway Gamecock
Joined: 23 Jan 2015 Posts: 1900 Location: Here
Back to top |
Posted: 01/28/23 8:58 am ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
It's not shocking that the media favors the media poll |
Yep - you got it. I didn't think my post was that hard to figure, even if it was partly tongue in cheek.....
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67051 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009 Posts: 15754 Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 01/30/23 4:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
How completely ridiculous.
Iowa has THREE losses to unranked teams. Nobody else in the top 20 matches that ignominy. They were already overranked, but jumped 4 spots based entirely on upsetting Ohio St which is a big deal only if you ignore that Ohio State lost THREE games last week, including at home to six-loss unranked Purdue.
There is no chance that Iowa belongs at 6 or deserved a 4 spot leap from last week. These are the same clowns who thought the Clarkeyes belonged at #4 and a 1 seed back in week 1. I guess they are trying to convince themselves they weren't completely full of it back in November. But they were then, and are now.
It's becoming obvious that that the expanding Big 10 footprint is having a collateral effect of expanding the Big Ten media footprint and with it the number of writers/AP voters who follow only or mostly Big 10 sports or choose to suck up to their Big 10 fan readers by hyping Big 10 teams. That's only going to get worse.
It's no coincidence that the Big 10 leads in the popularity poll but is the fifth ranked conference in the math- based NET.
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021 Posts: 2864
Back to top |
Posted: 01/30/23 4:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
How completely ridiculous.
Iowa has THREE losses to unranked teams.[...] |
Wrong. If you're gonna shit on a team, be my guest. But at least get your facts straight.
_________________ RebKell's 2021-2022 NCAA Fantasy League Regular Season Champion 🏆
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021 Posts: 2864
Back to top |
Posted: 01/30/23 5:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
It's no coincidence that the Big 10 leads in the popularity poll but is the fifth ranked conference in the math- based NET. |
The combined NET ranking of the Big Ten conference is deceiving because the bottom tier is sooooooooo god awful -- moreso than other conferences' bottom tiers IMO. But that shouldn't detract from the strength of the upper tier and decency of the middle tier.
For example, let's compare the Big Ten and ACC. Both currently have 9 teams in the NET top 50, and they compare very similarly to each other when you look at the top 8, top 7, etc. But once you get down to the bottom tier, the quality of the Big Ten declines more dramatically.
Bottom of the ACC:
10. Syracuse NET #62
11. Clemson NET #66
12. Georgia Tech NET #72
13. Wake Forest NET #76
14. Boston College NET #83
15. Pittsburgh NET #124
Bottom of the Big Ten:
10. Penn State NET #79
11. Minnesota NET #107
12. Northwestern NET #115
13. Wisconsin NET #123
14. Rutgers NET #150
So your implication that the ACC is so much better than the Big Ten really just boils down to the fact that Syracuse, GT, Clemson, WF, BC, and Pitt are on average a bit better than PSU, Minn, NW, Wis, and Rutgers. Which, if that's a tremendous point of pride for you.....
1. OK then.
2. get help.
_________________ RebKell's 2021-2022 NCAA Fantasy League Regular Season Champion 🏆
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 01/30/23 5:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
undersized_post wrote: |
ArtBest23 wrote: |
It's no coincidence that the Big 10 leads in the popularity poll but is the fifth ranked conference in the math- based NET. |
The combined NET ranking of the Big Ten conference is deceiving because the bottom tier is sooooooooo god awful -- moreso than other conferences' bottom tiers IMO. But that shouldn't detract from the strength of the upper tier and decency of the middle tier.
For example, let's compare the Big Ten and ACC. Both currently have 9 teams in the NET top 50, and they compare very similarly to each other when you look at the top 8, top 7, etc. But once you get down to the bottom tier, the quality of the Big Ten declines more dramatically.
Bottom of the ACC:
10. Syracuse NET #62
11. Clemson NET #66
12. Georgia Tech NET #72
13. Wake Forest NET #76
14. Boston College NET #83
15. Pittsburgh NET #124
Bottom of the Big Ten:
10. Penn State NET #79
11. Minnesota NET #107
12. Northwestern NET #115
13. Wisconsin NET #123
14. Rutgers NET #150
So your implication that the ACC is so much better than the Big Ten really just boils down to the fact that Syracuse, GT, Clemson, WF, BC, and Pitt are on average a bit better than PSU, Minn, NW, Wis, and Rutgers. Which, if that's a tremendous point of pride for you.....
