kwyjibo Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I have discovered a funny and unique twist in the saga of computer rankings (and about their sourcing of information). I was looking at Ken Massey's grid of all the rankings [ http://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm ] and was looking at the spread of rankings. Ken Pom (as discussed often here and by Timmerman] has SLU at 10. But what about those rankings that have SLU high? Sport Theory has SLU at 51, Jeff Self has SLU at 47, Jeff Bihl has SLU at 46, and Rothman/Wolfe has SLU at 47. So I was curious, what is it about SLU that makes them look worse in those rankings than in other rankings? We know SLU does well in systems that use MOV and Efficiency but they are also racking up a lot of wins so in pure win rankings (like RPI) they are doing well too. Well, to make a long story short the 4 ranking systems that have SLU above 40 all include exhibition games! The 2 Carleton game losses, Stritch win, and UIS games are in (the other canada games are not used so it is not even accurate in including exhibitions). I think the Stritch win might hurt us more than Carleton losses because of SOS in some systems. This is because the source of their game information is Ken Massey who includes all game information but nearly all the rankers/analysts have the good sense to program their systems to exclude non-DI or exhibitions (because there are fields in the data to do this). So SLU is ranked poorly by bad programmers as well as certain selective "eye tests". Last week, I joked that the Carleton losses hurt us in our Massey rankings (which they do in his all basketball divisions rankings but not in his NCAA-DI rankings) and it turns out it is not a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 No wonder so many people were freaking out after the Carleton games. It turns out those games were VERY important. That must be why Steve still has those scores up on the front of the website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 That's insane, especially considering one of the games was stopped early due to Kwamain's injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlumniFan Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I have discovered a funny and unique twist in the saga of computer rankings (and about their sourcing of information). I was looking at Ken Massey's grid of all the rankings [ http://www.masseyrat.../cb/compare.htm ] and was looking at the spread of rankings. Ken Pom (as discussed often here and by Timmerman] has SLU at 10. But what about those rankings that have SLU high? Sport Theory has SLU at 51, Jeff Self has SLU at 47, Jeff Bihl has SLU at 46, and Rothman/Wolfe has SLU at 47. So I was curious, what is it about SLU that makes them look worse in those rankings than in other rankings? We know SLU does well in systems that use MOV and Efficiency but they are also racking up a lot of wins so in pure win rankings (like RPI) they are doing well too. Well, to make a long story short the 4 ranking systems that have SLU above 40 all include exhibition games! The 2 Carleton game losses, Stritch win, and UIS games are in (the other canada games are not used so it is not even accurate in including exhibitions). I think the Stritch win might hurt us more than Carleton losses because of SOS in some systems. This is because the source of their game information is Ken Massey who includes all game information but nearly all the rankers/analysts have the good sense to program their systems to exclude non-DI or exhibitions (because there are fields in the data to do this). So SLU is ranked poorly by bad programmers as well as certain selective "eye tests". Last week, I joked that the Carleton losses hurt us in our Massey rankings (which they do in his all basketball divisions rankings but not in his NCAA-DI rankings) and it turns out it is not a joke. This is that rare instance where MB's criticisms of computer models are valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I told you guys we'd come to regret those two losses to the Duke of Canada. I'm just hopeful that after the NCAA disses us, we can get into the Canadian National Tourney and get us some revenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlarry Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 We may have lost to a team led by the Hanson brothers, Micheal J Fox, and Alan Thicke but the experince they gained by having Cody run the point can not be measured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 This is ridiculous using exhibition games. An exhibition is a show not a game. What will they use next...inter-squad games. FWIW, I use no exhibition games or D2 games....only D1's . Although some of those D2's are better than the Ala St and Tex Sou type teams. Some systems have us at 9-12. ( I am currently at 12) Does that mean if we beat Carleton on those systems in the forties, we are a number 1 seed? Does the unfinished game count as a three quarters or a 7/8 stat? Bottomline I would discount/ignore anyone that uses exhibition games.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.