- This topic has 23 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Corey Alexander does an “OK” job on the ACC broadcasts, but he was really pissing me off with the references to State’s 2006 season. I’m sure he was j
[See the full post at: One More Week]Thanks for all of the effort you put into this and all of your posts on this subject. I look forward to reading the new entry every week.
If State wins out, this will end up as State’s best regular season since 1988-89. What an enjoyable season. I could get used to this…
Thanks again VaWolf. In answer to your question as to why easy teams were scheduled I would venture that a new head coach might be trying to build confidence in a system and himself as their leader with a new team and players that some of the major potential contributors have not even played together much less than in the new system.
Getting your team to buy into a new system while having your butt kicked by middling teams might be significantly harder than winning and getting your team to believe in the system.
I would think the committee might cut a little slack the first few years but none thereafter.
Well for Keatts I understand, as he said on his show, just scraping up the grad transfers and the good fortune of getting Beverly eligible on appeal made a world of difference. If you rolled that set of dice 100 times they wouldn’t fall the way they have for us this season. So I totally get our OOC schedule. My question is (and has been) why does it matter if we played teams that are in the high 200’s/low 300’s or teams in the low or middle 200’s? In either case we would be expected to win, maybe by 12 instead of 20+ but still expected. THat’s my whole problem with the quadrant thing. I understand the math (VA) I just don’t understand the rationale behind the system.
I believe what V did some was played these same type teams but he would get ones that had won their dinky conferences and made the NCAA, but they were still dinky teams, but he could claim it as a quality win because they were an NCAA team. Of course I realize that predated the sophisticated system with all the metrics we have now.I want State to beat GT for many reasons but a major one is not having the wood choppers 4 game ACC win streak brought up by another game announcer. The only memory I want to keep from that era is Andrew Brackman draining a 3 pointer to send UConn packing.
Thanks VA. A bit over my head, but I kind of understand and always enjoy reading.
And I second this, Tau: “If State wins out, this will end up as State’s best regular season since 1988-89. What an enjoyable season. I could get used to this…”
Of course, if State keeps winning out, it will be the best year since, oh, 1983! Dream big, boys.
Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Mao Zedong
Thanks again VaWolf!
Worth waiting for….—————–
Am I correct?In the College Football Playoff Selection criteria, games at the end of the season are weighted heavier and games at the beginning of the season are discounted regardless of whether they are wins or losses.
Given the complexity of the RPI, Kenpom, Dance Card, et al, metrics, it seems that this early/late season weighing is missing.
College Football is a 12 game season.
If that early/late season weighing makes sense for a 12 game season, it seems to me it makes even more sense when trying to quantify a team’s body of work over a 30 game season.
GO PACK!
#NCSU-North Carolina's #1 FOOTBALL school!The committee should not (and doesn’t) grant such slack.
Thanks for the clarification.
Well for Keatts I understand, as he said on his show, just scraping up the grad transfers and the good fortune of getting Beverly eligible on appeal made a world of difference. If you rolled that set of dice 100 times they wouldn’t fall the way they have for us this season. So I totally get our OOC schedule. My question is (and has been) why does it matter if we played teams that are in the high 200’s/low 300’s or teams in the low or middle 200’s? In either case we would be expected to win, maybe by 12 instead of 20+ but still expected. THat’s my whole problem with the quadrant thing. I understand the math (VA) I just don’t understand the rationale behind the system.
I believe what V did some was played these same type teams but he would get ones that had won their dinky conferences and made the NCAA, but they were still dinky teams, but he could claim it as a quality win because they were an NCAA team. Of course I realize that predated the sophisticated system with all the metrics we have now.V played ND, MSU, Louisville home and away, Mizzou on the road, WVU neutral, Wichita State neutral, Memphis State all during the time I was at State and the schedule was only 27 games prior to the tournament not 31
The next three games will determine our faith more than any metrics. We cannot lose at GT or even at home to the Ville and be looking in from 4 of the out. Its so tight from 2nd down to 9th that we could fall to being tied for 8th place. 20-11 would probably mean atleast one maybe two wins in ACC tourney to secure a dance card. 20-12 is NIT bound. Amazing how important the last week of play has become. Win out and a double bye is ours. Lose out and the pressure is on in the Bronx.
So, here’s my question. I believe I’ve heard it stated (usually in reference to Notre Dame this year), that the committee takes into account injuries and the record of the team before, during, and after the injury, and might “help out” a team that returns a star late in the season.
The same could (should imo) apply to MJs “7 game suspension” (How many times did they say that on Sunday?), we lost 3 of our games (UNC-G, Clemson, ND) during this time.
Is that likely to help us?
MJ missed 7 games total. Just in case anyone missed it on Sunday. And it was a suspension on felony assault charges… They said it at least twice
So, here’s my question. I believe I’ve heard it stated (usually in reference to Notre Dame this year), that the committee takes into account injuries and the record of the team before, during, and after the injury, and might “help out” a team that returns a star late in the season.
The same could (should imo) apply to MJs “7 game suspension” (How many times did they say that on Sunday?), we lost 3 of our games (UNC-G, Clemson, ND) during this time.
Is that likely to help us?
We might get a semi-pass for the UNC-G game. The others are doubtful. At this point every little bit helps
So, here’s my question. I believe I’ve heard it stated (usually in reference to Notre Dame this year), that the committee takes into account injuries and the record of the team before, during, and after the injury, and might “help out” a team that returns a star late in the season.
The same could (should imo) apply to MJs “7 game suspension” (How many times did they say that on Sunday?), we lost 3 of our games (UNC-G, Clemson, ND) during this time.
