| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
 Posted: 12/30/22 8:10 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Pick the team you think faces more potential losses than UConn. |
Happy to respond when you define the term.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/30/22 8:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
I'll be kinda shocked if they DON'T secure a #1 seed.
|
You realize, I hope, that your comment is completely consistent with my point.
My post that began this discussion was:
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| And UConn will now begin its inevitable rise up the rankings and the seedings as it cakewalks over its conference and faces only one potential remaining loss while everyone else faces the most challenging parts of their schedules. |
I, like you, believe UConn will, deservedly or not, likely end up a 1 seed for the very reason that they'll end up at worst with 3 losses, all to highly ranked teams, because they don't play anyone other than SCar with a realistic chance of beating them for the rest of the year, while the teams above them play FAR more challenging schedules and, other than SCar, are likely to lose a couple more ( and in some cases somebody has to lose when teams play each other). (And we all know that if it's close which team will get all the benefit of the doubt from the committee.)
Answer this question, though. Go back to Monday when the rankings were released. Let UConn and each of numbers 2-7 swap schedules. Just assume that all of them would lose to SCar and just consider the rest of their schedules and their respective tournaments. Can you honestly say that you believe Stanford, Ohio St, ND etc wouldn't be more likely to win all of the games on UConn's schedule and the BE tournament than they are on their own schedule and tournament? And wouldn't UConn be more likely to lose another game or two playing that ACC, B10 or PAC schedule and tournament than they are against their own schedule and tournament?
If you think flipping the schedules doesn't change the risk of loss, I'd love to hear an explanation of what the equivalent in the BE is to playing NCSt, UNC, FSU, Louisville twice, Miami, Duke, several on the road, plus some of those again in the tournament. And that's without even counting UVA and Clemson.
That answers Singinerd's question for me about what the effect of losses SHOULD be. But I'm also realistic enough to know that's not how the rankings and seedings actually function. Which is why I know UConn will inevitably rise as they beat cupcakes while the other teams will fall behind them as they likely lose a couple more challenging games. Because that's how it works in practice. Which was my entire point and all that my original post said.
Last edited by ArtBest23 on 12/30/22 9:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/30/22 8:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Pick the team you think faces more potential losses than UConn. |
Happy to respond when you define the term. |
Realistic risk of loss. It's not difficult.
If you want to have a discussion, then demonstrate you're interested in a serious good faith discussion. We all know what it means, including you.
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/30/22 9:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I figured you would decline. I asked for a probability, I knew you would refuse to answer, I just wasn't sure how you would wiggle out of answering, while pretending you did answer. I've ignored you for years, and the reasons are coming back.
I gave you a chance, and I'm not going to dance anymore. I believe that a 35% of a loss is a realistic chance of loss (there were several losses last night alone with probabilities that low or lower. Tennessee has a 35% chance of defeating UConn and of course, South Carolina's chances are higher. So there's TWO. South Carolina has fewer games remaining with a chance of loss at that level, so asked and answered.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/30/22 9:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Oh, and it's not just me who thinks Massey is a joke. Nobody that matters pays any attention to the Massey ratings. Specifically, the selection committee.
Indeed, I've been laughing that the ONLY thing the UConn fans keep chanting as "support" for their position is MASSEY, MASSEY, MASSEY, MASSEY. Which I guess isn't surprising when reality, logic, and common sense are all against them. But if you expect any further response from me, you're going to have to come up with something other than "MASSEY!!!!". |
Members of the SelComm can consider whatever they want, including Massey. Whether any individual does so, no one knows.
Only Sagarin with five wins has more than Massey's four in pilight's Fun Bracket of polls/rankings over the years.
This is the current top 10 as ranked by Her Hoop Stats:
1 South Carolina Gamecocks (13-0) 55.4
2 Stanford Cardinal (13-1) 48.7
3 UConn Huskies (10-2) 46.0
4 LSU Tigers (13-0) 44.1
5 Indiana Hoosiers (12-1) 43.8
6 NC State Wolfpack (11-2) 43.5
7 Utah Utes (13-0) 39.5
8 Notre Dame Fighting Irish (11-1) 36.5
9 Oregon Ducks (10-2) 35.7
10 Iowa St. Cyclones (8-2) 35.4 |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/30/22 9:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
I figured you would decline. I asked for a probability, I knew you would refuse to answer, I just wasn't sure how you would wiggle out of answering, while pretending you did answer. I've ignored you for years, and the reasons are coming back.
I gave you a chance, and I'm not going to dance anymore. I believe that a 35% of a loss is a realistic chance of loss (there were several losses last night alone with probabilities that low or lower. Tennessee has a 35% chance of defeating UConn and of course, South Carolina's chances are higher. So there's TWO. South Carolina has fewer games remaining with a chance of loss at that level, so asked and answered. |
I DID answer, even though your question was totally insincere. Sorry you don't like the answer.
I wonder where you pulled that 35% from. Certainly not from anything Tennessee has actually demonstrated this year. Or else you give a lot less credit to UConn than I think you do.