1. OK then.
2. get help. |
Even the SEC and Big12 rank above the Big 10 in NET and your excuse doesn't work.
It's not like the Big10 is 3rd right behind the PAC and ACC, they're FIFTH, dead last among the P5. I'm not the one who needs help.
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021 Posts: 2864
Back to top |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 01/30/23 9:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
BTW, I just saw your other post above, and you're right on that one. Iowa only has TWO, not three losses to unranked teams. Not sure how I added that wrong. Sorry.
Yes, it changes the extremely of the situation, but not really the point. Turns out there's only two teams in the top 12 with two losses to unranked teams - Iowa and Maryland. Evidently the Big10 gets some kind of dispensation from the impact of bad losses. They still don't deserve to be at #6.
And by the way, in the big picture, I like Iowa and Clark. I just don't like the writers slobbering over Clark and continuing to rank Iowa higher than deserved.
|
|
singinerd54
Joined: 18 Feb 2009 Posts: 1817 Location: Missouri
Back to top |
Posted: 01/30/23 9:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
How completely ridiculous.
Iowa has THREE losses to unranked teams. Nobody else in the top 20 matches that ignominy. They were already overranked, but jumped 4 spots based entirely on upsetting Ohio St which is a big deal only if you ignore that Ohio State lost THREE games last week, including at home to six-loss unranked Purdue.
There is no chance that Iowa belongs at 6 or deserved a 4 spot leap from last week. These are the same clowns who thought the Clarkeyes belonged at #4 and a 1 seed back in week 1. I guess they are trying to convince themselves they weren't completely full of it back in November. But they were then, and are now. |
Out of curiosity, where do you think Iowa should be ranked, and who do you think should be ranked above them (that currently isn't)? Should it matter, Iowa has a NET of 9.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 01/30/23 9:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
singinerd54 wrote: |
Out of curiosity, where do you think Iowa should be ranked, and who do you think should be ranked above them (that currently isn't)? Should it matter, Iowa has a NET of 9. |
I'd have ND and Utah and probably Ohio State above them, at least. Maybe Duke as well.
9 or 10 might be reasonable for Iowa.
It probably matters that their NET is 9, but consider that Duke is NET 8 and Texas is 10.
Why should they be ahead of Duke? They have 2 common opponents. Both lost to UConn, while Duke beat #15 NCSt, a team that beat Iowa. Beyond that Duke has no unranked losses while Iowa has 2, and Duke has one other ranked win(#13 for a total of two) while Iowa has three (##10, 12 and 1 . Seems pretty close; certainly nothing to justify a ridiculous 10 spot ranking gap.
Or look at Iowa vs ND. ND's NET is 6 vs Iowa's 9. They have two common opponents - both lost to NCSt, ND beat UConn while Iowa lost to UConn. ND has 3 losses and zero unranked losses compared to Iowa's four losses including two unranked losses. Iowa beat ## 10, 12 and 18, while ND beat ##5, 13 and 23.
I see no reason why Iowa should be ahead of, much less three spots ahead of, Notre Dame.
Now satisy my curiosity. Where do you think Iowa should be ranked? Should they be ahead of ND? 10 places ahead of Duke?
|
|
singinerd54
Joined: 18 Feb 2009 Posts: 1817 Location: Missouri
Back to top |
Posted: 01/30/23 10:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
singinerd54 wrote: |
Out of curiosity, where do you think Iowa should be ranked, and who do you think should be ranked above them (that currently isn't)? Should it matter, Iowa has a NET of 9. |
I'd have ND and Utah and probably Ohio State above them, at least. Maybe Duke as well.
9 or 10 might be reasonable for Iowa.
It probably matters that their NET is 9, but consider that Duke is NET 8 and Texas is 10.
I see no reason why Iowa should be ahead of, much less three spots ahead of, Notre Dame.
