Here is how you know that the rankings are full of S$$t. Pitt is not ranked in the AP top 25 yet four teams with worse records (WItchia ST.,Oregon,DUke. and Notre Dame) are ranked 22-25. And to add insult to injury we BEAT the Irish. I Don't care how much you may not like Dixon,think he has to go, are upset about the last two loses, complain about the out of conference schedule, or whatever (your gripe is)that is ridiculous. I am waiting for someone to give me a logical explanation on that other then money and bias.
Rankings
- Thread starter oldpantherfan
- Start date
Sagarin has Pitt at #31--it was at #21 before the NC State blow out at home. Blowout upset losses, especially at home, really drag you down much more than competitive ones do in both computer analyses and in human perception. Conversely, a hot night and blowout of an opponent Pitt is expected to lose to will offset the effect of the NC State loss. Hope it happens.
FWIW, Sagarin had Duke at #14 before their 11 point loss to Miami tonight. That loss will probably knock them down to about #19 or #20 on Sagarin.
FWIW, Sagarin had Duke at #14 before their 11 point loss to Miami tonight. That loss will probably knock them down to about #19 or #20 on Sagarin.
I think that Ken-Pom rating is absurd. It puts far far too much emphasis on the NCState debacle than it should. Sagarin's "recent" rating only slips Pitt to #37 for recent results with the overall body of work for the season keeping Pitt's overall rating at #31. IMHO, Sagarin has it right and Ken-Pom is a way off in this instance.
You may not know this, but all the teams have played more than one game.
I wonder what the rankings would look like if every team that beat someone had to be ranked ahead of that team. Wait, I do know. You wouldn't be able to rank the teams.
As one who favors Kempom, I wish I knew enough to provide a knowledgeable rebuttal.
I suppose what should be said is that it's just as much math as Sagarin, except that Sagarin measures margin of victory while Kempom measures points per possession. Both have some adjustment for the strength of opponent. One thing I can say is that it didn't put any extra emphasis on the NC State loss. That's where the math took the ranking.
Regardless, both rank the Panthers outside the Top 25, and using the either of these rankings would be enough solid evidence to leave the Panthers of a voters Top 25.
Here's the way to solve this -- if the Panthers win their next two. come Monday we'll be back in both polls.
The computer rankings are all about POINT SPREAD not WINS AND LOSSES. Sagarin used to have one of their numbers based on wins and losses not point spread but they dropped that.
For us, the blowout losses to NCS and Ville really hurt our computer rankings.
Unfortunately the voters in the AP seem to act along the same way as the computers.
The coaches poll seems more reasonable.
It is a shame that ND got ranked in the AP though... apparently just because they are ND. Their 5 wins in the ACC... two over woeful BC, home wins over GT and VT, and the one good win over Duke away.... and in that case EVERYBODY has been beating Duke lately.
So, whatever... I would not get too hung up on the rankings.
For us, the blowout losses to NCS and Ville really hurt our computer rankings.
Unfortunately the voters in the AP seem to act along the same way as the computers.
The coaches poll seems more reasonable.
It is a shame that ND got ranked in the AP though... apparently just because they are ND. Their 5 wins in the ACC... two over woeful BC, home wins over GT and VT, and the one good win over Duke away.... and in that case EVERYBODY has been beating Duke lately.
So, whatever... I would not get too hung up on the rankings.
Here's one objective, analytic, ranking system that has us at #15, as of today:
http://bracketology.engr.wisc.edu/
http://bracketology.engr.wisc.edu/
And you may not have read this but I also said that they all have WORST records (and lost more ganes) than Pitt. Screw all this computer stuff, it should come down to simple human math. More loses, worse winning percentage means worse team FLAT OUT !!!. The NFL has used that for years and they seem to get it right. And joethepantherfan, did you ever play a sport ? The first criteria in ranking or seeding is head to head competition. The winner is seeded better. Something else the NFL uses. And what is the most watched sport every year (if not the most watched event). The super bowl. So maybe, just maybe they get it right. Everybody uses this system except college football and basketball ? You think maybe their doing it wrong ?
Tied for 2nd, North Carolina and Grand Canyon. Then a five way tie for 4th between Xavier, St. Mary's, Texas A&M, South Carolina and Arkansas Little Rock. Rounding out the top 10 is a tie for 9th between Oklahoma and Hawaii. Southern Illinois is mad that they just missed out.
So yeah, clearly just going by record is obviously the way to go.
Or let's use the theory that if you won the head to head game you obviously should be ranked higher. Well it can't be Oklahoma, they lost to Iowa State. Iowa State lost to Northern Iowa, who lost to Missouri State, who lost to Southeast Missouri State, who lost to Alabama A&M, who lost to Southern, who lost to....
Ladies and Gentlemen, your new number one team in the land, the 1-18 Prairie View A&M Panthers!
Ladies and Gentlemen, your new number one team in the land, the 1-18 Prairie View A&M Panthers!
Except that the No Fun League is much more a level field........college hoops sees huge variations in schedules, budgets, etc. That's why the NCAA tournament is the best event in sports. Also, the Super Bowl is a distant second to the World Cup.
