Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
All the stars are aligned to get Arch.
As a group, I think that we are 0-fer on predicting/picking the next coach in either FB or BB. I hope you’re right, but I’m not willing to bet on it. I could be happy with a number of names that have been listed here as long as I know that we went to Archie first.
I also hope that we use a search consultant to help filter the process. As a starting assumption, I doubt that State could pay any proven coach already making >$3M to pick up and move. But there is always the chance that a coach that fits that description is ready to move on. A search consultant makes it easy for my hypothetical coach to use his agent to make contact and check for interest from State.
After the last two BB coaching searches, it seems obvious that we are going to have to pick from the group of mid-major coaches that show promise. As long as the hire is from that group (or better), then I’ll be happy with the search no matter how the results on the court turn out.
Here’s a list of past Xavier coaches: Skip Prosser, Thad Matta, Sean Miller, and Chris Mack (current). Which one has the most wins as head coach at Xavier?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Answer: None of the above. Pete Gillen won the most games in Xavier history and flamed out at UVA. Pete is an example of a “good hire” that just didn’t work out. State’s last two BB coaching searches ended up with candidates that came with no specific reason to be excited; other than his hiring meant the previous coach was gone.Down by 13 and eventually winning by 12 (70 – 58)
Nice. Good job Ladies.
Truly a Wolfpack legend…as much a part of my Reynolds memories as Mrs. Sloan singing the National Anthem and Norm’s plaid game jackets.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Whether we score Archie Miller or not, the search is in very capable hands
You obviously missed the clusterfuck that ended up with Gott in Raleigh.
YUP. It isn’t like football, where recruiting is primarily regional, and 4 teams make the national tournament. Being in a strong league/area actually HELPS you get more attention and media coverage, actually.
You don’t have to look any further than VT to see evidence of this. Greenburg recruited well and so is Buzz. So if a school with virtually no BB history at all can join the ACC and recruit well, then there is no reason to think that State should have problems recruiting.
Which all ties in nicely to claims in the UNC game thread that lack of talent is State’s problem this year. Even if you take that as fact, it’s still an indictment of the coach not doing his job. Sadly enough even after 10 years in Raleigh, the HSSS (Herb Sendek Sunshine Squad) wanted to judge Herb on a sliding scale because State’s talent wasn’t up to the level of the top ACC teams.
I’m not sure exactly what scope Bill was shooting for, but this year marks the 30th anniversary of State’s last basketball ACC championship. So it seems like the plowing and planting from the past hasn’t produced much fruit.
Top 4 talent
That’s a joke. Who in our starting line up replaces any one of theirs? Or FSUs? Or a lot of others? Maybe one, that’s it
The results suck so it doesn’t matter the exact reason. Gott’s responsible for getting the talent and for coaching it. He’s failed. All that’s left is negotiating the buyout.
Surprisingly, the game is not blocked on the ESPN3 and is actually streaming well. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or not.
Evidently the ACC network doesn’t extend into Central VA. Oh well, the Tune-In app will tell me more than I’ll want to know.
Part of me thinks that this is potentially the strategy behind letting what has leaked
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
(frequently attributed to Napoleon)If Archie and Marshall are both interested, a strategic approach would be to play them against each other in the sense of “let’s interview you, and if we offer you, you have 24 hours, and by the way this other guy is interested and his offer is written up too, whatever you want to do is OK”.
this is the best way to be left with no one [WORTH HAVING]
FTFY
Goodman never misses an opportunity to slam State and/or State fans. If he told me it was raining, I would look outside before grabbing an umbrella.
Is there a system that does that?
The short answer is that I don’t know. Sagarin doesn’t discuss the dirty details of his system, so only he could answer that question for his system. I don’t follow either Pomeroy’s rankings or ESPN’s BPI; so I have no idea what goes into either system…but I doubt that they go that far.
Margin of victory matters. It matters a whole lot if you’re trying to make predictions. It could even matter when you are trying to rank teams. But the weighting factor you apply to point spreads, or to SOS, are open to discussion/dispute/disagreement.
What you don’t want is blind allegiance to any one formula. Speaking only for myself, I don’t want a team to get an at-large bid for scheduling a bunch of tough opponents, but never winning any of those games (see WF). But I also don’t want someone to get a bid because they had a impressive point spread against a bunch of teams that were not included in the field (see Wichita St last year).
In the comments to the Dance Card entry linked in this thread, foxsports.com claimed that the Selection Committee chairman said that Pomery was used for Wichita St last year. I didn’t see that mentioned in any other bubble article last year, so I’m a little leery of accepting that as a fact. So I’m going to withhold judgement until I find out for sure that the selection committee is using Pomeroy/Sagarin and how/when they are being used.
If a decision is needed between a bunch of really similar teams, then another ranking system would probably be better than a coin flip. But if people are using a different ranking system without understanding its weakness and strengths…then that’s not too good either.
My biggest concern, although perhaps that is not the correct term, is that the RPI continues to be used instead of a better tool.
