Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If not, then come up with the damn names outside of the ones we’ve seen.
Why? I’m not on the search committee so there is no reason for me to come up with potential candidates. I’m a fan and like to draw conclusions from the available information…which is what most here are doing.
Decade? Sorry Herb didn’t do jack benny. I loved Les but the product sucked the worst of pretty much any of them. Try last 25 years!!
There’s a difference between judging the results on the court and judging the results of a coaching search. I was talking about the coaching hire and certainly not the results on the court.
Sendek wasn’t a great hire, but he did have enough on his resume that no one was slitting their wrists when he came to Raleigh. The biggest negative that I remember is that he only had three years experience as a head coach (Miami-Ohio) from a small conference…thus not a lot of data to draw conclusions from.
Coincidentally, Keatts only has three years experience as a head coach…all in a small conference.
I do NOT see him working out by any measure.
If that was the criteria for leaving, I would have left a decade ago. Stay….Hope for the best….watch it all crash and burn. That pretty much sums up the last decade of Wolpfack basketball.
in other words the dank reality is anything beyond 1st tier is rolling dice…
I guess we knew that.We’ve seen that up-close and personal.
UNCW’s defense was at the bottom of the Colonial. You saw why today.
Just say no
we need to be wary of assuming that just because these guys at these small schools are tearing it up, it doesn’t guarantee success at the P5 level. The wiser choice, IMO, is to go after an up-and-comer who has been tested a little more (a slightly bigger school in a more competitive conference that has played more P5 schools on a regular basis). Show him a blank check, tell him to fill in his price, and GET HIM.
Even this approach isn’t guaranteed. Look at all of the successful coaches that got their big start at Xavier. Pete Gillen won more games there than anyone else…and he didn’t work out so good at UVA. State most likely isn’t looking at coaches that are proven in a P-5 conference, so there will always be some risk.
However, we (fans or AD) shouldn’t be looking for guarantees. We should be looking for chances for success. The last two hires came with really, really long odds at success. So I agree with your approach and hope that is what DY is doing. My fear is that she is going to reach down too far for someone who wouldn’t ever say no.
Makes you wonder if the Pomeroy rankings are gaining purchase with the committee
Maybe, but USC and Providence make me wonder about cause and effect. Based on actions and quotes in past years, I’m convinced that the Committee pays attention to SOS ranking (good and bad) when dealing with the bubble. Pomeroy – not so much.
I would really like to know what the Committee said about Iowa and Syracuse behind closed doors. A lot of Top-50 wins countered by a bunch of bad losses and really bad RPI. You have to wonder if there’s an RPI line that they just don’t want to go beyond.
For all of the whining about Wichita St, Pomeroy rankings, and poor seeding, I haven’t heard a single media type bring up Pomeroy’s ranking for them last year. It seems like the #12 team in the country would do better than just a win in the Round of 64.
I have no doubt that Ken can defend his algorithm when looking at all of college basketball. But like a lot of population statistics, norms mean a lot less when you are talking about an individual. Margin of Victory skews power rankings of Wichita St just like Strength of Schedule skews the RPI ranking of Wake Forest. Who you beat matters to the Selection Committee and it makes sense to me.
I just sorted the table of 15 teams by Pomeroy (don’t know why I didn’t think about this earlier) and the six highest teams in the list got at-large bids. USC got the last bid in our group of teams and is way down the list of Pomeroy rankings. (USC was one of my final four choices for my last slot of 5 selections.)
Pomeroy didn’t like Providence either which wasn’t in the list of 15 discussed above.
USC – with an RPI ranking of 42, their overall resume is very similar to WF(#38)…a few good wins and little to be embarrassed about. Not surprising that both ended up in the First Four.
With six top 50 wins, Providence ranked higher on the Dance Card than on the Selection Committee’s list or Pomeroy Rankings.
