Bracketology

[kskenyon4]

The committee will rank teams 1-16 and unveil on February 11th this year.

UC games before then:
ECU
Temple
@Memphis
Houston
@UConn
UCF

That day, we play @ SMU at 4pm


Safe to say if we're 22-2 on that day, we're definitely on that list somewhere. What about 21-3 or 20-4?

 

[waterhead]

I don't have a projection, so I don't know what that means. There doesn't have to be starting point. Bracketmatrix is crowdsourced predictions, which is more likely to outperform any individual prediction at this point. If you're talking about end of season RPI prediction, I don't think there is a good one. If there was, bracketology would be a piece of cake. I'm simply telling you, with evidence, that Warren Nolan's is bad.

Bracket Matrix has nothing to do with what I am talking about. It's a conglomerate of seeding predictions.

I am talking about the predictive results of our team and every other team we have played and that we have left to play in our conference. I fully understand prediction is not actual...but it is predictive nonetheless.

 

[sedziobs]

Yes, but you are using the inferior prediction to make your point. I think we're better off just using current RPI than assuming the favorite will win every single game for the rest of the season.

We're stuck in a loop. My response is the same as last time, with the same evidence for why it is inferior, and therefore not "predictive" in the statistical sense.

 

[waterhead]

And even in the last week predicted RPI will not be much, if any, better than the actual RPI at the time. I don't know why you think we have to use predictive stats. Most bracketologists have been using current RPIs for ages. The ones that do predict results use probabilistic Monte Carlo simulations, like TeamRankings.

Do you feel when we were ranked #111 (or so) after a few weeks into the season in RPI that we were acutally #111? Or do you feel Kenpom had it closer with #15 or whatever it was?

I don't understand how you wouldn't see the difference if you are tracking this stuff. Maybe "Most bracketologists" start using RPI when it's appropriate to use it?

 

[sedziobs]

Do you feel when we were ranked #111 (or so) after a few weeks into the season in RPI that we were acutally #111? Or do you feel Kenpom had it closer with #15 or whatever it was?

What do you mean by "actually #111"? I don't think RPI ever measures actual team strength. It's a a tool to build a resume. The NCAA admits as much. So no, I have never thought that we were the 111th best basketball team in the country.

I don't understand how you wouldn't see the difference if you are tracking this stuff. Maybe "Most bracketologists" start using RPI when it's appropriate to use it?

That's about now, which is why I signed up for this forum and started posting daily RPI updates about teams on our schedule relating to our team sheet.

 

[waterhead]

What do you mean by "actually #111"? I don't think RPI ever measures actual team strength. It's a a tool to build a resume. The NCAA admits as much. So no, I have never thought that we were the 111th best basketball team in the country.


That's about now, which is why I signed up for this forum and started posting daily RPI updates about teams on our schedule relating to our team sheet.

Well I didn't say "actually 111". I said "when we were ranked #111 or so"

We were ranked in the 100's in RPI not too long ago...that is actual. It might have even been worse than that. WE were in the 200's early on in the season I think

 

[waterhead]

Well I didn't say "actually 111". I said "when we were ranked #111 or so"

We were ranked in the 100's in RPI not too long ago...that is actual. It might have even been worse than that. WE were in the 200's early on in the season I think

But you want me to use real time RPI...no thanks

 

[Protected1]

There is no way in hell we are getting a 2 seed with 5 losses. Not happening. I am not sure it will happen with 4 losses. Maybe 3. This is probably strictly a stats based projection which is fine...I understand.

The good thing is the committee will look at column 1 and 2 wins and they like wins away from home. If we beat WSU at home we will only have 1 column 1 home win and the rest will be away from home. That's an advantage.

If the committee is doing their homework they will also know we don't have any true home games. I think our home games should be put somewhere between home and neutral...even if closer to home. But I doubt we get that sort of benefit.

I think we need 4 losses or less to ensure a protected seed. I think 5 puts us on the outside.

I agree 10000%. The league does us no favors. 5 loses and we are a five or six seed. The selection committee hates us.

