Legit rankings without preseason ranking consideration

[TrollyMcTroller]

trolly.....

why are you so stupid?

Ever heard the expression "when you lie down with pigs, you're bound to get dirty?" So I guess, it's my fault for talking to you so much.

sdsu was an away game for zona while villanova was a home game for SU. comparing them in the formula's and saying "look the problem exists here too" is total horseshit because they factor home/away.

Yeah, I made a mistake there. I glanced at the BPI and thought it was the SDSU game, not the NMSU game. So on that, you are correct.

That being said, I still don't have a problem with the games you mentioned, even if it does have your panties all in a twist.

Oh and...

I'm still curious to know if you'd be okay with the QBR if it included YAC yards. Let me remind you...

the reason why i dont like QBR is because it doesnt factor in yards after the catch.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

And of course nothing is going to can predict it accurately, but it did a much better job than RPI

Yeah, but what good is it being able to predict who's going to win games? That's for chumps. No money in that.

Now being able to write in all of the tournament teams on your bracket a few minutes before the teams are announced? Now that's priceless.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Yeah, but what good is it being able to predict who's going to win games? That's for chumps. No money in that.

Now being able to write in all of the tournament teams on your bracket a few minutes before the teams are announced? Now that's priceless.

Trolly, we should just make a New Year's resolution to not waste our time on this kid anymore. I feel like we could actually talking basketball instead of constantly handholding every time he doesn't understand something very basic about CBB. What do you say? It's fun up to a point, and then it's like talking to a wall.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Trolly, we should just make a New Year's resolution to not waste our time on this kid anymore. I feel like we could actually talking basketball instead of constantly handholding every time he doesn't understand something very basic about CBB. What do you say? It's fun up to a point, and then it's like talking to a wall.

Oh, at least let me stick around with him long enough to break the news to him...

From the ESPN Page "Guide to the Total Quarterback Rating"

Total QBR factors in such things as overthrows, underthrows, yards after the catch and more to accurately determine how much a QB contributes to each play.

It'll be a real hoot.

And to be honest, I'll never get tired of arguments from him like...

"The RPI is better because it isn't as good"
"The BPI is awful because it is too good"
"Syracuse is better because they looked more impressive in their near-defeat at home"
"Arizona shouldn't be ranked #1 because I can't count"
and my personal favorite...
"I lika do... da cha cha"

 

[CatsTopPac]

I knew where you were going with the QBR

But I just can't keep going on his arguments. My arguments always align with facts vs. facts, and may the best win, even if they are not mine. I'm always down to learn something. But I just don't have the time and patience for someone who brings very little facts, and then continues to disagree when the better evidence is presented. At that point, they are just arguing just to argue. He's not trying to get anywhere, he just wants to project his own insecurities. Fight the good fight though, Trolly!!!

 

[rmilia1]

RPI is jank and is by far the worst measure we have when evaluating teams. It has far more anomalies than any other system including BPI. There are currently 7 teams ranked in the top 30 of the RPI that no other metric has ranked in their top 30. Thats insane. When 25% of your top ranked teams arent top ranked team by any of the other 5-7 viable metrics out there then we know how useless RPI is. The ONLY reason its relevant is because the selction committee insists on using it despite the fact that is the worst possible tool to use. Makes no sense.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

RPI is jank and is by far the worst measure we have when evaluating teams. It has far more anomalies than any other system including BPI. There are currently 7 teams ranked in the top 30 of the RPI that no other metric has ranked in their top 30. Thats insane. When 25% of your top ranked teams arent top ranked team by any of the other 5-7 viable metrics out there then we know how useless RPI is. The ONLY reason its relevant is because the selction committee insists on using it despite the fact that is the worst possible tool to use. Makes no sense.

RPI is fine for its intended use. It simply isn't designed to be a predictive power ranking. It's measuring résumé strength, not team strength. I actually like the fact that the selection committee uses it. I'd rather teams get in based on the merit of what they've done, not just on how good they are perceived to be.

I don't see much use for it outside of that though. Referencing it prior to March as if it is some meaningful stat is silly though.

 

[Great Dayne]

My issue with BPI is the fact that they take a simple weighted factor decrease against a team in games they play without a player or two. Especially the star players. Shouldn't winning without your star players against a team be considered more impressive (carry more weight in a ratings system) than if you win with these star players? The answer is an obvious yes. BPI has the right idea but incorporated this into their system the wrong way.

 

[rmilia1]

My issue with BPI is the fact that they take a simple weighted factor decrease against a team in games they play without a player or two. Especially the star players. Shouldn't winning without your star players against a team be considered more impressive (carry more weight in a ratings system) than if you win with these star players? The answer is an obvious yes. BPI has the right idea but incorporated this into their system the wrong way.

Id agree with that. Hell last year my team went 2-3 without our best player when he was injured ( losses to MSU by 2, Indiana by 6 and Michigan by ALOT. Wins over Illinois and NW). Id like to think that that should have been given SOME consideration when picking the at larges but it wasnt. The BPI can do it better IMO but at least they factor it in somehow. RPI doesnt at all.