This claim is often stated as fact, never proven, and mostly irrelevant for several reasons.
1) If you would back up and read my recent entry on the Dance Card and the comments, both Pomeroy and Sagarin’s rankings are provided to the Selection Committee and evidently Pomeroy’s ranking was used last year in several instances.
2) Since the RPI is not directly used to select the teams, a comparison between the RPI and any other system is pretty much meaningless. You have to compare whatever system you love to the selections made by the Committee, not the RPI since the RPI isn’t solely used to pick the field.
3) The NCAAT selections are reflective of what has happened during the year and not intended to be predictions of what would happen in the tournament. A team earns its way into the field by beating other good teams. In interviews with the Selection Committee, they often quote wins against other teams in the field and/or losses to teams not in the field.
Yes, SOS can skew the RPI calculations…see this year’s WF’s ranking. But point spread can skew the rankings as well. According to foxsports.com, Pomeroy was used last year to pick Wichita St. The problem I have with Wichita St last year is they didn’t play many Top50 teams and only won one of those games. I don’t think that their winning margin against a bunch of nobodies should push them into the NCAAT field over a team that actually beat good teams.
One last thing, the professors behind the Dance Card have found statistical evidence demonstrating that the old RPI formula (pre-2005) is an important factor in the Selection Committee’s decisions. So it’s not just what the Selection Committee says, we can show that it affects their decisions.
Another way that the RPI is used is in the seeding of the tournament. Specifically, about 75% of the teams are seeded within one line of what you would predict solely by its RPI ranking. We’ve discussed this before and did so last week on the Dance Card entry.
Are we completely sure the RPI is used by the committee as the important tool that it once was? And if so, why?
We know that it is used because it is on the one-page summary that is prepared for each team. The committee has attempted to separate its use of the RPI from the football calculation that used to be used in the BCS. So when I say that it is used, I mean that it is one of a number of factors that are being considered.
That does not mean that if Team A has a RPI ranking of 50 and Team B has a RPI ranking of 60, that Team A is a step ahead in the selection process. When you get to the point of evaluating bubble teams, the RPI ranking of the opponents that Team A and Team B beat is much more important than their individual ranking.
Here’s a quote that I put in last year’s Selection Sunday entry and it came up again in the Dance Card entry here last week.
When Joe Castiglione [Selection Committee Chariman] made his media rounds after the Selection Show to explain the committee’s decisions, he repeatedly mentioned the number of RPI top-50 wins that bubble teams did and did not have. He didn’t mention the records that bubble teams had against RPI top-50 competition. Just the number of wins. And, when you look at the bubble teams that did and didn’t make the cut, it becomes apparent how much of an impact the metric had.
Bubble Teams’ RPI Top-50 Wins Bubble Teams in the FieldNumber of RPI Top-50 Wins
Syracuse 5
Temple 5
Michigan 4
Tulsa 4
Vanderbilt 2
Wichita State 1Bubble Teams Out of the Field Number of RPI Top-50 Wins
St. Bonaventure 3
St. Mary’s 2
Monmouth 1
South Carolina 1
San Diego State 1
Valparaiso 1Meanwhile expect her to publicly support Gottfried. It will be annoying but it’s the way the big boys play the game.
I would have considered this to be obvious…but it clearly need to be stated.
If it were my position to select the next coach and it’s obviously not, I would search out and find a coach who as a player played hard-nosed defense.
I agree with your comments on character, but not so much with this requirement. What the next coach did in college (student vs athlete) is not important to me. What he did after moving into coaching is important. I want to see success in the W/L record, worth ethic and hustle on the court, and a distinct lack of players ending up in the local newspaper’s headlines.
Two coaches back, we had a defensive-minded coach, good character, and instilled that into his kids. But it didn’t turn out so well. The next coach’s resume needs to demonstrate that he can get good results on both ends of the court.
Of those 3, I have only seen FSU play. They’re seeded according to the RPI rank and they are 8-2 against the Top 50. Their struggles on the road against lesser teams make me doubt that they will go very far in a tournament format.
Butler is placed two seeds below what their RPI rank would predict. So it doesn’t look like the committee is super-impressed either. They likely have little/no margin for error.
Gonzaga gets the socialistic #1 seed to match their undefeated record. At least they backed up the committee’s confidence in them with a road-victory yesterday against St Mary’s..the toughest game left on their regular season schedule. So if they win out, they’ll have a #1 seed. The interesting question would be where do they drop if they stumble?
At one time, the Dance Card had a P12 factor to account for some strange decisions made by the selection committee. They discussed this briefly in the paper they published (linked in my Dance Card entry). Previously, they had concluded that the selection committee was biased against mid-majors.
But they say in the current paper that they didn’t find statiscal support for conference bias since ~2012. But I’m pretty sure UCLA got in just a couple of years ago for no obvious reasons.
FaceBook just gave me the following invitation:
VA, North Carolina State is playing Wake Forest.
Let your friends know if you’re watching.Ummmmm…..No thanks
