“We were losing a bunch of one-goal games, and now we’re able to pull these games out,” Hunwick said. “It’s huge in the second half to know you can play in games like that.”
blogpoll
BlogPoll Has Alabama, Not Oklahoma, As 2011 Preseason No. 1
I'm the only Stanford believer.
Blogpoll, Week Zero
BHGP ranks M (23) above OSU (24) ALL IS FORGIVEN MR VINT
Link:
The Wonk's Crusade
Filed under:
John Gasaway—AKA Big Ten Wonk—likes crusades. His last one was to obliterate rebound margin and seems to be going well. Not many use plain rebounds as a metric anymore, which is good because it makes no sense at all to do so.
Gasaway's latest horde of European knights with fuzzy ideas about salvation is aimed at the tournament seeding process:
I’m on the record as thinking that the mere distribution of wins — with due consideration for opponent, time, and place — can yield sufficient information to draw a line across the top quintile of D-I and tell the teams above this line, “You’re in!” But trying to do something as precise as sequencing an entire tournament field on an S-curve armed only with wins is a little like playing the piano while wearing oven mitts. It can be done, but the music would sound better if we freed up our fingers.
Basically, he'd like to see the tournament live in a world where Illinois is a five seed, not a ten seed. He's all about this. I'm not so sure.
A few years ago I had a back-and-forth with Dan Steinberg of the DC Sports Bog about something similar: I was purveying a resume-based results-only college football poll at the same time he was publishing a top 25 from Vegas oddsmakers that claimed it was more accurate. Those are two diametrically opposed methods. The BlogPoll is descriptive: We have this data and this is our best guess at which teams have the most impressive resumes. Vegas is predictive: we have this data and this is our best guess as to who the best teams are.
So do you want your national title picked based on an assessment of the season or the team? I had a viscerally negative reaction to seeing things like LSU at #5 six weeks into the 2006 season when they'd lost to Auburn and LSU and beaten ULL, Tulane, Mississippi State, and Arizona. They proceeded to win the rest of their games. So Vegas was right, except if LSU was a little better and options at the top a little worse you can imagine a scenario where Vegas takes a team like LSU over some luckbox like 2002 Ohio State. Right or not, that ain't right.
The Vegas poll is answering a different question than I want the people deciding who should play for the national championship asking. If there are two major conference undefeated teams and a one-loss team that's so clearly better than the two undefeated teams but has an inexplicable turnover-filled loss in a driving sleet-storm that happened because their quarterback got injured, picking the obviously better team obliterates college football. It's not about some ineffable combination of NFL draft picks and victory margin, it's about wins. If that has embarrassingly dumbed down nonconference schedules at least it's provided a reason to play the games, and a reason to have your heart in your throat when the other team is driving for the win no matter what your MOV is.
No one is going to claim that loosening the dominion of wins over a sport that lets various .500 major conference teams compete for its title "obliterates" anything, but I'm still leery of a world where Michigan's overtime against Iowa is mostly important because it can push Michigan's Kenpom rating up a spot. Gasaway explicitly states he's fine with using wins for tourney selection but that only mitigates the problem; any solid at-large team sees that effect since they're just worried about seeding, not getting over the line.
It would be pretty dumb to have some guy from Wisconsin at the line shooting two to win against Ohio State and have those free throws hardly matter at all. Would it be fair? Yes. Would it result in better seedings for the occasional very good minor conference team that gets thrust into a tough first round matchup and can't show their stuff? Yes. But I think it would make the season much less vital. Sometimes a little unfairness is the lesser evil.
-------------
Now, if Gasaway's just talking about alerting the committee to performance-aware metrics when they attempt to evaluate the case of Utah State, a team that's obliterating the WAC but has only played three games against teams with a Kenpom rating higher than 90(!)* and gone 1-2 against them, sure. The way in which the Aggies have acquired their record should be able to influence the committee to bump them a little bit. His endorsement of Bilas's tweet calling RPI a "joke" suggests he's more militant than that.
Once you start talking about tossing a 17-7, 7-7 Big Ten team probably headed for 19-9 and 9-9 (this is Illinois—their finish: @OSU, Iowa, @Purdue, Indiana) onto a line where a Sweet Sixteen bid would only be a mild surprise you lose me**. The Illini's strong nonconference performance should easily see them into the tournament but while I love Kenpom I'd take eighteen games of .500 basketball over his rating when evaluating seeds.
Maybe I've read him wrong.
*[Iowa, the worst team in the Big Ten, is 82nd.]
**[To be clear, I'm not picking on Illinois because Gasaway is an Illinois grad. It's just that they're the Big Ten team with the goofiest-looking Kenpom rating given their record. Playing Texas, UNC, Maryland, Missouri, and Gonzaga in the nonconference will do that.]
[Also, think of the advantage lost in NCAA pools if people were fairly seeded based on Kenpom type metrics. Horror!]
Blogpoll Week 15 Draft Ballot
Filed under:
MGoBlog Ballot - Week 15
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Auburn Tigers | -- |
| 2 | Oregon Ducks | -- |
| 3 | TCU Horned Frogs | -- |
| 4 | Wisconsin Badgers | -- |
| 5 | Stanford Cardinal | -- |
| 6 | Ohio St. Buckeyes | -- |
| 7 | Michigan St. Spartans | -- |
| 8 | Oklahoma Sooners | -- |
| 9 | Arkansas Razorbacks | -- |
| 10 | LSU Tigers | -- |
| 11 | Boise St. Broncos | -- |
| 12 | Missouri Tigers | -- |
| 13 | Oklahoma St. Cowboys | -- |
| 14 | Texas A&M Aggies |
 2 |
| 15 | Nevada Wolf Pack | -- |
| 16 | Alabama Crimson Tide |
2 |
| 17 | Nebraska Cornhuskers |
 -3 |
| 18 | Virginia Tech Hokies |
2 |
| 19 | Florida St. Seminoles | -- |
| 20 | South Carolina Gamecocks |
-3 |
| 21 | Mississippi St. Bulldogs | -- |
| 22 | West Virginia Mountaineers |
1 |
| 23 | Utah Utes |
1 |
| 24 | Central Florida Knights |
1 |
| 25 | Miami (Ohio) RedHawks | -- |
| Dropouts: Arizona Wildcats | ||
SB Nation BlogPoll College Football Top 25 Rankings »
There were only a few games this week, so not a whole lot of explaining to do. Comment away.
BlogPoll Week 13
Filed under:
It is very boring:
Results for Week 13
Total Ballots: 76
Full writeup on SBN, but there's not much going on except Utah is not under the CK whammy, which hasn't been that much of a whammy this year. Tim's final ballot wasn't different from his initial ballot.
BlogPoll Week 12
Filed under:
Another week of mostly boredom:
Results for Week 12
Total Ballots: 90
Full writeup at SB Nation. Tim's ballot after the jump.