 

[jonvi]

It's good to see the cbb boards start to get some interest. I'm wearing out my welcome on the cfb pages.

 

[CatsTopPac]

I agree that the wins should be weighted without key players, instead of automatically devalued, regardless of the outcome. Hell, like it was stated above, winning without key players is huge! And I also don't like the fact that blowouts are devalued. Winning by 20 is better than winning by 30? Hell no. I've seen teams come back from down 20. No one comes back from down 30. I want to put the game away as soon as possible and rest my starters/give my bench some time to develop.

Obviously it's not perfect. Nothing is, and nothing will be. But it is the most accurate indicator in CBB. It has picked the winner each year, and is better than any other metric to predicting winners in March (as well as who should be in the tourney to begin with).

We can nit pick all day, but it's better than RPI for sure, and it's better than Pomroy and Sagarin. Because when it comes down to it, most times a key player is not in the lineup against a good team, they are going to lose. If a key player is out against a scrub, then who cares anyway. They don't have it all the way right, but accounting for missing key players, especially in a loss (which is most likely when the game means something), then they account for it when no one else does.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

My issue with BPI is the fact that they take a simple weighted factor decrease against a team in games they play without a player or two. Especially the star players. Shouldn't winning without your star players against a team be considered more impressive (carry more weight in a ratings system) than if you win with these star players? The answer is an obvious yes. BPI has the right idea but incorporated this into their system the wrong way.

Keeping in mind that BPI uses MoV not just win/loss, so when your star player is out, even if you win, it probably isn't by the same margin that you would have won by had he been playing. That is why games missing key players are devalued, regardless of outcome.

Simply put, games that don't feature a full lineup, aren't as good of a representative of how a team performs overall, compared to games that do feature a full lineup. So they are weighted accordingly.

Looking at it from a different perspective... You weight different metrics based on how significant and accurate you think they are. Wins and losses typically get more weight than MoV because Wins and Losses are typically considered to be a better mearuse of how good a team is. MoV is used because it is still considered to be an indicator, but less important than the W or L. Games missing key players are statistical outliers by definition. It's a datapoint, and one that can't be ignored, but it isn't the same as all of the others. It's not suddenly a better indicator of how a team performs just because you got a favorable result.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

And I also don't like the fact that blowouts are devalued. Winning by 20 is better than winning by 30? Hell no. I've seen teams come back from down 20. No one comes back from down 30. I want to put the game away as soon as possible and rest my starters/give my bench some time to develop.

Blowouts aren't devalued in that way.

BPI considers a 30 point win to be better than a 15 point win. It just isn't twice as good. It's a diminishing returns system. Winning by 15 is significantly better than winning by 10. Winning by 40 isn't significan't better than winning by 50. That is what they mean by devalued.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Blowouts aren't devalued in that way.

BPI considers a 30 point win to be better than a 15 point win. It just isn't twice as good. It's a diminishing returns system. Winning by 15 is significantly better than winning by 10. Winning by 40 isn't significan't better than winning by 50. That is what they mean by devalued.

I see what you mean. And it makes sense. I missed the "diminishing returns for blowout" part in the graphic, and paid more attention to the paragraph where it only states that it's devalued.

Even better though, all the more accurate, imo.

 

[john01992]

RPI is jank and is by far the worst measure we have when evaluating teams. It has far more anomalies than any other system including BPI. There are currently 7 teams ranked in the top 30 of the RPI that no other metric has ranked in their top 30. Thats insane. When 25% of your top ranked teams arent top ranked team by any of the other 5-7 viable metrics out there then we know how useless RPI is. The ONLY reason its relevant is because the selction committee insists on using it despite the fact that is the worst possible tool to use. Makes no sense.

RPI IMO is a system that you should use to determine resume and quality of wins not ranking the teams in X order.

as bad as RPI is, BPI is even worse......it says that pitt is the best team in the ACC

Syracuse having an SOS of 90 in the BPI is a compete joke. ISU is 23rd and we clearly have a better resume than them. Okie St. has a SOS of 79th despite the fact that they have played 3 ranked teams so far. Louisville has an SOS of 153rd despite playing 2 ranked teams so far. <== and that is where espn becomes a joke because they give us very little insight as to what they use to determine SOS

 

[john01992]

I knew where you were going with the QBR

But I just can't keep going on his arguments. My arguments always align with facts vs. facts, and may the best win, even if they are not mine. I'm always down to learn something. But I just don't have the time and patience for someone who brings very little facts, and then continues to disagree when the better evidence is presented. At that point, they are just arguing just to argue. He's not trying to get anywhere, he just wants to project his own insecurities. Fight the good fight though, Trolly!!!

your reading comprehension obviously sucks as i have been nailing trolly with facts over & over again to prove a point. i guess theres nothing more that i can do when the uneducated idiots (that would be you) only listen to facts that support their argument. and then yall go "see i am using facts....they arent" when that is clearly not the case.

you guys are truly act just like US congress with your stupidity & selective intake of reality.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

your reading comprehension obviously sucks as i have been nailing trolly with facts over & over again to prove a point. i guess theres nothing more that i can do when the uneducated idiots (that would be you) only listen to facts that support their argument. and then yall go "see i am using facts....they arent" when that is clearly not the case.

you guys are truly act just like US congress with your stupidity & selective intake of reality.

