This is the correct way.
This is the wrong way.
His model knows that.
Lunardi Has Us As An #11
- Thread starter colbert17
- Start date
Wisconsin is 11-2 losing to Kansas and Wake
They beat Stanford Dayton Marquette Iowa USC
We are talking about what Rutgers would be if the season ended. Their resume up to this point. Not the fact that they are likely to go 12-8 in B1G play
The post you quoted:
is talking about a projection for the end of the season.
Also, if for some reason you were ACTUALLY going to select a field now.. you probably give more weight to power ratings / NET than you would at the end of the season. Teams haven't had a chance to build a resume and sample sizes are smaller. Are you really going to give the #15 NET team an 11 seed because of the results of a couple of really close games when, as you say, they've only played 4 Q1/2 games total?
If you DID give the NET #15 an 11 seed, aren't you sort of discrediting your own metrics? That's a pretty big difference. It's one thing to say the NET is "only a tool" but if you just disregard it entirely that calls into question it's usefulness for whatever you are using it for.
If you DID give the NET #15 an 11 seed, aren't you sort of discrediting your own metrics? That's a pretty big difference. It's one thing to say the NET is "only a tool" but if you just disregard it entirely that calls into question it's usefulness for whatever you are using it for.
Bart's main T-Ranketology page projects the rest of the season and then uses that to select a field. It has us as a #4 seed. This is based on his projection of us going 14-6 in the B1G.
On that page there is a link to a T-Ranketology NOW that attempts to model what the field would be if the season ended today. He has us as a #7 seed there.
It is silly for us to debate this right now. We have solved the NeT by mostly blowing out bad teams. Yes we should get credit for losing close games but the heavy lifting is beating every cupcake by 30. Pike knew there was a spread and beat it
Yes, but it's actually difficult to beat every cupcake by 30. That's why we've never done it before.
His t rank is a blend of 4 inputs
NET
ELO
Resume (wtf is that)
WAb
His resume is 27 and WAb (we know this) 65
NET
ELO
Resume (wtf is that)
WAb
His resume is 27 and WAb (we know this) 65
Resume is explained somewhere on his site. Basically gives points for impressive wins and subtracts for horrific losses.
How is that even possible? We have 2 solid wins above the bubble and WF is in clear striking distance. Your telling me there are 60+ teams with 2 wins it more against teams projected to be in the top half of the bracket better than projecting in at 1 seed and 4/5 seed territory?
It’s not so easy. Nobody else even beat CC or Columbia by 30+.
WAB concept would take the bubble team and how many wins would they have with our schedule OR how would we do with theirs?
WAB treats a Temple win and Purdue loss the same as a Purdue win and a Temple loss
Wins above bubble is not # of wins against teams above the bubble. It's a comparison of your record to the record a theoretical bubble team would be expected to have against your schedule.
One interesting thing about WAB is that blowing a team out by 100 points actually hurts your WAB relative to beating them by 1. But the effect shouldn't be large.
Guys...everyones resume are not even half complete
Thats why bracketology is irrelevant right now
I guarantee that the majority of the bracketologists doing it so early will fall in love with certain schools and not move them down quickly and with also be slow to recognize schools building resumes.
This why you dont do bracketology. There should be wild swings at this point. Rutgers was 10-11 ish before Purdue SHOULD move up to around a 6 currently. Maryland losing to Iowa should put them near the play in game. Wake Forest should be a 10 seed based on their wins
Thats why bracketology is irrelevant right now
I guarantee that the majority of the bracketologists doing it so early will fall in love with certain schools and not move them down quickly and with also be slow to recognize schools building resumes.
This why you dont do bracketology. There should be wild swings at this point. Rutgers was 10-11 ish before Purdue SHOULD move up to around a 6 currently. Maryland losing to Iowa should put them near the play in game. Wake Forest should be a 10 seed based on their wins
Oh - in that case it’s just not that good a metric in terms of correlation to actual selection in the end.
3+ wins against solid field teams and loss count no higher than 13 on selection day. For whatever reason, the committee didn’t seem to put as much stock in conference tournament wins. But generally, those metrics seems to trump most others when you look at selection patterns year after year. The committee isn’t viewing the pounding Maryland took at Michigan more favorably that our 6 point Temple loss based on the quad system. That loss was just as much of a stinker.
Right - that’s why to me, the only metric that’s important right now are wins against teams that have already done enough to make it unlikely they could miss the field. That’s why a road win at Purdue is so huge.
OR, you can just recognize this and do bracketology with the wild swings this early. I don't have Wake in, but Rutgers did fly from 11 to 7 after the Purdue win, Maryland fell from 6 to 10 and Creighton is not in my field. Just because YOU don't do bracketology right now doesn't mean you have the right to discount everyone else's work.
Last edited:
WAb says the team on the bubble would have 3.8 losses if they played our schedule.
Its realistically worth 3 wins...its a super duper mega win unless Purdue turns out to be meh
Too early for that..thats why i dont do it
I see the chains other bracketologists put themselves in
There were B1G Ten schools not wanting Rutgers to join the league .Refs and top 25 rankings rarely favor Rutgers.It has been and remains a perception issue as seen with a projected 11 seed for thr NCAA Tournament.The bad ref decision regarding the Ohio State outcome has been largely forgotten except by Rutgers fans.A 11-9 league record will put Rutgers on the bubble for NCAA selection.Winning on the road and maintaining the home court advantage must happen starting with Maryland and Iowa.There remains a small margin for error with the parity in the B1G Ten.
That’s fine - But that’s not how the field is ultimately selected (injuries and OSU error aside). As a major conference team, it’s really important to beat teams that make the field. It matters a lot more than who you lose to, unless you have a loss like the Lafayette one we had last year.
Yes. And I disagree with the way they do it.
Can you imagine if 2 MLB teams had the same schedule and the 98-64 team lost out to the 97-63 because the 97-63 team beat the Yankees 9 times.
But in this case, the teams are not playing the same schedules.
I hate MOV for various reasons I’ve vocalized, but more on the win side than the loss side. To be clear, in my opinion getting blown out (even vs the best teams) should always be a blemish on a resume. At least, there’s nothing better about it than losing at the buzzer to Seton Hall at home or losing by 6 to Temple on a neutral floor. I don’t care who you play. If you are non-competitive your loss is as bad as a close loss to a weak team.
Fully aware. Thats the crime and flaw. It doesn't have to be 100% robotic like the ap top 25 votes cause folks are unwilling to educate themselves or deal with real considerations.
And let's invent more crazy stupid metrics to over analyze stuff. Some of you guys should work for LabCorp.
There are thousands of games...cant parse through all of them
Almost every school goes through injuries
Almost every school goes through injuries
Dukes about to drop out of the AP top 25 some of you still think they’re a 3 seed? Would be the easiest upset pick ever
Similar threads