By your (il)logic, a MEAC team that schedules similar schools only, and goes 28-2 should be ranked ahead of everyone else if they have 3 or more losses.
are you that much a jerk or just not smart. I meant in comparison between two teams Norte dame and Pitt, not every body. But overall you go with the team with the better record which is why Pitt should be a head of AP #22-25. Your example showed just how stupid your point is. read everything not just what proves your point. Overall record !!! DID YOU GET THAT. And did you ever play a sport joe ? Never answered that. And some of you should get out more and participate in sports instead of living on your computer and in computer rankings " sagrin said, rpi, etc". And we all know the NCAA is bias why do you think a 64 sed has never beat a number one seed and never will. It's not about even playing field IT'S ABOUT PLAYING AND WINING ON THE FIELD( court or mat, etc).
I agree with Vegas there should be more talk about Pitt and it's recruits and not Franklin and PSU. The best way to piss somebody off is to ignore them. I think there are too many childish comments on this board. And what I dislike even more is the excuse " it's a message board if you don't like the content leave or don't read it " That my friends is very immature. A message board does not mean its right to say stupid (and negative stuff). but since it's a message board(and you do ), what's the message ?
I wanted to provide a quote that you made the other day on the football board, Oldie. I only remember it because it made me chuckle and I've always thought your rants were very Goldbergish, which is not a compliment. Good to know that you're a bit of a hypocrite among other things...like being way off on this topic.
I wanted to provide a quote that you made the other day on the football board, Oldie. I only remember it because it made me chuckle and I've always thought your rants were very Goldbergish, which is not a compliment. Good to know that you're a bit of a hypocrite among other things...like being way off on this topic.
The rankings are a complete joke. What do you expect though when you have members of the media casting votes to make up the main poll. Every city in America has a biased loser like Ron Cook and most of these people probably just vote for the teams that are most well known. There's a handful of teams in the top 25 right now that would be lucky to get a 6 seed or higher in the tourney, if they even make it.
The polls are a who's hot right now measurement. Of course there are some blue bloods that get too much credit, but those are the teams that SHOULD get a benefit of the doubt. I just don't see how you can really argue against Pitt's current position. Their best OOC win is Kent St and they played one of their best offensive games that I've witnessed over the past 15 years against ND, yet still barely held on. The other ACC wins are against the bottom tier. Being in the 25-30 range is right where they deserve to be, IMO. If they win the next two, they'll back to ~20, which is more than fair.
Last edited:
I like kenpom too, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have warts. Here's another doozy: before the NC St. game we were ranked like #180 in defensive efficiency. After that brutal loss we _jumped_ about 30 spots to roughly #150. Think about that for a second -- counterintuitively, by holding NC St. to fewer points per possession than the system predicted, we ended up looking not so bad defensively, even if we lost by a ton. Overall, after that game we lost a ton in offensive efficiency, gained something in defensive efficiency, with a net gain of a drop of 25 slots in his overall rankings.
There are no "64 seeds#, so, I guess they won't beat a 1 seed.
If Pitt's win over ND were a fluke, where a bad team gets lucky (it happens), your post makes no sense. The overall record can be skewed by scheduling, even in your beloved, rigged NFL.
Now tell us of your years wearing a leather helmet....please.
Using the eye test, I would say middle 30's is right. We have one quality win over a top 25 team. We got blown out in 2 recent games. Our OCC schedule gave us nothing. We need to simply win to move back into top 25.
The sad thing is I don't think this team is built to get past the second round of the ACC or NCAA tourneys because of its poor defense.
The sad thing is I don't think this team is built to get past the second round of the ACC or NCAA tourneys because of its poor defense.
So it's about comparing two teams when it's about Pitt and Notre Dame but it's apparently not about comparing two teams when it's about anyone else. And you don't realize how absurd that is. Gotcha.
You're just mad that I took your moronic point out to it's idiotic conclusion to show how clueless you are. Sorry, I guess.
And since you seem to think it matters (it doesn't) I stopped playing basketball on a regular basis sometime in my early 40s. Does that now make my opinions more valid?
FWIW, if memory serves I believe the defensive efficiency jump from the 180's up into the 150's occurred after the UL game (held the 27th ranked offense to 59 points on 63 possessions). They've held steady defensively since then. Took a very large hit against GT and ND, then jumped up after UL, and have performed about as you'd expect the 150th defensive team to perform since.
BC put up 61 points on 64 possessions, NCST put up 78 on 73, and then FSU recently put up 72 on 67.
BC put up 61 points on 64 possessions, NCST put up 78 on 73, and then FSU recently put up 72 on 67.
Going from #150 to #180 or #180 to #210 is actually not a large jump. Most teams fall somewhere in the center of the distribution, so a small change in actual value results in a large changing in ranking.
Yes, which is why such variability after 18 games is not good for a predictive system. You'd expect to see jumps of 20+ places either way at the beginning of the season, since you have a small sample. As more games are played, there should be some kind of stabilization so that one game does not pull up/down by this much.