Since SCar also plays at Tenn, and plays UConn AT UConn, it certainly has at least as many chances of loss as UConn has, and it has a much higher chance of losing to LSU or AT UGA or AT Bama or AT Miss St than UConn has of losing to anyone on its schedule. Now do I think SCar is going to lose those games? No, I don't , but I also don't believe for a second that UConn will lose to this year's undisciplined badly coached Tenn team either. But if you swapped schedules, I don't believe UConn would get through SCar's SEC schedule plus the SEC Tournament unscathed. And SCar would breeze through the BE regular season and tournament.
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/30/22 10:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
> I DID answer, even though your question was totally insincere. Sorry you don't like the answer.
I specifically asked for a probability. You did not give me a probability. My apologies if you don't know what the word means. If you don't there no point in continuing.
> Pick the team you think faces more potential losses than UConn.
Hundreds of teams face more potential losses than UConn. A few are currently ranked ahead of UConn. I don't think that demonstrates what you think it does.
I gave you a second chance, I probably should not have, but it's a season for forgiving, so I thought it was worth a shot. I was wrong.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/30/22 10:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Members of the SelComm can consider whatever they want, including Massey. Whether any individual does so, no one knows.
|
Yes...but...it's not as loosey-goosey as you suggest. The NCAA DIVISION I WOMEN’S BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING THE BRACKET provides:
"Criteria used by the Division I Women’s Basketball Committee to evaluate a team includes (alphabetically):
● Availability of talent (injured or unavailable players)
● Bad losses
● Common opponents
● Competitive in losses
● Conference record
● Early competition versus late competition
● Head-to-head outcomes
● NET ranking
● Non-conference record
● Overall record
● Regional Advisory Committee region rankings
● Significant wins
● Strength of conference
● Strength of schedule"
I see NET ranking. I must be overlooking where it mentions Massey. And directly contrary to Massey's disregard of conferences, the selection committee criteria specifically include "Strength of Conference".
It does further recognize that committee members vote based on their "subjective opinions" "developed after watching hundreds of games, investing many hours of personal team (or game) observations, review and comparison of objective data, plus discussions with coaches and campus/conference representatives."
I think that sounds a lot like the "subjective opinions" that posters here form based on watching lots of games and gathering lots of information. We all have a pretty good idea of what teams, schedules and conferences are strong and which aren't. It's completely disingenuous for some posters to pretend otherwise.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/30/22 10:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
> I DID answer, even though your question was totally insincere. Sorry you don't like the answer.
I specifically asked for a probability. You did not give me a probability. My apologies if you don't know what the word means. If you don't there no point in continuing.
> Pick the team you think faces more potential losses than UConn.
Hundreds of teams face more potential losses than UConn. A few are currently ranked ahead of UConn. I don't think that demonstrates what you think it does.
I gave you a second chance, I probably should not have, but it's a season for forgiving, so I thought it was worth a shot. I was wrong. |
So you think you control the discussion? I don't think anyone put you in charge.
You asked me if I was willing to specify a percentage probability. I'm not. I find that a ridiculous excercise. What is the point of assigning a totally arbitrary percentage cutoff when there is no source of a meaningful or universally accepted, non-arbitrary "probability" for any individual game?
We all have a pretty good idea of games that are realistically up for grabs and games that would be a stunning upset if the underdog prevailed. I find your effort to create a mirage of pseudo-precision for something that is inherently subjective as nothing but a disingenuous effort to avoid reality.
|
|
singinerd54
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 1817
Location: Missouri
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/31/22 1:45 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Art, if your main point is that UConn doesn’t deserve a __ seed (1, 1 or 2, etc) because they play an easy schedule relative to their peers, you need some kind of evidence to back it up.
UConn has the 3rd toughest predicted schedule according to Massey and the 2nd toughest predicted schedule according to RPI (from warrennolan.com, where there does not appear to be NET SOS for wcbb). I’ve yet to see you cite any metrics or data.
Assuming you don’t have any metrics or data, why should we trust your opinion over Massey and RPI’s strength of schedule metrics? Why should we believe you when you say other teams play “FAR more challenging schedules” rather than the metric that says it is the second or third toughest in the country? (I’m talking cumulative schedules, not conference schedules; I’m aware that there are more challenging conferences than the Big East. Teams are evaluated on their cumulative season for their seeding.)
This may more or less be moot if I’ve misinterpreted your main point. If I have, please let me know what your main point is.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/31/22 2:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| singinerd54 wrote: |
Art, if your main point is that UConn doesn’t deserve a __ seed (1, 1 or 2, etc) because they play an easy schedule relative to their peers, you need some kind of evidence to back it up.
UConn has the 3rd toughest predicted schedule according to Massey and the 2nd toughest predicted schedule according to RPI (from warrennolan.com, where there does not appear to be NET SOS for wcbb). I’ve yet to see you cite any metrics or data.
Assuming you don’t have any metrics or data, why should we trust your opinion over Massey and RPI’s strength of schedule metrics? Why should we believe you when you say other teams play “FAR more challenging schedules” rather than the metric that says it is the second or third toughest in the country? (I’m talking cumulative schedules, not conference schedules; I’m aware that there are more challenging conferences than the Big East. Teams are evaluated on their cumulative season for their seeding.)