Thanks. I’ve done one of these for several years and am not sure the best format. If work schedule allows next year, I may do this in two parts. Blind picks before the show and the answers after the selection committee gives them to us.
Comparison Table between First Four and NIT#1
http://www.statefansnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/First-Four-vs-NIT-Rankings.jpg
I never pay much attention to the NIT, but we should probably pay attention to the #1 seeds since we can draw a line between those four and the four playing in Dayton in the First Four.
This year’s NIT #1 seeds were Cal, Illinois St, Iowa, and Syracuse…all of which were in the opening/closing table of 15 teams to consider.
I finally went back and checked on the four teams that I was choosing for my last pick and 3 of those 4 made the NCAAT. Illinois was the one that I was considering that didn’t make the NCAAT and got a #2 seed in the NIT. I would have picked Illinois before Syracuse…but obviously the NIT Selection Committee thought differently.
Total losses means SQUAT, classic “correlation v. causation.”
I was thinking about this last night. When comparing Vandy with SYR, I decided your schedule decides how many losses you can afford. WF and Vandy fell to the good side of that line and SYR fell to the NIT.
So one of the easiest ACC schedules led directly to UNC getting a #1 seed. UNC played their toughest 1-time opponents in Chapel Hill and Duke played them on the road.
The Selection Committee needs to look closer at the unbalanced conference schedules.
If the talking heads can only whine about Wichita St seed, then this Selection Committee must have done a great job.
Scary Wheat beats up on the weaker sisters and obviously the Selection Committee wasn’t as impressed as Ken Pomeroy. I’ll be forced to pull against them.
I think its:
East
VT – 9
UVA – 5
Duke – 2
Midwest
Miami – 8
Louisville – 2
South
UNC – 1
WF – First 4
West
ND – 5
FSU – 3Breeze for Holes and UK, and the Holes will murder them
Rematch
The talking heads seem confused that regular season champions mean more than tournament champs. It’s been that way for a while
Well I’m not rewriting my Selection Sunday entry for RI. They stay on the bubble list.
If the major conferences can play on Sat, why not the A10?
Rhode Island was on the bubble lists. Did I understand correctly that they got the A10 automatic bid?
Looked at the Dance Card today….WF is a couple of spots above the burst point and Syracuse is a couple of spots below. Comparing both of these teams to various mid-majors on either side of the bubble should make for some interesting discussion/analysis on Sunday.
BJD, you forgot to include your unnatural affection for cats. 😉
Specifically with UNC, their schedule was weak because they played home/away with two of the three worst teams in the ACC. Now don’t make a big deal out of that with any UNC acquaintances because State was one of those worst teams.
How does one factor in SOS when a top rated team (say the holes) do not have to play themselves, so they automatically hav a somewhat lower SOS than say someone at the bottom like State who has to play them twice and do not get to ply them selves, so it is automatically a bit higher.
Yes this happens….it’s the converse of the weakest teams inflating their SOS by losing to their opponents. I didn’t discuss that this year just because the darn article was so long as it is.
My feel is that the effect of being the strongest or weakest ACC team is minimized because we’re only looking at a small number of teams to develop our SOS. UNC only played 4 teams twice, thus there are a lot of other teams that didn’t play UNC twice either. So UNC isn’t the only one that doesn’t get credit for playing them.
I also try to avoid any issues with my system by not making a big deal over small differences. Since UNC had a two game lead over second place and BC was two games under 14th place, playing either team twice would have a demonstrable impact on that team’s SOS. That’s why I decided to use average rank rather than average wins when looking at the four year average SOS.
Lastly, I back up my simplistic model with a qualitative evaluation of some teams at the top or the bottom of the SOS, If math doesn’t agree with common sense, then there is an issue with one or the other.
So if anyone argues that the conclusion that UNC had an easy schedule was only because they were so good….just walk away. Those people are too stupid to waste time arguing with.
man, exiting the ACC tournament on the first day feels like never being part of it.
Pretty much describes this whole season.