Now satisfy my curiosity. Where do you think Iowa should be ranked? Should they be ahead of ND? 10 places ahead of Duke? |
I'm in general agreement with you. Perhaps a bit of a cop out (ND could be 6 or 7, etc.), but I think I see it as:
6 and 7 - Notre Dame and Utah
8 and 9 - Duke and Iowa
10 - Ohio State
The most important question will come down to seeding. As you allude to with Duke, there are some big gaps between NET and rankings. Oklahoma, for example, is ranked 20 with a NET of 45, which is below some pretty egregious resumes (e.g., Michigan St, Mississippi St). Then there's Duke, Texas, and Oregon that are underranked, at least according to NET.
|
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 7409 Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
Posted: 01/30/23 11:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
singinerd54 wrote: |
ArtBest23 wrote: |
singinerd54 wrote: |
Out of curiosity, where do you think Iowa should be ranked, and who do you think should be ranked above them (that currently isn't)? Should it matter, Iowa has a NET of 9. |
I'd have ND and Utah and probably Ohio State above them, at least. Maybe Duke as well.
9 or 10 might be reasonable for Iowa.
It probably matters that their NET is 9, but consider that Duke is NET 8 and Texas is 10.
I see no reason why Iowa should be ahead of, much less three spots ahead of, Notre Dame.
Now satisfy my curiosity. Where do you think Iowa should be ranked? Should they be ahead of ND? 10 places ahead of Duke? |
I'm in general agreement with you. Perhaps a bit of a cop out (ND could be 6 or 7, etc.), but I think I see it as:
6 and 7 - Notre Dame and Utah
8 and 9 - Duke and Iowa
10 - Ohio State
The most important question will come down to seeding. As you allude to with Duke, there are some big gaps between NET and rankings. Oklahoma, for example, is ranked 20 with a NET of 45, which is below some pretty egregious resumes (e.g., Michigan St, Mississippi St). Then there's Duke, Texas, and Oregon that are underranked, at least according to NET. |
As a Duke fan, I care about two things: 1) getting a double bye for the ACC tournament (top 4) and 2) getting a decent seeding for March Madness (a 3 seed would be nice, as well as seeded to a Greenville Regional. I really, truly do not care about the mid season rankings. We have to take care of business from here on out to get #1 and #2 above, which translates to winning at least 6 out of the last 8 games (ND, VT, NC State, NC). Of course, we go into every game planning to win, with one of the best tactical minds in the game. Coach Kara is learning with each game how to get each player ready to execute the gameplan.
_________________ Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021 Posts: 2864
Back to top |
Posted: 01/30/23 11:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I have Iowa at #12, up from #14 two weeks ago.
_________________ RebKell's 2021-2022 NCAA Fantasy League Regular Season Champion 🏆
|
|
singinerd54
Joined: 18 Feb 2009 Posts: 1817 Location: Missouri
Back to top |
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021 Posts: 2864
Back to top |
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 7409 Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
Posted: 02/06/23 1:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
readyAIMfire53 wrote: |
singinerd54 wrote: |
ArtBest23 wrote: |
singinerd54 wrote: |
Out of curiosity, where do you think Iowa should be ranked, and who do you think should be ranked above them (that currently isn't)? Should it matter, Iowa has a NET of 9. |
I'd have ND and Utah and probably Ohio State above them, at least. Maybe Duke as well.
9 or 10 might be reasonable for Iowa.
It probably matters that their NET is 9, but consider that Duke is NET 8 and Texas is 10.
I see no reason why Iowa should be ahead of, much less three spots ahead of, Notre Dame.