 

[sedziobs]

But you want me to use real time RPI...no thanks

You are being obtuse and not considering my replies. I just described to you in my last reply that I think RPI starts becoming important about now. Pointing to early season RPI is disingenuous.

You did ask me if I felt we were "actually #111". I was clear that the answer is no.

 

[waterhead]

And even in the last week predicted RPI will not be much, if any, better than the actual RPI at the time. I don't know why you think we have to use predictive stats. Most bracketologists have been using current RPIs for ages. The ones that do predict results use probabilistic Monte Carlo simulations, like TeamRankings.

Of course it won't. because all the games will have been played by then. RPI doesn't mean crap until about the last few weeks.

We won't even have played WSU until mid Feb. Our schedule is severely back loaded.

 

[Protected1]

Sorry even with only 2 or 3 losses I can't see the committee giving us a 1 seed. Nova and Purdue and/or Mich. State will secure two no1 seeds. Virginia and/or ACC champ will be No. 1 seeds. And a Big 12 team will snatch the last one. A two seed is a stretch.

 

[waterhead]

You are being obtuse and not considering my replies. I just described to you in my last reply that I think RPI starts becoming important about now. Pointing to early season RPI is disingenuous.

You did ask me if I felt we were "actually #111". I was clear that the answer is no.

Sorry...I am not wanting to be argumentative. I just don't like RPI until about mid Feb. I would rather consider predicted RPI than current because it is so far off at this time of year.

Right now Temple is #50 RPI but predicted to be #99. Kenpom has them at #94 now.

 

[sedziobs]

Of course it won't. because all the games will have been played by then.

The same reasoning applies today. Warren Nolan's "predicted" RPI is not likely to be any better a measure than current RPI. I have already given two specific examples from our schedule of why that matters, as well as evidence showing how badly Nolan's predictions fail. I don't know what else I can say.

 

[waterhead]

Sorry even with only 2 or 3 losses I can't see the committee giving us a 1 seed. Nova and Purdue and/or Mich. State will secure two no1 seeds. Virginia and/or ACC champ will be No. 1 seeds. And a Big 12 team will snatch the last one. A two seed is a stretch.

We aren't getting a 1 seed. If we win out we might get a 2. Our loss total is going to match closely with our seed plus or minus 1 spot.

 

[waterhead]

The same reasoning applies today. Warren Nolan's "predicted" RPI is not likely to be any better a measure than current RPI. I have already given two specific examples from our schedule of why that matters, as well as evidence showing how badly Nolan's predictions fail. I don't know what else I can say.

I don't recall seeing them. Sorry. let me know

 

[Protected1]

We aren't getting a 1 seed. If we win out we might get a 2. Our loss total is going to match closely with our seed plus or minus 1 spot.

We agree. I was responding to someone else who thought we had a shot. I think best case is a 3. I think more likely a 5.

 

[sedziobs]

Right now Temple is #50 RPI but predicted to be #99. Kenpom has them at #94 now.

So I have discovered that rpiforecast.com does probabilistic RPI forecasts. Maybe this will put this issue to rest. They have Temple's forecast RPI at 68.5.

 

[waterhead]

The same reasoning applies today. Warren Nolan's "predicted" RPI is not likely to be any better a measure than current RPI. I have already given two specific examples from our schedule of why that matters, as well as evidence showing how badly Nolan's predictions fail. I don't know what else I can say.

What are your two examples? I missed them.

 

[sedziobs]

These are my examples of why using probabilistic instead of deterministic forecasts is important.

This is why I don't like deterministic projections. One of those teams is UCF, who Warren Nolan projects at 16-14. Kenpom has them at 18-12. The other is Temple, who Warren Nolan has at 13-17. Kenpom has them at 15-15. Those two extra wins for each could allow them to finish top 75.

 

[waterhead]

These are my examples of why using probabilistic instead of deterministic forecasts is important.

Okay well I understand a predictive site is going to get some things wrong. They will also get some things right. As many teams finish better in RPI than they predict we will likely see finish worse in conference because they all play each other.

Take your pick. For every team you think will finish better you can subtract that from another team in conference. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul here.