Is that likely to help us?
I very seriously doubt it. These are the 7 games he missed:
L UNC-G
W Robert Morris
W Jacksonville
L @Clemson (by 16 points)
L @Notre Dame (by 30 points)
W Duke
W ClemsonIMO it is reasonable to think we would have beaten UNC-G if he played, especially since that was the first game he missed. Two counterpoints, though:
1. This NC State team has no business losing to UNC-G with or without Johnson. Especially given they beat Duke and Clemson without Johnson, two of their biggest wins of the season.
2. This NC State team lost to Northern Iowa (a worse loss than UNC-G) with Johnson, so he may not have made a difference.The losses at Clemson and at Notre Dame were lopsided enough that I doubt anyone would reasonably expect that Johnson would have made a difference in either outcome.
I don’t see a real pattern here. Sure, we went 4-3 without him, but it was also an extremely difficult schedule during that stretch. I don’t see any reason to expect the committee to discount the losses. Especially since Johnson was missing for a reason that had something to do with his own behavior, not an injury he could not control.
Fortunately, we won’t need such consideration to make the tournament.
RPI appears to be way too heavily weighted against OOC SOS. Assuming your RPI summary table in the post above is correct, you’ll see that we’re a full 10 spots below Louisville in RPI ranking, but looking at everything else EXCEPT OOC SOS and it would seems we should be 10-20 spots ahead of them.
Wins against top 25 we blow them to smithereens. To me that seems vastly more important than who you played in November.
RPI appears to be way too heavily weighted against OOC SOS
RPI measures what it sets out to measure. It is a simple formula. If you play a lot of teams with lousy RPI, and those teams also play a lot of teams with lousy RPI, it will have a negative effect on your RPI.
What you seem to really be getting at is how important the RPI should be with respect to evaluating teams. Or possibly whether or not we could devise another metric that would improve upon the deficiencies of RPI.
I think those questions are one reason why the committee considers many different criteria and metrics, including RPI but also quadrants, BPI, KenPom, Sagarin, conference record, road/neutral record, etc.
The fact is that State seems to be safely in the tournament as a 9 or 10 seed as of today, despite having a RPI of 47. That tells you that RPI is not the be all, end all.
So, here’s my question. I believe I’ve heard it stated (usually in reference to Notre Dame this year), that the committee takes into account injuries and the record of the team before, during, and after the injury, and might “help out” a team that returns a star late in the season.
The same could (should imo) apply to MJs “7 game suspension” (How many times did they say that on Sunday?), we lost 3 of our games (UNC-G, Clemson, ND) during this time.
Is that likely to help us?
I very seriously doubt it. These are the 7 games he missed:
L UNC-G
W Robert Morris
W Jacksonville
L @Clemson (by 16 points)
L @Notre Dame (by 30 points)
W Duke
W ClemsonIMO it is reasonable to think we would have beaten UNC-G if he played, especially since that was the first game he missed. Two counterpoints, though:
1. This NC State team has no business losing to UNC-G with or without Johnson. Especially given they beat Duke and Clemson without Johnson, two of their biggest wins of the season.
2. This NC State team lost to Northern Iowa (a worse loss than UNC-G) with Johnson, so he may not have made a difference.The losses at Clemson and at Notre Dame were lopsided enough that I doubt anyone would reasonably expect that Johnson would have made a difference in either outcome.
I don’t see a real pattern here. Sure, we went 4-3 without him, but it was also an extremely difficult schedule during that stretch. I don’t see any reason to expect the committee to discount the losses. Especially since Johnson was missing for a reason that had something to do with his own behavior, not an injury he could not control.
Fortunately, we won’t need such consideration to make the tournament.
First off I 100% agree we should never lose to uncg. But….. If I remember correctly they found out about the suspension at the last minute.
Honestly, after the uncg, Clemson and ND loses I was in a wait until year three mode. Heck of a coaching job turning that ship around.
My question is (and has been) why does it matter if we played teams that are in the high 200’s/low 300’s or teams in the low or middle 200’s? In either case we would be expected to win, maybe by 12 instead of 20+ but still expected.
The UNC-G and UNI losses would appear to disprove this theory.
In the article I linked in the Misc Bracketology section, the Selection chairman talked about wanting teams to challenge themselves with their OOC schedule. The more meaningful games a team plays, the better read the committee can get when evaluating them. And ultimately that’s the committee’s job….select and seed the best teams in college basketball.
I don’t knock KK for this OOC schedule. No one could have predicted the improvement in MJ and Y7 and how all of the various pieces of a flung-together team would work out. If you go back and read my first entry before the conference schedule got in full swing, I said that State’s OOC schedule wouldn’t matter this year. I’m certainly glad to have been proven wrong.
Back to the cupcakes….nearly everyone plays some of these. The problem is that State played way too many.
Google RPI for at large bids. There are many interesting articles. Top 30 guarantee (there are exceptions) and Major Conference Surety- be in the top 50.
If that early/late season weighing makes sense for a 12 game season, it seems to me it makes even more sense when trying to quantify a team’s body of work over a 30 game season.
Several years ago, the Selection Committee specifically said that it doesn’t matter when in the season a victory happened…they’re all treated the same.
Late-season injuries are a key exception to the above rule. The loss of a key player late in the season is one of the things that the Selection Committee will consider.
Keatts has broken the mold with this year. Most years we are on the bubble because we don’t have those real quality wins (or just have one).
No worries on that front this year. I think we need to 2 of next 3 to be comfortable a week from Sunday. We got 1-2 and we will be sweating it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