Now satisfy my curiosity. Where do you think Iowa should be ranked? Should they be ahead of ND? 10 places ahead of Duke? |
I'm in general agreement with you. Perhaps a bit of a cop out (ND could be 6 or 7, etc.), but I think I see it as:
6 and 7 - Notre Dame and Utah
8 and 9 - Duke and Iowa
10 - Ohio State
The most important question will come down to seeding. As you allude to with Duke, there are some big gaps between NET and rankings. Oklahoma, for example, is ranked 20 with a NET of 45, which is below some pretty egregious resumes (e.g., Michigan St, Mississippi St). Then there's Duke, Texas, and Oregon that are underranked, at least according to NET. |
As a Duke fan, I care about two things: 1) getting a double bye for the ACC tournament (top 4) and 2) getting a decent seeding for March Madness (a 3 seed would be nice, as well as seeded to a Greenville Regional. I really, truly do not care about the mid season rankings. We have to take care of business from here on out to get #1 and #2 above, which translates to winning at least 6 out of the last 8 games (ND, VT, NC State, NC). Of course, we go into every game planning to win, with one of the best tactical minds in the game. Coach Kara is learning with each game how to get each player ready to execute the gameplan. |
Reward for beating Notre Dame AT Notre Dame = TOP TEN RANKING!
_________________ Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67051 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 7409 Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
Posted: 02/06/23 3:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-womens-college-basketball-poll?week=14
South Carolina still unanimous
Indiana up to #2
Duke up to #9
Iowa State down to #21
Colorado in
Middle Tennessee State out |
Some VERY talkative people are silent after their team lost yesterday!
_________________ Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021 Posts: 2864
Back to top |
Posted: 02/06/23 5:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
My "first tier" of teams would be, in order:
1. SC
2. UConn
3. Indiana
4. Stanford
After that it becomes very tricky for me to order the second tier, comprised of the next best 1-2 teams from the P5 conferences: Duke, Notre Dame, Maryland, Iowa, Utah, LSU, and maybe even Texas now that their lineup is finally healthy and has had some experience playing together.
_________________ RebKell's 2021-2022 NCAA Fantasy League Regular Season Champion 🏆
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013 Posts: 7860 Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
Posted: 02/06/23 10:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
LSU certainly doesn’t belong where it is if we’re going by SOS. And Kim did schedule a relatively cupcake-y OOC lineup at Baylor, although nothing like she’s doing now.
_________________ Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
singinerd54
Joined: 18 Feb 2009 Posts: 1817 Location: Missouri
Back to top |
Posted: 02/06/23 10:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
summertime blues wrote: |
LSU certainly doesn’t belong where it is if we’re going by SOS. And Kim did schedule a relatively cupcake-y OOC lineup at Baylor, although nothing like she’s doing now. |
Yeah, it's nearly impossible to know if LSU deserves a 1, 2, 3, or 4 seed (though 4 seems unlikely). They've beat only two teams in the NET top 30 (#19 Tennessee and #24 Alabama), and Creme has Tennessee as a 7 seed and Alabama as an 8 seed in his most recent Bracketology. There's a lot riding on the South Carolina game(s), since that's the only top team that LSU will play the entire season.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013 Posts: 7860 Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
Posted: 02/07/23 11:07 am ::: |
Reply |
|
singinerd54 wrote: |
summertime blues wrote: |
LSU certainly doesn’t belong where it is if we’re going by SOS. And Kim did schedule a relatively cupcake-y OOC lineup at Baylor, although nothing like she’s doing now. |
Yeah, it's nearly impossible to know if LSU deserves a 1, 2, 3, or 4 seed (though 4 seems unlikely). They've beat only two teams in the NET top 30 (#19 Tennessee and #24 Alabama), and Creme has Tennessee as a 7 seed and Alabama as an 8 seed in his most recent Bracketology. There's a lot riding on the South Carolina game(s), since that's the only top team that LSU will play the entire season. |
And seriously, Alabama is a JOKE compared to Tennessee!
_________________ Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013 Posts: 7860 Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
Posted: 02/07/23 11:07 am ::: |
Reply |
|
singinerd54 wrote: |
summertime blues wrote: |
LSU certainly doesn’t belong where it is if we’re going by SOS. And Kim did schedule a relatively cupcake-y OOC lineup at Baylor, although nothing like she’s doing now. |
Yeah, it's nearly impossible to know if LSU deserves a 1, 2, 3, or 4 seed (though 4 seems unlikely). They've beat only two teams in the NET top 30 (#19 Tennessee and #24 Alabama), and Creme has Tennessee as a 7 seed and Alabama as an 8 seed in his most recent Bracketology. There's a lot riding on the South Carolina game(s), since that's the only top team that LSU will play the entire season. |
And seriously, Alabama is a JOKE compared to Tennessee!
_________________ Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
|
|