Says the guy who cherrypicks his stats and is flat out wrong on many of his facts.

Speaking of selective reality... do you think Syracuse is going to make it up to #1 in the AP finally this week?

 

[john01992]

trolly......

you have proved your total stupidity with that QBR link you posted. you posted a link saying "see QBR factors yards after the catch" but the keyword is "factors"

YAC is not a regular stat. traditional NFL passing stats dictate one thing for passing yards in a game. and that is total passing yards. so when ESPN says they are "factoring" YAC that doesnt mean they are adding YAC to the formula but taking it away

from the link you posted by espn:

The big part was taking this information and analyzing how much of it was related to the QB, the receivers and the blockers. Not surprisingly, pass protection is related mostly to the QB and the offensive line, but yards after the catch is more about what the receiver does. Statistical analysis was able to show this, and we divided credit based on those things.

and here is their conclusion about what the QBR does:

It shows that a pass that is in the air for 40 yards is more reflective of a quarterback than a pass that is in the air for 5 yards and the receiver has 35 yards of run after the catch.

^^^^^
can it get any more obvious that QBR DOESNT factor in yards after the catch??????

reading comprehension 101: just because someone uses the term "factors" it doesnt mean that they are including it.


whats so funny is that others (arizona fans of course) chimed in on this and got into a little circle jerk over "john not knowing that QBR factors YAC" and yet they were too stupid to realize that you were actually wrong on this one.

but then again thats just how the zona fanbase is ==> idiots holding on to false information to make a point

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Actually it very clearly stats that it factors in YAC yards. You can try and twist it any way you like, but the formula for QBR does in fact factor in YAC yards regardless of how you may try and twist it. Just like the mascot issue that you were clearly wrong about, and too damn stubborn to admit, despite Syracuse's own web site proving you wrong, this is just another instance of the same thing.

The problem here is that you don't like how the QBR factors in YAC yards, not that it doesn't include YAC yards. YAC yards are a factor, just not in the way that you'd like. As is often the case you're wrong and just too stubborn to admit it.

To get more to the point of the discussion at hand, you clearly have some bias against ESPN and are just trying to invent excuses not to like their stuff, which is fine, but you could at least admit it instead of trying to act like you have some logical reason to dislike them. It's okay to have an emotional response to something instead of a rational one, buddy. Sure it's a little girlish, but it happens sometimes. It's okay to let your feelings out.

If you want to talk stats, and what is included, it would help a lot if you understood why things are done the way the are (you clearly don't) so you're basically just adding a bunch of noise to the conversation. (but that's pretty typical of your trolling MO isn't it?)

 

[iowajerms]

NCAA College Basketball RPI Rankings - ESPN

Finally, a ranking system that doesn't use preseason ranking predictions on how good a team will potentially be and just based on SOS and other stats.

RK TEAM RPI D1 W-L SOS NCRP NCSS CFRP CFSS 1-25 26-50 51-100 L12 LRPI OFFQ DEFQ ASM
1 Wisconsin .7190 12-0 0.66 13 16 43 243 0-0 3-0 6-0 12-0 5 7.7 13.0 20.7
2 Massachusetts .7100 9-0 0.66 15 18 57 215 2-0 2-0 1-0 9-0 14 14.6 0.9 15.6
3 Syracuse .6976 9-0 0.63 18 28 42 289 1-0 0-0 3-0 9-0 1 9.5 11.7 21.2
4 Baylor .6971 6-1 0.73 226 2 124 225 1-1 1-0 3-0 6-1 160 -- -- --
5 Kansas .6922 7-3 0.78 65 1 69 137 1-2 0-1 2-0 7-3 16 9.2 9.9 19.1
6 Colorado .6834 10-1 0.65 25 23 71 345 1-1 2-0 1-0 10-1 33 7.6 12.1 19.7
7 Villanova .6830 9-0 0.59 16 59 35 303 2-0 0-0 1-0 9-0 6 13.8 10.7 24.5
8 Oregon .6824 9-0 0.61 17 48 54 108 0-0 3-0 1-0 9-0 2 18.0 3.7 21.7
9 Oklahoma State .6804 9-1 0.62 28 36 68 294 0-0 2-1 2-0 9-1 4 18.4 10.4 28.9
10 Arizona .6739 11-0 0.59 19 58 56 334 1-0 1-0 2-0 11-0 3 7.0 17.3 24.3

And apparently not kept up with head-to-head competition.

OP was Dec 16.

November 29 - Villanova beat Kansas 63-59
December 7 - Colorado beat Kansas 75-72

and yet, Kansas is ranked above both of them. It reads Kansas has 3 losses (which they do now) so it is after those 2 losses. Villanova on that rankings have 0 losses (so it's before they lost to Syracuse). Don't see how that works.