You brought up the argument lol he is an excellent coach, as is Sean Miller. We were talking about what they've done in the tourney. So if/when Miller wins a NC, does he immediately jump self by far?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NCAA Tournament
- Thread starter mdchick
- Start date
Help Support BearcatTalk:
You brought up the argument lol he is an excellent coach, as is Sean Miller. We were talking about what they've done in the tourney. So if/when Miller wins a NC, does he immediately jump self by far?
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
You brought up the argument lol he is an excellent coach, as is Sean Miller. We were talking about what they've done in the tourney. So if/when Miller wins a NC, does he immediately jump self by far?
No I didn't.
I think if you're going to analyze whether he is a good "NCAA tournament" coach, you have to handicap him for the seed he gets. No one is saying his teams are bad. Just that he underperforms in the tournament.
The rankings take every game into account. Nothing is ignored.
You make an interesting point, except your stats overcompensate for losses when ranking a coach who has highly seeded teams. The results are not normalized. For example, a coach who is always seeded #1 would always have the worst record according to your system, regardless of their results.
Bill Self has like 34 wins in the ncaa tournament, yet you rank him #291. That alone should indicate your methodology is suspect.
A 1 seed is "in the black" if they reach the final four, in the red with anything less. And just barely in the red for an elite eight appearance. The top four coaches are John Calipari, Roy Williams, Billy Donovan and Tom Izzo, who have certainly had their share of 1 seeds.You make an interesting point, except your stats overcompensate for losses when ranking a coach who has highly seeded teams. The results are not normalized. For example, a coach who is always seeded #1 would always have the worst record according to your system, regardless of their results.
Bill Self has like 34 wins in the ncaa tournament, yet you rank him #291. That alone should indicate your methodology is suspect.
A drawback is that this method is an aggregate, and so the larger the sample size, the larger the variance. But the popular (yours and Jacob's) method of simply counting tournament wins, final fours, or Championships does the same thing.
No methodology is perfect for answering subjective questions, but I stand by this one. Bill Self has performed significantly worse than other coaches when controlling for seeding. I can't force anyone to believe that controlling for seeding is necessary. However, that's the most logical way to evaluate a coach's tournament performance in my opinion.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think this could be said about most above-average or a little bit better than that coaches. They have talent so they win. Very few have that extra something special. Maybe Dukes coach. And Bobby Knight. He was amazing with less Talent. Now he recruited players that fit his system. Lot of these other guys their school has a good reputation and so the school recruits for them. Or they're just just really good recruiters. We are at such a disadvantage because those guys get three or four top 75 players a year, 1-2 being top 30. Most years I think the guy has at least 2 first-rounders on his team probably.Thank you Mr Stats (and I mean that in a good way) you must have so many sites at your finger tips. I was trying to compile a record compared to his seeds myself, obviously could have never compared them to every one else but... I was thinking along the same lines as you, he has good teams and gets great seeds, so of course he wins sometimes.
Emperor Snapper
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
- Messages
- 255
Haas out for the rest of the tournament for Purdue, there goes their chances.
I wouldn't bury them just yet. Haas isn't one of their 3 best players (Edwards, Edwards, and Mathias) and Haarms can make up for some of his absence. There are matchups where Haas' lack of mobility hurts them.
This is obviously a blow, and they are going to have to adjust on the fly and play more small lineups, but they still have a shot, I would say a decent shot at the Elite 8.
Good article on how stupid Pitt is. I hope we never do something as stupid....although we were very close once. We however, hired the correct replacement!!
https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...n-and-kevin-stallings-gets-dumber-by-the-day/
https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...n-and-kevin-stallings-gets-dumber-by-the-day/
Emperor Snapper
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
- Messages
- 255
Good article on how stupid Pitt is. I hope we never do something as stupid....although we were very close once. We however, hired the correct replacement!!
https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...n-and-kevin-stallings-gets-dumber-by-the-day/
Well, we never let a coach go because we thought making the NCAA tournament consistently wasn't enough. We let a coach go because he had a serious drinking problem he refused to address, and constant player discipline issues. Maybe those aren't good reasons to let a guy go, but it was never because they were dissatisfied with the on-court results, as Pitt was with Dixon.
Emperor Snapper
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
- Messages
- 255
Well, it will be Nevada, then. I would have preferred Texas, but whatever
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
Virginia is on the ropes. They're not a big scoring team either. Is this really about to happen
Cmon. No way.
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
This is pretty dicey
cincrulz11
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 4,329
lets go umbc!
This is pretty dicey
Dude they're in trouble.