This may more or less be moot if I’ve misinterpreted your main point. If I have, please let me know what your main point is. |
Does no one pay any attention to what is actually written by others?
I'm tired of trying to respond to people who create strawman that they want to argue about rather than commenting on what I actually write. I've repeated my point several times as simply as I can. I'm not trying again since you obviously don't want to understand or address what I wrote.
You chosen to idolize some phony baloney numbers because by their design they will always favor your team. So have fun. But don't delude yourself that they reveal any magical truth.
If you were serious you would step up and try to answer some of the questions I've posed, something you have studiously avoided. You can start with the question I asked Howie above where I said
"I'd love to hear an explanation of what the equivalent in the BE is to playing NCSt, UNC, FSU, Louisville twice, Miami, VT, Duke, several on the road, plus some of those again in the tournament. And that's without even counting UVA and Clemson."
I love to see you try to do that. I don't think anyone who actually follows WCBB needs Massey to know from their own personal understanding of the game that there is no BE schedule that is remotely the equal of that ACC schedule, and the BE schedule would flunk just as well against a Big10 or PAC schedule. If Massey produces a different result it simply confirms the invalidity of his model. Just because he uses computers doesn't make his stuff valid or meaningful if he uses invalid assumptions and unrealistic logic. The Massey chants here just remind me of the jokes about "I read it on the internet so it must be true."
|
|
singinerd54
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 1817
Location: Missouri
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/31/22 9:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Does no one pay any attention to what is actually written by others?
I'm tired of trying to respond to people who create strawman that they want to argue about rather than commenting on what I actually write. |
What blatant hypocrisy and double standard.
I’ve asked you the following questions, and have received no response:
- Where do you think UConn should be ranked/seeded now (this was prior to VT/Indiana/NC St losing), and what do you think their cap should be for each?
- Should UConn be ranked above Indiana next week? (after their loss to Michigan St)
- Which objective metric (e.g., NET) would you prefer, if any?
- Where would you rank and seed UConn today?
- How do you think about ranking/seeding at the end of the year? Should UConn and LSU "top out" at a particular seed (maybe a 2 or a 3), for example?
- What/whose strength of schedule metric do you prefer, or do you not care about strength of schedule?
- Should Indiana, Virginia Tech, and NC State still be ranked ahead of UConn after their losses to unranked/mediocre teams?
- What, if any, information do you trust or think should be used in determining seeding? Perhaps relatedly, what is your opinion of NET?
- Assuming you don’t have any metrics or data, why should we trust your opinion over Massey and RPI’s strength of schedule metrics? Why should we believe you when you say other teams play “FAR more challenging schedules” rather than the metric that says it is the second or third toughest in the country?
There’s no reason to respond to more of your questions when you don’t respond to any of mine.
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| I've repeated my point several times as simply as I can. |
And it’s still not clear.
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/31/22 10:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I realize your questions were directed at someone else but there were good questions so I'll offer some thoughts.
Credit to Michigan State for beating Indiana, but without Grace Berger, Indiana is a different team. Scalia had an atypically bad game, but I didn't see the game, so I don't know whether this was a little love lost bad game or if she's not quite as good as advertised. Assuming Berger is returning, I wouldn't dating them in the ratings too much.
I'd love to know more about the NET calculations. I have casually looked but not found any details. While I think that LSU finally demonstrated they are a good team, I'm suspicious of net ratings that would rate them as high as they did without any evidence.
|
|
singinerd54
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 1817
Location: Missouri
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66914
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/31/22 1:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| The NET formula is secret and many believe the NCAA fudges the numbers to achieve desired results.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
singinerd54
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 1817
Location: Missouri
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/31/22 1:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| The NET formula is secret and many believe the NCAA fudges the numbers to achieve desired results. |
| pilight wrote: |
| The conference difference is more pronounced in the women's game than the men's. Massey's formula was developed for the men's game, so it's not surprising it is less accurate for the women. |
So what do you think is the best metric or way to evaluate and seed women's teams? (This can include the polls, the eye test, etc.)
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66914
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/31/22 2:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| singinerd54 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| The NET formula is secret and many believe the NCAA fudges the numbers to achieve desired results. |
| pilight wrote: |
| The conference difference is more pronounced in the women's game than the men's. Massey's formula was developed for the men's game, so it's not surprising it is less accurate for the women. |
So what do you think is the best metric or way to evaluate and seed women's teams? (This can include the polls, the eye test, etc.) |
I don't know. When I've done the fun brackets it was Sagarin until he quit rating women. Massey is often in the hunt but hasn't won since 2012. The AP Poll won last year for the third time.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15737
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/31/22 2:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ....The AP Poll won last year for the third time. |
Now, what does "won" imply? And....is the Coaches' Poll ever a top contender?
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/31/22 4:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| double
_________________
RebKell's 2021-2022 NCAA Fantasy League Regular Season Champion 🏆
|
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66914
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/02/23 3:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Congrats to St Johns and their fans for the school's first ever appearance in the AP top 25.
|
|
Marquette Fan
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 3581
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66914
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
|
|
but I'm happy to try to help. The basic template for hyperlinking is this:
